[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 02:06:49 2006
Message-ID: <004301c61d90$1f8bf580$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

I respectfully disagree with the below statement, the List seems to be
divided on its usage therefore it is not currently accepted. I feel safer
using the old established definition of the term Main Mass rather than the
new selectively used definition. I think the term "The largest specimen
under this particular nomenclature" would more accurate in describing the
smaller pairings than "Main Mass."

>The term main mass is not a difficult concept. In its currently accepted
usage it is context dependent.<

Take Care,

Adam


----- Original Message -----
From: "Arizona Skies Meteorites" <johnbirdsell_at_yahoo.com>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Term Main Mass


> 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
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 02:07:05 AM PST