Personally, I see nothing wrong with cutting Sutter's Mill. We (as in the scientific community) now have lots of stones and sliced pieces are needed for thin sections, polished mounts, etc. The TKW is well over 300 g - compare this with the really rare carbonaceous chondrites (e.g., Revelstoke - 1 g; Tonk - 7.7 g; Maribo - 25.8 g; Santa Cruz - 60 g; Crescent - 78.4 g etc).
I have cut two stones. Both were cut dry, very slowly, and with a super thin wafering blade. I have collected the cutting dust so the cut loss is zero. Even so, both stones broke while about 3/4 the way through the stone. Anyway, in hand specimen, the cut and polished faces are not particularly interesting looking - just black with a few while chondrules and CAIs, and sparse metal/troilite grains. Laurence CMS ASU On May 17, 2012, at 5:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:43:16 +0000 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Sutter's Mill slices question, Impact > Melt? > To: "Michael Farmer" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > > <899575154-1337276598-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-403998525-@b3.c18.bise6.blackberry> > > Content-Type: text/plain > > Well Mike, > > If I can add a measly 10% to the body of knowledge of this meteorite, by > sacrificing one little stone (heck if I can help add 1/10 of 1%) I think that > would be great. > > My guess is that a lot of these stones that are going into both institutional > and private collections won't ever be broken up much less in a "non > contaminated" way and they will sit as whole stones behind glass for > thousands of years. > > Nothing wrong with that at all. > > I'm just saying that one might gather from your post below that you were > implying in a self righteous manner that I might have done something horribly > wrong by having one of these (already contaminated) meteorites sliced? > > Of course there are opportunity costs in any course of action one takes. The > slices I have now, while they are not useful anymore for SOME research and > some examination purposes, they are however are VERY interesting (at least to > me) in what they show. I see things that quite frankly, I am not sure one > can see from a broken fragment. > > I am sure a thin section would show much of this better, but then of course, > one would really be "destroying" a lot of material to get a thin section. > (Look out Anne and E.T., there might be an IMCA violation in there somewhere > toward you guys. - just kidding) > > Anyway, I think any researcher who will want to purchase any of my slices > will be quite aware of the research limitations that the cutting has placed > on the slices. > > But thanks for your concern Mike. > > Steve Arnold > Host of Meteorite Men > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
