Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: Ad: North American meteorite - San Bernardino Wash (L5)
Hello Bob, I'm confused. I addressed that. You're saying that, because they're L5's, they are paired, despite the fact that they look different? Over 1/10 meteorites found is L5. Seriously. Almost 5,000 approved meteorites are L5s, out of ~48,000 total approved meteorites. If you find a meteorite and you keep looking, there's a ~1/10 chance that the next (new) meteorite you find will be an L5. The requirements are clear. ...[A] single (collective) name may be given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each other. [S]imilar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each other. I don't really understand why you'd try to claim a pairing. Could they be paired? Maybe. If you're arguing for the *possibility,* I won't argue with you. There's a very small, but indisputable, chance. Seems illogical to hedge your bet on it since they look so different, though. Regards, Jason www.fallsandfinds.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com wrote: I started to write a reply but then I realized that I was just repeating what I wrote earlier. So, I'll just reprint it here: But, to directly answer your question, I would have to refer you to my latest Meteorite-Times article: http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/jan14.htm for my description of how a cluster of obviously-paired fragments found at SBW had such a variation in looks, that it prompted me to sample a number of them and to actually have two of those fragments classified. For your convenience, I'll show them here: Pinto Mountains --(L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxene Fs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)-- 1955 stone San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% (n=7) -- (UCLA type-specimen) -- 2010 stone San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% (n=24) -- 2012A fragment San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% (n=14) -- 2012B fragment 'Nuff said. Bob V. On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:51 PM, Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com wrote: Helo Bob, All, I agree, they definitely look different. 'Nuff said. You could assume microclimates, but I wouldn't start putting forth a hypothesis like that without something substantial like argon data to tie the two stones together. The Meteoritical Bulletin is clear on pairing: http://meteoriticalsociety.org/?page_id=59 a) Level of scrutiny. Sequential names comprising a prefix and numeric suffix will be given to new meteorites without checking for possible pairings, although a single (collective) name may be given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each other. b) Pairing groups. Two or more newly discovered meteorites in dense collection areas may be considered paired with each other or with another formally named meteorite if there is overwhelming evidence, including geographic data, that is consistent with the meteorites being part of a single fall. The evidence must be evaluated by the Committee. All approved members of a pairing group will be named with a geographic prefix plus a number in the same way as are unpaired meteorites; special type-specimen requirements will apply to newly paired meteorites (section 7.1f). If two or more numbered meteorites with formal names are subsequently determined to be paired, their names should not be changed. Pairing groups may be referred to collectively by the lowest specimen number, the most widely studied mass number or the largest mass number (e.g., the EET 87711 pairing group). To emphasize the important part, a single (collective) name may be given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each other. They look different and weren't found within meters; the necessary evidence clearly isn't there. Anything else is guesswork. Regards, Jason On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes Jason, I agree, they definitely look different. But what has me puzzled is something that is not all that apparent in our images. The exterior of our two stones. Your stone has a very well-preserved exterior (even though your interior is a uniformly-colored W3), whereas, my exterior (which is not visible in the image) is gone, actually eroded. Yet somehow, my stone's interior is less weathered than your stone (my stone was classified as W1). I wonder, if the interior of my stone were to weather to a W3, just how much it would look like your stone? But, to directly answer your question, I would have to refer you to my latest Meteorite-Times article: http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/jan14.htm for my description of how a cluster of obviously-paired fragments found at SBW had such a variation in looks, that it prompted me to sample a number of them and to actually have two of those fragments classified. For your
[meteorite-list] Removing carbon coating???
Hi List! I've read methanol is good for removing carbon from thin sections. How about using alcohol? Anyone try this? Thank you! Jim -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Removing carbon coating???
I just lightly polish the C-coated section on a 1-µm lap and then clean it with ethanol. Alan Rubin Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California 3845 Slichter Hall 603 Charles Young Dr. E Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 phone: 310-825-3202 e-mail: aeru...@ucla.edu website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html - Original Message - From: Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:58 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Removing carbon coating??? Hi List! I've read methanol is good for removing carbon from thin sections. How about using alcohol? Anyone try this? Thank you! Jim -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Removing carbon coating???
Thanks Alan, The instruction I read said methanol so just making sure and typically do not deviate from instruction without at least checking. I do not have methanol or denatured ethanol here currently, only isopropanol. I figured I'd be okay...was not sure about the carbon. Jason: LOL! I and a lot of others would be long dead if they were all the same! But yes, all part of the -OH functional group. When I was doing the First Responder stuff, instead of saying the patient was drunk we'd say ETOH on board. Gotta love corn! Jim I just lightly polish the C-coated section on a 1-µm lap and then clean it with ethanol. Alan Rubin Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California 3845 Slichter Hall 603 Charles Young Dr. E Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 phone: 310-825-3202 e-mail: aeru...@ucla.edu website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html - Original Message - From: Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:58 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Removing carbon coating??? Hi List! I've read methanol is good for removing carbon from thin sections. How about using alcohol? Anyone try this? Thank you! Jim -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7027 - Release Date: 01/23/14 -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: Ad: North American meteorite - San Bernardino Wash (L5)
My apologies to all on the List, I neglected to send my reply in plain text, so you don't have the benefit of knowing what Jason is replying to. Here is reprint of that missing post: On Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:48 AM, Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com wrote: I started to write a reply but then I realized that I was just repeating what I wrote earlier. So, I'll just reprint it here: But, to directly answer your question, I would have to refer you to my latest Meteorite-Times article: http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/jan14.htm for my description of how a cluster of obviously-paired fragments found at SBW had such a variation in looks, that it prompted me to sample a number of them and to actually have two of those fragments classified. For your convenience, I'll show them here: Pinto Mountains -- (L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxene Fs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)-- 1955 stone San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% (n=7) -- (UCLA type-specimen) -- 2010 stone San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% (n=24) -- 2012A fragment San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% (n=14) -- 2012B fragment 'Nuff said. Bob V. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: Ad: North American meteorite - San Bernardino Wash (L5)
Apparently, you’re not the only one confused. I’ve been discussing this topic with some other people and they find this confusing, as well, and all have the same question: Why did the NomCom give you 1 name, instead of numbering each of the stones that Bob Perkins, Gary Crabtree, and Fred Mason found? These were all recovered over a wide area inside the San Bernardino Wash. I’m not saying that you did anything wrong (in fact, in my article I praised your informative submission to the Meteoritical Bulletin), and it is probably unfair to ask you a question about the NomCom and why they didn’t require that a DCA be formed, but it certainly does beg the question: What is the evidence that the first 3 or 4 stones are actually paired, and why did the NomCom not follow those very policy guidelines that you quoted earlier? Why is it, now, incumbent upon me to submit a request to the NomCom for SBWash 002 and for the formation of a DCA? Particularly, when they DO look similar. I only agreed that they weathered differently. I still contend that all of my fragments (which come from a single, several meter-wide patch formed by a splatter-impact) DO LOOK LIKE all the other stones recovered from the San Bernardino Wash. Among all of these splatter-fragments there was only one that weathered differently and “looked fresher” (on the inside). If you look at today’s MPOD you can see an image of a slice from that fresher looking fragment - http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=1/23/2014WYD= And if you look at the “rollover photo”, I contend that, if the interior of the slice depicted were to weather just a little bit more and be a uniform orange-brown color, it would look just like the interior of your specimen (assuming it is one of the Crabtree stones that was classified). Again, I’m not saying that either of us have done anything “wrong”. In fact, I find very little, in principle that we are in disagreement. But I must admit to being curious how the NomCom would respond if I were to submit my two classifications. With best regards, Bob V. On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:45 AM, Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Bob, I'm confused. I addressed that. You're saying that, because they're L5's, they are paired, despite the fact that they look different? Over 1/10 meteorites found is L5. Seriously. Almost 5,000 approved meteorites are L5s, out of ~48,000 total approved meteorites. If you find a meteorite and you keep looking, there's a ~1/10 chance that the next (new) meteorite you find will be an L5. The requirements are clear. ...[A] single (collective) name may be given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each other. [S]imilar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each other. I don't really understand why you'd try to claim a pairing. Could they be paired? Maybe. If you're arguing for the *possibility,* I won't argue with you. There's a very small, but indisputable, chance. Seems illogical to hedge your bet on it since they look so different, though. Regards, Jason www.fallsandfinds.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com wrote: I started to write a reply but then I realized that I was just repeating what I wrote earlier. So, I'll just reprint it here: But, to directly answer your question, I would have to refer you to my latest Meteorite-Times article: http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/jan14.htm for my description of how a cluster of obviously-paired fragments found at SBW had such a variation in looks, that it prompted me to sample a number of them and to actually have two of those fragments classified. For your convenience, I'll show them here: Pinto Mountains -- (L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxene Fs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)-- 1955 stone San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% (n=7) -- (UCLA type-specimen) -- 2010 stone San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% (n=24) -- 2012A fragment San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% (n=14) -- 2012B fragment 'Nuff said. Bob V. On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:51 PM, Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com wrote: Helo Bob, All, I agree, they definitely look different. 'Nuff said. You could assume microclimates, but I wouldn't start putting forth a hypothesis like that without something substantial like argon data to tie the two stones together. The Meteoritical Bulletin is clear on pairing: http://meteoriticalsociety.org/?page_id=59 a) Level of scrutiny. Sequential names comprising a prefix and numeric suffix will be given to new meteorites without checking for possible pairings, although a single (collective) name may be given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking fragments are found within
[meteorite-list] NASA, ESA Discuss Rosetta Comet Mission in Media Teleconference
January 23, 2014 Dwayne Brown Headquarters, Washington 202-358-1726 dwayne.c.br...@nasa.gov DC Agle/Jia-Rui Cook Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 818-393-9011/818-354-0850 a...@jpl.nasa.gov / jia-rui.c.c...@jpl.nasa.gov MEDIA ADVISORY M14-020 NASA, ESA Discuss Rosetta Comet Mission in Media Teleconference NASA will host a media teleconference at noon EST Friday, Jan. 24, to discuss the road ahead for the three U.S. science instruments, as well as other NASA support, that are part of the European Space Agency's (ESA) Rosetta mission. Having been reactivated Monday after a record 957 days in hibernation, the spacecraft will be the first to orbit a comet and land a probe on its nucleus. The Rosetta mission could help inform NASA's asteroid initiative, which will be the first mission to identify, capture and relocate an asteroid for astronauts to explore. The teleconference participants are: --James Green, director of planetary science, NASA Headquarters, Washington --Mark McCaughrean, ESA senior scientific advisor, Noordwijk, Netherlands --Matthew Taylor, ESA Rosetta project scientist, Noordwijk --Claudia Alexander, U.S. Rosetta project scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif. --Art Chmielewski, U.S. Rosetta project manager, JPL To participate by phone, reporters must send an email providing name, media affiliation and telephone number to Dwayne Brown at dwayne.c.br...@nasa.gov or call Brown at 202-358-1726 by 11:45 a.m. EST Friday. The teleconference will be streamed live at: http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio Related images will be available at the start of the teleconference at: http://go.nasa.gov/1jqyKG7 For more information about Rosetta, visit: http://www.esa.int/rosetta and http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov -end- __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD: Murray, LA 002, Ensisheim, Cold Bokkeveld, 2008TC3 more ending on ebay soon!
Hello Listers Thank you for taking a look at my post of meteorites I have for sale on eBay. Here is your chance to own some rare and historic meteorites. Please take a look and if you have any questions or OFFERS /or TRADES, please email me and I'll get back with you. Lastly, if you are looking for bigger/smaller meteorites, let me know too. A meteorite is a meteorite, but a meteorite with history legacy, will always add aura to your meteorite collection and value. ebay store http://www.ebay.com/sch/imca1633nyc/m.html Featured Auctions WESTON - 1st USA / American meteorite fall, fell in 1807 - Rare Historic http://www.ebay.com/itm/251431275319?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 ALMAHATA SITTA 47mg meteorite 2008TC3 1st meteorite seen from space-SUPER RARE http://www.ebay.com/itm/251431266359?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 COLD BOKKEVELD meteorite fall 1838 - 1st CM2 meteorite Fall - Very Rare fall http://www.ebay.com/itm/251432911046?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 PASAMONTE 53mg meteorite fall 1933 1st fireball caught on film - Extremely Rare http://www.ebay.com/itm/251431564749?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 SYLACAUGA meteorite, Mrs. Hodges Meteorite Strike - Extremely Rare http://www.ebay.com/itm/261381670388?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 BEAVER CREEK rare and historic 1893 81mg meteorite fall - 2nd fall from Canada http://www.ebay.com/itm/251432922950?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 AUSSON Rare Historic 54mg Meteorite Hammer Fall - Fell in 1858 France http://www.ebay.com/itm/261380554067?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 TROUP meteorite-3rd fall-Fell in 1917 in TEXAS USA-Almost hit a BOY TKW 1020g http://www.ebay.com/itm/251431273004?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 ebay storehttp://www.ebay.com/sch/imca1633nyc/m.html __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NASA's Opportunity at 10: New Findings from Old Rover
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-022 NASA's Opportunity at 10: New Findings from Old Rover Jet Propulsion Laboratory January 23, 2014 [Images] * Self-Portrait by Opportunity Mars Rover in January 2014 * Mineral Detected from Orbit Found in Dark Veneers * 'Matijevic Hill' Panorama for Rover's Ninth Anniversary (False Color) * 'Esperance6' and 'Lihir' Rover Targets * Mineral Plot from 'Esperance' Target * Opportunity's First Decade of Driving on Mars * NASA's Mars Rover Spirit's View Southward from Husband Hill New findings from rock samples collected and examined by NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity have confirmed an ancient wet environment that was milder and older than the acidic and oxidizing conditions told by rocks the rover examined previously. In the Jan. 24 edition of the journal Science, Opportunity Deputy Principal Investigator Ray Arvidson, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, writes in detail about the discoveries made by the rover and how these discoveries have shaped our knowledge of the planet. According to Arvidson and others on the team, the latest evidence from Opportunity is landmark. These rocks are older than any we examined earlier in the mission, and they reveal more favorable conditions for microbial life than any evidence previously examined by investigations with Opportunity, said Arvidson. While the Opportunity team celebrates the rover's 10th anniversary on Mars, they also look forward to what discoveries lie ahead and how a better understanding of Mars will help advance plans for human missions to the planet in the 2030s. Opportunity's original mission was to last only three months. On the day of its 10th anniversary on the Red Planet, Opportunity is examining the rim of the Endeavour Crater. It has driven 24 miles (38.7 kilometers) from where it landed on Jan. 24, 2004. The site is about halfway around the planet from NASA's latest Mars rover, Curiosity. To find rocks for examination, the rover team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., steered Opportunity in a loop, scanning the ground for promising rocks in an area of Endeavour's rim called Matijevic Hill. The search was guided by a mineral-mapping instrument on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), which did not arrive at Mars until 2006, long after Opportunity's mission was expected to end. Beginning in 2010, the mapping instrument, called the Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars, detected evidence on Matijevic Hill of a clay mineral known as iron-rich smectite. The Opportunity team set a goal to examine this mineral in its natural context -- where it is found, how it is situated with respect to other minerals and the area's geological layers -- a valuable method for gathering more information about this ancient environment. Researchers believe the wet conditions that produced the iron-rich smectite preceded the formation of the Endeavor Crater about 4 billion years ago. The more we explore Mars, the more interesting it becomes. These latest findings present yet another kind of gift that just happens to coincide with Opportunity's 10th anniversary on Mars, said Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program. We're finding more places where Mars reveals a warmer and wetter planet in its history. This gives us greater incentive to continue seeking evidence of past life on Mars. Opportunity has not experienced much change in health in the past year, and the vehicle remains a capable research partner for the team of scientists and engineers who plot each day's activities to be carried out on Mars. We're looking at the legacy of Opportunity's first decade this week, but there's more good stuff ahead, said Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., the mission's principal investigator. We are examining a rock right in front of the rover that is unlike anything we've seen before. Mars keeps surprising us, just like in the very first week of the mission. JPL manages the Mars Exploration Rover Project for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. Opportunity's twin, Spirit, which worked for six years, and their successor, Curiosity, also contributed valuable information about the diverse watery environments of ancient Mars, from hot springs to flowing streams. NASA's Mars orbiters Odyssey and MRO study the whole planet and assist the rovers. Over the past decade, Mars rovers have made the Red Planet our workplace, our neighborhood, said John Callas, manager of NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Project, which built and operates Opportunity. The longevity and the distances driven are remarkable. But even more important are the discoveries that are made and the generation that has been inspired. Special products for the 10th anniversary of the twin rovers' landings, including a gallery of selected images, are available online at: http://mars.nasa.gov/mer10/ . For more
[meteorite-list] NEOWISE Celebrates First Month of Operations After Reactivation
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-023 NEOWISE Celebrates First Month of Operations After Reactivation Jet Propulsion Laboratory January 23, 2014 Mission Status Report In its first 25 days of operations, the newly reactivated NEOWISE mission has detected 857 minor bodies in our solar system, including 22 near-Earth objects (NEOs) and four comets. Three of the NEOs are new discoveries; all three are hundreds of meters in diameter and dark as coal. The mission has just passed its post-restart survey readiness review, and the project has verified that the ability to measure asteroid positions and brightness is as good as it was before the spacecraft entered hibernation in early 2011. At the present rate, NEOWISE is observing and characterizing approximately one NEO per day, giving astronomers a much better idea of the objects' sizes and compositions. Out of the more than 10,500 NEOs that have been discovered to date, only about 10 percent have had any physical measurements made of them; the reactivated NEOWISE will more than double that number. JPL manages the NEOWISE mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The Space Dynamics Laboratory in Logan, Utah, built the science instrument. Ball Aerospace Technologies Corp. of Boulder, Colo., built the spacecraft. Science operations and data processing take place at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Caltech manages JPL for NASA. More information on NEOWISE is online at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/wise/ Whitney Clavin/DC Agle 818-354-5011 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. whitney.cla...@jpl.nasa.gov / a...@jpl.nasa.gov 2014-023 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: Ad: North American meteorite - San Bernardino Wash (L5)
Hello Bob, All, We were thorough. The type specimen consisted of a slice and end-cut from 1) the first stone, and 2) the largest fragment from the second cluster. We took samples of each. The two cut stones looked ~identical, inside and out (-- and unlike your stone). All of the smaller fragments looked ~the same, and, yes, rather different from the fragment pictured in the Picture of the Day or the slice you sold on Ebay. I don't have the stones at my apartment, but will post some photos on our website at some point in the near future. Why is it, now, incumbent upon me to submit a request to the NomCom for SBWash 002 and for the formation of a DCA? Because, to quote you, I agree, they definitely look different. Of course, there's no requirement that you get your new find(s) classified; that is entirely up to you. We haven't had ~99% of our finds classified. They're ordinary chondrites and there's just no point. You do go on to say in your new email that they DO look similar. I only agreed that they weathered differently. That's definitely not what you said at first, but let's assume you misspoke. Your stone looks different. The exterior looks friable and weathered, and the interior looks porous and fresh. You can't account for additional porosity with weathering (typically) unless you oxidize and remove most of the metal, producing vugs. Since the more porous rock is the fresh one, I think we can safely say that this isn't the case. And porous meteorites tend to weather more quickly than less porous ones. Sure, it's not a laboratory analysis, but any experienced meteorite collector could tell you as much. Since this is all somewhat qualitative, I would simply point out that there is discord amongst experts, and the prudent thing to do is to get the stone analyzed. That said, I'm currently selling some fragments of NWA 7034 on our website. I still don't have analytical data on any of them. I clearly state this on my website. I also purchased the fragments from a prominent and well-regarded Moroccan meteorite dealer as NWA 7034, and the pieces came from a larger fragmented find that has been analyzed and submitted by the person who purchased it. And they look identical to the known finds, which are a distinctive off-black breccia with white/light clasts and nearly unique spherical inclusions. Some dealers harped at me for selling it without getting a piece analyzed, but do you know what no one did? No one said they looked different. Because they look like NWA 7034. It was also the highest price per gram I've ever paid for a meteorite, by ~800%, but that doesn't prove anything. my fragments (which come from a single, several meter-wide patch formed by a splatter-impact) DO LOOK LIKE all the other stones recovered from the San Bernardino Wash. Since I don't think you've seen the exterior of our specimens, I find this statement highly presumptive. Regardless, it is incorrect. There's always the slight possibility that we're dealing with a heterogeneous L-breccia like Gold Basin, but...prudence. I will disagree on one other thing. A mistake has been made. Personally 'pairing' distinctive stones that come from the same place and look identical is one thing (e.g. Jbilet Winselwan, Taza, NWA 7325, etc.), but you sold a slice of a meteorite that doesn't *appear* to be paired to a given meteorite -- as that particular meteorite. Since at least two other distinct chondrites have been found in the area (Zulu Queen/Dale Dry Lake and Pinto Mountains), that seems odd to me. And it's against Meteoritical Bulletin pairing guidelines, but you've ignored the repeated references I've made to those, so I guess I'll stop pointing it out. Choose to get your finds analyzed or don't, as you prefer, but I wouldn't try to justify self-pairing meteorites that don't look to be paired. Regardless of guidelines, common sense should come into play. Since no one else is chiming in, it's hard to say whose view is prevalent, but I have the feeling that most would err on the side of caution in this case. If nothing else, one couldn't be blamed for it. FYI, I think folks are going to start complaining about this thread soon... Regards, Jason www.fallsandfinds.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com wrote: Apparently, you’re not the only one confused. I’ve been discussing this topic with some other people and they find this confusing, as well, and all have the same question: Why did the NomCom give you 1 name, instead of numbering each of the stones that Bob Perkins, Gary Crabtree, and Fred Mason found? These were all recovered over a wide area inside the San Bernardino Wash. I’m not saying that you did anything wrong (in fact, in my article I praised your informative submission to the Meteoritical Bulletin), and it is probably unfair to ask you a question about the NomCom and why they didn’t require that a DCA be formed, but it certainly
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
Today's Meteorite Picture of the Day: Hessle Contributed by: Herbert Raab http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
