[meteorite-list] "Odd ball" non-standard petrologic slides on eBay

From: Steve Schoner <steve_schoner_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:27:52 2004
Message-ID: <20031123045048.21891.qmail_at_web12703.mail.yahoo.com>

"E.J" <jonee_at_epix.net> wrote:nakhladog@comcast.net
wrote:

>Steve and mark-
>I am selling these small thin sections of park Forest
and if you think I took the time carefully cut them
down in size that's fine. What purpose would this
serve? The cover slip completely covers the specimen
so it is not to get two out of one. Steve, you have
jumped on me for this before...it is the way my thin
section maker made them. It is a thin section, sorry
the slide doesn't fit your scope.
>--
>Rob Wesel
>
Rob,

I think having a "standard size" size allows for
indexing a slide's
features so another researcher can return to the same
point(s) on a
different microscope.

Regards,
Elton



Elton,

Absolutely right!

And that is one of the many reasons for "standard"
sized petrologic slides (26 mm x 46 mm).

These new odd ball sizes might be made with the right
thickness, and they might be okay for the hobbyist,
but for scientific purposes they might be virtually
worthless. And how can I be certain that they are
even made properly if the standard is not observed?

Also, indexing is essential for microprobe work and
going from one scope to another. It is also essential
for proper notation of observed characteristics.

These points of reference are lost with non-standard
odd ball sizes.

There are manufacturers of standard petrologic slide
blanks, and also the special boxes for storing such.

Anyway, these new odd ball slides being touted are
annoying to me.

I certainly would not buy any, for scientific reasons
and for preserving the standard widely accepted by
petrologists.

Presentation is everything when it comes to thin
sections.

Steve Schoner/ams

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Received on Sat 22 Nov 2003 11:50:48 PM PST