[meteorite-list] Largest Crater in the Sahara Desert and LDG -- ONE MORE ...

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Hola Sterling, and thank you for the gracious email.  Hopefully this gas 
cooled down; I won't go for another round on this one now, I promise.  I pray the 
tektite debate won't continue until after we are dust, but in some places, 
probably you are "dead right" there.

I've always thought that one of the great advantages of American education's 
system is the frequently criticized postal service and open communications in 
research, plus the Universities' quickness to pay for the postage of its 
faculty members without too many questions, and the researchers desire to share 
their work with other professionals and neophytes alike.

I'm really sad you don't have the access level you'd like, it reminds me of 
our situation in Mexico - "So far from God, but so near to the USA."  
Thankfully, ten-year old Meteoritics full text articles are usually available from the 
Harvard NASA Smithsonian ADS service, so at least you can see et. al. 
including Dr. Koeberl's original article there:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1992Metic..27R.298T&l
ink_type=GIF&db_key=AST

"Oops" wrong one.  This particular article is a provocative one though for 
another thread, with much more application that it ever dreamed and a lively 
subject for discussion where some meteoritical forensics can actually weigh in on 
these disputes.

So that you are properly armed and dangerous next time, here's the right link 
to Dr. Koeberl's article we discussed:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1991Metic..26...41M&d
b_key=AST&link_type=ARTICLE

As far as Guy Heinen's book, your second hand source, all I can say is that 
it is a superb collection of information under one roof, but as you can see, 
despite all their efforts, the translation probably has some issues, and as you 
found out, the table and "conclusions" were not very clear.  And the paper 
actually was more of a study of the Zhamanshin Crater, its source rock, and 
tektite-like Irghizites and then a suggested path to pursue bigger problems.  
Amazing, considering Dr. Koeberl helped edit the book, but I promised not to get 
into this, and the researchers are all good ones.  At least I can take solace 
now in the fact that the cosmo- and geochemists weren't really in a conspiracy 
to get me*, it was just a very motivated amateur astronomer who teaches 
elementary school in his paid time.  He sounds like he could be a very welcomed asset 
to out discussion group, though I don't know him personally!!

I completely agree with you regarding the clues in Fluorine, whether alone or 
with Boron, so I can't really add anything to what you've already said there, 
other than clues being relatively common, but true conclusions and 
generalizations are so darned elusive.

*Did I mention I am a lowly physical chemist?  "Lowly", because at least here 
in Mexico, we can't seem to get much respect from the geologists.  It is 
really a sad situation but there is a distinct bias you could cut with a knife.  
And even the most prolific and one of the most distinguished Geologist of our 
State University's Geology Department is actually a Chemist like me, and he 
still get's a Rodney Dangerfield...
  

Saludos and best wishes, Doug