Re: [meteorite-list] Canyon Diablo nomenclature...was (Is AmgalaOfficial?/N...
Jerry F writes: Cool Beans Doug! Always a great yarn spinner. This is what I've learned often from your contributions to the list! Jerry, May I recommend Zane Grey Western Novels to you - they are a giant leap better than my comparatively anemic ramblings and even comic books, but hit the same target. Truly inspiring an appreciation of those romanticized old western times (which probably tasted like a mouthful of desert sands on parched lips to those who acted in them) you won't be let down. Author Zane Gray wrote many of his emocional works while basking in the lesser known crown jewels of Arizona topography - the Mogollon Rim (also H.H.'s abode)...in a cabin he had built in 1920 about 40 miles away from Meteor Crater. Highly entertaining and at the time Barringer was reaching a crescendo doing what he did best...see if you can find any references in the Zane Grey works of the 1920's to Meteor Crater!! The most promising are: Nevada (1928) The Hash Knife Outfit (1933) 30,000 on the Hoff (1940) Sunset Pass (1931) The Drift Fence (1933) Under the Tonto Rim (1926) Saludos, Doug __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Canyon Diablo nomenclature...was (Is AmgalaOfficial?/N...
Jerry, FYI: We made camp at Meteor Crater, one of the many wonders of this wonderland. It was a huge hole in the earth over five-hundred feet deep, said to have been made by a meteor burying itself there. Seen from the outside the slope was gradual up to the edges, which were scalloped and irregular; on the inside the walls were precipitous. Our camp was on the windy desert, a long sweeping range of grass, sloping down, dotted with cattle, with buttes and mountains in the distance. Most of my sensations of the day partook of the nature of woe. From Zane Grey's Tales of Lonely Trails (1922) [not included on the reading list:-)] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Friday the 13th, 2029 (2004 MN4)
Dear Ron: Interesting news! Thanks, Ron! What is the subperigee point (long, lat) for 2004MN4 and at what exact time? Are there graphical simulations? Francis Graham Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] PAC vs Type-7 vs IMB? (Was: Portales Valley Classification Info)
Hi Mr.Woolard, list Thanks for the oportunity, because I have a question: What are the hard criteria for to distinghuish from ot foe classifying a stone as Impact Melt Breccia versus pertological Type 7 versus Primitive Achondrite Until now I couldn't find nor anybody could give me an exact answer, so that I almost was tempted to call the recent occurence of several L7s and H7s as a fad. May someone enlighten us? Curiously Bucklebooing Martin - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 4:21 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - May 17, 2005
http://www.spacerocksinc.com/May17.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - May 17, 2005
Nice work Michael,it just gets better.Congrats Hanno on a beautiful meteorite. Jim in sunny Ireland -- __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Re: A Message Concerning Oman
Yes welcome home lads, we appreciate what you guys do to get our rocks!! MF -Original Message- From: Notkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:57 PM To: Meteorite List Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: A Message Concerning Oman Dear Listees: I'd like to send a sincere welcome home to my neighbor John Blennert, and the rest of the Omani nine. Being detained in a foreign country for well over a month must have been an ordeal for them all. I hope everyone now clearly understands why requests were made to curtail public discussion of the Oman situation on the M-List, while John B. and his friends were in custody. Thanks to those of you who respected those requests. List member John Gwilliam is too modest to say anything, but he spent an enormous amount of time and energy assisting his friends and colleagues while they were stuck in Oman. Hats off to John. Sincerely, Geoff N. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] PAC vs Type-7 vs IMB? (Was: Portales Valley Classification Info)
Petrological type 7 is generally taken to be an extension of the solid-state metamorphic sequence defined by Van Schmus and Wood (1967). Mittlefehldt and Lindstrom (2001, Meteoritics Planetary Science, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 439-457) endorsed this concept and specifically excluded from type 7 impact melt breccias and other meteorites where there was partial melting caused by impact heating. Primitive achondrites are meteorites that have near-chondritic compositions and nonchondritic textures (work of Prinz, McCoy, and others). They have experienced partial melting and, usually, melt segregation, resulting in the deviations in composition from those of their parent chondrites. Type 7 chondrites (if you want to call highly metamorphosed type 6 chondrites by this name) are NOT primitive achondrites, never having been partially melted. Impact melt breccias, of course, are meteorites in which shock causes partial melting and mixing of chondritic debris with the melt. Ruzicka et al. conclude that PV was essentially a type 6 chondrite near its peak metamorphic temperature, when a light shock event raised the temperature just enough to cause partial melting and mobilize the metal. Thus PV is an IMB and NOT a type 7. Why did Ruzicka reach the conclusion he did? Probably because there is lots of gray area caused by model-dependency of some of these terms. Some people believe that melting in PACs was caused by impact processing, while others (I'd say the majority) think the heat source is internal. If impacts played a role in their formation, then the line between IMB and PAC gets fuzzy at some point. If they didn't play a role, then I suppose type 7 would transition into PAC once partial melting begins. But I don't see any way to confuse type 7 (no melt) with IMB (contains melt). Science plods on. Jeff At 06:29 AM 5/17/2005, Martin Altmann wrote: Hi Mr.Woolard, list Thanks for the oportunity, because I have a question: What are the hard criteria for to distinghuish from ot foe classifying a stone as Impact Melt Breccia versus pertological Type 7 versus Primitive Achondrite Until now I couldn't find nor anybody could give me an exact answer, so that I almost was tempted to call the recent occurence of several L7s and H7s as a fad. May someone enlighten us? Curiously Bucklebooing Martin - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 4:21 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] PAC vs Type-7 vs IMB? (Was: PortalesValley Classification Info)
Many thanks, this was the most helpful answer I got until now. (Ähem, can we place the ureilites somewhere there?) Martin - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] PAC vs Type-7 vs IMB? (Was: PortalesValley Classification Info) Petrological type 7 is generally taken to be an extension of the solid-state metamorphic sequence defined by Van Schmus and Wood (1967). Mittlefehldt and Lindstrom (2001, Meteoritics Planetary Science, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 439-457) endorsed this concept and specifically excluded from type 7 impact melt breccias and other meteorites where there was partial melting caused by impact heating. Primitive achondrites are meteorites that have near-chondritic compositions and nonchondritic textures (work of Prinz, McCoy, and others). They have experienced partial melting and, usually, melt segregation, resulting in the deviations in composition from those of their parent chondrites. Type 7 chondrites (if you want to call highly metamorphosed type 6 chondrites by this name) are NOT primitive achondrites, never having been partially melted. Impact melt breccias, of course, are meteorites in which shock causes partial melting and mixing of chondritic debris with the melt. Ruzicka et al. conclude that PV was essentially a type 6 chondrite near its peak metamorphic temperature, when a light shock event raised the temperature just enough to cause partial melting and mobilize the metal. Thus PV is an IMB and NOT a type 7. Why did Ruzicka reach the conclusion he did? Probably because there is lots of gray area caused by model-dependency of some of these terms. Some people believe that melting in PACs was caused by impact processing, while others (I'd say the majority) think the heat source is internal. If impacts played a role in their formation, then the line between IMB and PAC gets fuzzy at some point. If they didn't play a role, then I suppose type 7 would transition into PAC once partial melting begins. But I don't see any way to confuse type 7 (no melt) with IMB (contains melt). Science plods on. Jeff -list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Model Rockets and Moon Rocks was...13.5 kg lunar
On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:24:12 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need to add my support to Mark F and Darren's openminded interpretation of your negative assessment of the (lack of) feasibility getting Lunar material FOB Earth at a cost (mind you, not price) below $5000 per gram. The optimistic figure starts at about $1 per POUND, cheaper than any US domestic mail product. Not directly related to this subject, but I was reminded of this debate on wherther lunar material will always be expensive by this new development on why diamonds won't always be expensive. I'm sure that the Debeers monoply will continue to try to convince people that a synthetic hunk of crystalline carbon isn't as good as their natural hunks of crystalline carbon, but I think that they'll lose the fight. I anticipate the day not many years from now when diamond is almost cheap per carot as cubic zirconia. (BTW, the line The diamond age is upon us refers to a novel titled _The_Diamond_Age_ by Neal Stephenson) http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/7908 Real big diamonds made real fast Researchers at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory have learned to produce 10-carat, half-inch thick single-crystal diamonds at rapid growth rates (100 micrometers per hour) using a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process. This size is approximately five times that of commercially available diamonds produced by the standard high-pressure/high-temperature (HPHT) method and other CVD techniques. In addition, the team has made colorless single-crystal diamonds, transparent from the ultraviolet to infrared wavelengths with their CVD process. High-quality crystals over 3 carats are very difficult to produce using the conventional approach, commented Dr. Russell Hemley who leads the diamond effort at Carnegie. Several groups have begun to grow diamond single crystals by CVD, but large, colorless, and flawless ones remain a challenge. Our fabrication of 10-carat, half-inch, CVD diamonds is a major breakthrough. The results were reported at the 10th International Conference on New Diamond Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan, on May 12, and will be reported at the Applied Diamond Congress in Argonne, Illinois, May 18. Most HPHT synthetic diamond is yellow and most CVD diamond is brown, limiting their optical applications. Colorless diamonds are costly to produce and so far those reported are small. This situation limits general applications of these diamonds as gems, in optics, and in scientific research. Last year, the Carnegie researchers found that HPHT annealing enhances not only the optical properties of some CVD diamond, but also the hardness [1]. Using new techniques, the Carnegie scientists have now produced transparent diamond using a CVD method without HPHT annealing. Figure 3. 12 mm (1/2 inch) 5 carat diamond laser cut from a 10 carat single crystal produced by high-growth rate CVD. The diamond was laser cut (and inscribed) from a diamond block and only partially polished. To further increase the size of the crystals, the Carnegie researchers grew gem-quality diamonds sequentially on the 6 faces of a substrate diamond plate with the CVD process. By this method, three-dimensional growth of colorless single-crystal diamond in the inch-range (~300 carat) is achievable. Finally, new shapes have been fabricated with the blocks of the CVD single crystals. Figure 3 shows a 12-millimeter anvil that can be used for new types of scientific experiments. The standard growth rate is 100 micrometers per hour for the Carnegie process, but growth rates in excess of 300 micrometers per hour have been reached, and 1 millimeter per hour may be possible. With the colorless diamond produced at ever higher growth rate and low cost, large blocks of diamond should be available for a variety of applications. The diamond age is upon us, concluded Hemley. From Carnegie Institution __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
so what are they calling portales? i will be gradually switching over to yahoo mail (it has 100 FREE megs of storage). please cc to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comSubject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification InfoDate: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:28:52 -0700Hello Robert and all,I've always considered PV a round peg in a square hole. I mean that even a quick glance at PV is enough to know it doesn't make sense to lump it in with the run-of-the-mill ordinary chondrite. So this change in heart by the classification gods is really good news.Looking forward to knowing moreMartin- Original Message -From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 pmSubject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an " H6 ordinary chondrite". (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled " Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! " In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an " H6 Impact Melt Breccia ". I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an " H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite)", with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of "Portalesite" due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __Meteorite-list mailing listMeteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comhttp://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] PV
Hello List, Looks like the debate is still on. ;-) In my post yesterday, I was careful to use the words (highlighted below): --- ... there is a distinct CHANCE the true uniqueness of PV MAY soon be reflected in a POSSIBLE new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. --- In this detailed work, we now have the PROPOSED reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite)... We all know that PV has been, and perhaps will continue to be for a while, a VERY puzzling meteorite, with a complex history of formation and an exact classification that may never be totally agreed on nor completely understood by all parties. I'll be the first to admit I certainly do not have the credentials nor understanding to have any say in the matter. I was simply making any interested parties aware of this intriguing new paper and its proposals. But I will also say that I, and many others who have discussed PV over the years with me, are hopeful that in the end (if there is an end) it does turn out that PV will be recognized as something more than an ordinary H6. ( IF that is the right answer and it does in fact deserve it, as it SEEMS to by many of us. ) Sincerely, Robert Woolard am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
ihave one that is 70% etched metal- i think i'm gonna break off the stone part and just call it and iron octahedrite and get rid of the guess work. i will be gradually switching over to yahoo mail (it has 100 FREE megs of storage). please cc to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Tom Knudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Robert Woolard" [EMAIL PROTECTED],meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comSubject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification InfoDate: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:11:20 -0700Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list forasking;" I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinarychondrite because "they" were to lazy to make up a new classification? Itwould seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group insteadof being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are "theygoing do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories,or will they make a new one if need be?"I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot ofpeople on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in myplace, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinarychondrite, then it was!Just thought it was interesting . : )Thanks, Tomperegrineflier - Original Message -From: "Robert Woolard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comSent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PMSubject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an " H6 ordinary chondrite". (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled " Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! " In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an " H6 Impact Melt Breccia ". I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an " H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite)", with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of "Portalesite" due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __Meteorite-list mailing listMeteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comhttp://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
I was the lazy editor of the MetBull when PV fell, so I can tell you the story. Basically, two scientists were in communication with the NomCom during the classification, Dave Kring and Alan Rubin. There were two schools of thought on what to call it, and these were not really that far apart. Kring, the person that submitted the initial classification, described PV as an H6 chondrite with abundant veins of metallic shock melt. His initial interpretation was that the source of the metal was the H chondrite host, and that the metal was basically the same thing you see in small shock veins in many chondrites, just on a larger scale. All of the material appeared to be of H chondrite affinity and many clasts were H6. Rubin wanted to call it an H chondrite impact melt breccia. He too considered all the components to be of H chondrite origin, but thought the IMB designation would alert people to the fact that the texture was so interesting. (Of course, the texture is different from other melt breccias as well.) As you can see, both researchers thought PV was H chondrite material and both thought that shock effects dominated the texture. So there was no way we were going to call it a new group... it was from the H parent body and didn't contain weird or foreign material. In the end, we agreed to go with the submitter's classification as an H6 with remarkable shock effects, and Rubin agreed that he'd call it an H impact melt breccia in the literature (which he did). It hardly seemed to matter since these two classifications were so close. If I had to publish the announcement again today as editor, knowing what we do now, I'd probably go with H melt breccia. But there is still no clear line between H6 chondrites with abundant shock veins and melt pockets and those like PV, which probably should have the presence of melt noted in the classification. Jeff At 12:11 PM 5/17/2005, Tom Knudson wrote: Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this
Re: [meteorite-list] Opportunity Mars Rover Stuck in Sand
Hi Everyone; After reading this artice late last month I checked out some photos on the Mars Rover web site (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html) that were taken during this period. The image below is interesting as it reminds me of many daydreams I've had while hiking the Algodones area in Southern California ... rounding a dune and seeing a small impact crater with a fresh Shergottite at the bottom! I wonder what Opportunity would find in this small crater? Tiny Crater on Meridiani Planum: http://makeashorterlink.com/?B38F2271B Best regards, Art On 4/29/05, Ron Baalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050428_rover_update.html Opportunity Mars Rover Stuck in Sand By Leonard David space.com 28 April 2005 NASA's Opportunity Mars rover has run into a sandy snag. All of its six wheels have sunk in deep into a large ripple of soil. Rover operators are optimistic they can extricate the robot from its jam, having gotten dug in before. But ground controllers will need time to wheel back on top of the soil again. Time will also be spent figuring out what's different about the soil that has bogged down Opportunity, hoping to keep this problem from occurring down the road. The Mars machinery had been cruising southward across the open parking lot-like landscape of Meridiani Planum, full of larger and larger ripples of soil. Opportunity has been en route to its next stopover, Erebus crater, nestled inside an even larger crater known as Terra Nova. Be very, very patient A note to all you Opportunity fans: Get used to the current scenery, because we're going to be here awhile, said Steve Squyres, lead scientist on the Mars Exploration Rover effort at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. We are very optimistic that we'll be able to get out of here, but we're really going to take our time doing it. Squyres said the first rule in this case is do no harm - and that means don't rush anything. We're going to take lots of pictures of all the terrain around the vehicle, to get a very complete picture of the situation. We're going to do lots of testing with the rovers that we have on the ground to simulate the situation on Mars. This testing will be aimed not just at finding a plan that will work, but at finding the very best plan that will work, Squyres explained in a Cornell rover web site. One possibility is trying a number of small maneuvers with the robot at first. That information-gathering could then lead to even more testing. All of this is going to take a lot of time. But this is a very precious vehicle up there, in excellent health, and there's no reason to rush anything, Squyres said. The main message now, he added, is to be very, very patient. Tiny craters discovered Prior to the rover run-a-muck, Mars rover scientists noted that Opportunity had made yet a new discovery. Two small craters were found on the plains of Meridiani - both less than half an inch deep and clearly visible in snapshots taken by the rover's navigation cameras. The two tiny craters were a surprise find, said Matt Golombek, a principal scientist on the Mars Exploration Rover mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. These are the smallest craters yet seen on Mars, he explained in a JPL-released statement. Given that these two craters haven't been covered by sand even though they are surrounded by sand ripples on a flat plain lends support to the idea that they're fairly recent, Golombek said. Of course, recent might mean any time from yesterday to 100 million years ago. Cause of the impact craters? They could have been created by an object from space that was large enough to make it through the martian atmosphere without burning up. Alternatively, the tiny craters could be the result of falling rock fragments ejected from a larger crater that formed when something crashed into the martian surface. While engineers wrestle with Opportunity's show-stopping sand trap, sistership Spirit is busy at work on the other side of the planet surveying the Columbia Hills within Gusev Crater. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Bye for now! Art __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Dave Bob Holmes wrote: Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi Bob, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. I know, sorry if I made it sound like you said it. I wanted to know if it was laziness or what that stopped the study and labeled PV as an ordinary chondrite. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. And that is such great news, PV deserves it!!! This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. I agree, Jeff's post was very enlightening! You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. I did not bring up the pope, there was no reason for news about him to be on the list. If someone brings up the pope, I am going to respond. Barringer, yes I brought him up, but I can not help myself, when I hear that name, it brings out my bad side. But, I am not espousing negativity with this PV stuff. I think this is very positive, my favorite meteorite getting recognized for what it is, a truly great meteorite! I was insulted by many list members being told that I was not smart enough to question the classification, the Lazy thing did not go over very well, but I was told, who do you think you are, to think that the scientist made a mistake. I just thought it was interesting that it may turn out I am not as stupid after all. Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re:
RE: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom said: just thought it was interesting that it may turn out I am not as stupid after all. And that would be where on a scale of one to ten? David W. Freeman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Knudson Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:39 PM To: Bob Holmes; Robert Woolard; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. I know, sorry if I made it sound like you said it. I wanted to know if it was laziness or what that stopped the study and labeled PV as an ordinary chondrite. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. And that is such great news, PV deserves it!!! This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. I agree, Jeff's post was very enlightening! You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. I did not bring up the pope, there was no reason for news about him to be on the list. If someone brings up the pope, I am going to respond. Barringer, yes I brought him up, but I can not help myself, when I hear that name, it brings out my bad side. But, I am not espousing negativity with this PV stuff. I think this is very positive, my favorite meteorite getting recognized for what it is, a truly great meteorite! I was insulted by many list members being told that I was not smart enough to question the classification, the Lazy thing did not go over very well, but I was told, who do you think you are, to think that the scientist made a mistake. I just thought it was interesting that it may turn out I am not as stupid after all. Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Dave Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Not up to speed with the issues, Robert Woolard just posted yesterday (may 17th) new info about PV and a possible new classification! How is it my talking about the classification of PV is not up to speed? Read more books and papers, can you direct me to one published book that talks about Portales Valley's possible new classification, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite),? I don't even know if the new paper has been published yet, if not, how am I, or anyone supposed to read it? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: d freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Dave Bob Holmes wrote: Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were
[meteorite-list] Portales Valley / Bum rap for astronomers
Hi Tom and List, If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? No. Was it a rush to judgment? No. Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? No. It was studied. Everything about it fit into the H classification system, and still does. How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous sic between studies. You're jumping the gun. The reclassification is only at the proposal stage. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Because it didn't need one. It fit into the existing classification system just fine -- and still does. Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. This is the trouble with both the media and the general public these days. Communicating science matters with either of them is next to impossible because both are so poorly educated in math and science. Astronomers aren't the ones saying the sky is falling -- the MEDIA is. Asteroid impact predictions our worded in unambiguous language to fellow asteroid trajectory researchers, and anyone else who invests 15 minutes of their time to understand how near-earth objects (NEOs) are discovered and their orbits determined. Let me give you an analogy. You're on the beach at night in Santa Barbara, CA, and you see a missile launch out of Vandenberg AFB. You take a half dozen digital pictures over the course of 30 seconds as the rocket and its plume rise in the western sky... There's a cruise ship in the western Pacific at that moment on its way from Fiji to Hawaii. What are the odds that the missile is going to accidentally hit it (or close enough to it that it presents a hazard) based on the your six time-tagged photographs? Let's suppose you quickly compute a trajectory based on those six positions, and you're surprised to discover that the missile is definitely going to impact within 100 miles of the cruise ship in 30 minutes, and that the odds are 1 in 50 that it's going to impact within 2 miles. Should the cruise ship be warned? (If *you* were on that cruise ship, would you want to know?) Suppose further that you have the ability to get a fix on the missile's position 15 minutes into its flight (say from the tracking station on Maui), and that once you have you'll be able to refine the impact point prediction to within 2 miles with 95% probability. Do you wait those 15 precious minutes to see if the danger goes away, or do you let the ship's captain know about the potential hazard right away (even though the chance of disaster is less than 2%)? To further complicate your dilemma, suppose the captain could easily maneuver the ship to a safe location if given 20 minutes' warning, but that if you wait for the Maui data you can only give him 10 minutes' warning -- and that this isn't enough time for him to get to a safe distance. This is what astronomers are up against -- balancing the public's right to be aware of something potentially disastrous in a timely fashion, versus keeping them in the dark on the grounds that in all likelihood the hazard will go away as more information is obtained. I guarantee that if they did more of the latter, everyone would be screaming conspiracy. But too much of the former desensitizes the public to the warning and causes them to unfairly accuse the astronomers of being a bunch of Chicken Littles. The Torino Scale was an attempt to translate the scientific language of impact probabilities and consequences into a system that the general public could understand: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/torino_scale.html The wording was recently revised -- partly as a result of 2004 MN4's temporary status at Torino Scale 4 last year -- but much is still lost in translation. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: PAC vs Type-7.. -confusing
Dear List, regarding the answer of Jeff Grossman to the question of Martin Altmann (H7 vs. PAC) I have some small remarks. When I had read the new MetBull, I noticed some interesting classifications. The previous classifications of NWA 2353, 2635 as H7 chondrite are obvious changed to a ungrouped achondrite only because of different oxygen isotope results (?). And another possibly paired meteorite, NWA 3145, is classified as primitive achondrite. Jeff had written that Type 7 chondrites..are NOT primitive achondrites, but if I read the results of NWA 2635, I wonder how close a H7 classification is actual on a achondrite or PAC classification. However, I also would prefer the description as an achondrite instead of H- or L7. The description as H7 or L7 is not very stisfying because these meteorites have a totally recristallized structure without any chondrules or relict chondrules. If it`s permitted for non-scientist (like me) I would suggest a description as H- or L related achondrites. Or would this be too simple?;-) At the following link I have posted some photos of highly equilibrated chondrites and the difference between Type 6 and Type 7. http://www.meteoriten.com/h7.html Best regards, Stefan I.M.C.A. Member#3368 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi Tom It was stated in one of the earlier posts where it was published. The article was published in Feb. issue of MAPS. Here is an abstract of the article; http://meteoritics.org/Abst_40-2.htm#Ruzicka I'm not sure if the PV article is available for purchase. It might be and I can check if anyone is interested. I would also like to point out that several other fine articles were in this issue as well including but not limited to; http://meteoritics.org/Current%20Issue.htm 1) A meteorite impact crater field in eastern Bavaria? A preliminary report 2) Regolith history of lunar meteorites 3) Spectral reflectance of Martian meteorites: Spectral signatures as a template for locating source region on Mars 4) The formation of the Widmanstätten structure in meteorites I especially like the last article. It discusses the four possible mechanisms for the formation of Widmanstätten structure in meteorites. Unfortunately the abstract does not do the article justice. It is actually much more readable and interesting than the abstract. If this makes anyone decide to become a member the the Meteoritical Society they do start at the beginning of the year so you would receive all 2005 issues. Mike -- Mike Jensen IMCA 4264 Jensen Meteorites 16730 E Ada PL Aurora, CO 80017-3137 303-337-4361 website: www.jensenmeteorites.com Dave Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Not up to speed with the issues, Robert Woolard just posted yesterday (may 17th) new info about PV and a possible new classification! How is it my talking about the classification of PV is not up to speed? Read more books and papers, can you direct me to one published book that talks about Portales Valley's possible new classification, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite),? I don't even know if the new paper has been published yet, if not, how am I, or anyone supposed to read it? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: d freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Dave Bob Holmes wrote: Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom, I agree with Bob. Ask anyone who anxiously waited for the official classification of Portales Valley to be released, and you will find that with few exceptions, every one was shaking their heads in disbelief when the announcement was made. I seriously doubt that anyone spoke negatively about you for saying the classification should be something other than an ordinary H6. Rather, you were probably attacked for making derogatory remarks about scientist being too lazy to do their job right. To me, that shows a lack of understanding on YOUR part about how the system works. JKG At 09:52 AM 5/17/2005, Bob Holmes wrote: Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Literature
Hi list! I´m searching for every paper or book about ordinary chondrites and their analysis. Very important for me are the opaque minerals (ores) and micro probe analysis of H-type chondrites. Also very important are microscopic data of the opaque minerals (like reflectans and micro hardness). Every information are welcome!!! Thanks! Ingo/Germany -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hola Tom, No one said you are stupid (except your own post)! You are ruffling some feathers because your comments seem to be too insensitive. Scientists - which can include even you and me - normally have no problem being questioned (well, sort of...), that is typically how progress is made. But to play that game on friendly terms, if you have been too lazy to lift a finger for you own education (even if it means via Google!), I would say you are way too arrogant to be taken seriously when you start telling these guys who are busting their buns to turn out papers and teach and have a family life, not to mention deal with the educational politics and institutional beaurocracies, without you having the necessary tools to really understand what they are up against and how science usually works in your neck of the woods. It ain't no fun having a jack-in-the-box in Kingman pop up saying You're wrong, I told you so - and for those more experienced, it can be downright funny or even pathetic to listen to that. Meteoritics, like all sciences is developing all the time as we learn more, sometimes what was a right answer falls from favor because of the benefit of hindsight which a researcher simply doesn't have! I won't comment on the Pope and Barringer provocations, you already have figured them out I hope. But you have a great inquiring mind which could be kicked into shape with you own initiative to be a good scientist. Let me suggest you enroll in Pre-Algebra at the Kingman Campus of the Mohave Community College. You seem to have the time...It starts June 6 and is over by July 11 and costs $126. Then with that course you can take the Geology classes below you like and in the process of lab work, get an appreciation for the scientific mentod and what it is like to have someone who has hindsight to be pressuring you for answers you are still discovering, and then having to produce written evaluations in the way of assignments, lab reports, not even mentioning tests. Instead of throwing stones from your house and bickering your intelligence away over the internet, you could even sign up for some of these courses via the distance education for $60 extra a piece if you are too lazy yourself to go to class! Below is the summer schedule for Pre-Algebra, the prerequisite for the Geology courses, and then I am sure you could sweet-talk the professors into any of the courses listed. The Geology-Rockhounding course is really cool, if you opted for just that. Tom, you may not fully appreciate the opportunity you have living where you do to get out in the field with experts, meet more like minded people which will add to your interest and finally be able to better position and found your questions for more satisfying responses. XXX said this so I am right! is really a hollow response. The math class this summer would have you set to go forward and classes are only $42 a credit there special for you in Kingman. Who knows, being lazy might help you be a better scientist - as long as you aren't t lazy as some of your posts get close to being! Anyway brought to you by your friendly e-neighborhood college counselor (sp?). Man, how luck you are to have the time and location for this!!! Don't let it be taken from you...Maybe you can intern at Killgore's:) Saludos, Doug _www.mohave.edu_ (http://www.mohave.edu) $42/credit Pre-Algebra 211 602 06/06/2005 07/11/2005 - MTWTh HEIDRICH SHERRI L 5:30 PM - 8:20 PM KINGMAN GLG 060 ROCK-HOUND GEOLOGY: Covers a study of basic mineralogy, including rocks, minerals, fossils, and features of the land surface, and techniques of prospecting for minerals and metals.Special emphasis is placed on local geology and topics of interest to individual class members. Designed for the amateur rock hound as well as jewelry makers. Includes field trips. Credit Hours: 3 (Three lecture; two lab) Prerequisites: none GLG 101 PHYSICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to geologic processes on and within the Earth. Topics covered include concepts in mineral and rocks, tectonic processes, weathering and erosion, sedimentation, structural deformation, landscape development and ground water. Laboratory work and additional field trips are included to provide observational examples of the above topics and to learn geologic field techniques of data gathering. Credit Hours: 4 (Three lecture; three lab) Prerequisites: ENG 085, 089 and MAT 021 or appropriate score on Assessment Test Lab fee=$20 GLG 102 HISTORICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to the evolutionary history of the earth and life on the planet. Topics covered include concepts in stratigraphy, rock dating, tectonic events, global climate, ecologic changes and the study of faunal and floral succession over geologic periods of time. Laboratory work and additional field trips are included to provide
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Things are reclassified all the time. Mount Egerton was originally classified as a mesosiderite, it is now an aubrite. Yilmia was an EL5 and is now an EL6. There are lots of other examples. As more information comes in through more research or new improved equipment things change. Was it wrong? Absolutely not. Was it a rush to judgment? You obviously know nothing about David Kring to even think this question let alone ask it. He doesn't rush anything and if every T isn't crossed or i dotted it doesn't go out. It is one of the reasons the U of Arizona does so few classifications because he nails down every detail and it takes forever to get a classification out. Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. What a judgmental load of crap this statement is. Not only was the classifier lazy, but also incompetent because he gave a classification that didn't match your views and some new proposed classification somebody called it 7 years later. Your implication the classifier was obviously incompetent or the stone metamorphosed between analysiss is ridiculous. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Wrong. direct quote from Tom K March 2004 I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? Tom you make basically the same statement in this email saying the classifier was to lazy to do a proper classification. Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further What makes you thing the original classifiers don't continue to work on PV? If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Nobody has ever said it was ordinary including the classifiers. Both David Kring and Alex Rubin called it an H6 although with different qualifiers because according to the classification scheme in 1998 that is what it was. Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. Wrong again. The astronomers post the information so other astronomers can look for the rock. It is the media that finds the information and mis-reports it and then blames the astronomers for the media's lack of understanding. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Jumped the gun??? So at what point is it acceptable to you, Tom? Should the classification be published after the classification work is done OR do they have to wait for everybody all over the world to complete every single study that will ever be made on the meteorite and then pool the information decades later before anything can be published? The second alternative is certainly what you appear to be asking for. -- Eric Olson Feeling cranky this morning. ELKK Meteorites http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD: PAC/type7/IMB special
Shameless I am no, in that context I want also call attention to the fine article of Andrzej Pilski about Zaklodzie in the very recent issue of the Meteorite Magazine, where obviously the same problems occured with the classification and all suggestions were made: EL6/7; IMB, PAC. As there are no colour photos, I made a closeup of a little slice showing the typical texture. Perhaps Michael could post it as picture of the day, also 20/21st of April passed - which is the fall date of Zaklodzie. Well, I think it's a good occasion to advert, that I have some small slices of Zaklodzie 1 to 2grams, polished on both sides, which I priced low with 50$/g (finder was asked a few days before, for 50g pieces he wanted 50$/g, for a 400g slab 40$/g), so that together with the weight it has a ideal size for the not so wealthy collector. So that they could take part in the discussion of those highly interesting matter with a sample of a very prominent ambassador of that 7-IMB-Pac-realm. (The featured slice from the magazine is available too). (A new 12kg-IMB would be for sale to. The price is so low, that I can't tell it here, otherwise the dealers beat me up. Will tell only to those, who seriously would be interested in that stone.) Buckleboo! Martin __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Great post Doug, Geeze, learning from othersinteresting concept! Dave F. (who is not proud tom, and is not a blogger participant ever) and would like to see Mr. Tom get some help somewhere before he turns into a paranoid schizophrenic! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola Tom, No one said you are stupid (except your own post)! You are ruffling some feathers because your comments seem to be too insensitive. Scientists - which can include even you and me - normally have no problem being questioned (well, sort of...), that is typically how progress is made. But to play that game on friendly terms, if you have been too lazy to lift a finger for you own education (even if it means via Google!), I would say you are way too arrogant to be taken seriously when you start telling these guys who are busting their buns to turn out papers and teach and have a family life, not to mention deal with the educational politics and institutional beaurocracies, without you having the necessary tools to really understand what they are up against and how science usually works in your neck of the woods. It ain't no fun having a jack-in-the-box in Kingman pop up saying You're wrong, I told you so - and for those more experienced, it can be downright funny or even pathetic to listen to that. Meteoritics, like all sciences is developing all the time as we learn more, sometimes what was a right answer falls from favor because of the benefit of hindsight which a researcher simply doesn't have! I won't comment on the Pope and Barringer provocations, you already have figured them out I hope. But you have a great inquiring mind which could be kicked into shape with you own initiative to be a good scientist. Let me suggest you enroll in Pre-Algebra at the Kingman Campus of the Mohave Community College. You seem to have the time...It starts June 6 and is over by July 11 and costs $126. Then with that course you can take the Geology classes below you like and in the process of lab work, get an appreciation for the scientific mentod and what it is like to have someone who has hindsight to be pressuring you for answers you are still discovering, and then having to produce written evaluations in the way of assignments, lab reports, not even mentioning tests. Instead of throwing stones from your house and bickering your intelligence away over the internet, you could even sign up for some of these courses via the distance education for $60 extra a piece if you are too lazy yourself to go to class! Below is the summer schedule for Pre-Algebra, the prerequisite for the Geology courses, and then I am sure you could sweet-talk the professors into any of the courses listed. The Geology-Rockhounding course is really cool, if you opted for just that. Tom, you may not fully appreciate the opportunity you have living where you do to get out in the field with experts, meet more like minded people which will add to your interest and finally be able to better position and found your questions for more satisfying responses. XXX said this so I am right! is really a hollow response. The math class this summer would have you set to go forward and classes are only $42 a credit there special for you in Kingman. Who knows, being lazy might help you be a better scientist - as long as you aren't t lazy as some of your posts get close to being! Anyway brought to you by your friendly e-neighborhood college counselor (sp?). Man, how luck you are to have the time and location for this!!! Don't let it be taken from you...Maybe you can intern at Killgore's:) Saludos, Doug _www.mohave.edu_ (http://www.mohave.edu) $42/credit Pre-Algebra 211 602 06/06/2005 07/11/2005 - MTWTh HEIDRICH SHERRI L 5:30 PM - 8:20 PM KINGMAN GLG 060 ROCK-HOUND GEOLOGY: Covers a study of basic mineralogy, including rocks, minerals, fossils, and features of the land surface, and techniques of prospecting for minerals and metals.Special emphasis is placed on local geology and topics of interest to individual class members. Designed for the amateur rock hound as well as jewelry makers. Includes field trips. Credit Hours: 3 (Three lecture; two lab) Prerequisites: none GLG 101 PHYSICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to geologic processes on and within the Earth. Topics covered include concepts in mineral and rocks, tectonic processes, weathering and erosion, sedimentation, structural deformation, landscape development and ground water. Laboratory work and additional field trips are included to provide observational examples of the above topics and to learn geologic field techniques of data gathering. Credit Hours: 4 (Three lecture; three lab) Prerequisites: ENG 085, 089 and MAT 021 or appropriate score on Assessment Test Lab fee=$20 GLG 102 HISTORICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to the evolutionary history of the earth and life on the planet. Topics
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Geeze, learning from othersinteresting concept That is why I ask the questions you don't like me asking! : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: d freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite email List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JKGwilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Great post Doug, Geeze, learning from othersinteresting concept! Dave F. (who is not proud tom, and is not a blogger participant ever) and would like to see Mr. Tom get some help somewhere before he turns into a paranoid schizophrenic! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola Tom, No one said you are stupid (except your own post)! You are ruffling some feathers because your comments seem to be too insensitive. Scientists - which can include even you and me - normally have no problem being questioned (well, sort of...), that is typically how progress is made. But to play that game on friendly terms, if you have been too lazy to lift a finger for you own education (even if it means via Google!), I would say you are way too arrogant to be taken seriously when you start telling these guys who are busting their buns to turn out papers and teach and have a family life, not to mention deal with the educational politics and institutional beaurocracies, without you having the necessary tools to really understand what they are up against and how science usually works in your neck of the woods. It ain't no fun having a jack-in-the-box in Kingman pop up saying You're wrong, I told you so - and for those more experienced, it can be downright funny or even pathetic to listen to that. Meteoritics, like all sciences is developing all the time as we learn more, sometimes what was a right answer falls from favor because of the benefit of hindsight which a researcher simply doesn't have! I won't comment on the Pope and Barringer provocations, you already have figured them out I hope. But you have a great inquiring mind which could be kicked into shape with you own initiative to be a good scientist. Let me suggest you enroll in Pre-Algebra at the Kingman Campus of the Mohave Community College. You seem to have the time...It starts June 6 and is over by July 11 and costs $126. Then with that course you can take the Geology classes below you like and in the process of lab work, get an appreciation for the scientific mentod and what it is like to have someone who has hindsight to be pressuring you for answers you are still discovering, and then having to produce written evaluations in the way of assignments, lab reports, not even mentioning tests. Instead of throwing stones from your house and bickering your intelligence away over the internet, you could even sign up for some of these courses via the distance education for $60 extra a piece if you are too lazy yourself to go to class! Below is the summer schedule for Pre-Algebra, the prerequisite for the Geology courses, and then I am sure you could sweet-talk the professors into any of the courses listed. The Geology-Rockhounding course is really cool, if you opted for just that. Tom, you may not fully appreciate the opportunity you have living where you do to get out in the field with experts, meet more like minded people which will add to your interest and finally be able to better position and found your questions for more satisfying responses. XXX said this so I am right! is really a hollow response. The math class this summer would have you set to go forward and classes are only $42 a credit there special for you in Kingman. Who knows, being lazy might help you be a better scientist - as long as you aren't t lazy as some of your posts get close to being! Anyway brought to you by your friendly e-neighborhood college counselor (sp?). Man, how luck you are to have the time and location for this!!! Don't let it be taken from you...Maybe you can intern at Killgore's:) Saludos, Doug _www.mohave.edu_ (http://www.mohave.edu) $42/credit Pre-Algebra 211 602 06/06/2005 07/11/2005 - MTWTh HEIDRICH SHERRI L 5:30 PM - 8:20 PM KINGMAN GLG 060 ROCK-HOUND GEOLOGY: Covers a study of basic mineralogy, including rocks, minerals, fossils, and features of the land surface, and techniques of prospecting for minerals and metals.Special emphasis is placed on local geology and topics of interest to individual class members. Designed for the amateur rock hound as well as jewelry makers. Includes field trips. Credit Hours: 3 (Three lecture; two lab) Prerequisites: none GLG 101 PHYSICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to geologic processes on and within the Earth. Topics covered include concepts in mineral and rocks, tectonic processes, weathering and erosion,
[meteorite-list] PV way out of hand!
Hey list, like always, I can not post with out offending everyone! I never called anyone lazy, I asked if they were being lazy when they classified PV as an H6? I did not, and still don't fully understand the classification process. You all want me to learn this stuff with out asking questions, there is a saying, no question is a dumb question, well I guess I blew that theory out of the water! : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Clarification
The authors of the MAPS paper wrote: Based on our work, it seems clear that the metal-sulfide and even the silicate portion of the meteorite was partly melted, suggesting that the petrographic grade of Portales Valley is higher than six. Considering this likely partial melt origin for PV, the H chondrite-like mineral compositions for most phases, and our inference of a mainly endogenic heat source, Portales Valley can be properly regarded as a primitive achondrite related to H chondrites. In other words, it is an H7 achondrite. Jeff wrote: If I had to publish the announcement again today as editor, knowing what we do now, I'd probably go with H melt breccia. Jeff also wrote: Some people believe that melting in PACs was caused by impact processing, while others (I'd say the majority) think the heat source is internal. If impacts played a role in their formation, then the line between IMB and PAC gets fuzzy at some point. If they didn't play a role, then I suppose type 7 would transition into PAC once partial melting begins. But I don't see any way to confuse type 7 (no melt) with IMB (contains melt). -- That leaves me only a little bit wondering. So you can't have both a PAC and a type 7, they are mutually exclusive? As soon as melt is formed it ceases to be thought of as a petrologic grade 7 (i.e., petrologic grade becomes obsolete) and it is then either a PAC or an IMB, depending on the source of heat which produced the melt (PAC if endogenic and IMB if from impact event)? That would be pretty clear. I would hazard a guess that there might be other lithologies somewhat distant from the PV rock (crater floor?) which would exhibit metamorphic effects only to the degree of an H7 type, without experiencing the degree of heating, endogenic or impact generated, necessary to cause partial melting. David __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] PV way out of hand!
Tom and list, Most of us have high respect for few meteoritic scientist we have. I dont think anyone was balking at your question, but as another member noted, your lack of sensitivity. There are correct ways to ask questions, and there are incorrect. Step back a minute and look at it from a scientist that worked on the meteorite. You pretty much said they were incompetent and lazy, or at least was how it came across to me and others. How would you take that if you worked several hours on the meteorite and submitted your findings, to get such response? Classifiers do not make meteorite classifications or names official. They submit their work, and will note the meteorite classification they believe it to be and a name, they think is appropiate. The Met Com then decides on the official name and classification, after getting further information from the scientist or other scientist as needed. It is not un-common for scientist to not completely agree, but we...or I guess they...usually seem to come to an agreement. All in all, it is a pretty good check and balance system. PV is a unique meteorite. However, it is unlikely it will get it owns class since it is chemically an H chondrite and the metal seems derived from an H chondrite body. So now your maybe wondering why it looks the way it does ..my answer there would be to Google Portales Valley Meteorite and PDF. There are over a dozen of papers online on this meteorite and why it looks the way it does. Which makes it one of the most studied US meteorites of recent time. Perhaps our scientific body is not so lazy. Do now maybe your wondering, But it doesnt look like my H5s. We do not classify meteorites by hand specimen appearance. Classification is more of a chemical thing now days, although chondrule appearance and the like does factor in. Should you still have PV questions, after reading the articles that are on-line,, you can ask a more specific question. You can not expect anyone to fully explain such a meteorite over e-mail. Before sending the e-mail, you might check to see if you are offending anyone, since this line seems to be blurry to you, I suggest taking a conservative step. Another example of what I am saying here is your Rubin e-mail last week that I tried to smooth feathers down. Such formed questions are seen as usually passive aggressive attacks. If I was Rubin, who had classified an ordinary NWA chondrite for you a couple weeks earlier ..I would have been annoyed I think. In a more pro-Tom note, I got the endcut of his Franconio find that he placed on ebay last week. Nice looking endcut that was well polishedabout to 800? grit it appears. Tom was kind enough to include a free extra slice of the meteorite. Only 2.49g., but it is rasor thin, ~1.5mm., and polished on both sides. (Anytime I have tried to polish anything that thin it usually breaks and flat bed shoots the piece broken off across the room.) I bet that daughter of your would be a good meteorite hunter. She seems to pick up on things pretty fast. I think I would be doing some father-daughter trips if I was you. (That's right, for every 20 meteorites you find I will buy you a barbie.) Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NPA 06-25-1981 Meteorites...Martian fragments, McSween
Paper: Syracuse Herald Journal City: Syracuse, New York Date: Thursday, June 25, 1981 Page: A-11, National Meteorites indicate Martian fragments By PATRICK YOUNG Newhouse News Service WASHINGTON - Scientists studying four rare meteorites believe they may be looking at stony fragments from one of Earth's neighboring planets - probably Mars. Dating techniques show rocks in three of the meteorites formed between 600 to 1.2 billion years ago when molten lava cooled. This is the youngest rock ever found in such visitors from outer space. Dating efforts are continuing on the fourth, an 18-pounder found in the Antarctic less than two years ago. The four meteorites are classified as Shergottites, and they are the only ones of their kind scientists know about. Dating them has proved difficult because of their history. Shock effects They suffered a lot of shock effects from being ripped from their parent body, says Harold McSween of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, who has studied all four meteorites. How they were blasted free remains unknown. New evidence indicates the meteorites originated on some sizable body, a finding that has surprised scientists. Before this we thought all meteorites came from the Asteroid Belt, McSween says. The Asteroid Belt is a ring of material ranging from dust grains to planetoids orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. Meteorites from there date back 4.6 billion years, the time of the solar system's formation. Researchers say it is unlikely the type of conditions that formed the Shergottite meteorites existed in the Asteroid Belt within the last 1.2 billion years. We think we understand how melting could occur on a small body 4.6 billion years ago, but not 1 billion years ago, McSween says. That leaves two alternatives. One they all came from a planet; two, we don't understand melting on small bodies. Rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts rule it out as the meteorite's source, and other factors seem to rule out Mercury and Venus. Volcanic acitivity But the right conditions may well have existed on Mars. Volcanic activity still occurred on the planet at least 500 million years aog, and some scientists think Mars may still be active. Researchers have also compared the chemical composition of the Shergottite meteorites to soil studies curried out by the two Viking spacecraft that landed on Mars in 1976. The Martian surface is rich in sulfur and chlorine, which may be left from volcanic eruptions. If these two chemicals are subtracted, the composition of Mars and the meteorites is remarkably alike. (end) Meteorites referenced include: Shegotty, Zagami, ALH 77005, and Yamato 793605. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NPA 07-04-1980 Tektite Ring Made Cold Winter, John O'Keefe
Paper: Chronicle-Telegram City: Elyria, Ohio Date: Friday, July 4, 1980 Page: B-3 Cosmic ring made winters colder? WASHINGTON (UPI) - Something happened 34 million years ago to send winter temperatures plummeting around the world for at least a million years while summer temperatures experienced little change. The sudden onslaught of severe winters - an average 15 degrees Fahrenheit colder by one estimate - amounted to a ecological disaster for forest planets and one-celled sea animals called Radiolaria. Dr. John A. O'Keefe, an astronomer at the space agency's Goddard Spaceflight Center, Greenbelt, Md., suggest the shadow of a ring of cosmic glass pieces around the Earth was responsible for the sudden winter cooling. O'KEEFE FINDS the evidence for such a debris ring in a belt of small glassy globules called tektites found strewn across North America to the Philippines and Indian Ocean Islands. The origin of tektites is poorly understood but scientists generally believe they came from space. Because of the similarities with moon rocks brought back by Apollo astronauts, O'Keefe thinks tektites may have come from a lunar eruption. The North American tektites have been dating as having formed 34 million years ago. Recent studies of microscopic fossils by Dr. B. P. Glass of the University of Delaware show that five abundance species of Radiolaria disappeared within a few tens of thousands of years of the appearance of the tektites. IN ADDITION to the tektites that fell on the Earth, O'Keefe suggest many others missed the planet and were captured by gravity into orbits around the globe. There first would be cloud of such cosmic debris around the Earth but the particles would quickly collapse to form a ring like those circling the planets Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus. If there is a connection between tektites and climatic change, then it probably results from the screening of sunlight, O'Keefe said in a report in a recent issue of the British scientific journal, Nature. Any debris ring would form directly above the equator and thus it would cut off sunlight in the winter months of the Northern Hemisphere, but not in the summer, O'Keefe said. THE SHADOW cast by the ring would lower winter temperatures. O'Keefe believes the ring disappeared when forces such as the pressure of sunlight or the drag or the very thin upper atmosphere pulled particles out of the ring. He calculates such a tektite ring would last a few million years. Adding support to the theory, O'Keefe said in an interview, is a similar correlation of another field of tektites and sudden changes to Radiolaria 600,000 years ago. (end) Clear Skies, Mark Bostick Wichita, Kansas http://www.meteoritearticles.com http://www.kansasmeteoritesociety.com http://www.imca.cc http://stores.ebay.com/meteoritearticles PDF copy of this article, and most I post (and about 1/2 of those on my website), is available upon e-mail request. The NPA in the subject line, stands for Newspaper Article. The old list server allowed us a search feature the current does not, so I guess this is more for quick reference and shortening the subject line now. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Ad - Two New Mesos - Auctions Ending!
Dear List, This week I would like to announce two new Mesosiderites which are complete opposites of one Another. The first on is NWA 3150 which is the most iron-poor Mesosiderite I have ever seen. Elemental metal is actually rare and with a TKW of only 136 grams there is not much to go around. The second Mesosiderite is NWA 2639 with a TKW of 539 grams consisting of three stones. NWA 2639 is the most metal-rich Mesosiderite I have ever seen, it is also the most beautiful. Links to five specimens of NWA 3150: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533071437 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533071783 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533072145 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533073216 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533073803 Links to three specimens of NWA 2639: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533074820 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533075548 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6533076320 Here are few examples of auctions ending tonight: Gorgeous shocked slice of NWA 482 Lunar/Moon Meteorite 116mg: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6531534182 Awesome NWA 482 Lunar/Moon Meteorite Necklace: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6531534787 A double Oriented Sikhote Alin Bullet: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6531544174 A Polished Slice of the Well Known NWA 3140 Ureilite Still bargain priced: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6531542213 And to see the rest, click this link: http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPageuserid=raremeteorites True bargains can always be found on our ebay auctions because there are never reserves and most items are started out at just 99 cents. Thank you for looking and if you are bidding, good luck. Adam Hupe The Hupe Collection Team LunarRock IMCA 2185 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] PV way out of hand!
Hi Mark and List, my comments on PV and the lazy thing was back in March of 2004, and I had no idea who did the classification. I asked if they were being lazy by not making up a knew class for the unique meteorite, I did not say they were being lazy, I just did not understand how PV was an considered an ordinary run of mill L6 chondrite. I bet that daughter of your would be a good meteorite hunter. She seems to pick up on things pretty fast. I think I would be doing some father-daughter trips if I was you. (That's right, for every 20 meteorites you find I will buy you a barbie.) It does not work like that any more, it would be more like for every 20 meteorites you find I will buy you another 126k of memory for your computer. Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: MARK BOSTICK [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] PV way out of hand! Tom and list, Most of us have high respect for few meteoritic scientist we have. I don't think anyone was balking at your question, but as another member noted, your lack of sensitivity. There are correct ways to ask questions, and there are incorrect. Step back a minute and look at it from a scientist that worked on the meteorite. You pretty much said they were incompetent and lazy, or at least was how it came across to me and others. How would you take that if you worked several hours on the meteorite and submitted your findings, to get such response? Classifiers do not make meteorite classifications or names official. They submit their work, and will note the meteorite classification they believe it to be and a name, they think is appropiate. The Met Com then decides on the official name and classification, after getting further information from the scientist or other scientist as needed. It is not un-common for scientist to not completely agree, but we...or I guess they...usually seem to come to an agreement. All in all, it is a pretty good check and balance system. PV is a unique meteorite. However, it is unlikely it will get it owns class since it is chemically an H chondrite and the metal seems derived from an H chondrite body. So now your maybe wondering why it looks the way it does...my answer there would be to Google Portales Valley Meteorite and PDF. There are over a dozen of papers online on this meteorite and why it looks the way it does. Which makes it one of the most studied US meteorites of recent time. Perhaps our scientific body is not so lazy. Do now maybe your wondering, But it doesn't look like my H5's. We do not classify meteorites by hand specimen appearance. Classification is more of a chemical thing now days, although chondrule appearance and the like does factor in. Should you still have PV questions, after reading the articles that are on-line,, you can ask a more specific question. You can not expect anyone to fully explain such a meteorite over e-mail. Before sending the e-mail, you might check to see if you are offending anyone, since this line seems to be blurry to you, I suggest taking a conservative step. Another example of what I am saying here is your Rubin e-mail last week that I tried to smooth feathers down. Such formed questions are seen as usually passive aggressive attacks. If I was Rubin, who had classified an ordinary NWA chondrite for you a couple weeks earlier...I would have been annoyed I think. In a more pro-Tom note, I got the endcut of his Franconio find that he placed on ebay last week. Nice looking endcut that was well polishedabout to 800? grit it appears. Tom was kind enough to include a free extra slice of the meteorite. Only 2.49g., but it is rasor thin, ~1.5mm., and polished on both sides. (Anytime I have tried to polish anything that thin it usually breaks and flat bed shoots the piece broken off across the room.) I bet that daughter of your would be a good meteorite hunter. She seems to pick up on things pretty fast. I think I would be doing some father-daughter trips if I was you. (That's right, for every 20 meteorites you find I will buy you a barbie.) Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 5/17/2005 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] PV way out of hand!
Dear List, Chondrules have been found in PV so why would it be called a Primitive Achondrite or an H7? I read that complete chondrules were found within 2mm of the metal veins raising significant questions about the cooling rate of the metal. Some feel it would be impossible for a chondrule to survive so close to the metal if it cooled over millions of years, enough time to create a pattern. It is an odd ball but by every definition I have read it is an H6 and is probably the coolest one I have ever seen. All the best, Adam Hupe The Hupe Collection Team LunarRock IMCA 2185 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite People NPA Section Added to Website
Hello list, I am always adding navigation aids or pages to my website, however this one is of more note then most. I have added a people section to the newspaper archive in my website. Along with Nininger, Monnig and the like, you can also find likes for more modern meteorite people like Bob Haag, Michael Farmer and others. My personal archives are 4-5 times larger then what I have on-line, on NPA's, so the articles list are by no means complete. http://www.meteoritearticles.com/newspapermainpeople.html Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com www.kansasmeteoritesociety.com www.imca.cc PS: Two years.that is how long I figure till California will pass Kansas in meteorite finds. Me and Jerry are averaging 1.33 Kansas finds a year right now(four in three years)...while Rob Matson and company have 30-40 in the new bulletin. Bad Matson and friends! Oh well, we have over 500 posters around the state so maybe we can move up to 2 or 3 a year.and then in 20 years maybe we will be ahead again. This is assuming California falls into the ocean of course. KSU was 139..of which 99 are in our collectionnot counting two not yet official and a couple trades we currently have working. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] PV reading list
Go to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html Type in portales valley (including quotes) and click the box 'require title for selection' Click the 'send query' button, and you got 32 papers on PV, most of which are available full text. The background of the current reclassification proposal, if you will. *works for every other topic of meteoritical interest, too* Happy reading! The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] PV way out of hand!
Come on Tom, You should know by now that this is also the Whinerlist. Anything and everything you write is subject to ridicule. And there is certainly a great chance of offending atleast one list member regardless of what you write. It seems like majority of the posts here on the list are entirely critique oriented. So, don't act like you're surprised that somebody is laying into you. Its the nature of the list. Keep that in mind next time you write your next post, regardless of what the subject and content may be. BE - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: met list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:16 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] PV way out of hand! Hey list, like always, I can not post with out offending everyone! I never called anyone lazy, I asked if they were being lazy when they classified PV as an H6? I did not, and still don't fully understand the classification process. You all want me to learn this stuff with out asking questions, there is a saying, no question is a dumb question, well I guess I blew that theory out of the water! : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Seeking Christian Anger
Hi All, I received a post from Christian Anger today and my reply was rejected. If anyone knows his phone number, please contact me off list. Thanks, Michael -- You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are. -Herb Cohen -- If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] looking for craig mcdonald
Hi list.I am sorry to use the list this way,but my emails for craig are coming back to me.I am looking for craig mcdonald concerning his meteorite collection sale.Please get back to me if you can. steve arnold, chicago Steve R.Arnold, Chicago, IL, 60120 Illinois Meteorites,Ltd! website url http://stormbringer60120.tripod.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Mars Exploration Rovers Update - May 17, 2005
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status.html SPIRIT UPDATE: Spirit Observing 'Reef' - sol 477-482, May 17, 2005 Spirit remains in excellent health. On sols 477, 478 and 479 (May 7 to May 9, 2005), Spirit made observations with remote-sensing instruments and analyzed soil targets with its alpha particle X-ray spectrometer and Mossbauer spectrometer. Spirit then performed a short drive to a target called Keel, on the outcrop called Jibsheet. On sol 481, Spirit was able to begin observing a target called Reef, using the microscopic imager and performing a 16-hour integration with the alpha particle X-ray spectrometer. On sol 482 (May 12), Spirit continued work on Reef with instruments on the robotic arm, and performed a 21-hour integration with the Mossbauer spectrometer. Spirit's total odometry as of May 12, 2005, is 4,341.19 meters (2.70 miles). OPPORTUNITY UPDATE: Progress Inch-by-Inch for Opportunity - sol 465-466, May 17, 2005 On Opportunity's first three drives to get out of the sand trap, the rover has advanced a total of 7.4 centimeters (2.9 inches) in getting off the dune. Each of the first two drives -- one on sol 463 and one on sol 465 -- turned the wheels about two and a half rotations, enough to drive two meters (7 feet) if there were no slippage. Images from the hazard-avoidance cameras taken during the drives show that some of caked powder adhering to wheels between cleats had come off. The team was encouraged by the results, and decided go ahead with a 4-meter (13-foot) commanded drive for sol 466. Sol-by- sol summaries: Sol 465 (May 15, 2005): Opportunity rotated its wheels in a series of 10 steps, each step enough to roll 20 centimeters (7.9 inches) if there were no slippage. The wheels are slipping a great deal in the sand of the dune, but the rover advanced better than anticipated from simulated tests, covering 1.9 centimeters (0.7 inch). The rover used its panoramic camera for observations of the sky and dunes. Sol 466 (May 16, 2005): Results from the sol 465 drive were good (some wheel cleats are clean and the rover is making forward progress), so the team commanded a drive that, if there were no slippage, would roll 4 meters (13 feet), consisting of ten 40-centimeter (16 inch) steps. Opportunity gained an additional 2.7 centimeters (1.1 inch). The panoramic camera made more observations of the atmosphere and dunes. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Ad - Two New Mesos - Auctions Ending!
Hi Adam. Curious as to the weathering grades of your two new mesos. Any information is certainly appreciated. Thanks! Frank __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] auctionsniper.com sux!!!
thanks for all the input! some stuff i just gotta have, but i HATE running up the bids prematurely! i will be gradually switching over to yahoo mail (it has 100 FREE megs of storage). please cc to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "harlan trammell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comSubject: Re: [meteorite-list] auctionsniper.com sux!!!Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:11:55 -0400Here's the trick for defeating sniping software:Make the maximum bid you are willing to pay. If someone beats that maximum bid, be it 5 seconds or5 days before the end of the auction, accept that the other guy was willing to pay more.On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:57:25 +, "harlan trammell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: htmldiv style='background-color:'the title sez it all- i history of lost snipes, non-placed bids, and now a 5 sec min. lead time!? does ANYBODY out there have any links fornbsp; PRO sniping software?! PLEEEZE...oh, calgon take me away from inferiority and crap!BRBRBR DIVi will be gradually switching over to yahoo mail (it has 100 FREE megs of storage). please cc to: A href=""[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A /DIV/div/html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - May 17, 2005
Neatoo!! How'd you do that?? Jerry - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:54 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - May 17, 2005 http://www.spacerocksinc.com/May17.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] COOL MESOSIDERITE PHOTO
Uuh 25-50$?? If it's one from the 10 paired mesos a la 1882, which als has sometimes immense large metal blobs, you can find it at 4.50$-8$/g e.g. at Stefan The Eye Ralew. Btw. etched such blobs can show tiny Neumann Lines. Privjet! Martin - Original Message - From: dean bessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:50 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] COOL MESOSIDERITE PHOTO I should be shutting down as I am going away in a few weeks but I cant seem to help myself when getting offered more meteorites. This is a cute photo. A circular metal spot in the mesosiderite that is currently floating around morocco right now. Thought some people might like the photo as I thought it was cute. The first photo is taken without a flash and the second with flash: http://www.meteoriteshop.com/ebay/mesround1.jpg http://www.meteoriteshop.com/ebay/mesround2.jpg Meteorite is very hard to cut as it has so much metal. I will have some of this mesosiderite in my sale that I will be posting tomorrow morning (And you can bet it will be priced a lot less than the $25 to $50 that other dealers are offering it for) Cheers DEAN __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Fw: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hello all- Forwarding the below message as requested Rob Wesel http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: steve eshbaugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:55 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Rob: I can't get anything put on the list so I thought I'd go through another list member. Please forward to all list members. Just a reminder Deep Impact is on schedule for a July 4th rendezvous with the comet Tempel 1 More information may be obtained at www.nasa.gov For the Great Comet Crater Contest go to www.planetary.org Thanks Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had a nice evening chat with Dr. Ruzicka a while back, this paper is the completion of a very long endeavor. He is very erudite and enthusiastic on the subject and I am glad to see the finished work. Portales Valley deserves it. Rob Wesel http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard To: Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list - Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Opportunity Mars Rover Stuck in Sand
On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:35:44 -0500, Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, http://makeashorterlink.com/?B38F2271B Brain teaser. The nearest crater is not a crater shape (a cone), but a bowl-shaped depression surrounded by a nearly flat rim that is distinct from the surrounding terrain. Possibly it is a conical crater in the process of being filled in by the loose (sandy?) soil the rover was stuck in, but this is not a shape that drifting sand would produce (the rim). Also teasing my brain is the fact that the two little craters do not have their apparent shadows oriented in the same direction, so possibly the shadow is not an albedo feature at all. Tease. The fellow with the crazy web site that claims to have discovered Martian fossils plows ahead with just enough plausibility edge to bother me. I don't believe in his fossils, as many of them are the product of the power of the human brain to find patterns in ANYTHING. But then, there's the rotini. Duh. Obviously Opportunity has stumbled into the pit of a Dreaded Space Doodlebug http://thasos.users.btopenworld.com/images/Ant-lion_pits.jpg http://www.antlionpit.com/digging.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] looking for craig mcdonald
It's nice to know someone is watching over us. JKG At 04:50 PM 5/17/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: List/Craig: Don't give him the e-mail! Please don't do it! If SSTteevvEE Stormbringer buys the collection, we will be inundated with multiple e-mails from our favorite uber-shrewd businessman as he Weels (sic) and Deals with the list for each piece! Each will start with a ridiculously high price, then multiple e-mails from Stevelooney as he lowers the price for each piece (which he always does...), then finally he will sell it for a price well below what he paid for it, all at the reading expense of the list...This will go on for MONTHS at a time.Craig, email me off-list if Steve-0 is a finalist. I will bid $100 higher and buy the collection to protect the list, and donate it to a science center collection..No kidding Terry StarMeteorites __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Off topic earthquake link
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/ For those of you looking for something interesting! This site shows up to date, daily and weekly quake locations. Being near Yellowstone, I find this site interesting. Most of you in CA would see some interesting things as well. Best, Dave F. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] COOL MESOSIDERITE PHOTO
Hello Dean, John and list, Dean posted photos of his new Meso. http://www.meteoriteshop.com/ebay/mesround1.jpg http://www.meteoriteshop.com/ebay/mesround2.jpg John noted, Reminds me of Morristown. Good eye John, it looks just like the Morristown in my collection. Shown in an old photo on the following webpage. http://www.meteoritearticles.com/colmorristown.html Large metal inclusions with scattered silicates within. Very nice Dean. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com Wichita,Kansas.where meteorites are only 2000 years old. - Original Message - From: JKGwilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dean bessey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] COOL MESOSIDERITE PHOTO Reminds me of Morristown. Thanks for the pictures. JKG At 05:50 PM 5/17/2005, dean bessey wrote: I should be shutting down as I am going away in a few weeks but I cant seem to help myself when getting offered more meteorites. This is a cute photo. A circular metal spot in the mesosiderite that is currently floating around morocco right now. Thought some people might like the photo as I thought it was cute. The first photo is taken without a flash and the second with flash: http://www.meteoriteshop.com/ebay/mesround1.jpg http://www.meteoriteshop.com/ebay/mesround2.jpg Meteorite is very hard to cut as it has so much metal. I will have some of this mesosiderite in my sale that I will be posting tomorrow morning (And you can bet it will be priced a lot less than the $25 to $50 that other dealers are offering it for) Cheers DEAN __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
