[meteorite-list] Meteorwrongs and Meteorites

From: cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:42:20 -0400
Message-ID: <20110422114220.ILXXI.228838.imail_at_fed1rmwml44>

Martin,
You said;
"-Up to which monetary sum you'd think it would be justified to measure random
stones, in the hope to find once an unknown meteorite species?"

The short answer is; Never.

Why should we ever spend any money on *random* stones?

I am not talking about any random stones. Those should always be looked at at face value.

I am talking about legitimate prospects brought to science by knowledgeable hunters. What I mean by knowledgeable hunter is this.
A hunter that knowns meteorites and has a general knowledge of earth rocks.
One that recognizes the true characteristics of most meteorites and their mineralogy.
One with a keen eye to distinguish odd rocks from the rest of the rocks in any particular area. This is mush the same as setting your metal detector to discriminate from the rest of the regular rocks in the area. You have to discriminate with your eyes and ask yourself questions.
Like; what in the heck is that rock doing here? or Why would such a strange rock be sitting on top of this heap? or Look at all of these dinosour bones lying around, why would this giant piece of iron be sitting on top of it? Or, Why would this rock be sitting on top of solid rock as far as the eyes can see?
The point is; if it does not fit it might be a meteorite. Just like farmer described his recent acquisition. Although in his case a simple nickel test is all it would take to find out.
 By the way many Pawn shops and jewelry stores now have equipment to quickly and cheaply check for nickel and many of the other elements found in meteorites. So, no need to bother scientists for the basic info.
I am sure many other hunters can add to the list of attributes of a good hunter but, the study of the known meteorites and what they look like will tell you that meteorites can and do look many different ways.
The best examples that come to mind for odd balls in GRA 06128, 9. these rocks are the first andesite meteorites. They are clearly from a previously unknown planetary body. And had they not been found on the Ice field they may never have been discovered. In other words they look nothing like what meteorites look like. At least until now.
The other great discovery of late is Almahata sitta. This material is so strange that every piece found had to be tested for age on Earth. This because it has so many different lithologies that in previous finds it would have been deemed at least 6 different falls. I guess extra money has been spent on this but we now know that single falls can and do produce very different lithologies all within the same fall.
Good thing we tracked this thing or we would still not know this. Thanks Richard.
This actually opens the door to ask a huge question;
Which other falls / finds previously identified as unique are actually from the same fall? Whereas before we always assumed they were simply overlapping strewnfields. Maybe some of them fell together?
Carl.
  
 
-
Carl or Debbie Esparza
Meteoritemax


---- Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> Short practical question, Carl, if you don't mind?
>
> Up to which monetary sum you'd think it would be justified to measure random
> stones, in the hope to find once an unknown meteorite species?
>
> (And what would the gain for mankind, to have found such, regarding the used
> financial means, which could be spend for other problems?)
>
> And seen all the new finds of the recent two decades, where so many really
> weird rocks were among them,
> how meaningful and efficient would be that method,
> compared to the output of that system of meteorite experts (private and
> "institutional" ones", doesn't matter) from the cold and hot deserts
> or compared to the method, simply to wait until such an unknown type will
> fall freshly on our heads?
>
> (Anyway, best and cost-free method to find uncommon meteorites, is simply to
> keep the hot deserts open for everyone. IMHO)
>
> >I admire the Scientists that are willing to look beyond
>
> Though historically, the concept of the scientific "martyr" is quite a
> romanticizing....
>
> Skol!
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
> cdtucson at cox.net
> Gesendet: Freitag, 22. April 2011 00:33
> An: Adam; Adam Hupe; agee at unm.edu
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorwrongs and Meteorites
>
> Adam,
> Your initial agreement with Carl made me chuckle a bit.
> It is as if you were saying everybody already known's which is real and
> which is not prior to study.
>
> I feel the same way about lottery tickets. Why waste your time buying the
> losing numbers. it ties up all of the time.
> You should only buy winning tickets?
>
> I know what you meant but, sometimes those little devils can be tricky and
> if we don't study them we will never find any NEW species of previously
> unknown meteorites.
> We need a balance between the known's and the unknowns.
> Not all scientific theories have to agree with the previous theories.
>
> I admire the Scientists that are willing to look beyond what they see with
> their eyes alone.
> Like Carl said. " not everybody has a SEM in their basement".
> Carl
>
> Carl or Debbie Esparza
> Meteoritemax
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Fri 22 Apr 2011 11:42:20 AM PDT