[meteorite-list] FW: Meteorite pairing

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: <AF564D2B9D91D411B9FE00508BF1C86904EE5B7A_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_01C42748.546F7C1C
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

I'm sending this out again -- evidently it never made the list. Seems to be
a common
problem lately... --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_01C42748.546F7C1C
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN class=057003702-21042004>I'm sending this out again -- evidently it
never made the list.  Seems to be a common</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=057003702-21042004>problem lately... --Rob</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=057003702-21042004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Matson, Robert
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 19, 2004 8:29 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'BOORX4_at_aol.com';
meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Meteorite
pairing<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>Hi Bob,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>> </SPAN>Could some knowledgeable list
member please describe or give a definition as to<SPAN
class=476331503-20042004> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>></SPAN> what "Meteorite Pairing" or
"Paired Meteorites" exactly is.  I have a vague idea<SPAN
class=476331503-20042004> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>></SPAN> but would like to have a better
understanding.<SPAN class=476331503-20042004> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>The simplest definition is the process
whereby it can be reasonably determined</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>that two or more distinct meteorites or
meteorite fragments are part of the same</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>fall -- more specifically, that they were
all once part of a single body immediately</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>prior to </SPAN><SPAN
class=476331503-20042004>entering the earth's atmosphere.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>I can think of at least three ways
that one can "pair" meteorites.  The most reliable</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>is physical pairing:  two fragments
that can be unambiguously pieced together.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>Less reliable is proximity pairing (and in
many areas this method </SPAN><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>is
quite</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>unreliable without additional
evidence).  A third pairing technique is by classification</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>(typically coupled with proximity). 
The reliability of this method really </SPAN><SPAN
class=476331503-20042004>depends</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>on the rarity of the meteorite type. 
Two weathered H5s found 50 feet apart is</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>obviously not as reliable as two fresh CV3s
found a mile apart.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>I suppose a 4th method would be based on
classification alone, </SPAN><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>though this
would</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>be limited to specimens which have something
sufficiently distinctive about them</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>(e.g. a fresh fall like Park Forest would
certainly qualify).  </SPAN><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>For common
meteorite</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>types (H, L, LL), petrologic grade,
weathering, shock, </SPAN><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>fayalite and
ferrosilite</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>percentages generally would not be
sufficient.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>Cheers,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004>Rob</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476331503-20042004></SPAN> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C42748.546F7C1C--
Received on Tue 20 Apr 2004 10:29:12 PM PDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Steve Arnold, Chicago!!!: "[meteorite-list] GIVING AWAY METEORITES AGAIN,PT. 3"
Previous message: Mauro Daniel: "[meteorite-list] This is censorship!"

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