[meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER
From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8CE45695A929E09-16C0-5E35B_at_Webmail-m105.sysops.aol.com> Thanks John for the kind comment to us both, it did the trick. Sir Joseph is really the key here, being the president of the Society it is he that received stones from several sources and first recognized the common characteristics thet had ... and one may conjecture he was the first to understand that some meteorites were "chondritic", which is the real leap, finding the common charistics to typify meteorites. Also, I'd just like to point out that the detailed description from Williams was actually published stand alone in August 1802, six months after Howard read his joint results (with Count de Bournon) the London Philosophical Society and also covered his results along with Williams comments in that talk. Thus - many roads lead to 1802 and to Howard (who did the analysis prior to 1802) ... and other unnamed mineralogists/chemists doing this which Williams, a lawyer is simply providing a narrative and is very capable at that. The important "unnamed minerologist" was Count de Bournon who already had some familiarity with meteorites. He was the first to describe chondrules and if one is looking for a discoverer in the sense of a description vs. an "faces have noses" sort of obvious fact, the Count first described them correctly as globular, either perfectly, or elliptical, etc.,in his work through Howard, in February 1802, and if we are giving credit for characterization of a chondrule, he is the winner; if not it is Sorby who in 1864 determined they were condensed products. Count de Bournon (via Howard: Feb 1802) "One of these substances which is in great abundance appears in the form of small bodies, some of which are perfectly globular, others are elongated or elliptical. They are of various sizes, from that of a small pin's head to that of a pea, or nearly so: some of them, however, but very few, are of a larger size. The colour of these small globules is gray, sometimes inclining very much to brown: and they are completely opaque. They may, with great ease, be broken in all directions: their fracture is conchoid, and shews a fine, smooth, compact grain, having a small degree of lustre, resembling in some measure that of enamel. Their hardness is such, that, being rubbed upon glass, they act upon it in a slight degree; this action is sufficient to take off its polish, but not to cut it: they give faint sparks, when struck with steel.results (including his claim on chondrule 'discovery') to a scientific audience as customary which was summarized for recording, and after Williams has the benefit to get feedback from Howard which influenced what he wrote." Thus - many roads lead to 1802 and to Howard (who did the analysis prior to 1802) ... and other unnamed mineralogists/chemists doing this which Williams, a lawyer is simply providing a narrative of what he has learned and does not try to be a scientist. It is of course interesting to note that Williams sent a preliminary account priorly, 1799, ... however we do not have a place to read the exact contents of that but if the additional narratives sent by Shawn is anything like it, it is possible no mention of the spheirical bodies was made in that initial writing... this still needs to be properly referenced with a primary source. BTW, You can read William's reprinted complete post-Howard version here also, I found it much an easier read: The New annual register, or General repository of history, politics, and literature: to which is prefixed, a short review of the principal transactions of the present reign, Volume 23 (1803) p. 158 Page 158 Anyone interested in the complete (after Howard's work) blurb from Williams can see it all there ... however keep in mind he is summarizing what many people have told him so in that sense it is an unfootnoted work of many contributors and it is not always clear what others discovered and told him vs. his original observations if any at all. Kindest wishes Doug -----Original Message----- From: John.L.Cabassi <John at Cabassi.net> To: 'MexicoDoug' <mexicodoug at aim.com>; meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:08 pm Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER G'Day All I'm really liking this discussion. I love the information and the knowledge that I'm obtaining from this. Thanks Shawn and Doug Cheers John -----Original Message----- From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of MexicoDoug Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 7:36 PM To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER Re: "In what year were chondrules first discovered in aerolites aka meteorites? " Hi Shawn, Shyawn, you clearly didn't understand what I was sayingt, so I'll be a bit clearer: - Firstly, you left out the most important sentence in Williams' description, because you are quoting third or fourth hand and Marvin wasn't commenting on the first use of chondrules n or trying to list every personal communication of the period. So I'll take the liberty of helping you despite your stupid comment telling me to read more. The description continues: "The spherical bodies were much harder than the rest of the stone". That said: - You did not provide any first hand referencfe that "chondrules were *first* discovered" in 1799. - You did not provide a quote that Ursula Marvin supported that the Benares description was the "first incidence" of a description of chondrules. - You got the year wrong (1869) that the term "chondrule" was coined (1863). - You zero in on the word "spherical". Well, chondrules in meteorites are more frequently not spherical. What remnants you find in meteorites like Siena...are just granular, or remnants. "Discovery" has nothing to do with obnserving a spherical one vs. a squashed, crushed typical one. Most have been altered. That is my opinion, but strongly so, Hence, describing granules without calling them spherical only means that Benares had less deformed chondrules (and it was a great description in general). Sorry, but the assumptions were just way out. The first place it is in print (1802) will be a reasonable occurence for the concept of "spherical" granules, as opposed to regular granules. Since the 1799 date is not a publication date, and it is clear that plenty of correspondence was being exchanged, credit for publication goes to Howard so far, who though enough of this to publish. Back in the 1700's no one had a clue that chondrules were condensates or any other context to ascribe importance to them. When people looked at spherical, granular, or any other rounded form, that was clearly observed earlier, definitely in 1766 by Troili. The fact that the word spherical vs. granule was used in your reference means absolutely nothing except that more spherical chondrules occur in Benares than do in, eg. Albareto, Wold Cottage, etc. Chondrules were first understood in 1864. In that year it was first theorized that this peculiar structure, was a condensation product - specifically "droplets of fiery rain from the Sun" by Sorby, who showed they were melt products and presented that theory. That is when chondrules as a feature were "discovered" and lead to meteorites being a key to unlocking the solar system's formation. - As an aside: The independent account you mention from Williams has no mention of any kind of granule or chondrule. You indicate Williams "discovered" chondrules. A critical read of the information you provided suggest to me that in what you posted, that it was Sir Joseph who had already observed this in the older falls. And it was Sir Joseph who likely noted that this was a common feature of meteorites, based on his prior observations, not Williams who provided him with additional data, which was the basis of comparson. OK, enough ... Kindest wishes Doug -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Alan <photophlow at yahoo.com> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:01 pm Subject: [meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER Hello Mexico Doug and Listers, Dough you said this . ?No time to go through your document link, but I suspect you are making a biased interpretation of this passing comment because you already know something the original investigators were clueless about.? And this .. ?While other scientists may have mentioned spherical or granulated things and made various comments relating to them, specific or no so much so, that is not a clear scientific leap by any means regarding chrondrules in my opinion? Doug first off, maybe you would want to read up on some of the links I provided before you make an opinion about what has been said in history. Why don?t you give that a try and get back to me and you will see the wonders it can do for oneself when trying to rewrite history based on opinions alone. I love science and research and how one using these tools can present an educated argument on the topics of chondrules and use quotes and references to backup ones argument. Give it a try sometime :) Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 eBaystore http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html [meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER MexicoDoug mexicodoug at aim.com Mon Sep 19 20:04:23 EDT 2011 Previous message: [meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------- Shawn wrote, refering to the application of the word "chondrule": "But I would like to add it wasnt till 1869 that the word chondrules was coined by Gustav Rose." This is an error, Shawn. It was alledgedly 1863. And in 1864, we had the first observation by a "scientist" of a chondrule, who invented the microscope for thin sections and made true scientific observation on meteorites. That is why the answer should be 1864. This is the period that a better understand was achieved that the granules we now call chondrules were distinguished petrologically as we do today (just look at the publications of science vs. layterms today when researching chondrules). While other scientists may have mentioned spherical or granulated things and made various comments relating to them, specific or no so much so, that is not a clear scientific leap by any means regarding chrondrules in my opinion. When I am in strewn fields working with peasants, they are quite sharp at recognizing chondrules in many cases, and without anyone pointing them out to them. So I would hardly credit your reference with anything of value except anectotal. Once you find a not too cooked chondrite, it's as obvious as pointing out that a face has a nose and eyes. Shawn wrote: "Marvin points out the first incident a scientist first observed these chondrules in a meteorite....." Does she "point this out" and suggest it was the first incidence of observed chondrules? Or does she mention "an" incident? It is foolish to ascribe too much significance to the indirect reference you happened to find IMO. No time to go through your document link, but I suspect you are making a biased interpretation of this passing comment because you already know something the original investigators were clueless about. While it has the word "spherical", it is hard for me to believe that this was the first reference though it is very clear. The common knowledge before that was a sandstone appearance; and prior to your reference year, granules were defnitely pointed out. I think the jury is still out on this one, since it would require a complete collation in all languages to determine who said what and when, rather than make such a sweeping statement without giving Troili (1766) and others more credit in a level context. Kindest wishes, and of course, (kindest opinions may differ) Doug -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Alan <photophlow at yahoo.com> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 4:17 pm Subject: [meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER Hello Listers I would like to thank everyone that submitted their answers for this weeks POP QUIZ FRIDAYS. Question In what year were chondrules first discovered in aerolites aka meteorites? Answer 1799 I am sorry but no one got the question right. But all hope is not lost cause there is still a winner. All the people that sent in their answer sent in 1802( even the best of the best sent in this answer and I spoke with some people and suggested I make a winner from the 10th incorrect answers cause it was so close). Good guess, I would have to say that was the year that was the first publication that first talked about spherical granulated substances found in aerolites(meteorites), but was not when they were first observed. In Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni (1756?1827) and the origins of modern meteorite research by Ursula B. MARVIN in a meteorite..... Benares, India, 1798 "A dazzling ball of fire exploded across a serene evening sky near Benares, India, at 8 P.M. on December 19, 1798, heralding a large shower of stones. Early in 1799, Sir Joseph Banks in London received a letter from John Lloyd Williams (about 1765?1838) in India describing the fireball and the appearance of the stones. All of them, he said, had hard black crusts like varnish or bitumen and whitish, gritty interiors with many small spherical bodies interspersed with bright shining grains of metal or pyrite. Williams (in Howard 1802: 179) concluded: I shall only observe, that it is well known there are no volcanoes on the continent of India; and, as far as I can learn, no stones have been met with in the earth, in that part of the world, which bear the smallest resemblance to those above described. On reading the letter, Sir Joseph was struck by the apparent similarities between the Benares stones and the samples he had obtained from the falls at Siena and Wold Cottage. Judging that it was time for serious scientific investigations, he handed his two samples to the accomplished young chemist, Edward C. Howard (1774? 1816) and asked him to analyze them. In December 1800, Banks presented the Copley Medal, the Royal Society?s highest honor, to Howard for his discovery of the fulminate of mercury. In his presentation speech, Banks made it clear that he believed a new field of research was opening (Sears 1975: 218): Mr. Howard . . . is now employed in the analysis of certain stones, generations in the air by fiery meteors, the component parts of which will probably open a new field of speculation and discussion to mineralogists as well as to meteorologists." source http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996M%26PS...31..545M PAGE 30 Here is another account of Williams work with the Benares fall and observations........ "At length, in 1799, an account of stones fallen in the East Indies was sent to the president, by John Lloyd Williams, Esq. which, by its unquestionable authenticity, and by the striking resemblance it bears to other accounts of fallen stones, mult remove all prejudice. Mr. Williams has since drawn up the following more detailed narrative of facts. Account of the Explosion of a Meteor, near Benares, in the East Explosion of a Indies; and of the falling of some Stones at the fame Time, me^?r ""t^" about 14 Miles from lluii City. By John Lloyd Williams, falling of tome Esq. F. R. S. stones ?the fame time. A circumstance of so extraordinary a nature as the fall of stones from the heavens, could not fail to excite the wonder, and attract the attention of every inquisitive mind. Among a superstitious people, any preternatural appearance is viewed with silent awe and reverence; attributing the causes to the will of the Supreme Being, they do not presume to judge the means by which they were produced, nor the purposes for which they were ordered; and we are naturally led to suspect the influence of prejudice and superstition, in their descriptions of such phenomena; my inquiries were therefore chiefly directed to the Europeans, who were but thinly dispersed about that part of the country. The information I obtained was, that on the i 9th of De- Narrative, cember, 179S, about eight o'clock in the evening, a very luminous meteor was observed in the heavens, by the inhabitants of Benares and the parts adjacent, in the form of a large ball LarEe ta" of - ,. , . , , , , , , ,. fire with noise Oi fire; that it was accompanied by a loud noile, reiembling thumbs. thunder; and that a number of stones were said to have fallen from it, near Krakhut, a village on the north side of the river Goomty, about 14 miles from the city of Benares. The meteor appeared in the western part of the hemisphere, and was but a short time visible: it was observed by several Europeans, as well as natives, in different parts of the country" http://books.google.com/books?id=UPg3AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=John +Lloyd+Williams+in+1799+meteorite&source=bl&ots=7IH2AqE9lt&sig=9kdVFN4Bh BwOMmk_T0bQxpuqcbU&hl=en&ei=e8RzTteyEsnw0gGsgrnwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&c t=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false And one last link to confirm Willimas role.... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988KIzND......104E But I would like to add it wasnt till 1869 that the word chondrules was coined by Gustav Rose. Again I would like to thank everyone that sent in their answers and would like to announce the 10th Lister that sent in the incorrect answer which was 1802 and that Lister is Gabriel G. They will win a free micro grain of the Sylacauga meteorite fall where this stone comes from the Smithsonian collection. Thank you Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 eBaystore http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html ______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------- Previous message: [meteorite-list] POP QUIZ ANSWER Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------- More information about the Meteorite-list mailing 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 ______________________________________________ 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 20 Sep 2011 01:00:29 AM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|