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

From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 19:14:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH_zgwEswqsJEJm6cpLnOObZgYKMq-JOVw3=v5Zmkjvz_WEX+A_at_mail.gmail.com>

 Oops! The link to the picture...
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa325/desertsunburn/clast2_zps52f5f4e7.jpg

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike and all,
>
> I have to agree with the visual pairing was completely misleading.
> That ought to PO 90% of the hunters out there. I never did have that
> skill and I know some fellows are very exceptional at guessing what
> the rock is.
> Here is a picture of a fairly good sized Franconia area recovery. I'd
> like to ask how many classifications could come out of this rock
> looking at the clasts which become vary apparent in the larger rocks.
> And, you can see signs, at the boundary of those clasts, where
> separation is occurring. So, some of the fragment are one type of
> clast and some are other types of clasts. They look different in the
> rock and they look different as individual fragments. Note the color
> differences and not the number of chondrules in different area.
> I am in no way an expert, but if I find any kind of fragment of a
> meteorite and then later find another, when I cut them and they look
> different, I am going to think they are different and I might be
> right!
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Michael 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
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Wooddell
> jimwooddell at gmail.com
> 928-247-2675

-- 
Jim Wooddell
jimwooddell at gmail.com
928-247-2675

Received on Wed 01 May 2013 10:14:50 PM PDT