[meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?

From: Michael Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:21:48 -0800
Message-ID: <C5BC75EC.866%mlblood_at_cox.net>

Hi Jason and all,
        First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such
List is inevitably biased.
        Next, that said list cannot possibly "nail" a specific 10
meteorites.
        Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here are 10
Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit full
Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least one "why"
Per each:

1) Canyon Diablo:
prototypical and stable iron from what was
recognized as the "only" impact crater for a very long time. It
Can be added that it was also the original site of the Nininger
Museum

2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more than
Doubled the total weight of known CR material available.
It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer stones
Striking homes and patios

3) Esquel: "The queen of the Pallasites" with fantastic color,
Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities large enough
To allow any collector to have one of the few stable Pallasites.

4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that comprise the
"building blocks" of life, perhaps the most "studied" of any meteorite
Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm hypothesis. Again,
a witnessed fall and a hammer.

5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists, this specimen has
A unique physiology. Also a hammer.

6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized meteorite in "the new world."
Also a hammer.

7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a forthcoming article on the
Status of L'Aigle as a hammer).

8) Ensischeim: "The meteorite from hell." (also a hammer if you care to
consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This is one of the richest
events ever in the "lore" of meteorites.

9) Sikhote-Aline: producing thousands of what are pretty much agreed to be
the world's most visually impressive iron individuals. Also a rare Iron
witnessed fall.

10) Sylacauga: the only fully documented human striking meteorite.

        I could easily add several more, but these are just my 2 cents
worth, anyway. I am likely wrong, as my wife repeatedly assures me
I am.
            Best wishes, Michael


On 2/14/09 4:59 AM, "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> Even though we're living in a fast world and the "modernism" of our days may
> give the impression, that new scientific recoveries are drawn out of the
> nothing.
> But science and ideas are always integrated in traditions and contexts and
> are built on earlier steps.
> Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the stones may stem from outside.
> He connected the idea that they come from space with the fireballs, the
> existing stones and reports about the falls and postulated additionally,
> that they could survive the atmospheric travel.
> That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary scientists.
> After the period of "enlightment" it was impossible that chunks fall from
> sky, Newton required empty spaces between the planets or at it best, cause
> they were Aristotelians, they had to be atmospheric products.
> (Although Tycho had measured long before the parallaxes of comets, to find
> out that they move indeed in space).
>
> So Chladni's weird theory never would have been accepted, if there wouldn't
> have happened that proof, the mighty shower of L'Aigle, conveniently close
> to the Acad?mie de sciences.
>
> Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark. Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no
> Schreibers, no Daubr?e...no modern meteoritics. (At least not to the
> advanced stage we have today).
>
> Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much known as Father of meteoritics,
> but for his "Acoustics", he certainly is partially responsible for the gig
> tootling out from your speakers, while you're writing to the list :-)
>
> Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you don't meet the meaning of this
> milestone, if you look with today's eyes on it.
>
>> It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands
>
> Which gives in fact to that class an especially high scientific importance,
> doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most original information about the
> origin of our solar system, the processes who lead to the formation of
> planets and they resemble much more the stuff we are all made from, than any
> differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather the history and development
> of his individual parent body. And ready we aren't yet with the chondrites.
> Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at present? Eleven?
> Look the recent decade, the discovery of protoplanetary discs around other
> stars..... and so on.
> Only because they are so readily available to the collectors and despite the
> antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes Mrs.Caroline Smith. Fletcher,
> Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay much more than you),
> they shouldn't be disregarded.
>
> Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something like that
> http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg
> doesn't it made your mouth water?
>
>
> Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is better than that, which
> Galilei pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what for an importance it had!
> Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now, without that use of the lousy
> lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe Galileo's or Copernicus' role is maybe
> sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars... Copernicus' system was in
> practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and antique antecessors - I'm a
> fan of Tycho, which was much more important for modern astronomy and our
> view of the world, as he was the first, who trumped the Islamic astronomy.
> Without the results of his large-scale instruments, no Kepler, no Newton, no
> Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the pieces in the Chladni Boxes
> really originated from the red planet...).
> Of course it's never a continuously direct and mono-causal development...
> Chance and accident are also factors.
> Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the importance among the
> first places, if they hadn't such large tkws or if they had fallen in the
> oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just ready, when they felt.
>
> But in general L'Aigle was the proof.
> Scientifically important, because with that fall, the concept of meteorites
> had to be accepted and the branch of this science was born at all.
>
> So it's my number one - only in my personal opinion of course.
>
> If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but the very new had to be
> ruled out and most probably we would have to make a ranking of the so far
> unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where we don't have fully the
> clues, what exactly it could be.
>
> Off now, have to jump into my carriage without horses.
> (Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable junk...
> http://kuerzer.de/unimport
> and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-)
>
> Best!
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason
> Utas
> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21
> An: Meteorite-list
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most
> scientificallyimportantmeteorites?
>
> Hola Martin,
> I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up
> dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific
> interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did
> lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's
> scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind
> giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of
> which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or
> Gao - from a purely scientific point of view.
> One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important,
> simply because they were found back in the day and led to our
> recognition of what they really represented...while they may be
> important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a
> scientific point of view.
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann
> <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
>> I choose L'Aigle as N?1.
>>
>> Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and that
>> they are from space.
>>
>> Best!
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
>> ensoramanda at ntlworld.com
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55
>> An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically
>> importantmeteorites?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on
>> what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to
>> science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our
>> understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have
>> taught us?
>>
>> Graham Ensor, UK.
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 14 Feb 2009 04:21:48 PM PST