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

From: Michael Mulgrew <mikestang_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 11:51:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMseTy39FmnR653DWK_2wW6VRHO6qB6MR3aF5GxnEinQoFOGPA_at_mail.gmail.com>

List,

Let's take pairing to the extreme: Considering many still agree with
the theory proposed by Gaffey and Gilbert (1998) that 6-Hebe is the
parent body for all H chondrites, and the vast majority of H
chondrites on Earth are here as a result of an impact/collision event
that occurred about 8 million years ago (Marti and Graf, 1992), then
couldn't we conclude that almost all H chondrites on Earth, regardless
of where they were found, are essentially paired?

Michael in so. Cal.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark, Larry and all!
>
> I looked into age dating tests. I have several samples I want tested.
> Each test takes about 6 months at a cost of $8500. Sooo, not going
> to happen in my project! Very time consuming, I was told, as a team
> of folks have to pick the sample apart down to the grain level. It
> requires a bit more sample than one might think! Sigh....
> Well, the good part is I learned a little about the validity of these
> tests and the process and that I need to win the mega-millions lottery
> for it to ever happen.
>
> I do not think much credit is given to all the hunters at Franconia
> that have hunted outside the constraints of the known recovery area.
> I know Larry has and I certainly know others that have, including
> myself. It's been going on for over a decade East and West of the
> field. Anything is possible, no doubt. So to say it has not been
> done is not correct. Then again, any part of the desert could be
> hunted more!
>
> Geologically, much of the desert, thousands and thousands of square
> miles is the same sort of desert...same age and form.
>
> I do not agree that meteorites are spread uniformly across the
> deserts. Statistics can certainly be twisted to point in the wanted
> direction...as can papers. The proof at this time being hundreds of
> hunters all over the deserts not finding anything that compares to the
> Franconia area. At this point, after all the popularity of
> meteorites, something would be found by now if that were the case.
> Yes, there are other finds.....that's a given.
>
> Nobody has ever come up with any document that explains Franconia. We
> get papers, which have great information in them, that bring up new
> information....but it's still not complete and really is only a slice
> of the area out there where meteorites are being found.
>
> Then there is the issue of people finding something that might be
> unusual that choose to not have the information out there....so it
> might as well have never been found, in my opinion. To me, the
> greater good is to share the information and get it out there to help
> one another! I am, as I have learned less than 10% of the current
> hunting population with that opinion!
>
> Classification will NOT pair meteorites. It's way more intense to pair.
>
> A couple keywords to pay attention to when you read.... "likely" and
> "is"
>
> when you read "likely paired", it does not mean they are paired.
> When you read "is paired", one can only assume that the proper testing
> took place that concludes the samples are paired. And without
> supporting information on the tests that paired two or more samples,
> you might as will be reading a fiction novel.
>
> So the puzzle continues. We can guess all day long.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Mark Bowling <minador at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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
Received on Wed 01 May 2013 02:51:59 PM PDT