Hello Mark and Listers, Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call, all I posted was the analysis and field report done by Silliman and Kingsley on the Weston meteorite fall in 1807.
Mark you said “There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into the latter category.” Please remind me what happened on December 14 1807 around Weston, Connecticut? O yeah, a meteorite fall. And who were the only scientists that went to the meteorite fall, o yeah Silliman and Kingsley. What did they discover, mmm that the stones that people found were actually meteorites from space which comfirmed with other meteorite falls in Europe from Silliman’s and Kingsley’s anyalasis and field study report. I do believe that Silliman’s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a scientific discovery for science and meteoritic science and that the Weston meteorite was first of its kind in the New World. Mark you said “It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others.” Now if you stand by your statement which I believe you do, then wouldn’t you have to agree that Chladni’s work is not a particularly impressive analytical work on meteoritical science? You have to admit that Chladni never step foot in the field and nor did he examine meteorites in his earlier publications on meteorite falls. All he did was reiterate past events, folklore, and stories about meteorite falls and retell the events, nothing more nothing less. In Princes book, A Professor, A President, And a Meteor, she explains that the Hittites people from 3200 years ago understood that meteors came from space. “The Hittites realized the stones yield iron, naming iron kuan. Some scientists consider this the earliest known name for meteoritic iron.) (Prince pg121) Chladni hypothesized that masses of stone and iron do, in fact fall from the sky.( Marvin, 2007 The origins of modern meteorite research) But from your statements above this would put Chladni in the category of not having particularly impressive work cause people before him hypothesized rocks came from space. But as for meteoritical science goes, Chladni is a GODFATHER and as for Silliman goes, he transformed meteoritcal science in the New World with his discovery with the first meteorite fall in the Americas. Here is a link to his analysis report down below. http://books.google.com/books?id=DbkAAAAAYAAJ&dq=silliman%20%20meteorite%20transactions%20Transactions%201809&pg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 eBaystore http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and Kingsley Mark Grossman markig at westnet.com Thu Mar 10 23:04:26 EST 2011 Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts illegal: MECA | Oman Observer Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn, Since you brought up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic again today,, I want to be sure you understand that I am not trying to inflate the work of Woodhouse at the expense of Silliman. I am trying to present a balanced perspective of what both Woodhouse and Silliman accomplished. If you really want to learn about Woodhouse, see J. J. Beer, "The chemistry of the founding fathers", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 53, no. 7 (1976), pp. 405-408. It's available at the following link: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ed053p405 Regarding Silliman's low opinion of Woodhouse, Beer, who taught at the University of Delaware, states: "the long-run evaluation of Woodhouse by his colleagues and subsequent historians is different." He then goes on to outline Woodhouse's accomplishments. See page 407 of the article. There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into the latter category. It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others. Again, everything is on the Meteorite Manuscripts post on Prince's book, which can be viewed at the links below. Mark Mark Grossman Meteorite Manuscripts Briarcliff Manor, NY http://meteoritemanuscripts.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/MetManuscripts http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Meteorite-Manuscripts/152949358073543?v=wall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts illegal: MECA | Oman Observer Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list ______________________________________________ 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
