Pierre Rochette a �crit: > the inference "this is an anomalous meteorite" should > not be put forward before answering the questions: ...
Bonjour Pierre, hello List, I absolutely concur and that's why I cautiously spoke of "exceptions to the rule" instead of using a designation like "anomalous meteorite". > excluding type 3, finds and incompletely classified meteorites and allowing > for a half percent error leave practically no anomalies in Bernd's list! Right on target again! By the way, today I received an email from the Sahara Team (Richard & Roland P�lisson), informing me about the range of fayalite in the DaG 862 (main mass in their possession). The range is: Olivine Fa14.4 (0.33-32.29); pyroxene Fs13.1 (1.09-32.21) Of course, I shouldn't have included this meteorite in my overview as it is an unequilibrated H3 chondrite! > By the way why is Burnwell not fully classified? Burnwell has not yet been definitely classified or grouped because of some exotic characteristics: - lower Fa in olivine - lower Fs in orthopyroxene - lower Co in kamacite - lower FeO in the bulk chemical analysis - lower D17O than other equilibrated OC's - ordinary chondrites - higher Fe,Ni metal than other H chondrites Thus, some meteoriticists postulated an "HH" classification but Russell S.S. et al. (1998)are hesitant since this would imply a genetic significance that has not yet been fully ascertained. They use the term "low-FeO chondrite" instead to describe the Burnwell meteorite. Reference: RUSSELL S.S., McCOY T.J., JAROSEWICH E. and ASH R.D. (1998) The Burnwell, Kentucky, low iron oxide chondrite fall: Description, classification and origin (Meteoritics 33-4, 1998, 853-856). Best regards, Bernd ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
