Jason and Everyone, To continue this discussion, I am labeling “who said what.”
>Phyllis: My reference to “bubbles” is to morphology, NOT voids. Another >meteoritic example of “bubble morphology effects” is pallasitic olivines such >as Springwater and Imilac. Jason: So you're saying that the bubbles on the surface of your irons are like the olivine crystals in pallasites? And yet they don't occur within the meteorites -- just on the surface. Phyllis: That is NOT what I am saying. We are not communicating! Jason: There are a few problems with your reasoning. 1) The reason that pallasites look the way they do is because of the fact that they're full of circular inclusions (peridot) that weather out more quickly than the iron. Those inclusions aren't just on the surface - they occur throughout the meteorite, so when you compare surface morphologies, you can't really equate the two unless you're saying that irons are full of vugs. If you acknowledge the fact that iron meteorites are, on the whole, not full of, well, holes, then you're comparing apples to oranges. Phyllis: You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting my points. Jason: 2) Pallasites such as Springwater and Imilac are heavily weathered pallasites. In fact, most pallasites are quite weathered. I haven't been able to find any nice photos of the outer surface of a fresh one, but if you're going to compare fresh irons to weathered pallasites, well, again, you're comparing things in such a way as to make a comparison between two changing variables - in this case, initial outer surface formation - and weathering effects. This just isn't good logic or a particularly scientific way of thinking. Phyllis: Once again, you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting my points. I’m not talking about weathering at all. My insights come from viewing cut and polished specimens of pallasites and irons on a microscope, as well as looking at external surfaces. Jason: We could be looking at remnants of convection currents, impact-induced deformation...anything, really. "Surface energy" is far too-simplistic a way to think about things. Phyllis: Yes, there are many mechanisms to consider. But I am the only person to point out that gravity is, logically, a variable in the formation of meteoritic materials – and, by the way – moon glass, also! – and, therefore, surface energy effects are important must be considered. Phyllis: Your picture. Yes, solid state phase transformations also occur but only a controlled laboratory experiment can determine what times and temperatures produce a given transformation. As for the rest of your comments, I’ll just keep thinking about Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift, not to mention Galileo. Phyllis Budka http://meteormetals.com/ ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
