[meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re: ...terminology...)

From: wahlperry at aol.com <wahlperry_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 20:45:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8D014E57F5293F3-3528-1D715_at_webmail-d202.sysops.aol.com>

Hi Jim,

What was the weight of your new H-metal meteorite from the Franconia
DCA? Was this the meteorite that you sent me a picture of or a new one?

Thanks,
Sonny
www.nevadameteorites.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wooddell <jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net>
To: Michael Mulgrew <mikestang at gmail.com>; Meteorite List
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re:
...terminology...)


Michael,There is a lot that has not been learned from the Franconia
area.More information will be known in the future despite an award
winning comment from a member of the Drama Queen Dream Team that
hunting in and classifying 'crap' in DCA's is a waste, yet a new
H-metal out of it....some more pending...4 mile extension of the
collection area....no...none of that is a contribution...not to mention
the work which was paid for INAA Testing, EMPA, thin sectioning, grad
student work...yea nothing contributed to science! Certainly a
discredit to everyone that made the effort at getting anything anywhere
classified. To those hunters my hat is off, with respect. Its too bad
the original DCAs in the area were made the way the were. The new DCA
makes way more sense for the time being.JimJim Wooddell - MobileMichael
Mulgrew <mikestang at gmail.com> wrote:>List,>>One more question regarding
the latest Franconia paper, M. Hutson et>al., 2013, regarding the
sample sized used in that study vs. their>concluded number of falls for
the area: They only looked at 14 rocks,>concluding that 7 were separate
falls. If they looked at 50 rocks,>would they have found 25 falls?
Why did they select only 14 rocks,>was it a matter of how much research
they could fund? I'd hope the>samples were not selected specifically
for their appearance, as they>stated in the paper that visual pairing
based on the exterior of the>stones was completely misleading.>>They
incorrectly reported that the 14 stones in their study make up>3.7% of
the total finds for the area, 380. We all know this number is>much
higher, by a factor of 20 or more probably. For example, I know of>one
hunter who made more than 600 finds in a single year. A
similar>disconnect exists with their statement regarding the %
representation of>total mass of all finds. I'm not sure how they can
come to such a>definitive fall count with such a miniscule sampling of
finds from the>area.>>Ok, two questions: Does anyone know why the irons
(H-metal) from the>area were ignored in this study? Surely they are
directly related to>these chondritic falls, and as Yucca
015>(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57175) shows
us,>there are multiple unique H-metals out there as well.>>Back to
winning the lottery to get all this sorted out!>Michael in so.
Cal.>______________________________________________>>Visit the Archives
at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com>Meteorite-list mailing
list>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/
listinfo/meteorite-list______________________________________________Visi
t the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.comMeteorite-list
mailing
listMeteorite-list at meteoritecentral.comhttp://six.pairlist.net/mailman/li
stinfo/meteorite-list
  
Received on Wed 01 May 2013 08:45:38 PM PDT