[meteorite-list] 3rd attempt

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

From: Matson, Robert <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:31:15 2004
Message-ID: <AF564D2B9D91D411B9FE00508BF1C86904EE5B7E_at_US-Torrance.mail.saic.com>

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C42763.DE2F2536
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi All,

This is getting frustrating, but I think I've figured out a pattern
to which posts make it to Met Central, and which ones go to the
twilight zone. I guess I'll know in a moment. I'm sending this
message to BOTH 'meteorite-list-admin_at_meteoritecentral.com' and
'meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com', as the latter by itself is
clearly insufficient. --Rob

- - - -

-----Original Message-----
From: Matson, Robert
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:29 PM
To: 'BOORX4_at_aol.com'; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Meteorite pairing

Hi Bob,

> Could some knowledgeable list member please describe or give a definition
> as to what "Meteorite Pairing" or "Paired Meteorites" exactly is. I have
> a vague idea but would like to have a better understanding.

The simplest definition is the process whereby it can be reasonably
determined that two or more distinct meteorites or meteorite fragments
are part of the same fall -- more specifically, that they were all once
part of a single body immediately prior to entering the earth's atmosphere.

I can think of at least three ways that one can "pair" meteorites. The
most reliable is physical pairing: two fragments that can be unambiguously
pieced together. Less reliable is proximity pairing (and in many areas
this method is quite unreliable without additional evidence). A third
pairing technique is by classification (typically coupled with proximity).
The reliability of this method really depends on the rarity of the
meteorite type. Two weathered H5s found 50 feet apart is obviously not
as reliable as two fresh CV3s found a mile apart.

I suppose a 4th method would be based on classification alone, though
this would be limited to specimens which have something sufficiently
distinctive about them (e.g. a fresh fall like Park Forest would certainly
qualify). For common meteorite types (H, L, LL), petrologic grade,
weathering, shock, fayalite and ferrosilite percentages generally would
not be sufficient.

Cheers,
Rob

------_=_NextPart_001_01C42763.DE2F2536
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2657.71">
<TITLE>3rd attempt</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

Hi All,


This is getting frustrating, but I think I've figured =
out a pattern
 to which posts make it to Met Central, and which =
ones go to the
 twilight zone.  I guess I'll know in a =
moment.  I'm sending this
 message to BOTH =
'meteorite-list-admin_at_meteoritecentral.com' and
 'meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com', as the latter =
by itself is
 clearly insufficient.  --Rob


- - - -


-----Original Message-----
 From: Matson, Robert
 Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:29 PM
 To: 'BOORX4_at_aol.com'; =
meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
 Subject: Meteorite pairing


Hi Bob,
  
 > Could some knowledgeable list member please =
describe or give a definition
 > as to what "Meteorite Pairing" or =
"Paired Meteorites" exactly is.  I have
 > a vague idea  but would like to have a =
better understanding. 
  
 The simplest definition is the process whereby it =
can be reasonably determined that two or more distinct meteorites or =
meteorite fragments

are part of the same fall -- more specifically, that =
they were all once
 part of a single body immediately prior to entering =
the earth's atmosphere.
  
 I can think of at least three ways that one can =
"pair" meteorites.  The
 most reliable is physical pairing:  two =
fragments that can be unambiguously
 pieced together.  Less reliable is proximity =
pairing (and in many areas
 this method is quite unreliable without additional =
evidence).  A third
 pairing technique is by classification (typically =
coupled with proximity).
 The reliability of this method really depends on the =
rarity of the
 meteorite type.  Two weathered H5s found 50 =
feet apart is obviously not
 as reliable as two fresh CV3s found a mile =
apart.
  
 I suppose a 4th method would be based on =
classification alone, though
 this would be limited to specimens which have =
something sufficiently
 distinctive about them (e.g. a fresh fall like Park =
Forest would certainly
 qualify).  For common meteorite types (H, L, =
LL), petrologic grade,
 weathering, shock, fayalite and ferrosilite =
percentages generally would
 not be sufficient.
  
 Cheers,
 Rob


</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C42763.DE2F2536--
Received on Wed 21 Apr 2004 01:47:58 AM PDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: David Freeman: "[meteorite-list] Boxes to shipping issues"
Previous message: MARK BOSTICK: "[meteorite-list] Harvill to Perry Letter, April 10, 1952"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

StumbleUpon

del.icio.us

Yahoo MyWeb