[meteorite-list] moldavite splashforms w/ artifacts. Inquiry?

From: Guy Heinen <guyhein_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:14:07 2004
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20030428171750.00a1c070_at_mailsvr.pt.lu>

Hi list,

as I must notice, besides some real specialists, many list members have=20
only poor notions of tektites.
In the late nineties, I've written a book on tektites: 'TEKTITES -=20
witnesses of cosmic catastrophes',
dealing with almost all questions about tektites. Have a look at my site=20
<http://webplaza.pt.lu/guyhein/index.html>
For the members of this list, I'll offer my book from now to next Sunday=20
for the bargain price of only 12!!!$ or =80, postage not included.
Please contact me off-list.
Thanx and my best wishes,

Guy Heinen


At 07:24 28/04/2003 -0700, Paul Heinrich wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:12:18 -0500
>Sterling K. Webb kelly_at_bhil.com Wrote:
>
>Mrs. Webb is mixing apples and oranges and
>putting words in my mouth that I did not
>say as I am just talking about the moldavites
>and not other types of tektites.
>
>Many of the other tektites, which she mentions,
>I would well agree retain a large degree of
>their surface morphology and that I don't
>dispute. I am ++not++ arguing that the surface
>morphology of all tektites, as Mrs. Webb
>incorrectly implies, is the result of etching.
>The aerodynamic forms of australite buttons
>clearly demonstrate. Again, my discussion
>just applies to moldavites.++
>
>Mrs. Webb stated:
>
> >Frankly, I feel that the popularity of
> >the "differential chemical etching"
> >theory is due to its ability to dismiss
> >in a single phrase a complex morphology
> >that defies easy explanation and which
> >has been inadequately studied.
>
>This is not true, the popularity of the
>chemicaletching explanation is the result
>of the fact that the complex forms that
>moldavites exhibit, and I am just talking
>about the moldavites, is the type of complex
>morphology that results when materials
>corroded by chemical etching.
>
> >While aerodynamic ablation is "probably"
> >the answer, no one has undertaken the
> >monumental job of classifying and
> >thoroughly explaining the great
> >variety of features that are to be
> >found.
>
>The fact that people have been able to
>explain the morphology of australite
>buttons using aerodynamics and nobody
>has yet been able to explain the
>complex form of moldavites with
>aerodynamics suggests to me that it
>has proven useless as explanation for
>the formation of moldavites. (Again
>I am just discussing moldavites,
>**not*** other forms of tektites.)
>In contrast, the form that moldavites
>have is the classic shapes geologist
>often observe in the corrosion of many
>types of materials.
>
> >Both the frequency of symmetry and the
> >common orientation of features on Besednice
> >"leaf" moldavites argue against "corrosion"
> >as the sculpting force.
>
>This is not true. This just means that
>there was symmetry to the internal structure
>of the original moldavite. If the internal
>structure of the etched moldavite is
>symmetrical, than the resulting etched form
>will be symmetrical. This in no way proves
>that the original form of a Besednice was
>"leaf" shaped. The common orientation in the
>moldavites just means that they have a common
>internal structure, which would corrode to
>produce a common orientation.
>
>If the Besednice were originally "leaf"
>shaped how did they survived intact being
>transported in fluvial systems and then
>deposited in the sands that they are
>found? The delicate "leaf" shaped forms
>could only have formed by corrosion once
>they had come to rest and been encased
>in the fluvial sands that they occur.
>Otherwise, they would had been completely
>been broken before being deposited with
>the fluvial sand that they are found in.
>
>There are other shapes, e.g., spheres, discs,
> ellipsoids (ovals), lenses, cylinders, rods,
>dumb-bells, and so forth which reflect the
>original, although with corroded surfaces,
>form of some moldavites. As far as the
>"leaf" shaped forms, geologists, with very
>good reason, would find the aerodynamic
>explanation extremely implausible.
>
> >Moreover, they are found in complete
> >range of forms from completely undamaged
> >with every little "finger" intact to
> >progressively less and less elaborate
> >forms whose reduction is mechanical
> >(breakage), not chemical.
>
>It just means that there has mechanical
>breakage after the etching of moldavite
>has occurred. Reworking of the moldavite
>deposits after they have been corroded
>can easily account for this breakage.
>
> > If chemical etching were the formative
> >agent, there would be intermediately
> >"etched" forms, and there are not.
> >There would be pieces only partially
> >"etched", and there are not. There is
> >no evidence of a range of chemical
> >activity, only of a range of mechanical
> >damage.
>
>This is not true. All of this means is that
>the deposits containing these moldavites have
>been subject to either the degree of
>weathering, diagenesis, and some combination
>of the two. As a result, any moldavite found
>in these deposits will exhibit the same degree
>of intense corrosion to the extent that
>intermediate forms and fresh moldavites simply
>don't exist. These moldavites are about 15 million
>years old and occur very porous sands that would
>have allowed intense digenatic corrosion of them.
>Under these circumstances, it is would quite
>remarkable and quite unexpected that they
>haven't been badly corroded. The lack of
>intermediate forms proves nothing about the
>origin of "leaf" shaped moldavites.
>
>Yours,
>
>Paul
>Baton Rouge, LA
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>http://search.yahoo.com
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 28 Apr 2003 11:28:40 AM PDT