Martin Horejsi wrote: > I believe that Stanley Love did some work in this area. > Maybe someone out there has some references handy.
and: > enstatite-rich achondrites were the best candidates > at the moment. In specific, the aubrites. Here's one: LOVE S.G. et al. (1995) Recognizing mercurian meteorites (MAPS 30-3, 1995, 269-278): "The groups in which a misclassified mercurian meteorite would be most likely to lurk are differentiated, low-FeO objects such as the lunar anorthosites and the aubrites. Future searches for mercurian meteorites should focus on similar objects." Excerpts from the March issue of MAPS: - the Sun is up to 11 x more intense than on Earth - the sunlit side of the planet heats up to over 400�C - specific gravity of 5.44 as compared to the Moon's 3.34 - Mercury has the highest metal/silicate ratio and the Moon the lowest - Rocks on Mercury are generally Fe-poor, and therefore light-colored - ~3 wt% FeO is the most reasonable value for the crust of Mercury - presence of a magnetic field (strength of ~1% of the Earth's field is just enough to indicate the existence of a core dynamo) - current models suggest that the evolution of a planetary dynamo requires the presence of a solid inner core and a liquid outer core - discovery of material of high radar reflectivity near the poles is interpreted as ice, possibly mantled by dust. >From the Editors, Mercury 2001 conference, Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois, 2001 October 4-5 [MAPS 37, 307-309 (2002)] Cheers, Bernd ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
