Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's... was Iron Falls & NJO

2007-01-07 Thread Dave Carothers
Good evening Elton and list.

Your point was that the definition of fusion crust needs to be changed 
because, by definition, it doesn't "fit" iron meteorites.  Elton, you wrote:

> Here is the technical point explained ... a
> (meteoritical) fusion crust is a thin glassy coating
> (NOTE it is composed of GLASS).  Owing to effects of
> atmosphere and composition, fusion crusts may be
> knobby, striated, ribbed, net, porous, warty, or
> scoriaceous(bubbly)  (Glossary of Geology, American
> Geological Institute,2nd Ed)  To be composed of glass
> it must have a "silicate" content which can be
> vitrified; that is turned amorphous/glassy by
> melting/fusing(the technical term is fused or fusing)
> ; and that is the operative word in the phrase "fusion
> crust".

If the definition as posted included the phrase (NOTE it is composed of 
GLASS), I would concur that this make the definition exclusive to meteorites 
composed of stone (including forms of silicate material).

The word "glassy" as it relates to the phrase "a thin glassy coating... " is 
an adjective and qualifies the description of the "coating" as being 
glass-like or something shiny, very smooth, and mirror-like.  It does NOT 
mean the fusion crust is composed of glass.  The definition continues to 
state that "fusion crusts may be knobby, striated, ribbed, net, porous, 
warty, or scoriaceous(bubbly).  This appears to contradict the declarative 
statement that "a fusion crust is a thin glassy (i.e a shiny, very smooth, 
and mirror-like) coating".  As a result of this contradiction, I would agree 
that the definition could be changed  to eliminate the contradiction.

My $0.02.

Dave


- Original Message - 
From: "Mr EMan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Meteorite-list" 

Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 3:10 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's... was Iron Falls 
& NJO


> Someone wrote:
> "...recovered recently after falling had been
> beautifully fusion crusted, ...(snip)
> Why anyone should doubt the existence of fusion crust
> on a freshly fallen iron is beyond me - have a look at
> Cabin Creek if you want proof that it still forms on
> smallish irons falling at terminal velocity.(sic)"
>
> No I am not wacky. I am a purist trying to save this
> hobby from choking on a long-accepted, urban myth.
> (Just kidding folks, I am only trying to save some of
> you.)
>
> OK, let me reverse it, when shown otherwise, "Why
> would anyone continue to claim that freshly fallen
> irons typically show a fusion crust?"  We say this
> over and over but never stop to consider what the term
> actually means.  We use "fusion crust" because
> fundamentally we don't, as a collective, bother to
> understand "fusion crusts" in the first place.  Heck,
> half of you think the weathered chalky ocher surface
> of a W10 NWA is "fusion crusted" ,to read your Ebay
> ads.
>
> Here is the technical point explained ... a
> (meteoritical) fusion crust is a thin glassy coating
> (NOTE it is composed of GLASS).  Owing to effects of
> atmosphere and composition, fusion crusts may be
> knobby, striated, ribbed, net, porous, warty, or
> scoriaceous(bubbly)  (Glossary of Geology, American
> Geological Institute,2nd Ed)  To be composed of glass
> it must have a "silicate" content which can be
> vitrified; that is turned amorphous/glassy by
> melting/fusing(the technical term is fused or fusing)
> ; and that is the operative word in the phrase "fusion
> crust".
>
> Everyday, normal, common Irons do not contain silicate
> in sufficient quantity to make glass and thus form a
> FUSION CRUST;  A silicated iron might, a pallasite
> could, a mesosiderite should-- but not an
> Iron/Siderite. While a technical point, it is a valid
> and important distinction to note that the post flight
> surface of an iron is different from that of
> meteorites containing silicates.
>
> Irons do not have a fusion crust. They may have lines
> of molten flow that pool in regmaglypts and while this
> illustrates the state of fusing ( aka melting) it does
> not a fusion crust make.
>
> Irons will have an "ablation surface" which may be
> coated by:
> a RIND of loosely adhering magnetite, bunsenite, other
> oxides, phosphates, carbides, and sulphides,
>
> a FILM of carbon which is readily wiped off,
>
> a ZONE of "melted amorphous recrystallized metallic
> alloy, also called a zone of thermal
> alteration(microns thick)but they DO NOT have a
> fusion crust unless they contain ample silicate.
>
> Eman
>
&g

[meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's... was Iron Falls & NJO

2007-01-07 Thread Mr EMan
Someone wrote:
"...recovered recently after falling had been
beautifully fusion crusted, ...(snip)
Why anyone should doubt the existence of fusion crust
on a freshly fallen iron is beyond me - have a look at
Cabin Creek if you want proof that it still forms on
smallish irons falling at terminal velocity.(sic)"

 No I am not wacky. I am a purist trying to save this
hobby from choking on a long-accepted, urban myth. 
(Just kidding folks, I am only trying to save some of
you.) 

 OK, let me reverse it, when shown otherwise, "Why
would anyone continue to claim that freshly fallen
irons typically show a fusion crust?"  We say this
over and over but never stop to consider what the term
actually means.  We use "fusion crust" because
fundamentally we don't, as a collective, bother to
understand "fusion crusts" in the first place.  Heck,
half of you think the weathered chalky ocher surface 
of a W10 NWA is "fusion crusted" ,to read your Ebay
ads.

Here is the technical point explained ... a
(meteoritical) fusion crust is a thin glassy coating
(NOTE it is composed of GLASS).  Owing to effects of
atmosphere and composition, fusion crusts may be
knobby, striated, ribbed, net, porous, warty, or
scoriaceous(bubbly)  (Glossary of Geology, American
Geological Institute,2nd Ed)  To be composed of glass
it must have a "silicate" content which can be
vitrified; that is turned amorphous/glassy by
melting/fusing(the technical term is fused or fusing)
; and that is the operative word in the phrase "fusion
crust".  

Everyday, normal, common Irons do not contain silicate
in sufficient quantity to make glass and thus form a
FUSION CRUST;  A silicated iron might, a pallasite
could, a mesosiderite should-- but not an
Iron/Siderite. While a technical point, it is a valid
and important distinction to note that the post flight
surface of an iron is different from that of
meteorites containing silicates.

Irons do not have a fusion crust. They may have lines
of molten flow that pool in regmaglypts and while this
illustrates the state of fusing ( aka melting) it does
not a fusion crust make.  

Irons will have an "ablation surface" which may be
coated by:
a RIND of loosely adhering magnetite, bunsenite, other
oxides, phosphates, carbides, and sulphides,

a FILM of carbon which is readily wiped off, 
  
a ZONE of "melted amorphous recrystallized metallic
alloy, also called a zone of thermal
alteration(microns thick)but they DO NOT have a
fusion crust unless they contain ample silicate.
 
Eman

PS: As to "widmanstatten pattern of some sort", Ok,
from a photo? if you say so   I agree that one
might see boundary lawyers if segregated by
schreibersite. Sorry but seeing crystal structure is a
stretch and surely you misspoke-- as I too often do,
but not about seeing fusion crust on irons!!!
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list