[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 00:05:34 2006
Message-ID: <1c0.38b250b8.3101c998_at_aol.com>

Hola John,

You bring up a good point! The problem I see is that I do not believe the
term "Main Mass" in the listings has been truly a peer reviewed subject of
scientific interest in most cases, but rather a rubber stamp that has gone
unstudied for the reason of having no true scientific value in the majority of
cases. So while you are right in the sense supported by literature, I may be
mistaken, but I do not think the science has ever peer reviewed this subject.
That would be Adam's point perhaps. The way the NWA system was piggybacked
upon the locality named system was not a peer reviewed scientific method, just
a convention adopted by a committee for the not especially peer reviewed
appendix of MAPS. The scientific method and the ability of other labs to repeat
is severly restricted due to the distribution of material. There are
several cases of meteorites which are analyzed by two separate labs and classified
differently. But the original classification is not so flexible as far as I
can tell as would be in a completely peer reviewed process.

Finally, you say "every NWA numbered meteorite". I disagree with that. It
is a contradiction in terms to me, though normally acceptable to express
ourselves. However when we say this we should recognize that meteorite does not
refer to a particular fall, but rather to a bag of similar rocks picked up
on a Sunday by someone before the wind got too strong and buried everything.

I think you're a little hard on Adam this time!

Saludos, Doug

In a message dated 1/19/2006 11:33:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
johnbirdsell_at_yahoo.com writes:
Just to help you
out Adam, each and every NWA numbered meteorite has a
MAIN MASS.
Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 12:05:28 AM PST