[meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re: ...terminology...)
From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 18:37:46 -0700
Sonny, this is YUCCA 015. I cant remember which picture I sent
you...been too long ago.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM, <wahlperry at aol.com> wrote:
> 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?
> -----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/
> t the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.comMeteorite-list
> listMeteorite-list at meteoritecentral.comhttp://six.pairlist.net/mailman/li
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
-- Jim Wooddell jimwooddell at gmail.com 928-247-2675Received on Wed 01 May 2013 09:37:46 PM PDT