Re: [meteorite-list] What Do You Want In A Meteorite Website?
That'll be on the next one. Thanks for the suggestion... Regards, Eric bill kies wrote: Please add, Do you enjoy intrusive demands for information that will be used for my personal marketing campaigns? yes/no, to your list of questions. _ Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea:112009 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule?
Yes, it was an interesting post. And since the list is slow, I'll add to it. I found an interesting chondrule (?) in an unclassified stone the other day. It's a couple of mm across and contains quite a bit of metal. Would this be some sort of chondrule or something else. I posted a picture here: http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c57/pkmorgan/postingpics/MetalInChond.jpg There were also some other more typical chondrules with quite a bit of metal. How often is visible metal incorporated in the interior of chondrules. Thanks, Phil On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au wrote Better late than never I always say. It was an interesting post too. Thanks, Jeff - Original Message - From: Carl 's carloselgua...@hotmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule? Hi Elton, I couldn't help notice Walter originally asked this question way back July 6, 2006.:) I don't have a point but thought it was funny. Carl Elton wrote: ...I don't know if you ever got an answer to your question but I had it marked for follow up... _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule?
I wonder if this weird crystal structure found in a slice of JaH 055 would qualify for being called a chondrule or a small inclusion. Tom Phillips http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorite-pages/JaH-055-Crystal.h tm In a message dated 11/24/2009 9:40:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, roxfromsp...@gmail.com writes: Yes, it was an interesting post. And since the list is slow, I'll add to it. I found an interesting chondrule (?) in an unclassified stone the other day. It's a couple of mm across and contains quite a bit of metal. Would this be some sort of chondrule or something else. I posted a picture here: http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c57/pkmorgan/postingpics/MetalInChond.jpg There were also some other more typical chondrules with quite a bit of metal. How often is visible metal incorporated in the interior of chondrules. Thanks, Phil On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au wrote Better late than never I always say. It was an interesting post too. Thanks, Jeff - Original Message - From: Carl 's carloselgua...@hotmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule? Hi Elton, I couldn't help notice Walter originally asked this question way back July 6, 2006.:) I don't have a point but thought it was funny. Carl Elton wrote: ...I don't know if you ever got an answer to your question but I had it marked for follow up... _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule?
Hi Tom, I'd say neither. It looks like a little graveyard. Maybe two graveyards divided by a picket fence. You have very sharp eyes to have noticed this! Carl Tom Philips wrote: ... I wonder if this weird crystal structure found in a slice of JaH 055 would qualify for being called a chondrule or a small inclusion... http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorite-pages/JaH-055-Crystal.htm _ Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule?
Hello Tom, excellent photo! I believe this is one of those heated-cooled-heated-quenched cycled chondrules and the crosses are the seed/loci of crystallization: the de-vitrification of the glass matrix into ordered alignment of the molecules( aka crystallized solid). In other words, this is a frozen example one phase of the chondrule forming process. It is a body that lies between glass/dust and crystallized. Were we able to watch this process in time lapse we would see the crosses grow in length and width until all the matrix was converted. Elton Tom Philips wrote: ... I wonder if this weird crystal structure found in a slice of JaH 055 would qualify for being called a chondrule or a small inclusion... http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorite-pages/JaH-055-Crystal.htm _ Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule?
Walter your email is not yahoo friendly so here is the answer via the list. Hello Walter, I don't know if you ever got an answer to your question but I had it marked for follow up. Chondrules, while usually more spherical, can be ovoid or ellipsoid and occasionally doubled. Current theory on chondrule formation is that they form by a varied sequence athat always includes final series of flash melting of the surface which seals in the contents. This tends to round off the edges and give them their typical spheroidal shape. When we see the chondrules as you describe--with lots of lines, those are usually barred olivine chondrules. Barred olivines probably went through several passages between super hot and not so hot zones in the nebula and represent successive growth and melt phases. Some chondrules are simple feldspar. Some are rubble piles of angular blocks/globs of mineral grains and dust which were flash melting sealed them into a chondrule yet retaining their angular crumbled edges sucked into a sphere mosaic style. A clast is usually angular on at least one side--that is not round. It has a consistent composition and color. Sometimes clasts are large enough for eye identification that they came from an entirely different class of meteorite then the one they have been found in. Keep in mind that the process of moving from a stage 3 to a 6 involves melting away of the chondrules and migration of their contents into the matrix while semi-plastic. These chondrules are not easy to discern even with a hand lens as their margins are in a stage of blending into the matrix due to heating. Regards, Elton --- On Thu, 7/6/06, Walter L. Newton newto...@comcast.net wrote: From: Walter L. Newton newto...@comcast.net Subject: [meteorite-list] What's a chondrule-what's not a chondrule? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Thursday, July 6, 2006, 10:06 AM Hi list, a little technical question. I understand what a chondule is, but sometime, when looking at a slice of a meteorite, I am confused as to what they always look like. I have a polished slice of NWA 787 (same as NWA 869). I see light brown sphere's but I also see light brown ellipsoid (is that the word I'm looking for?) splotches. The same thing exists for some light grey patches. The there are light brown or light grey lines, maybe 2-3mm long. Is that a clast or inclusion or what? In a slice of NWA 2859 (H4) I see a few round grey metal patches. I suspect that just so happens to be a round blob of iron, not a chondrule. Most of the time when I see a picture that points out chondrules, the illustration always points to round objects. Do I assume if it's not round, it's not a chondrule? Walter L. Newton Golden, Co __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule?
Hi Elton, I couldn't help notice Walter originally asked this question way back July 6, 2006.:) I don't have a point but thought it was funny. Carl Elton wrote: ...I don't know if you ever got an answer to your question but I had it marked for follow up... _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule?
Better late than never I always say. It was an interesting post too. Thanks, Jeff - Original Message - From: Carl 's carloselgua...@hotmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What is or is not a chondrule? Hi Elton, I couldn't help notice Walter originally asked this question way back July 6, 2006.:) I don't have a point but thought it was funny. Carl Elton wrote: ...I don't know if you ever got an answer to your question but I had it marked for follow up... _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates
I'd like to correct what I said two weeks back about alloys. I've talked with a specialist (Joe Goldstein) and he clarified the terminology for me as material scientists would use it. An alloy refers to a batch of metal containing more than one element (only one of which needs to be a metallic element). The term carries no implications about how the mixture formed or what its structure is. The term alloy should not be used to refer to a specific phase that crystallizes from an alloy or is present in the alloy. Taenite and kamacite are not alloys. They are phases (minerals). Therefore, hundreds of websites (including some professional ones) use the term incorrectly. An iron meteorite IS an alloy, even if it only contains one phase like taenite. Alloys can and often are composed of crystalline phases. Jeff Mr EMan wrote: --- On Mon, 9/7/09, Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov wrote: Most of the metallic minerals in iron meteorites are described as alloys in that they are composed of various metals combined together. I understood the distinction was that the Fe Ni formed a chemical compound not merely a mixture like copper and tin to make brass but even brass can form crystalline plates so that may be a bad example. It was my understanding that were it not for the mineral structure The Fe-Ni would be called an alloy. Agreed that it is frequently discussed in terms of alloy. It does not happen as the metal cools from the liquid state and solidifies. I stand corrected, 30 years is a lot of facts to keep in just one's head. I did recall correctly that there is a temperature range and below which all translocation stops. Seems off the top of my head it is 800°C. Goldstein and coworkers have shown that the process is controlled by the Fe-Ni-P phase diagram. I have long suspected that phosphorus was a key component in the process--likely as a catalyst. The Schreibersite seems to exist largely at the boundaries in thin laminae even surrounding trolite nodules. I look forward to reading Goldstein's paper. Thanks again, Elton -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates
I think there are some misconceptions here, although this is not my specialty. Most of the metallic minerals in iron meteorites are described as alloys in that they are composed of various metals combined together. These alloys have specific structures, e.g., the metal atoms in kamacite are arranged in a body-centered cubic structure and those in taenite are face-centered cubic. The minerals Kamacite and taenite are solid solutions of mainly Fe and Ni which can have a range of compositions without altering the basic structure. Tetrataenite is another alloy, but this time with a fixed composition (FeNi) and an ordered structure. Formation of the Widmanstatten structure is pretty well understood. It does not happen as the metal cools from the liquid state and solidifies. That process leads to the formation of just taenite. Only when the alloy cools to much lower temperature, after it is completely solid, can the Widmanstatten pattern form. High pressures are not involved. Goldstein and coworkers have shown that the process is controlled by the Fe-Ni-P phase diagram. Depending on the exact composition of the alloy, a variety of phase transformations take place over a range of temperatures, ultimately leading to the formation of kamacite and taenite. Composition and cooling rate play roles in determining in the structures we now observe. You can read about it in: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005M%26PS...40..239Y jeff Mr EMan wrote: We had a metallurgist on the list a few years back that insisted Widmanstatten patterns were found everywhere and posted some micrographs supporting his assertion. As I recall he got very ill with us when we pointed out why, what he had photos of, weren't Widmanstatten patterns. It was focused on a physical casual similarity not causal chemistry. Once again Widmanstatten patterns aren't stress fractures nor alloy specific patterns. I further assert that metal in meteorites is NOT an alloy in that the nickel is in a specific locus within a molecule. It is therefore not a mixture but a compound, chemically speaking. Widmanstatten patterns are a cross-sectional view of crystal latices that result from the migration of nickel atoms over eons into two distinct unusual, zoned, crystalline arrangements. Bandwidth is actually plate thickness. The migration is chemically driven while the metal is molten and only occurs in a specific range of temperatures. This is a subtle but distinct difference. This migration may even be a molecule by molecule transfer of nickel atoms which takes millions of years to clear out a 3mm band. This is to say a nickel atom may move in one side of a molecule and forces the central nickel atom to the face and lacking stability is ejected out the other side--maybe not, as the actual displacement/sorting is still an enigma. The nickel iron content may assemble from a single form as it accretes and represent a move to homogeneity interupted when the mass ran out of thermal energy. It may all start out as taenite and part of it converts to kamacite or vice versa. Who really knows? I fully believe collisions would impede if not stop the process-- not speed it up. It is easy and natural to try to infer a similar pattern might be from a similar process but the only similarity is in low contrast photographs when the scale is ignored. Elton --- On Sun, 9/6/09, E.P. Grondine epgrond...@yahoo.com wrote: From: E.P. Grondine epgrond...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cooling rates To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, Steve Dunklee sdunklee72...@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 1:47 PM Hi Steve, all - I don't think they're due to repeated collisions. Suppose that we have molten iron/nickle under incredible compression, which is then almost instantaneously released. 250 parent bodies seems like a lot. Perhaps instead there was more differentiation within fewer parent bodies. Ed __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What If Copernicus Was Wrong?
Dark Energy v. The Void: What if Copernicus was Wrong? Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae Timothy Clifton,? Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land Oxford Astrophysics, Physics, DWB, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle; that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican Principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a 'Dark Energy', to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical frame-work. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy. We show that the local redshift dependence of the luminosity distance can be used as a clear discriminant between these two paradigms. Future surveys of Type Ia supernovae that focus on a redshift range of 0.1 ? 0.4 will be ideally suited to test this hypothesis, and hence to observationally determine the validity of the Copernican Principle on new scales, as well as probing the degree to which dark energy must be considered a necessary ingredient in the Universe. The concordance model of the Universe combines two fundamental assumptions. The first is that space-time is dynamical, obeying Einstein's Equations. The second is the 'Cosmological Principle', that the Universe is then homogeneous and isotropic on large scales - a generalisation of the Copernican Principle that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position [1]. As a result of these two assumptions we can use the Freidmann- Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric to describe the geometry of the Universe in terms of a single function, the scale factor a(t), which obeys H2 = 8G 3 ? k a2 (1) where H ? ? a/a is the Hubble rate, is the energy density, k is the (constant) curvature of space, and overdots denote time derivatives. The scale factor can then be determined by observing the 'luminosity distance' of astrophysical objects. At small z ? a0/a(t)?1 this is given by H0DL ? cz + 1 2 (1 ? q0)cz2, (2) where q ? ?¨aa/ ?a2 is the deceleration rate, and subscript 0 denotes the value of a quantity today. Recent measurements of (z, DL) using high redshift, Type Ia Supernovae (SNe) have indicated that q0 0, i.e. the Universe is accelerating in its expansion [2, 3]. Accelerating expansion is possible in an FRW universe if a fraction of is in the form of a smoothly distributed and gravitationally repulsive exotic substance, often referred to as Dark Energy [4]. The existence of such an unusual substance is unexpected, and requires previously unimagined amounts of fine-tuning in order to reproduce the observations. Nonetheless, dark energy has been incorporated into the standard cosmological model, known as CDM. Electronic address: tclif...@astro.ox.ac.uk An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e. if we were to live in a void [5, 6, 7]. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity - but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the centre of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally. Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. However, it can be argued that the centre of a large underdensity is the most likely place for observers to find themselves [8]. In this case, finding ourselves in the centre of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place, but it may not violate the Principle ofMediocrity, that we are a 'typical' set of observers. Regardless of what we consider the a priori likelihood of such structures to be, we find that it should be possible for observers at their centre to be able to observationally distinguish themselves from their counterparts in FRW universes. Living in a void leads to a distinctive observational signature
[meteorite-list] What are the odds? or a search for Amarilo's first meteorite
While walking to my bus (I monitor the urchins-- opps--make that kids) on their ride home. As I walked to the bus this one dark stone looked different, so I picked it up and promptly forgot about it. When I got home, I emptied my pockets and saw the stone. I grabbed my standard magnet from a hard drive (I always try to use the same magnet so the results will be meaningful as a comparison). It didn't snap to it but nevertheless it was attracted to the magnet. The stone is black and has many places that form points of light sparkles as I turn it in my hand. It is very hard as it took about 5 minutes of good hard filling to get even a small window opened up. The window showed metal so the next step is the nickel test tomorrow. (I hope my supplies are still good after Just sitting on a shelf sealed in an air tight container). Any comments on whether they might stay good? Pete __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates
--- On Mon, 9/7/09, Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov wrote: Most of the metallic minerals in iron meteorites are described as alloys in that they are composed of various metals combined together. I understood the distinction was that the Fe Ni formed a chemical compound not merely a mixture like copper and tin to make brass but even brass can form crystalline plates so that may be a bad example. It was my understanding that were it not for the mineral structure The Fe-Ni would be called an alloy. Agreed that it is frequently discussed in terms of alloy. It does not happen as the metal cools from the liquid state and solidifies. I stand corrected, 30 years is a lot of facts to keep in just one's head. I did recall correctly that there is a temperature range and below which all translocation stops. Seems off the top of my head it is 800°C. Goldstein and coworkers have shown that the process is controlled by the Fe-Ni-P phase diagram. I have long suspected that phosphorus was a key component in the process--likely as a catalyst. The Schreibersite seems to exist largely at the boundaries in thin laminae even surrounding trolite nodules. I look forward to reading Goldstein's paper. Thanks again, Elton __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates
I guess once again as with CCDs my education is outdated. I see that any metal compound or mixture can be called an alloy. OR it has come into such common use the distinction between mixture and compound is obsolete when talking about metals. Elton --- On Tue, 9/8/09, Mr EMan mstrema...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mr EMan mstrema...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 6:38 PM --- On Mon, 9/7/09, Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov wrote: Most of the metallic minerals in iron meteorites are described as alloys in that they are composed of various metals combined together. I understood the distinction was that the Fe Ni formed a chemical compound not merely a mixture like copper and tin to make brass but even brass can form crystalline plates so that may be a bad example. It was my understanding that were it not for the mineral structure The Fe-Ni would be called an alloy. Agreed that it is frequently discussed in terms of alloy. It does not happen as the metal cools from the liquid state and solidifies. I stand corrected, 30 years is a lot of facts to keep in just one's head. I did recall correctly that there is a temperature range and below which all translocation stops. Seems off the top of my head it is 800°C. Goldstein and coworkers have shown that the process is controlled by the Fe-Ni-P phase diagram. I have long suspected that phosphorus was a key component in the process--likely as a catalyst. The Schreibersite seems to exist largely at the boundaries in thin laminae even surrounding trolite nodules. I look forward to reading Goldstein's paper. Thanks again, Elton __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates
I think there are some misconceptions here, although this is not my specialty. Most of the metallic minerals in iron meteorites are described as alloys in that they are composed of various metals combined together. These alloys have specific structures, e.g., the metal atoms in kamacite are arranged in a body-centered cubic structure and those in taenite are face-centered cubic. The minerals Kamacite and taenite are solid solutions of mainly Fe and Ni which can have a range of compositions without altering the basic structure. Tetrataenite is another alloy, but this time with a fixed composition (FeNi) and an ordered structure. Formation of the Widmanstatten structure is pretty well understood. It does not happen as the metal cools from the liquid state and solidifies. That process leads to the formation of just taenite. Only when the alloy cools to much lower temperature, after it is completely solid, can the Widmanstatten pattern form. High pressures are not involved. Goldstein and coworkers have shown that the process is controlled by the Fe-Ni-P phase diagram. Depending on the exact composition of the alloy, a variety of phase transformations take place over a range of temperatures, ultimately leading to the formation of kamacite and taenite. Composition and cooling rate play roles in determining in the structures we now observe. You can read about it in: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005M%26PS...40..239Y jeff Mr EMan wrote: We had a metallurgist on the list a few years back that insisted Widmanstatten patterns were found everywhere and posted some micrographs supporting his assertion. As I recall he got very ill with us when we pointed out why, what he had photos of, weren't Widmanstatten patterns. It was focused on a physical casual similarity not causal chemistry. Once again Widmanstatten patterns aren't stress fractures nor alloy specific patterns. I further assert that metal in meteorites is NOT an alloy in that the nickel is in a specific locus within a molecule. It is therefore not a mixture but a compound, chemically speaking. Widmanstatten patterns are a cross-sectional view of crystal latices that result from the migration of nickel atoms over eons into two distinct unusual, zoned, crystalline arrangements. Bandwidth is actually plate thickness. The migration is chemically driven while the metal is molten and only occurs in a specific range of temperatures. This is a subtle but distinct difference. This migration may even be a molecule by molecule transfer of nickel atoms which takes millions of years to clear out a 3mm band. This is to say a nickel atom may move in one side of a molecule and forces the central nickel atom to the face and lacking stability is ejected out the other side--maybe not, as the actual displacement/sorting is still an enigma. The nickel iron content may assemble from a single form as it accretes and represent a move to homogeneity interupted when the mass ran out of thermal energy. It may all start out as taenite and part of it converts to kamacite or vice versa. Who really knows? I fully believe collisions would impede if not stop the process-- not speed it up. It is easy and natural to try to infer a similar pattern might be from a similar process but the only similarity is in low contrast photographs when the scale is ignored. Elton --- On Sun, 9/6/09, E.P. Grondine epgrond...@yahoo.com wrote: From: E.P. Grondine epgrond...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cooling rates To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, Steve Dunklee sdunklee72...@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 1:47 PM Hi Steve, all - I don't think they're due to repeated collisions. Suppose that we have molten iron/nickle under incredible compression, which is then almost instantaneously released. 250 parent bodies seems like a lot. Perhaps instead there was more differentiation within fewer parent bodies. Ed __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates
Excellent article and info! Thank you Jeff! Tom --- I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.' -- Bob Newhart http://home.roadrunner.com/~kb2sms/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is and isn't a Widmanstatten Pattern was Cooling rates
We had a metallurgist on the list a few years back that insisted Widmanstatten patterns were found everywhere and posted some micrographs supporting his assertion. As I recall he got very ill with us when we pointed out why, what he had photos of, weren't Widmanstatten patterns. It was focused on a physical casual similarity not causal chemistry. Once again Widmanstatten patterns aren't stress fractures nor alloy specific patterns. I further assert that metal in meteorites is NOT an alloy in that the nickel is in a specific locus within a molecule. It is therefore not a mixture but a compound, chemically speaking. Widmanstatten patterns are a cross-sectional view of crystal latices that result from the migration of nickel atoms over eons into two distinct unusual, zoned, crystalline arrangements. Bandwidth is actually plate thickness. The migration is chemically driven while the metal is molten and only occurs in a specific range of temperatures. This is a subtle but distinct difference. This migration may even be a molecule by molecule transfer of nickel atoms which takes millions of years to clear out a 3mm band. This is to say a nickel atom may move in one side of a molecule and forces the central nickel atom to the face and lacking stability is ejected out the other side--maybe not, as the actual displacement/sorting is still an enigma. The nickel iron content may assemble from a single form as it accretes and represent a move to homogeneity interupted when the mass ran out of thermal energy. It may all start out as taenite and part of it converts to kamacite or vice versa. Who really knows? I fully believe collisions would impede if not stop the process-- not speed it up. It is easy and natural to try to infer a similar pattern might be from a similar process but the only similarity is in low contrast photographs when the scale is ignored. Elton --- On Sun, 9/6/09, E.P. Grondine epgrond...@yahoo.com wrote: From: E.P. Grondine epgrond...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cooling rates To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, Steve Dunklee sdunklee72...@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 1:47 PM Hi Steve, all - I don't think they're due to repeated collisions. Suppose that we have molten iron/nickle under incredible compression, which is then almost instantaneously released. 250 parent bodies seems like a lot. Perhaps instead there was more differentiation within fewer parent bodies. Ed __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is this?
Update: Steve contacted me offline and explained that the suspect items were uploaded years ago and he had since tried to delete them but his efforts had somehow been blocked. I do not doubt his explanation. Steve has been sharing his photos of authentic meteorites and I hope he continues to contribute to the hobby and the meteorite community. Best, ken Steve, Since you have contributed to this subject, perhaps you can explain why you have listed the following suspect items as meteorites in the stephen dunklee collection? http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=244 camp acapulcoite camp diogenite camp howardite camp pallasite camp122006 Limedale Mammoth Springs Do you really think these are meteorites? If 'no', why are they listed beside real meteorites? (You once sold self-classifed wrongs on eBay but you stopped) If 'yes', I suggest this does not improve your image but even calls to question any legitimate photos that you have supplied to the Met Bull for reference. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor//MetBullFindphoto.php?credit=stephen+dunklee Ken __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is this?
I found a few of the same things in West. Look like hematite concretions to me, that may have been struck by lightning driving off the oxygen to make them magnetic. Cheers Steve --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Pete Shugar pshu...@clearwire.net wrote: From: Pete Shugar pshu...@clearwire.net Subject: [meteorite-list] What is this? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 4:53 PM Anybody have a look at this? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=360161621595ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT I gotta wonder because he states that it is not white inside. BUT, his customers are all HAPPY? What's the posibility this is another older fall in the same general area as West-Ash Creek fall. Pete IMCA 1733 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is this?
Sorry if this duplicates Steve, may have been struck by lightning driving off the oxygen to make them magnetic What Haven't heard that one before! Steve, Since you have contributed to this subject, perhaps you can explain why you have listed the following suspect items as meteorites in the stephen dunklee collection? http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=244 camp acapulcoite camp diogenite camp howardite camp pallasite camp122006 Limedale Mammoth Springs Do you really think these are meteorites? If 'no', why are they listed beside real meteorites? If 'yes', I suggest this does not improve your image (you once sold self-classified wrongs on eBay but to your credit you stopped) but even calls to question your meteorite photos and any legitimate photos that you have supplied to the Met Bull for reference. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor//MetBullFindphoto.php?credit=stephen+dunklee Do you see my point? Ken On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Steve Dunklee sdunklee72...@yahoo.com wrote: I found a few of the same things in West. Look like hematite concretions to me, that may have been struck by lightning driving off the oxygen to make them magnetic. Cheers Steve __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What is this?
Anybody have a look at this? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=360161621595ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT I gotta wonder because he states that it is not white inside. BUT, his customers are all HAPPY? What's the posibility this is another older fall in the same general area as West-Ash Creek fall. Pete IMCA 1733 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is this?
This guy has been selling a wide variety of assorted fakes over the last 2+ years. He occasionally sells a real meteorite to make things interesting. But the majority of his specimens are dubious at best - including some bogus lunaites. I seriously doubt these are West meteorites, or meteorites at all. If his customers are happy, then someone please tell them that I have some swampland available at discount. ;) On 8/2/09, Pete Shugar pshu...@clearwire.net wrote: Anybody have a look at this? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=360161621595ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT I gotta wonder because he states that it is not white inside. BUT, his customers are all HAPPY? What's the posibility this is another older fall in the same general area as West-Ash Creek fall. Pete IMCA 1733 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- . Michael Gilmer (Florida, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com Personal Site - http://www.glassthrower.com FaceBook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale Twitter - Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone eBay - http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/maypickle .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is this?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:16:11 -0400, you wrote: including some bogus lunaites. I seriously doubt these are West meteorites, or meteorites at all. If his customers are happy, then someone please tell them that I have some swampland available at discount. ;) Hey, I hear that those boggy creeks are great places for finding lunites. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What is this?
He tells you in the description what it is: it's a varnished hematite/limonite concretion, which are common in that area. Phil Whitmer __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What material most resist meteorite penatration?
Hmmm... The things you find on the web... http://www.phoric.cn/viewthread.php?tid=390683 Regards, Eric __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What material most resist meteorite penatration?
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:26:56 -0700, you wrote: Hmmm... The things you find on the web... http://www.phoric.cn/viewthread.php?tid=390683 Look like somebody is planning on writing some epicly bad science fiction and is looking for some tech to throw in with the horrible writing. Either that, or fishing for an ex-wife joke. Meanwhile, browsing other questions on the site-- I've heard of cows with windows before, but never seen video before. Somehow much more disturbing than I imagined: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtV3i80ZOfE __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What material most resist meteorite penatration?
...or he's building his own spaceship in the basement for the X-Prize http://space.xprize.org/ http://space.xprize.org/ From: cyna...@charter.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:20:13 -0500 Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What material most resist meteorite penatration? On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:26:56 -0700, you wrote: Hmmm... The things you find on the web... http://www.phoric.cn/viewthread.php?tid=390683 Look like somebody is planning on writing some epicly bad science fiction and is looking for some tech to throw in with the horrible writing. Either that, or fishing for an ex-wife joke. Meanwhile, browsing other questions on the site-- I've heard of cows with windows before, but never seen video before. Somehow much more disturbing than I imagined: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtV3i80ZOfE __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ Stay on top of things, check email from other accounts! http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9671355 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What got you into meteorites?
Greg/List: How did I get into meteorites? It perhaps started way back in the ‘70’s when a good friend of mine who was a mineral enthusiast got a job at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, and I remember him telling me that diamonds (carbon) had been found in iron meteorites; Wow… I thought that was very interesting. It also was about the same time I was writing a research paper (for English class) on the theory that a large meteor crashed on earth, resulting in the extinction of the dinosaurs… very fun to write and I think I received an ‘A’. Years later after many years of fossil and mineral collecting on the east coast, I began to read about meteorites and I remember seeing “The Meteorite Man,” Mr. Bob Haag on TV and in a few publications. Later I moved to Austin, TX pursuing an engineering degree and began to do more research on how to buy meteorites - It was the early 1990’s and there were few dealers and I also was living on a limited income. I do remember looking in the TX desert and I also looked for Tektites (never found any) throughout the ‘90’s. Then in 1997, I was driving to California for a summer internship and I went to the Meteorite Crater in Arizona. It was during this drive across the country, when I stopped at a roadside stand and bought a small ~25 gram Canyon Diablo meteorite; I still have it today. The next year I bought a second Canyon Diablo, which is 225 grams. After graduating from the University of Texas, I got a job in Bakersfield and began hunting the deserts there and found my first meteorite (a 15.8 gram chondrite) in 2006. Since then I have found many more and I read about the different varieties of meteorites when ever I have free time. I have collected fossils and minerals since I was a boy, but I think meteorites are so unique and out of this world, that they have become my primary focus of my mineral collection. Everyone, Enjoy Hunting and happy 40th anniversary (July 20th) of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Greg S. Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:24:06 -0700 From: star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What got you into meteorites? Why am I into meteorites? I started off as a sci fi fan, and a major Star Wars collector (AKA, a nerd) A friend of mine that owns a local rock and mineral store came across a meteorite for me and I picked it up. I then ventured onto the internet in search of information about it and discovered I could buy Campo crystals rather cheap... I was using tumbled earth rocks as a method to teach my daughter math and thought meteorites would be a neat way to help her learn to do math. The first person I bought from - Bob C. was really nice and I ended up buying alot of Campo individuals, a really nice half gram martian from him and other really nice meteorites - from there, my collection suddenly took on a life of its own. When I purchased my first Lunar (Dhofar 910) from Adam Hupe, I quickly saw that for me to grow my collection like I wanted (Im not that big into micros) I would need to buy in bulk to get better prices. I started searching around to see who could give me good deals for buying in bulk... In turn I went around to local shops such as comic book and rock/mineral stores and shows trying to sell the extra material. For me, meteorites were/are not really a money thing, but a way that allows me to offer a method of teaching that is neat for my daughter and also allows me to actually touch, smell and better understand space, where we came from and where we are going. What is more cool then holding a piece of the moon? We always see sensational hollywood movies such as Armageddon, Deep Impact etc... Meteorites allow us to actually hold what the blockbuster movies are all about - Meteorites! In the 3 years we have been involved with this hobby my daughter has now expressed a major interest in being a meteorite scientist when she grows up! At 7 years old, she can tell you what makes achondrites and chondrites different, she can go into detail about Irons and Pallasites and alot of other really cool stuff I wish I would have known at 7 years old. She is now also a collector also. So, while meteorites for us started off simply as a way to teach math to my little girl, we both have since learned a great deal and they have given me and her valuable time together doing something we both enjoy. Thats what got us into meteorites - a simple gift and a thought of a neat teaching tool! Greg C. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. http
[meteorite-list] What got you into meteorites?
Why am I into meteorites? I started off as a sci fi fan, and a major Star Wars collector (AKA, a nerd) A friend of mine that owns a local rock and mineral store came across a meteorite for me and I picked it up. I then ventured onto the internet in search of information about it and discovered I could buy Campo crystals rather cheap... I was using tumbled earth rocks as a method to teach my daughter math and thought meteorites would be a neat way to help her learn to do math. The first person I bought from - Bob C. was really nice and I ended up buying alot of Campo individuals, a really nice half gram martian from him and other really nice meteorites - from there, my collection suddenly took on a life of its own. When I purchased my first Lunar (Dhofar 910) from Adam Hupe, I quickly saw that for me to grow my collection like I wanted (Im not that big into micros) I would need to buy in bulk to get better prices. I started searching around to see who could give me good deals for buying in bulk... In turn I went around to local shops such as comic book and rock/mineral stores and shows trying to sell the extra material. For me, meteorites were/are not really a money thing, but a way that allows me to offer a method of teaching that is neat for my daughter and also allows me to actually touch, smell and better understand space, where we came from and where we are going. What is more cool then holding a piece of the moon? We always see sensational hollywood movies such as Armageddon, Deep Impact etc... Meteorites allow us to actually hold what the blockbuster movies are all about - Meteorites! In the 3 years we have been involved with this hobby my daughter has now expressed a major interest in being a meteorite scientist when she grows up! At 7 years old, she can tell you what makes achondrites and chondrites different, she can go into detail about Irons and Pallasites and alot of other really cool stuff I wish I would have known at 7 years old. She is now also a collector also. So, while meteorites for us started off simply as a way to teach math to my little girl, we both have since learned a great deal and they have given me and her valuable time together doing something we both enjoy. Thats what got us into meteorites - a simple gift and a thought of a neat teaching tool! Greg C. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What is Nickel content in Dronino meteorite?
Hi George and List, what percentage of nickel is in the Dronino Meteorite? This should help satisfy your curiosity: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?sea=Droninosfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=0pnt=nocode=7732 Best, Bernd To: geo...@aol.com meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is Nickel content in Dronino meteorite?
Thanks for your response Piper. I read those sites you listed and am still a little confused. Based on what you posted below, if I had a chunk of Dronino in my hand, I could say it has a Nickel content of either 98.1%, 10.8% or 9.8%...I guess which one is dependent upon what part of the sample I'm referring to. So if I refer just to the Nickel content in the troilite its' about 98.1%. And the Nickel content in the rest of the Dronino is 9.8%, But combined it comes out to 10.8%. Is my understanding correct? GeoZay Chemistry : A bulk Dronino sample analyzed by INAA in UCLA contains: Ni 98.1, Co 5.54 (mg/g), Cr 37, Cu 32, Ga 0.3, As 3.52, W 0.38, Ir 1.68, Au 0.284 (ppm). The average of EMP analyses of the metal is 10.8 wt% Ni. The higher Ni concentration relative to the INAA data can be explained by the presence of troilite in the bulk sample. Dronino has about 10 vol% troilite, enough to significantly skew the bulk nickel content (9.8%) relative to that in the metal (10.8%). **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814852x1201410738/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter419NO62) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What is Nickel content in Dronino meteorite?
Hi folks! By any chance does anyone know what percentage of Nickel is in the Dronino Meteorite? I've been trying to satisfy this curiosity, but I think I'm confusing myself. It seems to be somewhere between 8% to 18%. But I think it's close to 8.9%. Am I in the ball park? GeoZay **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814852x1201410738/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter419NO62) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite?
Count me as a believer in the Gold Bug 2. I have used it at Gold Basin and Franconia and have found small pieces every time there. Dave --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Erik Fisler erikfw...@msn.com wrote: From: Erik Fisler erikfw...@msn.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite? To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 1:00 AM Whites Minelabs SD2100 Goldbug 2 all of the best hunters use one of these machines when it comes to H Chondrites like Franconia and the low metal L chondrites at Goldbasin. All 3 are very durable and very effective at a generally low cost ($500 - $1500) Here are some people that use these detectors. GMT- Jim Smaller, Del Waterbury, Stan Santiago, and me of course. Minelabs SD2100- Del Waterbury, Jim Smaller, My father. Goldbug 2 - John Wolfe, Ruben Garcia for great advise on how to use these detectors and which work best for what conditions, check out Bill Southern's Meteorite hunting forum at: http://www.nuggetshooter.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=03684023296f024d35ff1e3034012e88showforum=4 im sure you could search their archives and find one of our discussions on the topic of best detectors. [Erik] From: midw...@meteorman.org To: meteoritem...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:21:38 -0500 CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite? Thank Mike, Good article Tim - Original Message - From: Galactic Stone Ironworks To: Timothy Heitz Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite? Hi Tim and List, Warning - I am repeating second-hand information, not personal experience. I've done a lot reading on metal detectors and meteorites lately, and I found a review (shootout) of several metal detectors being used to find meteorites - irons and stones. It seems that the older metal detectors that have trouble with mineralized ground are actually good with stones. See here - http://www.whiteriverprep.com/meteor/madness.html Best regards, MikeG On 4/4/09, Timothy Heitz wrote: Hello List, Most metal detectors that work great for an iron, will not work well on a common H5 or L6 stone. What metal detector works well with detecting stones Thanks, Tim Heitz __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite?
I would get a gold bug for detecting very small bits if Iron, however to Rubens surprise as well as another meteorite hunter I know (who is not a list member) I found an old weathered chondrite with my Minelab Eureka Gold. The Minelab is very controversial machine it seems, but I really like mine, and think the people who are unhappy with them simply don't understand how to use them. Many humans are strangely unable to grasp simple concepts and follow directions. Always take a test meteorite with you and tune your detecter to pick it up, If you have it set to pick up an L chondrite it will get the H chondrites as well. Example: I swear this happened yesterday! A customer called me ( who lives in Alaska) and said she had no water in her motor home. The RV park manager had already told her the supply hose to her RV was FROZEN, and had disconnected it for her. When I arrived I explained to her to simply bring the hose inside for a few hours to let it thaw out and everything would be OK. Several hours later she calls frantically exclaiming she still has no water!! OH Dear! I asked her to unhook it from the RV and see if water would come out of the hose? She finally understood what I meant and tried it. Nope, no water, ( I was watching her from across the park and could tell she didn't turn on the faucet, so after a few more minuets I taught her all about the way a water faucet works. Yea!! now she has water.god I hope she knows what to do with it. Good luck! Bill __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite?
Iv'e watched my dad pullout 1g chondrites with his Minelabs SD2100 with the Mono Joey Coil. [Erik] Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:15:25 -0700 From: meteorit...@gmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite? I would get a gold bug for detecting very small bits if Iron, however to Rubens surprise as well as another meteorite hunter I know (who is not a list member) I found an old weathered chondrite with my Minelab Eureka Gold. The Minelab is very controversial machine it seems, but I really like mine, and think the people who are unhappy with them simply don't understand how to use them. Many humans are strangely unable to grasp simple concepts and follow directions. Always take a test meteorite with you and tune your detecter to pick it up, If you have it set to pick up an L chondrite it will get the H chondrites as well. Example: I swear this happened yesterday! A customer called me ( who lives in Alaska) and said she had no water in her motor home. The RV park manager had already told her the supply hose to her RV was FROZEN, and had disconnected it for her. When I arrived I explained to her to simply bring the hose inside for a few hours to let it thaw out and everything would be OK. Several hours later she calls frantically exclaiming she still has no water!! OH Dear! I asked her to unhook it from the RV and see if water would come out of the hose? She finally understood what I meant and tried it. Nope, no water, ( I was watching her from across the park and could tell she didn't turn on the faucet, so after a few more minuets I taught her all about the way a water faucet works. Yea!! now she has water.god I hope she knows what to do with it. Good luck! Bill __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite?
Hello List, Most metal detectors that work great for an iron, will not work well on a common H5 or L6 stone. What metal detector works well with detecting stones Thanks, Tim Heitz __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite?
Hi Tim and List, Warning - I am repeating second-hand information, not personal experience. I've done a lot reading on metal detectors and meteorites lately, and I found a review (shootout) of several metal detectors being used to find meteorites - irons and stones. It seems that the older metal detectors that have trouble with mineralized ground are actually good with stones. See here - http://www.whiteriverprep.com/meteor/madness.html Best regards, MikeG On 4/4/09, Timothy Heitz midw...@meteorman.org wrote: Hello List, Most metal detectors that work great for an iron, will not work well on a common H5 or L6 stone. What metal detector works well with detecting stones Thanks, Tim Heitz __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite?
Thank Mike, Good article Tim - Original Message - From: Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com To: Timothy Heitz midw...@meteorman.org Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite? Hi Tim and List, Warning - I am repeating second-hand information, not personal experience. I've done a lot reading on metal detectors and meteorites lately, and I found a review (shootout) of several metal detectors being used to find meteorites - irons and stones. It seems that the older metal detectors that have trouble with mineralized ground are actually good with stones. See here - http://www.whiteriverprep.com/meteor/madness.html Best regards, MikeG On 4/4/09, Timothy Heitz midw...@meteorman.org wrote: Hello List, Most metal detectors that work great for an iron, will not work well on a common H5 or L6 stone. What metal detector works well with detecting stones Thanks, Tim Heitz __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite?
Whites Minelabs SD2100 Goldbug 2 all of the best hunters use one of these machines when it comes to H Chondrites like Franconia and the low metal L chondrites at Goldbasin. All 3 are very durable and very effective at a generally low cost ($500 - $1500) Here are some people that use these detectors. GMT- Jim Smaller, Del Waterbury, Stan Santiago, and me of course. Minelabs SD2100- Del Waterbury, Jim Smaller, My father. Goldbug 2 - John Wolfe, Ruben Garcia for great advise on how to use these detectors and which work best for what conditions, check out Bill Southern's Meteorite hunting forum at: http://www.nuggetshooter.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=03684023296f024d35ff1e3034012e88showforum=4 im sure you could search their archives and find one of our discussions on the topic of best detectors. [Erik] From: midw...@meteorman.org To: meteoritem...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:21:38 -0500 CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite? Thank Mike, Good article Tim - Original Message - From: Galactic Stone Ironworks To: Timothy Heitz Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What metal detector works well on finding a stone meteorite? Hi Tim and List, Warning - I am repeating second-hand information, not personal experience. I've done a lot reading on metal detectors and meteorites lately, and I found a review (shootout) of several metal detectors being used to find meteorites - irons and stones. It seems that the older metal detectors that have trouble with mineralized ground are actually good with stones. See here - http://www.whiteriverprep.com/meteor/madness.html Best regards, MikeG On 4/4/09, Timothy Heitz wrote: Hello List, Most metal detectors that work great for an iron, will not work well on a common H5 or L6 stone. What metal detector works well with detecting stones Thanks, Tim Heitz __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] what do we do for a non meteorite living? (AD)
Hi list.When I am employed,I work in the shipping and receiving end of warehousing.I have 31 years of warehouse experience.From order picking to supervisory.So if anyone in the chicago area needs me,I am available.I live in elgin,il about 35 miles from chitown with my wife of 10 years.No kids and one cat.I AM 54 years old,(feel like im 25) and I love to give away meteorites.Now for the ad part,I have 3 small part slices of DONG UJIM QIN QI meso forsale.They are 2.2 grams.0.8 grams,and 0.5 grams.These were all cut by bob haag before the tucson show and they come from him.He is in the process of making specimen labels.As I get mine for my 19 gram slice,I will make a copy of it and give it to you.I want $40 a gram for these 3 small pieces.Shipping will be $4. Steve R.Arnold,Chicago! a rel=nofollow target=_blank href=http://chicagometeorites.net/;http://chicagometeorites.net//a __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Hi, Jason, List You're certainly right -- we are all interpreting the request quite differently. And yes, I am taking the historical angle. But the point about history, particularly the history of an idea, is that certain objects or events do more than add to what we know; they make changes in how we think. We are able to think of meteorites AS meteorites because of L'Aigle. If some stone had not been recognized as a genuine proven rock that fell from the heavens, there would be no such thing as a meteorite. By that I mean, its physical reality aside, a meteorite is only a meteorite because we recognize it to be one; the categories of human knowledge are human constructs. No L'Aigle, no meteorites. Of course, I hope humanity is not so dense that L'Aigle was its only chance to figure it out. Maybe Pultusk would have been the first meteorite. The little enigimas you mention -- Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011, Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun -- have unique stories, yes, some valuable, some still puzzles, and their full stories, when known, might be immensely important or just another footnote. They are the current mysteries whose importance is largely to show us we don't understand everything yet. Ten (or twenty) years from now, your list would be populated with new mysteries and new revelations (hopefully). The original criterion was most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. How far would our understanding of that go if we didn't know the Solar System was full of rocks? And weren't forced to the understanding that they were the leftovers? And therefore that the planets must have been cobbled together from them? And so forth. What would be the meteorites-yet-to-be-discovered that would be on that list? The first rock with unequivocal proof of life anywhere else than this little planet, at whatever time. That would go on my future list. The first rock found that did NOT originate in this solar system. It would make the list. Of course, these rocks may not exist... Personally, I think all the lists suggested to the List are good lists, just of thirteen (or 30 or 300) ways of looking at a blackbird (or a black rock). Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All, With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater. But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant - you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a number of other irons. I think the trouble is that we need clarification when making such a list because, as a number of you are saying, we're all just making lists based on our interpretation of Graham's request. I saw his question as a demand for a list of meteorites which were of particular scientific note, and made just such a list - but even I became sidetracked in my mentioning of the first lunar and martian meteorites ever recognized, for they fall into the historically, rather than scientifically important category. Their discovery was of note, but the meteorites themselves...while not typical, they're nothing too out of the ordinary. So what determines whether or not a meteorite is of scientific interest? I believe that mentioning things like L'Aigle or Canyon Diablo in this case is wrong because the meteorites, while they did cause major shifts in how we see the solar system and how it works, are relatively ordinary. But beyond that...I believe Greg Hupe had a good point when he mentioned that there are a great number of meteorites that are of great scientific interest that are more or less ignored because they come from NWA. I think it's going to take looking beyond what we think of as rare, because what we know as collectors isn't really what's scientifically important. In many cases, we never get a chance to buy those rocks, and there's good reason for it. I see it in a number of the lists mentioned; at least one person mentioned Calcalong Creek - without even making note of ALHA81005, the first recognized lunar meteorite. Why? Calcalong Creek is a rare and beautiful meteorite, granted, but is it particularly
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
To continue on Sterling's theme about Mars (a little off topic from meteorites): Thanks to Gene Shoemaker, a number of lunar missions, and Apollo, it was clear that the craters on the Moon were impact features and not volcanic. However, for Mars, it was just another Moon-like body! Mariner 4, as Sterling states, showed that Mars sort of looked like the Moon: craters. Within a month after Apollo 11, Mariner 6 and 7 had flown by Mars and taken a bunch more detailed images of Mars. However, they flew by the equator and south pole of Mars. All they saw were (other than the pole), more craters! It was not until 1971 with the Mariner 9 orbiter that we knew that Mars was not all that Moon-like (from the point of view of craters) when it discovered Valis Marineris and Olympus Mons. Oh, Sterling, to date me, I WAS there for Mariner 6 and 7. My summer job before grad school was, among other things, developing (yes we used film) the images that came back from Mariner 6 and 7. Larry On Sat, February 14, 2009 8:03 pm, Sterling K. Webb wrote: Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4 did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed) was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway... The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because you are on the modern side of the conceptual divide. Until the understanding of impact, solar system formation models were divided between accretion and coalescence. Very few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand with impact theory. If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was -- then it might well be the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. Sterling K. Webb -- --- - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All, With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater. But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant - you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a number of other irons. I think the trouble is that we need clarification when making such a list because, as a number of you are saying, we're all just making lists based on our interpretation of Graham's request. I saw his question as a demand for a list of meteorites which were of particular scientific note, and made just such a list - but even I became sidetracked in my mentioning of the first lunar and martian meteorites ever recognized, for they fall into the historically, rather than scientifically important category. Their discovery was of note, but the meteorites themselves...while not typical, they're nothing too out of the ordinary. So what determines whether or not a meteorite is of scientific interest? I believe that mentioning things like L'Aigle or Canyon Diablo in this case is wrong because the meteorites, while they did cause major shifts in how we see the solar system and how it works, are relatively ordinary. But beyond that...I believe Greg Hupe had a good point when he mentioned that there are a great number of meteorites that are of great scientific interest that are more or less ignored because they come from NWA. I think it's going to take looking beyond what we think of as rare, because what we know as collectors isn't really what's scientifically important. In many cases, we never get a chance to buy those rocks, and there's good reason for it. I see it in a number of the lists mentioned; at least one person mentioned Calcalong Creek - without even making note of ALHA81005, the first recognized lunar meteorite. Why? Calcalong Creek is a rare and beautiful meteorite, granted, but is it particularly scientifically important? No. But - it was the first lunar meteorite available to the public. Rocks like Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011, Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun - they do much more individually to further our knowledge of the solar system. I couldn't make a list of ten, because saying which unique meteorite or trait of a particular meteorite holds greater importance isn't something I see as rewarding...thinking about it just makes me realize how fortunate we are to be able to actually collect and touch these pieces of the very distant past. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
the result of the Casablanca-Meeting, where it was stated that the meteorites from Morocco were perfectly legal. Furthermore the prices of NWA-material and all other meteorites are publically accessible to everyone. Because the meteorite market is exactly the opposite of the black market those people are propagating in media, it is very transparent. With the system of the central recording and publishing of all meteorites by the Meteoritical Society, they have always a survey at hand, which material does exist at all and in which quantities. The prices of the last 200 years and the expenses of the institutes and museums are visible the archives and the publications, the expenses and find rates of official expeditions and the Antarctic campaigns, cause it is public money, should be found published too (although with Antarctica I have difficulties to find it in internet. Only here a figure, there a number. 30 millions for Euromet here, 20 Millions for NIPR there, 70 millions a year for fuel and stuff for McMurdo...) So it's for everyone evident, that NWA isn't only a blessing for science but that they are by far the most cost-effective way to do research about out solar system. You know, Argentina, now Poland... these laws are made by politicians, who got alerted by the propaganda of people like SchmittSmith. They read about black market, drug dealers, weapon spivs, they are stuffed with the prices of the lunaites of the 90ies and they get served a grotesque distortion of the quantities of material. Gosh, do I expect to much, if I ask, that a Chennaoui a Smith takes themselves only once that hour time to check the tkws in the Bulletin database? I mean, meteorites are their profession and they are even so lucky to be paid for their passion. The highest of high of non-OCs, the eucrites, were you have to pick up first hundreds of chondrites, 40kg from Antarctica in 30+ years, 100kgs from NWA and other deserts in 20 years.. And if they expose theirselves in that way, couldn't we expect, that they spend altogether 2 days for getting a survey or an impression of meteorite pricing? Each newbie among the laymen coming to meteorites is able to check these stats and facts. And naturally politicians, cause they have no insight, they say k sounds dangerous, let's make a law. But how would they react, if you tell them the find rates of Antarctica and universitary expeditions and their costs? If you'd tell them the costs of space flight and earth-bound research in the neighboured subjects? And if you'd tell them in the end. that the complete annual output of the deserts, exceeding all other ways of getting this desired and highly relevant material by weight, by numbers, by weight, by most interesting and important finds, that this output is completely available at costs, which do not exceed the costs for 3 or 4 common research projects on of a department 3 or 4 mid-sized universities? (For that, what is spend for 1 week Antarctic search, they could have the complete masses of 5 or 6 different lunars - and lunars are by far already the most expensive stuff -) That is the true beef. So it is simply completely unreasonable not to research or not to acquire desert finds additionally to the material found by official campaigns (and perhaps also somewhat unjustifiable towards the public, which has to pay the latter). And that's why I have not the slightest doubts, that NWA will play their role in future. Only a little patience is necessary. Back from the digression. Only for my taste - I would replace Ensisheim by Elbogen. Elbogen felt earlier, the legends are recorded. Ensisheim hadn't that impact, even young Wolfgang v.Goethe still made jokes about the funny aborigines, who believed that the chunk in the church had fallen from sky. And Widmannstaetter used Elbogen to print his famous Thomson-structures. Happy Sunday! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. Februar 2009 04:37 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All, With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater. But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant - you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a number of other irons. I think the trouble
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Jeff and all: You reminded me of the importance of certain meteorites to the study of asteroids. It was a near infrared spectrum of Orgueil and then Murchison that led to the discovery of water of hydration on C-class asteroids and made a very important connection between the primitive asteroids and carbonaceous meteorites. This work is still going on today thanks to those early spectra, including the Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres. Larry On Sun, February 15, 2009 5:53 am, Jeff Grossman wrote: [retransmit of message that didn't seem to go through] I can speak to the subject of chondrites and what they tell us about the very early solar system. I read the question in the present tense: what ARE the most important meteorites [today]. Among ordinary chondrites, there is one meteorite that is clearly the most important to current research: Semarkona. It is the least metamorphosed ordinary chondrite and best preserves the pre-accretionary record. NASA ADS lists 50 references that mention it in the abstract since the year 2000. If you want to study primitive OCs, you study this one if you can get it. Nothing else is close. Among carbonaceous chondrites, there are several: Acfer 094 has seen almost no thermal metamorphism and almost no aqueous alteration, an extreme rarity among carbonaceous chondrites. It too is a hotly studied meteorite. 50 references since 2000. Murchison is still probably the king of CM chondrites. Although heavily altered by water, none of the CMs have seen much heating, and they still retain a good record of nebular and presolar processes. By virtue of its large recovered mass, and the high content of organic compounds in this group, it is still widely studied 40 years after the fall. 100 refs since 2000. Although the CV chondrite Allende is now known to be fairly altered and somewhat metamorphosed, no meteorite is studied as much, even today, with 350 refs since 2000. It is especially important for what it tells us about CAI formation. Another CV, Vigarano, also sees a lot of research because it is less messed up than Allende (50 refs since 2000) and has a large mass in collections. The fairly massive CI chondrite Orgueil is still the go-to meteorite in this chemically primitive, unmetamorphosed, but greatly altered group, especially for studies of organic compounds: 150 refs since 2000. Other C chondrites like Renazzo, Isheyevo, and especially Tagish Lake (150 refs) are also widely studied. I think Kaidun is also a very important meteorite due to the incredible diversity of clasts it contains, but it is hard for researchers to obtain. Among enstatite chondrites, it's harder to say which are the most important. I guess I'd name Yamato 691 and Qingzhen as the most important primitive ones. They are not widely studied these days. So there are 12 of what I think are the most important chondrites. I probably forgot some too! Jeff __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hi Jason, all - Rocks like Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011, Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun - they do much more individually to further our knowledge of the solar system. - Jason The significance or value of all knowledge lies in its worth to humans. There is no measure other than people: value is the result of valuing, just as price is the result of sale. Thus the meteorite(s) that demonstrated to Europeans that accretion was still occurring is number one (and two). The meteorites that demonstrated that that accretion could be explosive come next. The meteorite that showed that comets accrete with more power than asteroids is next. As Sagan said, we're all bits of star stuff, so the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites which demonstrated that follow. The knowledge of the formation of our solar system has use in our power and energy systems, so some of the primitive chondrites follow. E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
In my naivete, I think this is largely quantifiable--with a few caveats. If the premise is that a meteorite referenced in five different abstracts is more scientifically important than a meteorite referenced in one (and I'm not referring to waypoints), wouldn't it follow that meteorites appearing in the most abstracts are more important? You will find a high correlation between the highest quantity of studies on those meteorites originally proffered by Jason. At the same time, there is the matter of availability of material. For example, 12-15 years ago I recall Allende being the most researched meteorite by far, which is in no small part due to its ready availability. Around the same time I recall several researchers bemoaning their inability to get their hands on Krymka. And then, more subjectively, there is the matter of the one earth- shaking study, say, the determination of life on Marswhich is related to the matter of firsts which shape future thinking. It's a fun exercise Happy Valentine's! d, On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Pete Shugar wrote: I would respectfully add Carancas, for it's rewriting of crater formation theory. Pete IMCA 1733 - Original Message - From: Pat Brown radio_ra...@yahoo.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; ensorama...@ntlworld.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? OK Allende Murchison ALH84001 Tagish Lake Canyon Diablo (for it's Crater) Nakhla Calcalong Creek Orgueil Lost City (camera network data, orbit) Peekskill (videos, orbit data) --- On Fri, 2/13/09, ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:55 PM Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportantmeteorites?
Hi Jason, Even though we're living in a fast world and the modernism of our days may give the impression, that new scientific recoveries are drawn out of the nothing. But science and ideas are always integrated in traditions and contexts and are built on earlier steps. Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the stones may stem from outside. He connected the idea that they come from space with the fireballs, the existing stones and reports about the falls and postulated additionally, that they could survive the atmospheric travel. That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary scientists. After the period of enlightment it was impossible that chunks fall from sky, Newton required empty spaces between the planets or at it best, cause they were Aristotelians, they had to be atmospheric products. (Although Tycho had measured long before the parallaxes of comets, to find out that they move indeed in space). So Chladni's weird theory never would have been accepted, if there wouldn't have happened that proof, the mighty shower of L'Aigle, conveniently close to the Académie de sciences. Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark. Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no Schreibers, no Daubrée...no modern meteoritics. (At least not to the advanced stage we have today). Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much known as Father of meteoritics, but for his Acoustics, he certainly is partially responsible for the gig tootling out from your speakers, while you're writing to the list :-) Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you don't meet the meaning of this milestone, if you look with today's eyes on it. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands Which gives in fact to that class an especially high scientific importance, doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most original information about the origin of our solar system, the processes who lead to the formation of planets and they resemble much more the stuff we are all made from, than any differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather the history and development of his individual parent body. And ready we aren't yet with the chondrites. Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at present? Eleven? Look the recent decade, the discovery of protoplanetary discs around other stars. and so on. Only because they are so readily available to the collectors and despite the antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes Mrs.Caroline Smith. Fletcher, Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay much more than you), they shouldn't be disregarded. Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something like that http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg doesn't it made your mouth water? Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is better than that, which Galilei pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what for an importance it had! Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now, without that use of the lousy lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe Galileo's or Copernicus' role is maybe sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars... Copernicus' system was in practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and antique antecessors - I'm a fan of Tycho, which was much more important for modern astronomy and our view of the world, as he was the first, who trumped the Islamic astronomy. Without the results of his large-scale instruments, no Kepler, no Newton, no Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the pieces in the Chladni Boxes really originated from the red planet...). Of course it's never a continuously direct and mono-causal development... Chance and accident are also factors. Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the importance among the first places, if they hadn't such large tkws or if they had fallen in the oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just ready, when they felt. But in general L'Aigle was the proof. Scientifically important, because with that fall, the concept of meteorites had to be accepted and the branch of this science was born at all. So it's my number one - only in my personal opinion of course. If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but the very new had to be ruled out and most probably we would have to make a ranking of the so far unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where we don't have fully the clues, what exactly it could be. Off now, have to jump into my carriage without horses. (Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable junk... http://kuerzer.de/unimport and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-) Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportantmeteorites? Hola Martin, I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific interest. L'Aigle may
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what for an importance it had! Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now, without that use of the lousy lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe Galileo's or Copernicus' role is maybe sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars... Copernicus' system was in practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and antique antecessors - I'm a fan of Tycho, which was much more important for modern astronomy and our view of the world, as he was the first, who trumped the Islamic astronomy. Without the results of his large-scale instruments, no Kepler, no Newton, no Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the pieces in the Chladni Boxes really originated from the red planet...). Of course it's never a continuously direct and mono-causal development... Chance and accident are also factors. Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the importance among the first places, if they hadn't such large tkws or if they had fallen in the oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just ready, when they felt. But in general L'Aigle was the proof. Scientifically important, because with that fall, the concept of meteorites had to be accepted and the branch of this science was born at all. So it's my number one - only in my personal opinion of course. If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but the very new had to be ruled out and most probably we would have to make a ranking of the so far unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where we don't have fully the clues, what exactly it could be. Off now, have to jump into my carriage without horses. (Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable junk... http://kuerzer.de/unimport and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-) Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportantmeteorites? Hola Martin, I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or Gao - from a purely scientific point of view. One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important, simply because they were found back in the day and led to our recognition of what they really represented...while they may be important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a scientific point of view. Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: I choose L'Aigle as N°1. Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that they are from space. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von ensorama...@ntlworld.com Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites? Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
. (At least not to the advanced stage we have today). Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much known as Father of meteoritics, but for his Acoustics, he certainly is partially responsible for the gig tootling out from your speakers, while you're writing to the list :-) Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you don't meet the meaning of this milestone, if you look with today's eyes on it. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands Which gives in fact to that class an especially high scientific importance, doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most original information about the origin of our solar system, the processes who lead to the formation of planets and they resemble much more the stuff we are all made from, than any differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather the history and development of his individual parent body. And ready we aren't yet with the chondrites. Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at present? Eleven? Look the recent decade, the discovery of protoplanetary discs around other stars. and so on. Only because they are so readily available to the collectors and despite the antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes Mrs.Caroline Smith. Fletcher, Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay much more than you), they shouldn't be disregarded. Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something like that http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg doesn't it made your mouth water? Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is better than that, which Galilei pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what for an importance it had! Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now, without that use of the lousy lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe Galileo's or Copernicus' role is maybe sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars... Copernicus' system was in practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and antique antecessors - I'm a fan of Tycho, which was much more important for modern astronomy and our view of the world, as he was the first, who trumped the Islamic astronomy. Without the results of his large-scale instruments, no Kepler, no Newton, no Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the pieces in the Chladni Boxes really originated from the red planet...). Of course it's never a continuously direct and mono-causal development... Chance and accident are also factors. Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the importance among the first places, if they hadn't such large tkws or if they had fallen in the oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just ready, when they felt. But in general L'Aigle was the proof. Scientifically important, because with that fall, the concept of meteorites had to be accepted and the branch of this science was born at all. So it's my number one - only in my personal opinion of course. If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but the very new had to be ruled out and most probably we would have to make a ranking of the so far unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where we don't have fully the clues, what exactly it could be. Off now, have to jump into my carriage without horses. (Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable junk... http://kuerzer.de/unimport and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-) Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportantmeteorites? Hola Martin, I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or Gao - from a purely scientific point of view. One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important, simply because they were found back in the day and led to our recognition of what they really represented...while they may be important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a scientific point of view. Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: I choose L'Aigle as N°1. Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that they are from space. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von ensorama...@ntlworld.com Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55 An: meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
I would have to agree with where you're coming from Jason. I think you would need to make a number of Top 10 lists for different reasons. Along with the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites you might also have the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science. You could actually argue they are the same thing or you could look at one as a purely data relating one with the other as a more generalised one encompassing everything like Martin's very good argument for including L'Aigle. For me the most scientifically important meteorites would include things like Murchison, Allende, Tagish Lake, Krymka, Zagami and Chassigny? (how do you choose between the Planetaries?), D'Orbigny and the other Angrites, Karoonda, Ibitira and other ungrouped achondrites like NWA 011 and pairings. And then other personal biases like NWA 2892 with it's plastic chondrules throwing chondrule formation/accretion theories into disarray. Basically anything that further enhances our understanding of the processes behind the formation of our solar system. The other list the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science might include the meteorites like L'Aigle, Sikhote, Canyon Diablo, Carancas, any meteorites with their orbits calculated, Ensisheim, the first meteorites to peak Harvey Nininger's interest, etc, etc. It would be a long list. That's just my way of looking at it and I'm sure everyone has their own opinion. Very interesting thread though... gets you thinking! Cheers, Jeff - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly, but they are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for non-scientific reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as a crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand impact dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net wrote: Hi Jason and all, First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such List is inevitably biased. Next, that said list cannot possibly nail a specific 10 meteorites. Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here are 10 Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit full Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least one why Per each: 1) Canyon Diablo: prototypical and stable iron from what was recognized as the only impact crater for a very long time. It Can be added that it was also the original site of the Nininger Museum 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more than Doubled the total weight of known CR material available. It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer stones Striking homes and patios 3) Esquel: The queen of the Pallasites with fantastic color, Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities large enough To allow any collector to have one of the few stable Pallasites. 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that comprise the building blocks of life, perhaps the most studied of any meteorite Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm hypothesis. Again, a witnessed fall and a hammer. 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists, this specimen has A unique physiology. Also a hammer. 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized meteorite in the new world. Also a hammer. 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a forthcoming article on the Status of L'Aigle as a hammer). 8) Ensischeim: The meteorite from hell. (also a hammer if you care to consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This is one of the richest
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Many people have put a lot of thought into this question. I can't promise to provide 10 but I do have a few suggestions Ensischeim must top the list as being the first undisputed from outer space. Canyon Diablo for it's influence in the acceptance that cataclysmic impacts can occur on earth Murchison and Allende arrived, by serendipity, just as the facilities to study them came on line and helped advance the study of meteorites and how it's done tremendously, I believe. ALH81005, being the first confirmed lunar meteorite demonstrated that rocks can make their way to earth from another major body. EETA79001 and ALH77005 the study of which provided the evidence leading to the belief that SNC meteorites came from Mars (Bogard and Johnson 1983). That's only 8 but as far as science goes, I think they're important. As for our understanding of how the solar system formed...well, I'm pretty sure they add something. Other meteorites will be considered to contribute more but at this time, the 30,000+ samples collected must be considered as a whole. The distribution of their types tells us a lot but it must also be remembered that our meteorite record is heavily skewed to recent events and current orbital dynamics. We must consider that the balance of meteorite types may have been different in the past and may also be different in the future. We simply do not know enough to be able to tell exactly how the solar system formed from the samples we have now but we do have enough to hazard an educated guess. Rob McC Then of course, there's ALH84001. Whatever your opinion of this meteorite, its contribution to the drive behind solving the are we alone? question cannot be denied. --- On Sat, 2/14/09, Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au wrote: From: Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? To: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com, Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Saturday, February 14, 2009, 11:57 PM I would have to agree with where you're coming from Jason. I think you would need to make a number of Top 10 lists for different reasons. Along with the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites you might also have the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science. You could actually argue they are the same thing or you could look at one as a purely data relating one with the other as a more generalised one encompassing everything like Martin's very good argument for including L'Aigle. For me the most scientifically important meteorites would include things like Murchison, Allende, Tagish Lake, Krymka, Zagami and Chassigny? (how do you choose between the Planetaries?), D'Orbigny and the other Angrites, Karoonda, Ibitira and other ungrouped achondrites like NWA 011 and pairings. And then other personal biases like NWA 2892 with it's plastic chondrules throwing chondrule formation/accretion theories into disarray. Basically anything that further enhances our understanding of the processes behind the formation of our solar system. The other list the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science might include the meteorites like L'Aigle, Sikhote, Canyon Diablo, Carancas, any meteorites with their orbits calculated, Ensisheim, the first meteorites to peak Harvey Nininger's interest, etc, etc. It would be a long list. That's just my way of looking at it and I'm sure everyone has their own opinion. Very interesting thread though... gets you thinking! Cheers, Jeff - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 mostscientificallyimportant meteorites?
Hello Everyone, This is actually a very good question. Thanks Graham. I have often thought about this. I have deliberately refrained from chiming in until now. Why? Because at the moment I am home alone and have nothing better to do with my time. I would like the meteoriticists on the list to give their opinion. Seems natural, since Graham inquired about the most important meteorites from a scientifice point-of-view. As a meteorite collector and not a meteorite researcher, I have my own opinion but who cares about my opinion? Okay, well maybe one person does so I would list (in no particular order) Murchison, Allende, all the Lunars and Martian s equally, etc. Well, that's not 10, is it? BTW, Carancas would not make my personal list but again, who cares? (That is a rhetoricalquestion, BTW) Getting back to my original point, before this thread dies, I would like to to hear from the Jeff Grossman, Everett Gibson and Allan Treiman's of the list (I really do not like listing names because I invariablly leave some deserving person out). BTW, I saw Everett Gibson on that History Channel documentary about Tunguska a few nights ago. Everett looks like he would be equally adept at the hands of a BBQ as he would an SEM :-) Don't get me wrong - I mean no disrespect to Dr. Gibeon. I happen to love BBQs! And while I am at it. I owe Donald Yoeman's and JPL an apology. A year or two ago I sort of denigrated JPL for it's lack meteorite research. I had forgotten that Dr. Yoeman's (and other's) are at JPL. My belated apologies. Without making this post too long (I know, too late). How about it? What do the scientists think are the most scientifically important meteorites? -Walter Branch __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 mostscientificallyimportant meteorites?
Hi Walter, Jason and all, I am glad this thread has continued with some very interesting nominations, however Jason is right...it is much easier to put together a list of favourite meteorites for 'collectors', but as Walter said, we have often wondered about what specific advances in our understanding of our solar system have come from meteoritics. Hence the question, which I was hoping might bring some specific examples from a few of the scientists studying specific meteoritesor a summary with useful links to relevant papers. Graham Walter Branch waltbra...@bellsouth.net wrote: Hello Everyone, This is actually a very good question. Thanks Graham. I have often thought about this. I have deliberately refrained from chiming in until now. Why? Because at the moment I am home alone and have nothing better to do with my time. I would like the meteoriticists on the list to give their opinion. Seems natural, since Graham inquired about the most important meteorites from a scientifice point-of-view. As a meteorite collector and not a meteorite researcher, I have my own opinion but who cares about my opinion? Okay, well maybe one person does so I would list (in no particular order) Murchison, Allende, all the Lunars and Martian s equally, etc. Well, that's not 10, is it? BTW, Carancas would not make my personal list but again, who cares? (That is a rhetoricalquestion, BTW) Getting back to my original point, before this thread dies, I would like to to hear from the Jeff Grossman, Everett Gibson and Allan Treiman's of the list (I really do not like listing names because I invariablly leave some deserving person out). BTW, I saw Everett Gibson on that History Channel documentary about Tunguska a few nights ago. Everett looks like he would be equally adept at the hands of a BBQ as he would an SEM :-) Don't get me wrong - I mean no disrespect to Dr. Gibeon. I happen to love BBQs! And while I am at it. I owe Donald Yoeman's and JPL an apology. A year or two ago I sort of denigrated JPL for it's lack meteorite research. I had forgotten that Dr. Yoeman's (and other's) are at JPL. My belated apologies. Without making this post too long (I know, too late). How about it? What do the scientists think are the most scientifically important meteorites? -Walter Branch __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites?
G'Day List This has been a really great topic. Thanks Graham. But without going into the top 10, I think personally that Murchison tops my list scientifically. Not to argue with anybody else's opinion, I just find this substantially unique with the research that has been done on it. And to me, stands alone. Cheers John - Original Message - From: ensorama...@ntlworld.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 3:55 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites? Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4 did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed) was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway... The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because you are on the modern side of the conceptual divide. Until the understanding of impact, solar system formation models were divided between accretion and coalescence. Very few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand with impact theory. If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was -- then it might well be the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly, but they are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for non-scientific reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as a crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand impact dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net wrote: Hi Jason and all, First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such List is inevitably biased
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
An adept postulate most erudite in its expression. I could not have put it better myself. Rob McC (I'm assuming that anyone not needing a dictionary for the above will realise I'm not being sarcastic) --- On Sun, 2/15/09, Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? To: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com, Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 3:03 AM Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4 did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed) was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway... The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because you are on the modern side of the conceptual divide. Until the understanding of impact, solar system formation models were divided between accretion and coalescence. Very few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand with impact theory. If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was -- then it might well be the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed) was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway... The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because you are on the modern side of the conceptual divide. Until the understanding of impact, solar system formation models were divided between accretion and coalescence. Very few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand with impact theory. If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was -- then it might well be the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly, but they are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for non-scientific reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as a crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand impact dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net wrote: Hi Jason and all, First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such List is inevitably biased. Next, that said list cannot possibly nail a specific 10 meteorites. Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here are 10 Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit full Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least one why Per each: 1) Canyon Diablo: prototypical and stable iron from what was recognized as the only impact crater for a very long time. It Can be added that it was also the original site of the Nininger Museum 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more than Doubled the total weight of known CR material available. It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer stones Striking homes and patios 3) Esquel: The queen of the Pallasites with fantastic color, Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities large enough To allow any collector to have one of the few stable Pallasites. 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that comprise the building blocks of life, perhaps the most studied of any meteorite Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm hypothesis. Again, a witnessed fall and a hammer. 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists, this specimen has A unique physiology. Also a hammer. 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized meteorite in the new world. Also a hammer. 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a forthcoming article on the Status of L'Aigle as a hammer). 8) Ensischeim: The meteorite from hell. (also a hammer if you care to consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This is one of the richest events ever in the lore of meteorites. 9) Sikhote-Aline: producing thousands of what are pretty much agreed to be the world's most visually impressive iron individuals. Also a rare Iron witnessed fall. 10) Sylacauga: the only fully documented human striking meteorite
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 mostscientifically importantmeteorites?
The question was: What are the top 10 most SCIENTIFICALLY important meteorites?. If it were stated that the complete understanding of the mechanisms that led to the formation of a particular meteorite might possibly: ...CHANGE our view of the geologic histories of the asteroids in which SEVERAL types of meteorites formed and/or, if a noted meteorite researcher and author wrote: ..in regard to the EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY of meteorites, this meteorite IS important might that meteorite be considered to be one of the most scientifically important meteorites? Just curious. Robert Woolard __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 mostscientifically importantmeteorites?
All: I#39;m not a scientist but here goes. 1. ALH84001 2. Orgueil 3. Allende 4. Murchison 5. ALHA 81005 6. Tagish Lake 7. Abee 8. D#39;Orbigny 9. Canyon Diablo 10. Esquel Greg Stanley Robert Woolard wrote: The question was: What are the top 10 most SCIENTIFICALLY important meteorites?. If it were stated that the complete understanding of the mechanisms that led to the formation of a particular meteorite might possibly: ...CHANGE our view of the geologic histories of the asteroids in which SEVERAL types of meteorites formed and/or, if a noted meteorite researcher and author wrote: ..in regard to the EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY of meteorites, this meteorite IS important might that meteorite be considered to be one of the most scientifically important meteorites? Just curious. Robert Woolard __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hello Graham, The list would probably include primitive stones such as Ivuna, Orgueil, Murchison, Tagish Lake, and Allende, as well as ordinary chondrites like Semarkona, etc. - and don't forget Krymka. They all contain information about the earliest days of the solar system - they're some of the oldest rocks we have. Other meteorites of particular scientific interest include older achondrites such as Shallowater aubrite, angrites, etc. They teach us about the earliest changes that began to occur in primitive bodies billions of years ago. And while some name angrites to be from Mercury, there is no confirmation of this hypothesis - the evidence to date is purely circumstantial, and points to their having come from a km+ sized body in the terrestrial planted O-isotope range...nothing more. See Melinda Hutson's aricle in the May 2008 Meteorite Magazine. With regards to planetary specimens, EETA79001 (the first recognized martian meteorite), ALHA 78001 (life?), and ALHA81005 (first recognized lunar meteorite). You could probably include Shergotty, Chassigny, and Nakhla, simply because they were the type specimens of those. They've taught us much about Mars and the Moon - don't think I need to elaborate that much. If you wanted to stretch it to other meteorites, I would include ungrouped stones because, individually speaking, they are more important than more common stones. Things like ungrouped chondrites and achondrites offer us views of unique parent bodies...it's hard to get more important than that. You might throw some unique irons or stony irons in with that lot - the trouble is that irons seem to be too ill-understood, even in today's day and age. But, a list of 10...I wouldn't ask for such a short list... Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM, ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites?
I choose L'Aigle as N°1. Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that they are from space. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von ensorama...@ntlworld.com Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites? Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites?
Hola Martin, I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or Gao - from a purely scientific point of view. One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important, simply because they were found back in the day and led to our recognition of what they really represented...while they may be important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a scientific point of view. Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: I choose L'Aigle as N°1. Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that they are from space. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von ensorama...@ntlworld.com Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites? Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites?
a couple come immediately to mind as contenders: Murchison for it's load of carbon-based compounds, Calcalong Creek that got people looking for planetary meteorites, the types of the various carbonaceous chondrites and the achondrites might be considered but we're well over ten at this point. a few suggestions anyway. Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com 02/13/09 8:21 PM Hola Martin, I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or Gao - from a purely scientific point of view. One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important, simply because they were found back in the day and led to our recognition of what they really represented...while they may be important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a scientific point of view. Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: I choose L'Aigle as N°1. Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that they are from space. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von ensorama...@ntlworld.com Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites? Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportantmeteorites?
Very much agree, Martin. The Darwinian/Coperincan moment...the tipping point that opened the door to the entire field, indeed (in spite of Chladni's incredible work, which should have been enough). Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jason Utas Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:21 PM To: Meteorite-list Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportantmeteorites? Hola Martin, I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or Gao - from a purely scientific point of view. One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important, simply because they were found back in the day and led to our recognition of what they really represented...while they may be important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a scientific point of view. Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: I choose L'Aigle as N°1. Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that they are from space. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von ensorama...@ntlworld.com Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites? Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:46:43 -0800, you wrote: martian meteorite), ALHA 78001 (life?), and ALHA81005 (first You mean 84001. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
OK Allende Murchison ALH84001 Tagish Lake Canyon Diablo (for it's Crater) Nakhla Calcalong Creek Orgueil Lost City (camera network data, orbit) Peekskill (videos, orbit data) --- On Fri, 2/13/09, ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:55 PM Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 mostscientificallyimportantmeteorites?
Hello All, The question was, What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?. While great respect and recognition should be awarded to Chladni for his work resulting in proving rocks were from space and resulting in 'meteoritics', the initial question what the top 10 scientifically important meteorites are (or people's beliefs are). I side with Jason in the fact that one historic meteorite, or one type, does not constitute understanding, or advanced knowledge of our solar system or meteoritics than does representative meteorites from all groups of classifications.The abundance of meteorite types from the Sahara has provided so much more scientific understanding of our solar system than many people give credit to. To name a few names as top 10 is impossible since there are dozens of specific, officially recognized meteorites that qualify under the initial question of this thread to be, scientifically important. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) gmh...@htn.net www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Dave Gheesling d...@fallingrocks.com To: 'Jason Utas' meteorite...@gmail.com; 'Meteorite-list' meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 mostscientificallyimportantmeteorites? Very much agree, Martin. The Darwinian/Coperincan moment...the tipping point that opened the door to the entire field, indeed (in spite of Chladni's incredible work, which should have been enough). Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jason Utas Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:21 PM To: Meteorite-list Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportantmeteorites? Hola Martin, I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or Gao - from a purely scientific point of view. One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important, simply because they were found back in the day and led to our recognition of what they really represented...while they may be important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a scientific point of view. Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: I choose L'Aigle as N°1. Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that they are from space. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von ensorama...@ntlworld.com Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically importantmeteorites? Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
I would respectfully add Carancas, for it's rewriting of crater formation theory. Pete IMCA 1733 - Original Message - From: Pat Brown radio_ra...@yahoo.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; ensorama...@ntlworld.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? OK Allende Murchison ALH84001 Tagish Lake Canyon Diablo (for it's Crater) Nakhla Calcalong Creek Orgueil Lost City (camera network data, orbit) Peekskill (videos, orbit data) --- On Fri, 2/13/09, ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:55 PM Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 mostscientificallyimportantmeteorites?
All, How about Portales Valley? To quote a few lines from my article a few years back: Statements from the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference XXX, 1999 include: there is something extraordinary about PV ... The same conference issued the opinion that: much more research (on PV) is needed. The work is important as it may completely change our view of the geologic histories of the asteroids in which several types of meteorites formed4. And Derek Sears writes that (in regard to the understanding the evolutionary history of meteorites) the PV meteorite is important6. Best wishes, Robert Woolard __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What is so nice about meteorites
Hello Everyone, You know what is so nice about meteorites? It's sort of ironic. I have enjoyed amateur astronomy for over 35 years and I have always felt humbled when I think of the distance light has traveled uninterrupted to reach my eyes. But some nights it is too cloudy to observe the stars. And some nights (like tonight) it is just too cold to observe the stars. And some nights my back won't let me lift that 65 lb scope out the door to observe the stars. But on these nights, I can start a fire in the fireplace, make a nice cup of hot chocolate, pull out some of my favorite specimens and a book or two, turn the lights down low and settle down with just peace and quite amidst the flicker of the fire... ...and I can still observe the stars. Goodnight everyone. Pleasant dreams. -Walter Branch My thoughts tonight are for a certain list member, a friend, who has suffered a terrible loss recently. Count your own stars while you can. Even stars don't last forever. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is so nice about meteorites
Excellent post, Walter -- excellent. And I am very sorry to hear about your friend... Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Walter Branch Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:41 PM To: Meteorite Mailing List Subject: [meteorite-list] What is so nice about meteorites Hello Everyone, You know what is so nice about meteorites? It's sort of ironic. I have enjoyed amateur astronomy for over 35 years and I have always felt humbled when I think of the distance light has traveled uninterrupted to reach my eyes. But some nights it is too cloudy to observe the stars. And some nights (like tonight) it is just too cold to observe the stars. And some nights my back won't let me lift that 65 lb scope out the door to observe the stars. But on these nights, I can start a fire in the fireplace, make a nice cup of hot chocolate, pull out some of my favorite specimens and a book or two, turn the lights down low and settle down with just peace and quite amidst the flicker of the fire... ...and I can still observe the stars. Goodnight everyone. Pleasant dreams. -Walter Branch My thoughts tonight are for a certain list member, a friend, who has suffered a terrible loss recently. Count your own stars while you can. Even stars don't last forever. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What is so nice about meteorites
Hi Walter, What a nice post. Somehow I needed that tonight. I think I'll go get that cup of hot chocolate, grab 1 or 2 of my favorite rocks, find a good book and settle in Greg Lindh - Original Message - From: Walter Branch waltbra...@bellsouth.net To: Meteorite Mailing List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 6:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] What is so nice about meteorites Hello Everyone, You know what is so nice about meteorites? It's sort of ironic. I have enjoyed amateur astronomy for over 35 years and I have always felt humbled when I think of the distance light has traveled uninterrupted to reach my eyes. But some nights it is too cloudy to observe the stars. And some nights (like tonight) it is just too cold to observe the stars. And some nights my back won't let me lift that 65 lb scope out the door to observe the stars. But on these nights, I can start a fire in the fireplace, make a nice cup of hot chocolate, pull out some of my favorite specimens and a book or two, turn the lights down low and settle down with just peace and quite amidst the flicker of the fire... ...and I can still observe the stars. Goodnight everyone. Pleasant dreams. -Walter Branch My thoughts tonight are for a certain list member, a friend, who has suffered a terrible loss recently. Count your own stars while you can. Even stars don't last forever. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Robert and all Hammer Heads, In retrospect, I didn't address everything in your last email. I just checked the website where that information you mentioned was listed, and I have no idea what that dealer's source was the history of his pieces. As he states there, he did not buy his pieces directly from our auction, but rather traded for them second hand. There is NO reason whatsoever to doubt that what Dr. King listed in his own private records is the truth. And I am certain that the correct information was passed on from me to all the potential bidders during the auction at that time. You should probably ask him directly what his source was for that information, but my hunch is that somewhere along the way, the exact facts were lost in translation when passed on to him. Oh, and if anyone can go to Alabama and look at the Hodges's Stone, bring a magnet. If the core was filled, and camouflaged well, a magnet should detect where a plaster or rubber filler might have been used. There is a slight chance it wasn't filled with anything, and the hole is still there. In any case, I will go on record and strongly disagree with the comments made that the King specimen came from the Smithsonian's sample. If that had been the case, Dr. King would have been listed the Smithsonian as the source and not the Alabama Museum of Natural History, which was, and still is, the repository of the Hodges's Stone. I guess for everyone that bought their Sylacaga in the past thinking it wasn't an actual hammer stone specimen: Surprise, and congratulations! For those of you that were thinking about buying some, but had not yet, I am sorry, as my guess is, the value of whatever is on the market has just appreciated in value in the last couple of hours. Happy New Year! Steve Arnold #1 Arkansas In a message dated 1/3/2009 10:11:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, meteoritefin...@yahoo.com writes: Steve and List, Steve, are you absolutely sure the core came from THE Hodges's stone( the one that struck her) and NOT the McKinney stone??? I have not actually seen the Hodge's stone in person, and maybe you have, so you MAY be right. But ... if I may quote a few words from one of our illustrious members' ( who I hope doesn't mind me using them, and that he will join in the discussion, too ) website that state: There were two stones - the one that hit the human and one other. The one that hit the human is the centerpiece in a local museum. No one has ever had access to it. However,the second stone is in the Smithsonion and though the remainder has never been available to the public, it did have one core drilled in it. This core ended up in the collection of Dr. King. After his death his widow allowed it to be cut into about 10 whafer slices all of which all ended up as primary specimens in private collections. So have you seen THE Hodges' stone in person and saw that there actually IS a hole drilled into THAT very one Thanks, Robert Woolard **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Steve, Robert, Dave, Walter, Mike, John et al, Several comments: (I would have responded earlier, but I was watching The Chargers KICK ASS!) 1) Any information listed on my hammer page http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/Hammers.html Regarding Sylacauga is more accurately expressed by (THE REAL) Steve Arnold. I stand corrected by him on All accounts regarding this specific hammer. 2) Walter Branch's original page can be seen at: http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html His reference to HAMs he states, is a reference to humans, animals man made objects and is unrelated To my coining the term, Hammer in reference to any Fall that resulted in a stone striking one of the above. 3) Dave Geesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth (much like The gobledgook vomited by the religious that state that AIDS is a punishment by God for the sin of homosexuality. I read this book 10 or more years before I got into meteorites But my use of the term hammer was, in fact, inspired To a degree from this book. However, I thought long and hard About the term I wanted to use before deciding to use hammer. Since I was collecting them and determined to offer the largest Selection available of them, I felt a name was definitely called For and hammer it was. 4) When one coins a term, that person sets the parameters Of definition. Inevitably these parameters will change or Be refined over time. My use of the term Hammer was In reference to a meteorite that nailed something - specifically Human, animal or human made, just as was made reference to In Walter's work. Personally, I EXCLUDE roads and cultivars (varieties of hybridized fruit trees), though there are others who collect hammers that include them. 5) The entire fall is a Hammer fall and a specific individual that hit A specific object, animal or person is a Hammer stone (very, very Few irons)(the use of hammer stone was introduced by Adam Hupe. Though I originally debated his usage, conversations with him brought Me over to his side on this issue). Of course, one would always prefer THE hammer stone Of a fall or one of several For instance, I have 9 different Park Forest Hammers that include several houses, a car, a tow truck, A fire station, a baseball grandstand, fence, etc. However, in many cases The one or few hammer stones is not available (the guy in the boat Threw all that landed in his boat into the river, as they were clearly evil- Chiang-Khan) or the tiny Mbale stone that struck a boy I Have a photo of him holding it but no amount of research has resulted In finding ANYONE who can even say they have any idea of what Happened to that particular stone. As for Allende, Pultusk, Holbrook, etc, there is written documentation describing houses and patios, a train station being struck - I am working on a book that will cite a good deal of written records attesting to such events - the topic is far too extensive to include here. 6) I am amazed at the egocentric attitude of people who look down on others Who are into something that holds no interest for them. It would be like Me stating all NWA material is insignificant, regardless of rarity of type Because it is nearly all undocumented as to both date of impact and in The vast majority of cases, not reliably recorded as to specific location of find. While these statements may (or may not) have credibility, my personal Value system being applied is, relatively speaking, irrelevant. 7) Mike Gilmer asked why some falls were hardly ever referred to as hammers though they fit the description: Holbrook, Allende, etc. Yes, Mike, in those cases the fall, itself was so extensive and significant in Other ways that, though they included in any reasonable hammer collection, That is not their only claim to fame. 8) What percentage of meteorite collectors specifically collect hammers? This would be an excellent polling question for the list. If people want to Email me off list, I will count up the responses and report to the list. I believe the list currently has about 900 members (it is impossible to know Because a significant number of people use more than one email address To receive posts). Regardless, we could get some idea. From conversations I have had with collectors, my GUESS would be about 10 percent of all Collectors go out of their way to collect hammers (usually as ONE of their Interests in meteorites). However, a pole would be far more revealing, as Hammer collectors tend to contact me at a much higher rate than other Dealers, I am sure. When I opened my Hammer Page
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Michael wrote: Dave Gheesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth Actually, it was sort of an intentional, or perhaps Freudian, misnomer, ficticiously coming from Johnny Carson (well known for intentional Freudian slips). Interviewing the ficticious astronomer, Tim Hamner, Carson said, Tim, it's your comet. Could HAMMER-Brown actually hit us? Hamner responds, That's HAMNER-Brown. Carson laughs, Oh, what did I say? Hammer? It would be a hammer if it hit, wouldn't it? Fun read, by the way, and the initial conditions are remarkably similar to a real H-B comet that would arrive two decades later... Make it a great Sunday, everybody, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael L Blood Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:39 AM To: Steve Arnold dealer/Qynne; meteoritefin...@yahoo.com Cc: Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? Steve, Robert, Dave, Walter, Mike, John et al, Several comments: (I would have responded earlier, but I was watching The Chargers KICK ASS!) 1) Any information listed on my hammer page http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/Hammers.html Regarding Sylacauga is more accurately expressed by (THE REAL) Steve Arnold. I stand corrected by him on All accounts regarding this specific hammer. 2) Walter Branch's original page can be seen at: http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html His reference to HAMs he states, is a reference to humans, animals man made objects and is unrelated To my coining the term, Hammer in reference to any Fall that resulted in a stone striking one of the above. 3) Dave Geesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth (much like The gobledgook vomited by the religious that state that AIDS is a punishment by God for the sin of homosexuality. I read this book 10 or more years before I got into meteorites But my use of the term hammer was, in fact, inspired To a degree from this book. However, I thought long and hard About the term I wanted to use before deciding to use hammer. Since I was collecting them and determined to offer the largest Selection available of them, I felt a name was definitely called For and hammer it was. 4) When one coins a term, that person sets the parameters Of definition. Inevitably these parameters will change or Be refined over time. My use of the term Hammer was In reference to a meteorite that nailed something - specifically Human, animal or human made, just as was made reference to In Walter's work. Personally, I EXCLUDE roads and cultivars (varieties of hybridized fruit trees), though there are others who collect hammers that include them. 5) The entire fall is a Hammer fall and a specific individual that hit A specific object, animal or person is a Hammer stone (very, very Few irons)(the use of hammer stone was introduced by Adam Hupe. Though I originally debated his usage, conversations with him brought Me over to his side on this issue). Of course, one would always prefer THE hammer stone Of a fall or one of several For instance, I have 9 different Park Forest Hammers that include several houses, a car, a tow truck, A fire station, a baseball grandstand, fence, etc. However, in many cases The one or few hammer stones is not available (the guy in the boat Threw all that landed in his boat into the river, as they were clearly evil- Chiang-Khan) or the tiny Mbale stone that struck a boy I Have a photo of him holding it but no amount of research has resulted In finding ANYONE who can even say they have any idea of what Happened to that particular stone. As for Allende, Pultusk, Holbrook, etc, there is written documentation describing houses and patios, a train station being struck - I am working on a book that will cite a good deal of written records attesting to such events - the topic is far too extensive to include here. 6) I am amazed at the egocentric attitude of people who look down on others Who are into something that holds no interest for them. It would be like Me stating all NWA material is insignificant, regardless of rarity of type Because it is nearly all undocumented as to both date
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Dave: Johnny Carson also is responsible for one other famous phrase: billions and billions not Carl Sagan. Larry On Sun, January 4, 2009 9:29 am, Dave Gheesling wrote: Michael wrote: Dave Gheesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth Actually, it was sort of an intentional, or perhaps Freudian, misnomer, ficticiously coming from Johnny Carson (well known for intentional Freudian slips). Interviewing the ficticious astronomer, Tim Hamner, Carson said, Tim, it's your comet. Could HAMMER-Brown actually hit us? Hamner responds, That's HAMNER-Brown. Carson laughs, Oh, what did I say? Hammer? It would be a hammer if it hit, wouldn't it? Fun read, by the way, and the initial conditions are remarkably similar to a real H-B comet that would arrive two decades later... Make it a great Sunday, everybody, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael L Blood Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:39 AM To: Steve Arnold dealer/Qynne; meteoritefin...@yahoo.com Cc: Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? Steve, Robert, Dave, Walter, Mike, John et al, Several comments: (I would have responded earlier, but I was watching The Chargers KICK ASS!) 1) Any information listed on my hammer page http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/Hammers.html Regarding Sylacauga is more accurately expressed by (THE REAL) Steve Arnold. I stand corrected by him on All accounts regarding this specific hammer. 2) Walter Branch's original page can be seen at: http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html His reference to HAMs he states, is a reference to humans, animals man made objects and is unrelated To my coining the term, Hammer in reference to any Fall that resulted in a stone striking one of the above. 3) Dave Geesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth (much like The gobledgook vomited by the religious that state that AIDS is a punishment by God for the sin of homosexuality. I read this book 10 or more years before I got into meteorites But my use of the term hammer was, in fact, inspired To a degree from this book. However, I thought long and hard About the term I wanted to use before deciding to use hammer. Since I was collecting them and determined to offer the largest Selection available of them, I felt a name was definitely called For and hammer it was. 4) When one coins a term, that person sets the parameters Of definition. Inevitably these parameters will change or Be refined over time. My use of the term Hammer was In reference to a meteorite that nailed something - specifically Human, animal or human made, just as was made reference to In Walter's work. Personally, I EXCLUDE roads and cultivars (varieties of hybridized fruit trees), though there are others who collect hammers that include them. 5) The entire fall is a Hammer fall and a specific individual that hit A specific object, animal or person is a Hammer stone (very, very Few irons)(the use of hammer stone was introduced by Adam Hupe. Though I originally debated his usage, conversations with him brought Me over to his side on this issue). Of course, one would always prefer THE hammer stone Of a fall or one of several For instance, I have 9 different Park Forest Hammers that include several houses, a car, a tow truck, A fire station, a baseball grandstand, fence, etc. However, in many cases The one or few hammer stones is not available (the guy in the boat Threw all that landed in his boat into the river, as they were clearly evil- Chiang-Khan) or the tiny Mbale stone that struck a boy I Have a photo of him holding it but no amount of research has resulted In finding ANYONE who can even say they have any idea of what Happened to that particular stone. As for Allende, Pultusk, Holbrook, etc, there is written documentation describing houses and patios, a train station being struck - I am working on a book that will cite a good deal of written records attesting to such events - the topic is far too extensive to include here. 6) I am amazed at the egocentric
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Hi Dave, I am sure you are right. It has been like 30 years since I read the Book - EXCELLENT read - and that was before I was into meteorites, So, it held all kinds of fanciful stuff. I am sure major parts of the movies DEAP IMPACT and The one about the old grogers blowing up the Asteroid headed for earth were both influenced by this book. My favorite, of course, was the guy surfing the tidal wave Through downtown LA, dodging buildings as one must dodge Pier footings. Best wishes, Michael on 1/4/09 8:29 AM, Dave Gheesling at d...@fallingrocks.com wrote: Michael wrote: Dave Gheesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth Actually, it was sort of an intentional, or perhaps Freudian, misnomer, ficticiously coming from Johnny Carson (well known for intentional Freudian slips). Interviewing the ficticious astronomer, Tim Hamner, Carson said, Tim, it's your comet. Could HAMMER-Brown actually hit us? Hamner responds, That's HAMNER-Brown. Carson laughs, Oh, what did I say? Hammer? It would be a hammer if it hit, wouldn't it? Fun read, by the way, and the initial conditions are remarkably similar to a real H-B comet that would arrive two decades later... Make it a great Sunday, everybody, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael L Blood Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:39 AM To: Steve Arnold dealer/Qynne; meteoritefin...@yahoo.com Cc: Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? Steve, Robert, Dave, Walter, Mike, John et al, Several comments: (I would have responded earlier, but I was watching The Chargers KICK ASS!) 1) Any information listed on my hammer page http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/Hammers.html Regarding Sylacauga is more accurately expressed by (THE REAL) Steve Arnold. I stand corrected by him on All accounts regarding this specific hammer. 2) Walter Branch's original page can be seen at: http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html His reference to HAMs he states, is a reference to humans, animals man made objects and is unrelated To my coining the term, Hammer in reference to any Fall that resulted in a stone striking one of the above. 3) Dave Geesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth (much like The gobledgook vomited by the religious that state that AIDS is a punishment by God for the sin of homosexuality. I read this book 10 or more years before I got into meteorites But my use of the term hammer was, in fact, inspired To a degree from this book. However, I thought long and hard About the term I wanted to use before deciding to use hammer. Since I was collecting them and determined to offer the largest Selection available of them, I felt a name was definitely called For and hammer it was. 4) When one coins a term, that person sets the parameters Of definition. Inevitably these parameters will change or Be refined over time. My use of the term Hammer was In reference to a meteorite that nailed something - specifically Human, animal or human made, just as was made reference to In Walter's work. Personally, I EXCLUDE roads and cultivars (varieties of hybridized fruit trees), though there are others who collect hammers that include them. 5) The entire fall is a Hammer fall and a specific individual that hit A specific object, animal or person is a Hammer stone (very, very Few irons)(the use of hammer stone was introduced by Adam Hupe. Though I originally debated his usage, conversations with him brought Me over to his side on this issue). Of course, one would always prefer THE hammer stone Of a fall or one of several For instance, I have 9 different Park Forest Hammers that include several houses, a car, a tow truck, A fire station, a baseball grandstand, fence, etc. However, in many cases The one or few hammer stones is not available (the guy in the boat Threw all that landed in his boat into the river, as they were clearly evil- Chiang-Khan) or the tiny Mbale stone that struck a boy I Have a photo of him holding it but no amount of research has
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
on 1/4/09 9:35 AM, lebof...@lpl.arizona.edu at lebof...@lpl.arizona.edu wrote: Dave: Johnny Carson also is responsible for one other famous phrase: billions and billions not Carl Sagan. Larry Hi Larry, But Johnny was making fun of Carl Sagan when he did that. Michael On Sun, January 4, 2009 9:29 am, Dave Gheesling wrote: Michael wrote: Dave Gheesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth Actually, it was sort of an intentional, or perhaps Freudian, misnomer, ficticiously coming from Johnny Carson (well known for intentional Freudian slips). Interviewing the ficticious astronomer, Tim Hamner, Carson said, Tim, it's your comet. Could HAMMER-Brown actually hit us? Hamner responds, That's HAMNER-Brown. Carson laughs, Oh, what did I say? Hammer? It would be a hammer if it hit, wouldn't it? Fun read, by the way, and the initial conditions are remarkably similar to a real H-B comet that would arrive two decades later... Make it a great Sunday, everybody, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael L Blood Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:39 AM To: Steve Arnold dealer/Qynne; meteoritefin...@yahoo.com Cc: Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? Steve, Robert, Dave, Walter, Mike, John et al, Several comments: (I would have responded earlier, but I was watching The Chargers KICK ASS!) 1) Any information listed on my hammer page http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/Hammers.html Regarding Sylacauga is more accurately expressed by (THE REAL) Steve Arnold. I stand corrected by him on All accounts regarding this specific hammer. 2) Walter Branch's original page can be seen at: http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html His reference to HAMs he states, is a reference to humans, animals man made objects and is unrelated To my coining the term, Hammer in reference to any Fall that resulted in a stone striking one of the above. 3) Dave Geesling was essentially correct in stating that The word, HAMMER first appeared in a book by Niven and Pournelle, entitled, LUCIFER'S HAMMER, Fawcett Crest, 1977. (Ironically, in the book, this term is a misnomer, as the Astronomer who first views the object and predicts a Huge earth impact was named Hamner, and it was a religious figure that stated that Lucifer's Hammer Was going to punish the people of the earth (much like The gobledgook vomited by the religious that state that AIDS is a punishment by God for the sin of homosexuality. I read this book 10 or more years before I got into meteorites But my use of the term hammer was, in fact, inspired To a degree from this book. However, I thought long and hard About the term I wanted to use before deciding to use hammer. Since I was collecting them and determined to offer the largest Selection available of them, I felt a name was definitely called For and hammer it was. 4) When one coins a term, that person sets the parameters Of definition. Inevitably these parameters will change or Be refined over time. My use of the term Hammer was In reference to a meteorite that nailed something - specifically Human, animal or human made, just as was made reference to In Walter's work. Personally, I EXCLUDE roads and cultivars (varieties of hybridized fruit trees), though there are others who collect hammers that include them. 5) The entire fall is a Hammer fall and a specific individual that hit A specific object, animal or person is a Hammer stone (very, very Few irons)(the use of hammer stone was introduced by Adam Hupe. Though I originally debated his usage, conversations with him brought Me over to his side on this issue). Of course, one would always prefer THE hammer stone Of a fall or one of several For instance, I have 9 different Park Forest Hammers that include several houses, a car, a tow truck, A fire station, a baseball grandstand, fence, etc. However, in many cases The one or few hammer stones is not available (the guy in the boat Threw all that landed in his boat into the river, as they were clearly evil- Chiang-Khan) or the tiny Mbale stone that struck a boy I Have a photo of him holding it but no amount of research has resulted In finding ANYONE who can even say they have any idea of what Happened to that particular stone. As for Allende, Pultusk, Holbrook, etc, there is written documentation describing houses and patios, a train station being
[meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Hi Listees, I have a quick question for the group - why are some falls not referred to as hammers ? For example, Allende and Holbrook are rarely referred to as hammers, but there are reports that both hit rooftops and other manmade structures. Both falls are generally referred to as historical but rarely as hammers. Is there a reason? Is it because the historical element outweighs the hammer element in these cases? Claxton is well known as a hammer, but historically-speaking it's otherwise unremarkable. Is this simply semantics at play, or is there some kind of formula at work? Regards and clear skies, MikeG PS - Michael Blood, please email me offlist. . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:32:06 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Is this simply semantics at play Yes. The concern with hammers is a small subset of what is already a small community of collectors. The only true measure of wherther something is a hammer is the level of legitness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdk1gwWH-Cg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Darren, Michael All, Semantics are absolutely at play -- and this is a roughly defined element of meteorite collecting at best -- but I'd beg to differ with them being of concern to a small subset of what is already a small community of collectors. Hammers (I think Blood may have introduced this term to the meteorite world, though Johnny Carson ficticiously used it well prior to that in Niven and Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer to describe a forthcoming comet strike upon the Earth...p. 78, paperback) are a huge element of the international collector base, and one need only take a casual glance at market prices to see this is true. I'm not a hammer collector by any means, but I've seen repeatedly in educational outreach work that there is a broader based appeal for such stories. They connect with virtually everyone, though amino acids in Murchison, while much more interesting to most of us here, do not. Further, our brains can't easily comprehend an entry velocity of 20 mps, but a car struck by a rock from space that was still travelling 200 - 300 mph -- well, everyone gets that. The term hammer has been overused virtually to the point of ridiculous (what makes them truly interesting -- the main mass hitting the only mailbox ever, or a small individual striking a piece of railing on a mile-long fence?). For the term to survive, my sense is that there should be some dilineation between a Hammer Stone and a Hammer Fall. Sylacauga is a wonderful story, but the material available to collectors didn't hit Mrs. Hodges on the hip. Associating all fallen individuals as hammers in conjunction with a single or few individuals out of 150 kg worth that actually hit something is also a bit of a stretch. Lastly, to my earlier point re: market pricing, the argument that not all of them are priced similarly is for the most part (though certainly not entirely) washed away by a look at respective TKWs. Two cents worth... All best, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darren Garrison Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:40 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:32:06 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Is this simply semantics at play Yes. The concern with hammers is a small subset of what is already a small community of collectors. The only true measure of wherther something is a hammer is the level of legitness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdk1gwWH-Cg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Hi Michael, There's another way to look at it too. The two falls you mentioned were massive and there were thousands of individual stones. In my opinion it's only a hammer if the individual stone actually hit something. For example you can't really say that the whole Allende fall was a hammer if only a couple of stones hit things. I guess it comes down to provenance too. Many of the good dealer/hunters these days get proof of where particular stones hit when chasing a fresh fall. In my opinion Thuathe was one of the best cataloged falls with MANY individual stones precisely recorded by both researchers and hunters alike. Cheers, Jeff - Original Message - From: Michael Gilmer michael_w_gil...@yahoo.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:32 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? Hi Listees, I have a quick question for the group - why are some falls not referred to as hammers ? For example, Allende and Holbrook are rarely referred to as hammers, but there are reports that both hit rooftops and other manmade structures. Both falls are generally referred to as historical but rarely as hammers. Is there a reason? Is it because the historical element outweighs the hammer element in these cases? Claxton is well known as a hammer, but historically-speaking it's otherwise unremarkable. Is this simply semantics at play, or is there some kind of formula at work? Regards and clear skies, MikeG PS - Michael Blood, please email me offlist. . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
In a message dated 1/3/2009 7:56:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, d...@fallingrocks.com writes: Sylacauga is a wonderful story, but the material available to collectors didn't hit Mrs. Hodges on the hip. Dave, In 1999 I brokered a couple of pieces of Sylacaga from the King Collection that did indeed come from the stone that hit Mrs. Hodges. It came from a core sample taken from that very stone. Somehow Dr. King talked them (the local library or museum) into taking a small core sample from it, maybe he traded them some Allende for it. I think most of what is on the market of Sylacaga came from the King piece, but check the provenance. If the slices are round, or partially round on one edge, it is probably from that core piece. Steve Arnold #1 **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:53:24 -0500, you wrote: but I'd beg to differ with them being of concern to a small subset of what is already a small community of collectors. With no solid numbers whatsoever to back me up, I'd bet that there were far more people actively collecting and concerned about tag variants on Beeny Babies at their height than have ever even HEARD of a hammer meteorite. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
12 inches of hickory, 5 ounces of steel. Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) John - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison cyna...@charter.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:53:24 -0500, you wrote: but I'd beg to differ with them being of concern to a small subset of what is already a small community of collectors. With no solid numbers whatsoever to back me up, I'd bet that there were far more people actively collecting and concerned about tag variants on Beeny Babies at their height than have ever even HEARD of a hammer meteorite. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Hi, Steve, Well, pardon my ignorance, and I stand corrected. Apparently quickly picked a bad example, as I'm familiar with slices in private circulation that aren't as you described. That said, I am familiar with some material which is exactly as you've described it, so that makes sense. Anyway, hopefully the concept came through even though the example was a poor choice. How about Mbale? All best, and Happy New Year, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorh...@aol.com [mailto:meteorh...@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:04 PM To: d...@fallingrocks.com; cyna...@charter.net; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? In a message dated 1/3/2009 7:56:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, d...@fallingrocks.com writes: Sylacauga is a wonderful story, but the material available to collectors didn't hit Mrs. Hodges on the hip. Dave, In 1999 I brokered a couple of pieces of Sylacaga from the King Collection that did indeed come from the stone that hit Mrs. Hodges. It came from a core sample taken from that very stone. Somehow Dr. King talked them (the local library or museum) into taking a small core sample from it, maybe he traded them some Allende for it. I think most of what is on the market of Sylacaga came from the King piece, but check the provenance. If the slices are round, or partially round on one edge, it is probably from that core piece. Steve Arnold #1 **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Darren, I thought you meant to say the community of hammer collectors within the meteorite collecting community was small -- relative to the international meteorite collecting community itself. Apologies for missing that...my bad. Many serious meteorite collectors look down their noses at hammer collectors, and that's where I thought you were going. Either way, an interesting thread on a seriously vaguely defined aspect of meteorite collecting... All best, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darren Garrison Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:10 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:53:24 -0500, you wrote: but I'd beg to differ with them being of concern to a small subset of what is already a small community of collectors. With no solid numbers whatsoever to back me up, I'd bet that there were far more people actively collecting and concerned about tag variants on Beeny Babies at their height than have ever even HEARD of a hammer meteorite. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
PS - Sad, but true...no such solid numbers are needed to call the below a fact. -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darren Garrison Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:10 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:53:24 -0500, you wrote: but I'd beg to differ with them being of concern to a small subset of what is already a small community of collectors. With no solid numbers whatsoever to back me up, I'd bet that there were far more people actively collecting and concerned about tag variants on Beeny Babies at their height than have ever even HEARD of a hammer meteorite. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:50:18 -0500, you wrote: I thought you meant to say the community of hammer collectors within the meteorite collecting community was small -- relative to the international meteorite collecting community itself. I would say that it probably is, when defined as a main concern for the collectors-- you have people who collect by type, people who collect by location, people who collect only witnessed falls, and people who collect based on wherther or not it hit some human artifact. At most, what percentage of meteorite collectors have hammers being a main collecting criteria? 10%? I'd bet that it doesn't approach 25%. It is, then, a small percentage of what is already a tiny (compaired to world population and compaired to other areas of collecting) group of people. My point being-- a term in use by such a small number of people and known by such a small number of people woukd, I think, be more vaguely defined than something-- say-- that would reach The OED or Encyclopedia Britannica (leaving the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia out of the equation for the moment). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Good evening Folks, It's been a long time, but I'd like to add something: To me--as I have understood it for many years--a Hammer is nothing more than a meteorite that impacts a man-made objectand/or perhaps the occasional critter.Nothing more--Nothing less. Best regards to ya'll, Paul, Savannah GA PS Happy New Year to all of you! In a message dated 1/3/2009 10:17:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cyna...@charter.net writes: On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:50:18 -0500, you wrote: I thought you meant to say the community of hammer collectors within the meteorite collecting community was small -- relative to the international meteorite collecting community itself. **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Good points, Darren...and the list of collecting criteria could go on and on ad infinitum. Yet it would also be interesting to measure this hammer issue not in units but in dollars (or Euros or whatever currency). Like you, I have no solid statistics here (this arena really needs them badly, by the way), but, when looking at market price and/or relative price/gram (i.e. value), the representative percentage of both collectors in the community and specimens in collections would obviously be substantially higher than on a units basis. Whatever the statistics, it is true that a significant premium is paid by collectors for hammers, and we could probably all (at least most) agree it would be a good thing to have a better definition of that term...at least a consistent one. -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darren Garrison Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 10:18 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:50:18 -0500, you wrote: I thought you meant to say the community of hammer collectors within the meteorite collecting community was small -- relative to the international meteorite collecting community itself. I would say that it probably is, when defined as a main concern for the collectors-- you have people who collect by type, people who collect by location, people who collect only witnessed falls, and people who collect based on wherther or not it hit some human artifact. At most, what percentage of meteorite collectors have hammers being a main collecting criteria? 10%? I'd bet that it doesn't approach 25%. It is, then, a small percentage of what is already a tiny (compaired to world population and compaired to other areas of collecting) group of people. My point being-- a term in use by such a small number of people and known by such a small number of people woukd, I think, be more vaguely defined than something-- say-- that would reach The OED or Encyclopedia Britannica (leaving the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia out of the equation for the moment). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
G'Day List This thread has been very interesting. Hammers have really not played an important part of my quest to seek knowledge, meteoritically speaking. But the discussions have been an eye opener, especially when it comes to a few mets that I had not considered. Mike, thanks for starting this. Steve, you continue to amaze me. Dave, what can I say? Thanks for all your input. I for one, have definitely benefited from it. As for my little humor on hammers, I sincerely apologize. It was in jest and not to throw anybody off the subject presently being discussed. I'm just a happy person by nature. Cheers John - Original Message - From: Dave Gheesling d...@fallingrocks.com To: cyna...@charter.net; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? Good points, Darren...and the list of collecting criteria could go on and on ad infinitum. Yet it would also be interesting to measure this hammer issue not in units but in dollars (or Euros or whatever currency). Like you, I have no solid statistics here (this arena really needs them badly, by the way), but, when looking at market price and/or relative price/gram (i.e. value), the representative percentage of both collectors in the community and specimens in collections would obviously be substantially higher than on a units basis. Whatever the statistics, it is true that a significant premium is paid by collectors for hammers, and we could probably all (at least most) agree it would be a good thing to have a better definition of that term...at least a consistent one. -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darren Garrison Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 10:18 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:50:18 -0500, you wrote: I thought you meant to say the community of hammer collectors within the meteorite collecting community was small -- relative to the international meteorite collecting community itself. I would say that it probably is, when defined as a main concern for the collectors-- you have people who collect by type, people who collect by location, people who collect only witnessed falls, and people who collect based on wherther or not it hit some human artifact. At most, what percentage of meteorite collectors have hammers being a main collecting criteria? 10%? I'd bet that it doesn't approach 25%. It is, then, a small percentage of what is already a tiny (compaired to world population and compaired to other areas of collecting) group of people. My point being-- a term in use by such a small number of people and known by such a small number of people woukd, I think, be more vaguely defined than something-- say-- that would reach The OED or Encyclopedia Britannica (leaving the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia out of the equation for the moment). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Now that's a hammer. Nice work Steve. Super piece - Original Message - From: meteorh...@aol.com To: d...@fallingrocks.com; cyna...@charter.net; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? In a message dated 1/3/2009 7:56:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, d...@fallingrocks.com writes: Sylacauga is a wonderful story, but the material available to collectors didn't hit Mrs. Hodges on the hip. Dave, In 1999 I brokered a couple of pieces of Sylacaga from the King Collection that did indeed come from the stone that hit Mrs. Hodges. It came from a core sample taken from that very stone. Somehow Dr. King talked them (the local library or museum) into taking a small core sample from it, maybe he traded them some Allende for it. I think most of what is on the market of Sylacaga came from the King piece, but check the provenance. If the slices are round, or partially round on one edge, it is probably from that core piece. Steve Arnold #1 **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Steve and List, Steve, are you absolutely sure the core came from THE Hodges's stone( the one that struck her) and NOT the McKinney stone??? I have not actually seen the Hodge's stone in person, and maybe you have, so you MAY be right. But ... if I may quote a few words from one of our illustrious members' ( who I hope doesn't mind me using them, and that he will join in the discussion, too ) website that state: There were two stones - the one that hit the human and one other. The one that hit the human is the centerpiece in a local museum. No one has ever had access to it. However,the second stone is in the Smithsonion and though the remainder has never been available to the public, it did have one core drilled in it. This core ended up in the collection of Dr. King. After his death his widow allowed it to be cut into about 10 whafer slices all of which all ended up as primary specimens in private collections. So have you seen THE Hodges' stone in person and saw that there actually IS a hole drilled into THAT very one Thanks, Robert Woolard --- On Sat, 1/3/09, meteorh...@aol.com meteorh...@aol.com wrote: From: meteorh...@aol.com meteorh...@aol.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? To: d...@fallingrocks.com, cyna...@charter.net, meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 8:03 PM In a message dated 1/3/2009 7:56:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, d...@fallingrocks.com writes: Sylacauga is a wonderful story, but the material available to collectors didn't hit Mrs. Hodges on the hip. Dave, In 1999 I brokered a couple of pieces of Sylacaga from the King Collection that did indeed come from the stone that hit Mrs. Hodges. It came from a core sample taken from that very stone. Somehow Dr. King talked them (the local library or museum) into taking a small core sample from it, maybe he traded them some Allende for it. I think most of what is on the market of Sylacaga came from the King piece, but check the provenance. If the slices are round, or partially round on one edge, it is probably from that core piece. Steve Arnold #1 **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
The problem with the 'hammers' is that some are not. For example: Pultusk, which is broadly referred to as a 'hammer,' when, without conclusive evidence, it is unknown what actual/individual stones or 'peas' struck artifacts. The same can be said about Murchison, Allende, and many others. I believe a true 'hammer' can only be a piece of the actual meteorite that struck the human/artifact and not the fall itself. The lure of hammers (to me) has been the material with irrefutable evidence and/or photographic documentation. To name a few: Strathmore, Claxton, Peekskill, and recently, 'Zunhua.' But then consider Ausson, which lacks any photos and or clear documentation - still a hammer? I think that the hammer category is great, but, like Dave said, there needs to be some clarity and consistency to what a hammer really is! Bonk! Mike Bandli -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Dave Gheesling Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:25 PM To: cyna...@charter.net; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? Good points, Darren...and the list of collecting criteria could go on and on ad infinitum. Yet it would also be interesting to measure this hammer issue not in units but in dollars (or Euros or whatever currency). Like you, I have no solid statistics here (this arena really needs them badly, by the way), but, when looking at market price and/or relative price/gram (i.e. value), the representative percentage of both collectors in the community and specimens in collections would obviously be substantially higher than on a units basis. Whatever the statistics, it is true that a significant premium is paid by collectors for hammers, and we could probably all (at least most) agree it would be a good thing to have a better definition of that term...at least a consistent one. -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darren Garrison Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 10:18 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer? On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:50:18 -0500, you wrote: I thought you meant to say the community of hammer collectors within the meteorite collecting community was small -- relative to the international meteorite collecting community itself. I would say that it probably is, when defined as a main concern for the collectors-- you have people who collect by type, people who collect by location, people who collect only witnessed falls, and people who collect based on wherther or not it hit some human artifact. At most, what percentage of meteorite collectors have hammers being a main collecting criteria? 10%? I'd bet that it doesn't approach 25%. It is, then, a small percentage of what is already a tiny (compaired to world population and compaired to other areas of collecting) group of people. My point being-- a term in use by such a small number of people and known by such a small number of people woukd, I think, be more vaguely defined than something-- say-- that would reach The OED or Encyclopedia Britannica (leaving the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia out of the equation for the moment). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?
Hello Robert, To answer your direct question, no I have not seen the Hodges's stone. However, in Dr. King's Meteorite Collection Catalog he listed the source of his Sylacaga specimen as, and I quote: Source: Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist., Douglas Jones Now, if anyone on the list has access to the Hodges's stone to examine, my hunch is that the core would have been removed from the bottom portion, as it is displayed, and the hole was probably plugged with something and colored so as to hide the fact that a core was removed. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but as I recall there were some correspondence letters between Dr. King and the Alabama Museum of Natural History at the time leading up to the acquisition. And there was a concern that any examination would not hurt the aesthetic appearance of the stone. However, it might be easier to ask the Smithsonian if their records indicate that any of their Sylacaga was traded to Dr. King.But with the conflict NASA (including Dr. King) had with the Smithsonian in the 1960's I seriously doubt any trades were done with the Smithsonian. As many of you know, we auctioned off the King Collection, and it would make some of you sick if you knew how cheaply that specimen sold for. I was surprised at the time, but then again, there were many great specimens in the collection being sold, and most people had to budget where they spent their money, so some things went a little lower than expected at that time. Since then, the value has appreciated to more reasonable levels. I hope this answers your question Robert? Steve Arnold #1 In a message dated 1/3/2009 10:11:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, meteoritefin...@yahoo.com writes: Steve and List, Steve, are you absolutely sure the core came from THE Hodges's stone( the one that struck her) and NOT the McKinney stone??? I have not actually seen the Hodge's stone in person, and maybe you have, so you MAY be right. But ... if I may quote a few words from one of our illustrious members' ( who I hope doesn't mind me using them, and that he will join in the discussion, too ) website that state: There were two stones - the one that hit the human and one other. The one that hit the human is the centerpiece in a local museum. No one has ever had access to it. However,the second stone is in the Smithsonion and though the remainder has never been available to the public, it did have one core drilled in it. This core ended up in the collection of Dr. King. After his death his widow allowed it to be cut into about 10 whafer slices all of which all ended up as primary specimens in private collections. So have you seen THE Hodges' stone in person and saw that there actually IS a hole drilled into THAT very one Thanks, Robert Woolard **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What the heck is it and why?
Hi List! I ran across these oddball meteorite auctions on eBay this morning and I am confused. What the heck are these? It looks like some gravel and plastic toys in a gem jar. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=320319577872 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=320319577831 First, why are they so expensive? Is the gravel in the jar some kind of rare type? Are they Weston or Ensisheim crumbs? (LOL) Second, someone better email this guy and tell him that Chile has forbidden further export of plastic herbivore figurines and that he is under investigation for selling forbidden plastic quadrupeds. Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What a watch!!!
Hey list members. Let's all get together and each buy one. That way we might get a volume discount! Tom In a message dated 11/18/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, Pete, List, The original J. P. Morgan is reputed to have said, If you have to ask how much a yacht costs, then you can't afford a yacht. If you have to ask if the meteorite is real, then you can't afford to buy an $862,000 wrist watch! All I know is that I can't... In response to Martin's suggestion that you ask, please note the comments at the bottom of the page. They have been asked, and they ain't talkin'! My guess is that they mixed cutting dust into the paint used on the moon-phase dials. The same seller has a $60,000 meteorite watch with a speck of meteorite displayed, the name of which he does not disclose. In both cases, their cost for the meteoritic material is likely 0.01% to 0.001% of the cost of the watch. Sterling K. Webb - Original Message - From: Pete Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteoritelist meteoritelist meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:29 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Scam, or what? Greetings, List, Does anyone else smell a rat? http://watches.infoniac.com/wear-moon-wrist-louis-moinet-magistralis.html#view comments http://watches.infoniac.com/wear-moon-wrist-louis-moinet-magistralis.html#view comments Cheers, Pete _ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list **Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0001) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
