[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: R. N. Hartman <rhartman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 01:32:45 2006
Message-ID: <002401c61d8b$7eecddf0$6401a8c0_at_ronij3wi4b7cpv>

OPINION:

This has traditionally, for as long as I have been collecting, and that is
for 50+ years, the one largest or primary piece has been the "main mass".
More usually, there had been a loose understanding that the main mass
usually referred to a very large meteorite where there was one substantially
large piece and many smaller pieces. If there, for example, were a
strewnfield with many pieces that were all within a similar size range, it
served no meaningful purpose to call the largest a main mass. After 1999
when many small "Saharan" individuals, all somewhat different, started
becoming available, and there was only "one" of each, soon each started to
be referred to a "main mass". This was a happy time for dealers and
collectors as collectors could now collect "main masses"! But, I don't
think that was the intent of the term as it was originally used.

And definitely, as Adam states, there can be only one main mass. One need
only to look up the term "main" in a dictionary, i.e. "the first in size".

Dealers and collectors who try to bend the rules (broaden established
definitions) for their own gain do nothing in the eyes of researchers to
promote a good image for meteorite collecting in general. In the end such
behavior will come back to haunt everyone!

Ron Hartman


----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Term Main Mass


> I agree with what Mike had to say about not using the term Main Mass to
> describe a pairing of smaller size, it seems too misleading to me.
Scientist
> have made a good effort with the pairing issues. One just has to look at
> the following sites to see this is so:
>
> http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/moon_meteorites_list.html
>
> http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/
>
> Not only that, pairings are mentioned in abstracts because most scientists
> use this information and believe it is valid data. I think a better term
> must be available, mainly in the interest of collectors. I would never
claim
> to have 42 planetary main masses even though I may have the same number of
> nomenclature assignments. To do so would be fraudulent in my opinion.
>
> Take Care,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MexicoDoug_at_aol.com>
> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Term Main Mass
>
>
> > Hola Adam, Mike, Dean, Bob, and anyone else on this subject,
> >
> > You guys are all to be commended on your roles in the recovery of these
> > specimens. The real question I see is not how many main masses you
> have -but
> > whether you have any main masses at all- from these dense localities:
> The
> > system is quite arbitrary no matter how you attribute subjective/random
> pairings.
> > This shouldn't have any negative connotation associated with it. I
> posted
> > something similar to this about a year or two ago in this forum.
> >
> > You all definitely have a lot of the world's biggest pieces in your
> > possessions, none of you massive dealers needs any bragging rights from
a
> viewpoint
> > down here in the trenches, its not as if these were Nobel prizes, nor
is
> it
> > comparable in 99% of the cases to Steve Arnold's gig. This is
unarguably
> an
> > artificially manufactured situation in the dense collection areas.
> Besides
> > Adam's, Mike's response was pretty straightforward, too, and Dean's
logic
> very
> > intelligent as well, as well as the rest...it really sounds much less
> > scientific and more like discussion among competing cereal companies on
> who can label
> > the food as "Heart Healthy" and who can't. I'd go retro and just ask
> > "Where's the Beef?" while we watch y'all in this potentially
high-steaks
> and
> > breadwinning issue.
> >
> > So as long as we understand this is more of a Cola Wars' type question
> than
> > a meaningful scientific question, it's interesting to hear all these
> > arguments and occasionally add a peep or two in the shadow of the
giants.
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but we've seen this discussion in many presentations
> > before. That's great, as long as everyone agrees that this is a
> commercial and not
> > a scientific issue. It actually looks like you all do, in my (very)
> humble
> > perception...Saludos, Doug
> >
> > PS a known pairing series can be open to interpretation, and are not
> > exhaustive analyses, right? The science doesn't feel the need to
address
> this
> > issue, as far as I gather...
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 1/19/2006 10:57:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > raremeteorites_at_comcast.net writes:
> > If I followed this logic, I would have 48 planetary "Main Masses." Yeah
> for
> > me! In reality, we have less than a dozen as far as I am concerned. I
> will
> > stick to the what I believe are the rules, the largest piece in a known
> > pairing series is the only Main Mass.
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006
>
>

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006

Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 01:33:59 AM PST