[meteorite-list] Is there a Main Mass list?

From: Bob Loeffler <bobl_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:46:44 -0700
Message-ID: <AA8473265D8040F2B7814EA8EE3C618B_at_dell>

Thanks to those who chimed in.

I agree that it's not a scientifically useful stat to keep track of, but
many people have asked for trivial info about meteorites before, and they
will continue to do so after we are all worm food. This is just an
interesting little tidbit that some people wonder about, so having a list in
one place would be nice. Data such as the year in which a met was found, or
the location where it was found, is not scientifically important (we've seen
the arguments on this list before), yet each met entry in the MB db has the
year and location because people want to know those things. But I
understand why you wouldn't want to do this on the MB db... it would
definitely take some time to compile.

Regards,

Bob L.



-----Original Message-----
From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Grossman
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:48 AM
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Is there a Main Mass list?

None of this is something I want to track in the MB Database. It would
be too difficult and time-consuming to track an ever-changing and often
controversial list. Moreover, as you say, it isn't a particularly
useful thing to tabulate. I'll leave it to collectors to take on this task.

Jeff

On 1/25/2012 5:15 AM, MexicoDoug wrote:
> " A main mass list? Heck, there isn't even a "main mass" definition
> everybody agrees on! Here's mine:"
>
> Hi Jeff, all,
>
> A main mass has some scientific value IMO in some circumstances. But
> really, it seems to me one of those things that we keep having to fill
> out on a boilerplate form that serves of little real scientific
> value. Better would be to drop the confusing, unfortunately now
> unscientfic (due to the various definitions as you already reminded
> us) term "main mass" and just have an entry called,
>
> "biggest known piece" = BKP
>
> which is already used analogously in the case of TKW.
>
> in the database. It's really what most collectors are interested in
> anyway and would create probably a bunch more of limited useful
> information llike the TKW's which frequently are significantly
> understated. My take on a 'main mass' wouldn't require it to be more
> than half, but rather the principal piece of the original meteoroid
> from which all fragmentation is derived, and the one expected to
> travel furthest up the dispersion ellipse's axis shedding it all. I
> suppose a scenario of a boulder splitting into two equal pieces would
> screw that up too, but then we could drop some fancier names to
> describe that 'degenerate' case.
>
> Just sounding off
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com>
> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 11:33 am
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Is there a Main Mass list?
>
>
> A main mass list? Heck, there isn't even a "main mass" definition
> everybody agrees on! Here's mine:
>
> "An individual stone/iron or piece of an individual stone/iron that
> comprises the majority (> 50%) of the known mass of a named meteorite."
>
> Jeff
>
> On 1/24/2012 10:08 AM, Bob Loeffler wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> After looking at Jim Strope's photos of the New Concord main mass
> (Rocks
>> from Space Picture of the Day a couple days ago) that he got in a
> trade with
>> ASU (my alma mater; Go Sun Devils!), I thought of a question:
>>
>> Who has the most main masses in their collection? Of course, I
> thought of
>> people like Bob Haag, Mike Farmer, etc and museums like the
> Smithsonian,
>> ASU, etc.
>>
>> Has anyone ever put together such a list? Because of trading, the
> list
>> might be hard to keep updated, but maybe not since main masses are
> coveted
>> and might not be passed around too much. For new falls, the main
> mass will
>> change as newer/bigger pieces are found, but I would think "someone
> in the
>> know" could put together the list, or at least start it.
>>
>> If nobody has such a list, maybe the Meteoritical Bulletin Database
> could
>> have a few more fields added for easy searching. Fields such as Main
> Mass
>> Weight, Main Mass Owner and Main Mass Image (for the best photo of
> the main
>> mass), and then the Owner field could be easily changed if the
> Meteoritical
>> Society finds out that the main mass was sold/traded to someone else.
>> Anyway, just a thought.
>>
>> In case you are wondering, I have no main masses in my collection.
> :-(
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob L.
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>

______________________________________________

Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4765 - Release Date: 01/25/12
Received on Wed 25 Jan 2012 08:46:44 PM PST