[meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO

From: David Weir <dgweir_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:14:38 -0500
Message-ID: <45A1469E.9090101_at_earthlink.net>

Please Elton, don't make me laugh. This is no debate, nor is the use of
this term "weakly founded in the literature". It is as established and
pervasive throughout the meteoritical literature as any term. The
decades of use of the term fusion crust to describe the results of
ablation on iron meteorites absolutely justifies its official acceptance
throughout the meteoritical community, if not from you. I own Buchwald's
volumes and paid $300, the going price from the most expensive source
known - Ron Farrell; where were you? You say Buchwald adopted a concept
already in use... duh, that's how it works man. Buchwald is THE
authority on iron meteorites (Wasson fits in there too), and I bet there
are few among the scientific community who would argue against this use
of the term. Contrary to how you'd have it, there exists no rule book in
this field outside of the common use recognized in the literature. This
term will go on being used no matter how loud you oppose it on this
MetList. Why not just go to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data
System and do a keyword search for "fusion crust iron" and you'll find
over 58,000 papers, many of which use the term fusion crust to describe
iron meteorites. Here are but the first three of them I came upon:

http://snipurl.com/16tu2

http://snipurl.com/16tuh

http://snipurl.com/16tul

David

  EMan wrote:


> Hello Listoids, Svend
> --- "Dr. Svend Buhl" <info at niger-meteorite-recon.de>
> wrote:... I do not agree that the Glossary of
> Geology of the American Geological Institute is a
> sound reference for nomenclature and terminology of
> meteorites.
>
> GIST: For those that don't want to read the details, I
> am asserting that even thought there is something to a
> complex ablation surface on iron meteorites, the
> widely accepted and published definition of fusion
> crust states that it is a glassy coating, which would
> exclude the coatings on irons from being called fusion
> crusts. I also call for a revision of the definition
> to overcome that exclusion.
>
> Thank you for joining the debate, Svend. Nice to know
> someone has access to Buckwald's hand book. It is good
> we can have academic debates and not attack the
> messengers. I trust you will accept this as a
> discussion of a deficiency in the literature and not a
> disregard for yourself nor V.F. Buchwald. I believe
> the use of the term "fusion crust" is weakly founded
> in literature in general for the ablation surface is
> far more complicated than the simplification of
> a"glassy melt". This need not be an"angels on the
> head of a pin" argument for I feel that a revised
> definition dropping "glass/glassy" else making a
> distinction for the rind on iron meteorites being
> different is long overdue.
>
> It is human nature to tend to believe the references
> we have in our possession over those not in our
> possession. Unfortunately, Buchwald's work at
> $2000-$3000 isn't available to most institutions,
> researchers, nor collectors. There is also no easily
> found evidence that he attempted to change the
> definition of fusion crust to include the rind that
> forms on irons. Rather he adopted a concept already in
> use. An opinion by a distinguished researcher in 1975
> may open a door to a revision of the definition but
> the accepted definition in literature simply does not
> address the rind/coating/glaze occurring on iron
> meteorites. We need a revised definition for fusion
> crust however, I've no idea who would be the crusade
> leader.
>
> The reality remains that the vast
> citations/definitions in world literature still
> specifically state "glass" as a component of fusion
> crust when composition is discussed. Without an
> uniform operational definition that is accepted
> throughout the research/education community any
> discussion--even by Buchwald, has a fatal flaw
> semantically speaking. As it is, I am not incorrect in
> asserting as I did in previous posts, according to
> widely published definition, there is no occurrence of
> fusion crust on iron meteorites. There is something,
> yes, but it isn't covered by the literature at large.
>
> Exhibits cited from the web:
>
> NASA
> Fusion Crust: Dark glassy coating on the surface of a
> meteorite..
> <http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/Activities/ExpMetMys/Glossary.pdf>
>
> Typical definition found at Institutions of higher
> learning:
> FUSION CRUST ? Melted glassy exterior of a meteorite
> that forms when it passes through Earth?s
> atmosphere... ...fuses to form a thin, glassy skin
> which envelopes the whole meteorite.
>
> <http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Book-GlossaryF.html>
>
> Planetary Science Research Discoveries (PSRD)
> Fusion crust: The glassy, melted rind on a meteorite
> that forms when the rock passes through the Earth's
> atmosphere.
> <http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/PSRDglossary.html>
>
>
> Britannica: any meteorite consisting mainly of iron,
> usually combined with small amounts of nickel. When
> such meteorites, called irons, fall through the
> atmosphere, a thin, black crust of iron oxide may form
> that quickly weathers to rust.
>
> Elton aka Eman
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sun 07 Jan 2007 02:14:38 PM PST