[meteorite-list] Park Forest Main Mass Status Clarification

From: Martin Horejsi <martinh_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:25:34 2004
Message-ID: <BAD8095F.1FCD%martinh_at_isu.edu>

Hi all,

I am in negotiations to purchase a "main mass" but the term might be
misleading here in another way than currently under discussion. The mass I
am working with is the only mass found. No chips, fragments or buts.

So it seems to me that a true main mass would require a comparison mass,
thus other known masses of the same fall would need to exist.

Therefore, if there is a known subdivision of the largest mass (either by
man or nature (saw or ceiling joist)) then the term main mass would need a
qualifier such as "original" or "suspected" or "current" or even possibly
"theoretical" in order to apply to the single largest piece known either
intact or as related pieces. For if the pieces did not constitute the whole
in a main mass situation, then it seems absurd that if one glued all the
related pieces together in their appropriate position, and that reassembled
mass was larger than the other known naturally intact mass of the same fall
but of a different impact area, then the currently blurred semantic lines
would become almost transparent based upon any number of different
interpretations, an thus useless as a stand-alone term.

While I greatly respect Dr. Grossman's opinion, I feel the application of a
threshold of size comparison will not allow precision to this definition in
the long run. For example, if a 2x requirement used, would a 1.999x specimen
not also qualify? Then what about a 1.998x? And so on? I would offer the
same argument for the 50% threshold as well. Especially with all the
uncertainty about total known weights.

Instead, I think that the main mass term should be use sparingly and with
qualifiers. As we all discovered with the hot desert meteorites, often the
"main mass" was in the eye of the beholder, or even the number painter. As
long as there is no attempt to hide information, or mislead meteorite
aficionados, the term maim mass is a useful concept and one that just needs
a little clarification. Just as I see Adam is doing.

As with dinosaurs, we are all looking for the "ests". You know, largest,
smallest, oldest, longest, tallest, etc.ests. An I certainly see nothing
wrong with that.

Cheers,

Martin





On 5/2/03 11:17 AM, "Adam Hupe" <adamhupe_at_attbi.com> wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> I would like to clarify my previous statements regarding this subject.
>
> As far as the Garza stone goes it weighed at least 2,722 grams when it
> punched a single hole through the roof. It fragmented into several pieces
> only after hitting a joist a few milliseconds later. It then punched two
> large holes and a very small hole in the drywall ceiling. The largest
> remaining fragment weighs 2,333 grams making it the second largest fragment
> from the Park Forest fall in existence. Avoiding the term "Main Mass" since
> there is no clear definition it can be safely said that the Garza stone with
> its associated fragments is the largest stone yet identified from this fall.
> By using the collectors term for "Main Mass" it can be said that it was the
> Main Mass for about 2 milliseconds. Anyway you look at it this is the
> largest meteorite yet recovered from this fall.
>
> As far as the Jones' stone is concerned it weighed 2,699 grams when it
> punched a hole through the roof making it the second largest meteorite from
> this fall. The largest remaining fragment weighs 2,668 grams making it the
> largest intact specimen in existence. It can be said without a doubt to be
> the second largest meteorite yet recovered from this fall.
>
> Interestingly these two meteorites are both at least twice the weight of the
> third largest stone. Maybe there should be two definitions describing main
> masses, one for collectors and one for the rest of the world.
>
> All the best,
>
> Adam and Greg Hupe
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 02 May 2003 01:39:11 PM PDT