[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Meteorite Preservation
rkuzma01@juno.com (rkuzma01@juno.com) wrote on 1998-March-7:
[...]
>While I would not support the use of a "stainless steel hammer" I have
>often thought that controlled selective fracturing or cleaving with
>appropriate instruments would be preferable to cutting. (Obviously this
>would not apply to irons - unless they are extremely weathered and have
>developed cleavage lines of their own.)
>
>The advantages for employing such an approach are -
>1) No loss of material (As opposed to 10% to 25%, or more, from cutting)
>2) No heating (Eliminates potential for altering chemistry and structure)
>3) No contaminants (Avoids use of cutting oils or water)
>4) Reduces costs (Eliminates loss, time, equipment, materials)
>5) Everyone wins (Except for those who like pretty things)
[...]
I have thought about this for a while and can only give my own
opinions.
I tend to prefer buying end-pieces. I get to see the crust and I get
to study the interior. I find it endlessly fascinating looking at the
interior of meteorites (magnified) trying to imagine what happened to
make this or that structure.
If a meteorite specimen is somehow special in shape (oriented, etc.) I
would preserve that or maybe even still cut it in half and preserve
half.
There are studies into determining the interior structure of
meteorites in non-destructive ways - these are outside the scope of the
collector and dealer. A strike with the hammer may cleave a sample in
ways that a cut won't.
The problem is that I don't particularly like the looks of a fractured
stone meteorite - it looks mostly like a lump of cement. A polished
flat section seems much more attractive and informative.
Just my 2 cents. But I'll take my meteorites any way I can...
--
Jim Hurley
Arachnaut's Lair
http://www.arachnaut.org/ >
References: