Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Pairing Discussions
Hi John, NWA 4024 is indeed a nice example of the discrepancy between Met. Bull. data and the amount of stuff circulating on the market. This is perfectly illustrated if you compare the Met. Bull. write up regarding NWA 4024 an look at the photos included at the end of the same report. There are some 15 pieces illustrated, coming from various sources. Although weights are not mentioned, a rough evaluation of the volume of the pieces (comparison with the scale cubes) leads to evaluate that the total weight of the illustrated pieces should largely overstep 100 g, probably more. Not mentioning that the pieces pictured probably represent only a small fraction of what is really available as 'NWA 4024 in collections. I have in collection a 4.43 g end section (got from Hanno Strufe). But my own write up states that Mike Farmer reported at the time (2006) that the tkw was at least 745 grams. He explicitly explained this discrepancy by the following argumentive comment: first piece sold, more pieces come out, which is, as we know, not really a surprise. Nothing is mentioned officially about pairings and I don't know whether this meteorite is also being sold under another NWA N° but I guess the pics in the Met. Bull. suggest that all the 15 pieces were called NWA 4024. The tkw of a meteorite is indeed rarely updated officially (by the Nom Com and thus reported in the Met. Bulls.) probably because nobody writes them to update the old tkw. I agree that the Nom Com should not be blamed for that. As a typical example (among many others) the official tkw reported in Met. Bull. for Chiang Khan is still 367 grams, while everybody now agrees that it is of several kg. When helping Mike Jensen to update the 2008 edition of Meteorites from A to Z, I reported him several such examples and, in some obvious cases, the actual tkw was updated (with, as reference: numerous sources including internet, personal communications and professional experience. Needless to say that this updating is not official because not (yet ?) agreed by the Nom. Com. For the cited example of Chiang Khan, we agreed to the put, as tkw, 7...@7.0+ kg, which is more realistic regarding the present market, although not official as I agree only the Met. Bull. (Nom. Com.) should act as official reference. There is some pertinent work needed here and I am convinced many of us from the List and elsewhere can help in trying to provide more correct figures to the Nom. Com. Zelimir At 04:38 19/01/2010, John.L.Cabassi wrote: G'Day List This has been a very interesting read. Quite some time ago, I brought up the question about NWA 4024, which apparently on the card that accompanied it and the Met Bull stated a TKW of 38.1g. But there's definitely alot more out there ??? Is there pairing going on here? http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?sea=nwasfor=namesants=falls =valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecat eg=Winonaitesmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=0pnt=Normaltablecode=34296 And now for another, I purchased this off of Tom some time back. NWA 231, the met bull lists is as being provisional, it has yet to be classified. The main mass was 1054g. What I have is 1048g, 6 grams are missing; I think due to polishing a window. But I confirmed with Michael C. and it was confirmed. The label on the rock states NWA 231 so everything checks out. But it's yet to be classified. I have not found the time to go ahead with this, but I was curious that NWA numbers were handed out prior to being classified. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?sea=nwa+231sfor=namesants=f alls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=name categ=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=0pnt=Normaltablecode=31470 Any thoughts? Cheers John IMCA # 2125 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC, 3, Rue A. Werner, F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94 Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Pairing Discussions
Hello Zelimir This is perfectly illustrated if you compare the Met. Bull. write up regarding NWA 4024 an look at the photos included at the end of the same report. There are some 15 pieces illustrated, coming from various sources. Although weights are not mentioned, a rough evaluation of the volume of the pieces (comparison with the scale cubes) leads to evaluate that the total weight of the illustrated pieces should largely overstep 100 g, probably more. The total weight of the pieces from the EoM are 39.565g ... Regards André __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Pairing Discussions
Hello John, Zelimir, All, I've held samples of both; NWA 4024 is indistinguishable from NWA 2680. http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/AZ_Skies_Links/NWA_2680/index.html http://www.meteoriteguy.com/catalog/nwa4024.htm It was likely misidentified the second time around because the sample sent in for analysis was too small for an accurate study - or perhaps the person who performed the analysis simply wasn't expecting an iron. Either way, it's funny - an analysis based solely on the study of a clast that comprises at most ~30-40% of the total volume of the meteorite...I've never seen that done before. It's a IAB with silicate inclusions - a pretty one, but an example that's not crazily different from a few already-known irons. Oh, and it has winonaite-type silicate inclusions. Just like Campo del Cielo and many other IAB's...it's pretty typical in that respect. We purchased a ~40g individual as a new iron in Tucson three or four years ago; there were hundreds of small individuals of this iron available at the time, totaling at least several kilograms (most weighed only a few grams; Dean Bessey sold some of them on ebay later that year, again, misidentified, and mixed with small mesosiderite fragments). In Tucson they were being sold as Zagora; we were surprised to find a very fine pattern after we removed an end from ours for analysis. Based on what I have seen personally, I would estimate the TKW of the find to be at least ten kilograms, but knowing NWA, there could be (and likely is) much, much more. Regards, Jason On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Zelimir Gabelica zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr wrote: Hi John, NWA 4024 is indeed a nice example of the discrepancy between Met. Bull. data and the amount of stuff circulating on the market. This is perfectly illustrated if you compare the Met. Bull. write up regarding NWA 4024 an look at the photos included at the end of the same report. There are some 15 pieces illustrated, coming from various sources. Although weights are not mentioned, a rough evaluation of the volume of the pieces (comparison with the scale cubes) leads to evaluate that the total weight of the illustrated pieces should largely overstep 100 g, probably more. Not mentioning that the pieces pictured probably represent only a small fraction of what is really available as 'NWA 4024 in collections. I have in collection a 4.43 g end section (got from Hanno Strufe). But my own write up states that Mike Farmer reported at the time (2006) that the tkw was at least 745 grams. He explicitly explained this discrepancy by the following argumentive comment: first piece sold, more pieces come out, which is, as we know, not really a surprise. Nothing is mentioned officially about pairings and I don't know whether this meteorite is also being sold under another NWA N° but I guess the pics in the Met. Bull. suggest that all the 15 pieces were called NWA 4024. The tkw of a meteorite is indeed rarely updated officially (by the Nom Com and thus reported in the Met. Bulls.) probably because nobody writes them to update the old tkw. I agree that the Nom Com should not be blamed for that. As a typical example (among many others) the official tkw reported in Met. Bull. for Chiang Khan is still 367 grams, while everybody now agrees that it is of several kg. When helping Mike Jensen to update the 2008 edition of Meteorites from A to Z, I reported him several such examples and, in some obvious cases, the actual tkw was updated (with, as reference: numerous sources including internet, personal communications and professional experience. Needless to say that this updating is not official because not (yet ?) agreed by the Nom. Com. For the cited example of Chiang Khan, we agreed to the put, as tkw, 7...@7.0+ kg, which is more realistic regarding the present market, although not official as I agree only the Met. Bull. (Nom. Com.) should act as official reference. There is some pertinent work needed here and I am convinced many of us from the List and elsewhere can help in trying to provide more correct figures to the Nom. Com. Zelimir At 04:38 19/01/2010, John.L.Cabassi wrote: G'Day List This has been a very interesting read. Quite some time ago, I brought up the question about NWA 4024, which apparently on the card that accompanied it and the Met Bull stated a TKW of 38.1g. But there's definitely alot more out there ??? Is there pairing going on here? http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?sea=nwasfor=namesants=falls =valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecat eg=Winonaitesmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=0pnt=Normaltablecode=34296 And now for another, I purchased this off of Tom some time back. NWA 231, the met bull lists is as being provisional, it has yet to be classified. The main mass was 1054g. What I have is 1048g, 6 grams are missing; I think due to polishing a window. But I confirmed with Michael C. and it was confirmed.
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at 10x the frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. Jeff -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.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 - January 19, 2010
http://www.rocksfromspace.org/January_19_2010.html __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NWA 4024/2680
Hi Jason, Excellent link for NWA 4024 compared to 2680 (Birdsell). From what I just can discern, I am convinced 2680 is exactly the same material as 4024. See, as comparison, the pics of both meteorites added at the end of their respective Met. Bull reports (although NWA 2680 is still provisional, there are pics attached). In particular Mirko Graul provided pics of both. Here they are, for comparison: NWA 2680: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5645813 and NWA 4024: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5645817 Very similar slices, almost same pattern (look at details!) My modest suggestion: Owing to the fact that NWA 2680 is still provisional, why not suggesting to this specific classification working team (Zolensky al ?) to conclude (after a thorough re-examination) that both meteorites are the same and thus also consider to maintain only one NWA number, thus that NWA 2680 is identical to NWA 4024 (that should have priority because first classified)? But here the question is perhaps even more complicated because NWA 4024 is said to be a winonaite, while it now appears obvious that only one (or a few) achondritic clast(s) were analyzed in it, not the (major ?) iron found all around (that is IAB ungr.). It would then be wise to fully re-analyze both materials (ideally by the same team) and conclude. If there rises evidence that both are the same, then I guess there should come an agreement for a common type and name ? Sorry, I am not in the Nom Com nor I know how they would proceed in such a case, so perhaps my suggestion is very naive. I therefore expect more comments from Nom Com experts and am ready to humbly accept their conclusions whatever they be. This is here only one typical example of something that could still be done, because NWA 2680 is not yet official. There are probably other such favorable examples. Solving them, even if progressively, will push the pairing problem one step forward, though it is obvious, as Jeff pointed out, that this pairing problem is really very difficult (I'd say impossible) to solve completely. Zelimir At 12:56 19/01/2010, Jason Utas wrote: Hello John, Zelimir, All, I've held samples of both; NWA 4024 is indistinguishable from NWA 2680. http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/AZ_Skies_Links/NWA_2680/index.html http://www.meteoriteguy.com/catalog/nwa4024.htm It was likely misidentified the second time around because the sample sent in for analysis was too small for an accurate study - or perhaps the person who performed the analysis simply wasn't expecting an iron. Either way, it's funny - an analysis based solely on the study of a clast that comprises at most ~30-40% of the total volume of the meteorite...I've never seen that done before. It's a IAB with silicate inclusions - a pretty one, but an example that's not crazily different from a few already-known irons. Oh, and it has winonaite-type silicate inclusions. Just like Campo del Cielo and many other IAB's...it's pretty typical in that respect. We purchased a ~40g individual as a new iron in Tucson three or four years ago; there were hundreds of small individuals of this iron available at the time, totaling at least several kilograms (most weighed only a few grams; Dean Bessey sold some of them on ebay later that year, again, misidentified, and mixed with small mesosiderite fragments). In Tucson they were being sold as Zagora; we were surprised to find a very fine pattern after we removed an end from ours for analysis. Based on what I have seen personally, I would estimate the TKW of the find to be at least ten kilograms, but knowing NWA, there could be (and likely is) much, much more. Regards, Jason On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Zelimir Gabelica zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr wrote: Hi John, NWA 4024 is indeed a nice example of the discrepancy between Met. Bull. data and the amount of stuff circulating on the market. This is perfectly illustrated if you compare the Met. Bull. write up regarding NWA 4024 an look at the photos included at the end of the same report. There are some 15 pieces illustrated, coming from various sources. Although weights are not mentioned, a rough evaluation of the volume of the pieces (comparison with the scale cubes) leads to evaluate that the total weight of the illustrated pieces should largely overstep 100 g, probably more. Not mentioning that the pieces pictured probably represent only a small fraction of what is really available as 'NWA 4024 in collections. I have in collection a 4.43 g end section (got from Hanno Strufe). But my own write up states that Mike Farmer reported at the time (2006) that the tkw was at least 745 grams. He explicitly explained this discrepancy by the following argumentive comment: first piece sold, more pieces come out, which is, as we know, not really a surprise. Nothing is mentioned officially about pairings and I don't know
Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 4024/2680
Hi You can add to this also my number NWA 5980. Its paired to 4024 TKW 298g -[ MARCIN CIMALA ]-[ I.M.C.A.#3667 ]- http://www.Meteoryty.pl marcin(at)meteoryty.pl http://www.PolandMET.com marcin(at)polandmet.com http://www.Gao-Guenie.com GSM: +48 (793) 567667 [ Member of Polish Meteoritical Society ] Hi Jason, Excellent link for NWA 4024 compared to 2680 (Birdsell). From what I just can discern, I am convinced 2680 is exactly the same material as 4024. See, as comparison, the pics of both meteorites added at the end of their respective Met. Bull reports (although NWA 2680 is still provisional, there are pics attached). In particular Mirko Graul provided pics of both. Here they are, for comparison: NWA 2680: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5645813 and NWA 4024: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5645817 Very similar slices, almost same pattern (look at details!) My modest suggestion: Owing to the fact that NWA 2680 is still provisional, why not suggesting to this specific classification working team (Zolensky al ?) to conclude (after a thorough re-examination) that both meteorites are the same and thus also consider to maintain only one NWA number, thus that NWA 2680 is identical to NWA 4024 (that should have priority because first classified)? But here the question is perhaps even more complicated because NWA 4024 is said to be a winonaite, while it now appears obvious that only one (or a few) achondritic clast(s) were analyzed in it, not the (major ?) iron found all around (that is IAB ungr.). It would then be wise to fully re-analyze both materials (ideally by the same team) and conclude. If there rises evidence that both are the same, then I guess there should come an agreement for a common type and name ? Sorry, I am not in the Nom Com nor I know how they would proceed in such a case, so perhaps my suggestion is very naive. I therefore expect more comments from Nom Com experts and am ready to humbly accept their conclusions whatever they be. This is here only one typical example of something that could still be done, because NWA 2680 is not yet official. There are probably other such favorable examples. Solving them, even if progressively, will push the pairing problem one step forward, though it is obvious, as Jeff pointed out, that this pairing problem is really very difficult (I'd say impossible) to solve completely. Zelimir At 12:56 19/01/2010, Jason Utas wrote: Hello John, Zelimir, All, I've held samples of both; NWA 4024 is indistinguishable from NWA 2680. http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/AZ_Skies_Links/NWA_2680/index.html http://www.meteoriteguy.com/catalog/nwa4024.htm It was likely misidentified the second time around because the sample sent in for analysis was too small for an accurate study - or perhaps the person who performed the analysis simply wasn't expecting an iron. Either way, it's funny - an analysis based solely on the study of a clast that comprises at most ~30-40% of the total volume of the meteorite...I've never seen that done before. It's a IAB with silicate inclusions - a pretty one, but an example that's not crazily different from a few already-known irons. Oh, and it has winonaite-type silicate inclusions. Just like Campo del Cielo and many other IAB's...it's pretty typical in that respect. We purchased a ~40g individual as a new iron in Tucson three or four years ago; there were hundreds of small individuals of this iron available at the time, totaling at least several kilograms (most weighed only a few grams; Dean Bessey sold some of them on ebay later that year, again, misidentified, and mixed with small mesosiderite fragments). In Tucson they were being sold as Zagora; we were surprised to find a very fine pattern after we removed an end from ours for analysis. Based on what I have seen personally, I would estimate the TKW of the find to be at least ten kilograms, but knowing NWA, there could be (and likely is) much, much more. Regards, Jason On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Zelimir Gabelica zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr wrote: Hi John, NWA 4024 is indeed a nice example of the discrepancy between Met. Bull. data and the amount of stuff circulating on the market. This is perfectly illustrated if you compare the Met. Bull. write up regarding NWA 4024 an look at the photos included at the end of the same report. There are some 15 pieces illustrated, coming from various sources. Although weights are not mentioned, a rough evaluation of the volume of the pieces (comparison with the scale cubes) leads to evaluate that the total weight of the illustrated pieces should largely overstep 100 g, probably more. Not mentioning that the pieces pictured probably represent only a small fraction of what is really available as 'NWA 4024 in collections. I have in collection a 4.43 g end section (got from Hanno
Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 4024/2680
Hi Marcin and List, oh NWA 5980 is your number of this same material? What was the result of classification? Winonaite or silic. iron? I agree absolutly with Jason and Zelimir. Also for me the material is the same. And NWA 2680 are prefered for me. Many greetings to all, Mirko (sorry for my bad english) Mirko Graul Meteorite Quittenring.4 16321 Bernau GERMANY Phone: 0049-1724105015 E-Mail: m_gr...@yahoo.de WEB: www.meteorite-mirko.de Member of The Meteoritical Society (International Society for Meteoritics and Planetery Science) IMCA-Member: 2113 (International Meteorite Collectors Association) --- Marcin Cimala mar...@meteoryt.net schrieb am Di, 19.1.2010: Von: Marcin Cimala mar...@meteoryt.net Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 4024/2680 An: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Datum: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010, 16:01 Hi You can add to this also my number NWA 5980. Its paired to 4024 TKW 298g -[ MARCIN CIMALA ]-[ I.M.C.A.#3667 ]- http://www.Meteoryty.pl marcin(at)meteoryty.pl http://www.PolandMET.com marcin(at)polandmet.com http://www.Gao-Guenie.com GSM: +48 (793) 567667 [ Member of Polish Meteoritical Society ] Hi Jason, Excellent link for NWA 4024 compared to 2680 (Birdsell). From what I just can discern, I am convinced 2680 is exactly the same material as 4024. See, as comparison, the pics of both meteorites added at the end of their respective Met. Bull reports (although NWA 2680 is still provisional, there are pics attached). In particular Mirko Graul provided pics of both. Here they are, for comparison: NWA 2680: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5645813 and NWA 4024: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5645817 Very similar slices, almost same pattern (look at details!) My modest suggestion: Owing to the fact that NWA 2680 is still provisional, why not suggesting to this specific classification working team (Zolensky al ?) to conclude (after a thorough re-examination) that both meteorites are the same and thus also consider to maintain only one NWA number, thus that NWA 2680 is identical to NWA 4024 (that should have priority because first classified)? But here the question is perhaps even more complicated because NWA 4024 is said to be a winonaite, while it now appears obvious that only one (or a few) achondritic clast(s) were analyzed in it, not the (major ?) iron found all around (that is IAB ungr.). It would then be wise to fully re-analyze both materials (ideally by the same team) and conclude. If there rises evidence that both are the same, then I guess there should come an agreement for a common type and name ? Sorry, I am not in the Nom Com nor I know how they would proceed in such a case, so perhaps my suggestion is very naive. I therefore expect more comments from Nom Com experts and am ready to humbly accept their conclusions whatever they be. This is here only one typical example of something that could still be done, because NWA 2680 is not yet official. There are probably other such favorable examples. Solving them, even if progressively, will push the pairing problem one step forward, though it is obvious, as Jeff pointed out, that this pairing problem is really very difficult (I'd say impossible) to solve completely. Zelimir At 12:56 19/01/2010, Jason Utas wrote: Hello John, Zelimir, All, I've held samples of both; NWA 4024 is indistinguishable from NWA 2680. http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/AZ_Skies_Links/NWA_2680/index.html http://www.meteoriteguy.com/catalog/nwa4024.htm It was likely misidentified the second time around because the sample sent in for analysis was too small for an accurate study - or perhaps the person who performed the analysis simply wasn't expecting an iron. Either way, it's funny - an analysis based solely on the study of a clast that comprises at most ~30-40% of the total volume of the meteorite...I've never seen that done before. It's a IAB with silicate inclusions - a pretty one, but an example that's not crazily different from a few already-known irons. Oh, and it has winonaite-type silicate inclusions. Just like Campo del Cielo and many other IAB's...it's pretty typical in that respect. We purchased a ~40g individual as a new iron in Tucson three or four years ago; there were hundreds of small individuals of this iron available at the time, totaling at least several kilograms (most weighed only a few grams; Dean Bessey sold some of them on ebay later that year, again, misidentified, and mixed with small mesosiderite fragments). In Tucson they were being sold as Zagora; we were surprised to find a very fine pattern after we removed an end from ours for analysis. Based on what I have seen personally, I
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Jeff - your statement from below Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But, the number of samples doesn't really matter. The number of scientific publications 10X means little in terms of scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if you consider the following: 1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.). 2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose support for future Expeditions. 3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are extremely biased against dirty desert meteorites and will not let them in the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study - a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind. 4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites, not Desert specimens. 5) More and more research papers deal with both Desert and Antarctic samples and that tact is becoming more prevalent with time as bias diminishes and the reality of desert significance enters the mind set. I don't know how you factor that into the numbers game. 6) A shot at more valuable scientifically - if not for the valuable lunar samples collected from the deserts, we would know much less about the Moon - see the Korotev web site on Lunars. And, and we know a Hell of a lot more about Mars from Desert Martians - See Irving web site on Martians. Bottom line - geography has little to do with a meteorite's significance. As a colleague of mine said A meteorite doesn't care where it lands. Regards, Ted On 1/19/10 5:46 AM, Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov wrote: Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at 10x the frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. Jeff __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
I can now report with some authority that the total cost of 30+ years of collecting by ANSMET has been in the range of $20 million. Considering the record of scientific achievements that has been built on this collection of 20,000 specimens, I would have to say it has been a bargain. Jeff Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at 10x the frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. Jeff Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 4024/2680
Hi Marcin and List, oh NWA 5980 is your number of this same material? What was the result of classification? I was not sure what it is. I hoped its something similar to Udei Station but then I have seen same material in Ensisheim (it was propably NWA4024). I was surprized that its winonaite. But lab results confirmed this. -[ MARCIN CIMALA ]-[ I.M.C.A.#3667 ]- http://www.Meteoryty.pl marcin(at)meteoryty.pl http://www.PolandMET.com marcin(at)polandmet.com http://www.Gao-Guenie.com GSM: +48 (793) 567667 [ Member of Polish Meteoritical Society ] __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Thank you, Ted for pointing out that a meteorite doesn't care where it lands. I noticed that this bias concerning Antarctic versus NWA finds is disappearing with the current generation of scientists. Years ago at the LPSC in Houston, about one and ten papers concerning planetary meteorites mentioned NWA. The last time I went to this conference, over half the papers that dealt with planetary meteorites included NWA specimens. When talking to the up and coming planetary scientists, I observed that they were equally enthusiastic about specimens and have not developed any bias whatsoever. I have seen both Antarctic and NWA specimens and I am equally impressed with both. I saw a freezer and a nitrogen filled case full of Antarctic specimens at the Antarctic Laboratory when I visited it a couple of years ago. I failed to see a difference other than the the Antarctic pieces were treated much better in the handling and preservation department. I observed heavy weathering on most of the pieces but they were preserved in the same manner as the few fresh pieces I saw. They just weathered differently then the NWA material with a lot of evaporates and salt clinging to them. NWA material, on the other hand, develops caliche deposits and really weathered examples tend to crack or fragment. In my opinion, both locations are equally capable of producing fresh and desirable specimens. Best Regards, Adam - Original Message From: Ted Bunch tbe...@cableone.net To: Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov; Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 7:54:23 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions Jeff - your statement from below Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But, the number of samples doesn't really matter. The number of scientific publications 10X means little in terms of scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if you consider the following: 1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.). 2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose support for future Expeditions. 3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are extremely biased against dirty desert meteorites and will not let them in the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study - a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind. 4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites, not Desert specimens. 5) More and more research papers deal with both Desert and Antarctic samples and that tact is becoming more prevalent with time as bias diminishes and the reality of desert significance enters the mind set. I don't know how you factor that into the numbers game. 6) A shot at more valuable scientifically - if not for the valuable lunar samples collected from the deserts, we would know much less about the Moon - see the Korotev web site on Lunars. And, and we know a Hell of a lot more about Mars from Desert Martians - See Irving web site on Martians. Bottom line - geography has little to do with a meteorite's significance. As a colleague of mine said A meteorite doesn't care where it lands. Regards, Ted On 1/19/10 5:46 AM, Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov wrote: Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects
Re: [meteorite-list] Impact on Value Being Unclassified
So many sell material that is self paired its not funny. It comes down to WHO is selling it in my opinion as to how much fuss is raised. How many of the NWA martians are out there with solid documentation as to actual scientific pairing? about 20% maybe, if that much? In my opinion an NWA martian is just as valuable as NWA pick your number. I have never purchased a meteorite with actual testing information, so by the opinion of some, its not official as not documentation came with it. I think more dealers need to get the people testing to provide them with actual paperwork to go with the material. For putting out 20% they should provide more. Even if its only from type sample testing, more documentation is better then an ID card on BC paper. Greg C. --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Greg Stanley stanleygr...@hotmail.com wrote: From: Greg Stanley stanleygr...@hotmail.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Impact on Value Being Unclassified To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 12:06 PM List: This brings up a question: If a meteorite in unclassified, how does it affect the value? I would think considerably, as most collectors desire documentation for their pieces, as any collector does. However, others may not care if they can get (a martian or lunar) for less money; but with higher risk. I would think that most dealers would want to get everything classified, as they could get more money. I can certainly understand that the nomads want to keep their locations secret, but the dealer should still get the finds classified, and find out if certain pieces were found together. I think over time, the unclassified stones will lose value, while the classified stones will increase in value. I think it's a shame that so many stones get unclassified, it's like have old paintings or works of are unsigned. Just my Thoughts, Greg S. _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Testing Documentation - NWA 5799 Documentation
This is what I am able to get from the person that does my testing - It is the Documentation for NWA 5799 - A very nice, but ordinary LL4 http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/jedisdiamond/NWA5799p1.jpg http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/jedisdiamond/NWA5799p2.jpg http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/jedisdiamond/NWA5799p3.jpg http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/jedisdiamond/NWA5799p4.jpg While I know this is not the norm, I ask why not? Why can I get this, but none of the people with all these well known contacts cant? How hard would it be to provide some testing information to the person submitting the material? Why is this not mandatory? What is the cost of a few sheets of paper and a couple minutes to print it out? In my opinion, if it does not come with documentation like this, it is not as valuable as it could be. Sure it may not be spot on exact as to the sample sold, but its far better then any ID card. I know I have brought this up before, but from some comments about pairing and testing, this again seems a good time to bring it up again... To all dealers/Testers out there, why not offer more? Cost is nothing compared to added value the paperwork adds. Make copies and include it with the material... add the extra 30 cent it may cost to do if your profit margins are not good... In my opinion, this is real documentation, something I have never got from anyone I have ever bought from. The bottom line is, If I can get this, for an LL Chondrite, Why cant you guys get it? Why is this not the normal thing to do? Is it not better? Greg C. --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Greg Catterton star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Greg Catterton star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Impact on Value Being Unclassified To: Greg Stanley stanleygr...@hotmail.com Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 12:14 PM So many sell material that is self paired its not funny. It comes down to WHO is selling it in my opinion as to how much fuss is raised. How many of the NWA martians are out there with solid documentation as to actual scientific pairing? about 20% maybe, if that much? In my opinion an NWA martian is just as valuable as NWA pick your number. I have never purchased a meteorite with actual testing information, so by the opinion of some, its not official as not documentation came with it. I think more dealers need to get the people testing to provide them with actual paperwork to go with the material. For putting out 20% they should provide more. Even if its only from type sample testing, more documentation is better then an ID card on BC paper. Greg C. --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Greg Stanley stanleygr...@hotmail.com wrote: From: Greg Stanley stanleygr...@hotmail.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Impact on Value Being Unclassified To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 12:06 PM List: This brings up a question: If a meteorite in unclassified, how does it affect the value? I would think considerably, as most collectors desire documentation for their pieces, as any collector does. However, others may not care if they can get (a martian or lunar) for less money; but with higher risk. I would think that most dealers would want to get everything classified, as they could get more money. I can certainly understand that the nomads want to keep their locations secret, but the dealer should still get the finds classified, and find out if certain pieces were found together. I think over time, the unclassified stones will lose value, while the classified stones will increase in value. I think it's a shame that so many stones get unclassified, it's like have old paintings or works of are unsigned. Just my Thoughts, Greg S. _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
This is not about enthusiasm or generations of scientists. This is about specimen availability and curation. With extremely rare classes, like lunar meteorites, scientists do try to obtain every specimen they possibly can, and there has been a lot of work done on NWA meteorites. However, with virtually all other types of meteorites, this is not the case. For these, Antarctic meteorites receive much more attention because the samples are well-curated and easily available. As far as your and Ted's assertion that there is bias... You imply that workers are choosing one specimen over another simply because of where it comes from. I don't know of any scientist who would do that. People tend to work on the material to which they have access, and avoid making extra effort to purchase or search for other material unless that have to. The simple fact is that access to NWA samples is relatively poor. Many museums don't have large collections of NWAs (e.g., in the United States, the SI, AMNH, FMNH), the reasons for which are irrelevant to this discussion. Types specimens tend to be small even in institutions that have them. I am not alone, I am sure, in reporting that I have had serious difficulty getting research material for many hot-desert meteorites (including those from Oman and NWA), but nearly all my requests for Antarctic meteorites have been fulfilled. These are the reasons that NWAs are relatively understudied and, I would argue, less valuable to science in general. jeff On 2010-01-19 12:00 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: Thank you, Ted for pointing out that a meteorite doesn't care where it lands. I noticed that this bias concerning Antarctic versus NWA finds is disappearing with the current generation of scientists. Years ago at the LPSC in Houston, about one and ten papers concerning planetary meteorites mentioned NWA. The last time I went to this conference, over half the papers that dealt with planetary meteorites included NWA specimens. When talking to the up and coming planetary scientists, I observed that they were equally enthusiastic about specimens and have not developed any bias whatsoever. I have seen both Antarctic and NWA specimens and I am equally impressed with both. I saw a freezer and a nitrogen filled case full of Antarctic specimens at the Antarctic Laboratory when I visited it a couple of years ago. I failed to see a difference other than the the Antarctic pieces were treated much better in the handling and preservation department. I observed heavy weathering on most of the pieces but they were preserved in the same manner as the few fresh pieces I saw. They just weathered differently then the NWA material with a lot of evaporates and salt clinging to them. NWA material, on the other hand, develops caliche deposits and really weathered examples tend to crack or fragment. In my opinion, both locations are equally capable of producing fresh and desirable specimens. Best Regards, Adam - Original Message From: Ted Bunchtbe...@cableone.net To: Jeff Grossmanjgross...@usgs.gov; Meteorite-listmeteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 7:54:23 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions Jeff - your statement from below Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But, the number of samples doesn't really matter. The number of scientific publications 10X means little in terms of scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if you consider the following: 1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.). 2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose support for future Expeditions. 3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are extremely biased against dirty desert meteorites and will not let them in the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study - a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind. 4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites, not Desert specimens. 5) More and more research papers deal with both
[meteorite-list] Possible LL5 polymict Breccia for study/educational/testing use
Hi to all, I am doing more cutting on a 1086g complete stone. This is possibly an LL5 polymict breccia. I will have some small part slices and cutting debris that may be good for testing, study, or simply a type sample. It is from NWA. I would like to offer the first 10 people to reply some of this - no collectors, I would like this to go to places that can use them for study, research and educational use. If more then 10 want some, I may make more available, email me. I will offer part slices that would make good thin sections. Classification is being done on this by Ted Bunch, he is busy and had some equipment issues, so it may take time to get a number. No classification is needed however. Greg C. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Hi Jeff and List, I agree with most of what you stated in your last post although I believe there is a real bias among a very few scientists, and certainly a few museums. Access to planetary material , Angrites and other rare material from NWA is supposed to be a simple matter of contacting the repository. There has been many times, my brother and I have provided additional material beyond type specimen requirements in order to satisfy science. My brother has gone as far as allowing having a sizable core taken from a large Angrite individual at a great lose in commercial value. I donated more than twice the requirement for NWA 5000 and have given scientists access to the main mass. We do this because we recognize that science is the most important aspect in qualifying meteorites. Without it, they are fairly worthless. There are other collectors and dealers who have done the same when asked. For the most part, collectors and dealers would love to have their hot desert finds studied. Then there are a few who are stingy in regards to parting with samples. I totally disagree with the following statement: These are the reasons that NWAs are relatively understudied and, I would argue, less valuable to science in general. I believe the hot desert finds are every bit as important to science as the the Antarctic finds. Acceptance and access of hot desert finds has improved dramatically the last ten years. There are several surprises yet to come, from both Antarctic and NWA. To value one over the other is demonstrating a bias in my opinion. Best Regards, Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Hello Jeff, This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. Really? I was speaking about different meteorites. M.Lindstrom R.Score came to the the result, that the average number of Antarctic meteorites per pairing group is 5. M.Lindstrom, R.Score: Populations, Paring and Rare Meteorites in the U.S. Antarctic Meteorite Collection http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/ppr.cfm And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Not the U.S. - USA, Japan, China, Europe together. Antarctic is an expensive place to work and to live. You need special equipment, you have to transport everything there, you have to maintain the infrastructure, and like with any other program, you have the running costs for the personnel (salaries, social insurances, working place costs). The figures are scattered over the web. There you can read, only to give some examples, that one standard ANSMET team causes 800,000$ primary costs without secondary costs for 6 weeks on the ice - and that the whole Antarctic summer semester over would be hunted. Somewhere you will find, that the supply and the transport of fuels to maintain the McMurdo Station costed 70 millions $ in one year. And so on. Personnel costs too, remember EUROMET, who had basic costs for personnel without any expedition yet of 20 millions $ per year (they went also to Antarctica). Labs, tertiary costs - it will be all difficult to amount. (Would be interesting, if someone would do this once). Well and then think, that not only the U.S. are hunting there, but for a similar long time NIPR, then the few EUROMET trips, as well as China. Well and that for 33 years... will easily sum up to a total of far more than a billion. Personnel, equipment, insurances, pension plan, fuels, transportation, administration, These costs the public hasn't to pay, if they are buying NWAs. The Bulletins you know. Seen the tkws and the numbers from almost all rarest, rare and semi-rare types - it was meanwhile more found in NWA than in Antarctica. An unclassified averagely weathered kg NWA-OC delivered to your doorstep costs you around 30$. What does it cost to recover 1kg of an averagely weathered OC in Antarctica? How long does it take and what did it cost to find 19 different lunaites in Antarctica for USA, Japan, Europe and China together? 33 years. How long takes the same task in the private desert sector? 5 years. What does cost 1 1/4 kg of an classified R-Chondrite from NWA? 12,000$? In 33 years of Antarctic expeditions in total R-chondrites were found: 1 1/4kg. A scientist is accepted to take part in an ANSMET-hunt. He steps out of the door in sunny Arizona - will 12,000$ be enough to reach his final destination? Jeff, don't get me wrong please. It is not my intention to play the cold desert hunts off against the hot desert hunts. The Antarctic meteorite programs are wonderful, great, absolutely necessary and the expenses more than justified. But in my opinion it would also extremely stupid, if science would abstain from the NWA and Oman finds, and wouldn't work additionally on them. Because they are meanwhile even more manifold than the Antarctic finds, outweigh them by mass, and cost the public compared to the Antarctic finds virtually almost nothing at all. To set them aside would IMHO also not directly justifiable to the public, because, sorry to say that, but sometimes it is forgotten, ANSMET, NIPR, PRIC, ect. are paid with public tax-money. I'd say, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jeff Grossman Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 13:46 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at 10x the frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. Jeff -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US
[meteorite-list] TC3 2008 : 2 french and 1 belgian meteorite hunters imprisoned in Sudan
Hello, I just read an article about two french and one belgian tourists who were arrested two weeks ago in Sudan because of having in their possession samples of the TC3 2008 meteorite. You can read the article here : http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fafp%2Farticle%2FALeqM5h2LgyLBZP-1Nlc6tbDS4FhkwI_8wsl=frtl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 I don't know who they are ? Pierre-Marie Pele www.meteor-center.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Pairing Discussions-Still Looking for Answers
--- On Mon, 1/18/10, Thomas Webb webb...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Thomas Webb webb...@yahoo.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Pairing Discussions To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 9:04 PM List, Martin wrote-- - Even if you're absolutely sure, that one of your stones is paired to one or several existing NWA-numbers, you are not allowed in no case to use one of these numbers. I think I understand the reasoning behind what has been put forth in this discussion so far and abide with it in my own dealings, however, I must wonder why practically everyone on the list who deals in meteorites has not had their probably paired with NWA 869 stones classified with a new number rather than just listing them as NWA 869 even though they bought them as unclassified and probably paired with. Is there some hypocrisy here? Is it OK to make an eyeball pairing with 869 but not other NWA's? Does no one care on this one simply because there is so much of it, so the rule does not apply? Could it be that no one cares about getting a new number and classification if it's a meteorite that sells for pennies per gram, but if it sells for many dollars or hundreds of dollars per gram, then it becomes important? Is it OK to bend or break the rules in some cases but not others? Does greed ever enter into the equation? I've asked a lot of questions. I'm certain there's someone here who can give reasonable answers. My best, Thomas __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Jason, first of all, I do not justify anybody's action, second, I can't discuss based upon hear-say and rumours, for that the time of all of us, is too pity. If you deal accusations, you have to deliver facts (the list rules require that too). But you're merely downplaying the importance of information such as where they were found, etc, without even justifying it. You have excessive strewnfield mapping for Libya, partially for Oman too. The question of terrestrial weathering is one of the main occupation of the Suisse-Omani team. As you see, it can be done, totally independent from that what any private dealer, hunter or collector is doing. That it isn't done, you can't accuse the hunters of, as long as there is worldwide only a single public financed expedition team doing that job periodically in the desert (once per year, a very few people, for a very few weeks). Meteorite science is, like most forms of basic research, see astronomy, see physics, see spaceflight - a public task. But Oman's hardly giong to send police over to reclaim rocks Here the principle is decisive. A crime will stay a crime, when law tells it is a crime, no matter whether it is prosecuted or not. In the recent years, we see the fatal development, that in so many countries those people, who tapped these countries as new and most productive meteorite resources, those people, who found so far almost all meteorites there on their own risks and expenses and those people, who did the field work, the official side was not willing to do, to pay or failed with their efforts, those people, who found and delivered all these stones, which triggered that enormous boost in meteoritics and planetary science of the last 20 years, and that at a small fraction of the cost, science had spent to come to similar results respectively a society would have to spend - we see, that these people now are more and more criminalized or pushed in a gray area due to the introduction of restrictive meteorite laws. The aftermath is disastrous. If you had checked the catalogues of the public historic collections and the universities, you would know, that 80 or 90% of all (non-antarctic) meteorites stem directly or indirectly from private people. That is the reason, why we have all in all no new finds in Australia, that the find numbers totally broke down in Libya, that we don't have meteorites in Egypt, that NWA is going to an end and that we will have 90% or even less finds in Oman, if the laws there would be enforced. With the recovery of new falls - btw. touching your contamination argument, but also to seize the recommendation of the UNESCO meteorite working group, where it was consensus already in the 1960ies, that it is of crucial importance and that all shall be done, to recover the material as fast as possible after it fell - there with the new falls you have the very same. All in all not the scientists are recovering them or are going to search for them, but the private people. The current situation caused by those many new laws of the last 20-30 years and especially in our decade is unbearable and very harmful for the continuity of that branch of science. the place where a meteorite falls is irrelevant. I never suggested that. Maybe there's 100kg more of NWA 2737 out there, but we'll never know because that information is now lost Right. But righter, without hunters, dealers we wouldn't know at all, that there is a NWA 2737 ;-? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, is in German, The sparrow in the hand is better than the dove on the roof. ...but how shall I say, it is to a certain degree a luxury problem, if you'd concede to me a more general and perhaps more antiquated perspective. In 1981, when I acquired my first meteorite, there were all in all - non-antarctic: 1765 recognized meteorite finds And 935 recognized observed falls. From Ur and Nogata on. Now only 20 years later, we have, NEW and published, additionally and non-antarctic, we have more: More than 8000 new meteorite finds And 151 observed falls So. And the very very most of these finds and numbers were made by private dealers, hunters, collectors. That you have to recognize (as well as those have to register, who want to kick off the private sector). 1765 finds 3000 years before, 8000 finds in 20 years. Among this 8000 you find a lot of very well documented ones. You find among them more excellent documented finds, than all the meteorites in history together were documented before. There. That's what I call a performance. But you're merely downplaying the importance of information such as Innuendo. I say, we aren't living in a perfect world of elves and dwarves, I say - now you know the figures - that it is incredibly ridiculous to bemoan lacking find data of a part of these finds, because the number, the weights, the diversity, the low costs of these finds outweigh hundredfold the incomplete data. Strewnfield mapping, weathering studies -
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
High-grade, profound discussion apart from certain personal disagreements. There surely is more to it than what just meets the eye, regarding the bottom line. Keep on talking, guys. I am discovering valid arguments on both ends of the rope here, and can only hope that the discussion will be more refined as time goes on. This is not boring or unneeded at all - this is an overdue conversation which I (and others) are pleased to listen to, and may be, even interfere at a point. For the benefit not only of a hobby (P.S.: I am just a collector, and neither a dealer nor a meteorite scientist), but for an overall good development of the field of meteoritics from a broader perspective, and in historical context and continuity. Alex Berlin/Germany __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Pairing Discussions-Still Looking for Answers
Hi Thomas, All, You've brought up some good points. I had asked a similar question several months ago but got mostly silence. Based on what was mentioned earlier, only the stones that were originally collected and classified can be called NWA 869. So like what Thomas said, all others should have the designation of Probably paired with NWA 869 or NWA 869 paired. I'm sure there are more pairings but NWA 787/900 are the only ones I can find (see Jeff Kuykens' website): http://www.meteorites.com.au/nwa869/ But also, note NWA 869 is from a known strewnfield in the Tindouf, Algeria area. Maybe, like the Franconia strewnfield, dealers and collectors are relatively sure these are what they claim it is? See also what Eric Twelker says in his website: http://www.meteoritemarket.com/NWA869.htm Any thoughts anyone? Thomas and I would like to hear more from others on this. Carl Thomas wrote: I think I understand the reasoning behind what has been put forth in this discussion so far and abide with it in my own dealings, however, I must wonder why practically everyone on the list who deals in meteorites has not had their probably paired with NWA 869 stones classified with a new number rather than just listing them as NWA 869 even though they bought them as unclassified and probably paired with.? Is there some hypocrisy here?? Is it OK to make an eyeball pairing with 869 but not other NWA's?? Does no one care on this one simply because there is so much of it, so the rule does not apply?? Could it be that no one cares about getting a new number and classification if it's a meteorite that sells for pennies per gram, but if it sells for many dollars or hundreds of dollars per gram, then it becomes important?? ... _ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NatGeo Channel Ancient Asteroid
For those of you who have the National Geographic Channel, I just noticed that their program Ancient Asteroid, which is a program about Libyan Desert Glass and its origins, will be re-broadcast tonight. I see it will also be re-run again on Sunday and once more next Tuesday Here's the show's website. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/ancient-asteroid-2671/Overview -- Richard Kowalski http://fullmoonphotography.net IMCA #1081 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Lucky 13 Auctions Ending - AD
Dear List Members, In about 24 hours you will find 13 meteorite auctions of mine ending on eBay, all under seller name, NaturesVault. There will be 13 Lucky Winners this week of some pretty neat items! All can be found here, and as anticipated, many still at the 99-cent opening price: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault A couple Highlights: NWA 1877 Olivine Diogenite, this week's talk of the town as for Pairing Coat-Tailers to this Original Class! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350304898920ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT NWA 1879 Mesosiderite 60g Slice (Almost Out!) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350304899780ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT NWA 2828 Paleo EL3 (This is the one Al Haggounia is paired to, definitely NOT an Aubrite, but Cool all the same!!!) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350304900538ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT ...Angrites, Ungrouped, others...and then... NWA 4800 CK5 End Cut (LAST ONE!) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=170432073795ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT NWA 4930 'Paired' Martian Individual http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=170432074505ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT Bassikounou Individual w/ 100% Fusion Crust http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=170432076097ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT Muonionalusta 315g Complete Slice (LAST SLICE I HAVE!) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350304907608ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT I wish all of the bidders, Good Luck, and Thank You for checking out my auctions! Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) gmh...@htn.net www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Paper on chondrule formation and synthetic chondrules
Hi List, I thought some of you might enjoy this portion of a science paper on meteorite chondrules. It is part of a paper on microscopes posted in Molecular Expressions (An online microscope site) The first half of the paper is on microscopes so many of you will want to skip that part. Tom Phillips PHOTOMICROGRAPHY IN THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES Michael W. Davidson Institute of Molecular Biophysics Center for Materials Research and Technology (MARTECH) National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) Supercomputer Computations Research Institute (SCRI) Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Telephone: 850-644-0542 Fax: 850-644-8920 Gary E. Lofgren Planetary Materials Branch Solar System Exploration Division Code SN2 NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 Telephone: 713-483-6187 Fax: 713-483-2696 The whole article is at http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/publications/pages/journal.html Chondrules are small spheres (.1 to 10mm in diameter) which are the major constituent of chondritic meteorites. Chondrites are considered samples of primitive solar system materials. If we can understand how chondrules form, we will have an important clue to the early history of our solar system. Most chondrules have an igneous texture which forms by crystal growth (usually rapid) from a supercooled melt. Such textures are commonly described as porphyritic (large, equant crystals in a fine grained matrix), barred (dendrites comprised of parallel thin blades or plates), or radiating (sprays of fine fibers). The models proposed for formation of chondrules can be divided into two groups (McSween, 1977). In one group of models, chondrules form by melting and subsequent crystallization of preexisting, largely crystalline material from the solar nebula. The primary differences between these models are the kinds of materials which are melted and the nature of the sources of heat for the melting. In the other group of models, chondrules form by condensation of liquids from the solar nebula gas which then crystallize upon cooling. Variations between these models result from differences in the condensation sequence of the minerals and melts and the temperatures of nucleation. One means of testing models of chondrule formation is to determine the conditions necessary to duplicate these textures by experimentally crystallizing chondrule melts in the laboratory. Efforts to reproduce the textures of chondrules experimentally have been successful only when we began to understand the important role that heterogeneous nucleation plays in the development of igneous rock textures. Unless heterogeneous nuclei are present in the chondrule melt, porphyritic textures will not be produced. The dendritic or radiating textures will form instead. The treatment of heterogeneous nucleation follows the model developed by Turnbull (1950) to explain many of the characteristics of heterogeneous nucleation. This model was applied to heterogeneous nucleation in basaltic systems by Lofgren (1983). Simply stated, the model says that in any steady-state melt at a given temperature there is a characteristic distribution of embryos. The embryo is crystalline material which is smaller than the critical size necessary to be a stable nucleus and cause nucleation. It is a subcritical-sized potential heterogeneous nucleus. Embryos exist whether stable, supercritically-sized nuclei are present or not. If a melt is sufficiently superheated, embryos can be eliminated. Nucleation would then require a surface, presumably the container and the barrier to nucleation would be much higher than in the case where embryos were present. Qualitatively, such nucleation would resemble homogeneous nucleation; but, if a surface is available, the energy barrier would be much lower than for homogeneous nucleation. Glasses would form from chondrule melts most readily if they are superheated, thus destroying the embryos and increasing the barrier to nucleation. Lower melting temperatures would allow embryos to be retained. These can then grow upon cooling and become nuclei. Embryos also can become nuclei without changing size, because the size at which an embryo becomes a nucleus depends upon the degree of supercooling in the melt. Thus, an increase in the degree of supercooling can cause an embryo to become a nucleus and nucleation to occur. If relict crystals are present in the melt at the initiation of cooling, the more equilibrium-like crystals typical of porphyritic textures are formed. When such experiments are quenched, the final product contains glass or fine grained material, often dendritic, enclosing the equilibrium phenocrysts. An example of this texture produced in experiments is shown in Figure 7. Equant, well formed crystals of olivine are set in a glassy matrix with a few dendrites present. In the natural prophyritic
Re: [meteorite-list] Paper on chondrule formation and synthetic chondrules
Thanks, That info. is great! I love the CV3 and the LL3-6, That show hundreds of chondrules, I even like them better than stoney-irons! There 2nd! Only wish I could aford them! ..LOL Thanks for the info. Dave Myers --- On Tue, 1/19/10, starsandsco...@aol.com starsandsco...@aol.com wrote: From: starsandsco...@aol.com starsandsco...@aol.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Paper on chondrule formation and synthetic chondrules To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 11:54 PM Hi List, I thought some of you might enjoy this portion of a science paper on meteorite chondrules. It is part of a paper on microscopes posted in Molecular Expressions (An online microscope site) The first half of the paper is on microscopes so many of you will want to skip that part. Tom Phillips PHOTOMICROGRAPHY IN THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES Michael W. Davidson Institute of Molecular Biophysics Center for Materials Research and Technology (MARTECH) National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) Supercomputer Computations Research Institute (SCRI) Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Telephone: 850-644-0542 Fax: 850-644-8920 Gary E. Lofgren Planetary Materials Branch Solar System Exploration Division Code SN2 NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 Telephone: 713-483-6187 Fax: 713-483-2696 The whole article is at http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/publications/pages/journal.html Chondrules are small spheres (.1 to 10mm in diameter) which are the major constituent of chondritic meteorites. Chondrites are considered samples of primitive solar system materials. If we can understand how chondrules form, we will have an important clue to the early history of our solar system. Most chondrules have an igneous texture which forms by crystal growth (usually rapid) from a supercooled melt. Such textures are commonly described as porphyritic (large, equant crystals in a fine grained matrix), barred (dendrites comprised of parallel thin blades or plates), or radiating (sprays of fine fibers). The models proposed for formation of chondrules can be divided into two groups (McSween, 1977). In one group of models, chondrules form by melting and subsequent crystallization of preexisting, largely crystalline material from the solar nebula. The primary differences between these models are the kinds of materials which are melted and the nature of the sources of heat for the melting. In the other group of models, chondrules form by condensation of liquids from the solar nebula gas which then crystallize upon cooling. Variations between these models result from differences in the condensation sequence of the minerals and melts and the temperatures of nucleation. One means of testing models of chondrule formation is to determine the conditions necessary to duplicate these textures by experimentally crystallizing chondrule melts in the laboratory. Efforts to reproduce the textures of chondrules experimentally have been successful only when we began to understand the important role that heterogeneous nucleation plays in the development of igneous rock textures. Unless heterogeneous nuclei are present in the chondrule melt, porphyritic textures will not be produced. The dendritic or radiating textures will form instead. The treatment of heterogeneous nucleation follows the model developed by Turnbull (1950) to explain many of the characteristics of heterogeneous nucleation. This model was applied to heterogeneous nucleation in basaltic systems by Lofgren (1983). Simply stated, the model says that in any steady-state melt at a given temperature there is a characteristic distribution of embryos. The embryo is crystalline material which is smaller than the critical size necessary to be a stable nucleus and cause nucleation. It is a subcritical-sized potential heterogeneous nucleus. Embryos exist whether stable, supercritically-sized nuclei are present or not. If a melt is sufficiently superheated, embryos can be eliminated. Nucleation would then require a surface, presumably the container and the barrier to nucleation would be much higher than in the case where embryos were present. Qualitatively, such nucleation would resemble homogeneous nucleation; but, if a surface is available, the energy barrier would be much lower than for homogeneous nucleation. Glasses would form from chondrule melts most readily if they are superheated, thus destroying the embryos and increasing the barrier to nucleation. Lower melting temperatures would allow embryos to be retained. These can then grow upon cooling and become nuclei. Embryos also can become nuclei without changing size, because the size at which an embryo becomes a nucleus depends upon the degree of supercooling in the melt.
[meteorite-list] (ad) half off on everytning
Hi list.I really want to move these pieces so they are all half off from the price I gave them.The 60 gram unclassed L3 type is sold.So off list and free shipping. Steve R. Arnold, Chicago!! chicagometeorites.net/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space rocks land tourists in Sudanese jail
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/20/2796743.htm http://home.roadrunner.com/~kb2sms/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Setting
I can't get this figured out to save my hinnie. How do you get the list to show your own posts to the list. When I first got on the list about 3 years ago, I saw my own posts, now nothing. Many is the time I post to the list, only to have my post ignored. At least if I can see my posts then I know they were just ignored instead of never making it to the list. I reiterate, Since Tahoka has never been classified, would I be out of line to acquire a sample and send it in to be classified? Pete __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Weird Iron Sulfide Barred Chondrule Looking Feature
Hi List, I just ran onto an Iron Sulfide inclusion in an unclassified impact melt. It is structured like a barred chondrule. I have never seen any like it before. Has any one else seen this feature? I have some micrographs if any one wants to look just email me. I will post images to my Gallery but that will likely take some time and I am interested in your observations while I am still working on it. Tom Phillips __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Setting
Login here: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list using the unsubscribe or edit options button at the bottom of the page Then click on the Yes radio button for the Receive your own posts to the list? option. and then the Submit my options: button at the bottom of the page. -- Richard Kowalski http://fullmoonphotography.net IMCA #1081 --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Pete Shugar pshu...@clearwire.net wrote: From: Pete Shugar pshu...@clearwire.net Subject: [meteorite-list] Setting To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 8:18 PM I can't get this figured out to save my hinnie. How do you get the list to show your own posts to the list. When I first got on the list about 3 years ago, I saw my own posts, now nothing. Many is the time I post to the list, only to have my post ignored. At least if I can see my posts then I know they were just ignored instead of never making it to the list. I reiterate, Since Tahoka has never been classified, would I be out of line to acquire a sample and send it in to be classified? Pete __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] PA Fireball Jul09 - Search Update
Hello List, I just posted a pretty big update on the PA Fireball search (yes I'm still searching). http://www.mikesastrophotos.com/baltimore-pa-meteor/mason-dixon-update-new-rob-matson-trajectory/ Most of the post is about some AMAZING and very interesting work Rob Matson did with the fireball data back in November. The highlights are: - improved 3d trajectory based on analysis of high quality videos - 12 radar returns detected and back plotted - new wind blown coordinates calculated with real jet stream surface windspeeds - maps of estimated strewn field, observer angles ground track - how to unscientifically plot a fireball using google earth I came into this new information in November and between the snow and holidays I have barely scratched the surface on the search area. Conditions are currently the best they will ever be to hunt down these meteorites. The majority of the fields are still un-plowed, we have really good access to these fields until early May. They will start plowing more than 1/2 of the fields in mid March. If anyone is still interested in hunting this down or reviewing the trajectory info contact me and I will send you the Google KMZ and share all my info with you. I really want US to find this thing and I haven't given up yet. Thanks, Mike PS I'll be in Tuscon between Feb 2 and Feb 7. If anyone wants to meet up shoot me an email. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Future meteorites! All you need do is wait a few million years.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/82074747.html A Strange Comet Among the Asteroids January 7th's announcement that the LINEAR telescope had spotted a new periodic comet wasn't all that interesting: a 20th-magnitude blip out in the asteroid belt in a benign orbit that wouldn't come anywhere near Earth. Designated P/2010 A2 (LINEAR) by the IAU's Minor Planet Center, it was just another notch on the finderscope for this discovery machine near Socorro, New Mexico, which has chalked up 77 periodic comets (and a couple hundred one-timers) since coming online in 1998. But as other observers chipped in positions over the next week, it became clear that this was an object worth watching. For one thing, the now-precise orbit was looking less like a comet's and more like an asteroid's. And images of the interloper showed a tail growing in length yet without a clearly defined head. The online chatter got more animated just what was this, anyway? On January 14th, Javier Licandro and others used the Nordic Optical Telescope in the Canary Islands to get a better view, and they discovered something completely unexpected: a small asteroid lay 2 arcseconds to P/2010 A2's east and was moving along with it. Moreover, the comet showed no central condensation and looked more like a narrow dust swarm about 110,000 miles (177,000 km) long. Licandro quickly enlisted the biggest aperture in the island's observatory complex: the Gran Telescopio Canarias. Dozens of images taken three days ago using its immense 34-foot (10.4-m) aperture confirm that the comet is being shadowed. It's hard not to conclude that we are watching the aftermath of a collision in the asteroid belt. But it's still too early to know for sure. Licandro and his colleagues are analyzing the GTC images carefully and they hope to make them public soon. Meanwhile, comet specialists are hoping to observe the strange goings-on with both the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes. Neither has been given the green light yet, but if/when that happens the observations would be made within the next few days. According to Caltech astronomer William Reach, Spitzer no longer has the ability to look deep in the infrared, but it can still record at 3.6 and 4.5 microns, where the cometary gases carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide have strong emissions. http://www.astroarts.jp/news/2010/01/19linear/p2010a2.jpg __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD: eBay auctions ending Friday, 2kg Muonio slice, 52gm Ash Creek, Glorieta Pallasite
Hello List members, I have three items ending Friday evening, a 2 Kilo Muonionalusta slice, a 52.9 gram Ash Creek ( West ) stone, and a 258 gram Glorieta Mountain Pallasite end piece, all are very nice specimens out of my personal collection. Because of recent acquisitions, and limited case room for duplicate locations in my collection I have decided to offer these pieces. Please check out the items on this page. Robert Ward http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPageuserid=ironfromthesky __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Test
Test--Please delete Pete __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Tucson Meteorite Auction Final Call (AD)
Hi All, This is the final call for entries (MUST be of high quality) Before I create the PRINTABLE edition of the Catalog within The next couple of days. ALSO: Some absentee bids have come in and there is now Only about a week left for all ABSENTEE BIDS to be accepted - send them in NOW, please. Though there are only 75 items listed right now, I have always Had a number of people enter LARGE items the day of the auction. So, even with only 75 items, you can be sure there is going to be A wide variety of specimens and price ranges. Twink is bringing her specimen loaded Gold Basin Cake, food And drink are available. Come early, have funand do I here the Original Steve Arnold calling out, I bid a dollar! ? Looking foreword to seeing you there, Michael __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.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 - January 20, 2010
http://www.rocksfromspace.org/January_20_2010.html __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Who going to Tucson?
Hello List Who's going to Tucson Show this year? Who can I expect to see? Hope to see all of you that can make it to this year show. Keith V. Chandler AZ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD- KREEP Lunar! NWA 4485
Hi, Long time lurker here... just a quicky ad for a 0.315g part slice of NWA 4485 on Fleabay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=270518081528ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT thanks for your interests! dave harris IMCA #0092 Sec.BIMS. www.bimsociety.org __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] OSIRIS-REx - One of Three Finalists for Next NASA Mission
A short video interview with Mike Drake, LPL Director and mission PI and Dante Lauretta, Deputy PI about the proposed OSIRIS-Rex mission to asteroid 1999 RQ36 http://uanews.org/node/29491 -- Richard Kowalski Catalina Sky Survey Lunar and Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
