SURVEY of METEORITE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES: DENSITY, POROSITY and MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY by ROBERT J. MACKE, S.J. S.B. Massachuset
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SURVEY OF METEORITE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES: DENSITY, POROSITY AND MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY by ROBERT J. MACKE, S.J. S.B. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996 M.A. Washington University in St. Louis, 1999 M.A. Saint Louis University, 2006 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Physics in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2010 Major Professor: Daniel T. Britt ABSTRACT The measurement of meteorite physical properties (i.e. density, porosity, magnetic susceptibility) supplements detailed chemical and isotopic analyses for small samples (thin sections or ~300 mg portions) by providing whole-rock data for samples massing in the tens of grams. With the advent of fast, non-destructive and non-contaminating measurement techniques including helium ideal-gas pycnometry for grain density, the Archimedean ―glass bead‖ method for bulk density and (with grain density) porosity, and the use of low-field magnetometry for magnetic susceptibility, all of which rely on compact and portable equipment, this has enabled a comprehensive survey of these physical properties for a wide variety of meteorites. This dissertation reports on the results of that survey, which spanned seven major museum and university meteorite collections as well as the Vatican collection. Bulk and grain densities, porosities and magnetic susceptibilities are reported for 1228 stones from 664 separate meteorites, including several rare meteorite types that are underrepresented in previous studies. Summarized here are data for chondrites (carbonaceous, ordinary and enstatite) and stony achondrites. Several new findings have resulted from this study. From the use of a ―weathering modulus‖ based on grain density and magnetic susceptibility to quantify weathering in finds, it is observed that the degree of weathering of ordinary chondrites is dependent on their initial porosity, which becomes reduced to less than ~8% for all finds, but for enstatite chondrites ii weathering actually increases porosity. Grain density and magnetic susceptibility, which have been shown to distinguish H, L and LL ordinary chondrites, also may distinguish shergottites, nakhlites and chassignites from each other, but the two groups of enstatite chondrites (EH and EL) remain indistinguishable in these properties. H chondrite finds exhibit a slight negative trend in porosity with increasing petrographic type, and all chondrite falls together exhibit a pronounced negative trend in porosity spanning all petrographic types. The overall trend corresponds roughly to a positive trend in porosities with respect to both degree of oxidation and percentage of matrix. It also corresponds to the macroporosities of analogous asteroids. These traits constrain models of conditions in the solar nebula and the formation of chondrite parent- body precursors. iii Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Work of this nature would not be possible without the support of a large number of people and institutions. To begin with, many curators and collections managers made their meteorite collections available to me and made me feel welcome at their institutions. These are (in roughly chronological order) Br. Guy Consolmagno at the Vatican Observatory; Denton Ebel and Joe Boesenberg at the American Museum of Natural History; Glenn MacPherson, Linda Welzenbach, Cari Corrigan and many others at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History; Art Ehlmann and Teresa Moss at the Monnig collection at Texas Christian University; Carl Agee and James Karner at the Institute of Meteoritics, University of New Mexico; Meenakshi Wadhwa and Laurence Garvie at the Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona State University; Caroline Smith, Gretchen Benedix and Deborah Cassey at the Natural History Museum, London; and Philipp Heck, James Holstein and Paul Sipiera at the Field Museum of Natural History. Then there is the tremendous support I have received from the remainder of the scientific community. In particular, I should mention Jon Friedrich, Tom Kohout, Phil McCausland, and Melissa Strait, all of whom have strongly encouraged my work. The list here could go on and on, but for the sake of brevity I will only add a few others. George Flynn, Pierre Rochette, Alan Rubin, and Melissa Strait provided valuable reviewer feedback for various papers which found their way into this dissertation. v Many others outside the field of meteoritics have supported me in this work as well. I wish to thank my Jesuit superiors, especially Fr. Tim McMahon (provincial) and Fr. David Fleming (formation assistant) for approving my doctoral studies back in 2007, and the current provincial and formation assistant, Fr. Douglas Marcouiller and Fr. John Armstrong, who continue to support my studies. The Jesuits at Jesuit High School in Tampa, where I have resided while pursuing the Ph.D., have also been quite welcoming and supportive. Also, the Jesuits at the Vatican Observatory have been quite encouraging in my work. My thesis committee has been more than supportive; they have encouraged me to complete the dissertation in a timely manner and are all eager to see me become a productive member of the scientific community. They are Dan Britt, Br. Guy Consolmagno, Humberto Campins and Joe Harrington. Dan and Guy are also responsible for my being here in the first place; Dan needed a graduate student to do this study for which he had grant funding, and Guy just happened to know a young Jesuit scientist who needed a Ph.D. Speaking of grants, this work is funded by NASA Planetary Geology and Geophysics grants NNX09AD91G and NNG06GG62G. On top of that, the Smithsonian Institution funded my work there in the summer of 2008 with a 10-week Smithsonian Institution Graduate Research Fellowship. Last but not least, I want to thank my parents. Mom and Dad, where would I be without you? vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xviii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... xx CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Meteorite Basics.................................................................................................................... 6 1.1.1 Shock.............................................................................................................................. 8 1.1.2 Terrestrial Weathering ................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Some Science Questions ..................................................................................................... 12 1.2.1 Questions about Ranges and Classification ................................................................ 13 1.2.2 Questions about Weathering ........................................................................................ 16 1.2.3 Questions about Shock ................................................................................................. 18 1.2.4 Big-Picture Questions .................................................................................................. 18 1.2.5 Other Questions ........................................................................................................... 20 1.3 Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER 2: MEASUREMENT METHODS ............................................................................ 22 vii 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Grain density: Helium Ideal-gas Pycnometry ..................................................................... 24 2.2.1 Theory .......................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.2 Measurement ................................................................................................................ 26 2.2.3 Other Considerations ................................................................................................... 29 2.3 Bulk Density: Archimedean Glass Bead Method ............................................................... 32 2.3.1 Theory .......................................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2 Measurement ................................................................................................................ 33 2.3.3 Settling Methods and Systematic Error ...................................................................... 36 2.3.4. Further Considerations ................................................................................................ 42 2.4 Magnetic Susceptibility ...................................................................................................... 44 2.4.1 Instrument .................................................................................................................... 46 2.4.2 Adjustments for Finite Sizes .......................................................................................