[meteorite-list] 5 reasons to record meteorite coordinates

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:34:12 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac891003091434q3021e87ch4911e058f82c569c_at_mail.gmail.com>

Carl,
Really? Silenced me?
I agreed with him, namely because, yes, it's hard to argue with the
fact that chemical data and a meteorite's preserved geochemical past
has little to do with where a meteorite falls, but he also noted the
following:
"There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert
samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads
do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are
extremely biased against "dirty desert meteorites" and will not let them in
the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study -
a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind."

He did go on to note the scientific importance of many homeless desert
meteorites, and, yes, I completely agree with him; not knowing where
NWA 5000 was found really doesn't have an effect on its value to
science. It's still a cool lunar meteorite, etc.
But you're just ignoring the fact that that find information would
potentially lead to more stones being recovered, and would add to our
knowledge of the stone and its history -- a terrestrial history that
is now lost.
Granted, you may say that in the scheme of things, its terrestrial
history is relatively unimportant, because it doesn't tell us anything
about the moon, space, etc, but I would argue that we study these
things to understand their pasts, and their time spent on earth is
part of that history.

Unless you have a good reason for saying that it should be erased, I'd
give this up; no scientist is going to tell you that they prefer a
location-unknown NWA to a documented find of the same type from
elsewhere. We collectors makre that distinction as well; there's a
reason that NWA's sell for pennies per gram, yet the most common stone
from the US (probably Franconia at the moment) still fetches $1/g.
The difference in price is more than tenfold, yet...it's still just an
H5. I could get a CV3 for less than that in Morocco.

Oh - and using Almahatta Sitta as a basis for a new system of pairing
meteorites is an interesting idea. On the one hand, you're advocating
changing our current system on behalf of a single pretty unique
meteorite, which isn't the best of ideas. On the other hand, you keep
using this meteorite as an example of how our current system of
pairing meteorites is somehow inadequate.
But you don't seem to realize that, if we had find information for all
of our meteorites, it would be significantly easier to determine
pairings for falls such as this because we would be able to recognize
the overlapping fields with different types, compare terrestrial age
data, and determine pairings in such a manner.

After all, without find information, we'd have a number of fresh falls
from Sudan at the moment, and we would have no idea which was from
2008 TC3 and which was simply a different fresh H, E-chondrite, or
ureilite fall.

You're blind if you don't recognize this as an adequate solution to
your problem.
You said it yourself, "PAIRINGS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE SCIENCE
UTILIZED TO DETERMINE THEM. WE NOW KNOW THAT PAIRINGS DON'T HAVE TO BE
OF LIKE TYPES. ALMAHATTA SITTA TELLS US THAT THEY CAN BE TOTALLY
DIFFERENT CLASSES AND STILL BE PAIRED SO, ONLY TRUE TESTING CAN
DETERMINE THIS."

Knowing where they were found helps. Durh.

Jason

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:52 PM, <cdtucson at cox.net> wrote:
> Rob,
> I can think of a few more myself but as I said .In my opinion the need for this info is outweighed by the harm it causes. SEE BELOW IN ALL CAPS.
> --
> Carl or Debbie Esparza
> Meteoritemax
>
>
> ---- "Matson wrote:
>> Carl asks:
>>
>> > I don't yet understand why people put so much importance on find
>> > co-ords and strewnfields. It has not only been pointed out by another
>> > important list member that "A meteorite does not care where it lands".
>> > (Ted Bunch).
>>
>> You may be quoting Ted out of context. Yes, a meteorite doesn't care.
>> But people do, including many researchers. Recording find coordinates
>> serves at least five purposes that I can think of, right off the bat:
>
> QUOTE IS IN CONTEXT AND ACCURATE. THIS SILENCED JASON A FEW WEEKS BACK WHILE ON HIS HIGH HORSE.
>>
>> 1. ?In situ photographic provenance. If a meteorite becomes separated
>> from
>> its identifying documentation, a photograph in the field with a GPS unit
>> is an excellent way to reestablish its identity. This can be very
>> helpful
>> when a meteorite has been sent to a lab for analysis, and its label gets
>> lost or the sample confused with another meteorite at that lab.
>>
> NOT A SCIENTIFIC NEED BUT IS I AGREE EQUALLY AS USEFUL AS A STICKY LABEL.
>
>> 2. ?For recent falls, it can help tell you something about the dynamics
>> of the fall, such as the entry azimuth (being careful to account for
>> wind drift), and terminal burst vs. multiple fragmentation.
>
> YES, THIS DID A LOT OF GOOD FINDING MORE LORTON PIECES. SORRY.
>
>>
>> 3. ?For finds, it is a necessary (but not by itself sufficient) metric
>> for establishing likely pairings.
>
> PAIRINGS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE SCIENCE UTILIZED TO DETERMINE THEM. WE NOW KNOW THAT PAIRINGS DON'T HAVE TO BE OF LIKE TYPES. ALMAHATTA SITTA TELLS US THAT THEY CAN BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT CLASSES AND STILL BE PAIRED SO, ONLY TRUE TESTING CAN DETERMINE THIS.
>>
>> 4. ?With find coordinates and care with pairing, it becomes possible to
>> estimate minimum annual meteorite fall rate based on the number of
>> unpaired finds over a carefully surveyed area.
>
> YOU CAN ALSO MAKE THESE GUESSES AT WILL.
>>
>> And most valuable to the finders working an area:
>>
>> 5. ?The distribution of find coordinates may provide evidence of fluvial
>> and aeolian transport. This can greatly enhance meteorite recovery rate
>> by transforming a two-dimensional search problem into a 1-dimensional
>> boundary search.
>
> I'M SURE THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME BUT I CANNOT THINK OF A TIME IT HAS.
>>
>> I'm sure others can add more to this list. The point is, just because
>> one person doesn't believe recording find coordinates is important
>> doesn't mean it isn't valuable to someone else. So by failing to do
>> so, either through ignorance or apathy, a hunter is destroying
>> scientific data.
> ROB, ALL OF THOSE POINTS ARE OF NOTE BUT FALL INTO THE TRIVIAL DEPARTMENT TO MOST OF US. AGAIN MOSTLY BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO BE LEARNED BY THEM. THE WHEEL IS AN OLD THING. AND SCIENCE HAS A LOT MORE IMPORTANT WAYS TO HELP US. MUCH THE WAY YOU DO ALREADY. WE NEED SCIENCE TO MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR US. AND TO THAT POINT BY GIVING UP CO-ORDS YOU GIVE UP YOUR TREASURE MAP. WHO DOES THAT?
> THANKS THOUGH. YOU TOO ARE LOVED. CARL
>>
>> --Rob
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Tue 09 Mar 2010 05:34:12 PM PST