[meteorite-list] Largest Carbonaceous Meteorites

From: E.L. Jones <jonee_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:41:11 2004
Message-ID: <3A941C28.A2F60EFA_at_epix.net>

Hello Frank and List,

 As regarding the sub groups which you mentioned.... I want to make sure
everyone knows that these numbers are not "ordinal" values -- they are nominal.
The "numbers" aren't mathematical values. They are "names" for observations. For
example, the value "2" means that there is evidence of aqueous alteration not the
same relative value as 4, 5, or 6 is in ordinary chondrites. From what I know of
the "decimal value" in petrology ; the radiologically induced thermoluminescence
intensities in feldspars and glasses???-- The classification doesn't apply yet to
Carbonaceous Chondrites. It could someday or it may come to mean something
else. If someone is aware of new classification strategies speak up. Usage of
classification concept in one type of meteorite doesn't mean it carries across
all.

There is no reason that I know why the analysis of free metal in common
chondrites chould not follow the values for the classification of Irons.... yet
the scientific community doesn't. And when we do get another category with a
scalable characteristic-- "Rare-earth Widget Scavenging" or "Vug densities" will
we have 3.6.1s and 3.9.6 and 3.0.0s? or 3.6.VIIs?

Some might question this strategy of using the decimal value in the
classification scheme. Does anyone know if it has much of a following with all
researchers...i.e is it now a conventional part of the petrology of
classification, OR is it something someone thought they would do on their own?

Elton

> Frank Cressy wrote: <snip>
> Also has this CO3 find been further classified into a 3.0 to 3.9 subgroup?
Received on Wed 21 Feb 2001 02:53:10 PM PST