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

From: wahlperry at aol.com <wahlperry_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 22:30:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8D014F436544A35-3528-1DFBE_at_webmail-d202.sysops.aol.com>

Hi Jim and List,

I will try to find the picture that you sent from the Franconia area.
If I remember right, the meteorite was approximately 5-7 grams that
basically looked like a small chondritic meteorite with a metal bleb
(as seen in many of the early Franconia meteorites).

Since there has been so much talk about the various meteorite
classifications that have come out of this Franconia/Yucca DCA I wonder
if anyone has taken the time to compare
the large metal blebs that are found in a lot of the early Franconia
area meteorites to the H metal meteorite that Jim found (Yucca 015). A
lot of the larger meteorites found on the North and South side several
years ago displayed these features. I am sure some folks out there have
slices off of some of the larger stones that display the large metal
blebs/flakes. It would be interesting to see how the metal blebs
compare to the H metal meteorites from the same area.

I also read about the terrestrial age dating on the meteorites from the
DCA. What is the margin of error plus or minus on the terrestrial
dating? I know there are various classifications
of meteorites from this DCA I just wonder if Yucca 015 (just using this
as an example) could have fallen as one of the early Franconia
meteorites with the metal blebs but separated during the explosion over
the strewnfield.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell at gmail.com>
To: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 6:37 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re:

Sonny, this is YUCCA 015. I cant remember which picture I
sentyou...been too long
ago.http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57175JimOn 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?>> 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/
> 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>
______________________________________________>> 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
Wooddelljimwooddell at gmail.com928-247-2675________________________________
______________Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteorite-list-archives.comMeteorite-list mailing
listMeteorite-list at meteoritecentral.comhttp://six.pairlist.net/mailman/li
Received on Wed 01 May 2013 10:30:57 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb