[meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re: ...terminology...)

From: Mark Bowling <minador_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1367292697.88957.YahooMailNeo_at_web160405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

I looked back at my post and found an unintended "not" (and I regretfully somehow?misspelled Erik's name).? It should have read:
?
"I agree with Erik too, except for the different dating results that Larry referred to."
?
I think Erik has an excellent point that falls are not always homogeneous?(Larry's Almahatta Sitta example).? It's just my gut feeling but using?classifications to prove?meteorites are unrelated has been relied upon far too much.? Using age dating is much more reassuring to me (i.e.?the dates in the MAPS article).
?
Clear skies,
Mark B.

________________________________
From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
To: Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re: ...terminology...)


In my original post I neglected to add a link to the Hutson paper.
Here is the link to the "News" page from the Met. Bull. Database:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullNews.php?id=1

On that MetBull webpage is a link to the Melinda Hutson paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/maps.12062/abstract

It was my hope that my post would draw some interest and get more people to read this recent M&PS article. (2013 March, Vol.48 No.3 pg.365)

The thrust of my (partial) review was that many long-held assumptions about the Franconia area have been overturned by this paper.? Actually, a better phrase would be, "many sacred-cows have been slaughtered".
My post was a plea that if you were going to put in print some observation about the Franconia Area, you had better read this paper first.

I am in agreement with what is at the heart of Erik's post, so I don't want his point missed because of a technicality with his reference to the Gold Basin Fall.? I consider myself as a student of that strewn-field and, although there are many different meteorites found in the Gold Basin AREA, nowhere in the literature has anything other than L4-6 Fa:24?1 been attributed to the Gold Basin fall.

Prior to reading this recent paper, I was in complete agreement with Larry about the relative terrestrial age of the L-chondrites, particularly the "fresh-appearing" BM002 & BM003 stones. But that was just another cow-shaped assumption. Terrestrial age-dating for 10 stones from the Franconia Area were presented in this paper, and aside from the lone H6 stone (BM001) all of the L-chondrites dated older than the H-falls.
Here is the relative order of falls:

1. BM 001 ~20kyr ago
2. BM 003 ~11kyr ago
3. Palo Verde Mine ~10kyr ago
4. BM 004 ~ 8kyr ago
5. BM 005 ~ 7kyr ago
6. BMW 4.0?0.7kyr ago
7. Franconia "fell recently"

Looking forward to hearing from others who have read this article.

Have a good night,
Bob V.

General List Policies:
? 6. Make sure you can back up statements with -facts and references-


--- On Sun, 4/28/13, Mark <minador at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Mark <minador at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re: ...terminology...)
> To: "Larry Atkins" <thetoprok at aol.com>
> Cc: "meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013, 5:15 PM
>
> I agree with Eric too,
> but not?for the different dates that Larry refers to
> (which is mentioned in the same article).?
> After seeing many diverse rock types in a same small rock mass,
> I've always felt it's too simplistic to say
> different class. = different fall.
>
> I would go with the dating in this specific case that
> indicates different fall events though.
>
> Sent from my iPod Touch
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Larry Atkins <thetoprok at aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > Though I'm not in total agreement with you,
> > that is a good point.
> > What it comes down to is terrestrial age.
> > That would settle it.
> > For instance, the L chondrites at Franconia are
> > quite obviously from a more recent event,
> > I'm certain they are not related.,?
> > they are distinctly different in hand
> > and look fresher, and far rarer..
> >
> > Almahitta - Sita, among others, says they are not
> always homogeneous. You make good points
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Larry Atkins
> >?
> > IMCA # 1941
> > Ebay alienrockfarm
> >?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Fisler <phxerik at yahoo.com>
> > To: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> > Sent: Sun, Apr 28, 2013 7:11 pm
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Franconia AREA (was, Re:
> ...terminology...)
> >
> >
> > You mean all those H3-5's are paired?!? Lord.
> >
> > I think people forget that there are LL's, L's and H's
> > found from the Gold Basin fall.
> > To say that a mass from a parent body large
> > enough to have a strewn field
> > of this size and TKW should be one homogeneous
> > petro.-type is silly.
> > This business of trying to classify every stone as a
> > different fall for what
> > ever selfish or perverse reason along with having a
> > personal attachment to the
> > outcome of the over all conclusion is ridiculous and
> > completely against the
> > scientific method.
> >
> > How many of those Y[ucca]DCA or what ever H3-5's have been
> > found outside the mapped strewn field? And how far?
> >
> > -Erik Fisler
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >> Just read another article in the 2013 March edition
> of M&PS,
> >> "Stones from Mohave County, Arizona:
> >> Multiple falls in the 'Franconia strewn field' "
> >> by Melinda Hutson, et al.
> >>
> >> There is much to digest from this 5-author paper
> >> that is 25 pages long.
> >> What with 14 stones being studied and 7 pairings to
> >> be described, there is a lot to chew on.
> >>
> >> Here's something to chew on.? According to this paper,
> >> "Much unclassified
> >> material that has been distributed [sold] as
> >> 'Franconia' may not be from the Franconia fall".?
> >> The authors make a case that
> >> more than half of the finds made in the "Franconia area"
> >> are paired to the Buck Mountain Wash fall.
> >>
> >> It has taken 10 years, but these findings show that
> >> I was justified in my belly-aching about all of the
> >> self-pairing that was occurring back then.??
> >> It was on this very List that I was strongly criticized
> >> for this, and many dealers that thought they knew better
> >> defended their God-given right to name their stones
> >> after the Franconia meteorite that I got classified.?
> >>
> >> A closer look at the MetBull images for Franconia shows
> >> that very few of them are from the Franconia fall.
> >> I offer no apologies for taking great satisfaction
> >> in the fact that I am now vindicated.
> >>
> >> The paper goes on to show that every Sacramento Wash
> >> numbered meteorite is paired to Buck Mountain Wash,
> >> which effectively has resulted in the demise of
> >> the SaW DCA and hastened the formation of the Yucca DCA.
> >>
> >> As I said, if you read this paper, there's a lot
> >> more to digest.
> >> It's late and I'm thinking about chewing on an antacid pill.
> >>
> >> -- Bob V.
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 4/25/13, Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell at gmail.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chelyabinsk - IMB
> or SMB? The
> > nomenclature of
> > Melts.
> >>> To: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> >>> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2013, 5:29 PM
> >>> Hi All!
> >>> Just a point of information.? I just read
> Dr. Rubin's paper,
> >>> "Multiple melting in a four-layered
> barred-olivine chondrule with
> >>> compositionally heterogeneous glass from LL3.0
> Semarkona"
> >>> Whew!? That's a title for a paper!
> >>> While we are on the subject of melts, I thought
> I'd point-out
> >>> this paper.
> >>> Enjoyed reading it the first time....actually
> understood some
> >>> of it and will read it once again after
> thinking about it
> >>> for a while.
> >>> You folks might enjoy reading it when you get a
> chance!
> >>> Thanks Alan!!
> >>>
> >>> Jim Wooddell
> >> ++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > ______________________________________________
> >
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> >
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>


______________________________________________

Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 29 Apr 2013 11:31:37 PM PDT