AW: [meteorite-list] Thomas Structure
From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:32:47 2004 Message-ID: <19a.21817a2d.2d7f85c3_at_aol.com> --part1_19a.21817a2d.2d7f85c3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable En un mensaje con fecha 03/09/2004 12:53:07 PM Mexico Standard Time,=20 koblitz_at_microfab.de escribe: >>A nice idea to change the "Widmannstaetten structure" to "Thomson=20 structure". However, "Thomson structure" reminds me more of some terrestrial= impact=20 crater than of the crystallographic orientation relationship of iron, which=20= is=20 well established term in metallury and meteoritics.<< >>Joern<< Hola Joern, Maybe you have a point, but wouldn't that be like saying Kebler sounds like=20= a=20 cookie so we'd only support naming novel chondritic material discovered by a= =20 Kebler if and only if they were chondrites preferably with dark German=20 chocolate chips? This sort of double standard ought to be unacceptable in s= cience,=20 but alas 'tisn=B4t...as we all are aware...at least meteorite nomenclature=20 respects some rules and is subject to revision. This pro-argument (well, argument is quite harsh a word in this case) for=20 maintaining the Widmanst=E4tten nomenclature is even more frightening than t= he=20 christening of the anti-scientific-pro political "Kuiper" belt region nomenc= lature=20 (the Solar system=B4s most probable source and reservoir of comets)!=20 In the case of Kuiper, Gerald Kuiper came along 8 years after Kenneth=20 Edgewood (and 20 + years after Leonard) with the same idea. Perhaps Kuiper'= s great=20 popularity among scientists had something to do with it ... as well as his=20 combuined contributions. Why did such a learned man overlook the previous w= ork by=20 Edgewood? Beats me. And the now defunct more proper name "Edgewood Belt":=20 perhaps it had to do with Edgewood's being Irish and not part of the in crow= d. Thomson pattern would be much more appropriate, I would venture. As=20 apparently Widmanst=E4tten burned the pattern into existence with a bunsen b= urner=20 (citation: O.R.Norton) while Thomson did it by a more reasonable manner in=20 meteoritics: nitric acid etching, and a few years earlier to boot...and publ= ished his=20 results complete with discovery in hand. In other words Thomson used the=20 scientific method complete with results, and his discovery was attributed to= =20 someone else who came along years later. Or am I missing something. Whatever Thomson's personal reasons for going to Italy (I believe a twist on= =20 Bernd's citation: to escape wartime to continue with science) Guglielmo=20 Thomson has a concrete discovery and was ignored for all the wrong reasons i= t would=20 appear.=20 Note: Guglielmo : At least getting the name right: not Guillermo as=20 mentioned in another post - he didn't go to Spain where Guillermo would be t= he=20 candidate translation, but rather Italy as in e.g. Guglielmo Marconi,. an=20 Irish-Italian experimentalist who worked with Hertzian waves, now known as r= adio waves=20 to 10,000 MHz and invented the Marconi Receiver now known as a radio). A similar issue happened with Neptune and its discovery (1846) in that part=20 of the world. French Jean Joseph Le Verrier and English mathematician John=20 Couch Adams did the calculations of where Neptune should be and German astro= nomer=20 Johann Galle observed it, based on Le Verrier's more accurate, independent=20 numbers. But the whole thing was rife with credit grabbing and scandal, and=20= I=20 won't even say (because I don't know they made such a mess of it) who credit= is=20 given too and the British establishment's astronomical establishment's dubio= us=20 role in it. So the best thing to do, in my humble opinion is to remove credit where=20 credit is arguably misplaced, and if we don't want to give credit appropriat= ely, at=20 least name it for its characteristics. "Taenite-Kamacite pattern", or TK=20 pattern for short. We also ought to, while we are at it, award Kuiper the=20 appropriate honors but change the name to the "Trans-Neptunian Belt", and in= the=20 case of Le Verrier's planet ... well that last one been changed to Neptune.=20= (and=20 "Lowell's Planet X", a "Kuiper Belt Object" at least creatively credited=20 Percival Lowell with "PL"uto without scandal by diligent and humble scientis= t=20 Clyde Tombaugh, and more recently it's moon Charon (pronunciation perhaps no= t=20 conforming to nomenclature but a love story to boot). The other option, the impressive word Widmanst=E4tten - is best left=20 prominently in the history of science where it belongs...or perhaps to impre= ss fellow=20 scientists in a bar with pronunciation (an editorial). Saludos Doug Dawn M=E9xico --part1_19a.21817a2d.2d7f85c3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY= =3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">En un mensaje con fecha 03/09/2004=20= 12:53:07 PM Mexico Standard Time, koblitz_at_microfab.de escribe:<BR> <BR> >>A nice idea to change the "Widmannstaetten structure" to "Thomson st= ructure". However, "Thomson structure" reminds me more of some terrestrial i= mpact crater than of the crystallographic orientation relationship of iron,=20= which is well established term in metallury and meteoritics.<<<BR> <BR> >>Joern<<<BR> <BR> Hola Joern,<BR> <BR> Maybe you have a point, but wouldn't that be like saying Kebler sounds like=20= a cookie so we'd only support naming novel chondritic material discovered by= a Kebler if and only if they were chondrites preferably with dark German ch= ocolate chips? This sort of double standard ought to be unacceptable i= n science, but alas 'tisn=B4t...as we all are aware...at least meteorite nom= enclature respects some rules and is subject to revision.<BR> <BR> This pro-argument (well, argument is quite harsh a word in this case) for ma= intaining the Widmanst=E4tten nomenclature is even more frightening than the= christening of the anti-scientific-pro political "Kuiper" belt region nomen= clature (the Solar system=B4s most probable source and reservoir of comets)!= <BR> <BR> In the case of Kuiper, Gerald Kuiper came along 8 years after Kenneth Edgewo= od (and 20 + years after Leonard) with the same idea. Perhaps Kuiper's= great popularity among scientists had something to do with it ... as well a= s his combuined contributions. Why did such a learned man overlook the= previous work by Edgewood? Beats me. And the now defunct more p= roper name "Edgewood Belt": perhaps it had to do with Edgewood's being Irish= and not part of the in crowd.<BR> <BR> Thomson pattern would be much more appropriate, I would venture. As ap= parently Widmanst=E4tten burned the pattern into existence with a bunsen bur= ner (citation: O.R.Norton) while Thomson did it by a more reasonable manner=20= in meteoritics: nitric acid etching, and a few years earlier to boot...and p= ublished his results complete with discovery in hand. In other words T= homson used the scientific method complete with results, and his discovery w= as attributed to someone else who came along years later. Or am I miss= ing something.<BR> <BR> Whatever Thomson's personal reasons for going to Italy (I believe a twist on= Bernd's citation: to escape wartime to continue with science) Guglielmo Tho= mson has a concrete discovery and was ignored for all the wrong reasons it w= ould appear. <BR> <BR> Note: Guglielmo : At least getting the name right: not Guillermo= as mentioned in another post - he didn't go to Spain where Guillermo would=20= be the candidate translation, but rather Italy as in e.g. Guglielmo Marconi,= . an Irish-Italian experimentalist who worked with Hertzian waves, now known= as radio waves to 10,000 MHz and invented the Marconi Receiver now known as= a radio).<BR> <BR> A similar issue happened with Neptune and its discovery (1846) in that part=20= of the world. French Jean Joseph Le Verrier and English mathematician=20= John Couch Adams did the calculations of where Neptune should be and German=20= astronomer Johann Galle observed it, based on Le Verrier's more accurate, in= dependent numbers. But the whole thing was rife with credit grabbing and sca= ndal, and I won't even say (because I don't know they made such a mess of it= ) who credit is given too and the British establishment's astronomical estab= lishment's dubious role in it.<BR> <BR> So the best thing to do, in my humble opinion is to remove credit where cred= it is arguably misplaced, and if we don't want to give credit appropriately,= at least name it for its characteristics. "Taenite-Kamacite pattern",= or TK pattern for short. We also ought to, while we are at it, award=20= Kuiper the appropriate honors but change the name to the "Trans-Neptunian Be= lt", and in the case of Le Verrier's planet ... well that last one been chan= ged to Neptune. (and "Lowell's Planet X", a "Kuiper Belt Object" at le= ast creatively credited Percival Lowell with "PL"uto without scandal by dili= gent and humble scientist Clyde Tombaugh, and more recently it's moon Charon= (pronunciation perhaps not conforming to nomenclature but a love story to b= oot).<BR> <BR> The other option, the impressive word Widmanst=E4tten - is best left promine= ntly in the history of science where it belongs...or perhaps to impress fell= ow scientists in a bar with pronunciation (an editorial).<BR> <BR> Saludos<BR> Doug Dawn<BR> M=E9xico<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT></HTML> --part1_19a.21817a2d.2d7f85c3_boundary-- Received on Tue 09 Mar 2004 03:40:35 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|