[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: Arizona Skies Meteorites <johnbirdsell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 01:56:24 2006
Message-ID: <20060120065621.93142.qmail_at_web51503.mail.yahoo.com>

The term main mass is not a difficult concept. In its
currently accepted usage it is context dependent. If
one states that meteorite "Z" is the main mass of the
NWA 123, then that clearly means it is the largest
extant specimen of the meteorite individuals
comprising all individuals belonging to the NWA 123
grouping. It does not imply anything more or less.
That is it. No if's, and's or but's. If on the other
hand one states that meteorite "Z" is the main mass of
a particular "fall", then that implys that it is the
largest extant specimen found to date from a defined
fall, or the largest remaining specimen if the largest
specimen has been cut up. This really isn't that
diffulcult to understand is it?


-John




--- "R. N. Hartman" <rhartman_at_membranebox.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===


Arizona Skies Meteorites
Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 01:56:21 AM PST