At 11:31 PM 3/28/2003 -0700, Michael Farmer wrote:
I am also saddened, the people here mostly still have their stones, they
think they hit the lotto and made millions.
Well, in defense of the common man here, imagine yourself as someone who
knows squat about meteorites except for tidbits that c
"People are being urged to "turn over" finds to the scientific
community."
I want to know, do we have to? Why would the scientific community need all
the stones? Is it like the old woman meteorite where they cut of 600 or so
pounds to study?
Thanks, Tom
The proudest member of the IMCA 6168
Speak
At 09:19 PM 1/27/2003 -0500, LabNEMS wrote:
Steve:
Troilite is FeS. A terrestrial analog is the mineral Pyrrhotite Fe(1)S.
Any troilite "cavities" are probably what is referred to as "vugs" that
may (or may not) have contained troilite but went from a solid to a gas
from shock. Evidence of this
Sorry to bother the list with a question like this, but does anyone know if
any fireballs have been sighted in the past few weeks in the New England
area (particularly in and/or around New Bedford, MA)? Is there a web site
that lists all reported fireballs?
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Mr. Grondine,
You lost me there in that email and I'd appreciate some
clarification. Specifically -
In other words, unlike Etna, there is no magma
involved in these martian "volcanoes" - and this may
be seen in the Observor and Surveyor imagery, where
the impact structures formed by impacts int
Hello all,
I have a question for the list, maybe this has come up before, maybe some
of you know this as common knowledge. I was reading an old article from
Meteoritics - "Igneous petrology of the new ureilites Nova 001 and
Nullarbor 010" by Treiman and Berkley, v. 29, p843.
In there is a st
Good on Buzz,
I've been involved in several discussion on whether or not we went to the
moon with conspiracy theorist over the past few years and they always wave
these photos and movies around and shout about abnormalities in them.
It's interesting though to see them squirm when you ask them
If you are talking about thin sections that are commonly used to classify a
meteorite, those are 30 microns thick (as all thin sections should be if
you want to do petrography). They are extremely difficult to make and I
think producing a quality thin section borders on art. I've been doing
>
>Those "theories" must be consistant with your "wait for the Egyptian
>newspaper" idea, right?
>
>One astute list member said of the dog story, "Extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary proof."
>
>You have no scientific proof that a dog ever existed - extraordinary or even
>ordinary. You hav
Steven,
If you know the minerals in the meteorite all you have to do is look up
their density. If it's mostly feldspar the meteorite density will be the
density of feldspar (sorry don't have my books with me at the moment but a
google search will turn it up easily). That should work fairly w
Meteorites are educational because they allow the teacher to capture the
imagination of the student. A physicist can slide a block of wood down a
ramp, a chemist can make red water turn blue and back again, a
mathematician can give you long formulas and explain the world with much
rigor, but
whoops, never mind. A few minutes of research reveal that Indocetus ramani
(earliest known whale form) is from the lower Eocene - long after our
controversial impact.
At 03:30 PM 5/17/2002 -0400, S.Singletary wrote:
>At 12:22 PM 5/17/2002 -0700, Edward Hodges wrote:
>
>>Fred
At 12:22 PM 5/17/2002 -0700, Edward Hodges wrote:
>Fred- The Komodo Dragon wasn't around 65 million years ago, and either
>were crocodiles like the ones you see now. They have evolved to become a
>more effeciant and smaller predator. So, can you think over any large
>Reptiles, that have surviv
They are differentiated based on composition. They can (and do) look the same.
(From L. Elkins, our resident tektite expert).
At 02:18 PM 4/5/2002 -0600, Treiman, Allan wrote:
>A further question --
>
> How can you tell one kind of tektite from another?
>Say an australite from a bediasite fro
I just read the Feb. 8 Science paper, literally poured over it and I didn't
find any mention of dating pieces of the CAIs. It dealt mostly with oxygen
isotopes and some important stuff came out, but no date information. What
chronometer did they use? U-Pb? If so, did they do the perovskites
At 11:29 AM 2/16/2002 -0600, Jamie Ekholm wrote:
>I am just curious. Does anyone know why it seems Shergottites are more
>common than Nakhlites or Chassignites? It just seems that if a new
>Martian meteorite is found, you can almost bet it will be a
>Shergottite. Is it just that they had a b
Just a follow up to Bernd's post,
I've been reading a lot on CAI's lately so this discussion is great, keep
it going.
Have a look at:
Hsu, W., et al., 2000, High Time resolution by use of the 26Al chronometer
in the multistage formation of a CAI
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 182, p.15-29
17 matches
Mail list logo
