Re: [meteorite-list] Important Announcement form the Nomenclature Committee
No, the DCAs will simply require coordinates, like everywhere else. The proof condition is dropped. The NWA 9000s will be skipped. Believe it or not, nobody has submitted a request to reclassify Al Hag 001 or its siblings. Has there been a paper published on it? All I'm finding are abstracts. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Feb 15, 2015, at 5:08 AM, Greg Hupe via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: Hello All, In a quick glance at comments tonight, but not reading the link to new rules, I believe starting the new DCA mets with 'coordinates proof' to be confusing. Why start the DCAs at NWA 10,000... when in short time the 'non-proof' mets will reach the tried and true 'NWA' naming system and surpass 10,000? Why not simply add the 'sub group' DCA after NWA... example... NWA-DCA 0001, NWA-DCA OOO2... and so on As for re-evaluating certain classifications for renaming, how about we fix that Al Haggounia problem, it is still not an 'Aubrite'?? NWA 2828 was rewritten in Abstract that the original 'Aubrite' designation was made with original type sample, but after subsequent material was cut chondrules were discovered and the correct science was selflessly announced... Best regards, Greg Hupe Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Carl Agee via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullNews.php?id=3 * Carl B. Agee Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences MSC03 2050 University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131-1126 Tel: (505) 750-7172 Fax: (505) 277-3577 Email: a...@unm.edu http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Important Announcement form the Nomenclature Committee
To amplify on Carl's response... For the past 15 years, any meteorite from this region (except falls) would get an NWA number unless there was compelling documentation of the coordinates of the find. This might include a photo of the meteorite in situ with an active GPS. But this was rarely presented to NomCom and so it rarely happened. Now, like in other places around the world, NomCom will not question the coordinates of finds from Morocco and nearby countries (unless something is obviously wrong). The meteorites will simply be named. And like in other desert regions, this generally will mean DCA names. There are no longer special rules for northwestern Africa. We will have to see what happens. The reason the NWA rule was put in place 15 years ago was that it wasn't possible to assess the find stories of all the meteorites coming out of the marketplaces in Morocco. The rule changes take us back to that situation again, but now the nomcom will not even try to evaluate locations. The difference now is that, with DCAs in place, there will not be hundreds of names to adjudicate. As for the question about firm, reliable coordinates, that will be for the reader to decide about any given meteorite. The other thing that changed in the guidelines were special rules for assigning provisional names to NWA meteorites. With nothing special anymore about NWAs, that went away (i.e., section 7.6 was revised). The new NWA meteorite (N1) is no different than any other generically named meteorite. Northwest Africa now means, literally, that the meteorite is most likely to come from the northwest quadrant of the continent, and not that it was most likely found in Morocco and adjacent parts of surrounding countries. If nomcom is totally unsure of where a meteorite may come from, the name will be Nova xxx. Jeff On 2/14/2015 3:08 PM, Carl Agee via Meteorite-list wrote: Hi Mike, In a nutshell, the new rules allow geographic names for any Moroccan meteorite with find coordinates. To simplify the naming in desert areas, part of Morocco will have DCA grids. Under the new rules, any meteorite without coordinates, originating in Morocco or surroundings (meaning in practical terms purchased in Morocco) will be given a NWA name. The new style NWAs will start with NWA 10001 to set them apart from the old style NWA rules. There will be no retroactive names assigned in this new scheme. Nothing will change in the naming of falls, which will always have unique geographic names. Hope this clarifies. Carl * Carl B. Agee Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences MSC03 2050 University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131-1126 Tel: (505) 750-7172 Fax: (505) 277-3577 Email: a...@unm.edu http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/ On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Carl and List, Thank you for this update on the change. However, what exactly does this mean in practice? For example, would a find with coordinates like Mreira now be classified as a NWA 10xxx ? Or will finds with firm reliable coordinates still be considered for a place name and not a NWA 10xxx? On this page, I can see the crossed out portion about NWAs that was abolished. But what else has changed in regards to policy about classifying NWA material? - http://meteoriticalsociety.org/?page_id=59 Best regards, MikeG -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone - On 2/13/15, Carl Agee via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullNews.php?id=3 * Carl B. Agee Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences MSC03 2050 University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131-1126 Tel: (505) 750-7172 Fax: (505) 277-3577 Email: a...@unm.edu http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Update : New Type Classification (E-Melt)
I wouldn't get too excited about this. Lots of enstatite meteorites (chondrites and achondrites) are melt rocks and melt breccias, and they've been described for decades by Alan Rubin and others, e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703796003353 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1945-5100.1998.tb01654.x/abstract A-12057 is simply not yet grouped as EH or EL (you can bet it's one or the other), and has melt component in it like so many other E chondrites. So don't take it as any kind of first. It isn't, or at least there is no reason yet to think it is. One day, somebody will scrub the entire class and better classifications will be published in MetBull. Until then, arm yourself with knowledge rather than the labels you find in simple catalogs. Jeff On 6/6/2014 6:14 AM, Graham Ensor via Meteorite-list wrote: Yes, as Marcin said...probably just a fragment from an Enstatite which is totally melt...as you get with some Chelly individuals...I dont see how they can come up with a new type from just 4.5g like this??? Graham On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Galactic Stone Ironworks via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: Hi Bulletin Watchers, 437 meteorites from previous NIPR (Japan) expeditions to Antarctic have been approved for the Met Bulletin today. Buried in the hundreds of small OC's is an apparent new classification of E-Melt. This is the first and only meteorite classified as E-Melt. Frustrated Type-Collectors, please meet Asuka 12057. Link : http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=60054 Best regards and happy huntings, MikeG -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone - __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Off-Line - Traffic Overload
Yes, you've all guessed correctly. This is the second time that FB group has overwhelmed our server. We took down the direct link to Fukang until the storm blows over. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused anybody! Jeff On 4/17/2014 5:08 PM, Anne Black wrote: I totally agree. And I took the liberty of editing Peter's email when I answer it. And I just did it again. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com To: Peter Scherff petersche...@rcn.com Cc: Jeff Grossman jgross...@usgs.gov; Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thu, Apr 17, 2014 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Off-Line - Traffic Overload Hi Peter and List, The group actually has 12+ million followers - more than capable of causing a traffic spike that will overload a server. Now, if only I could find a way to sneak an AD into that group. LOL. The Met Bull appears to be working now, for me. Bernd says it's still down for him. I wish that group would change it's name. I am not a prude, but I don't want my grandson seeing that on my computer screen. It's a shame, because that group posts some interesting things, but I hate that obscene name. Best regards, MikeG -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone - On 4/17/14, Peter Scherff petersche...@rcn.com wrote: Hi, I f.. love science posted a link to the Meteorite bulletin today. She has over a million facebook followers. My guess is that it will take a few days for people to stop clicking on the link. Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Galactic Stone Ironworks Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:18 PM To: Meteorite List Cc: Jeff Grossman Subject: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Off-Line - Traffic Overload Hi Jeff and List, As of now, the Met Bulletin is offline. When I try to access it, I get the following message in plain text on a white screen : Due to excessive traffic, this resource has been temporarily disabled. Please try back again tomorrow. I thought everyone should know, and just in case Jeff was not aware. Best regards, MikeG -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone - __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] petrological type
Answer: you can't. The classification scheme is lousy. Jeff On 4/11/2014 1:21 PM, Michael Mulgrew wrote: Two sequences, one for aqueous alteration and one for thermal metamorphism (http://www.meteoritemarket.com/PetTypeGroup.jpg). Makes one wonder how we would classify a meteorite that is both thermally and aqueously altered... Michael in so. Cal. IMCA 3963 On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Francesco Moser coj...@tiscali.it wrote: Hello, I have a question about chondrites' petrological type number assigned after the letters (like H, L, CM or CR ...). I have just read something in internet but I think I have misunderstood something. Are the numbers from 1 to 7 in sequence or there are two different sequences: 1 to 2 - 3 to 7 ?? 1 to 2 is for the aqueous alteration degree in carbonaceous chodrites (1 high degree, 2 low degree) 3 to 7 is for thermal metamorphism degree? Thanks a lot Ciao x Francesco __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite
Yes, Alan and I would call this object a real meteorite, but not tektites, which never escaped from Earth's gravity well. It's a bit of a stretch and model dependent, but in a way, lunar meteorites may be considered as this type of meteorite. Jeff On 4/8/2014 7:18 AM, Peter Scherff wrote: Hi, According to Alan E. Rubin Jeffrey N. Grossman: A meteorite is a natural, solid object larger than 10 µm in size, derived from a celestial body, that was transported by natural means from the body on which it formed to a region outside the dominant gravitational influence of that body and that later collided with a natural or artificial body larger than itself (even if it was the same body from which it was launched). Using that definition I would say that your rock should be called a meteorite. I also think that a cool name for a new class of meteorites would need to be created. I just hope that we could have that class created before 5 examples of it were recognized. Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ford Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 3:28 AM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite IMHO - This should most likely be called 'Earthite'. A whole new class of rocks distinct from meteorites, which so far we don't have any of (unless anyone knows different!?). Or they could just be known as Tektites, since that is essentially what the consensus is on Tektites. Though I would put Tektites in the group of Ancient impact glasses rather than actual fusion crusted rocks from earth. Mark -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: 08 April 2014 06:15 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite Suppose a fusion crusted stone is found shortly after a fireball. When examined it shows a celestial age of a few million years and a relatively short formation age. More examination shows it to be a stone formed on earth, ejected into space and returned here. Is it meteorite or a meteorwrong. Or something in between? __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite
... well, on second thought, it's too much if a stretch since nothing of the original texture and mineralogy suggesting an Earth origin remains in lunar meteorites... so scratch that. On 4/8/2014 1:38 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote: Yes, Alan and I would call this object a real meteorite, but not tektites, which never escaped from Earth's gravity well. It's a bit of a stretch and model dependent, but in a way, lunar meteorites may be considered as this type of meteorite. Jeff On 4/8/2014 7:18 AM, Peter Scherff wrote: Hi, According to Alan E. Rubin Jeffrey N. Grossman: A meteorite is a natural, solid object larger than 10 µm in size, derived from a celestial body, that was transported by natural means from the body on which it formed to a region outside the dominant gravitational influence of that body and that later collided with a natural or artificial body larger than itself (even if it was the same body from which it was launched). Using that definition I would say that your rock should be called a meteorite. I also think that a cool name for a new class of meteorites would need to be created. I just hope that we could have that class created before 5 examples of it were recognized. Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ford Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 3:28 AM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite IMHO - This should most likely be called 'Earthite'. A whole new class of rocks distinct from meteorites, which so far we don't have any of (unless anyone knows different!?). Or they could just be known as Tektites, since that is essentially what the consensus is on Tektites. Though I would put Tektites in the group of Ancient impact glasses rather than actual fusion crusted rocks from earth. Mark -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: 08 April 2014 06:15 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite Suppose a fusion crusted stone is found shortly after a fireball. When examined it shows a celestial age of a few million years and a relatively short formation age. More examination shows it to be a stone formed on earth, ejected into space and returned here. Is it meteorite or a meteorwrong. Or something in between? __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite
If a fragment of Alderaan hit the Death Star, it would be a meteorite. Oh wait, this was not transported by natural means! Well, you get the idea. Yes, itself is the meteorite. Jeff On 4/8/2014 3:17 PM, Mendy Ouzillou wrote: OK, so some questions regarding the definition: 1) What would be considered an artificial body? 2) I am 99.9% sure that the word itself refers to the meteorite (as opposed to the body on which the meteorite lands). Correct? Mendy Ouzillou From: Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite Yes, Alan and I would call this object a real meteorite, but not tektites, which never escaped from Earth's gravity well. It's a bit of a stretch and model dependent, but in a way, lunar meteorites may be considered as this type of meteorite. Jeff On 4/8/2014 7:18 AM, Peter Scherff wrote: Hi, According to Alan E. Rubin Jeffrey N. Grossman: A meteorite is a natural, solid object larger than 10 µm in size, derived from a celestial body, that was transported by natural means from the body on which it formed to a region outside the dominant gravitational influence of that body and that later collided with a natural or artificial body larger than itself (even if it was the same body from which it was launched). Using that definition I would say that your rock should be called a meteorite. I also think that a cool name for a new class of meteorites would need to be created. I just hope that we could have that class created before 5 examples of it were recognized. Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ford Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 3:28 AM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite IMHO - This should most likely be called 'Earthite'. A whole new class of rocks distinct from meteorites, which so far we don't have any of (unless anyone knows different!?). Or they could just be known as Tektites, since that is essentially what the consensus is on Tektites. Though I would put Tektites in the group of Ancient impact glasses rather than actual fusion crusted rocks from earth. Mark -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: 08 April 2014 06:15 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] is it a meteorite Suppose a fusion crusted stone is found shortly after a fireball. When examined it shows a celestial age of a few million years and a relatively short formation age. More examination shows it to be a stone formed on earth, ejected into space and returned here. Is it meteorite or a meteorwrong. Or something in between? __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] The scientific importance of subtype 3.00 meteorites and oxygen isotope analysis
Mendy and list, My comments: Oxygen: I would say that O isotope heterogeneity as described here is not a good measure of metamorphism. Oxygen heterogeneity in these objecbulk samplests will be a function of sample size, as fine matrix grains equilibrate much more quickly than coarse ones. If you analyze small aliquants of sample, most UOCs will be heterogeneous. If, on the other hand, we were talking about the O isotope heterogeneity of individual olivine grains, akin to how we measure FeO in olivine, you might be able to devise a metamorphic parameter. But so far, I'm not aware of anybody devising a way to use O isotopes to measure metamorphic grade. The meaning of type 3.00: you said, A subtype of 3.00 means that the material has survived unchanged by heat (radioactive decay, pressure, impact/shock, etc.) or aqueous alteration since its formation. This is incorrect. It means the material is unaffected by thermal metamorphism. Semarkona is shock stage S2, so it has been seen elevated pressures due to impacts on the parent body. It also shows abundant evidence for light aqueous alteration. You can think of all these things as independent processes. Semarkona saw little heat, but got a little shocked and a little bit wet. Many CM chondrites saw little heat, but a lot of water. I would call these CMs type 3.00 as well, but traditional usage has coined another term for really wet chondrites, namely type 2. Oh well. Metamorphically, they are type 3.00. Some chondrites saw little shock and a lot of thermal metamorphism. Anyway, all type 3.00 means is that the object saw little prolonged secondary heating. The parent body may have been too small to differentiate, or it may have formed too late to take advantage of heat sources like Al-26 (and there may be other possibilities). We are always looking for material that escaped processing on asteroids to learn about the origin of the solar system. Type 3.00 chondrites are good for doing such studies. CAIs are also important for early solar system studies, and we're fortunate that the meteorites richest in CAIs tend to be low petrologic types that escaped heating on asteroids as well; many carbonaceous chondrites are like this. I hope this is a start at answering your questions. Jeff -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list- boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Mendy Ouzillou Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:46 PM To: Met-List Subject: [meteorite-list] The scientific importance of subtype 3.00 meteorites and oxygen isotope analysis Well, with the LPSC going on starting this week, I sure hope we get some participation from our scientific contributors to these questions. Someone asked me to explain the scientific importance of meteoritic material with a 3.00 subtype. Reading through The onset of metamorphism in ordinary and carbonaceous chondrites by Grossman and Brearley 2005, I realized that a key tool used in the analysis of NWA 7731 and NWA 8276 was not present in the literature. So, I'll start with this first part of questions: In my discussions with Dr. Agee, he mentioned that the heterogeneity of the oxygen isotope results is important because it indicates that the material has not been metamorphosed by heat or shock. Any heating would have caused the oxygen to begin to equilibriate. So, is the oxygen isotope analysis something that should be added to the list of factors used in evaluating low sub-types? Or is it a proxy for more complex tests? I am hoping that Karen Ziegler can also add some insights. The second set of questions is perhaps more complex. What is the scientific importance of the 3.00 subtype? I can get this one kicked off, but would appreciate a more nuanced answer than what I can provide. The subtype 3.00 represents the earliest glimpse of the properties of proto- planetary material in our solar system. A subtype of 3.00 means that the material has survived unchanged by heat (radioactive decay, pressure, impact/shock, etc.) or aqueous alteration since its formation. An implication of the unequilibrated nature of this material is that the parent body had to be quite small for it not to differentiate in any way. Though both scientifically important, what different types of insights do we gain from CAIs versus subtype 3.00 material? The answer is I am sure that they complement each other, but in what way. Which is oldest? The rarity of this type of material cannot be underestimated since between the only 3 known (Semarkona, NWA 7731 and NWA 8276), there is only 1,561g available for research and/or collectors. Of that total weight, Semarkona's 691g is almost unattainable. So, once again NWA delivers the goods! Regards, Mendy Ouzillou __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list
Re: [meteorite-list] Metbull down?
If somebody told me about it, it would have been back up earlier! Write next time... Jeff On 3/13/2014 7:43 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks wrote: The Met Bulletin appears to be back up and running normally. :) __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] C3 Typo Corrected
Actually, there is no such thing as CV3-ung. If it's CV, it's grouped. The MetBull lists this as CV3-anomalous, and from the two abstracts I can find on it, I'm not entirely convinced it's anomalous, but maybe. It's at the high end of the CV oxygen isotope trend and closely resembles Leoville. Jeff On 1/27/2014 8:42 PM, Michael Blood wrote: This typo has been corrected Michael On 1/27/14 2:16 PM, Mendy Ouzillou ouzil...@yahoo.com wrote: Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but Lot 50 MH 11 NWA 1465 (C3 Ungrouped) 523.5g Specimen is incorrectly labeled. NWA 1465 is not a C3-ungrouped but a CV3-ung. Mendy Ouzillou From: Pete Pete rsvp...@hotmail.com To: Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com; Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net Cc: meteoritelist meteoritelist meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] LINK No magic crystals? No holistic candles? I'm with Mike - way to mix garbage in with science! Shame! From: m...@meteoriteguy.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:32:00 -0700 To: mlbl...@cox.net CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] LINK Why are you selling Alien crap? Is this a meteorite auction or a junk show? It took me 15 minutes to try and download the list due to that. By the way, the 48 lb Canyon Diablo is a Campo Del Cielo. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 27, 2014, at 5:54 AM, Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net wrote: OOOPS http://michaelbloodmeteorites.com/AuctionTucson2014.html __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official
Two things: Many meteorites are heterogeneous. When we say Katol is L6 or NWA 869 is L3-6 or Almahata Sitta is an anomalous urelite, these are collective terms. Katol refers to everything that fell that day in India. It has been classified as L6. However, it is possible (and for Almahata Sitta, probable) that a given specimen does not representatively sample the incoming meteoroid. There is nothing wrong with saying that Almahata Sitta #25 is dominated by an H5 lithology or that Katol #4(?) is a metal rich lithology. Good practice would be to assign some kind of specimen number to each object and publish a catalog, so the world will always know what you are talking about. I would gladly publish such specimen tables in the MetBull database, especially if done systematically. As for the name question, NomCom would only give a separate name if there was significant doubt that a specimen was part of the Katol fall. This has happened before, as with Galim (b) and Zag (b), but it didn't happen with Almahata Sitta and I don't think there is much doubt in this case either. Jeff On 1/2/2014 9:24 AM, Greg Hupé wrote: Since the iron was found with other fresh Katol stony pieces and some of the stony matrix is clearly visible on the outside of the iron, I see no reason to even consider cutting it to get a separate name. That is one nice thing of the iron being collected within a couple days of the fall, and well before any rains came along to oxidize and/or discolor the portion of matric on the iron. I think the few irons should be mentioned in the Official Katol classification, clearly they are 'pop-outs' from the Katol mass. ...just my 2 Rupees worth... Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.NaturesVault.net (Online Catalog Reference Site) www.LunarRock.com (Online Planetary Meteorite Site) NaturesVault (Facebook, Pinterest eBay) http://www.facebook.com/NaturesVault http://pinterest.com/NaturesVault IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: Michael Farmer Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 9:13 AM To: Jim Wooddell Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official I am not going to cut that piece. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 2, 2014, at 7:03 AM, Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net wrote: Then it should have it's own classification! If it's 95% metal. Just my opinion. Do we classify falls or meteorites? Seems we loose by classifying falls. Jim On 1/2/2014 6:24 AM, Michael Farmer wrote: It was bought on the spot from the finders as they lined up to sell the meteorites. It is Katol:) Central India is not Morocco with every person having a box of meteorites to sell. It is almost completely iron, with perhaps 5% silicates. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 2, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net wrote: Hi Mike and all! Can't tell by looking at it if it's all metal. If it is predominently metal (by a large %) and the olivines and such match that of Katol, then this would be an L-Metalwould it not? Jim On 1/1/2014 5:33 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: Yes, this piece is oriented heat shield shaped with countless flow lines and bubbles on the thick backside crust. There are a couple of crystal-rich sections. It is one of my favorite pieces in my collection, the adventure to acquire was a little scary. Laurence Garvie has taken many photos of it, I am sure he has incredible photos I haven't seen. This photo was the only one I got. The piece is still at ASU on loan, it will be on display at the Tucson show. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6967 - Release Date: 01/01/14 -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official
It would probably be best not to use a lithologic term in a numbering scheme. Some specimens may defy such a descriptor, and in other cases it may simply be hard to tell what it is at the time of numbering. And it would really be good not to use numbers in the same format as dense collection areas (001, 002, etc.). I would suggest using simple numbering schemes like #1, #2, etc. Unlike 001 or no. 1, this symbol never occurs in meteorite names (unless as part of a tweet, I suppose). A good example of how I think it should be done is the way Peter Jenniskens did it for Sutter's Mill and Almahata Sitta, e.g., http://asima.seti.org/sm/ and http://asima.seti.org/2008TC3/ Jeff On 1/2/2014 10:40 AM, Greg Hupé wrote: Hi Jim, I wouldn't call it lazy science, but I agree with a numbering system when possible, but when there are several people from around the world involved in a fall collecting stones, it can be impossible to get everyone to go along with the numbering system. Take Chelyabinsk for instance, impossible to number each stone because of the hundreds of people collecting. I think the next best thing is to name/number oddities like the Katol irons as maybe Katol - iron 001. Almahata Sitta was a rare occurrence since one initial scientist/museum had all of the stones that came out and it was easy to assign numbers, same with the single dealer who first offered the variety of stones. Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.NaturesVault.net (Online Catalog Reference Site) www.LunarRock.com (Online Planetary Meteorite Site) NaturesVault (Facebook, Pinterest eBay) http://www.facebook.com/NaturesVault http://pinterest.com/NaturesVault IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: Jim Wooddell Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 10:29 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official Hi Greg and all, I would not suggest another name nor would I suggest it's a different fall. However I would suggest a numbering schema that maybe followed a find sequence. Katol 001, Katol 005, etc. I say that because if stuff is never studied...ie classifiedwe just will never know what it's make up is. And, that can and does apply to any strewn field. So, everything becomes opinion and guesswork. Lazy science. Jim On 1/2/2014 7:24 AM, Greg Hupé wrote: Since the iron was found with other fresh Katol stony pieces and some of the stony matrix is clearly visible on the outside of the iron, I see no reason to even consider cutting it to get a separate name. That is one nice thing of the iron being collected within a couple days of the fall, and well before any rains came along to oxidize and/or discolor the portion of matric on the iron. I think the few irons should be mentioned in the Official Katol classification, clearly they are 'pop-outs' from the Katol mass. ...just my 2 Rupees worth... Best Regards, Greg __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official
Yes, Jim, and this is why arm-chair science is not a good idea! We really have to wait for the publication to see what was done. There is a vast and long literature on XRF analysis of geological materials, including meteorites. The scientific community has accepted these for decades. The classic XRF technique involving preparation of fused disks and wavelength-dispersive analysis for major and minor elements has provided some of the most beautiful datasets in meteoritics (and earth science). In the 1960s, von Michaelis and co-workers produced classic papers showing the narrow range of bulk composition in chondrite groups using this kind of method. These and the wet-chemical analyses of Jarosewich (a now-extinct method, as far as I'm aware) provide some of the best, complete major-element data in bulk meteorites that we have to this day. At the other extreme, there are many quick and dirty energy-dispersive XRF methods these days that have much less precision and accuracy, e.g. the use of hand-held XRF systems on irregular bulk samples. And, there are many good and not-so-good methods in between. XRF is a very broad term, and we don't know what was done. So, I would not be so quick to dismiss XRF. It can be highly quantitative using a variety of well-documented, time-proven methods... and it can be virtually useless for the kind of interpretation that I did in my previous email. Jeff On 1/1/2014 9:25 AM, Jim Wooddell wrote: Hi Jeff and all! I'd say XRF data can and does vary. Not enough info in the write up on testing methods. What is the accepted procedure agreed to using XRF to test? BIG QUESTION! Read on! A few years ago, XRF seemed to not be considered much in this community. Only a few were using it pretty much only for determining if a rock had the attributes to be considered a meteorite. Somewhat like PIXE tests. Some places have XRF, some have PIXE where they are looking for key elements. I know XRF technology has improved. I found it refreshing that the XRF data was listed. Correlations being standard methods of lab testing and XRF showed to be 0.85 to 0.95 (or there abouts) by the EPA in a paper about testing lead a while back that I read. Calibration reference is key to accurate, repeatable measurements with XRF. In the gold and silver industry, they have been accepted widely but generally on massed samples (by melt - Homogenous mixture). My question about the XRF data is how was the measurement taken. It stated whole rock and the mean of two shots??? So, does that mean that the sample was massed and pressed into a disk then shot twice or what? I'd love to know how this was performed. Overall, with probe data, the XRF is somewhat redundant and without what it was referenced to, eye candy, but very interesting. Don't think XRF would take the place of probe data. Both can be subjective to a point. It would be nice to read if the same standards were used for calibration for both the probe and XRF were used and the correlation. I do think XRF can have it's place. Standard's should be developed on how it might be used. Maybe they are out there. Point and shoot, if you are looking for a quantitative answer, is not the way IMHO. Jim On 12/31/2013 6:04 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote: Can't resist doing some arm-chair science... usually a bad move, but oh well... I'll probably end up retracting much of this speculation... There IS something strange about this meteorite to me. I don't know how good the XRF analysis is, but it is not what I would expect from an L chondrite. These analyses show a 30-40% enrichment in Ca and Al relative to Si over what an L chondrite should be, and siderophiles are ~20% too high as well. If these are accurate, then there has been fractionation, suggestive of enrichment in low-melting components (which is odd). Sodium does not fit this story, but it's a harder element to analyze by xrf. I also agree that coarse poikilitic grains are hard to explain by solid-state metamorpism, but they could also be derived from relict chondrules. If this rock was melted to a large extent, I'd expect it to be depleted in metal and sulfide. So I'm betting that the whole system has experienced low-degree partial melting, and some of these melts have infiltrated this particular chunk of high-metamorphic-grade L chondrite. I agree with Carl that this has hallmarks of what many people call a type 7 chondrite. But the whole issue of how to draw lines (or if there ARE lines) between primitive achondrites, type 7 chondrites, and products of shock heating/melting is very fuzzy and tends to be highly interpretive. In a sense, this is the same discussion that surrounds Portales Valley, an ordinary chondrite that has also been around the block. Here is an article on Katol that Laurence Garvie pointed me to: http://www.geosocindia.org/abstracts/2013/feb/p151-157.pdf Jeff
Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official
Mike's photo in posted in the database now. Jeff On 1/1/2014 1:19 PM, Jim Wooddell wrote: Hi Anne! One can not post pictures in the proper place using the EOM method. They all go into the uncertain category. Jeff places them in the correct areasomething an EOM member can not do. Happy New Year. Jim On 1/1/2014 11:11 AM, Anne Black wrote: Mike, You could send that picture to Paul Swartz (valpar...@aol.com ) and he will post it on Picture of the Day. Jim, The pictures you see on the MetBulletin are really hosted in the Encyclopedia of Meteorites, owned and operated by the IMCA, and then linked to the MetBulletin. So you have to open an account there and then send your pictures to http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/ Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wed, Jan 1, 2014 7:31 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official Mike, I can host it for a time if you have a big image. However, why not send it to Jeff (sized edited to 800 pixels) for inclusion in the bulletin? He takes care of that pretty quick. Jim On 12/31/2013 6:31 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: Anyone who can host a photo to post to the list, let me know. I have a great photo of my 136 gram oriented Katol (L6) iron to share. Michael Farmer - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6965 - Release Date: 12/31/13 -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6966 - Release Date: 01/01/14 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Most searched meteorites of 2013
All, Here are the top 10 meteorite searches from the MetBull database in 2013, in decreasing order of popularity. Sikhote-Alin (Iron, IIAB) Chelyabinsk (LL5) Northwest Africa 7325 (Achondrite-ung) Hoba (Iron, IVB) Fukang (Pallasite, PMG) Northwest Africa 7034 (Martian (basaltic breccia)) Tissint (Martian (shergottite)) Northwest Africa 869 (L3-6) Campo del Cielo (Iron, IAB-MG) Allende (CV3) Sikhote-Alin, Fukang, NWA 869, Campo, and Allende have been perennial favorites since I first compiled the list in 2007. Happy new year! Jeff __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Most searched meteorites of 2013
Something happened in week 18 of 2013 (end of April), and thousands of people looked at Sikhote-Alin. This was about 7 weeks after the fall of Chelyabinsk. I don't know what it triggered this. But this spike, combined with the normal background interest in S-A, put it in 1st place. In point of fact, you may recall that my server got taken down by a crush of hits on Fukang in October, when an article got posted on the Facebook page I f---ing love science. From the log, I could tell that I was getting many thousands of (failed) hits per hour. If I could have handled this, Fukang would have beaten both S-A and Chelyabinsk. Jeff On 12/31/2013 3:25 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: Great data Jeff. Thanks for compiling and reporting it to us. I'm shocked that Chelyabinsk wasn't number one by orders of magnitude The rest are no surprising. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com wrote: All, Here are the top 10 meteorite searches from the MetBull database in 2013, in decreasing order of popularity. Sikhote-Alin (Iron, IIAB) Chelyabinsk (LL5) Northwest Africa 7325 (Achondrite-ung) Hoba (Iron, IVB) Fukang (Pallasite, PMG) Northwest Africa 7034 (Martian (basaltic breccia)) Tissint (Martian (shergottite)) Northwest Africa 869 (L3-6) Campo del Cielo (Iron, IAB-MG) Allende (CV3) Sikhote-Alin, Fukang, NWA 869, Campo, and Allende have been perennial favorites since I first compiled the list in 2007. Happy new year! Jeff __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official
Can't resist doing some arm-chair science... usually a bad move, but oh well... I'll probably end up retracting much of this speculation... There IS something strange about this meteorite to me. I don't know how good the XRF analysis is, but it is not what I would expect from an L chondrite. These analyses show a 30-40% enrichment in Ca and Al relative to Si over what an L chondrite should be, and siderophiles are ~20% too high as well. If these are accurate, then there has been fractionation, suggestive of enrichment in low-melting components (which is odd). Sodium does not fit this story, but it's a harder element to analyze by xrf. I also agree that coarse poikilitic grains are hard to explain by solid-state metamorpism, but they could also be derived from relict chondrules. If this rock was melted to a large extent, I'd expect it to be depleted in metal and sulfide. So I'm betting that the whole system has experienced low-degree partial melting, and some of these melts have infiltrated this particular chunk of high-metamorphic-grade L chondrite. I agree with Carl that this has hallmarks of what many people call a type 7 chondrite. But the whole issue of how to draw lines (or if there ARE lines) between primitive achondrites, type 7 chondrites, and products of shock heating/melting is very fuzzy and tends to be highly interpretive. In a sense, this is the same discussion that surrounds Portales Valley, an ordinary chondrite that has also been around the block. Here is an article on Katol that Laurence Garvie pointed me to: http://www.geosocindia.org/abstracts/2013/feb/p151-157.pdf Jeff On 12/31/2013 6:33 PM, Jason Utas wrote: Hello Carl, All, The low standard deviation on Fa and Fs denotes a high degree of equilibration, not just 5 or 6. Five or above would be more accurate. The nearly absent chondrules and high Wo are at [or beyond] type 6. If you're a researcher who believes in type 7 chondrites, since not all do. Based upon similar observations, one would simply call Al Haggounia 001 an aubrite, or an EL3 if one were lucky enough to find an unequilibrated chondrule. The textural observations would be irrelevant. If we looked at other meteorites in a similar fashion, subgroups and textural designations would disappear. Since nomenclature blows back and forth, this is something of a semantic argument; as I understand it, the poikilitic shergottite you recently analyzed would have been a lherzolite only a few years ago, and no amount of discussion then or now would have changed that. And there is of course variation in analyses. NWA 5205 is paired with NWA 5421 and our NWA 6501. Which was supposedly paired with NWA 6283. Very distinctive material, with classifications ranging from LL3.2 to LL3.7 to H3.6. But you did note that the shergottite was poikilitic. So is Katol. This stone has been metamorphosed in a unique way for a chondrite, and its classification required a much greater degree of attention because of that. But the result does not reflect that. Just like Al Haggounia 001, the aubrite. It's odd, and I do think that 'pigeonholing' is the right term to use here. Regards, Jason www.fallsandfinds.com On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Carl Agee a...@unm.edu wrote: Mike, Andy, Jim, I don't have bias one way or another in the case of Katol, but looking at the data in the write-up this is a clear-cut L6 chondrite -- no ambiguity. There are chondrules albeit highly equilbrated, the olivines are L6, the pyroxenes are L6, the oxygen isotopes are L-chondrite. If there were no chondrules, high Wo and OC-type olivine and pyroxene, then one could make the case for type 7. I'm just going by the numbers given in the write-up, I haven't looked at this beyond a quick glance in hand specimen, not an achondrite -- period. Carl * Carl B. Agee Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences MSC03 2050 University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131-1126 Tel: (505) 750-7172 Fax: (505) 277-3577 Email: a...@unm.edu http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/ On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com wrote: I was also under the impression that this was transitional likely between L chondrites and primitive achondrites. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone On Dec 31, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Andy Tomkins rockdo...@gmail.com wrote: With great respect and just to be a little bit controversial... With a high wollastonite content in the opx like that, sparse remnant chondrules and many of the other features, perhaps this might be a L7? An example of why there needs to be a clearer definition of what defines Type 6 from Type 7? Andy Tomkins On Wednesday, 1 January 2014, Andy Tomkins wrote: On Wednesday, 1 January 2014, Carl Agee wrote: Hi Mike, No doubt an interesting meteorite! I guess I should qualify it by saying the oxygen and the olivine and pyroxene
[meteorite-list] NWA 869 classification and description
Many here will be interested that I just released a revised classification and description of NWA 869 in the MetBull Database. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/index.php?code=31890 Jeff __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Exploring the Solar System in Antarctica (NWA vs Antarctica)
50% is not even close. I counted the peer-reviewed papers in the 2012 volume of MAPS. In the 58 non-review papers that reported analyses of physical samples of meteorites, 52% used falls, 12% used non-desert finds, 24% used hot desert meteorites, and 28% used Antarctic meteorites. (this sums to 100% because some papers reported data in multiple categories). So, if 2012 in MAPS is representative (I'm done counting, so I can't answer that), when it comes to the question of what are the most important meteorites for Science these days, it isn't hot OR cold desert meteorites... it's observed falls. Papers on hot and cold desert meteorites are subequal, which is the trend we all see. Jeff On 10/10/2013 12:27 AM, Adam Hupe wrote: I will not debate the legacy of Antarctic meteorites. They have had a wonderful history and their contribution to science has been invaluable. Most researchers are sample oriented and are not biased by find location but there are still a few that cling to legacy. Antarctica had a a two decade plus head start in the abstract/paper queue so naturally there are more documents. Ten years ago, maybe one in ten papers were on hot desert finds. Now, I estimate about 50%. At this rate, as very important samples from NWA and other deserts enter the queue, it will not be long before these finds handily overtake Antarctica by a wide margin in the business of science. In other words; There is not enough material coming out of Antarctica anymore to reverse the current trend which favors the hot desert meteorites for research material in the future. Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Exploring the Solar System in Antarctica (NWA vs Antarctica)
As I've pointed out a number of times before, the scientific impact of past research on Antarctic meteorites vastly outweighs that of work on Saharan and other warm-desert meteorites. The reasons for this are historical and curatorial. And as a person who has done a lot of research on chondrites from both places, I can say from long experience that the degree of weathering in Antarctic specimens is, overall, much less. Work on warm desert meteorites is growing in importance, that's certain. This is especially true in terms of work on unique or unusual specimens, like NWA 7034, which are more plentiful in hot desert collections. But when most scientists want to do systematic studies, the first stops are still very likely to be collections of observed falls and Antarctic meteorites. So I guess it boils down to the meaning of best. For collectors, it's no contest, since you cannot privately own most Antarctics. For Science, with a capital S, Antarctics have generally been best, although some like Carl, are doing great work on special hot desert finds. My take. Jeff On 10/9/2013 5:29 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: Interesting, Statistics are wonderful when using two different weather grading systems with a limited sampling. I will state that some fantastic meteorites have come out of Antarctica and have certainly been managed better for the most part than their NWA counterparts. On the other hand, by rarity, weight and numbers, NWA is by far in the lead. In the long run, I have always been of the opinion that it doesn't matter where a meteorite lands just so long as ponderable pieces are recovered. The yield of meteorites with great scientific importance has trended greatly towards NWA the last decade. Adam - Original Message - From: Carl Agee a...@unm.edu To: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com Cc: Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Exploring the Solar System in Antarctica (NWA vs Antarctica) Weathering rates for New Mexico, Sahara, and Antarctica: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993Metic..28Q.460W * Carl B. Agee Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences MSC03 2050 University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131-1126 Tel: (505) 750-7172 Fax: (505) 277-3577 Email: a...@unm.edu http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/ On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com wrote: It is myth that Antarctic meteorites are less weathered. They weather differently is all. I have been in the Antarctic Laboratory and can tell that most of the inventory is not free of rusticles and evaporation deposits. After all, Antarctica gets its weather right of the salt water ocean. It seems only the best looking material is ever put on public display. Adam - Original Message - From: Carl Agee a...@unm.edu To: Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com Cc: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com; Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Exploring the Solar System in Antarctica (NWA vs Antarctica) Hi Mike, Add to that list NWA 7731 (L3.00). Semarkona (LL3.00) may still be King, but 7731 is certainly a Prince! The only thing that Antarctic finds have going for them is that weathering is much slower there than in North Africa, so fresher material in general. But if I look at the ANSMET annual yield of exceptional meteorites it is paltry compared to NWA. For planetaries over the past ten years or so, NWA is definitely King! Carl * Carl B. Agee Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences MSC03 2050 University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131-1126 Tel: (505) 750-7172 Fax: (505) 277-3577 Email: a...@unm.edu http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/ On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Adam and List, Not taking into account old Saharan meteorites (like Nakhla and Tatahouine), here is a list of some recent meteorites from the Sahara that hold significant scientific and/or collector interest : Black Beauty (NWA 7034) Tissint Jbilet Winselwan NWA 5000 NWA 998 Almahata Sitta NWA 4301 Zag Gebel Kamil Too many Vestans to list. I threw together this list on the fly and in an arbitrary fashion. The true number of Saharan meteorites valuable to science is subject to interpretation, but it surely numbers in the many hundreds. Granted, many NWA's are weathered and redundant, highly-equilibrated, ordinary chondrites. But, many Antarctics are sub-gram fragments of paired finds. So I think the signal-to-noise ratio of NWA's versus Antarctics is about even. Best regards and happy huntings, MikeG -- - Web -
Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bull
If it is the Meteoritical Bulletin you are seeking, it hasn't been at the USGS for 3 years, although the old address does redirect. The current address is: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php Jeff On 10/5/2013 9:46 AM, Steve Richey wrote: Clear your browser cache Jim, it ain't working. Nor are just about all USGS pages. Sent from my iPad On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net wrote: Working fine here, Johnno! Jim On 10/3/2013 7:13 PM, John Cabassi wrote: G'Day List Now this really sucks. Wanted to do some research and this is the response http://www.usgs.gov/ Cheers John -- Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Update - Major NWA Update, 75 new approvals, many achondrites
Actually, Taoudenni was approved in 2010, and the provisional name NWA 5178 was assigned in 2008. NomCom was not aware that the provisional name and Taoudenni referred to the same meteorite until it was reported to us this week. Jeff On 9/7/2013 4:38 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks wrote: Hi Bulletin Watchers, There are many new approvals from the NWA dense collection area. There are many types, including achondrites. There is an interesting update - a provisional NWA has been discredited and removed, to be replaced with a name - Taoudenni. Taoudenni - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=51580 Link - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=%2Asfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=2pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=1 Best regards and happy huntings, MikeG __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] New Antarctic Beauties---want
I'm happy to add images to the Bulletin. We don't usually get them. Jeff On 9/1/2013 7:38 AM, karmaka wrote: Hi Jim, I'm very sorry if the term 'picture book' was misleading. With this word I was referring to the great photos that are included in the met bull entries of the more interesting newly approved Antarctic specimens ( update 30 August, AMN 36(2) ), which could be found at the bottom of the page (link is dead now, try new link below). By clicking on the individual entries (starting with Larkman Nunatak 12002) you can see the great photos. I wish more met bull entries, beyond the ones from ANSMET, were illustrated in this way. It would be nice if one could always see photos of the main mass and a thin section of all newly approved meteorites. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=*sfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Antarcticasrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=31pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=5 Best regards Martin Von: jim_brady...@o2.co.uk An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] New Antarctic Beauties---want Datum: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:06:44 +0200 Thanks for pointing this out Martin Would love to buy it is there a link to buy the actual product, can't see one in the pdf and the met bull link came back null for me Jim __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Postfach fast voll? Jetzt kostenlos E-Mail Adresse @t-online.de sichern und endlich Platz für tausende Mails haben. http://www.t-online.de/email-kostenlos __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] New Antarctic Beauties---want
Right now, it's a manual process. We don't have an automated way of tracking images with a submission. But if you send me images after a meteorite is announced, I'll try to post them fairly quickly. I do reserve the right to be selective about what I choose to post in the database. Jeff On 9/1/2013 8:42 PM, Jim Wooddell wrote: Hi Jeff! Can you please explain that? The reason I ask is that it seems like pulling teeth to get a picture in the bulletin. So, they just go into the un-reliable picture location. I'd love to add pictures to the bulletin like this, BSE images, etc., yet I can find no instructions and it's not on the proposal form to do this. Thanks! Jim On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com mailto:jngross...@gmail.com wrote: I'm happy to add images to the Bulletin. We don't usually get them. Jeff On 9/1/2013 7:38 AM, karmaka wrote: Hi Jim, I'm very sorry if the term 'picture book' was misleading. With this word I was referring to the great photos that are included in the met bull entries of the more interesting newly approved Antarctic specimens ( update 30 August, AMN 36(2) ), which could be found at the bottom of the page (link is dead now, try new link below). By clicking on the individual entries (starting with Larkman Nunatak 12002) you can see the great photos. I wish more met bull entries, beyond the ones from ANSMET, were illustrated in this way. It would be nice if one could always see photos of the main mass and a thin section of all newly approved meteorites. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=*sfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Antarcticasrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=31pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=5 Best regards Martin Von: jim_brady...@o2.co.uk mailto:jim_brady...@o2.co.uk An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com mailto:meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] New Antarctic Beauties---want Datum: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:06:44 +0200 Thanks for pointing this out Martin Would love to buy it is there a link to buy the actual product, can't see one in the pdf and the met bull link came back null for me Jim __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com mailto:Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Postfach fast voll? Jetzt kostenlos E-Mail Adresse @t-online.de http://t-online.de sichern und endlich Platz für tausende Mails haben. http://www.t-online.de/email-kostenlos __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com mailto:Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com mailto:Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com mailto:jimwoodd...@gmail.com 928-247-2675 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Dunite meteorites?
Oh, there are other ureilites with at least 90% olivine. A very quick search finds that Singletary and Grove (2003) list GRA 95205 and GRO 95575 with 94% and 90% olivine, respectively. Jeff On 7/24/2013 6:29 PM, Greg Hupé wrote: Hi All who showed interest so far in the 'only' Dunitic Ureilite, NWA 7630 (so far as I can see)! I will put together a listing and photos over the next few days and let you know what is available of this very cool Dunite. Thank you for your interest!!! Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.NaturesVault.net (Online Catalog Reference Site) www.LunarRock.com (Online Planetary Meteorite Site) NaturesVault (Facebook, Pinterest eBay) http://www.facebook.com/NaturesVault http://pinterest.com/NaturesVault IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault Hi Jack and List, Jack asked, Wondering why no predominately olivine or dunite meteorites exist? I actually have two different 'dunitic' meteorites: NWA 7822 Ungrouped 'Dunitic' Achondrite (90% Olivine): http://www.naturesvault.net/meteorites/nwa7822.html (This one has an extremely low TKW and just one piece is left on the web site. The 5.93g slice that is marked 'Sold' will likely be split into 3 or 4 pieces so there 'might' be a couple small pieces available soon) NWA 7630 'Dunitic' Ureilite (90% Olivine): http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56613 (I do not have this one listed on my web site yet, but do have prepared slices. Sorry, no images yet) -Original Message- From: jack satkoski Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:52 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Dunite meteorites? Wondering why no predominately olivine or dunite meteorites exist? Does this have something to do with proto planet size and crustal evolution? Thanks, Jack Satkoski __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darth Vader in Met Bulletin?!
I was resolved to leave that in there until somebody noticed. It has been at least 3-4 years. It does date to when I was testing some new programming, and I just let it go to see what happened. Nobody has ever said anything. Can you guess what meteorite links to it? On the serious side, any private collectors or dealers who currently have a listing in metbull, or who want one, can contact me for a link where you can enter more detailed contact info, like Adam has already done. The requirement for new entries is that one or more meteorites list you as the holder of the main mass or as finder, or refer to you in the write-up. Here is the one Adam already filled out: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullCollectionInfo.php?coll=AHupe Jeff On 7/13/2013 2:35 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: I think they may be testing a new feature in the database. Jeff Grossman is adding some more functionality to the database like private collections. I was fortunate enough to be asked to help test drive this new feature. My only input was making it hard for spambots to get a hold of email addresses which Jeff took care of. I feel this will be a good feature since private collectors can collaborate with institutional entities. As much as I dislike sharing information, I am taking a positive position on this resource. Adam From: Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com To: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 11:21 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Darth Vader in Met Bulletin?! Here is something I didn't expect to see while poking around in the online Met Bulletin. Link - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullCollectionInfo.php?coll=Vader Apparently Vader collects meteorites and his collection resides on the Imperial homeworld of Coruscant. My question is, are obviously fake names accepted into the Bulletin? Or is this some kind of weird inside joke? Best regards, MikeG __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] RENAMING OF NWA 5435 L4-5 (prov.) TO NWA 3999 (prov.) IN MET. BUL.
Fabien, I think this is an error compounding another error. NWA 6435 was never assigned to your diogenite. It was assigned to the 444 g brachinite with field name K-134, now known as NWA 5435. K091 (235 g) was assigned the provisional number NWA 5133 in 2008 and was classified by Ted Bunch in 2010 as an L5 (Met Bull 97). I don't know who is scrambling these names, but something is very wrong. Jeff On 7/9/2013 9:15 AM, Fabien Kuntz wrote: Hello ... and to be clear, NWA 5435 is an official brachinite (in fact same material as NWA 5363 meteorite group) : http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/index.php?sea=49152 NWA 6435 is now the provisionnal number of a unbrecciated diogenite, metamorphic texture, purchased in 2006 and at this time unpaired (Olivine (Fa32.6-35.6; FeO/MnO = 37-38), orthopyroxene (Fs30.0-30.5Wo1.8-1.4; FeO/MnO = 28). NWA 6435 was my working number K091 for the few of you purchased it before I obtained the provisonnal number... Clear ;-) Fabien Fabien Kuntz Météorites (ventes, expertise, conférences) Animation scientifique et technique WWMETEORITES (Siret : 511 850 612 00017) www.wwmeteorites.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] World's Largest Meteorites by Type
Just to back up what Carl said, MetBull is not decades behind... it may be decades out of date though. MetBull does not attempt to log new discoveries of additional pieces of meteorites, so it is not behind in this task. It is, in general, a one-time publication with a date on it, like a newspaper article. If significant new information is submitted, a new article or supplemental information may be published. But this is a passive activity by the editor, not an active pursuit. Jeff On 6/13/2013 1:49 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: It has been sitting in Tucson for years. Oriented nose cone. Now in China. Met bulletin is decades behind. Seymchan now at least 15 tons. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Pict p...@pict.co.uk wrote: Where is the 3 tonne Seymchan? Met Bull has mass at 323kg by the way. Regards, John On 13/06/2013 12:22, Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com wrote: Seymchan much larger Pallasite one piece is 3 metric tons alone. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com wrote: Hi List, I am putting together a list of the largest known meteorites by type. Here is what the list looks like so far. Can anyone spot any errors or suggest any other large specimens of different types? Largest Meteorites : Largest carbonaceous CM1 - Moapa Valley - 691 g Largest iron - Hoba - 60 MT Largest chondrite - Jilin - 4 MT Largest aubrite - Norton County - 1.1 MT Largest Martian meteorite - Zagami - 18 kg Largest Lunar meteorite - NWA 5000 / Kalahari 009 - 11.53 kg / 13.5 kg Largest pallasite - Fukang - 1 MT (3.5 MT?) Largest angrite - D'Orbigny - 16.5 kg Largest brachinite - NWA 4882 - 2.89 kg Largest mesosiderite - Bondoc? - 888.6 kg Largest CH - Acfer 366 - 1456 g Largest CR6/Metachondrite - Tafassasset - 30+ kg Best regards, MikeG -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone Blog - http://www.galactic-stone.com/blog - __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
This is a long thread and I haven't read all of it. But here are the facts about provisional names and approvals of new meteorites: Provisional names are ONLY given to meteorites from dense collection areas. The reason is that the geographic part of the name is already agreed upon. The provisional part is the number. The whole system is meant to handle places where many meteorites are being found and slowly classified. We wanted a way to track all of these meteorites as early in the process as possible, before they got divided up, mixed up and sold/traded into many hands. The type specimen requirement is really the gold standard for approval of new meteorites. It's the one thing that the committee will not bend, as a meteorite without an accessible type specimen may as well not exist, as far as science is concerned. Promises don't cut it. And when a specimen is deposited in an institution, it has to be an institution that makes specimens available to qualified investigators, has a long-term commitment to curation, and has permanent custody of the specimen. Meteorites that have been delayed in getting published in the Bulletin usually fall in to one of these categories: 1) Nobody has ever submitted it to the nomcom. 2) It was submitted, but has problems that have not been fixed by the submitter in a revised entry. 3) It was submitted, but the type specimen was either too small or not properly deposited in a qualified institutional collection. 4) Nomcom screwed up (regrettable, but it happens. I think it's happening much less now that we're more automated). I think that very few unapproved falls, including Novato, are in categories 2 and 4. Jeff On 4/30/2013 8:20 PM, Richard Montgomery wrote: One of the stones from this find was lent to the NASA team, with an open mind and naivte perhaps; a situation that definitely shook her by total surprise and dismay, when another finder of another stone offered a perspective. She wasn't pleased to learn that she may never see it again. - Original Message - From: Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com To: Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update Thanks Rob, for clearing the air and getting this thread back on track. And now that the dust has settled, we're back to my original concern: Why do we have to wait for just the name to be approved? Here is the question I am posing to the List, stated another way: If everyone is in agreement with the Jenniskins arrangement, then why can't the Committee credit UCLA for the type specimen and move forward with approving at least the name Novato (if need be, at least provisionally)? I mean, what is the difference whether the type specimen goes first to UCLA, then goes to NASA, or vice-versa? I mean, for goodness sake, it's NASA we're talking about here. Why do we have to wait for the results from the consortium before we know the approved name of this meteorite? I mean, we didn't even have a consensus classification for Sutter's Mill, but that name still got approved! We didn't have to wait for the results of the consortium, then. Why now? But before I conclude, allow me to state several things FOR THE RECORD: Contrary to any unfounded assertions that may get printed on this List, there is no problem getting type-specimens from finders to researchers: There were 8 Sutter's Mill finds donated from finders property owners. The name Sutter's Mill was approved BEFORE a classification could be agreed upon and long before the consortium published their results. There were 2 Battle Mountain specimens voluntarily donated by finders to researchers. The name Battle Mountain was approved 30 days after the fall. What delay? Other US falls with no problems getting type-specimens: Mifflin, Lorton, Whetstone Mtns, Ash Creek - no delays in name approval. Finders of the Novato meteorite were making arrangements to submit type specimens to researchers, prior to Jenniskins announcement to the Press that he was submitting the Webber stone as a type specimen. Days after his announcement is when I finally made my Novato find, and at that time I never dreamt we would be having this discussion in 2013. If it becomes necessary, I am prepared (as are other finders) to submit a type specimen to UCLA. But not until we all have been given a proper explanation. -- Bob V. --- On Mon, 4/29/13, Matson, Robert D. robert.d.mat...@saic.com wrote: From: Matson, Robert D. robert.d.mat...@saic.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Novato update To: Pat Brown scientificlifest...@hotmail.com, Jim Wooddell jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net, Met List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, April 29, 2013, 8:51 PM Hi All, I've been informed by one of the Novato finders that this is a non-issue. Dr. Jenniskens has long-since pledged to donate more than adequate Novato
Re: [meteorite-list] Sign Up Now for your Mineral Rights (Mining Asteroids for Platinum)
So I only calculated the price of the precious metals. The base metals are, in fact, worth much more than the precious metals in an H chondrite, especially the Ni. Assuming only the iron in the metal phase is recoverable, an H chondrite would seem to be worth around $50/ton in Fe, $20/ton Co and nearly $300/ton in Ni. If you include this, meteorites are worth a lot more than dehydrated humans. But of course, in a recovered asteroid, the real value is probably in the water. A 14,000 ton carbonaceous asteroid could have 1000 tons of water in it. Here we are worried not about what we could sell it for on Earth, but what it would cost to get that much water into space or recover it from the Moon. Jeff On 4/7/2013 1:14 AM, Alan Rubin wrote: According to coolquiz.com, the commercial value of the substances in the average human body is $4.50. The average adult man has a mass of about 80 kg; the average adult woman, about 60 kg. So, the average adult person is about 70 kg. This indicates that the average adult is worth about $64/MT, nearly two-thirds the commercial value of a chondrite according to Jeff's calculation. I'm sure that there are philosophical implications to this, but I'm tired and can't figure them out. Alan Alan Rubin Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California 3845 Slichter Hall 603 Charles Young Dr. E Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 phone: 310-825-3202 e-mail: aeru...@ucla.edu website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Sign Up Now for your Mineral Rights (Mining Asteroids for Platinum) I just did my own calculation... at pure metal prices, I find most chondrites are worth around $100/metric ton, with Pt dominating the calculation. Of the major groups of carbonaceous, ordinary, and enstatite chondrites, H chondrites are worth the most... I get $162/ton ($80 of which is Pt, $25 Pd, $24 Ir, $12 Au, $10 Os, $8 Rh, $3 Ru). I would put our 15-m radius C-type asteroid at around $1.5M worth of precious metals. Can somebody else reproduce $15B, which is 1 x what I got? I used the following prices in $/kg: $2,733RU $38,585RH $23,441PD $868AG $3,500RE $12,219OS $32,154IR $49,486PT $50,836AU H chondrites have the following concentrations in kg/ton (which is the same as mg/g) RU0.00111 RH0.000207 PD0.0011 AG0.841 RE0.8 OS0.00082 IR0.00074 PT0.0016 AU0.00023 And our 15-m radius C asteroid with density=1 g/cc weighs 14000 metric tons. So Pt in this asteroid is 49486 $/kg * 0.0016 Kg/ton * 14000 tons = $1,100,000 Did I mess something up? I'm tired, so maybe I did something wrong. If you use an iron meteorite, you can multiply by 5. Jeff On 4/6/2013 5:47 PM, Michael Mulgrew wrote: Not to worry, executives from De Beers are forming a corporation to take care of just that. Michael in so. Cal. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com wrote: The problem is that supply and demand must equalize. I would think that the arrival of more platinum that has ever been mined would instantly depress the price on the open market. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:56 AM, bill kies parkforest...@hotmail.com wrote: All in due time. It will be mind numbing to the nth degree when profits are made. The potential for fees and regulation are as limitless as the greed based hallucinations that currently strip us of our ability, our will, to produce on an entrepreneurial level no matter how basic. From: mikest...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:23:19 -0700 To: mars...@gmail.com CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Sign Up Now for your Mineral Rights (Mining Asteroids for Platinum) Just wait until you see the BLM permitting process to establish a mining claim on an asteroid... Michael is so. Cal. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Kevin Kichinka mars...@gmail.com wrote: Team Meteorite: When Ron Baalke forwarded today a news article about mining asteroids for platinum, I at once thought of science-fiction movies I have seen from behind a box of artificially-buttered popcorn. You know, those flicks where slaves from Earth work 84 year-days far beneath the surface of some bare rock-moon in space partnered with creatures normally viewed among the protozoa. Of course there is no possible escape from this living death, but movies need happy endings so our heroes always make it home to their Honey. Mining asteroids seems a bit far-fetched to me. But ask a question or make a comment on the m-list and someone opens the door to knowledge for you. Just walk through. Thanks to Randy Korotev, I know that OC's may contain Pt at ore
Re: [meteorite-list] Sign Up Now for your Mineral Rights (Mining Asteroids for Platinum)
I just did my own calculation... at pure metal prices, I find most chondrites are worth around $100/metric ton, with Pt dominating the calculation. Of the major groups of carbonaceous, ordinary, and enstatite chondrites, H chondrites are worth the most... I get $162/ton ($80 of which is Pt, $25 Pd, $24 Ir, $12 Au, $10 Os, $8 Rh, $3 Ru). I would put our 15-m radius C-type asteroid at around $1.5M worth of precious metals. Can somebody else reproduce $15B, which is 1 x what I got? I used the following prices in $/kg: $2,733RU $38,585RH $23,441PD $868AG $3,500RE $12,219OS $32,154IR $49,486PT $50,836AU H chondrites have the following concentrations in kg/ton (which is the same as mg/g) RU0.00111 RH0.000207 PD0.0011 AG0.841 RE0.8 OS0.00082 IR0.00074 PT0.0016 AU0.00023 And our 15-m radius C asteroid with density=1 g/cc weighs 14000 metric tons. So Pt in this asteroid is 49486 $/kg * 0.0016 Kg/ton * 14000 tons = $1,100,000 Did I mess something up? I'm tired, so maybe I did something wrong. If you use an iron meteorite, you can multiply by 5. Jeff On 4/6/2013 5:47 PM, Michael Mulgrew wrote: Not to worry, executives from De Beers are forming a corporation to take care of just that. Michael in so. Cal. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com wrote: The problem is that supply and demand must equalize. I would think that the arrival of more platinum that has ever been mined would instantly depress the price on the open market. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:56 AM, bill kies parkforest...@hotmail.com wrote: All in due time. It will be mind numbing to the nth degree when profits are made. The potential for fees and regulation are as limitless as the greed based hallucinations that currently strip us of our ability, our will, to produce on an entrepreneurial level no matter how basic. From: mikest...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:23:19 -0700 To: mars...@gmail.com CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Sign Up Now for your Mineral Rights (Mining Asteroids for Platinum) Just wait until you see the BLM permitting process to establish a mining claim on an asteroid... Michael is so. Cal. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Kevin Kichinka mars...@gmail.com wrote: Team Meteorite: When Ron Baalke forwarded today a news article about mining asteroids for platinum, I at once thought of science-fiction movies I have seen from behind a box of artificially-buttered popcorn. You know, those flicks where slaves from Earth work 84 year-days far beneath the surface of some bare rock-moon in space partnered with creatures normally viewed among the protozoa. Of course there is no possible escape from this living death, but movies need happy endings so our heroes always make it home to their Honey. Mining asteroids seems a bit far-fetched to me. But ask a question or make a comment on the m-list and someone opens the door to knowledge for you. Just walk through. Thanks to Randy Korotev, I know that OC's may contain Pt at ore-grade concentrates of 1ppm. But really, how concentrated is that I wondered, ever the sceptic. Two seconds research informed me that Platinum is an extremely rare metal, occurring at a concentration of only 0.005 ppm in the Earth's crust. Looking deeper into the topic (research is like mining, just keep digging and you'll always find your bone) ... Platinum exists in higher abundances on the Moon and in meteorites. Correspondingly, platinum is found in slightly higher abundances at sites of bolide impact on the Earth that are associated with resulting post-impact volcanism, and can be mined economically; the Sudbury Basin is one such example. And... From 1889 to 1960, the meter was defined as the length of a platinum-iridium (90:10) alloy bar, known as the International Prototype Meter bar. The previous bar was made of platinum in 1799. The International Prototype Kilogram remains defined by a cylinder of the same platinum-iridium alloy made in 1879. Those two paragraphs were uncovered from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum Sterling Webb's ever astute comments and links gave me leads and info so that with a little follow-up I've also learned - - the total mass of all asteroids equals about 4% of our Moon's mass. (I had always thought the sum was equal to a 'broken' or 'aborted' planet the size of Mars or larger). - C-type asteroids are carbonaceous and the most common. Consisting of clay and silicate rocks they exist furthest from the Sun in the outer Belt and are the least altered by heat. They may consist of up to 22% water. - S-type 'silaceous' asteroids are primarily stony materials and nickle-iron and are found in the inner belt. - M-type asteroids are mostly nickle-iron and range in the middle region. One linked article allows that
Re: [meteorite-list] Origin of chondrules
written and readable even by a novice such as myself. What I find interesting is the proposal for a (somewhat) new theory that chondrules did not instantly form from clumps of heated nebular dust but instead formed 1.5 to 2.5MY after the formation of CAIs. the paper states that chondrules formed from splashing when two differentiated planetisimals collided at a relatively slow speed of between 10 to 100m/s. Without being able to review the previous papers, I have to say that to me this makes a great deal of sense and appears to solve many of the inconsistencies that have been raised in some of the older books that I have read. Note: there is a typo in the paer on page 2177. Is states A strength of the splashing model is that it can explain why chondrules are mostly between 1.5 and 2.5MYr younger than CAI The sentence should read older, no younger. Dr. Jeff Grossman, would love to hear your thoughts on this paper. Mendy Ouzillou __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Origin of chondrules
The fact of the matter is that it is not hard to poke holes in all theories of chondrule origins. It's good that ideas get aired in the scientific literature. This model is valuable, even if it does not do a good job at explaining all the properties of chondrules. In fact, it is very possible that there are multiple sources for chondrules. We know that some asteroids melted, and we know that impacts between these bodies are common occurrences. So this kind of process DID happen, almost for sure. In striving for the truth about what happened and how chondrules formed, we need to consider all of the possible avenues. If there was an easy, single answer, we would have figured out this problem long ago. Jeff On 3/13/2013 10:44 AM, Mendy Ouzillou wrote: Peter, No one disputes science is messy, but Jim's point is valid. Drs. Rubin and Grossman have forgotten more than I will likely know in regards to meteoritics, but I also feel a bit frustrated. I expect papers in a journal like Meteoritics and Planetary Science to be thoroughly reviewed before being published. It's not an issue of a few esoteric differences, it's about the paper as a whole being rejected by esteemed and respected meteoriticists. Again, Jim's question is valid. Was this paper peer reviewed? I'm sure it was, which leads to the next question. How was it allowed to be published if it is so far off? The answer is important to me because I do not have the time to read everything. I have time to read selected books and articles and want to make sure I am properly furthering my education. Best, Mendy Ouzillou On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Peter Scherff petersche...@rcn.com wrote: Hi Jim, I find this all delightful. Science is messy. Theories compete for acceptance. The one that best fits the facts and is able to predict future discoveries wins! If I wanted absolute truths I would read books that the religions of the world are based on. Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jim Wooddell Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:46 AM To: Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Origin of chondrules Hello Alan, Jeff, Mendy, I find this response somewhat bothersome. I recently read a paper that little old me, not being anyone close to being a scientist, can shoot dozens of holes through because of the use of outdated obsolete information and now I read this from Alan and Jeff, who I look up to and consider piers in this field. The fact is, people read these papers, therefore they must be true!!! It's like the TV commericial where the girl read something on the interenet, so it must be true because no one can put stuff on the interent that isn't true! So, what is going on with these papers? People are creating papers that are supposed to be pier reviewed and here we have two piers shooting them down in a public forum? What happen to the process of pier review and if this particular paper is completely wrong! Who were the piers? I am not going to appologise for being a little critical about this but come on guys, has it just become a paper mill? It sure beginning to seem that way. I am completely missing the point of publishing papers with outdated and obsolete information (when the new data is in hand) and papers that we are reading completely wrong! I honestly do read these papers and try to ingest as much as I can, but here of late, it seems I am completely wasting my time reading them and then I read your responses! Argh. Jim Wooddell On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com wrote: I second what Alan wrote, at the 90% level. With my remaining finger, I'll add that the worst problem may be that these molten planetesimals must magically keep metallic and silicate melts mixed together in order to make chondrules, many of which have abundant metal. I think this would be physically difficult, to say the least. I think the ideas in this paper are philosophically quite attractive, joining modern research on cosmochronology with dynamical models of the disk. But despite this new way of thinking, the basic tenets are quite retro. Many people up through the 1960s hypothesized that chondrules were fragments of igneous rock. Then modern research on them began. Study after study found problems with these models, many of which Alan outlined. Although the new model is a twist on the old ones, it still is subject to the same tests... and it cannot pass most of them. Jeff On 3/13/2013 2:03 AM, Alan Rubin wrote: I'll be happy to give my opinion on the paper. I think it is completely wrong. Here is my reasoning: 1. Many chondrules are surrounded by secondary igneous shells, still others by igneous rims. These shells and rims indicate that the chondrules haev experienced more than one melting event. 2. Many FeO-rich (i.e., Type-II) porphyritic
Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00
Ok, take a deep breath. It took years of research on Semarkona to understand its properties. It is clear that this one has some similar properties, but it will take serious research to fully understand how the two compare. Also, Semarkona is a very well preserved fall, with virtually no weathering (at least the piece in the Smithsonian is). Therefore in terms of research value, assuming the same metamorphic history, this is no Semarkona. So the King is still very much alive. He may have a brother, but his throne is intact for now. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com wrote: It looks like the almighty Semarkona has been dethroned, congratulations, Adam. Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00
There are actually many carbonaceous chondrites that have experienced, most likely, less heating than Semarkona. That includes nearly every CR and most CM chondrites. Semarkona's reign is over the OC kingdom. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Greg Hupé gmh...@centurylink.net wrote: .. And lets not forget NWA 5958, the Ungrouped Carbonaceous Chondrite that we believe met and exceeded the markers for the fabled Perfect 3.00 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/2343.pdf To see some of this incredible meteorite, click here with confidence: http://www.naturesvault.net/meteorites/nwa5958.html Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.NaturesVault.net (Online Catalog Reference Site) www.LunarRock.com (Online Planetary Meteorite Site) NaturesVault (Facebook, Pinterest eBay) http://www.facebook.com/NaturesVault http://pinterest.com/NaturesVault IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: Rob Lenssen Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:16 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00 Finally an L3.00: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57162 Would love to see a photo! Rob Lenssen www.AsteroidChippings.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00
There has been discussion in the literature about how Semarkona is ever so slightly more heated than things like CR chondrites, and so you will find mention of elevating its petrologic type by a few hundredths. But this is very qualitative. It is still a type 3.00 using the scheme of Grossman and Brearley (2005), which only defined 0.05 increments on the metamorphic scale. NWA 7731 was classified using these same criteria for ordinary chondrites that were used to assign Semarkona to type 3.00. There are no data at all to suggest that the new one is less equilibrated than Semarkona. It is possible that detailed study may reveal it is slightly more primitive, or the opposite. It is simply not known. But right now, it is completely unjustified to say that NWA 7731 is less metamorphosed than Semarkona. If there is enough research material available, and if it isn't too weathered, we may eventually know. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com wrote: I thought Semaorkona was a 3.01-3.02 since it did not plot tight enough for a perfect 3.00 ;) - Original Message - From: Darryl Pitt dar...@dof3.com To: Adam Hupe raremeteori...@yahoo.com Cc: Adam meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00 Hi, With great respect, the hallowed primacy of Semarkona is not in jeopardy. On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: It looks like the almighty Semarkona has been dethroned, congratulations, Adam. Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00
Derek Sears, who gave us the first decimal place in his 1980 Nature paper (with a young me as coauthor), used to say that there was more chemical and mineralogical variation among the type 3 chondrites than among the type 4-6 chondrites. We now know that there is as much variation among the type 3.00-3.15 chondrites as there is among the 3.2-6 chondrites. It's kind of logarithmic, in many ways. Different things change at different temperatures, and on different scales. CO chondrites are less well characterized in this regard. Their finer grain size is a big part of the reason. The fact that there are relatively few of them, and that so many have properties that seem a bit anomalous makes their subdivision all the harder. So we don't have as many of them that have been finely classified. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Richard Montgomery rickm...@earthlink.net wrote: Hi List, Decimels to the x.xx mean much more than I initially realized! (I'm just a fun-loving-meteorite-guy-who paints and stuff)...examples being a few of my collection pieces NWA 2918 (CO3.0); NWA 4620 (CO3) and even Kainsaz (CO3)...leads me to ask those of you deep in the know...have these been initially classified with lesser x.xx distinction and will possibly be revisited with further research-class-distinguishing-techniques not explored before the initial classifications? Richard Montgomery - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00 There are actually many carbonaceous chondrites that have experienced, most likely, less heating than Semarkona. That includes nearly every CR and most CM chondrites. Semarkona's reign is over the OC kingdom. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Greg Hupé gmh...@centurylink.net wrote: .. And lets not forget NWA 5958, the Ungrouped Carbonaceous Chondrite that we believe met and exceeded the markers for the fabled Perfect 3.00 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/2343.pdf To see some of this incredible meteorite, click here with confidence: http://www.naturesvault.net/meteorites/nwa5958.html Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.NaturesVault.net (Online Catalog Reference Site) www.LunarRock.com (Online Planetary Meteorite Site) NaturesVault (Facebook, Pinterest eBay) http://www.facebook.com/NaturesVault http://pinterest.com/NaturesVault IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: Rob Lenssen Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:16 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00 Finally an L3.00: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57162 Would love to see a photo! Rob Lenssen www.AsteroidChippings.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00
There are way more than that! NASA ADS lists 275, but I'd guess the real number is well over 1000. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:12 PM, Shawn Alan photoph...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello Jeff and Lister I would have to agree with you more Jeff but I would take it further with the reign would say Semarkona is the only know 3.0 fall. No other 3.0 meteorite can beat that :) In addition to the fall it has under its belt, there are over 100 research papers done on the Semarkona meteorite. Take a look at these two papers. First up... The Fine-Scale Cosmogenic History of the Semarkona Unequilibrated Ordinary Chondrite Craig, J.; Sears, D. W. G. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2010/pdf/5055.pdf On the Use of Phase and Bulk Compositions in Classifying Chondrules from Semarkona (LL3.0) and Other Ordinary Chondrites Beckett, J. R.; Connolly, H. C., Jr. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1547.pdf Enjoy Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 ebay store http://www.ebay.com/sch/imca1633ny/m.html http://meteoritefalls.com/ From: Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00 There are actually many carbonaceous chondrites that have experienced, most likely, less heating than Semarkona. That includes nearly every CR and most CM chondrites. Semarkona's reign is over the OC kingdom. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Greg Hupé gmh...@centurylink.net wrote: .. And lets not forget NWA 5958, the Ungrouped Carbonaceous Chondrite that we believe met and exceeded the markers for the fabled Perfect 3.00 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/2343.pdf To see some of this incredible meteorite, click here with confidence: http://www.naturesvault.net/meteorites/nwa5958.html Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net http://www.naturesvault.net/ (Online Catalog Reference Site) http://www.lunarrock.com/ (Online Planetary Meteorite Site) NaturesVault (Facebook, Pinterest eBay) http://www.facebook.com/NaturesVault http://pinterest.com/NaturesVault IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: Rob Lenssen Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:16 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] finally: L3.00 Finally an L3.00: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57162 Would love to see a photo! Rob Lenssen http://www.asteroidchippings.com/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] chondrite ungrouped
An ungrouped chondrite is a chondrite with properties that do not fit into the existing named groups. Right now, this means it is not an H, L, LL, R, CI, CM, CV, CO, CK, CH, CB, CR, EH, or EL chondrite. It is something different. There are many ungrouped carbonaceous chondrites, and number of ungrouped non-carbonaceous chondrites. When 2-3 ungrouped chondrites have similar properties, some people call this a grouplet. These may or may not have well-known names, e.g. K chondrites (of which there are 2). When 3-5 ungrouped chondrites have similar properties, somebody usually tries to define a new group. So in this sense, ungrouped is a temporary designation that will eventually get replaced when collections grow, either through meteorite falls or sample returns (assuming that the one and only asteroid of this type didn't hit the earth to produce a given ungrouped chondrite). Note also that a significant fraction of ungrouped chondrites that get submitted to the nomenclature committee do not get accepted as ungrouped chondrites. This is because ungroupiness is not well defined. Sometimes there is a fine line between something that belongs to a group, but has anomalous properties, and something that is different enough to get the label ungrouped. Even when something gets published as ungrouped in the Bulletin, you may later see publications that disagree... and vice versa. Jeff On 2/24/2013 9:58 PM, habibi abdelaziz wrote: hello , i wnat to ask here; what is chondrite ungrouped , is that mean anew grouped chondrite, something not classified before is there examples i got a classifcation as chondrite ungrouped just today thanks aziz habibi aziz box 70 erfoud 52200 morroco phone. 21235576145 fax.21235576170 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Update - EL's and OC's
Why is this a problem? -jeff On 2/16/2013 9:46 PM, Mendy Ouzillou wrote: Why are two consecutive numbers assigned to the same group of stones. EL6, two stones and same classifiers. I don't get it ... Mendy Ouzillou On Feb 16, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Galactic Stone Ironworks meteoritem...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bulletin Watchers, There are a handful of new approvals - all are NWA meteorites. Link - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=sfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=1pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=0 Best regards, MikeG __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nwa 7034
Meteorite group names are not invented by NomCom, and certainly not by NASA. The come from usage in the scientific literature. I think we have to remember why names like shergottite and nakhlite came into being. Scientists like to group similar things to help bring order to chaos. When you know next to nothing, you start by putting similar things together that you can study as a group. Once you learn more, relationships may be found among them. In this case, several groups plus a few oddballs seem to share a common origin: Mars. At this point, it doesn't really help anything to continue to generate trivial names for new groupings. The big advance has been made, and we can call them Martian meteorites. That means it is time to start treating all of these meteorites like we do geological specimens on Earth, using standard kinds of lithologic names. I know the old trivial names will die hard, and a term like shergottite will be with us for a long time. But there is no good reason to continue creating new trivial names. ALH 84001 need only be called a Martian pyroxenite (assuming this is the best rock name for it). If 10 more of these are found, they only need to be called Martian pyroxenites; there is no need to define a useless new term like allanhillsites. The same goes for NWA 7034, which we can call a Martian alkali-rich basalt, or whatever Carl says it is. Note that nomenclature for lunar meteorites was never burdened with trivial names, as there were no famous historical falls or finds. After 30 years, lunar anorthosite meteorites are still just called lunar anorthosites. Scientists don't need to put them in a trival category like calcalongites to distinguish them from the basaltic kalahariites... this would only obscure what we know about all of these, and nobody will ever do it. So let's forget about inventing terms like saharanite or morrocanite or allanhillsite or whatever. (And while we're at it, let's consider forgetting about shergottite, chassignite and nakhlite.) They're unnecessary and useless to science. Jeff On 1/26/2013 11:22 AM, Aziz Habibilp wrote: Hello Martian guys Nwa 7034 is a new type of Martian It doesn't fit into snc groups So it make sens to name it as a new group a As I said morroconaite is a good one Thus what I suggest in Honor of nwa hunters S schergotite N nakhla C chassiny M morroconaite /Saharanite This is not something we should argue about a new groups need a new names SNCM So who is giving names now NASA or nomcom or who I would realy that this be considered Anne BB was a nickname for black beauty It was called so before dr carl agee analyse it Than it become basaltic breccia what a coincidence All the best Aziz __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Nwa 7034
There are two reasons why we can't get rid of carbonaceous chondrite group names. First, unlike Martian meteorites, we don't know where C chondrites came from. We can't point to a single asteroid as the source for any of them, let alone all of them. So the group names are still serving their basic purpose of ordering the chaos. Second, the only language we have to describe the rocks known as chondrites is by their group names. They can't be described with standard rock nomenclature. So this is not a fair comparison. I didn't say Martian meteorite names were not useful. I said they were archaic, historical artifacts. Jeff On 1/26/2013 11:38 PM, Carl Agee wrote: Hi Jeff and all you Nomenclature Enthusiasts out there: I think the martian meteorite names do serve a useful purpose, they are a sort of short-hand, so that you don’t have to be an igneous petrologist to know that one type of martian is different from another. So when we say a martian meteorite is a “NWA7034-ite”, or “blackbeauty-ite”, or a “saharite” or whatever name you want to pick, we are implicitly talking about a breccia, that is water-rich, alkali basalt, with higher-than-SNC oxygen isotope values, ~ 2 byo, etc. For example, like it or not, when we say “Allan Hills” the first thing comes that comes to mind is ALH 84001. When you say orthopyroxenite maybe not so much. If it’s such a great idea to do away with martian types, why don’t we go ahead and do away with all the carbonaceous chondrite groups like CI, CM, CV, etc. and just call them all carbonaceous chondrites, that of course have a wide range of compositions, textures, mineralogies etc.? Meteoritics isn’t the only science that has colorful nomenclature. Mineralogists still like to name new minerals after famous mineralogists, instead of just naming them by their chemical composition or crystal structure. Carl Agee __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 7034
Don't forget ALH 84001, the pyroxenite. SNCPB? If we use the N from NWA instead of B, and the A from ALH, how about CANNS? Or maybe we should just do the sensible thing and call them Martian meteorites? Jeff On 1/24/2013 4:42 PM, h...@meteorhall.com wrote: Hi Paul, I like the SNCB. It sounds like a radio station's call letters...Stay tuned for all of your Martian meteorite news from SNCB. Regards, Fred H. How shall we organize the new class of Martian? Until now it has been SNC How about B or B squared for BASALTIC BRECCIA ? SNCB What say you all? -Paul Gessler __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 7034
/ --- Message: 19 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:43:04 -0500 From: Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 7034 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Message-ID: 5102a808.5040...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Don't forget ALH 84001, the pyroxenite. SNCPB? If we use the N from NWA instead of B, and the A from ALH, how about CANNS? Or maybe we should just do the sensible thing and call them Martian meteorites? Jeff On 1/24/2013 4:42 PM, h...@meteorhall.com wrote: Hi Paul, I like the SNCB. It sounds like a radio station's call letters...Stay tuned for all of your Martian meteorite news from SNCB. Regards, Fred H. How shall we organize the new class of Martian? Until now it has been SNC How about B or B squared for BASALTIC BRECCIA ? SNCB What say you all? -Paul Gessler __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
I'm not sure if the message below got sent... getting weird bounce messages fr On 1/5/2013 9:25 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but there is a high degree of doubt. This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the Benešov (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the possible fall category, if such a thing existed. Jeff On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative. Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology? My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up. I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point. Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:). Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net wrote: If a meteorite falls from the sky and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? ;^] -- Mike Bandli Historic Meteorites www.HistoricMeteorites.com and join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 IMCA #5765 --- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of h...@meteorhall.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:36 PM To: Anne Black Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; valpar...@aol.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day Right, Anne. That is why they are referred to as a Fall or a Find. Concise! Cheers, Fred Hall Every single meteorite ever found on Earth is necessarily the result of a fall, they are not native to Earth. The only difference is that some falls are seen, witnessed, and some, the vast majoriry, are not. So calling them Observed or Unobserved falls is logical. That is what happened to all of them. That is simple reality. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- tFrom: hall h...@meteorhall.com To: Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com Cc: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; valparint valpar...@aol.com Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day An unobserved fall is two words to describe the one word that has been used for a century, Find. The one word Find is good enough for the Catalogue of Meteorites, it was good enough for Harvey Nininger, and it is what I shall always use. Keep it concise
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but there is a high degree of doubt. This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the Benešov (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the possible fall category, if such a thing existed. Jeff On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative. Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology? My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up. I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point. Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:). Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net wrote: If a meteorite falls from the sky and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? ;^] -- Mike Bandli Historic Meteorites www.HistoricMeteorites.com and join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 IMCA #5765 --- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of h...@meteorhall.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:36 PM To: Anne Black Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; valpar...@aol.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day Right, Anne. That is why they are referred to as a Fall or a Find. Concise! Cheers, Fred Hall Every single meteorite ever found on Earth is necessarily the result of a fall, they are not native to Earth. The only difference is that some falls are seen, witnessed, and some, the vast majoriry, are not. So calling them Observed or Unobserved falls is logical. That is what happened to all of them. That is simple reality. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- tFrom: hall h...@meteorhall.com To: Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com Cc: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; valparint valpar...@aol.com Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day An unobserved fall is two words to describe the one word that has been used for a century, Find. The one word Find is good enough for the Catalogue of Meteorites, it was good enough for Harvey Nininger, and it is what I shall always use. Keep it concise. Regards, Fred Hall That would make sense for say New Orleans, where a stone went through a house and no one in their right mind would suggest that it did not fall at that time say between 8 am and 4 pm when there was no hole in the house, yet it was not seen to fall. An old rock found
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but there is a high degree of doubt. This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the Benešov (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the possible fall category, if such a thing existed. Jeff On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative. Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology? My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up. I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point. Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:). Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net wrote: If a meteorite falls from the sky and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? ;^] -- Mike Bandli Historic Meteorites www.HistoricMeteorites.com and join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 IMCA #5765 --- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of h...@meteorhall.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:36 PM To: Anne Black Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; valpar...@aol.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day Right, Anne. That is why they are referred to as a Fall or a Find. Concise! Cheers, Fred Hall Every single meteorite ever found on Earth is necessarily the result of a fall, they are not native to Earth. The only difference is that some falls are seen, witnessed, and some, the vast majoriry, are not. So calling them Observed or Unobserved falls is logical. That is what happened to all of them. That is simple reality. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- tFrom: hall h...@meteorhall.com To: Michael Farmer m...@meteoriteguy.com Cc: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; valparint valpar...@aol.com Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day An unobserved fall is two words to describe the one word that has been used for a century, Find. The one word Find is good enough for the Catalogue of Meteorites, it was good enough for Harvey Nininger, and it is what I shall always use. Keep it concise. Regards, Fred Hall That would make sense for say New Orleans, where a stone went through a house and no one in their right mind
Re: [meteorite-list] Smallest Meteorite
There are several other very small meteorites... Khatyrka, announced in June. Although it is listed as 0.1 g in the MB database, if you read the text, you see that there are only 10 particles, all 1 mm. These could well have an actual cumulative mass of 10 mg. Hadley Rille: a named meteorite found in lunar soil from Apollo 15, estimated mass 3 mg. Bench Crater, another Moonish meteorite. I don't know what it might have weighed, but maybe over 10 mg. Alan may know. Jeff On 12/6/2012 10:56 AM, Adam Hupe wrote: Here is what I have been able to summarize: Smallest find: Yamato 8333 10mg provided there are no pairings Smallest TKW for a witnessed fall: Revelstoke ~1 gram Smallest completely crusted individual from a witnessed fall: Bensour ~48mg Take Care, Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Update - 3 New African Approvals (Acfer and NWA)
Yes, sounds like a mistake. I'll investigate. Jeff On 11/8/2012 2:26 PM, jason utas wrote: Hello MIke, Perusing the data, I noticed the following phrase in the description of the EL5: Opaque phases are mainly kamacite and troilite, almost completely weathered to iron oxides. -- And yet, the stone was deemed W1? Might someone qualified be willing to comment on this? I'm confused. Regards, Jason From: MikeG meteoritem...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Update - 3 New African Approvals (Acfer and NWA) To: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Greetings Bulletin Watchers, 3 new approvals - an EL5, CV3, and L5. Link - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=sfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=1pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=0 Best regards, MikeG -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 - __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Orionoid micrometeorites
In confirmation of what Chris responded, this comes from Mike Zolensky, who studies cosmic dust and curates the NASA collection. -jeff Hi Brandon I can take a stab at answering your questions. Many persons have tried this experiment in the past, and invariably they have found that the collected material is from windblown terrestrial dust, airborne waste from coal fired power plants, airplanes, even debris from reentering spacecraft materials. Even among collected magnetic grains the percentage of extraterrestrial materials is less than 1 in a million. The Orionids originate from Comet Halley, and enter the atmosphere at very high velocity (~80 km/s), pretty much guaranteeing that all the comet dust gets oxidized, melted, and vaporized. The magnetic materials you have probably contains magnetite, which is also attracted to magnet, and probably mainly derives from power plants. Sorry to discourage you. 25 years ago Bill Cassidy and Bob Wittkowski tried your experiment at the South Pole, where it is much cleaner than anywhere in the US. They came up with essentially no micrometeorites. Last year we repeated this experiment on a remote pacific Atoll, and even there we expect to have to wade through millions of terrestrial grains to find a few micrometeorites. Mike Michael Zolensky KT NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX 77058 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list- boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Chris Peterson Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:52 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Orionoid micrometeorites I doubt you were seeing micrometeorites, and almost certainly not Orionid micrometeorites. While there is iron in Halley's dust trail, it remains a trace constituent. Orionid micrometeorites should be silicates, not iron particles. You don't state the size of particles observed, but typical micrometeorites are in the 1-10 um diameter range. These particles require months or even years to settle to the ground. Even huge micrometeorites- 100 um diameter- would require about 100 hours to reach the ground, so you wouldn't see them until days after the shower peak. I've recovered particles very much like what you describe (using a custom built micrometeorite collection device), and have subjected the most interesting to examination under an electron microscope (with dispersion analysis). All proved to be nothing more than industrial smokestack debris- and I'm high in the Rockies where the air has a very low particulate count. Where you live, I doubt you'd ever pick out micrometeorites from the vast array of industrial pollutants. Chris *** Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com On 10/22/2012 9:07 AM, b1dunov...@aol.com wrote: Hello Listees. I hope everyone enjoyed the weekend. I live in the Chicago suburbs and was not able to view the Orionoid meteor shower due to overcast skys and horrible light polution from the city. Knowing this would be the case, Two weeks ago while cleaning the gutters on the house I rinsed the entire roof off several times so that the amount of shingle material left in the gutter was less and less each rinse, until finally there was hardly anything coming off. Yesterday I affixed a fine screen to the end of my drain shoots and collected all the material that I was rinsing off. I soaked all the material in anhydrous alcohol for several hours and dried then dried in silica gel. What I had was a mix of different shigle materials, tiny twigs and hopefully something of interest. I use a rare earth magnet to seperate the material into a pile of magnetic and a pile of non-magnetic materials. The magnetic material was them put in a petri dish and was sorted throught under high magnification for hours removing small magnetic materials in the rough shingle grit. After working all day doing this seperation i was left with stuff that left me with my jaw dropped. What i was looking at were aerodynamiclly shaped black metalic pieces, some perfectly round, some pancake shaped, some bars, a couple buttons with rollover all around such as you would see in some indochinites, and even severl tear-dropped pieces with unbroke tails. Under even higher magnification you could see surface details and even multple skins on some of the tear drops and bb's. Along with them there were also bb's that looked slightly oxidized and were an orange color I assume were missed during the initial roof rinses, however the the mass majority were shiny black and had very fine sufrface detail under magnification. Is there a chance these are condensents of vaporized material from the Orionoid shower? If not why such the high concentrations of unoxidized aeroforms so dilicate I doubt would still have such perfect tails after my rigourous rinsing
Re: [meteorite-list] BLM
I am not an expert in this area, but the way I understand it, the Code of Federal Regulations, which have the force of law, grant certain agencies regulatory authority in certain areas. The new BLM policy cites the sections of the CFR under which they are claiming authority to regulate the collection of meteorites on public lands. I am not a lawyer, and I could not attempt to assess whether BLM's applications of the CFR to meteorites would stand up in court. Nor do I wish to comment on whether I think the policy they implemented is wise. But I don't think they are exceeding the authority granted to them under US law to make such policies in general. So BLM is not writing laws... they regulating under the law. At least that's how I understand it. Jeff On 9/21/2012 1:39 PM, Michael Mulgrew wrote: As I understand it, this new memo from the BLM is not a law. Last I checked the BLM does not have the power to write laws. Michael in so. Cal. On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Doug Achim dougac...@yahoo.com wrote: I live in Southern New Mexico. I ran about 100 sections, part of a larger ranch for a little over 5 years( 1999 to 2004) The part I ran was almost all classified as Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Look up the rules for WSA. The only time there was anyone in the area that was not there to visit me was hunting season. The hunters drove all over off road , left their camps a mess when they left, generally trashed the place. I begged the BLM to come bust somebody so I could spread the word and maybe get everyone to follow the rules. Never once did a BLM person show up during the 5 years, except some old volutiers and all they did was drive around and sometimes pick up some trash. In 2004 there was one BLM Agent ( The ones who carry guns) to cover all of southern New Mexico. Border Patrol was a different matter. There were more Border Patrol on the ranch daily than illegals passed through yearly. They mostly were hunting arrowheads, shooting rabbits, or picnicking. I collect arrowheads. I have all the laws concerning artifacts in the binder made up for my files. ARPA laws state in is not againt the law to pick up arrowheads on the surface. ( ARPA was passed in 1979, Jimmy Crater was the president and he was an arrowhead collector). He refused to sign ARPA stating that he did not some Boy Scout arrested for picking an arrowhead up. So it was changed to exclude arrowhead hunting, only arrowheads nothing else, and that is stated a couple places in the law. I had a friend in another BLM area got harassed by a BLM person, so I decide to check in person. There was not one person in the Las Cruces BLM office who could tell me anything except that you could not do it. It took me weeks to find the Agent, and he told me a lot of different things. The one that like was it was not against the law to pick up an arrowhead if you were working, hiking or whatever else on BLM land and found one. Where you were breaking the law was if you went to the BLM land with the intent of looking for arrowheads. I had the law with me so I pulled out a copy of ARPA and ask him to show me where that was stated as I had read it numerous times and never seen any thing written like that. He did not read anything just stated that I was not a lawyer and probably to stupid to understand legal writing. I studied Animal Science, Business, and Civil Engineering, so I am maybe not as smart as a Federal employee, but I know how to read. Someone needs to have a lawyer friend really read the new meteorite law, including all the fine print, because the BLM people read the title and go from there, or they are trying to run you off an area so they can go back and hunt themselves. Another story about arrowheads and ARPA. I found a copy of the Forest Service laws on artifacts. It stated that it was against the the to pick up chipped stone projectiles ( arrowheads ). I contacted the Forest Service and questioned it. They told me that ARPA was only a guideline for federal agencies to use to make their own regulations. I said so the Congress, Senate, and the President had studied, debated, and finally passed the law so some GS2 employee of the Forest Service could change to to what ever he wanted to. I have not seen the new laws but will track one down soon and have a judge friend of mine write an opionon and sent it to the list. Saludos Doug __ 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
Re: [meteorite-list] New BLM Rules
All, For those of you who don't know, I contribute to this list as a private citizen, but I work at NASA headquarters, with duties that extend to oversight of curation and research programs. I will be reading all posts on the list pertaining to this issue. Jeff On 9/20/2012 6:37 PM, Jim Wooddell wrote: I have been in communications with the BLM on and off all day. Art, thank for the HTML reminder as I have been trying to post all day and thought I had this set correctly! Here is the first response: Dear Mr. Wooddell: The application fee is dependent on the time it takes for BLM to process the project proposal in the application. This would be determined by the field office manager after the application is submitted and reviewed. These fees would be estimated for you prior to the processing of the application, and would include monitoring fees as well. The permit application/ permit is 2920-1 attached; fees would be on page 2 when a permit is issued. Some examples of what the fees would be can be found on the following web site and one example is attached. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands.html You mentioned a “nation-wide” permit in your email. BLM issues permits on a local level, and at maximum could be on a state-wide level, for lands that we administer in the Western States. Thank you,Lucia Kuizon --- I am not going to post their second response but they are now aware of some issues that may or may not change the wording. I feel it is imperative for NASA to reach out and support hunters on this issue in regards to the need to hunt fresh falls immediately, without delay of some permit process. While they are claiming media sparked this, most of us knew it was coming, just did not know when or how the wording would be. The current fee structure is twofold. 1. The application / permit. 2. The monitoring fee. Currently the fees will range from ~$100 to ~$1100 for commercial huntersthose seeking profit. This is based on their current cost recovery methods. I have both the application and the fee schedule as example based on the above response. If anyone wants them shoot me a private email. The big issue for hunters is that this will be based on a regional level where each district supervisor may or may not have special conditions, etc. Bottom line is that it will be required to have permits in different hunting areas and could greatly increase overhead for professional hunters. If hunters have to wait for a permit process during a meteor event that produces meteorites, I feel science looses. Regards, Jim __ 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] The ultimate Type Collection List
No, olivine diogenite is a classification that is accepted for the Met Bull, and there are several in press in MB100. I remind everybody that there is no such thing as official nomenclature [of meteorite classifications]. The nomcom tends to be conservative, and generally does not start adopting new kinds of classifications until they come into use in the literature, beyond the original proposer's work. But nomcom does not vote to certify new terms, or anything of the sort. Nobody does. Jeff On 9/3/2012 12:19 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks wrote: Hi Mendy, Here is a type list and collecting guide I put together, drawing largely on David Weir's authoritative website - http://www.galactic-stone.com/pages/types There are a couple of types that are almost impossible to find on the collector market, like Kakangari. There are also some types that are not commonly agreed upon, or are no longer approved as official nomenclature, like Olivine Diogenite. If I recall correctly, this is a type that is no longer being accepted for approval and they are now lumped in with the rest of the diogenites. And speaking of which, there are sub-types that are difficult to acquire, but are not official types, like Noritic Diogenite. Building a complete type collection is a daunting task that many collectors eventually abandon, but it's still a worthy goal. :) Best regards, MikeG __ 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] Fall champion
Who out there is the luckiest person when it comes to being in the right place at the right time? How many recovered meteorite falls have you (A) witnessed to fall or (B) have fallen within, say, 30 km of your location at the time of fall? My fall number (A+B) is a pathetic 0+1=1. I wonder what the record is in each category and for the total? 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] Fall champion
Eyes, as in eye-witness. Sorry. I would, however, be impressed if you were sitting at a radar console and saw the signal in real time! On 8/26/2012 6:58 PM, Marc Fries wrote: Depends on whether you're relying on an old-fashioned or new-fangled definition to the phrase witnessed to fall. I haven't seen any falls with my own eyes, but I've seen 5-6 meteorite falls on weather radar within minutes or hours of each fall. Sutter's Mill, Mifflin, Grimsby, Lorton, Ash Creek, and now what appears to be a new fall in Nevada. That last one is particularly relevant - I believe based on my experience with other falls that I see meteorites that fell only a few days ago, but as of the time of this writing no one has actually seen meteorites first-hand (or at least reported it yet). Cheers, Marc Fries On Aug 26, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: Who out there is the luckiest person when it comes to being in the right place at the right time? How many recovered meteorite falls have you (A) witnessed to fall or (B) have fallen within, say, 30 km of your location at the time of fall? My fall number (A+B) is a pathetic 0+1=1. I wonder what the record is in each category and for the total? 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 __ 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] Vernacular of Meteorite
Here is how Rubin and Grossman (2010) [MAPS 45, 114-122] dealt with this: Another difficult situation arises when considering projectiles that strike a spacecraft. For example, publications reporting on the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF), which was exposed to interplanetary space in low Earth orbit for 5.75 years, generally used the term meteoroid (not meteorite) to describe both the small impactors and the resulting particulate debris that was collected (e.g., Clark 1984). However, as pointed out by Beech and Youngblood (1994), according to existing definitions, meteoroids are defined as objects moving in interplanetary space and meteorites are defined as objects that have reached Earth. Neither definition seems to apply to material that has struck a spacecraft: that material is no longer in interplanetary space as an independent body, nor has it reached Earth or any other celestial body. One could quibble over whether a platform in orbit around the Earth is simply an extension of Earth’s surface, but it is also easy to imagine a situation where an object hits a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun or traveling with sufficient velocity to escape the solar system altogether. Beech and Youngblood (1994) indicated that either a new definition is needed for the term meteorite or a new term needs to be created to cover material that hits a spacecraft. The essential characteristic of a meteorite is that it represents material that comes from one place and survives an accretionary impact someplace else. In addition, the essential characteristic of a meteoroid is its independent existence as a solid object in interplanetary space. The most straightforward way to retain these characteristics is to allow the definition of meteorite to cover material that accretes to man-made objects. Returning to the LDEF example, we would prefer to say that meteoroids impacted the facility and that some of this material survived as small meteorites... Jeff On 8/20/2012 11:02 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: They might reasonably call it an anti-meteoroid shelter, but the fact is, meteorite is not well enough defined to say that once a meteoroid impacts an object in space, it can't be called a meteorite. I don't have a problem with the usage in the article. Meteoroid and meteorite are reasonably interchangeable in this context; the good thing is that they didn't call it an anti-meteor shelter. Chris *** Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com On 8/20/2012 8:54 AM, Pete Pete wrote: Hi, all, I don't recall this being discussed here before and hopefully I'm not being too anal, but is the definition of meteorite evolving, or is it being used improperly here (and frequently in the past when referring to the ISS and these shields). Cheers, Pete http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/08/20/russian_cosmonauts_to_install_anti-meteorite_shelter_on_iss_17508.html http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/08/20/russian_cosmonauts_to_install_anti-meteorite_shelter_on_iss_17508.html Russian cosmonauts to install anti-meteorite shelter on ISS __ 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] Vernacular of Meteorite
The shield is clearly protecting against meteoroids. I don't think this is ambiguous at all. Similarly, one might want to protect Earth from asteroid impacts, but you would not say it needed protection from meteorites. It isn't the leftover bits that present the hazard... it is the incoming projectiles you have to guard against. Jeff On 8/20/2012 11:44 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: This does not make the terms well defined. It is only a proposal for a more complex set of definitions. And even if widely adopted, it does not remove the ambiguity in the case of this protective space shelter. If the shelter is struck by a meteoroid, which then vaporizes, was it a meteoroid shelter or meteorite shelter? If the shelter is struck by a meteoroid, and material survives (either on the surface, or inside), was it a meteoroid shelter or a meteorite shelter? Maybe it is both, or maybe neither. But I don't see any problem with the terms used, either in the context of current IAU definitions, colloquial usage, or the terms proposed by Rubin and Grossman. Clearly there is ambiguity here, since the shield is protective whether or not any material actually accretes from a collision. Most important, I think, is that the meaning is absolutely clear and unambiguous, which is really the ultimate test of usage. What would you call such a shelter? Chris *** Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com On 8/20/2012 9:25 AM, Randy Korotev wrote: Meteorite and meteoroid are, indeed, well defined. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1945-5100.2009.01009.x/abstract Randy Korotev __ 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] MetBul search of provisional or unknown meteorites
The community is welcome to direct questions and suggestions about the MetBull Database to me. I am the editor, author, and programmer of the database. The pulldown item Unclassified meteorites captures the ones called unknown. Alternatively, you can click the Classes radio button and search for unknown. You cannot directly search for a specific class in the listings, as these meteorites have no published classification. But if use change the pulldown menu that defaults to Normal table to Provisional, then the output of your search will include the description field, which frequently contains an unpublished classification. Jeff On 8/2/2012 9:48 PM, Mendy Ouzillou wrote: I'm trying to do something that should be easy, but am having a heck of a time trying to get it to work. I'd like to search the MetBul for a specific class of meteorite within the listings that have provisional numbers. The Classes pulldown does not include Unknown and a straight up text search with the two terms does not work. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Mendy __ 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] Met Bulletin Update - 6 New Approvals and O-Isotope Plotting
If you go to any entry for which oxygen isotope data are present, you'll see the a link to the plots, e.g.: NWA 2986: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=33436 Jeff On 7/30/2012 11:49 AM, MikeG wrote: Hi Bulletin Watchers, There are 6 new approvals today, 3 from NWA and 3 from Nullarbor. The approvals include a LL5-6 found in the Camel Donga eucrite strewnfield, a eucrite, a ureilite, and a handful of OC's. Interestingly, this comment was found in the Met Bulletin update notice yesterday - Added oxygen isotope plotting capability - I cannot find any link or further information about this new capability. Does anyone know how it works? Link - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=sfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=1pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=0 Best regards, MikeG __ 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] NWAs and their country of origin
That's why we call these NWA. We report what we are told about the meteorites. If we can resolve conflicting information, we will. But often it is impossible or difficult. Jeff On 7/30/2012 2:56 PM, Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu, wrote: Dear Jeff, list, I overlooked with curiosity the link suggested by Jeff (example of NWA 2986 described in Met Bull). Nothing to argue about the O isotopic data, all is OK there. But read the whole writeup by curiosity and note that NWA 2986 is probably paired with NWA 2975 and related stones. Upon clicking at NWA 2975 (link given), it appears its country is Algeria, the meteorite being purchased by M. Farmer in Erfoud (Morocco) but beneath, it is said that the place op purchase is...Algeria. Nothing dramatic though somewhat confusing... Now, back to NWA 2986. If both shergottites are paired, souldn't one expect they were found in the same country ? Though the find place for NWA 2575 is referred to as Algeria while Morocco is claimed to be the find place of NWA 2986 ... Strange again, this could suggest to some readers that both were possibly found somewhere near the border of the two countries (logically, where they fell...) Both were purchased (at different moment) in the same city (Erfoud) by the same person (Farmer). Though not sure the seller was the same (only Mike can tell). It is possible the seller N° 1 told Mike NWA 2975 was found in Algeria and the N° 2 that NWA 2986 comes from Morocco. Or that the same seller claimed the same...Or perhaps he (or they) actually did not know at all where it was found...or forgot?...or mentined a country just by chence...or by purpose ? Why, in such a confusing case, not simply mention as country NWA or Sahara, as it is often mentioned so for most of the NWAs ? Is there somebody in the NomCom supposed to correct and to address these obvious uncertainties some day ? Thanks and best wishes, Zelimir __ 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] Sutter's Mill BSE - two more
Carl, What's the difference between the two lithologies visible in the first of these two photos? Jeff On 5/25/2012 2:19 PM, Carl Agee wrote: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4042491099560set=a.1076549432872.2012978.1200325441type=1ref=nf http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4042494859654set=a.1076549432872.2012978.1200325441type=1ref=nf __ 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] Moon Rocks
Yes, I recently handled one of the Apollo 17 plaques, and it contained a nice chip, maybe a cm across. Jeff On 5/23/2012 6:23 PM, Benjamin P. Sun wrote: The Apollo 11 Goodwill moon rocks are fragments of about 50mg for each plaque. But the Apollo 17 Goodwill moon rocks have a fragment of about 1 gram each. __ 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] SUTTER'S MILL in MetBull
For those of you who are disappointed in the classification, be patient. Science sometimes takes time. I'm sure various groups will be refining this in coming days and weeks. Jeff On 5/22/2012 5:25 PM, karmaka wrote: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=Sutter%27s+Millsfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=0pnt=Normal%20tablecode=55529 Martin Postfach fast voll? Jetzt kostenlos E-Mail Adresse @t-online.de sichern und endlich Platz für tausende Mails haben. http://www.t-online.de/email-kostenlos __ 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] SUTTER'S MILL in MetBull
The guidelines were not relaxed... they were changed. On 5/22/2012 5:32 PM, meteorh...@aol.com wrote: Glad to see they stuck with Sutter's Mill as the name. In an era where we no longer need to turn to the index in the back of a physical atlas to locate where in it a particular meteorite was found, it is good to see the guidelines for the name being relaxed a bit. Steve Arnold Host of Meteorite Men Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: karmakakarmaka-meteori...@t-online.de Sender: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:25:17 To: met-listmeteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Reply-To: karmakakarmaka-meteori...@t-online.de Subject: [meteorite-list] SUTTER'S MILL in MetBull http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=Sutter%27s+Millsfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=0pnt=Normal%20tablecode=55529 Martin Postfach fast voll? Jetzt kostenlos E-Mail Adresse @t-online.de sichern und endlich Platz für tausende Mails haben. http://www.t-online.de/email-kostenlos __ 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] SUTTER'S MILL in MetBull
Yes, that is what I meant. On 5/22/2012 7:08 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote: Hi Greg, Wow - that classification was fast, exactly one month. I guess now it needs to be compared to the other C's and if there are three alike, perhaps a brand new C-chondrite group. Don't read too much into the simple C classification. This is very preliminary, and the classification will no doubt gain specificity as analyses at multiple labs are performed. (This is what Jeff meant in the be patient comment below.) For now, think of C as a placeholder: we know it's a carbonaceous chondrite. ;-) --Rob -Original Message- From: Jeff Grossman Sent: 22 May 2012 21:31:47 GMT To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] SUTTER'S MILL in MetBull For those of you who are disappointed in the classification, be patient. Science sometimes takes time. I'm sure various groups will be refining this in coming days and weeks. 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 __ 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] SUTTER'S MILL in MetBull
It is important, and we really needed to get the name announced in order not to impede science (e.g., the MetSoc abstracts are due in a matter of days) and to end the controversy around what to call it. If you read Zolensky's description in the bulletin, it's clear that he thinks the meteorite is CM like. But it is not your normal CM2 from this description. This could ultimately go a number of ways in the final analysis... anything from a CM to an ungrouped C chondrite, or maybe something else. There is no reason to jump to conclusions. I'm betting that the MetSoc abstracts will tell us much more. Jeff On 5/22/2012 8:02 PM, Michael Gilmer wrote: Hi Jeff and List, I think the speedy approval and publication is a great service to the meteorite community as a whole (science and laypeople alike), because it provides authoritative data during an event that is still unfolding, and this might help prevent some misunderstandings or misinformation that could have resulted without a published classification. Great job on getting it done quick. :) On the other hand, I am a bit puzzled by the temporary place-holder type of C - Carbonaceous. I understand what it means and why it was selected. However, this seems unusual for an approval that is published in the database. We don't see this very often. In the past, the release of an approved classification was usually withheld until a more definitive conclusion was reached on the petrologic type. In other words, we don't see too many of these placeholder classification types. Am I wrong, or did Sutter's Mill merit this because of it's important and unusual nature? Best regards, MikeG __ 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] Sutter's Mill TKW Update - Friday May 18
Once again, I've gotta take issue with calling a stone that is only 10% of the total recovered mass the main mass. I don't think this is a reasonable usage. Allende, Murchison, Holbrook, and now this meteorite simply don't have a single main mass. Give Ward credit for the largest known piece. I also want to point out that classifications published in the Bulletin are not official classifications. They are considered by the committee to be authoritative classifications, which means they were judged to be done by people with the proper expertise and their findings were judged to be reasonable. But every classification in the Bulletin is nothing more than a finding made by the listed classifier(s), i.e. the work of one specific person or group. Jeff On 5/18/2012 9:47 AM, Michael Gilmer wrote: Hi Folks, The find tally page has been updated again. I was contacted by one of the early finders who informed me that his SM-numbered stone was actually a wrong. It was some kind of tar-coated concrete or asphalt. So that stone was struck from the list and run out of town on a rail. The current unofficial TKW is 432.81 grams. The current unofficial number of finds is 55. The main mass is still Robert Ward's superb 44 gram stone. The official classification on this one is going to come pretty quick - think along the lines of Ash Creek. A specimen from that fall was recovered very early and analyzed and it appeared in the Bulletin within a couple of weeks. I expect this new fall will follow a similar path to publication. The only thing that remains to be seen is what will the official classification type be? CM? CM2? CM3(!), CI? Or..? Official Sutter's Mill page (NASA-Dr. Jenniskens) - http://asima.seti.org/sm/ Unofficial TKW and Find Tally - http://www.galactic-stone.com/pages/lotus To those still who are still hunting - good luck and bring home the big rocks! :) Best regards, MikeG __ 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] Sutter's Mill slices question, Impact Melt?
I'm not sure what you're referring to with this statement... an entry in MetBull will probably be published very soon. After that, there are no Meteoritical Society bylaws or anything else concerning the release of information. Of course, some authors may not release all of his/her data until such time that they don't get scooped on their research, and journals like Science and Nature have embargoes of articles prior to publication. But MetSoc does not stand in the way of release of information to the public in any way... in fact, it promotes the dissemination of information, e.g., by sponsoring meetings and workshops. Jeff On 5/17/2012 2:19 PM, meteorh...@aol.com wrote: I suppose in 2 years or so, when the papers are published, and this gets named and classified, we will all start to appreciate what we have here. It is a bit unfortunate that meteoritical laws require that information not be made public until after the papers are peer reviewed, presented and published. __ 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] Sutter's Mill slices question, Impact Melt?
I can't say when the bulletin announcement may come, only that we try to get these kinds of falls announced as soon as we possibly can. I expect this one to follow suit. Jeff On 5/17/2012 3:45 PM, meteorh...@aol.com wrote: Jeff, Of course there are no Laws only it seems like people almost act like there are such restrictions. I should have put the little quotes around the word the first time. Of course there are financial reasons why hunters want to keep some info private at times, for financial reasonsm. And there are probably financial reasons why researchers don't want to invest time and money into researching something only to have some unethical researcher scoop credit or grant money from them if they let info out of the bag too early. Still, it would be nice if that information would be free to everyone as it arrives. Probably ain't gonna happen, but it would still be great wouldn't it? This is super news that a Metbull classification is coming real soon. Do you have any idea when that might happen? By the way, this is FAR better than having to wait a year or longer like in years gone by. It is a wonderful time we live in. Steve Arnold Host of Meteorite Men --Original Message-- From: Jeff Grossman To: meteorh...@aol.com Cc: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Sutter's Mill slices question, Impact Melt? Sent: May 17, 2012 2:30 PM I'm not sure what you're referring to with this statement... an entry in MetBull will probably be published very soon. After that, there are no Meteoritical Society bylaws or anything else concerning the release of information. Of course, some authors may not release all of his/her data until such time that they don't get scooped on their research, and journals like Science and Nature have embargoes of articles prior to publication. But MetSoc does not stand in the way of release of information to the public in any way... in fact, it promotes the dissemination of information, e.g., by sponsoring meetings and workshops. Jeff On 5/17/2012 2:19 PM, meteorh...@aol.com wrote: I suppose in 2 years or so, when the papers are published, and this gets named and classified, we will all start to appreciate what we have here. It is a bit unfortunate that meteoritical laws require that information not be made public until after the papers are peer reviewed, presented and published. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry __ 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] Fwd: Pojoaquea Pallasite - What happened to it? (Second Attempt)
Mike, Surely, this must be Glorieta Mountain, which has the synonym Pojoaque. Jeff On 4/28/2012 9:40 AM, Michael Gilmer wrote: Hi List, I tried to post this yesterday, but emails were not going through to the List. I contacted a couple of other List members who confirmed that they were having problems with emails reaching the List also. So if this message (or my ad from yesterday) appears twice, please forgive me, it was not intentional. Usually, any Nininger-related question garners a couple of replies, so I knew something was wrong when nobody replied and this post never appeared. Original post/question - Hi List, On page 9 of Nininger's Catch a Falling Star, he mentions a pallasite named Pojoaquea that was found in an Indian burial mound in New Mexico in 1931. He says that the specimen bore evidence of being carried in a medicine pouch. I searched the internet, Grady's CoM, and the Met Bulletin, and I cannot find any other mention of this meteorite. Does anyone know what happened to this meteorite? And if it is extant, where is it? Best regards, MikeG __ 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] Met Bulletin Updates - 2 NWA's and a Nova, and a Question regarding Nomenclature
The way it works is that meteorites are named based on how much certainty we have about where they come from. When we think the coordinates are accurate, we can name them after very local features. For things like NWA and Sahara meteorites, we have some confidence that they come from northwest Africa and the Sahara in general, but not much more than that. The hallmark of the Nova series is that we don't have any good information about where they were found, or, in some of the early ones, we thought that information was false. Nova 011 simply turned up in a market in Russia.There is no accompanying find story. Perhaps it's from Russia, perhaps it's an NWA, who knows. If there was some kind of find story indicating a local origin, we might have named it differently, perhaps South Russia or something like that. Jeff On 4/20/2012 12:20 PM, Michael Gilmer wrote: Greetings Bulletin Geeks, There are 3 new approvals today. Two NWA's - a CK5 and L5. And one new Nova find - an iron from Russia. Question - it has been my understanding that Nova names are reserved for those meteorites with dubious location data. So, why is it that many of the Labenne finds have not been renamed as Nova finds? And this new Russian iron seems to have find data similar to the majority of NWA's, so why aren't more NWA's classified as Novas? Is it because there are just too many NWA's? http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=sfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=1pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=0 Best regards, MikeG __ 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] New Met Bulletin approvals
Just to clarify, I only send out announcements of interesting types of meteorites on the RSS feed (anything other than H/L/LL type 4-6). jeff On 2/1/2012 2:49 AM, Jeff Kuyken wrote: Hi John all, For those of you who may not be aware, the Met Bull has a great RSS feed where new approvals come through automatically. It's a great service. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/meteorite-rss.php Cheers, Jeff Kuyken Meteorites Australia www.meteorites.com.au President - I.M.C.A. Inc. www.imca.cc -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of John Lutzon Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012 3:39 PM To: Galactic Stone Ironworks Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Met Bulletin approvals Hi All, Thank you Mike for the heads up. As i have 25 or so UNWA's and almost always check the Met Bull daily i did miss this one. I am lucky enough to have two today, 6349-5.32g and 6709-5.59g, and wish to thank Stefan Martin for my good luck. As well, i thank the big Kahuna (Gary) for 2 other unwa's i purchased from him that were classified, 6573-1.39g and 6575-5.61g. I hope others had good luck today and everyday of their anticipated acceptance of their Unwa's. John Lutzon IMCA 1896 - Original Message - From: Galactic Stone Ironworksmeteoritem...@gmail.com To:meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:18 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] New Met Bulletin approvals Hi Listees, For those of you who follow the Met Bulletin, 21 new meteorites were approved today. Some of these are rare types. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=sfor=namesants=falls=vali ds=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmbl ist=Allrect=phot=snew=1pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=0 * Galactic Stone Ironworks - Meteorites Amber (Michael Gilmer) Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://tinyurl.com/42h79my News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone *** __ 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 __ 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] Is there a Main Mass list?
None of this is something I want to track in the MB Database. It would be too difficult and time-consuming to track an ever-changing and often controversial list. Moreover, as you say, it isn't a particularly useful thing to tabulate. I'll leave it to collectors to take on this task. Jeff On 1/25/2012 5:15 AM, MexicoDoug wrote: A main mass list? Heck, there isn't even a main mass definition everybody agrees on! Here's mine: Hi Jeff, all, A main mass has some scientific value IMO in some circumstances. But really, it seems to me one of those things that we keep having to fill out on a boilerplate form that serves of little real scientific value. Better would be to drop the confusing, unfortunately now unscientfic (due to the various definitions as you already reminded us) term main mass and just have an entry called, biggest known piece = BKP which is already used analogously in the case of TKW. in the database. It's really what most collectors are interested in anyway and would create probably a bunch more of limited useful information llike the TKW's which frequently are significantly understated. My take on a 'main mass' wouldn't require it to be more than half, but rather the principal piece of the original meteoroid from which all fragmentation is derived, and the one expected to travel furthest up the dispersion ellipse's axis shedding it all. I suppose a scenario of a boulder splitting into two equal pieces would screw that up too, but then we could drop some fancier names to describe that 'degenerate' case. Just sounding off Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 11:33 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Is there a Main Mass list? A main mass list? Heck, there isn't even a main mass definition everybody agrees on! Here's mine: An individual stone/iron or piece of an individual stone/iron that comprises the majority ( 50%) of the known mass of a named meteorite. Jeff On 1/24/2012 10:08 AM, Bob Loeffler wrote: Hi list, After looking at Jim Strope’s photos of the New Concord main mass (Rocks from Space Picture of the Day a couple days ago) that he got in a trade with ASU (my alma mater; Go Sun Devils!), I thought of a question: Who has the most main masses in their collection? Of course, I thought of people like Bob Haag, Mike Farmer, etc and museums like the Smithsonian, ASU, etc. Has anyone ever put together such a list? Because of trading, the list might be hard to keep updated, but maybe not since main masses are coveted and might not be passed around too much. For new falls, the main mass will change as newer/bigger pieces are found, but I would think someone in the know could put together the list, or at least start it. If nobody has such a list, maybe the Meteoritical Bulletin Database could have a few more fields added for easy searching. Fields such as Main Mass Weight, Main Mass Owner and Main Mass Image (for the best photo of the main mass), and then the Owner field could be easily changed if the Meteoritical Society finds out that the main mass was sold/traded to someone else. Anyway, just a thought. In case you are wondering, I have no main masses in my collection. :-( Regards, Bob L. __ 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] Is there a Main Mass list?
A main mass list? Heck, there isn't even a main mass definition everybody agrees on! Here's mine: An individual stone/iron or piece of an individual stone/iron that comprises the majority ( 50%) of the known mass of a named meteorite. Jeff On 1/24/2012 10:08 AM, Bob Loeffler wrote: Hi list, After looking at Jim Strope’s photos of the New Concord main mass (Rocks from Space Picture of the Day a couple days ago) that he got in a trade with ASU (my alma mater; Go Sun Devils!), I thought of a question: Who has the most main masses in their collection? Of course, I thought of people like Bob Haag, Mike Farmer, etc and museums like the Smithsonian, ASU, etc. Has anyone ever put together such a list? Because of trading, the list might be hard to keep updated, but maybe not since main masses are coveted and might not be passed around too much. For new falls, the main mass will change as newer/bigger pieces are found, but I would think someone in the know could put together the list, or at least start it. If nobody has such a list, maybe the Meteoritical Bulletin Database could have a few more fields added for easy searching. Fields such as Main Mass Weight, Main Mass Owner and Main Mass Image (for the best photo of the main mass), and then the Owner field could be easily changed if the Meteoritical Society finds out that the main mass was sold/traded to someone else. Anyway, just a thought. In case you are wondering, I have no main masses in my collection. :-( Regards, Bob L. __ 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] Provenance of Universities' Material
I guess this means that the Smithsonian, AMNH (New York) and Natural History Museum (London) curators don't recognize rarity and value. Perhaps it's something else. The fact of the matter is that large institutional collections are, in general, rather lacking in NWAs, Libyan, and Omani meteorites. This is reflected in the scientific literature. Although there are some institutional collections with a lot of hot desert meteorites, I doubt your statement that the collections in institutions will soon be dominated by hot desert meteorites. Jeff On 1/17/2012 10:42 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: Most museums and institutions who recognize rarity and value now integrate world-class NWA specimens into their collections. The Royal Ontario Museum comes to mind who has an amazing collection. I think the ratio will favor hot-desert finds soon. Their beauty rarity and value cannot be ignored. A meteorite has no control where it lands. A meteorite is a still a meteorite once a meteoroid touches the Earth. We are fortunate that the Sahara desert preserves them well. Kind Regards, Adam __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] Provenance of Universities' Material
Erik, This would be a nearly impossible exercise to do. What I can say is this: There are 29050 classified Antarctic meteorites in the world's colletions, and 12664 classified non-Antarctic meteorites. If we assume that all of the Antarctics are government-collected and most of the non-Antarctics are privately collected, then by number of named meteorites, ~30% were privately collected. If you do it by mass, it is all dominated by the large irons, and then you have to worry about who collected each one. If you do it by numbers of individual specimens, I have no idea... this tends to bias the answer toward observed large showers like Holbrook. Tens of thousands of desert meteorites, especially NWAs, are unclassified, and will not be classified any time soon. But these tend not to be acquired material [in] universities and museums. So we probably don't have to count all of them (even if we could). But there are nearly 9000 unclassified Antarctic meteorites in institutional collections which might be counted. Jeff On 1/17/2012 3:59 PM, Erik Fisler wrote: Hello List again, I was pondering the posts from University Experience and the very exciting posts on the new lunar material along with an announcement from ASU's School of Space Exploration's new acquisition of the 349g main mass from the Tissint fall today. This brings up an interesting question to my mind; What percentage of acquired material Universities and museums around the world posses have been recovered by private hunters. (not by government or university or museum field groups or Antarctican hunts.) Surely the percentage must be within 98-99% [Erik] Sent from my iPod __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] Provenance of Universities' Material
The question was in universities and museums. This means accessioned specimens. So the vast amount of NWA debris, some of which I've seen in Marvin Killgore's collection, is mostly not relevant. -jeff On 1/17/2012 7:44 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: 29,050 Antarctic meteorites divided by 5 pairings each since every fragment is counted equals 5,810. If every fragment were counted from Northwest Africa, the total meteorites found would easily exceed 1,000,000. NWA is the number one producer of meteorites by weight, number and rare finds, all accomplished in less than two decades. - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossmanjngross...@gmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Provenance of Universities' Material Erik, This would be a nearly impossible exercise to do. What I can say is this: There are 29050 classified Antarctic meteorites in the world's colletions, and 12664 classified non-Antarctic meteorites. If we assume that all of the Antarctics are government-collected and most of the non-Antarctics are privately collected, then by number of named meteorites, ~30% were privately collected. If you do it by mass, it is all dominated by the large irons, and then you have to worry about who collected each one. If you do it by numbers of individual specimens, I have no idea... this tends to bias the answer toward observed large showers like Holbrook. Tens of thousands of desert meteorites, especially NWAs, are unclassified, and will not be classified any time soon. But these tend not to be acquired material [in] universities and museums. So we probably don't have to count all of them (even if we could). But there are nearly 9000 unclassified Antarctic meteorites in institutional collections which might be counted. Jeff On 1/17/2012 3:59 PM, Erik Fisler wrote: Hello List again, I was pondering the posts from University Experience and the very exciting posts on the new lunar material along with an announcement from ASU's School of Space Exploration's new acquisition of the 349g main mass from the Tissint fall today. This brings up an interesting question to my mind; What percentage of acquired material Universities and museums around the world posses have been recovered by private hunters. (not by government or university or museum field groups or Antarctican hunts.) Surely the percentage must be within 98-99% [Erik] Sent from my iPod __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] Tata-Foumzgit-Tanzrou Martian Fall. (Why no lunar falls? and freshest lunar?)
...except that it is unlikely that the primary target of a sample return mission to Mars would be basalt! That is not to say that this isn't an exciting event. But it does not accomplish what a sample return mission would, nor does it make such a mission less important. Jeff On 1/15/2012 2:43 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks wrote: Hi Shawn and List, It is true that science has access to dozens(!) of Martian meteorites, but all of them have been sitting on Earth for thousands of years and they have experienced alteration and oxidation during that long wait for discovery. This is the first Martian (or any planetary) that has a terrestrial age measured in months. That is exciting. It is so pristine and fresh, that scientists should be very keen to research it. Due to it's lack of oxidation and alteration, it is the next best thing to sample recovery mission. Imagine how much it would cost to bring back a sizeable sample from Mars. Mother Nature just saved science billions of dollars. :) Best regards, MikeG __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] Nobel Prizewinning Quasicrystal Fell From Space
No. On 1/3/2012 2:41 PM, Greg Hupé wrote: Very interesting! Does this meteorite have a name or number yet? Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.LunarRock.com NaturesVault (eBay) IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: Ron Baalke Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:56 PM To: Meteorite Mailing List Subject: [meteorite-list] Nobel Prizewinning Quasicrystal Fell From Space http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21325-nobel-prizewinning-quasicrystal-fell-from-space.html Nobel prizewinning quasicrystal fell from space by David Shiga New Scientist January 3, 2012 A Nobel prizewinning crystal has just got alien status. It now seems that the only known sample of a naturally occurring quasicrystal fell from space, changing our understanding of the conditions needed for these curious structures to form. Quasicrystals are orderly, like conventional crystals, but have a more complex form of symmetry. Patterns echoing this symmetry have been used in art for centuries, but materials with this kind of order on the atomic scale were not discovered until the 1980s. Their discovery, in a lab-made material composed of metallic elements including aluminium and manganese, garnered Daniel Shechtman of the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa last year's Nobel prize in chemistry. Now Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and colleagues have evidence that the only known naturally occurring quasicrystal sample, found in a rock from the Koryak mountains in eastern Russia, is part of a meteorite. Nutty conditions Steinhardt suspected the rock might be a meteorite when a team that he led discovered the natural quasicrystal sample http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1170827 in 2009. But other researchers, including meteorite expert Glenn MacPherson of the Smithsonian Institution of Washington DC, were sceptical. Now Steinhardt and members of the 2009 team have joined forces with MacPherson to perform a new analysis of the rock, uncovering evidence that has finally convinced MacPherson. In a paper that the pair and their teams wrote together, the researchers say the rock has experienced the extreme pressures and temperatures typical of the high-speed collisions that produce meteoroids in the asteroid belt. In addition, the relative abundances of different oxygen isotopes in the rock matched those of other meteorites rather than the isotope levels of rocks from Earth. It is still not clear exactly how quasicrystals form in nature. Laboratory specimens are made by depositing metallic vapour of a carefully controlled composition in a vacuum chamber. The new discovery that that they can form in space too, where the environment is more variable, suggests the crystals can be produced in a wider variety of conditions. Nature managed to do it under conditions we would have thought completely nuts, says Steinhardt. Journal reference: /Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences/, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.115109 http://www.pnas.org/ __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] ADVERT - NEW WITNESSED SHERGOTTITE FALL
Yes, I was asked to enter this synonym, Tata, into the MetBull database a year ago, but the person who requested it wasn't sure which specimens the name referred to other than 1430. It never went past there. What do you all think? Is Tata exclusively used for NWA 1430, or are there other meteorites that go by this synonym? In any case, this previous usage does make it less likely that the name would be accepted for the new Martian. Jeff On 12/28/2011 8:06 PM, Darryl Pitt wrote: Hi, I was certainly not so presumptuous to name this, and I thought the term provisional, would be most apt---as it is most certainly would be provisional in the true sense of the word. As I previously indicated, as others referred to this as Tata, in an effort to avoid a bit of confusion here we are! ;-) On Dec 28, 2011, at 7:45 PM, impact...@aol.com wrote: I am very sorry Darryl, but... There is already a Tata, it is a Medium Octahedrite, group IIIAB, 113kilos, found in 2001. Yes, of course, it does have a number, it is NWA 1430, but just like Taza, the name is much better known than the number. Sorry! Anne M. Black _http://www.impactika.com/_ (http://www.impactika.com/) _IMPACTIKA@aol.com_ (mailto:impact...@aol.com) Vice-President, I.M.C.A. Inc. _http://www.imca.cc/_ (http://www.imca.cc/) In a message dated 12/28/2011 5:17:45 PM Mountain Standard Time, dar...@dof3.com writes: Greetings! Here is a peek at an offering of the new witnessed fall shergottite, provisionally referred to by some in earlier posts on this list as Tata. http://www.rocksfromspace.org/MARS.html Michael Johnson's RSPOD image is the first specimen listed http://www.rocksfromspace.org/December_25_2011.html Hoping everyone is enjoying their holiday. With wishes for a healthy, happy and really terrific New Year! Darryl Anne M. Black http://www.impactika.com/ impact...@aol.com Vice-President, I.M.C.A. Inc. http://www.imca.cc/ __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] ADVERT - NEW WITNESSED SHERGOTTITE FALL
Also, a provisional name is something that the NomCom gives out for likely new meteorites in dense collection areas prior to final classification. Provisional names are essentially official temporary names. Jeff On 12/28/2011 8:55 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks wrote: Hi Darryl and List, That is a delicious-looking shergottite. Congratulations. :) If you have any powder or dust I can put into my glass of Maker's Mark, please send it along. A Martian that tasty must be consumed! LOL Best regards, MikeG __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] ADVERT - NEW WITNESSED SHERGOTTITE FALL
Falls (if this is one) do not get dense collection area numbers. NomCom guideline 3.3a says, In the event that a meteorite falls near the same locality as an existing named meteorite, the new fall should not be assigned... a numeric designation... It gets a unique name. Jeff On 12/28/2011 9:07 PM, Galactic Stone Ironworks wrote: Hi Jeff and List, Whatever the official name is, I hope it's an actual place name and not another NWA number. A fall of this magnitude deserves a name. :) Best regards, MikeG __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] New fall...Mars / Nice inside too
So a question: why is this being called a fall, when the web page says This new martian meteorite is possibly associated with a large fireball observed during day, around noon, in July 2011? Sounds like the fall status is still an open question. Or is there more to the story? Jeff On 12/23/2011 8:45 PM, luc Meteorites.tv / Labenne Luc wrote: Inside the new martian meteorite fall...nice too... http://www.meteorites.tv/martian-meteorite-tata/426-martian-meteorite-tata.html Enjoy! http://www.facebook.com/luc.labenne.pro Best Regards Luc Labenne Labenne Meteorites Meteorites for Science, Education Collectors http://www.meteorites.tv labennemeteori...@hotmail.com luclabe...@meteorites.tv Member of the Meteoritical Society, a non-profit international organization dedicated to research and education on meteorites and other extraterrestrial materials Consider the environment before printing this mail. __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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 __ HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! 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] Primitive Achondrite Question
Some PACs do in fact contain relict chondrules, especially acapulcoites and winonaites. Some chondrites have no chondrules (CIs and highly altered ones, plus some type 6 and 7) and some PACs do. Life is not always simple! Jeff On 12/5/2011 9:22 PM, MexicoDoug wrote: There are relict chondrules identifyable in LL7's according to the definition I read, though if you dig through David Weir's or Dr. Bunch's websites you will probably get updated information. So, it can't be an achondrite, primitive or not. If anything it would have to be a highly evolved chondrite; --- same logic we just saw with Al Haggounia 001 not being an aubrite = chondrule .. not an aubrite but in that Al Haggounia case, chondrules that were not completely mineralized with replacements are present, and Greg Hupe has an unambiguous chondrule that he kindly shared with me that is extremely well defined (dropping it to a 3 in that case assuming not 100% relict). What happens when a chondrite is just past the metamorphic stage that chondrules are no longer identifyable is probably a variable process causing confusion among classifications of sparcely occuring chondrules in 6's and those of 7's. Must be a bit to come up with uniform criteria since nature has her own sometimes cryptic ways. It would only get interesting if different parts of the same rock get baked in a non-uniform oven. Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Ruben Garcia mrmeteor...@gmail.com To: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 8:23 pm Subject: [meteorite-list] Primitive Achondrite Question Hi all, I just bought a smallish collection and several of the slices that came with are NWA 3100. Mike Farmer's card was included and lists NWA 3100 as an LL7. The Met-Bul calls NWA 3100 a Primitive achondrite - not an LL7. My question is this, Does LL7 denote a particular Primitive achondrite? If so which one? If not then what type is this? BTW - I think Ted Bunch did the classification -- Rock On! Ruben Garcia Website: http://www.mr-meteorite.net Articles: http://www.meteorite.com/blog/ Videos: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=meteorfright#p/u __ 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] Primitive Achondrite Question
Type 7 is considered by most of those who use it to represent the highest degree of thermal metamorphism that a chondrite can experience without melting. As implied in that first sentence, some petrologists don't distinguish these from type 6. The term primitive achondrite is widely taken to be the next stage: you make them when a chondrite partially melts, and the process of crystal-melt separation begins. The primitive part says that the bulk composition is still fairly close to chondritic. But these definitions are not used by everybody, and you will get arguments about them. Clearly, the LL part of an LL7 classification for NWA 3100 is unlikely. O isotopes are below the terrestrial fractionation line, which basically rules it out. So it is not an LL7. Bunch has shown that the O isotopes are closer to CR chondrites. The hard part is the type 7 vs. primitive achondrite distinction. Bunch et al.'s 2005 and 2008 LPSC abstracts do not report anything in NWA 3100 that I take as evidence of melting or differentiation. So I don't see any reason to call these primitive achondrites, at least not based on these findings. I think the Bunch et al.'s conclusion that NWA 3100 is a CR6 is the best we have right now, but I think you still have to think of this as preliminary. Ted can correct me, but I think it was actually the nomcom that pushed for calling this a PAC, amid controversy on the committee. Jeff On 12/5/2011 8:23 PM, Ruben Garcia wrote: Hi all, I just bought a smallish collection and several of the slices that came with are NWA 3100. Mike Farmer's card was included and lists NWA 3100 as an LL7. The Met-Bul calls NWA 3100 a Primitive achondrite - not an LL7. My question is this, Does LL7 denote a particular Primitive achondrite? If so which one? If not then what type is this? BTW - I think Ted Bunch did the classification __ 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] Al Hagg.. reply
NomCom did not publish either the term paleo or fossil, nor do I think we have ever published these terms for any meteorite. I don't think they are particularly well defined. We put the term fossil in quotes in Alex Bevan's description of the Gove meteorite, but we listed it according to the objective term relict meteorite which means that most of the primary minerals have been replaced with terrestrial minerals. The latter term is defined in the Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature (and AH 001 does not qualify). The MB database follows the science, and sometimes that takes years. The NomCom does not DO science, nor does it search the literature for potential reclassifications. If somebody publishes a paper that straightens out all of these meteorite classifications, and sends it to us (or if somebody on nomcom sees it), we can consider an update. Right now, I cannot find a thing in the peer-reviewed literature, just the original metbull submission and some abstracts. Jeff On 12/3/2011 3:18 PM, Greg Hupé wrote: Hello Doug and All, First, I would like to apologize to Doug and all who read the exchange, an ongoing passion and pursuit of mine in regards to this meteorite. I was blunt, kind of an ass and disrespectful, I apologize. I talked with Tony Irving today and part of the conversation was spent on the NWA 2828/Al Hagg problem. I have been corrected/reminded, initially Dr. Irving used the term Paleo but was suggested by powers at be to use Fossil in the classification on the Bulletin, so apparently it was the committee who preferred the 'Fossil' reference. Not really finger pointing, just part of the reality of facts in the process of knowledge for this meteorite. I think at the end of the day I am probably too 'passionate' about this meteorite because we have been part of the knowledge and understanding process from the very first piece of this material I took home from Morocco in 2005. At the time, it was a crust-less, interesting 'rock' that I gambled on and bought to send a sample to the lab, even the Moroccans who picked a piece of it from the site didn't know if it was an Earth rock or who-knows-what. Luckily the nomads were picking up every strange stone that didn't seem to fit in with the area rocks. As time went by, well, NAU's web site tells the story from there. As for time needed to 'correct' the Al Haggounia classification, seven years have gone by since the first piece [of NWA 2828] was discovered and then analyzed. In the time since, the round things that popped out after I began to slice and make ready pieces to offer collectors after the first NWA 2828 'Aubrite' abstract was submitted and approved, I quickly realized those round things as I called them on the phone to Tony that day changed everything and I did not offer any of the material publicly until the know-known classification proved itself. It was also after that realization that the NWA 2828 scientific team submitted their abstract, EL3 Chondrite (not Aubrite) Northwest Africa 2828: An Unusual Paleo-meteorite Occurring as Cobbles in a Terrestrial Conglomerate that was quickly approved by the Meteoritical Society, except for the term Paleo. You can probably sense why I and others have been frustrated over the continued Aubrite classification of AL Haggounia when all the proof has been out for years. Bottom line, too many collectors are ripped off every year by sales of Al Haggounia as an Aubrite. I was told directly by one European dealer a year or two ago, As long as the Bulletin says it is an Aubrite, than I will continue to sell it as one. Pity... it would seem inaction is not a good thing! Again to all, I do apologize for spending so much time on this 'issue', just a dead horse that will never really be buried until it can raise up and live again with its accurate classification. Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.LunarRock.com NaturesVault (eBay) IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: MexicoDoug Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:25 PM To: gmh...@centurylink.net ; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply Hi Greg, It was a little late when I posted and I hadn't rested since Nov. 30; and as a topic of discussion I guess this shouldn't be pursued. Anyway, the classification will be changed if you give it some time, and if you have a greater grasp of what's gone on, so be it; how a letter to the editors of the bulletin is construed as 'arrogant' is completely lost on me but it sounds like I really don't want to know why. your own cute spin on it This does 'confirm EL6 is a good match!!! Speaking of the classification: don't know what my 'cute spin' is considering I've agreed with the revised US classification you since my first
Re: [meteorite-list] New Met Bulletin Approvals - Question about the Tilde ~
Actually, there are hundreds of these from the last 5 years. They are all equilibrated ordinary chondrites classified by magnetic susceptibility. Because no thin section was prepared, the petrologic type is fairly uncertain. Actually, if there is a lot of weathering, even the chemical group can be more uncertain than usual. Jeff On 11/6/2011 11:28 AM, Michael Gilmer wrote: Hi Gang, Several new meteorites were added to the Met Bulletin yesterday. Many of these have something new I have never seen before. There is a ~ (tilde) in the type. For example - Acfer 393 (H~6) - obvious this means the petrologic type is approximately 6, but how/why is this being used in the nomenclature? Were stones like this ambiguous in some way and the exact type could not be determined? Or, is this some new naming convention we will see more of? Here is a link to the new meteorites - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=%2Asfor=namesants=falls=valids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=namecateg=Allmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=2pnt=Normal%20tabledr=page=0 All of them, except for two, have this tilde in the type. Best regards, MikeG - Galactic Stone Ironworks - Meteorites Amber (Michael Gilmer) Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://tinyurl.com/42h79my News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone - __ 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] Inningen discredited
Some of you may be interested in the news that the Nomenclature Committee has voted to discredit Inningen as a meteorite name. It has been shown to be a piece of Sikhote-Alin. See http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=12038 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] 2011 Meteorite Challenge Update
Bonus questions: What is the only meteorite name to use all the vowels, including y (a-e-i-o-u-y), where each vowel is used only once? There are 8 meteorite names (that I can find) for which all of the letters in the name occur in alphabetical order. The longest has 6 letters. What is it? What are the three meteorite names that are palindromes. Jeff On 10/21/2011 11:20 AM, MexicoDoug wrote: Dear List Anagrammatists, There are perfect anagram meteorite pairings out there! Some real good ones! Though a perfect anagram where the letters of one are rearranged exactly into the letters of another withough leaving out any letters on either, is not necessarily a winner according to the rules, since imperfect anagram pairings are allowed too, though the perfect anagram likely will score higher and win anyway! One very kind list member who is quite expert in anagrams has sent me an informational email (but kindly respected the honor system rule and not entered) to prove this fact. So the last rule is modified, If there is no clear winning entry, the winner will be the entrant who can say METEORITIC ANAGRAMMATIST ten times in the shortest interval of time. ...no longer is necessary; and replaced by: If no one figures out a qualifying winning entry otherwise, the winning entry will be considered the cleverist rearrangement of all letters of a meteorite name with none left over and none additional, into a word or a phrase. Any language is permissable if any listmember can speak it fluidly, even if the entrant can't. This is how Galileo first communicated his discovery of Saturn with its rings (which he thought were three zones of light). He used Latin. There are listmembers with acceptable fluidity in Latin, so that's an option, too. The contest is over on Sunday night 11:59 PM (23:50) PDT (Los Angeles time), 23 October 2011 Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com To: Meteorite-list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 4:13 am Subject: [meteorite-list] 2011 Meteorite Challenge Dear List: 2011 Meteorite Challenge For all those who would like to try their hand at hunting for meteorites but can't get out into the field, you're invited to try a virtual meteorite hunt in the strewn field of all meteorite names. The prize is a token chip off Vesta - Tatahouine, of course, that beautiful witnessed fall which is truly unique among meteorites and the rarest of all (more on this later, but now for the hunt...), not expecting it to be more than a gram; though it will be either sent to the winner or some other friend or budding collector as directed by the champ. Plus the champ receives a conjectured priceless signed certificate naming you the champion: METEORITIC ANAGRAMMATIST An anagram is simply a rearrangement of the letters of one word to form another word. So, the idea is to hunt for a meteorite and its anagram pairing. For example, with numbers, today is: 10/21 (or 21/10 as you please). Rearranging the numbers we get 2011 in the spirit of Galileo, who was a very accomplished anagrammist. I haven't thought of a meteorite name that is a perfect anagram, nor have I tried ... but, here's an idea: Allende / Yelland If only it were Eelland they would be a perfect meteorite anagram pairing. In Spanish, Y and E are interchangeable in a certain instance ;-) The objective of the contest is simple - get the biggest anagram you can find. Finding one meteorite name in mixed up inside another is ok, even though all the letters of only one are paired to the other. Rule of common sense, but in case of difficulty with that: For a satisfactory effort, here are a few rules: HONOR SYSTEM - NO USE OF ANAGRAM COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND DOWNLOADING DATA FOR THAT PURPOSE THOUGH A SPREADSHEET IS FINE. I don't know if any cheat programs exist, but I imagine they do. (1) Minimum of 4 letters (2) Numbers are not included, but their letters can be used. For example ABCDE ### can be used as simply ABCDE. (3) Reuse of complete words or components of compound words do not count. For example, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa have no value, nor would meteor and meteorite if they were valid, have any value. (4) The value of the meteorite anagram is simply the number of reused letters unless it is a perfect anagram (see (6). (5) Partial anagrams can be used where only a subset of the letters in one meteorite's name is used to form another complete meteorite name. For example, Boaz (NM) is a partial from Bou Azarif (Morocco). The score would be the same for Boaz and Zaborzika (Ukraine). (6) If all letters are used, the score is tripled. For example, the value of (5) above is only 4. But, if there were a meteorite Zoab to pair with Boaz, the value would be 12. (7) The official dictionary is the Met Soc Online database, only official meteorites are permitted. (8)Dry Lake,
Re: [meteorite-list] 2011 Meteorite Challenge Update
You got it. Double bonus: 7 meteorites, including Sierra County, use all of the letters A-E-I-O-U-Y. All are in the United States except for one. Name it. Jeff On 10/21/2011 1:11 PM, MexicoDoug wrote: Jeff asked: What is the only meteorite name to use all the vowels, including y (a-e-i-o-u-y), where each vowel is used only once? May I partcipate in the bonus question (and what's the prize?) My entry is (valid entry under the honor system): Sierra County Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 11:46 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] 2011 Meteorite Challenge Update Bonus questions: What is the only meteorite name to use all the vowels, including y (a-e-i-o-u-y), where each vowel is used only once? There are 8 meteorite names (that I can find) for which all of the letters in the name occur in alphabetical order. The longest has 6 letters. What is it? What are the three meteorite names that are palindromes. Jeff On 10/21/2011 11:20 AM, MexicoDoug wrote: Dear List Anagrammatists, There are perfect anagram meteorite pairings out there! Some real good ones! Though a perfect anagram where the letters of one are rearranged exactly into the letters of another withough leaving out any letters on either, is not necessarily a winner according to the rules, since imperfect anagram pairings are allowed too, though the perfect anagram likely will score higher and win anyway! One very kind list member who is quite expert in anagrams has sent me an informational email (but kindly respected the honor system rule and not entered) to prove this fact. So the last rule is modified, If there is no clear winning entry, the winner will be the entrant who can say METEORITIC ANAGRAMMATIST ten times in the shortest interval of time. ...no longer is necessary; and replaced by: If no one figures out a qualifying winning entry otherwise, the winning entry will be considered the cleverist rearrangement of all letters of a meteorite name with none left over and none additional, into a word or a phrase. Any language is permissable if any listmember can speak it fluidly, even if the entrant can't. This is how Galileo first communicated his discovery of Saturn with its rings (which he thought were three zones of light). He used Latin. There are listmembers with acceptable fluidity in Latin, so that's an option, too. The contest is over on Sunday night 11:59 PM (23:50) PDT (Los Angeles time), 23 October 2011 Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com To: Meteorite-list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 4:13 am Subject: [meteorite-list] 2011 Meteorite Challenge Dear List: 2011 Meteorite Challenge For all those who would like to try their hand at hunting for meteorites but can't get out into the field, you're invited to try a virtual meteorite hunt in the strewn field of all meteorite names. The prize is a token chip off Vesta - Tatahouine, of course, that beautiful witnessed fall which is truly unique among meteorites and the rarest of all (more on this later, but now for the hunt...), not expecting it to be more than a gram; though it will be either sent to the winner or some other friend or budding collector as directed by the champ. Plus the champ receives a conjectured priceless signed certificate naming you the champion: METEORITIC ANAGRAMMATIST An anagram is simply a rearrangement of the letters of one word to form another word. So, the idea is to hunt for a meteorite and its anagram pairing. For example, with numbers, today is: 10/21 (or 21/10 as you please). Rearranging the numbers we get 2011 in the spirit of Galileo, who was a very accomplished anagrammist. I haven't thought of a meteorite name that is a perfect anagram, nor have I tried ... but, here's an idea: Allende / Yelland If only it were Eelland they would be a perfect meteorite anagram pairing. In Spanish, Y and E are interchangeable in a certain instance ;-) The objective of the contest is simple - get the biggest anagram you can find. Finding one meteorite name in mixed up inside another is ok, even though all the letters of only one are paired to the other. Rule of common sense, but in case of difficulty with that: For a satisfactory effort, here are a few rules: HONOR SYSTEM - NO USE OF ANAGRAM COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND DOWNLOADING DATA FOR THAT PURPOSE THOUGH A SPREADSHEET IS FINE. I don't know if any cheat programs exist, but I imagine they do. (1) Minimum of 4 letters (2) Numbers are not included, but their letters can be used. For example ABCDE ### can be used as simply ABCDE. (3) Reuse of complete words or components of compound words do not count. For example, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa have no value, nor would meteor and meteorite
[meteorite-list] Named masses
All, I'm compiling a list of all meteorites that have named masses. The two well-known examples are Cape York and Campo del Cielo, which each have many large pieces that are known by informal names, e.g., Ahnighito (CY) and El Patio (CdC). How many others can people come up with? This is a crowdsourcing exercise for the MetBull database, where I'd like to keep track of such names. I already have a long list of synonyms, but most of these are not the names of masses; they are alternate names and spellings for the meteorite itself (if you'd like to scan them to see if you can spot any mass names, here is the long list: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullSynonyms.php). What I need are: Meteorite name; mass name; weight; source of information; optional descriptive text Thanks to all who can help! Jeff p.s. I think I have most of the CdC and CY names already compiled. __ 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] CONCEPTION JUNCTION, MISSOURI PALLASITE - AD/test
I released it just now: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=53877 Jeff On 8/27/2011 7:50 PM, Dave Gheesling wrote: Michael All, Dr. Wasson submitted his classification of the Conception Junction pallasite (PMG) to the Nomenclature Committee last month, and presumably it will be posted to the Meteorite Bulletin before long. Since much of this information is not publicly available at the moment, please find below an excerpt from Dr. Wasson's contribution to the monograph. He also complied an interesting chart for comparative analysis, but I'm not sure how to post that information with plain text. Anyway, hope this helps answer some of the good questions that have been posted: The information I report here shows there is no main-group pallasite that is closely related to Conception Junction. Conception Junction is unique. If I compare Conception Junction with other main group pallasites (PMG) with Au contents within 10% of that in Conception Junction (i.e. in the range 2.0 to 2.5 mg/g Au), only Seymchan and PCA 91004 have Ir concentrations within a factor of two of that in Conception Junction. If I sort on Ir, I find that there is no other PMG among the 40 that I have studied that has a closely similar Ir value. The nearest are Pescora Escarpment 91004 (0.76 mg/g Ir), Seymchan (0.67 mg/g) and Barcis, a scarcely studied Russian PMG (0.32 mg/g Ir). The Co content of this sample is high (6.0 mg/g). If I sort my PMG data on the basis of Co, I find that there are three irons with higher Co, namely Krasnojarsk, Rawlinna 001 and one sample of Phillips County, and a couple more that are slightly lower, namely Springwater and Zaisho. The Ni content is also rather low, as is shown in the chart below comparing Conception Junction to PCA 91004, Seymchan, Barcis and Krasnojarsk. In summary, the composition of the metal in Conception Junction differs from all other known pallasites. All the best, Dave www.fallingrocks.com www.conceptionjunctionpallasite.com -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael Fowler Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 4:04 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: Michael Fowler Subject: [meteorite-list] CONCEPTION JUNCTION, MISSOURI PALLASITE - AD/test Wasson's statement that: .there is no main-group pallasite that is closely related to Conception Junction. Conception Junction is unique. leaves open the question at to what is the classification? Is it ungrouped, or perhaps, main group anomalous? I would be most interested to know the major and trace element analysis so I could form my own opinion. Sincerely, Mike Fowler Chicago __ 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] Moon Dust
[This email was written by me as a private citizen, and does not reflect any kind of official position by NASA] If you want to see the loan agreements that are used today, please read: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/LunarAllocHandbook.pdf Agreements such as the one shown here have long been used at NASA, and I'm pretty sure most official samples in the past have had paperwork such as this accompanying them. I don't know what kind of variability of terms there have been in these agreements, but I'm confident that, whatever they say, they are legally binding on the recipients who sign them. I don't understand why people would be surprised that material of any value removed from a federal facility without permission might be subject to scrutiny. This sounds like theft to me, and doesn't seem to require any special law pertaining to the specific material. So, I don't understand the comment about self-proclaimed laws. Even if there is no cover-up of the removal or subsequent sale, that does not necessarily make it legal. I think the legal issue might come down to whether or not the remover had permission, either expressed or implied. Jeff On 6/25/2011 3:08 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Michael, Rafael, List, Is it possible NASA has it's own people (police) enforcing this self proclaimed laws against owning material. Or is their a congressional order making this material illegal after the fact? After is was given away as trophies. This method of self enforcement seems to work well for another Federal agency known as the IRS. They have their own set of rules and also self enforce their own rules with their own enforcement people without do process of the law. I ask because as I have said before on this list; I have seen and held and actual piece of the moon that was returned from the Apollo missions. A friend brought it over to my home. I did not think to photograph it at the time but it was about a 5 gram fragment encased in resin and it had a presentation plaque right on it that stated it was an actual piece of the moon returned from an Apollo mission. It did not say it was a facsimile of the moon but a real piece. This was given to one of the bosses at one of the aerospace companies that built the ships for the missions. He has since passed away but, retired from Raytheon right here in Tucson and it was shown to me by his grandson. Out of fear from this story surfacing a couple of years ago he now refuses to show it to me again until this is cleared up. He too has not been able to find any written evidence that NASA has the legal right to confiscate this material. If memory serves me correctly, The past article stated that this material was only on loan to these lucky recipients but, it is to be returned upon their death. The piece I saw did not say that it was on loan anywhere on the [piece itself. So, again, my question is. Do these NASA folks or congress actually have any of this ownership business in writing any where we could see it? Carl -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Michael Gilmermeteoritem...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Rafael, I do not know for certain that owning Apollo moon dust is illegal. In fact, I think samples such as Florian's tape specimens are or should be legal. Up until recently, I just assumed that they were. The fact that law enforcement has stepped in and is actively pursuing these samples at least gives the impression that law enforcement thinks it is illegal. I am not an attorney, nor have I worked for NASA or government. But, it seems to be commonly-accepted wisdom that owning NASA-sourced samples is a no-no. When the US government handed out moon rocks to other governments, some of these eventually found their way onto the private market. There was at least one publicized case where the sample was confiscated and returned. So whether it is legal or not, the current modus-operandi of law enforcement is to harass and prosecute owners of such samples as soon as they are discovered. In the case where a NASA intern stole a sample from JSC, he was prosecuted and rightfully so. But, I do not agree with people being harassed or arrested for trading tiny pieces of tape with a milligram of dust on them - that is silly and a waste of taxpayer money. You won't get any argument from me about that. :) Law-enforcement is not infallible and the make mistakes all the time. Just because someone is arrested for something, doesn't mean it is illegal. But, the fact that people are being harassed for this now, would make me think twice about trading in this material until the legal questions are resolved. Best regards, MikeG PS - nobody is going to lose this debate, because in my case, you are preaching to the choir! :) -- - Galactic Stone
Re: [meteorite-list] Moon Dust
What law are you talking about? On 6/25/2011 7:55 PM, Michael Gilmer wrote: Hi Jeff and List, What strikes me here is that NASA has 842 pounds of lunar material and they are apparently bent out shape over a few milligrams of dust clinging to a piece of scotch tape. It's absolutely silly and it speaks of skewed priorities. It was mentioned to me in private email by a respected list member that the NASA samples in question were not addressed by the law until 1972. If that is true, then it seems to me that any sample removed legally prior to that date would be grand-fathered in as legal. A relevant example would be trinitite. Trinitite removed before the law specifically addressed it is legal. However, going to the site now and removing trinitite is illegal. Another example would be Canyon Diablo iron meteorites - those CD meteorites removed before the prohibition are legal. Those removed today are illegal because one must trespass to get them. The devil is in the details - how does one distinguish a legal Diablo meteorite from an illegal one? And how would one determine a legal piece of dusty tape from an illegal one? ATTENTION GOVERNMENT - STOP PISSING AWAY OUR TAX MONEY CHASING AFTER DUSTY TAPE! Instead, here are some suggestions for using our tax money - build homes for the homeless, feed the hungry, offer medical care to the sick, create jobs for the unemployed, fund the sciences, or any number of things that are more important than dusty tape. Best regards, MikeG __ 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] The 100th Bulletin Now Out
These tildes have been used before. Here is a rundown of all the special notation you may see in chondrite classifications. For petrologic types: ~ (tilde) means that the petrologic type was not determined very precisely -- maybe just with a visual guess. H~5 is an H chondrite that is approximately petrologic type 5. / (slash) means indeterminate between the two numbers, and therefore you can never have H4/6... only H4/5 or H5/6. I see that there are a few 4/6 meteorites in the bulletin, and these were due to editorial oversights: they are mostly 4-6 breccias (or errors). I'll fix some of these soon. - (hyphen) means the chondrite is a breccia with components spanning the given range. An H3-5 chondrite has components that are type 3, type 5, and possible (but not necessarily) type 4. For chondrite groups: / (slash) is a problem, and can have two meanings. It can either mean indeterminate, as it does for petrologic types, or it can mean transitional or intermediate. There is no way to tell which is meant. I was going to propose a new notation for real transitional meteorites like Bjurböle, which currently is written L/LL4: the new notation would be L^LL4, with the caret indicating its real place in the middle. Perhaps we'll see this appear one day. Parentheses indicate uncertainty. For highly unequilibrated chondrites, it is nearly impossible to discern the difference between L and LL groups, and so they may be called L(LL)3, meaning probably L3, but possibly LL3. In fact, unless somebody did bulk chemistry and O isotopes to find out the real answer, probably every very low petrologic type OC with large chondrites should be really called L(LL) or LL(L). Note that there is NO existing notation for polymict breccias, say one with an L host meteorite and CM clasts, so you never see something like L-CM. Think what a mess Kaidun or Almahatta Sitta classifications would be if you used hyphens in the same way we do for petrologic types! Note also that not all classifiers have clearly understood the difference between - and / for petrologic types. Some of the classifications in the literature almost certainly have these reversed. Most of these get caught by NomCom, but not all. Jeff On 6/22/2011 3:44 PM, Thunder Stone wrote: List: I was looking a the lastest submissions in the Bulletin and noticed some OC's in the 100th Bulletin with the class: H~6, H~5, L~5... and so on. Apperently the tilde symbol means that the meteorite has an approximate petrologic type. So, what is the diiference between H5, H approximately 5, H 4-6, and H 4/6? Seems a little odd to me, but maybe there is an important reason for it. Greg S __ 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] Currently used classification scheme - Divisions
I think the Weisberg divisions are by no means in general usage. Meteorite classification is chaotic and there is no standard system. I wrote most of the wikipedia article on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite_classification Take a look at the discussion there, which is fairly thorough. If I had to vote for the best scheme, I'd go for the one proposed by Krot et al. (2003), with there being two major divisions, chondrites and nonchondrites. Jeff On 6/20/2011 8:39 PM, Jim Wooddell wrote: Hi all, I am looking for some information in regards to the Division of Meteorites in the currently used classification scheme. It is my understanding that there are currently 3 divisions that all meteorites fall underor at least at one time there were three. Chondrites, Primitive Achondrites and Achondrites. 1. Referencing Weisberg et al: Systematics and Evaluation of Meteorite Classification, has there been any divisions added since this document was printed? Are there still only 3 divisions? 2. Is there a more up to date schema or diagram which supersedes the document above? I know there are changes in the IAB complex groups and grouplets, referencing a document by Wasson accepted in 2002, are there other changes? Thank you for any info on this. Kind Regards Jim Wooddell __ 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] Al haggounia 001
Reclassifications in the MetBull can occur when somebody submits to the NomCom, or NomCom independently finds, sufficient evidence to warrant publication of an erratum. For simple errors, the evidence can be very simple (e.g., this meteorite was published as an LL5, but it actually has Fa19 olivine, so it is really an H5). But when things get difficult or complicated, usually a refereed publication is needed to document the claim. Al Haggounia 001 is the latter case, and the appropriate evidence has not been submitted or published, to my knowledge. Jeff On 6/8/2011 3:02 AM, JoshuaTreeMuseum wrote: Dan: Probably not. Phil Whitmer A Catholic priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk enter a bar. The bartender immediately retorts: What is this, a joke? __ Does anybody know if Al haggounia 001 is going to have its official classification of Aubrite changed to EL3 which seems to be appropriate after doing much research on this meteorite. Daniel Furlan meteorite collector and dealer __ 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] Al haggounia 001
The ents are not currently, and have not previously discussed the issue. So the question is indeed moot. jeff On 6/8/2011 8:38 AM, Michael Gilmer wrote: Hi Dan, The Al-Haggounia issue comes up here regularly from time to time and it has been discussed extensively. The general consensus is that NonCom works like Entmoot. Eventually the classification will get changed - but nobody knows when. In the meantime, for your own use, call it an EL3 and nobody will fuss you for it, regardless of what the Met Bulletin says. ;) If you search back through the List archive, there is a discussion about this same issue that took place about a month or two ago. Best regards, MikeG - Galactic Stone Ironworks - Meteorites Amber (Michael Gilmer) Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galactic-Stone-Ironworks/218849894809686 News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone EOM - http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=1564 - On 6/8/11, JoshuaTreeMuseumjoshuatreemus...@embarqmail.com wrote: Dan: Probably not. Phil Whitmer A Catholic priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk enter a bar. The bartender immediately retorts: What is this, a joke? __ Does anybody know if Al haggounia 001 is going to have its official classification of Aubrite changed to EL3 which seems to be appropriate after doing much research on this meteorite. Daniel Furlan meteorite collector and dealer __ 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] NWA meteorites
The definition in the Nomenclature Committee guidelines is this: All meteorites found, reported to be found, or purchased in Morocco and adjacent parts of the surrounding countries. Surrounding countries has been interpreted to mean the adjacent countries (Western Sahara and Algeria), and the nearby, northern regions of Mauritania and Mali. More distant countries like Tunisia and Niger are not included, if we know that they are the source regions. Two meteorites once did slip through the cracks, however: NWA 1241 and 1242 were both supposedly found in Libya. Jeff On 5/27/2011 8:24 AM, Peter Scherff wrote: Hi, What countries do NWA meteorites come from? The countries that I see listed in the Meteoritical Bulletin are: Algeria, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco Western Sahara. Are there other official countries? How about unofficial ones, where you know or suspect that a meteorite found in another country was said to have been purchased or found in an official NWA country. What do you know or suspect? Thanks, Peter __ 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
