Hello Shawn. I think you may be oversimplifying the composition of individuals and frags of the same fall. It would be remarkable to me that each portion of a specimen would have the same percentage of metal. I don't think whatever process creates a meteorite involves the surety of an equal distribution of elements throughtout by volumn.
Some areas of the meterorite is gonna have more metal and some ain't. That would acount for a specimen having different lithographies like Almahatta Sitta for ezample. I'm operating on short info here, but I think ya'll get the drift. But,to answer one of your queries, all nine of my little Pultusk looking peas of Chebarkul had the same unscientifically measured attraction to a neo magnet. Regards, Count Deiro INCA 3536 -----Original Message----- >From: Shawn Alan <[email protected]> >Sent: Mar 16, 2013 9:23 PM >To: Graham Ensor <[email protected]>, Count Deiro ><[email protected]> >Cc: Peter Scherff <[email protected]>, >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chelyabinsk meteorite > >Hello Graham and Count and the rest of the Listers > >By chance with any of the people on here with multiple samples do you have >photos of them grouped together to compare the bunch. Also, I think someone >said Mike Farmer had posted an image/s of the them grouped together, is there >a link, cause I missed that posting. > >Count/ when you tested the chelyabinsk fragments with a magnet, were they all >consistent on how they stuck to and pulled from the neo magnet for the most >part? >I also have a question for the List about the magnet test. > >I have a small rare earth magnets which they are strong, but not super super >strong. My question is, with some of the historic meteorites I have, can over >time, the strength at which a LL or L or even a H meteorite increase over >time, due to oxidation and or rusting? Why I ask is because is because I have >two meteorite samples that fell in 1803 and both are from France, but two >different falls and are both L6. One sample is is less magnetic than the >other. The one that is stronger has about the same attraction and pull to a >H7 Forest City meteorite. All three meteorites come from top dealers and >collectors, so I know the authenticity is genuine, but it seems some stones >can have anomalys within, when tested with magnets. Has any other listers >noticed this, and if so, why would this happen? I have also heard that some >dealer has devised a full proof test to test stoney meteorites to see if they >are LL L or H or HH, or did I just make up HH :) > >Shawn Alan >IMCA 1633 >ebay store >http://www.ebay.com/sch/imca1633ny/m.html >http://meteoritefalls.com/ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Graham Ensor <[email protected]> >To: Count Deiro <[email protected]> >Cc: Peter Scherff <[email protected]>; [email protected] >Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 6:24 PM >Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chelyabinsk meteorite > >Hi Count....strange that yours do not have any of the brown crust or >other surface features common in most from the fall that were picked >up within days. > >Graham > >On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Count Deiro <[email protected]> wrote: >> Peter and List.... >> >> All nine Chelyabinsk/Chebarkul individuals that I have purchased from three >> different foreign sources resemble themselves. The specimens I have look >> like they could have come out of that pile that Mike Farmer posted. Mostly >> small individuals of less than three grams, black even fusion crust, no >> other coloration, regs, no cracking except for a few fracturing in flight >> with the result that the interior lithography is covered by black fusion >> product. None but a few that I've seen so far show more than the smallest >> impact marks and those display a typical grey chondritic, almost Portland >> cement color. Most landed on snow so have remained pristine. Heavier pieces >> will be recovered when the ice and snow melt. They are strongly attracted to >> a neo magnet and set off a detector easily, so I'm a little curious about >> the initial classification I've heard. Is LL6 S1 W1 and named >> Chebarkuhl..correct? Anyone...Ted? >> >> Send me your email address, Peter and I'll shoot you a photo. >> >> Regards, >> >> Count Deiro >> IMCA 3536 >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: Peter Scherff <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Mar 16, 2013 11:49 AM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: [meteorite-list] Chelyabinsk meteorite >>> >>> I have had an opportunity to see samples of the Chelyabinsk >>>meteorite. I think that these stones are almost as distinctive as the >>>fireball was spectacular. >>> Many samples have deep fractures. >>> Many samples have patches of reddish fusion crust. The reddish crust >>>may be secondary crust. It formed on broken surfaces or perhaps in the lower >>>portions of regmaglypts. The reddish crust is smoother than the primary >>>crust. >>> Some samples have a brownish "dusty" appearance. Despite being >>>freshly collected. >>> Has anyone else noticed these or other interesting characteristics >>>of this meteorite? >>>Thanks, >>>Peter >>> >>>______________________________________________ >>> >>>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/ >>>Meteorite-list mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> >> ______________________________________________ >> >> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/ >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >______________________________________________ > >Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/ >Meteorite-list mailing list >[email protected] >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
