[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Arizona Fragments Found?

At 11:09 PM 6/15/98 -0400, you wrote:

>I found the statement  in the article that preceded the one David quoted
>interesting in light of our discussion about the Albion Iron meteorite:
>
>""It's doubtful they've
>                                got the mother lode,
>                                however, because the
>                                lowdown is this:
>                                Meteorites are solid --
>                                if they're iron, they'd
>                                be three times heavier
>                                than a rock of a similar
>                                size -- and won't have
>                                bubblelike pockets or
>                                pores. "
>
>I can understand their thinking of the typical iron meteorite without
>vacuoles as being heavier and not having bubble-like pockets, but what do
>they mean meteorites don't have pores?  If there is one thing I have learned
>on this list it is that meteorites, as well as tektites, are aerodynamically
>shaped with pock marks.  I assume this is what they mean by pores.  Is this
>correct?
>
>Best Wishes,
>Julia

  
  Julia and list,
    I myself took it to mean they were Lava like in appearance, "pores"
meaning holes, not "thumbprint" depressions. Sounds to me they have "meteor
wrongs" though. Guess we'll have to wait for thier lab tests. They also
stated they were crusted on one side and were light, to me it furthers the
"meteor wrong" thought. We'll see...

Regards,
Tom Randall