[meteorite-list] Proper procedures, or How to get your 'meteorite' classified

From: Meteorites USA <eric_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <4C8E7C05.3010003_at_meteoritesusa.com>

All Meteorwrongs come from people who don't know how to ID a meteorite.
Seems obvious but... If they get the "rock" Identified by an expert
FIRST, then this weeds out all the bogus rocks that swamp the labs in
the first place.

Tracy, you said: "...Point them in the direction of someone who will
charge a reasonable fee for a thin section (say, at least $150) and let
them foot the bill for wasting everyone's time...."

Your statement suggests making a thin section of a meteorwrong... Why
make a thin section of a meteorwrong? Or am I misunderstanding what
you're saying?

I get that your logic to deter submission with a $150 fee. Perhaps the
fee should be for Meteorite ID first, then another fee for
Classification...?

I think this is the problem. People are confusing Identification with
Classification, and seem to be grouping the two together. They should be
separate steps in a process or method. They are not the same thing.

When you separate it, it becomes a process by which you can move forward
in an organized manner. A method which can be scientific and logical.

i.e.

A process...
--------------------------
Hunting
Location
Recovery
Identification
Classification
Collection
---------------------------

When you separate it into a individual steps in a whole process the
solution becomes more evident.

Create a standard by which submissions are taken. Dealers and collectors
online are constantly bombarded with "wrongs". If you create a standard
process, universities won't be inundated with meteorwrong submissions.
Perhaps like someone suggested before a list of approved Meteorite
Identification places. This poses a small issue in "who gets approved"
and by whom? Also, I read somewhere on-list I believe that universities
are required by law to examine ALL submissions....? This could also pose
a problem, but one which could be fixed easily over time by instituting
a program which creates Meteorite ID services. No one I know wants to
deal with it though because of the people that won't take no for an answer.

But which is the lessor of the two evils? Clogging the system with
wrongs, or creating a system that frees up resources.

Just my 2 cents... ;)

Eric





On 9/13/2010 10:57 AM, tracy latimer wrote:
> I think that it might do a great deal to help weed out the meteorwrongs (or at least the people who insist that they have a meteorite when it's a chunk of asphalt) would be to explain that a necessary step for classification is a thin section and tell them that, unless they have a thin section made, no lab will bother looking at their rock. Point them in the direction of someone who will charge a reasonable fee for a thin section (say, at least $150) and let them foot the bill for wasting everyone's time. If you think their rock is interesting enough, you can always help with expenses, under the table.
>
> My 2 Bessey Specks,
> Best!
> Tracy Latimer
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Mon 13 Sep 2010 03:31:17 PM PDT