[meteorite-list] Meteorite in World Languages (86 languages) and Japanese Impact Crater pages
Hello List, I have updated my "Meteorite in World Languages" page to now include 86 languages. Also, I have added a new page on reported possible Japanese impact craters (with links and references). If you are interested please take a look. Both pages can be accessed from: http://meteoritesjapan.com/default.aspx or: Meteorite in World Languages- http://meteoritesjapan.com/metdict.aspx Japan Impact Craters- http://meteoritesjapan.com/craters.aspx Thank you. Sincerely, Dirk Ross...Tokyo __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Etching an Iron Meteorite (Meteorite Mag)
REMEMBER -ALWAYS AD ACID TO WATER- NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. ask anita- she can tell what happens- you all kinds a firetrux and stuff w/ guys in DEVO suits and what not. --- Ruben Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > I posted a youtube video on etching a few months > ago. > Since then I've received so many emails regarding > etching. Many of you want to know all of the > specifics > that I left out of the video. > > I received my Meteorite Mag. today and was surprised > to see that my article on etching is included. > > If you subscribe to meteorite magazine and want to > know all about etching, you're all set. > > For everyone that would like to know the "In's and > outs" on etching that has not subscribed, now is a > good time to do so as it is pretty in depth.. > > In fact it is the written version of the video - > with > all the details. > > > Thanks, > > > > Ruben Garcia > Phoenix, Arizona > http://www.mr-meteorite.com > > > > > Be a better pen pal. > Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See > how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com 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 - November 30, 2007
Fine picture John. Certainly dispells any doubt of the presence of chondrules. Jerry Flaherty - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:02 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Rocks from Space Picture of the Day - November 30,2007 http://www.rocksfromspace.org/November_30_2007.html **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Etching an Iron Meteorite (Meteorite Mag)
Ooops! I've already received several emails and forgot to add a link to subscribe.. Here's the link to meteorite magazine Here's the link http://meteoritemag.uark.edu/ Ruben Garcia Phoenix, Arizona http://www.mr-meteorite.com Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com 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 - November 30, 2007
http://www.rocksfromspace.org/November_30_2007.html **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Etching an Iron Meteorite (Meteorite Mag)
Hi all, I posted a youtube video on etching a few months ago. Since then I've received so many emails regarding etching. Many of you want to know all of the specifics that I left out of the video. I received my Meteorite Mag. today and was surprised to see that my article on etching is included. If you subscribe to meteorite magazine and want to know all about etching, you're all set. For everyone that would like to know the "In's and outs" on etching that has not subscribed, now is a good time to do so as it is pretty in depth.. In fact it is the written version of the video - with all the details. Thanks, Ruben Garcia Phoenix, Arizona http://www.mr-meteorite.com Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] QMIG REQUEST
Listoids Can any listoids help me out with pictures and/or specimens of Maroo and Whitula Creek Buy sell trade or donate a kidney Please contact me off list if you can help __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD: Accepting Reasonable Offers for a 360 Gram Canyon Diablo Graphite Nodule End Cut
My Canyon Diablo Graphite Nodule end cuts and slices are almost gone. I have 3 endcuts and 2 slices left Once again I find myself in a dilemma, I have a beautiful 360 gram end cut and no one has expressed any interest in it at the current price of $2.50 per gram, which I think is a fantastic deal. Since I really don't want to turn this end cut into slices I'm going to accept any reasonable offer. So if your interested in this beautiful and huge end cut send your offer off list to bobadebt at ec.rr.com You can view the specimen at http://home.ec.rr.com/bobadebt/Rocks/FS%20CDGN.htm If I don't sell it by tomorrow night I will prepare it for the saw and process it over the weekend. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Mars Exploration Rover Update - November 29, 2007
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status.html#opportunity OPPORTUNITY UPDATE: Rover Perseveres Despite Stall in Robotic Arm - sol 1355-1360, Nov 29, 2007: Opportunity spent much of the week conducting ongoing studies of a layer of rock known as "Smith," part of a "bathtub ring" of rocks that circumvent "Victoria Crater" beneath the rim. Opportunity acquired images and studied the composition and abundance of iron-bearing minerals in the rock. During tests of the rock abrasion tool on the Earthbound engineering rover similar to the rover on Mars, engineers discovered that unbending the brush on Opportunity's rock abrasion tool may not be possible. Instead of brushing the surface of a new rock target known as "Smith2," rover handlers opted to proceed directly to grinding the rock surface during the coming weekend, on sol 1368 (Nov. 29, 2007). On Sol 1359 (Nov. 20, 2007), a joint in Opportunity's robotic arm (Joint 1) that controls azimuth (left-right motion) stalled during the acquisition of microscopic images of the unground surface of Smith2. Plans called for the rover to acquire the rest of the microscopic images on sol 1366 (Nov. 27, 2007). After the stall, the rover acquired information about the atmosphere rather than the rock target with the alpha-particle X-ray spectrometer. Sol-by-sol summary: In addition to morning uplinks directly from Earth via the rover's high-gain antenna, evening downlinks to Earth via the Odyssey orbiter at UHF frequencies, and standard panoramic-camera measurements of atmospheric opacity caused by dust, Opportunity completed the following activities: Sol 1355 (Nov. 16, 2007): Opportunity placed the Moessbauer spectrometer back on the rock target known as "Smith" and acquired data for 11 hours with the instrument. Opportunity used the navigation camera to determine the rover's attitude by looking at the sun, searched the sky for clouds with the navigation camera, and surveyed the horizon with the panoramic camera. Sol 1356: Opportunity spent 12 hours collecting data from Smith with the Moessbauer spectrometer and acquired super-resolution images of "Cape Verde," a promontory on the rim of Victoria Crater. The rover used the navigation camera to search the sky for clouds and estimate the rover's attitude relative to the sun. Opportunity acquired super-resolution images of "Cabo Frio," another promontory on the rim of Victoria Crater, and took spot images of the sky with the panoramic camera. Sol 1357: Opportunity spent 12 hours collecting data from Smith with the Moessbauer spectrometer and used the navigation camera to search the sky for clouds and measure the rover's attitude by looking at the sun. The rover took more super-resolution images of Cabo Frio and thumbnail images of the sky with the panoramic camera. Sol 1358: Opportunity spent 12 hours collecting data from Smith with the Moessbauer spectrometer and used the navigation camera to search the sky for clouds and measure the rover's attitude by looking at the sun. The rover acquired super-resolution images of Cape Verde and surveyed the horizon with the panoramic camera. Opportunity scanned the sky for clouds with the navigation camera. Sol 1359: Opportunity switched to a different target of study, a nearby clean spot of rock surface nicknamed Smith2. While the rover was acquiring image mosaics of the rock target with the microscopic imager, the shoulder joint of the robotic arm stalled. The rover acquired 12 hours worth of compositional data from the Martian atmosphere with the alpha-particle X-ray spectrometer. The next morning, the rover calibrated the panoramic camera by taking images in darkness, scanned the sky for clouds using the navigation camera, monitored dust on the rover mast, and took spot images of the sky with the panoramic camera. Sol 1360 (Nov. 21, 2007): Opportunity acquired a mosaic of images of a target called "Paolo's Pan" with the panoramic camera and calibrated the panoramic camera by taking images in darkness. The rover scanned the sky for clouds with the navigation camera. The next morning, Opportunity was slated to use the navigation camera to estimate the rover's attitude by looking at the sun. Odometry: As of sol 1359 (Nov. 20, 2007), Opportunity's total odometry remained at 11,584.32 meters (7.2 miles). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Pallasite lust
Do you have a Pallasite Sphere :) -- I don't think this went out the first time; I apologize if it shows up twice. OK, I admit it. I love pallasites. However, it's gotten to the point where I have reached the 3-sigma (or at least the 2 sigma) limit as far as finding new ones that aren't in my collection. The palm sized, 2 mm thin slice of translucent Esquel is on hold until I can spend 4 digits on frivol without wincing. I am looking for small pieces of the rare ones now, with a limit of $150 per; smaller/less is also fine, as most of my collection is micros, even the pallasites, and I can't afford too many at $150 a pop. If anyone has pieces of the following, please contact me off list, and I will suggest them to my DH as a Christmas present: Argonia Barcis Bendock Cold Bay Dora El Rancho Grande Giroux Hambleton Itzawisis Lipovsky Marburg (this name appeals to the perverse in me) Mineo Mount Dyrring Newport Omolon Otinapa Phillips County Rawlinna 001 Santa Rosalia South Bend Southampton Sterling Vermillion Zaisho Zinder Thank you all for helping blow my budget :D Tracy Latimer __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] anyone have an extra EPMA lying around they're currently not using?
Brownlees in rain H2O http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2007/pdf/5188.pdf Jerry Flaherty __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Hi List, I have some cool photos of the "chondrules" found in this meteorite. When I had sent some samples to ASU I would send a photo and they would let me know if it was any thing they wanted to look at. My hobby is micrographs but most of the "chondrules" were way to large for microscopic images that would be meaningful so these are just close ups. Since the debate seems to hinge at least partially on whether these objects are chondrules or concretions, these photos may be of interest to some of you. If you want to look at them just drop me an email and I will send a few imbedded in an email. Tom Phillips **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] BIG VENUS NEWS
Larry, Sterling, Even supposing that there had been some sort of life on Venus, the odds that the development of life there would have even somewhat paralleled evolution on Earth is so unlikely as to be, in my opinion, nearly impossible. Should there have been any life on Venus, it is logical to think that such life would have initially have developed to utilize sunlight as a form of energy (as our plants do), but the evolution of any forms of animal life would likely be a far cry from anything that ever came to live on Earth. That said, considering the substantial increase in the amount of solar radiation that Venus gleans from sitting in a closer orbit, I think it's safe to say that any sort of life would have a hell of a time of trying to develop complex forms in such a biological oven. - And that said, the odds that any life would form at all are quite minuscule. It is possible, but is highly (very, very, very highly) unlikely. Jason On Nov 29, 2007 10:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Sterling: > > I have not had a chance to read the articles in general, but if Venus is > still losing its water, and we are talking about this happening with the > last 1/2 billion years or so, is there any chance that it was realted to > the global resurfacing of Venus? Maybe Venus did have swamps and dinosaurs > a billion yers ago and then wham, along came golbal resurfacing which > boiled off the water and decomposed the carbonates! > > Speculatively, > > Larry Lebofsky > > > On Thu, November 29, 2007 1:10 am, Sterling K. Webb wrote: > > Hi, List, > > > > > > ESA had a big (press) conference to release the first > > findings of the Venus Express spacecraft. There will be nine papers by > > principal investigators in "Nature," next issue. So all the science > > reporters were there, of course, to get the inside story. > > > > The spacecraft detected "whistlers." Whistlers are > > sharp, short, frequency decreasing bursts of low frequency radio waves. You > > can detect whistlers on Earth by connecting an old-fashioned quarter-mile > > wire antenna to a stereo set, as the radio waves are in the audio > > frequencies! They are caused by lightning. Earlier indications of > > lightning on Venus have always been dismissed as "mistaken" but it appears > > we were mistaken about being mistaken. > > > > The second big story is the confirmation of the old Pioneer > > probe's detection of a high ratio of deuterium-to-hydrogen in the > > atmosphere of Venus. Well, that's only the small end of the big news. The > > big end of the big news is that the D-to-H ratio of the UPPER atmosphere > > is 2.5 times greater than it is in the lower atmosphere. > > > > Well, you say, scratching your head, so what? It means that > > water loss from Venus is going on right now, not a few billion years ago or > > just one billion years ago. No, Venus is losing water right now. The > > deuterium is heavier than hydrogen; when water is split and stripped from > > the top of the atmosphere by the solar wind, more deuterium remains than > > hydrogen. The fact that there is a higher D-to-H ratio up top means that > > the water loss is both very active and on-going, that Venus is still > > bleeding water, that the water loss did NOT begin anciently, but recently > > (cosmically > > speaking, say 400 or 500 million years, or even more recently). > > > > The reporters had heavy going trying to figure this out, quite > > possibly because the Venus "specialists" are also having heavy going trying > > to figure all this out, mostly because reality is doing such a poor job of > > matching theory. They were disapproving of these unruly facts. Example: > > whistlers, yes, but not from lightning. From what? It's a mystery. > > > > There isn't one press account I can paste in here to sum it > > all up, since every press account varies according to which "expert" was > > being interviewed. So, here's the major news stories, with a scorecard... > > > > Space.com believes the lightning but doubts the water: > > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071128-venus-express.html > > > > > > The NY Times doubts the lightning, believes the water, > > but doesn't know what it's all about: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/science/space/29venus.html?ref=space > > > > > > The Independent believes in more lightning, thinks the lack of > > a magnetic field caused the loss of water, not global warming: > > http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3204073.ece > > > > > > The AFP says Venus was "doomed by global warming!" > > http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFOc6GAb7TDdajJhw-5xwwcfFZRA > > > > > > The Houston Chronicle thinks Venus was "just too close to the Sun" > > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5337291.html > > (The last time I was in Houston, I flew into Hobby at 7pm > > and it was 107 F. in the shade, and there was no shade as all the leaves > > had died and dropped off from the heat. This is a "natural" theory for a > > Houston paper, I thi
Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Michael, I was maybe not enough complete and precise in my first message. It is evident that the scientists which makes the declaration as an aubrite did not find chondrules. For them, the circular forms which could be confused with chondrules are not chondrules. The claimed chondrules are really "concretions". It is not my job to give supplementary precision on the subject. On the other hand, analyses on the ground and the dating of the ground give evidence that it is not a fossil meteorite. The meteorite has absolutely no millions of years, but once again it is not my job to give supplementary precision. Best wishes, Philippe http://www.meteoritica.com/ I am confused, if some pieces have chondules (which I know they do as I also was in Morocco more than once or twice:) then it is a chondrite, and if it is a chondrite, it cannot be an Aubrite. I myself cut more than 50 kilos of pieces most of it was absolute garbage, since it is millions of years old. I found chondrules in most pieces, some did not seem to exhibit any. Since we all agree that this material is paired, then why the argument over Aubrite or E chondrite. Chondrules in any of it must knock out the Aubrite cassification. Michael Farmer --- Philippe Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Greg and all, It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience often these remain sterile and my level of English does not allow me to make me understood completely. Here is that I have to say as comment of this meteorite: First, all the Moroccan having a relationship with the business of meteorites know Al Haggounia's strewnfield (Western Sahara not Algeria) for a long time before that you and I let us be dealers of meteorites. At this time, nobody was certain that he can involve a meteorite, the knowledge of Moroccan were not the one from now and it is necessary to say that first sight has it is not evident to recognize a meteorite in this material. The first analyzed pieces and declared numbers were classified EL6, E6 and the first one which has been classified as an aubrite was the NWA 2736. This classification launched a new rush on Al Haggounia, and hundreds of kilos of this material met itself has Erfoud. In April, 2006, when I met my Moroccan partner in Erfoud, he showed me several hundreds of kilos of this material in bags which had just arrived from Western Sahara. In these hundreds of kilos, I chose carefully several kilos of all the representative parts of this meteorite to give them later to Albert Jambon. As well as Fred Beroud, Ali Hmani and Ait Ouzrou, who agreed to make a common declaration rather than multiply the numbers NWA, supplied a big quantity of material to Albert Jambon. I think that Albert Jambon is the most qualified person to describe this meteorite. Before subjecting his declaration he went up an expedition to go on the spot in association with the other French and Moroccan scientists. The strewnfield as described by Albert Jambon and others scientists who participated in the expedition is a classic strewnfield, an ellipse 40 km long with the also classic distribution of the big and small pieces. On the strewnfield the geologists make the dating of the ground and all the analyses to describe the strewnfield. They found themselves several pieces of this meteorite. In Laayoune, Albert Jambon also saw several hundreds of kilos of this meteorite with Moroccan involved in the search on the strewnfield. What gives approximately 3 tons for this meteorite if we add the various pairings. There is no doubt, and I believe that everybody agrees, that all this material NWA and Al Haggounia 001 with different results of analysis is the same. It was classified EL6, E6, aubrite, EL6 / 7, EL3... Three different laboratories have classified this meteorite as an aubrite. For the owners of a part of this meteorite which supplied the typical sample has a scientist so that he made the analysis, there is no reason for not believing the scientist in question whom he has to trust in the quality of his work it is a question of respect. In this case, in which we are certain that it is about the same meteorite, the various classifications raise naturally a problem. The important weathering of this meteorite explains maybe the difficulty of the determination. To end, I think that no dealer can grant himself the right to say such analysis is the good and such the other one is false and there is no reason to say that the good analysis is EL3. Best wishes, Philippe http://www.meteoritica.com/ Dear Frederic, Matteo and List Members, "Al Haggounia 001"(NWA 4420), NWA 2828 and the other Fossil EL3's are NOT, I repeat, NOT aubrites. I wish they were, I have many, many kilos of NWA 2828. At first when just the type sample was tested, it came back as an aubrite, no chondrules were found. After cutting more of the NWA 2828 material I had, I began to find these funny round things and I thought, "Oh no,
[meteorite-list] 2008 Tucson Information Page
Hello Everyone! We are starting to work on our annual Tucson Information Page. http://www.meteorite-times.com/tucson/ Please add your Tucson information on our form page here: http://www.meteorite-times.com/tucson/Tucson_form.htm Looking forward to seeing everyone in Tucson! Paul and Jim __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Mike wrote: "... chondrules in most pieces ... if some ... chondules ... then it is a chondrite, if ... a chondrite, it cannot be an Aubrite." Dr. Grossman posted that the aubrite classification, or the E-chondrite classification, like all classifications in the Bulletin, is not peer reviewed literature. It is simply a preliminary naming register with unreviewed conclusions of individual professionals. If Mike's logic is ok, and these are chondrules with scientific precision, it is still incomplete should this be a brecciated fall. "... garbage, since it is millions of years old." Dr. Jambon's abstract seems to disagree with the age, i.e., despite prior claims, this is not a "fossil" (or any equivalent sexy term) meteorite because it is basically scattered about, including on the surface, and not from any sediment. That would make it simply a meteorite sensitive to weathering, that is just about completely weathered. Those are their conclusions. Martin asked about the value. Commercial value is determined by Supply distribution vs. demand. Three tons (as postred by Phillipe) will keep the commercial value, if any, reasonable. Scientific value beyond mapping the strewn field, seems to be rather challenging. Greg indicated that the pairings in these aubrite/EL classifications were fairly certain. His question is more ethical - can classifying scientists ignore information about a fall when provided? To answer this, we would need to see what was presented by whom and to whom, and when. Also, we would need to ask whether material with an NWA number should be mixed with material with a place name and field research and proper coordinates are registered - and the nuances related to that. These are the conclusions I can manage from this discussion. So we are back to Jeff's comment. It has still not been peer reviewed. Shucks, I guess that's life, Best wishes, Doug Michael Farmer --- Philippe Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Greg and all, It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience often these remain sterile and my level of English does not allow me to make me understood completely. Here is that I have to say as comment of this meteorite: First, all the Moroccan having a relationship with the business of meteorites know Al Haggounia's strewnfield (Western Sahara not Algeria) for a long time before that you and I let us be dealers of meteorites. At this time, nobody was certain that he can involve a meteorite, the knowledge of Moroccan were not the one from now and it is necessary to say that first sight has it is not evident to recognize a meteorite in this material. The first analyzed pieces and declared numbers were classified EL6, E6 and the first one which has been classified as an aubrite was the NWA 2736. This classification launched a new rush on Al Haggounia, and hundreds of kilos of this material met itself has Erfoud. In April, 2006, when I met my Moroccan partner in Erfoud, he showed me several hundreds of kilos of this material in bags which had just arrived from Western Sahara. In these hundreds of kilos, I chose carefully several kilos of all the representative parts of this meteorite to give them later to Albert Jambon. As well as Fred Beroud, Ali Hmani and Ait Ouzrou, who agreed to make a common declaration rather than multiply the numbers NWA, supplied a big quantity of material to Albert Jambon. I think that Albert Jambon is the most qualified person to describe this meteorite. Before subjecting his declaration he went up an expedition to go on the spot in association with the other French and Moroccan scientists. The strewnfield as described by Albert Jambon and others scientists who participated in the expedition is a classic strewnfield, an ellipse 40 km long with the also classic distribution of the big and small pieces. On the strewnfield the geologists make the dating of the ground and all the analyses to describe the strewnfield. They found themselves several pieces of this meteorite. In Laayoune, Albert Jambon also saw several hundreds of kilos of this meteorite with Moroccan involved in the search on the strewnfield. What gives approximately 3 tons for this meteorite if we add the various pairings. There is no doubt, and I believe that everybody agrees, that all this material NWA and Al Haggounia 001 with different results of analysis is the same. It was classified EL6, E6, aubrite, EL6 / 7, EL3... Three different laboratories have classified this meteorite as an aubrite. For the owners of a part of this meteorite which supplied the typical sample has a scientist so that he made the analysis, there is no reason for not believing the scientist in question whom he has to trust in the quality of his work it is a question of respect. In this case, in which we are certain that it is about the same meteorite, the various classifications raise naturally a problem. The important weathering of thi
Re: [meteorite-list] BIG VENUS NEWS
Hello Sterling: I have not had a chance to read the articles in general, but if Venus is still losing its water, and we are talking about this happening with the last 1/2 billion years or so, is there any chance that it was realted to the global resurfacing of Venus? Maybe Venus did have swamps and dinosaurs a billion yers ago and then wham, along came golbal resurfacing which boiled off the water and decomposed the carbonates! Speculatively, Larry Lebofsky On Thu, November 29, 2007 1:10 am, Sterling K. Webb wrote: > Hi, List, > > > ESA had a big (press) conference to release the first > findings of the Venus Express spacecraft. There will be nine papers by > principal investigators in "Nature," next issue. So all the science > reporters were there, of course, to get the inside story. > > The spacecraft detected "whistlers." Whistlers are > sharp, short, frequency decreasing bursts of low frequency radio waves. You > can detect whistlers on Earth by connecting an old-fashioned quarter-mile > wire antenna to a stereo set, as the radio waves are in the audio > frequencies! They are caused by lightning. Earlier indications of > lightning on Venus have always been dismissed as "mistaken" but it appears > we were mistaken about being mistaken. > > The second big story is the confirmation of the old Pioneer > probe's detection of a high ratio of deuterium-to-hydrogen in the > atmosphere of Venus. Well, that's only the small end of the big news. The > big end of the big news is that the D-to-H ratio of the UPPER atmosphere > is 2.5 times greater than it is in the lower atmosphere. > > Well, you say, scratching your head, so what? It means that > water loss from Venus is going on right now, not a few billion years ago or > just one billion years ago. No, Venus is losing water right now. The > deuterium is heavier than hydrogen; when water is split and stripped from > the top of the atmosphere by the solar wind, more deuterium remains than > hydrogen. The fact that there is a higher D-to-H ratio up top means that > the water loss is both very active and on-going, that Venus is still > bleeding water, that the water loss did NOT begin anciently, but recently > (cosmically > speaking, say 400 or 500 million years, or even more recently). > > The reporters had heavy going trying to figure this out, quite > possibly because the Venus "specialists" are also having heavy going trying > to figure all this out, mostly because reality is doing such a poor job of > matching theory. They were disapproving of these unruly facts. Example: > whistlers, yes, but not from lightning. From what? It's a mystery. > > There isn't one press account I can paste in here to sum it > all up, since every press account varies according to which "expert" was > being interviewed. So, here's the major news stories, with a scorecard... > > Space.com believes the lightning but doubts the water: > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071128-venus-express.html > > > The NY Times doubts the lightning, believes the water, > but doesn't know what it's all about: > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/science/space/29venus.html?ref=space > > > The Independent believes in more lightning, thinks the lack of > a magnetic field caused the loss of water, not global warming: > http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3204073.ece > > > The AFP says Venus was "doomed by global warming!" > http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFOc6GAb7TDdajJhw-5xwwcfFZRA > > > The Houston Chronicle thinks Venus was "just too close to the Sun" > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5337291.html > (The last time I was in Houston, I flew into Hobby at 7pm > and it was 107 F. in the shade, and there was no shade as all the leaves > had died and dropped off from the heat. This is a "natural" theory for a > Houston paper, I think.) > > > > Sterling K. Webb > > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Ad Check out this oriented "Flying Saucer" I loaded on ebay!
Hi everyone, I loaded more than 70 meteorites on ebay last night, including this oriented piece. This one will be fun. Superb example of a flight-oriented meteorite! http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ170173993969 Michael Farmer __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
I am confused, if some pieces have chondules (which I know they do as I also was in Morocco more than once or twice:) then it is a chondrite, and if it is a chondrite, it cannot be an Aubrite. I myself cut more than 50 kilos of pieces most of it was absolute garbage, since it is millions of years old. I found chondrules in most pieces, some did not seem to exhibit any. Since we all agree that this material is paired, then why the argument over Aubrite or E chondrite. Chondrules in any of it must knock out the Aubrite cassification. Michael Farmer --- Philippe Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Greg and all, > > It is not usual for me to participate in the debates > because by experience often these remain sterile and > my level of English does not allow me to make me > understood completely. > > Here is that I have to say as comment of this > meteorite: > > First, all the Moroccan having a relationship with > the business of meteorites know Al Haggounia's > strewnfield (Western Sahara not Algeria) for a long > time before that you and I let us be > dealers of meteorites. At this time, nobody was > certain that he can involve a meteorite, the > knowledge of Moroccan were not the one from now and > it is necessary to say that first sight > has it is not evident to recognize a meteorite in > this material. The first analyzed pieces and > declared numbers were classified EL6, E6 and the > first one which has been classified as an > aubrite was the NWA 2736. > > This classification launched a new rush on Al > Haggounia, and hundreds of kilos of this material > met itself has Erfoud. > > In April, 2006, when I met my Moroccan partner in > Erfoud, he showed me several hundreds of kilos of > this material in bags which had just arrived from > Western Sahara. In these hundreds > of kilos, I chose carefully several kilos of all the > representative parts of this meteorite to give them > later to Albert Jambon. As well as Fred Beroud, Ali > Hmani and Ait Ouzrou, who agreed > to make a common declaration rather than multiply > the numbers NWA, supplied a big quantity of material > to Albert Jambon. > > I think that Albert Jambon is the most qualified > person to describe this meteorite. Before subjecting > his declaration he went up an expedition to go on > the spot in association with the > other French and Moroccan scientists. The > strewnfield as described by Albert Jambon and others > scientists who participated in the expedition is a > classic strewnfield, an ellipse 40 km > long with the also classic distribution of the big > and small pieces. On the strewnfield the geologists > make the dating of the ground and all the analyses > to describe the strewnfield. They > found themselves several pieces of this meteorite. > In Laayoune, Albert Jambon also saw several hundreds > of kilos of this meteorite with Moroccan involved in > the search on the > strewnfield. What gives approximately 3 tons for > this meteorite if we add the various pairings. > > There is no doubt, and I believe that everybody > agrees, that all this material NWA and Al > Haggounia 001 with different results of analysis is > the same. It was classified EL6, E6, > aubrite, EL6 / 7, EL3... Three different > laboratories have classified this meteorite as an > aubrite. > For the owners of a part of this meteorite which > supplied the typical sample has a scientist so that > he made the analysis, there is no reason for not > believing the scientist in question > whom he has to trust in the quality of his work it > is a question of respect. > > In this case, in which we are certain that it is > about the same meteorite, the various > classifications raise naturally a problem. The > important weathering of this meteorite explains > maybe > the difficulty of the determination. > > To end, I think that no dealer can grant himself the > right to say such analysis is the good and such the > other one is false and there is no reason to say > that the good analysis is EL3. > > Best wishes, > Philippe > > http://www.meteoritica.com/ > > Dear Frederic, Matteo and List Members, > > "Al Haggounia 001"(NWA 4420), NWA 2828 and the other > Fossil EL3's are NOT, I repeat, NOT aubrites. I wish > they were, I have many, many kilos of NWA 2828. At > first when just the type > sample was tested, it came back as an aubrite, no > chondrules were found. After cutting more of the NWA > 2828 material I had, I began to find these funny > round things and I thought, "Oh > no, these are chondrules, this can not be an > aubrite". I then sent more sample material in to > have tested and sure enough, they WERE chondrules. > Unfortunately I had not cut the material > for sale until the classification and abstract were > approved. After the chondrules were found and > confirmed by several US scientists, a revised > classification and abstract were submitted. > The abstract was approved, see here: > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.P51
[meteorite-list] Al Haggounia strewnfield
Listees, for those who are interested in the description of the strewnfield near Al Haggounia you can read the abstract by Chennaoui et al. (#5329) from the last Met Soc Meeting in Tucson. You will find our contribution. What others report we said, or wrote, or whatever, is gossip, devoid of interest. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2007/metsoc2007.authorindex.shtml A -- Albert JAMBON Laboratoire Magie 46-0 4eme étage, Case 110 Université P et M Curie 4 place jussieu 75252 Paris Cedex O5 France Tel: 33 (0) 144 27 51 35 FAX: 33 (0) 144 27 39 11 Parcours de Planétologie d'Ile de France http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/formation/Planeto/Pageweb.html Site CAPES de l'UPMC http://maitres.snv.jussieu.fr/capes/index.htm __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Dear Jeff, Philippe and Martin,
Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion regarding NWA 2828
EL3 (Aubrite?) and all of its pairings (named or otherwise). I can certainly
see where all of the confusion lays with this one, I was directly involved
from the beginning and was in Layounne myself. What I do not get is when a
scientist is offered supporting, or non-supporting data but completely
ignores it from the other scientists who have spend much time on it.
If this meteorite was a breccia and part of it appears to be an aubrite and
the other part(s) appear to be EL/3, can it be classified as an
"Aubrite/EL3-6" or something like that? If the name Al Haggnounia 001 has
been officially accepted for this material, shouldn't all of the NWA
assignments then also be called the same since scientific data (GPS, etc.)
were obtained?
I am only trying to understand this whole mess with this one. I have plenty
as well as many others so that is not the issue. This is one occurrence
where the world-wide classifying scientists need to cooperate with each
other and get it done. There is not a national pride issue going on, or at
least I do not think so. I know the US scientists offered the others the
data but it was refused for one reason or another. I do not think refusal of
help is any way to accomplish the end result here. This could very well be
one of the most important (or at least interesting) finds,
asreroidly-speaking.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
- Original Message -
From: "Philippe Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Dear Greg and all,
It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience
often these remain sterile and my level of English does not allow me to
make me understood completely.
Here is that I have to say as comment of this meteorite:
First, all the Moroccan having a relationship with the business of
meteorites know Al Haggounia's strewnfield (Western Sahara not Algeria)
for a long time before that you and I let us be
dealers of meteorites. At this time, nobody was certain that he can
involve a meteorite, the knowledge of Moroccan were not the one from now
and it is necessary to say that first sight
has it is not evident to recognize a meteorite in this material. The first
analyzed pieces and declared numbers were classified EL6, E6 and the first
one which has been classified as an
aubrite was the NWA 2736.
This classification launched a new rush on Al Haggounia, and hundreds of
kilos of this material met itself has Erfoud.
In April, 2006, when I met my Moroccan partner in Erfoud, he showed me
several hundreds of kilos of this material in bags which had just arrived
from Western Sahara. In these hundreds
of kilos, I chose carefully several kilos of all the representative parts
of this meteorite to give them later to Albert Jambon. As well as Fred
Beroud, Ali Hmani and Ait Ouzrou, who agreed
to make a common declaration rather than multiply the numbers NWA,
supplied a big quantity of material to Albert Jambon.
I think that Albert Jambon is the most qualified person to describe this
meteorite. Before subjecting his declaration he went up an expedition to
go on the spot in association with the
other French and Moroccan scientists. The strewnfield as described by
Albert Jambon and others scientists who participated in the expedition is
a classic strewnfield, an ellipse 40 km
long with the also classic distribution of the big and small pieces. On
the strewnfield the geologists make the dating of the ground and all the
analyses to describe the strewnfield. They
found themselves several pieces of this meteorite. In Laayoune, Albert
Jambon also saw several hundreds of kilos of this meteorite with Moroccan
involved in the search on the
strewnfield. What gives approximately 3 tons for this meteorite if we add
the various pairings.
There is no doubt, and I believe that everybody agrees, that all this
material NWA and Al Haggounia 001 with different results of analysis
is the same. It was classified EL6, E6,
aubrite, EL6 / 7, EL3... Three different laboratories have classified this
meteorite as an aubrite.
For the owners of a part of this meteorite which supplied the typical
sample has a scientist so that he made the analysis, there is no reason
for not believing the scientist in question
whom he has to trust in the quality of his work it is a question of
respect.
In this case, in which we are certain that it is about the same meteorite,
the various classifications raise naturally a problem. The important
weathering of this meteorit
Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Hi Philippe et al,
I see no reason for bringing commotion or even personal aspects in the
debate as substantion, why one classification should be preferred to others.
It is simple - scientists got differing results or drew different
conclusions from their results or maybe analysed different
samples/lithologies from that find.
Only as an example, here an abstract from some also very experienced
classificators, who initially classified a part of that material as aubrite,
but found later strong evidence (e.g. chondrules) that it was an enstatite
chondrite and therefore they revised the original classification and
additionally suspected the stuff to be paired with others from that find,
which they had classified as E-chondrites before.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.P51E1247K
That's a totally normal process. New finds&facts lead to new results.
Therefore I'd think a discussion with the argumentation, my Mommy cooks
better than your Mommy, or as it happened to ask an apology because other
scientists came to a different result analysing one's material than others,
is pointless, because it won't change the physical properties of the stone.
Neither is science a democratic affair, facts stay facts.
So if e.g. that stuff will turn out to have chondrules, than it doesn't help
to ignore that result and simply to raise the finger in an acclamation and
to declare it to be an aubrite.
Anyway, we are simple laymen, so we can sit back and wait. Only thing we
need is some patience until the case will be cleared
- and I'm very confident, that this will happen, on the one hand aubrites
are a very rare type, therefore of a scientific importance, on the other
hand this particular meteorite is one of the very largest finds in history.
So let's wait until the scientist, who worked on it, will bring together all
their results to discuss that tricky case... and until their final result
will be published.
The only problem I see, is a minor one, cause it's nonscientifical
and only concerns the dealer: How to price the material meanwhile?
Should he maintain his low price as it would be an old E-type,
should he raise the price, because some say it's an aubrite.
and if so, should he later, if the consensus will be, that it's no aubrite,
refund his clients or should he disclaim then any responsibility?
(What if he finds chondrules in his stone?).
I'm quite glad, that we aren't in that dilemma, because we haven't any for
sale. (I guess, if we had, we would decide either to remove it from sale
until science comes to a final decision or we would continue to price it at
the established low level of the old, extremely weathered E-chondrite).
Just my thoughts, no offense intended.
Best!
Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Philippe
Thomas
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 10:21
An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Wichtigkeit: Hoch
Dear Greg and all,
It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience
often these remain sterile and my level of English does not allow me to make
me understood completely.
Here is that I have to say as comment of this meteorite:
First, all the Moroccan having a relationship with the business of
meteorites know Al Haggounia's strewnfield (Western Sahara not Algeria) for
a long time before that you and I let us be
dealers of meteorites. At this time, nobody was certain that he can involve
a meteorite, the knowledge of Moroccan were not the one from now and it is
necessary to say that first sight
has it is not evident to recognize a meteorite in this material. The first
analyzed pieces and declared numbers were classified EL6, E6 and the first
one which has been classified as an
aubrite was the NWA 2736.
This classification launched a new rush on Al Haggounia, and hundreds of
kilos of this material met itself has Erfoud.
In April, 2006, when I met my Moroccan partner in Erfoud, he showed me
several hundreds of kilos of this material in bags which had just arrived
from Western Sahara. In these hundreds
of kilos, I chose carefully several kilos of all the representative parts of
this meteorite to give them later to Albert Jambon. As well as Fred Beroud,
Ali Hmani and Ait Ouzrou, who agreed
to make a common declaration rather than multiply the numbers NWA, supplied
a big quantity of material to Albert Jambon.
I think that Albert Jambon is the most qualified person to describe this
meteorite. Before subjecting his declaration he went up an expedition to go
on the spot in association with the
other French and Moroccan scientists. The strewnfield as described by Albert
Jambon and others scientists who participated in the expedition is a classic
strewnfield, an ellipse 40 km
long with the also classic distribution of the big and small pieces. On the
strewnfield the geologists make the dating of the ground and all the
analyses
[meteorite-list] AD - Ebay Auctions ending
Good Morning All I have auctions ending tonight, ebay ID catchafallingstar.com. Most started just at 99 Cents!!! Planetaries, Bassikounou, Oum Dreyga, etc. http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZcatchafallingstar.com Great Gift ideas include: Gibeon Watch: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200175815136 Gibeon CUBE" http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200175817589 Gibeon Pendant: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200175818417 Thanks for looking Jim Strope 421 Fourth Street Glen Dale, WV 26038 http://www.catchafallingstar.com __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Dear Greg and all, It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience often these remain sterile and my level of English does not allow me to make me understood completely. Here is that I have to say as comment of this meteorite: First, all the Moroccan having a relationship with the business of meteorites know Al Haggounia's strewnfield (Western Sahara not Algeria) for a long time before that you and I let us be dealers of meteorites. At this time, nobody was certain that he can involve a meteorite, the knowledge of Moroccan were not the one from now and it is necessary to say that first sight has it is not evident to recognize a meteorite in this material. The first analyzed pieces and declared numbers were classified EL6, E6 and the first one which has been classified as an aubrite was the NWA 2736. This classification launched a new rush on Al Haggounia, and hundreds of kilos of this material met itself has Erfoud. In April, 2006, when I met my Moroccan partner in Erfoud, he showed me several hundreds of kilos of this material in bags which had just arrived from Western Sahara. In these hundreds of kilos, I chose carefully several kilos of all the representative parts of this meteorite to give them later to Albert Jambon. As well as Fred Beroud, Ali Hmani and Ait Ouzrou, who agreed to make a common declaration rather than multiply the numbers NWA, supplied a big quantity of material to Albert Jambon. I think that Albert Jambon is the most qualified person to describe this meteorite. Before subjecting his declaration he went up an expedition to go on the spot in association with the other French and Moroccan scientists. The strewnfield as described by Albert Jambon and others scientists who participated in the expedition is a classic strewnfield, an ellipse 40 km long with the also classic distribution of the big and small pieces. On the strewnfield the geologists make the dating of the ground and all the analyses to describe the strewnfield. They found themselves several pieces of this meteorite. In Laayoune, Albert Jambon also saw several hundreds of kilos of this meteorite with Moroccan involved in the search on the strewnfield. What gives approximately 3 tons for this meteorite if we add the various pairings. There is no doubt, and I believe that everybody agrees, that all this material NWA and Al Haggounia 001 with different results of analysis is the same. It was classified EL6, E6, aubrite, EL6 / 7, EL3... Three different laboratories have classified this meteorite as an aubrite. For the owners of a part of this meteorite which supplied the typical sample has a scientist so that he made the analysis, there is no reason for not believing the scientist in question whom he has to trust in the quality of his work it is a question of respect. In this case, in which we are certain that it is about the same meteorite, the various classifications raise naturally a problem. The important weathering of this meteorite explains maybe the difficulty of the determination. To end, I think that no dealer can grant himself the right to say such analysis is the good and such the other one is false and there is no reason to say that the good analysis is EL3. Best wishes, Philippe http://www.meteoritica.com/ Dear Frederic, Matteo and List Members, "Al Haggounia 001"(NWA 4420), NWA 2828 and the other Fossil EL3's are NOT, I repeat, NOT aubrites. I wish they were, I have many, many kilos of NWA 2828. At first when just the type sample was tested, it came back as an aubrite, no chondrules were found. After cutting more of the NWA 2828 material I had, I began to find these funny round things and I thought, "Oh no, these are chondrules, this can not be an aubrite". I then sent more sample material in to have tested and sure enough, they WERE chondrules. Unfortunately I had not cut the material for sale until the classification and abstract were approved. After the chondrules were found and confirmed by several US scientists, a revised classification and abstract were submitted. The abstract was approved, see here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.P51E1247K but the NWA 2828 classification was not changed by the Meteoritical Society in the bulletin (not sure why this is, any one out there who can address this?). The classifying scientist who studied NWA 4420 "Al Haggounia", Dr. Jambon, refused scientific data supporting the EL3 classification from the US scientists and classified the sample he had as an aubrite. This material IS THE SAME AS NWA 2828, the now infamous EL3 Fossil (Paleo) meteorite! I do not know if "Al Haggnounia" is trying to be wished into being an aubrite, but IT IS NOT!!! Those who have sent Dr. Jambon sample material need to send him and other scientists more samples that show the true makeup of this meteorite. In other words, send samples with those funny round things so the classificat
[meteorite-list] BIG VENUS NEWS
Hi, List, ESA had a big (press) conference to release the first findings of the Venus Express spacecraft. There will be nine papers by principal investigators in "Nature," next issue. So all the science reporters were there, of course, to get the inside story. The spacecraft detected "whistlers." Whistlers are sharp, short, frequency decreasing bursts of low frequency radio waves. You can detect whistlers on Earth by connecting an old-fashioned quarter-mile wire antenna to a stereo set, as the radio waves are in the audio frequencies! They are caused by lightning. Earlier indications of lightning on Venus have always been dismissed as "mistaken" but it appears we were mistaken about being mistaken. The second big story is the confirmation of the old Pioneer probe's detection of a high ratio of deuterium-to-hydrogen in the atmosphere of Venus. Well, that's only the small end of the big news. The big end of the big news is that the D-to-H ratio of the UPPER atmosphere is 2.5 times greater than it is in the lower atmosphere. Well, you say, scratching your head, so what? It means that water loss from Venus is going on right now, not a few billion years ago or just one billion years ago. No, Venus is losing water right now. The deuterium is heavier than hydrogen; when water is split and stripped from the top of the atmosphere by the solar wind, more deuterium remains than hydrogen. The fact that there is a higher D-to-H ratio up top means that the water loss is both very active and on-going, that Venus is still bleeding water, that the water loss did NOT begin anciently, but recently (cosmically speaking, say 400 or 500 million years, or even more recently). The reporters had heavy going trying to figure this out, quite possibly because the Venus "specialists" are also having heavy going trying to figure all this out, mostly because reality is doing such a poor job of matching theory. They were disapproving of these unruly facts. Example: whistlers, yes, but not from lightning. From what? It's a mystery. There isn't one press account I can paste in here to sum it all up, since every press account varies according to which "expert" was being interviewed. So, here's the major news stories, with a scorecard... Space.com believes the lightning but doubts the water: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071128-venus-express.html The NY Times doubts the lightning, believes the water, but doesn't know what it's all about: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/science/space/29venus.html?ref=space The Independent believes in more lightning, thinks the lack of a magnetic field caused the loss of water, not global warming: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3204073.ece The AFP says Venus was "doomed by global warming!" http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFOc6GAb7TDdajJhw-5xwwcfFZRA The Houston Chronicle thinks Venus was "just too close to the Sun" http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5337291.html (The last time I was in Houston, I flew into Hobby at 7pm and it was 107 F. in the shade, and there was no shade as all the leaves had died and dropped off from the heat. This is a "natural" theory for a Houston paper, I think.) Sterling K. Webb __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
