Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:32:10.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hoba (South-West Africa), the largest known meteorite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

L. J. Spencer
L. J. Spencer*
Affiliation:
Mineral Department, British Museum of Natural History.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1910 in volume 15 of this Magazine I was able to place on record some details respecting the 'Cullinan' diamond from South Africa, the largest crystal of diamond yet found. I have now been able to collect some information about the largest known meteorite. The facts concerning remarkable obiects such as these are apt to become exaggerated and distorted, and it is well to place on record the true and accurate data while they can still be ascertained.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 23 , Issue 136 , March 1932 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1932

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 2 note 1 An incorrect form 'Hobart' is evidently due to the prevalent idea that foreign words must be pronounced as French, in the same way that all foreigners are ' Monsieur '.

page 2 note 2 Range, P., Meteoriten aus Deutsch-Stidwestafrika. Mitt. Deutsch. Schutzgebieten, 1913, vol. 26, pp. 341-343.Google Scholar

page 3 note 1 The opportunity has been taken to mark on this map the localities of vanadium minerals represented in the British Museum collection.

page 4 note 1 SchneidcrhShn, H., Otavi-Bergland, Das und Erzla~erst~tten, seine. Zeits. prakt. Geol., 1929, vol. 37, pp. 85-116.Google Scholar Picture of the meteorite on p. 95, and geological sketch-map showing its position on p. 88. [Min. Abstr., vol. 4, p. 261, footnote.] Another photograph of the meteorite, taken by Prof. SchneiderhShn in 1929, is reproduced in his Mineralische Bodenschi~tze im siidlichen Afrika. Berlin, 1931, p. 18, fig. 15. [Min. Abstr., vol. 4, p. 484.]

page 4 note 2 Luyten, W. J., The new Grootfontein meteorite. (Title only.) Rep. Brit. Assoc., 1930, vol. 97 (for 1929, South Africa), p. 315 Google Scholar.

-The Grootfontein meteorite. South African Journ. Sci., 1929, vol. 26, pp. 19-20. [Min. Abstr., vol. 4, p. 261.] Three of W. J. Luyten's photographs are reproduced in the Scientific American, 1929, vol. 141, pp. 316-317.

page 4 note 3 Spencer, L. J., Meteoric irons from South-West Africa. Nat. Hist. Mag. (British Museum), 1939, vol. 2, pp. 240-246. [Min. Abstr., vol. 4, p. 422.]Google Scholar

Min. Mag., 1930, vol. 22, pp. 272-273 (footnote) ; 1931, vol. 22, p. 493.

page 4 note 4 Gordon, S. G., The Grootfontein, Southwest Africa, meteoric iron. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1931, vol. 83, pp. 251-255, 3 figs.Google Scholar [Min. Abstr., voL 5, p. 11.] A picture of the ' 100-ton iron meteorite' is also reproduced in the 1930 Year Book of the Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1931, p. 50.

page 5 note 1 Clark, A. W., The ore-deposits of the Otavi Mountains, South-West Africa. Mining Mag. London, 1931, vol. 44, p. 265.Google Scholar

page 5 note 2 Range, P. and Schreiter, R., Der Hoba-Meteorit in Siidwestafrika. Centr. Min., Abt. A, 1931, pp. 390-398, 8 figs. [Min. Abstr., vol. 5, p. 11.]Google Scholar

page 5 note 3 Compt. Rend. Internat. Geol. Congr. XV Sess. South Africa, 1929, Pretoria, 1930, vol. 1, p. 281.

page 7 note 1 Metric ton of 1000 kilograms = 2205 lb. avoirdupois.

page 7 note 2 Spencer, L. J.. Min. Mag., 1930, vol. 22, p. 272.Google Scholar

page 8 note 1 Information has also been kindly supplied by Mr. L. G. Ray, the Chief Inspector of Mines for South-West Africa.

page 11 note 1 The term ataxite (from ~ra~a, disorder) for compact structureless meteoric irons was introduced by A. Brezina in 1896, Die Meteoritensammlung des k. k. naturhist. Hofmuseums, Aun. naturhist. Hofmus. Wien, 1896, vol. 10, p. 295. The same term had been earlier applied by F. Loewinson-Lessing in 1888 (Tschermak's Min. Petr. Mitt., 1888, vol. 9, p. 529) to a brecciated volcanic rock with an irregular arrangement of the fragments.

page 11 note 2 Compiled from G. T. Prior, Catalogue of Meteorites (British Museum), 1923, and Supplement, 1927 ; and O. C. Farrington, Analyses of iron meteorites compiled and classified, Field Columbian Museum, Chicago, 1907, publication 120, Geol. Ser., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 100-105.

page 12 note 1 Cf. G. T. Prior, Min. Mag., 1914, vol. 17, p. 132.

page 12 note 2 Method of Brunck, O., Zeits. angew. Chem., 1907, vol. 21, p. 1849; 1914, vol. 27, p. 317.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 Gooch, F. A., Methods in chemical analysis, New York, 1912, p. 504.Google Scholar Gooch, F.A. and Havens, F. S., Amer. Journ. Sci., 1899, ser. 4, vol. 7, p. 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hillebrand, W.F., Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., 1919, no. 700, p. 133.Google Scholar

page 13 note 2 Cobalt chloride is stated to be volatile in a current of chlorine (Roscoe and Schorlemmer, Treatise on chemistry, 4th edition, London, 1907, vol. 2, p. 1255). No temperature is given, but presumably it must have been at least 400°C. I have failed to find any volatilization at 300°C. in special experiments with pure COCl2

page 13 note 3 The amount used should be regulated to the class of meteorite. With nickelrich ataxites and finest octahedrites ½gram will suffice, while for coarsest octahedrites, hexahedrites, and nickel-poor ataxites, 1 gram will be necessary.

page 13 note 4 The boat should be placed about 10-12 era. from the point where the tube leaves the oven. The tube around the boat and for at least 5 cm. beyond it should be quite free from sublimate when the reaction is complete

page 13 note 5 Sublimation of the iron in a current of chlorine is sometimes used in iron and steel analysis (see, e.g., Blair, A. A., Chemical analysis of iron, 6th edition, Philadelphia, 1906, p. 73 Google Scholar), but a dull red-heat appears always to be employed.

page 14 note 1 If only ½gram of filings were taken and the amount of sulphur is likely to be small, the whole solution may be used for the sulphur determination, and then halved for the iron and phosphorus determinations. In this case the ferric hydroxide should be dissolved and reprecipitated.

Trevorite of A. F. Crosse (1921) was shown by T. L. Walker (1923) to be a distinct mineral NiFe204 of the spinel group. [Min. Abstr., vol. 2, p. 249.]

page 15 note 1 Trevorite of A. F. Crosse (1921) was shown by T. L. Walker (1923) to be a distinct mineral NiFe2O4 of the spinel group. [Min. Abstr., vol. 2, p. 249.]

page 15 note 2 See Shannon, E. V., The oxidation of meteoric irons . … Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1927, vol. 72, art. 21. [Min. Abstr., vol. 3, p. 534.]Google Scholar

page 15 note 3 V. M. Goldschmidt Die Naturwissenschaftcn, 1930, vol. 18, p. 1007; Verhandl. Gesell. Deutsch. Naturfor. Arztc, 1931, vol. 91 (for 1930, KSnigsberg i. Pr.), p, 1007. [Min. Abstr., vol. 5, p. 7.]

page 16 note 1 R. E. Peary, Northward over the 'Great Ice' … and A account of the discovery and bringing home of the ' Saviksue' or great Cape-York meteorites. London, 1898, vol. 2.

page 16 note 2 Hovey, E. O., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. New York, Guide Leaflet, 1907, no. 26, p. 23 Google Scholar ; Lucas, F. A., ibid., 1926, no. 64, p. 14. [Min. Abstr., vol. 3, p. 395.]Google Scholar

page 16 note 3 30. C. Farrington, Meteorites. Chicago, 1915. In a chapter (pp. 54-59) on the size of meteorites, where the ' ton' unit has not in all cases the same value.

page 16 note 4 Bøggild, O. B., Meddeh om Grønland, 1927, vol. 74, p. 15. [Min. Abstr., vol. 3, p. 535.]Google Scholar

page 16 note 5 Lacroix, A., Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, 1924, vol. 179, p. 309. [Min. Abstr., vol. 3, p. 393.]Google Scholar

page 17 note 1 Min. Abstr., vol. 4, pp. 427-428 ; vol. 5, p. 16.

page 17 note 2 Min. Abstr., vol. 2, p. 357 ; vol. 3, pp. 92, 256 ; vol. 4, pp. 261,428 ; vol. 5, p. 17.

page 17 note 3 Annual Report Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, for 1930, 1931, vol. 8, p. 374, and plat 29. The weight of this stone has also been given as 820 lb. Apparently 745 lb. is the weight of the portion now in the Chicago Museum. [Min. Abstr., vol. 5, p. 12.]