Hello List, After reading the AGU abstract posted by Greg, I certainly think the investigators have made huge progress in arriving at a consensus on the correct classification of this 1+ ton mass, previously described as an igneous aubrite, a highly equilibrated EL6/7, and an En-metachondrite, and, after analyzing the NWA 2828 stone, was considered to represent multiple meteorite falls. The AGU abstract adequately and interesting explains the characteristics in light of it being an EL3 fossil meteorite with primary, unequilibrated components, with a very sparse abundance of chondrules.
However, with less than 5 vol% chondrules, how can it be related to the typical EL chondrites with much higher chondrule percentages of 60-80 vol%? This is still a pretty strange object. At the very least I would think it should be given an EL3-Anom label. After all, Maralinga was primarily given its anomalous label because of its higher than normal chondrule/matrix ratio, although I think its 50 vol% compared to the typical 15 vol% of typical CKs pales by comparison. The only chondrite with less than 5 vol% is the CI group (much less than 1 vol%). How did chondrules become sorted out of the matrix in this one? I await more scientific insights on this. A public thanks to those owners of the various masses of this fossil meteorite who donated material for its in-depth study. David ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list