[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 PS: As to widmanstatten pattern of some sort, Ok, from a photo? if you say so wink 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
Re: [meteorite-list] AD: Amazing impact-melt Eucrite!
Jim, One meteorite that comes close is NWA 3159. See Jeff Kuyken's slice at http://www.meteorites.com.au/favourite/may2006.html. I have a nice slice of this and am getting some thin sections made from another slice. Unfortunately my stuff only has small traces of the gorgeous river melt. I too am partial to melts and am debating on buying one of Mike's gorgeous pieces. Cheers, Mike Tettenborn - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] AD: Amazing impact-melt Eucrite! I want seen who give 200$/gr. for a NWA eucrite when with similar money I have historical eucrites seen fallen Matteo Yes Matteo, but they don't look like this one either. Different people collect different things. I like shock melts. I paid $200/gm for this in 2005 and don't regret it a bit. Yes it would have been nice if there were hundreds of kilos and the price was $10/gm, but in 18 months I haven't seen anything to match it. And no I wouldn't trade it for one of your old historical falls even at twice the value. -- Eric Olson http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] EL6/7 meteorite loaded on eBayforonecent.4.779 kilograms.
why if a person have buy now have the piece for the actual price have for low, after if confirmed Aubrite the price go up and not buy for the same price of now You missed the point of my question. WHY would the price of this stone go up when it is classified? The results of the classification do NOT change the amount of money you have invested in this meteorite - so why should you not sell it at the same price regardless of what it is? You have complained much about other dealers charging prices that are too high in the past. (and recently too - such as Mike's spectacular new eucrite) Your intention to raise the price of a meteorite you already own depending on final analysis does not bode well with someone who has made such complaints about high prices. _ Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win? http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp007001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] phhhhtt - meteorites?
Uuuuh list! Returned after 3 weeks I found together with the New Year's wishes on the list for happiness and peace, hundreds of mails full of grief as the authors would have hung their brains on the Xmas-tree for decoration! I have to speak with Eger to craft me some thimbles from a Ni-rich iron, my fingers are aching from deleting. Hey here for a change something about meteorites! I just found a little interview with our list member Razvan Andrei and the curator of the only remarkable meteorite collection (beside Razvan's) in Romania, Dana Pop (the daughter of Iggy), in one of the largest newspapwer there. Note the picture of the remarkable 37.5kg-Mocs! www.evenimentulzilei.ro/article.php?artid=263885 Razvane? Can you set online some more photos of the Cluj-Collection? Martin (PS. As Bernd want to wait until he'll be able to receive his award in person, I'd suggest Paul Jim for their remarkable contribution for more than a decade with their internet meteorite portal, the meteorite exchange and of course for inventing the free and online meteorite-times, for the vox populi award.) -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. Januar 2007 08:29 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] AD: Amazing impact-melt Eucrite! I want seen who give 200$/gr. for a NWA eucrite when with similar money I have historical eucrites seen fallen Matteo __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Eman and list, when it comes to irons there is but one authority to refer to: Vaugn Buchwald. There is not the slightest doubt that the melted exterior of freshly fallen iron meteorites is called a fusion crust. In volume 1 page 49f. of his Handbook of Iron Meteorites Buchwald explains: Cuts perpendicular to the surface of a freshly fallen iron meteorite disclose fusion crusts and heat-affected rim zones. While the fusion crusts on stone meteorites are usually the product of simple melting, the crusts on iron meteorites are complex, displaying mixed melts of fully and partially oxidized metal. The fusion crusts are the adhering remnants of ablated metal from the last part of the trajectory left on the surface when the velocity decreased below about 3km / sec, and ablation ceased. [...] The fusion crusts are, in principle, composed of an exterior fully oxidized, rapidly solidified nonmetallic melt, and an interior only slightly oxidized metallic melt. The oxide melts have solidified and decomposed to wuestite-magnetite aggregates, while the metallic melts, often forming numerous crossbedded 50u thin sheets, have solidified to dendritic -cellular aggregates, that below 700°C have transformed diffusionless to fine grained martensitic alpha2 products. End of quotation. (pages 50 - 53 show fantastic photograhies of differnent types of fusion crusts on iron) By the way. I do not agree that the Glossary of Geology of the American Geological Institute is a sound reference for nomenclature and terminology of meteorites. Best regards Svend Buhl www.niger-meteorite-recon.de - Original Message - From: Mr EMan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Utas [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:10 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 PS: As to widmanstatten pattern of some sort, Ok, from a photo? if you say so wink 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 __ Meteorite-list mailing list
[meteorite-list] the ultra scam
Hey we all know the solution to this problem.PROUD TOM Steve R.Arnold,chicago,Ill,Usa!! Collecting Meteorites since 06/19/1999!! www.chicagometeorites.net Ebay I.D. Illinoismeteorites __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] the ultra scam
Hey we all know the solution to this problem.PROUD TOM will come in and clean up this mess.Please forgive the last post. Steve R.Arnold,chicago,Ill,Usa!! Collecting Meteorites since 06/19/1999!! www.chicagometeorites.net Ebay I.D. Illinoismeteorites __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they do!
Dr. Buhl; Thank you very much for checking this subject with the absolute authority on iron meteorites ( Buchwald ).Great job. Best Regards;Herman Archer. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fossil, Relict, or Paleo- was Fossil NWA 2828
As I was heavily involved in developing the NomCom rules, let me give my take on this whole discussion: Our actions were stimulated by the Osterplana fossil meteorites, as they are commonly called in the literature. For those who don't know these, they are a group of several dozen objects embedded in Ordovician age carbonate rocks in Sweden. Many of these have chondritic structures, with chondrule textures clearly visible. Others are simply dark clasts in the limestone. The only primary meteoritic mineral left, if anything, is some chromite, and everything else has been replaced by secondary, terrestrial minerals. Thus, the chondrules are pseudomorphs and the chromite is relict. Brunflo is a similar occurrence found in another quarry. We needed a guideline to cover the naming of these objects, but the usual guidelines for meteorites were inadequate. These meteorites present a continuum of cases, from ones we were comfortable calling fossil meteorites (they preserve the original structure and can be classified, mostly as L chondrites) to ones that nobody can or will ever classify, or even prove beyond a reasonable doubt to be meteoritic in origin. Now combine these occurrences with other things in the literature. There are meteoritic clasts in some terrestrial rocks that survive with most of their primary minerals and structures intact. The Morokweng meteorite described in Nature by Maier et al last year was also called a fossil meteorite, but only the metal and sulfide were replaced by secondary minerals; silicates are little altered. For the purpose of meteorite nomenclature, we would want to treat this case like any other meteorite found on Earth... it's a meteorite by any reckoning. I don't know the details, but perhaps NWA 2828 is a similar case. We also have things around like iron shale, which I don't think should be distinguished from cases like the Osterplana objects, as Sterling Webb does. Both types can contain some of the chemical signature or structure of the original meteorite and are largely composed of secondary minerals. However, these are not fossils, as they are not preserved in the geologic record. They are the products of weathering meteorites at the earth's surface. But from a nomenclature perspective, they need to be treated the same as the Osterplana objects. This is why we came up with the operational term relict meteorite. It covers all objects that are largely altered, but which have relict signatures indicating a meteoritic origin, including composition, texture, isotopes, or whatever. Relict does not mean fossil. Some relict meteorites are fossil meteorites, like the classifiable Osterplana specimens and Brunflo, and some are not, like a highly weathered, barely recognizable stone from the Sahara, a piece of iron shale from Arizona, or a chip of fusion crust collected on the Antarctic ice (like LAP 04531). Conversely, some fossil meteorites are not relict meteorites, like the Morokweng stone. The terms relict and fossil are independent of each other. (I have no opinion on this term paleometeorite which I have not seen defined.) One last comment. The Wlotzka weathering scale (W0-W6) is not applicable to anything but ordinary chondrites. This is why we can't just extend it to W7 and use it to cover all highly weathered meteorites. jeff At 12:46 AM 1/7/2007, Mr EMan wrote: Under this NomCom guideline NWA2828 isn't relict as it is hardly altered and should be referred to as a paleo meteorite. (Note:If this gets too drawn out all meteoritic material is paleo as most is 4.5 billion years old). However, paleo is a best choice of the three proposed terms. My take on the three options: Relict: in petrology and geology is used to describe the occurrence of traces of original material after alteration. e.g. Serpentine is the hydrated alteration product of olivine and the presence of olivine or peridot within serpentine would be referred to as relict olivine etc. Lignite within a coal seam is relict lignite. NWA2828 is hardly relict under this definition and the NomCom guidelines. However, Relict is a valid incorporation of the concept into meteorites. Note that Relict is consistent with the almost complete alteration to secondary minerals. Where Fossil may include replacement of the original mineral. This is a subtle but important distinction. Fossil: (Greek Dug or to Dig) Obviously evolved this term is in wide use but rarely specified. It is usually descriptive of any ancient organically produced artifact; Trace, imprint, hard or soft tissue, premineralized, mineralized segment, mummified-- in some fashion altered from its original composition or state. By convention and to which source one subscribes,a fossil must be older than 20,000 OR 2 million years, cannot be derived from a living species, nor produced artificially . (AFAIRecall). Charcoal from the wildfire caused by Canyon Diablo can't be fossil
[meteorite-list] nwa 2965/nwa2828,going up??
Hi again list.With all the emails and bantering around on this meteorite do you think with all the pairings and TKW,do you think this will be going up in price anytime soon?I will be getting a kilo of it and just wondering.It is a great meteorite.The price is just so right now for getting some.Ant ideas?? Steve R.Arnold,chicago,Ill,Usa!! Collecting Meteorites since 06/19/1999!! www.chicagometeorites.net Ebay I.D. Illinoismeteorites __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fossil, Relict, or Paleo- was Fossil NWA 2828
Hi Jeff and list, Thank you Jeff for the educating insight you have provided me, and others on this topic. The more complicated these get, the more I am drawn into all aspects of meteoritics. It certainly draws my attention away from the negative Moroccan influence I endure while acquiring these interesting messengers from our neighbors just outside our blue boundaries! Thank you again for all who have contributed to this very educational thread, this makes it all worth while in the long run! Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fossil, Relict, or Paleo- was Fossil NWA 2828 As I was heavily involved in developing the NomCom rules, let me give my take on this whole discussion: Our actions were stimulated by the Osterplana fossil meteorites, as they are commonly called in the literature. For those who don't know these, they are a group of several dozen objects embedded in Ordovician age carbonate rocks in Sweden. Many of these have chondritic structures, with chondrule textures clearly visible. Others are simply dark clasts in the limestone. The only primary meteoritic mineral left, if anything, is some chromite, and everything else has been replaced by secondary, terrestrial minerals. Thus, the chondrules are pseudomorphs and the chromite is relict. Brunflo is a similar occurrence found in another quarry. We needed a guideline to cover the naming of these objects, but the usual guidelines for meteorites were inadequate. These meteorites present a continuum of cases, from ones we were comfortable calling fossil meteorites (they preserve the original structure and can be classified, mostly as L chondrites) to ones that nobody can or will ever classify, or even prove beyond a reasonable doubt to be meteoritic in origin. Now combine these occurrences with other things in the literature. There are meteoritic clasts in some terrestrial rocks that survive with most of their primary minerals and structures intact. The Morokweng meteorite described in Nature by Maier et al last year was also called a fossil meteorite, but only the metal and sulfide were replaced by secondary minerals; silicates are little altered. For the purpose of meteorite nomenclature, we would want to treat this case like any other meteorite found on Earth... it's a meteorite by any reckoning. I don't know the details, but perhaps NWA 2828 is a similar case. We also have things around like iron shale, which I don't think should be distinguished from cases like the Osterplana objects, as Sterling Webb does. Both types can contain some of the chemical signature or structure of the original meteorite and are largely composed of secondary minerals. However, these are not fossils, as they are not preserved in the geologic record. They are the products of weathering meteorites at the earth's surface. But from a nomenclature perspective, they need to be treated the same as the Osterplana objects. This is why we came up with the operational term relict meteorite. It covers all objects that are largely altered, but which have relict signatures indicating a meteoritic origin, including composition, texture, isotopes, or whatever. Relict does not mean fossil. Some relict meteorites are fossil meteorites, like the classifiable Osterplana specimens and Brunflo, and some are not, like a highly weathered, barely recognizable stone from the Sahara, a piece of iron shale from Arizona, or a chip of fusion crust collected on the Antarctic ice (like LAP 04531). Conversely, some fossil meteorites are not relict meteorites, like the Morokweng stone. The terms relict and fossil are independent of each other. (I have no opinion on this term paleometeorite which I have not seen defined.) One last comment. The Wlotzka weathering scale (W0-W6) is not applicable to anything but ordinary chondrites. This is why we can't just extend it to W7 and use it to cover all highly weathered meteorites. jeff At 12:46 AM 1/7/2007, Mr EMan wrote: Under this NomCom guideline NWA2828 isn't relict as it is hardly altered and should be referred to as a paleo meteorite. (Note:If this gets too drawn out all meteoritic material is paleo as most is 4.5 billion years old). However, paleo is a best choice of the three proposed terms. My take on the three options: Relict: in petrology and geology is used to describe the occurrence of traces of original material after alteration. e.g. Serpentine is the hydrated alteration product of olivine and the presence of olivine or peridot within serpentine would be referred to as relict olivine etc. Lignite within a coal seam is relict lignite. NWA2828 is hardly
Re: [meteorite-list] AD: Amazing impact-melt Eucrite!
Can't we get this buffon kicked off the list? This guy cries when the prices are too high, he cries when the prices are too low, it seems that all he does is cry! For you information Matteo, Jim and I paid $4000 for this rock on the assuption that it was Lunar in origin. It was not, it turned out to be a Eucrite. If you do the math, subtract the cutting loss, wire saw cutting costs, and classification sample donation, then you will see that even at $200.00 per gram we will still not make more than barely $3000.00. I don't know about Italy, but in the USA that = a monetary loss! Apparently the price is fair enough for a spectacular meteorite that is so small like this one, it is sold out except for the main mass and tiny broken pieces from the shattered slices. Matteo, why don't you stop playing these games with me. The list and myself are growing weary of your non-stop emails about my prices. Now, I brought up your Park Forest two weeks ago because of exactly this reason, you cried and cried over me selling it for $10.00-$20.00 gram during the fall, then told the list that for you it was worth $7.00 gram max (I posted the emails) now you try to sell it for $48.00 gram. It seems that for anything you do not have you want the price to be low, for anything you do have, you want the price to be high. Why don't you mind your own business and ingore mine? My stones are not of your concern. For myself not to sound like a hypocrit though, I must again explain why I joined in on the Aubrite discussion last week. You are a meteorite dealer, so you affect the business as a whole. When you offered a meteorite on ebay, that so obviously was paired with all the tons of material coming out of Morocco at this time, but you self-classified it as a very rare Aubrite, then I have to speak up. I will not stand by as you lie and pull scams on ebay selling things that I know darn well are not what you say they are. Since my Eucrite is fully classified, and since it is mine, I can therefor sell for any price I want. Please, please stop harrasing me on and off list Matteo. You live in Venice, a beautful city, don't you have any life off of the internet? Michael Farmer --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want seen who give 200$/gr. for a NWA eucrite when with similar money I have historical eucrites seen fallen Matteo Yes Matteo, but they don't look like this one either. Different people collect different things. I like shock melts. I paid $200/gm for this in 2005 and don't regret it a bit. Yes it would have been nice if there were hundreds of kilos and the price was $10/gm, but in 18 months I haven't seen anything to match it. And no I wouldn't trade it for one of your old historical falls even at twice the value. -- Eric Olson http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] nwa 2965/nwa2828,going up??
Hi Steve and Everyone, Steve asks, With all the emails and bantering around on this meteorite do you think with all the pairings and TKW,do you think this will be going up in price anytime soon? This meteorite is already offered at a very reasonable price for prepared slices and individuals compared to acquisition costs. Steve, please do not treat this as a stock trade. I would hate to think I am in that market again; as wonderful, yet messed up it was back in the day!! :-)$ / ;-)$$ :-/( (dreaming of a beach with a couple cold ones and a couple hot tot(sp)... Now that's a market (similar to the Tucson Show! Take care, Greg - Original Message - From: steve arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] nwa 2965/nwa2828,going up?? Hi again list.With all the emails and bantering around on this meteorite do you think with all the pairings and TKW,do you think this will be going up in price anytime soon?I will be getting a kilo of it and just wondering.It is a great meteorite.The price is just so right now for getting some.Ant ideas?? Steve R.Arnold,chicago,Ill,Usa!! Collecting Meteorites since 06/19/1999!! www.chicagometeorites.net Ebay I.D. Illinoismeteorites __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Hello Listoids, Svend --- Dr. Svend Buhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:... I do not agree that the Glossary of Geology of the American Geological Institute is a sound reference for nomenclature and terminology of meteorites. GIST: For those that don't want to read the details, I am asserting that even thought there is something to a complex ablation surface on iron meteorites, the widely accepted and published definition of fusion crust states that it is a glassy coating, which would exclude the coatings on irons from being called fusion crusts. I also call for a revision of the definition to overcome that exclusion. Thank you for joining the debate, Svend. Nice to know someone has access to Buckwald's hand book. It is good we can have academic debates and not attack the messengers. I trust you will accept this as a discussion of a deficiency in the literature and not a disregard for yourself nor V.F. Buchwald. I believe the use of the term fusion crust is weakly founded in literature in general for the ablation surface is far more complicated than the simplification of aglassy melt. This need not be anangels on the head of a pin argument for I feel that a revised definition dropping glass/glassy else making a distinction for the rind on iron meteorites being different is long overdue. It is human nature to tend to believe the references we have in our possession over those not in our possession. Unfortunately, Buchwald's work at $2000-$3000 isn't available to most institutions, researchers, nor collectors. There is also no easily found evidence that he attempted to change the definition of fusion crust to include the rind that forms on irons. Rather he adopted a concept already in use. An opinion by a distinguished researcher in 1975 may open a door to a revision of the definition but the accepted definition in literature simply does not address the rind/coating/glaze occurring on iron meteorites. We need a revised definition for fusion crust however, I've no idea who would be the crusade leader. The reality remains that the vast citations/definitions in world literature still specifically state glass as a component of fusion crust when composition is discussed. Without an uniform operational definition that is accepted throughout the research/education community any discussion--even by Buchwald, has a fatal flaw semantically speaking. As it is, I am not incorrect in asserting as I did in previous posts, according to widely published definition, there is no occurrence of fusion crust on iron meteorites. There is something, yes, but it isn't covered by the literature at large. Exhibits cited from the web: NASA Fusion Crust: Dark glassy coating on the surface of a meteorite.. http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/Activities/ExpMetMys/Glossary.pdf Typical definition found at Institutions of higher learning: FUSION CRUST Melted glassy exterior of a meteorite that forms when it passes through Earths atmosphere... ...fuses to form a thin, glassy skin which envelopes the whole meteorite. http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Book-GlossaryF.html Planetary Science Research Discoveries (PSRD) Fusion crust: The glassy, melted rind on a meteorite that forms when the rock passes through the Earth's atmosphere. http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/PSRDglossary.html Britannica: any meteorite consisting mainly of iron, usually combined with small amounts of nickel. When such meteorites, called irons, fall through the atmosphere, a thin, black crust of iron oxide may form that quickly weathers to rust. Elton aka Eman __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Irons and fusion crust
I completely agree that iron meteorite falls have fusion crust. Come on, they meteorites are often covered with frothy blue-black crust, sometimes 2 or 3 mm thick, it flackes off, it was caused by the fusion of iron minerals while burning at thousands of degrees on entry, exactly the same way silicates form fusion crusts on stones. Thus, we have two different types of materials, burning, and when they land, they have a surface of crust comprised of molten material due to heat alteration. How can that not be called a fusion crust? Michael Farmer __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons and fusion crust
Dear Crusty's; I think the whole deal here with fusion crust which is what I choose to call it, all boils down to what academia and thus the rest of us mortal ones choose to call fusion crust. We have discussed this issue numerous times here and it very much relates my thought to President Clinton's comment a while back, No I did not have sex with that woman..well, one has to define sex first. Agreement was that something occurred, just how to define it. Call it a glassy altered surface deposit if you like and it makes you feel good but in my feeling, anything other than an iron surface, and anything that has been effected by an iron meteorite blasting through the atmosphere and directly related to the affects of heating as a result of passing through the Earth's atmosphere should be categorized as fusion (because it was hot and burned) crust (because it is on the exterior surface of) a meteorite. Don't care if it is glassy or melted cheese whiz. Don't care if it is .01 mm in thickness or a full two inch thick crusty black nasty stinky filthy burned rotten yam..if it is a result of heat of entry, and on the surface of an iron meteorite when fresh or relatively freshly occurred, then it might be a fusion crust. Just my 2 sense'. Dave Freeman with more sense than some Michael Farmer wrote: I completely agree that iron meteorite falls have fusion crust. Come on, they meteorites are often covered with frothy blue-black crust, sometimes 2 or 3 mm thick, it flackes off, it was caused by the fusion of iron minerals while burning at thousands of degrees on entry, exactly the same way silicates form fusion crusts on stones. Thus, we have two different types of materials, burning, and when they land, they have a surface of crust comprised of molten material due to heat alteration. How can that not be called a fusion crust? Michael Farmer __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
The only problem here is that EMan has changed the definition of glassy to make his argument work. Here is what Princeton says: Adjective S: (adj) glassy (resembling glass in smoothness and shininess and slickness) the glassy surface of the lake; the pavement was...glassy with water- Willa Cather S: (adj) glassy, glazed ((used of eyes) lacking liveliness) empty eyes; a glassy stare; his eyes were glazed over with boredom S: (adj) glassy, vitreous, vitrified ((of ceramics) having the surface made shiny and nonporous by fusing a vitreous solution to it) glazed pottery; glassy porcelain; hard vitreous china used for plumbing fixtures I'll go with common sense on this one. Fusion crust is the fused rind on the outside of a meteorite. And people whose eyes are glassy don't all have glass eyes. Eric Twelker Hello Listoids, Svend --- Dr. Svend Buhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:... I do not agree that the Glossary of Geology of the American Geological Institute is a sound reference for nomenclature and terminology of meteorites. GIST: For those that don't want to read the details, I am asserting that even thought there is something to a complex ablation surface on iron meteorites, the widely accepted and published definition of fusion crust states that it is a glassy coating, which would exclude the coatings on irons from being called fusion crusts. I also call for a revision of the definition to overcome that exclusion. Thank you for joining the debate, Svend. Nice to know someone has access to Buckwald's hand book. It is good we can have academic debates and not attack the messengers. I trust you will accept this as a discussion of a deficiency in the literature and not a disregard for yourself nor V.F. Buchwald. I believe the use of the term fusion crust is weakly founded in literature in general for the ablation surface is far more complicated than the simplification of aglassy melt. This need not be anangels on the head of a pin argument for I feel that a revised definition dropping glass/glassy else making a distinction for the rind on iron meteorites being different is long overdue. It is human nature to tend to believe the references we have in our possession over those not in our possession. Unfortunately, Buchwald's work at $2000-$3000 isn't available to most institutions, researchers, nor collectors. There is also no easily found evidence that he attempted to change the definition of fusion crust to include the rind that forms on irons. Rather he adopted a concept already in use. An opinion by a distinguished researcher in 1975 may open a door to a revision of the definition but the accepted definition in literature simply does not address the rind/coating/glaze occurring on iron meteorites. We need a revised definition for fusion crust however, I've no idea who would be the crusade leader. The reality remains that the vast citations/definitions in world literature still specifically state glass as a component of fusion crust when composition is discussed. Without an uniform operational definition that is accepted throughout the research/education community any discussion--even by Buchwald, has a fatal flaw semantically speaking. As it is, I am not incorrect in asserting as I did in previous posts, according to widely published definition, there is no occurrence of fusion crust on iron meteorites. There is something, yes, but it isn't covered by the literature at large. Exhibits cited from the web: NASA Fusion Crust: Dark glassy coating on the surface of a meteorite.. http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/Activities/ExpMetMys/Glossary.pdf Typical definition found at Institutions of higher learning: FUSION CRUST Melted glassy exterior of a meteorite that forms when it passes through Earths atmosphere... ...fuses to form a thin, glassy skin which envelopes the whole meteorite. http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Book-GlossaryF.html Planetary Science Research Discoveries (PSRD) Fusion crust: The glassy, melted rind on a meteorite that forms when the rock passes through the Earth's atmosphere. http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/PSRDglossary.html Britannica: any meteorite consisting mainly of iron, usually combined with small amounts of nickel. When such meteorites, called irons, fall through the atmosphere, a thin, black crust of iron oxide may form that quickly weathers to rust. Elton aka Eman __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] New Jersey 'Fusion Crust'
Hi, listers - What matters (to me) for the New Jersey hole-in- the-roof rock is its color. If its a fresh meteorite, I think it should be covered in black stuff, whatever you want to call it. Unless the rock is a aubrite or from the lunar highlands. Happy New Year!! Allan __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD...
Hi, Previously some people expressed an interest in this item... http://www.tiny.cc/SA Dave IMCA #0092 Sec.BIMS www.bimsociety.org __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] AD...
Geeze Dave, what an excellent FUSION CRUST! Dave F. Dave Harris wrote: Hi, Previously some people expressed an interest in this item... http://www.tiny.cc/SA Dave IMCA #0092 Sec.BIMS www.bimsociety.org __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons and fusion crust
Hi, here you have excellent fusion crust on a Sikhote Alin, www.austromet.com/collection/Sikhote_Alin_18.7g_E.jpg enjoy, Christian I.M.C.A. #2673 at www.imca.cc website: www.austromet.com Ing. Christian Anger Korngasse 6 2405 Bad Deutsch-Altenburg AUSTRIA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:meteorite-list- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Freeman mjwy Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:50 PM To: Michael Farmer Cc: Dr. Svend Buhl; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons and fusion crust Dear Crusty's; I think the whole deal here with fusion crust which is what I choose to call it, all boils down to what academia and thus the rest of us mortal ones choose to call fusion crust. We have discussed this issue numerous times here and it very much relates my thought to President Clinton's comment a while back, No I did not have sex with that woman..well, one has to define sex first. Agreement was that something occurred, just how to define it. Call it a glassy altered surface deposit if you like and it makes you feel good but in my feeling, anything other than an iron surface, and anything that has been effected by an iron meteorite blasting through the atmosphere and directly related to the affects of heating as a result of passing through the Earth's atmosphere should be categorized as fusion (because it was hot and burned) crust (because it is on the exterior surface of) a meteorite. Don't care if it is glassy or melted cheese whiz. Don't care if it is .01 mm in thickness or a full two inch thick crusty black nasty stinky filthy burned rotten yam..if it is a result of heat of entry, and on the surface of an iron meteorite when fresh or relatively freshly occurred, then it might be a fusion crust. Just my 2 sense'. Dave Freeman with more sense than some Michael Farmer wrote: I completely agree that iron meteorite falls have fusion crust. Come on, they meteorites are often covered with frothy blue-black crust, sometimes 2 or 3 mm thick, it flackes off, it was caused by the fusion of iron minerals while burning at thousands of degrees on entry, exactly the same way silicates form fusion crusts on stones. Thus, we have two different types of materials, burning, and when they land, they have a surface of crust comprised of molten material due to heat alteration. How can that not be called a fusion crust? Michael Farmer __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Please Elton, don't make me laugh. This is no debate, nor is the use of this term weakly founded in the literature. It is as established and pervasive throughout the meteoritical literature as any term. The decades of use of the term fusion crust to describe the results of ablation on iron meteorites absolutely justifies its official acceptance throughout the meteoritical community, if not from you. I own Buchwald's volumes and paid $300, the going price from the most expensive source known - Ron Farrell; where were you? You say Buchwald adopted a concept already in use... duh, that's how it works man. Buchwald is THE authority on iron meteorites (Wasson fits in there too), and I bet there are few among the scientific community who would argue against this use of the term. Contrary to how you'd have it, there exists no rule book in this field outside of the common use recognized in the literature. This term will go on being used no matter how loud you oppose it on this MetList. Why not just go to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System and do a keyword search for fusion crust iron and you'll find over 58,000 papers, many of which use the term fusion crust to describe iron meteorites. Here are but the first three of them I came upon: http://snipurl.com/16tu2 http://snipurl.com/16tuh http://snipurl.com/16tul David EMan wrote: Hello Listoids, Svend --- Dr. Svend Buhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:... I do not agree that the Glossary of Geology of the American Geological Institute is a sound reference for nomenclature and terminology of meteorites. GIST: For those that don't want to read the details, I am asserting that even thought there is something to a complex ablation surface on iron meteorites, the widely accepted and published definition of fusion crust states that it is a glassy coating, which would exclude the coatings on irons from being called fusion crusts. I also call for a revision of the definition to overcome that exclusion. Thank you for joining the debate, Svend. Nice to know someone has access to Buckwald's hand book. It is good we can have academic debates and not attack the messengers. I trust you will accept this as a discussion of a deficiency in the literature and not a disregard for yourself nor V.F. Buchwald. I believe the use of the term fusion crust is weakly founded in literature in general for the ablation surface is far more complicated than the simplification of aglassy melt. This need not be anangels on the head of a pin argument for I feel that a revised definition dropping glass/glassy else making a distinction for the rind on iron meteorites being different is long overdue. It is human nature to tend to believe the references we have in our possession over those not in our possession. Unfortunately, Buchwald's work at $2000-$3000 isn't available to most institutions, researchers, nor collectors. There is also no easily found evidence that he attempted to change the definition of fusion crust to include the rind that forms on irons. Rather he adopted a concept already in use. An opinion by a distinguished researcher in 1975 may open a door to a revision of the definition but the accepted definition in literature simply does not address the rind/coating/glaze occurring on iron meteorites. We need a revised definition for fusion crust however, I've no idea who would be the crusade leader. The reality remains that the vast citations/definitions in world literature still specifically state glass as a component of fusion crust when composition is discussed. Without an uniform operational definition that is accepted throughout the research/education community any discussion--even by Buchwald, has a fatal flaw semantically speaking. As it is, I am not incorrect in asserting as I did in previous posts, according to widely published definition, there is no occurrence of fusion crust on iron meteorites. There is something, yes, but it isn't covered by the literature at large. Exhibits cited from the web: NASA Fusion Crust: Dark glassy coating on the surface of a meteorite.. http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/Activities/ExpMetMys/Glossary.pdf Typical definition found at Institutions of higher learning: FUSION CRUST – Melted glassy exterior of a meteorite that forms when it passes through Earth’s atmosphere... ...fuses to form a thin, glassy skin which envelopes the whole meteorite. http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Book-GlossaryF.html Planetary Science Research Discoveries (PSRD) Fusion crust: The glassy, melted rind on a meteorite that forms when the rock passes through the Earth's atmosphere. http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/PSRDglossary.html Britannica: any meteorite consisting mainly of iron, usually combined with small amounts of nickel. When such meteorites, called irons, fall through the atmosphere, a thin, black crust of iron oxide may form that
[meteorite-list] Forestburg (b) L5 chondrite
Hi All, I just received and photographed this very nice slice of Forestburg (b) from the Hupe' Collection. Lately I've been focusing on widening my collection by purchasing smaller specimens and this one is just beautiful. Some info about this meteorite; An L5 chondrite found in 1957 at 33° 29' 44N, 97° 35' 19W, in Montague County, Texas, USA by Mr. Willard Freeman. Mr Freeman found this 26.6 kg stone in a dry creekbed where it may have been transported by water. Mineralogy and classification of Forestburg (b) (T. J. McCoy, JSC; A. J. Ehlmann, TCU): olivine, Fa25.8; pyroxene, Fs21.6; shock stage S5, weathering grade W1; the chondrite is shock blackened and contains impact melt clasts. If you want to take a look it is here; http://www.meteorite-dealers.com/forestburg2-6.html Best to All, Gary Foote http://www.meteorite-dealers.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Thanks, Svend, Elton, for contributing interesting aspects to the discussion. For me it's quite surprising that several sources use the expression glassy (rind, coating, exterior) for defining fusion crust. Okay, glassy is perfect for describing the character of many tektites such as moldavite or Libyan desert glass (sic). But it doesn't hit the point regarding meteorites. Glassy evokes the impression of something shiny, very smooth, mirror-like. But as we all now (and desire for) a fresh fusion crust creates a surface which is mat, like velvet, or untreated leather, or skin of the shark. This is evident what concerns stones, but also in the case of irons (their crust of course is smoother, but nevertheless mat - see relatively fresh found Sikhotes). A glassy, or shiny, smooth stone meteorite always will be the result of wind and sand polish. And a shiny Sikhote always will need a little help of a friend to shine. Best regards, Matthias Baermann - Original Message - From: Mr EMan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dr. Svend Buhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO Hello Listoids, Svend --- Dr. Svend Buhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:... I do not agree that the Glossary of Geology of the American Geological Institute is a sound reference for nomenclature and terminology of meteorites. GIST: For those that don't want to read the details, I am asserting that even thought there is something to a complex ablation surface on iron meteorites, the widely accepted and published definition of fusion crust states that it is a glassy coating, which would exclude the coatings on irons from being called fusion crusts. I also call for a revision of the definition to overcome that exclusion. Thank you for joining the debate, Svend. Nice to know someone has access to Buckwald's hand book. It is good we can have academic debates and not attack the messengers. I trust you will accept this as a discussion of a deficiency in the literature and not a disregard for yourself nor V.F. Buchwald. I believe the use of the term fusion crust is weakly founded in literature in general for the ablation surface is far more complicated than the simplification of aglassy melt. This need not be anangels on the head of a pin argument for I feel that a revised definition dropping glass/glassy else making a distinction for the rind on iron meteorites being different is long overdue. It is human nature to tend to believe the references we have in our possession over those not in our possession. Unfortunately, Buchwald's work at $2000-$3000 isn't available to most institutions, researchers, nor collectors. There is also no easily found evidence that he attempted to change the definition of fusion crust to include the rind that forms on irons. Rather he adopted a concept already in use. An opinion by a distinguished researcher in 1975 may open a door to a revision of the definition but the accepted definition in literature simply does not address the rind/coating/glaze occurring on iron meteorites. We need a revised definition for fusion crust however, I've no idea who would be the crusade leader. The reality remains that the vast citations/definitions in world literature still specifically state glass as a component of fusion crust when composition is discussed. Without an uniform operational definition that is accepted throughout the research/education community any discussion--even by Buchwald, has a fatal flaw semantically speaking. As it is, I am not incorrect in asserting as I did in previous posts, according to widely published definition, there is no occurrence of fusion crust on iron meteorites. There is something, yes, but it isn't covered by the literature at large. Exhibits cited from the web: NASA Fusion Crust: Dark glassy coating on the surface of a meteorite.. http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/Activities/ExpMetMys/Glossary.pdf Typical definition found at Institutions of higher learning: FUSION CRUST - Melted glassy exterior of a meteorite that forms when it passes through Earth's atmosphere... ...fuses to form a thin, glassy skin which envelopes the whole meteorite. http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Book-GlossaryF.html Planetary Science Research Discoveries (PSRD) Fusion crust: The glassy, melted rind on a meteorite that forms when the rock passes through the Earth's atmosphere. http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/PSRDglossary.html Britannica: any meteorite consisting mainly of iron, usually combined with small amounts of nickel. When such meteorites, called irons, fall through the atmosphere, a thin, black crust of iron oxide may form that quickly weathers to rust. Elton aka Eman __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:17:25 +0100, you wrote: But it doesn't hit the point regarding meteorites. Glassy evokes the impression of something shiny, very smooth, mirror-like. But as we all now But the laymen use of the term isn't the scientific one. Glassy means something that cooled quickly enough that it didn't have time to crystalize and is instead, on the atomic level, an amorphous mess. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
I defined glass in a previous post specifically as that which is formed from fuseing/melting silicates. Which is closest to your thrid definition of glassy. This isn't a discussion of commercial applications of glass or philosophical ones. You missed the point of this whole arguement that technical literature defines fusion crust as containing glass -- the amorphous state of silicates. There is no manipulation of the terms by me. I quoted directly from the published definitions. I used your website in research btw. Elton --- Eric Twelker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only problem here is that EMan has changed the definition of glassy to make his argument work. Here is what Princeton says: Adjective S: (adj) glassy (resembling glass in smoothness and shininess and slickness) the glassy surface of the lake; the pavement was...glassy with water- Willa Cather S: (adj) glassy, glazed ((used of eyes) lacking liveliness) empty eyes; a glassy stare; his eyes were glazed over with boredom S: (adj) glassy, vitreous, vitrified ((of ceramics) having the surface made shiny and nonporous by fusing a vitreous solution to it) glazed pottery; glassy porcelain; hard vitreous china used for plumbing fixtures I'll go with common sense on this one. Fusion crust is the fused rind on the outside of a meteorite. And people whose eyes are glassy don't all have glass eyes. Eric Twelker __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
On 7 Jan 2007 at 14:26, Darren Garrison wrote: Glassy means something that cooled quickly enough that it didn't have time to crystalize and is instead, on the atomic level, an amorphous mess. I think this is a stretch of the term 'glassy'. Unless there is somewhere a reference to this meaning that I am not aware of? Yet, I still come down on this side of 'Irons DO have fusion crusts' I don't think this statement supports it. Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
I agree. But using an expression (also a scientific one) in a phenomenological manner we should take care to avoid a contradiction (or even tensions) between the phenomenological and the scientific dimension. - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthias Bärmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:26 PM Subject: Re: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:17:25 +0100, you wrote: But it doesn't hit the point regarding meteorites. Glassy evokes the impression of something shiny, very smooth, mirror-like. But as we all now But the laymen use of the term isn't the scientific one. Glassy means something that cooled quickly enough that it didn't have time to crystalize and is instead, on the atomic level, an amorphous mess. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Hi List It occurs to me that many silicated irons exist. So, if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck - Original Message - From: Mr EMan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Eric Twelker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: metlist meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO I defined glass in a previous post specifically as that which is formed from fuseing/melting silicates. Which is closest to your thrid definition of glassy. This isn't a discussion of commercial applications of glass or philosophical ones. You missed the point of this whole arguement that technical literature defines fusion crust as containing glass -- the amorphous state of silicates. There is no manipulation of the terms by me. I quoted directly from the published definitions. I used your website in research btw. Elton --- Eric Twelker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only problem here is that EMan has changed the definition of glassy to make his argument work. Here is what Princeton says: Adjective ?S: (adj) glassy (resembling glass in smoothness and shininess and slickness) the glassy surface of the lake; the pavement was...glassy with water- Willa Cather ?S: (adj) glassy, glazed ((used of eyes) lacking liveliness) empty eyes; a glassy stare; his eyes were glazed over with boredom ?S: (adj) glassy, vitreous, vitrified ((of ceramics) having the surface made shiny and nonporous by fusing a vitreous solution to it) glazed pottery; glassy porcelain; hard vitreous china used for plumbing fixtures I'll go with common sense on this one. Fusion crust is the fused rind on the outside of a meteorite. And people whose eyes are glassy don't all have glass eyes. Eric Twelker __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
no, actually, it's not. amorphous or crytocrystaline, it would still be a glass if it was composed of silicates. - Original Message - From: Gary K. Foote [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO On 7 Jan 2007 at 14:26, Darren Garrison wrote: Glassy means something that cooled quickly enough that it didn't have time to crystalize and is instead, on the atomic level, an amorphous mess. I think this is a stretch of the term 'glassy'. Unless there is somewhere a reference to this meaning that I am not aware of? Yet, I still come down on this side of 'Irons DO have fusion crusts' I don't think this statement supports it. Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:34:12 -0500, you wrote: On 7 Jan 2007 at 14:26, Darren Garrison wrote: Glassy means something that cooled quickly enough that it didn't have time to crystalize and is instead, on the atomic level, an amorphous mess. I think this is a stretch of the term 'glassy'. Unless there is somewhere a reference to this meaning that I am not aware of? http://www.answers.com/glassr=67 Any of a large class of materials with highly variable mechanical and optical properties that solidify from the molten state without crystallization... http://www.answers.com/glassy Characteristic of or resembling glass. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
actually, glassy is the same in both and refers to the surface as it appears to the eye - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthias Bärmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:17:25 +0100, you wrote: But it doesn't hit the point regarding meteorites. Glassy evokes the impression of something shiny, very smooth, mirror-like. But as we all now But the laymen use of the term isn't the scientific one. Glassy means something that cooled quickly enough that it didn't have time to crystalize and is instead, on the atomic level, an amorphous mess. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Hi All, Very interresting discussion. However, I think we may be discussion the wrong terms in this debate. To wit; Dictionary.com defines the two words, Fusion and Crust as: Fusion: 1. the act or process of fusing; the state of being fused. 2. that which is fused; the result of fusing Crust: 5. any more or less hard external covering or coating. 12. to cover with or as with a crust; encrust. I removed any references having to do with slang, food or other non-related types of crust for the sake of clarity. I think we can all agree that fusion occurs on the surface of any meteorite entering Earth's atmosphere. It is the term 'Crust' that seems to be under discussion here. The above definitions of 'Crust' can both be used to describe what is on the surface of afreshly-fallen iron meteorite. Thus we have a 'Fusion Crust' on freshly fallen irons. My $.02 Gary http://www.meteorite-dealers.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Thanks for a cogent answer to my comments, Matthias. We are in violent AGREEMENT. I fear now that I will soon be the dead messenger beating the dead horse on this simple issue. I didn't select the term glassy for my argument. I pointed out that it was quoted from the web site's definition and that is my main beef. The definition is not consistent with usage. I spoke previously about glass in the strict mineralogical sense. By definition, irons don't have fusion crusts if fusion crust is limited to only that material which has glass. Glass doesn't have to look like a window pane nor does it have to look like obsidian. Who here disagrees that trinitite, LDG,tektites, or fulgurites aren't glasses in the mineralogical sense? I researched an extensive list of definitions both on and off line where crust is defined. I also mentioned a list of appearances that this glass could have and most of them didn't make the term glass jump to mind either, e.g. warty, ribbed, net, knobby, whatever. It isn't the appearance that is at issue. It is the composition. Ok is there anyone here that will assert that common iron meteorites have a crust which has a substantial component of melted/vitrified/non-crystallized silicate aka glass? If not then the commonly published definition of fusion crust is in error OR logically what is typically found on an iron meteorite doesn't fit into definition of fusion crust. MY POINT is we need to redefine FUSION CRUST. Now before everyone harumps back in and goes gnashing their teeth and beating their breasts crying sacrilege! and Blasphemer!... Please slow down and reread the two posts. Then tell me where you find published definition's that address the lack of glass on an iron's surface. Buchwald didn't define fusion crust in what Svend quoted, I am curious what his glossary said. Put another way, fusion crust in the literal root word sense encompasses all types of meteorite ablation surfaces. Add the qualifier of glass and it goes contrary to all every glossary I have found. Regards, Elton --- Matthias Bärmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Svend, Elton, for contributing interesting aspects to the discussion. For me it's quite surprising that several sources use the expression glassy (rind, coating, exterior) for defining fusion crust. Okay, glassy is perfect for describing the character of many tektites such as moldavite or Libyan desert glass (sic). But it doesn't hit the point regarding meteorites. Glassy evokes the impression of something shiny, very smooth, mirror-like. But as we all now (and desire for) a fresh fusion crust creates a surface which is mat, like velvet, or untreated leather, or skin of the shark. This is evident what concerns stones, but also in the case of irons(their crust of course is smoother, but nevertheless mat - see relatively fresh found Sikhotes). A glassy, or shiny, smooth stone meteorite always will be the result of wind and sand polish. And a shiny Sikhote always will need a little help of a friend to shine. Best regards, Matthias Baermann __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
Thank you Darren. That clears some of this up for me. Gary On 7 Jan 2007 at 14:48, Darren Garrison wrote: http://www.answers.com/glassr=67 Any of a large class of materials with highly variable mechanical and optical properties that solidify from the molten state without crystallization... __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
U What part of silicated irons may form a fusion crust from my first post did you miss? (GEEZEEE It feels like I am defending my thesis all over again) Regards, Elton --- Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi List It occurs to me that many silicated irons exist. So, if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] WANTED: Ries belemnite/ impact affected fossils
I am in search of a specimen of the Ries offset Jurassic age, belemnites. (Or other examples of shock affected fossils from elsewhere) OR, if you have a publishable photo of said specimens. If anyone has a specimen for sale or trade AND I am still inside the Brotherhood-- please contact me off list. Regards, Elton __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Stonirites and Fenirites and crust
Hello Elton and everyone, Ah, Elton, then may I ask if the appropriate classes of tektites, have a fusion crust just to make a little more interesting discussion? After the huge discussion we just had on this very same subject of fusion crusts for irons, I thought everyone was finally happy:-). Foolish me. I can only add that while glassy certainly applies to silicates, it is not fair jury either way to cite expert definition where the specific case under discussion is not clearly (iron meteorites) contemplated for inclusion or exclusion. There are all kinds of fusion in the literature. As Buchwald is THE iron reference and addresses irons directly and notes fusion crust, I don't see anyone ready to crusade against that. If he wants to call it fusion crust .. well, that's good enough for me. I will give my own weak, independent defense of why irons can be considered to have fusion crust. I will not rely on semantics of secondary words used in definitions by anyone, NASA educators, etc. who come up with lists for general dissemination, etc.: Because the words fusion crust AT FACE VALUE indicate a residual melt or mixing of any sort, in the case of meteorites caused by chaotic frictional heating during entry! Nothing further needed. Metals fuse and silicates fuse. Solder fuses in joints, welding fuses metals, and even household fuses are extruded metal filaments which melt (fuse) upon overly stressing them. Likewise, the crystalline structure of iron meteorites fuses and looses its Widmanstatten structures analogous to a stony losing the definition of chondrules/matrix, etc. Of course I am 100% right (I think), if I don't put myself in the shoes of the counter augmenters, since I have chosen what I consider the most logical interpretation that works for me. But I won't disregard your valid point. It is quite evident you are right when you say that the rinds are of different composition for Stonirites vs. Fenirites, regarding the concept of being glassy. And in order to distinguish them we need to specify to what type of fusion crust we refer. There is no confusion in the scientific community as far as I can tell. So there is no need to standardize here to exclude one or the other. You can't take a concept like blood, for example and say it doesn't apply to the red, white or blue stuff, or even Michael's stuff, for example. Just because when most anyone says the word blood, we all think of the red stuff first, unless we happen to be in Tucson during the high season. Best wishes and good health, Doug - Original Message - From: Mr EMan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Eric Twelker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: metlist meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO I defined glass in a previous post specifically as that which is formed from fuseing/melting silicates. Which is closest to your thrid definition of glassy. This isn't a discussion of commercial applications of glass or philosophical ones. You missed the point of this whole arguement that technical literature defines fusion crust as containing glass -- the amorphous state of silicates. There is no manipulation of the terms by me. I quoted directly from the published definitions. I used your website in research btw. Elton __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 13:56:00 -0700, you wrote: phenomenological It this really a word? Sounds like a George Bush word. It seems perfectly cromulent to me. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's... was Iron Falls NJO
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 meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com 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 PS: As to widmanstatten pattern of some sort, Ok, from a photo? if you say so wink 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 __ Meteorite-list mailing
[meteorite-list] Forestburg (b) L5 chondrite
Hello Gary and List, I just received and photographed this very nice slice of Forestburg (b) from the Hupe Collection...and this one is just beautiful Shock stage S5, weathering grade W1; the chondrite is shock blackened and contains impact melt clasts. If you want to take a look it is here: http://www.meteorite-dealers.com/forestburg2-6.html Congratulations, Gary! Excellent choice! Anyone who hasn't seen this beauty yet, should do so. Like Gary, I am one of the happy owners of a beautiful Forestburg (b) slice. Forestburg (b) is much more handsome than Forestburg (a). My Forestburg (a/b) slices are from M. Cottingham and when I first saw Michael's Forestburg (b) pictures on EBay, I knew I had to own it. It still is one of my all-time favorites with its grayish-black, fresh matrix, its abundant, evenly distributed FeNi specks, and its grayish-white oval chondrules! Although it is possible that the stone has been transported by water (rusty brown, weathered fusion crust), it is so very fresh that it seems improbable that it was exposed to water for a longer period of time. Even though its Fa value of 25.8 puts it in the vicinity of the LL chondrites, its low-Ca pyroxene composition (Fs21.6) is still within the range for L chondrites. What a meteorite! Best wishes, Bernd To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
DOH!! - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Freeman mjwy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 13:56:00 -0700, you wrote: phenomenological It this really a word? Sounds like a George Bush word. It seems perfectly cromulent to me. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Forestburg (b) L5 chondrite
Thank you Bernd, I just finished uploading a very nice slice of Tulia (b) with a great 'river' of FeNi at one end - also received from the Hupe' collection. http://www.meteorite-dealers.com/tulia2-2.html Best, Gary On 7 Jan 2007 at 21:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Gary and List, I just received and photographed this very nice slice of Forestburg (b) from the Hupe Collection...and this one is just beautiful Shock stage S5, weathering grade W1; the chondrite is shock blackened and contains impact melt clasts. If you want to take a look it is here: http://www.meteorite-dealers.com/forestburg2-6.html Congratulations, Gary! Excellent choice! Anyone who hasn't seen this beauty yet, should do so. Like Gary, I am one of the happy owners of a beautiful Forestburg (b) slice. Forestburg (b) is much more handsome than Forestburg (a). My Forestburg (a/b) slices are from M. Cottingham and when I first saw Michael's Forestburg (b) pictures on EBay, I knew I had to own it. It still is one of my all-time favorites with its grayish-black, fresh matrix, its abundant, evenly distributed FeNi specks, and its grayish-white oval chondrules! Although it is possible that the stone has been transported by water (rusty brown, weathered fusion crust), it is so very fresh that it seems improbable that it was exposed to water for a longer period of time. Even though its Fa value of 25.8 puts it in the vicinity of the LL chondrites, its low-Ca pyroxene composition (Fs21.6) is still within the range for L chondrites. What a meteorite! Best wishes, Bernd To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re-2: Forestburg (b) L5 chondrite
I just finished uploading a very nice slice of Tulia (b) with a great 'river' of FeNi at one end - also received from the Hupé collection. http://www.meteorite-dealers.com/tulia2-2.html Breathtaking 'river' of FeNi ! I only have a Tulia, H3-4 (a) slice. I wonder what would happen if such extraordinary meteorites would be re-classified with the modern methods meteoriticists have available! Cheers, Good night, Sweet Dreams, Bernd To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes
Elton;You have some good points on consistency of the use of the term of 'fusion crust on iron meteorites' Of course stony meteorites fusion crust consists of magnetite too just like the irons.And i think V.F. Buchwald set the standard for definition of fusion crust on iron meteorites.His work is and will always be top notch in the world of iron meteorites.I think.Just as Eric Twelker's website is a good place to go for references and information on meteorites in general.SUPER SITE,SUPER GUY! Hope to read more on this subject,Herman.. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Strangest link between life on earth and mars yet!
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1817115.htm _ Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improvelocale=en-USsource=hmemailtaglinenov06FORM=WLMTAG __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
Hi, I hope someone can help me. I am looking for a photo of the Nogata Meteorite that I can use in a powerpoint presentation. Thanks, Peter Scherff __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
Hi Peter, The only image I have seen of it was in a video about meteorites. For those in the peanut gallery, it is the stone that fell May 19, 861ad. in Nogata, Japan, crashing through the roof of a monastery of Buddhist monks. It is the oldest documented hammer I know of. I believe not one single mg has ever been made available to any one or any institution. It is highly revered by the monks, supposedly because it is considered to have fallen from heaven. (Such reported beliefs are often ethnocentrically biased and/or involve misinterpretations in translation - so, who can say how/what the monks REALLY think of it) - in any event, it is highly regarded and absolutely none of the material has ever been available). In the video, a monk brought out the box in which it is kept and the video was quite clear, as the interviewer and the monk were outside in the courtyard. It was larger than a golf ball but smaller than a baseball. If you do discover a still photo of it, I would much appreciate if you let me know of it, as I am working on a book about hammers. Right now all I have depictions of are mostly the 40 or 45 I have for sale. As rare as some of them are, I would say Nogata takes the cake, as it is TOTALLY unavailable. Good luck, Michael on 1/7/07 5:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I hope someone can help me. I am looking for a photo of the Nogata Meteorite that I can use in a powerpoint presentation. Thanks, Peter Scherff __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair -- What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It is what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Josh Billings (but oft credited to Mark Twain) __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] New Jersey Metal Object Identified As A Meteorite
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/nyregion/06rock.html What Landed in New Jersey? It Came From Outer Space By KAREEM FAHIM New York Times January 6, 2007 It was not from the neighborhood. The object that tore through the roof of a house in the New Jersey suburbs this week was an iron meteorite, perhaps billions of years old and maybe ripped from the belly of an asteroid, experts who examined it said yesterday. Tentatively named Freehold Township for the place where it landed - and ruined a second-floor bathroom - the meteorite is only the second found in New Jersey, said Jeremy S. Delaney, a Rutgers University expert who examined it. It's a pretty exciting find, said Dr. Delaney, who has examined thousands of meteorites. He said that the first New Jersey meteorite was found in 1829, in the seaside town of Deal. The meteorite now belongs to the family whose house it ended up in, said Lt. Robert Brightman of the Freehold Township Police Department, adding that they had asked not to be identified. The family has not yet given permission for physical testing of the meteorite, but from looking at it, Dr. Delaney and other experts were able to tell that the object it had been part of - perhaps an asteroid - cooled relatively fast. It is magnetic, and reasonably dense, they determined. The leading edge - the one that faced forward as it traveled through the earth's atmosphere - was much smoother, while the so-called trailing edge seemed to have caught pieces of molten metal. In fact, Mr. Delaney said, it seemed very similar to another meteorite fragment, the Ahnighito, now on display at the American Museum of Natural History. This little guy is a lot like it, he said. It's a good candidate for the core of an asteroid. And the scientists are hoping that the owners of the Freehold Township will make it available for testing and public viewing, like the Ahnighito, a 34-ton chunk of the Cape York meteorite found in Greenland. Or, they could sell it. The worth of a meteorite like this is almost completely determined by where it fell, said Eric Twelker, a geologist and a dealer in meteorites, who buys and sells perhaps a hundred of them a month on meteoritemarket.com, his Web site. He was speaking of the premium placed on meteorites with a compelling back story, like the football-size rock that crashed into a parked Chevrolet in Peekskill, N.Y., in 1992. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Forestburg (b) L5 chondrite
Re: http://www.meteorite-dealers.com/forestburg2-6.html Hello Gary, Bernd and list, Gary commented I just received and photographed this very nice slice of Forestburg (b) from the Hupe' Collection. Lately I've been focusing on widening my collection by purchasing smaller specimens and this one is just beautiful. Bernd replied Like Gary, I am one of the happy owners of a beautiful Forestburg (b) slice. Forestburg (b) is much more handsome than Forestburg (a). I agree with both of you. Forestburg (b) is a very beautiful meteorite. Nice black matrix with green inclusions and scattered specks of metal. (Strange how common the color green is in black chondrites.) Forestburg (b) does look a lot better then Forestburg (a). But between the two, Forestburg (a) does appear to be a little more weathered so perhaps we should handicap it a little ;^) I look new photographs of my Forestburg (a) and (b) slices and have them loaded in the gallery of my website linked below. http://www.meteoritearticles.com/colforestburga.html http://www.meteoritearticles.com/colforestburgb.html A photograph from my Forestburg (b) thin section is shown here... http://www.meteoritearticles.com/colforestburgbts.html Clear Skies, Mark Bostick Wichita, Kansas www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
Michael, I wonder what the monks would or have said about it? Why doesn't someone ask them? I bet they would be happy to share their views. I doubt they revere a rock. What could it represent to a Buddhist? Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:00:10 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite Hi Peter, The only image I have seen of it was in a video about meteorites. For those in the peanut gallery, it is the stone that fell May 19, 861ad. in Nogata, Japan, crashing through the roof of a monastery of Buddhist monks. It is the oldest documented hammer I know of. I believe not one single mg has ever been made available to any one or any institution. It is highly revered by the monks, supposedly because it is considered to have fallen from heaven. (Such reported beliefs are often ethnocentrically biased and/or involve misinterpretations in translation - so, who can say how/what the monks REALLY think of it) - in any event, it is highly regarded and absolutely none of the material has ever been available). In the video, a monk brought out the box in which it is kept and the video was quite clear, as the interviewer and the monk were outside in the courtyard. It was larger than a golf ball but smaller than a baseball. If you do discover a still photo of it, I would much appreciate if you let me know of it, as I am working on a book about hammers. Right now all I have depictions of are mostly the 40 or 45 I have for sale. As rare as some of them are, I would say Nogata takes the cake, as it is TOTALLY unavailable. Good luck, Michael on 1/7/07 5:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I hope someone can help me. I am looking for a photo of the Nogata Meteorite that I can use in a powerpoint presentation. Thanks, Peter Scherff __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair -- What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It is what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Josh Billings (but oft credited to Mark Twain) __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:00:10 -0800, you wrote: If you do discover a still photo of it, I would much appreciate if you let me know of it, as I am working on a book about hammers. Right Plugging the Japanese word for meteorite inseki along with Nogata pulls up this small image: http://www.nogata-cci.or.jp/kan-inseki.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
Here is a google search with the kanji for nogata and inseki plugged in. You can use the google translater to get Matteo-esque translations of the pages: http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=enlr=safe=offq=%E9%9A%95%E7%9F%B3%20%E7%9B%B4%E6%96%B9%E5%B8%82btnG=Searchie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8sa=Ntab=iw From one of the links, here is a monument to the Nogata meteorite with a (apparently from the photo) larger-than-life model of the meteorite: http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/53/ac/130dba420e52a8dd680f5d14395e019f.jpg __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
Hi, For the lurking List, Nogata is an ordinary chondrite, type L: After detonations and a brilliant flash at night, a stone fell which was recovered from a hole in the ground the following morning. The stone has been preserved since its fall in the Shinto shrine of Suga Jinja, and the date of fall (April 7 in the third year of Jogan, i.e.. May 19, 861 in the Julian calendar) is written on the wooden box containing the stone. However, the script is of a later date than 861, as is the wooden box (S. Murayama, letter_ of_ 13_ June_, 1980_, in Min. Dept., NHM, London). A single mass of 472g, description, analysis, olivine Fa 25.1^, orthopyroxene Fs 22^, 19.45 % total iron, M. Shima et al. (1983). Noble gas systematics, CRE age ~ 64Ma; K-Ar age ~ 4.75Ga, N. Takaoka et al. (1989). 470g remain in the possesion of Suga Junja Shrine. Nice fusion crust, I would guess, from the darkness of the stone in the photo. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael L Blood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:00:10 -0800, you wrote: If you do discover a still photo of it, I would much appreciate if you let me know of it, as I am working on a book about hammers. Right Plugging the Japanese word for meteorite inseki along with Nogata pulls up this small image: http://www.nogata-cci.or.jp/kan-inseki.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
Hello Michael. Nogotta meteorite :-)? If you are writing a book, may I suggest... For a good look at the stone, Check Figure 1 (page 90, see online link below) of the 1983 paper on the Nogata chondrite or better yet, contact the authors, for a nice picture of the low iron L6 meteorite which appears to be oriented (and is triangular shaped). While this aptly historically called Flying Stone was purported to be a hammer hitting the Butoku Jinja Temple Shrine, I would doubt that somewhat as it seems more likely that the 472 gram meteorite was lifted out of a small hole made in the ground by villagers, not priests, and not scraped off the side the (stone - or rice paper?) Shrine building. Perhaps the purported hammer was a different stone from the same fall, though multiple pieces are apparently not mentioned. No reverence whatsoever is mentioned, just that it was kept as a treasure, and the sonic booms and light phenomena were apparently nicely recorded in the almost ancient documentation. Shima, M. et. al., Description, Chemical Composition and Noble Gases of the Chondrite Nogata, Meteoritics, Vol. 18, 30 June 1983, p. 87-102. The authors received a sample of the treasure from the kind Shinto priest M. Iwakuma of the now renamed Suga Jinja Shrine where it was kept as a treasure for 1,120 years. In 1983 they lamented about the impossibility of asking for more than 20 g to do some better MS compositional analysis with the tools of the time, given the status of it being a treasure for over a thousand years, kept in a wooden box, which incidentally was carbon dated rather than analyzing the meteorite itself, due to lack of material. The carbon dating was inconclusive though supported it to be ball-parked around 500 years older than the meteorite. The fall date was corroborated with at least two historical records, though. The writing on the box giving the fall year was of a later style script. A complete copy of the paper for poor, impatient and underprivileged people (low resolution terrible contrast photo) is available at: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/gif/1983Metic..18...87S/090.000. html But I am sure you California/Arizona folks have hard, crisp copies coming out of the woodwork in the UCSD library, etc.! Best wishes, Doug - Original Message - From: Michael L Blood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite Hi Peter, The only image I have seen of it was in a video about meteorites. For those in the peanut gallery, it is the stone that fell May 19, 861ad. in Nogata, Japan, crashing through the roof of a monastery of Buddhist monks. It is the oldest documented hammer I know of. I believe not one single mg has ever been made available to any one or any institution. It is highly revered by the monks, supposedly because it is considered to have fallen from heaven. (Such reported beliefs are often ethnocentrically biased and/or involve misinterpretations in translation - so, who can say how/what the monks REALLY think of it) - in any event, it is highly regarded and absolutely none of the material has ever been available). In the video, a monk brought out the box in which it is kept and the video was quite clear, as the interviewer and the monk were outside in the courtyard. It was larger than a golf ball but smaller than a baseball. If you do discover a still photo of it, I would much appreciate if you let me know of it, as I am working on a book about hammers. Right now all I have depictions of are mostly the 40 or 45 I have for sale. As rare as some of them are, I would say Nogata takes the cake, as it is TOTALLY unavailable. Good luck, Michael on 1/7/07 5:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I hope someone can help me. I am looking for a photo of the Nogata Meteorite that I can use in a powerpoint presentation. Thanks, Peter Scherff __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair -- What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It is what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Josh Billings (but oft credited to Mark Twain) __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite
This meteorite could be the subject of all kinds of fantasy books. Seemingly stoic monks stash a rock contrary to their beliefs. Ninth century act of passion? Call the monks! Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:28:52 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite Hello Michael. Nogotta meteorite :-)? If you are writing a book, may I suggest... For a good look at the stone, Check Figure 1 (page 90, see online link below) of the 1983 paper on the Nogata chondrite or better yet, contact the authors, for a nice picture of the low iron L6 meteorite which appears to be oriented (and is triangular shaped). While this aptly historically called Flying Stone was purported to be a hammer hitting the Butoku Jinja Temple Shrine, I would doubt that somewhat as it seems more likely that the 472 gram meteorite was lifted out of a small hole made in the ground by villagers, not priests, and not scraped off the side the (stone - or rice paper?) Shrine building. Perhaps the purported hammer was a different stone from the same fall, though multiple pieces are apparently not mentioned. No reverence whatsoever is mentioned, just that it was kept as a treasure, and the sonic booms and light phenomena were apparently nicely recorded in the almost ancient documentation. Shima, M. et. al., Description, Chemical Composition and Noble Gases of the Chondrite Nogata, Meteoritics, Vol. 18, 30 June 1983, p. 87-102. The authors received a sample of the treasure from the kind Shinto priest M. Iwakuma of the now renamed Suga Jinja Shrine where it was kept as a treasure for 1,120 years. In 1983 they lamented about the impossibility of asking for more than 20 g to do some better MS compositional analysis with the tools of the time, given the status of it being a treasure for over a thousand years, kept in a wooden box, which incidentally was carbon dated rather than analyzing the meteorite itself, due to lack of material. The carbon dating was inconclusive though supported it to be ball-parked around 500 years older than the meteorite. The fall date was corroborated with at least two historical records, though. The writing on the box giving the fall year was of a later style script. A complete copy of the paper for poor, impatient and underprivileged people (low resolution terrible contrast photo) is available at: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/gif/1983Metic..18...87S/090.000. html But I am sure you California/Arizona folks have hard, crisp copies coming out of the woodwork in the UCSD library, etc.! Best wishes, Doug - Original Message - From: Michael L Blood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Nogata Meteorite Hi Peter, The only image I have seen of it was in a video about meteorites. For those in the peanut gallery, it is the stone that fell May 19, 861ad. in Nogata, Japan, crashing through the roof of a monastery of Buddhist monks. It is the oldest documented hammer I know of. I believe not one single mg has ever been made available to any one or any institution. It is highly revered by the monks, supposedly because it is considered to have fallen from heaven. (Such reported beliefs are often ethnocentrically biased and/or involve misinterpretations in translation - so, who can say how/what the monks REALLY think of it) - in any event, it is highly regarded and absolutely none of the material has ever been available). In the video, a monk brought out the box in which it is kept and the video was quite clear, as the interviewer and the monk were outside in the courtyard. It was larger than a golf ball but smaller than a baseball. If you do discover a still photo of it, I would much appreciate if you let me know of it, as I am working on a book about hammers. Right now all I have depictions of are mostly the 40 or 45 I have for sale. As rare as some of them are, I would say Nogata takes the cake, as it is TOTALLY unavailable. Good luck, Michael on 1/7/07 5:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I hope someone can help me. I am looking for a photo of the Nogata Meteorite that I can use in a powerpoint presentation. Thanks, Peter Scherff __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair -- What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It is what we know for sure
