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

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 18:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1367458517.61363.YahooMailNeo_at_web122005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

I cannot believe anybody would call any meteorite crap.? It is just a matter of time before somebody finds the big one in a DCA!

Just wait until Team LunarRock finds the first 9.99 lbs Lunar meteorite in one of 25 DCAs within a few hours drive of my house. Our team has decided how to deal with this Lunaite since more than likely, it will have been found on federal land and cannot be used for commercial purpose. ? We will just have to cut that new lunar into thousands of slices and give every collector a 1 plus gram piece for free.? Of course science will have first option on the type specimen repository samples.

Dreams are free, Self-pairing is not.


----- 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: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re: ...terminology...)

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.


Jim Wooddell - Mobile

Michael Mulgrew <mikestang at gmail.com> wrote:

>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
>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

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Received on Wed 01 May 2013 09:35:17 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb