Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
so what are they calling portales? i will be gradually switching over to yahoo mail (it has 100 FREE megs of storage). please cc to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comSubject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification InfoDate: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:28:52 -0700Hello Robert and all,I've always considered PV a round peg in a square hole. I mean that even a quick glance at PV is enough to know it doesn't make sense to lump it in with the run-of-the-mill ordinary chondrite. So this change in heart by the classification gods is really good news.Looking forward to knowing moreMartin- Original Message -From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 pmSubject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an " H6 ordinary chondrite". (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled " Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! " In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an " H6 Impact Melt Breccia ". I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an " H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite)", with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of "Portalesite" due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __Meteorite-list mailing listMeteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comhttp://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
ihave one that is 70% etched metal- i think i'm gonna break off the stone part and just call it and iron octahedrite and get rid of the guess work. i will be gradually switching over to yahoo mail (it has 100 FREE megs of storage). please cc to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Tom Knudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Robert Woolard" [EMAIL PROTECTED],meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comSubject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification InfoDate: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:11:20 -0700Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list forasking;" I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinarychondrite because "they" were to lazy to make up a new classification? Itwould seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group insteadof being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are "theygoing do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories,or will they make a new one if need be?"I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot ofpeople on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in myplace, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinarychondrite, then it was!Just thought it was interesting . : )Thanks, Tomperegrineflier - Original Message -From: "Robert Woolard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comSent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PMSubject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an " H6 ordinary chondrite". (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled " Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! " In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an " H6 Impact Melt Breccia ". I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an " H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite)", with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of "Portalesite" due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __Meteorite-list mailing listMeteorite-list@meteoritecentral.comhttp://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
I was the lazy editor of the MetBull when PV fell, so I can tell you the story. Basically, two scientists were in communication with the NomCom during the classification, Dave Kring and Alan Rubin. There were two schools of thought on what to call it, and these were not really that far apart. Kring, the person that submitted the initial classification, described PV as an H6 chondrite with abundant veins of metallic shock melt. His initial interpretation was that the source of the metal was the H chondrite host, and that the metal was basically the same thing you see in small shock veins in many chondrites, just on a larger scale. All of the material appeared to be of H chondrite affinity and many clasts were H6. Rubin wanted to call it an H chondrite impact melt breccia. He too considered all the components to be of H chondrite origin, but thought the IMB designation would alert people to the fact that the texture was so interesting. (Of course, the texture is different from other melt breccias as well.) As you can see, both researchers thought PV was H chondrite material and both thought that shock effects dominated the texture. So there was no way we were going to call it a new group... it was from the H parent body and didn't contain weird or foreign material. In the end, we agreed to go with the submitter's classification as an H6 with remarkable shock effects, and Rubin agreed that he'd call it an H impact melt breccia in the literature (which he did). It hardly seemed to matter since these two classifications were so close. If I had to publish the announcement again today as editor, knowing what we do now, I'd probably go with H melt breccia. But there is still no clear line between H6 chondrites with abundant shock veins and melt pockets and those like PV, which probably should have the presence of melt noted in the classification. Jeff At 12:11 PM 5/17/2005, Tom Knudson wrote: Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists, if they said it was a H6 ordinary chondrite, then it was! Just thought it was interesting . : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Robert
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Dave Bob Holmes wrote: Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi List, back in March of 2004, I made a lot of enemies on the list for asking; I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? It would seem to me that this unique meteorite deserves it's own group instead of being shoved into an already existing group. I do not feel like we have found every type of meteorite yet, are they going do this with all of them, just sticking them in existing categories, or will they make a new one if need be? I was called everything from an idiot to a stupid mother $#*^# by a lot of people on the list for questioning the classification. I was put in my place, never question the scientists
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi Bob, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. I know, sorry if I made it sound like you said it. I wanted to know if it was laziness or what that stopped the study and labeled PV as an ordinary chondrite. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. And that is such great news, PV deserves it!!! This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. I agree, Jeff's post was very enlightening! You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. I did not bring up the pope, there was no reason for news about him to be on the list. If someone brings up the pope, I am going to respond. Barringer, yes I brought him up, but I can not help myself, when I hear that name, it brings out my bad side. But, I am not espousing negativity with this PV stuff. I think this is very positive, my favorite meteorite getting recognized for what it is, a truly great meteorite! I was insulted by many list members being told that I was not smart enough to question the classification, the Lazy thing did not go over very well, but I was told, who do you think you are, to think that the scientist made a mistake. I just thought it was interesting that it may turn out I am not as stupid after all. Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite
RE: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom said: just thought it was interesting that it may turn out I am not as stupid after all. And that would be where on a scale of one to ten? David W. Freeman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Knudson Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:39 PM To: Bob Holmes; Robert Woolard; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. I know, sorry if I made it sound like you said it. I wanted to know if it was laziness or what that stopped the study and labeled PV as an ordinary chondrite. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. And that is such great news, PV deserves it!!! This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. I agree, Jeff's post was very enlightening! You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. I did not bring up the pope, there was no reason for news about him to be on the list. If someone brings up the pope, I am going to respond. Barringer, yes I brought him up, but I can not help myself, when I hear that name, it brings out my bad side. But, I am not espousing negativity with this PV stuff. I think this is very positive, my favorite meteorite getting recognized for what it is, a truly great meteorite! I was insulted by many list members being told that I was not smart enough to question the classification, the Lazy thing did not go over very well, but I was told, who do you think you are, to think that the scientist made a mistake. I just thought it was interesting that it may turn out I am not as stupid after all. Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Dave Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Not up to speed with the issues, Robert Woolard just posted yesterday (may 17th) new info about PV and a possible new classification! How is it my talking about the classification of PV is not up to speed? Read more books and papers, can you direct me to one published book that talks about Portales Valley's possible new classification, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite),? I don't even know if the new paper has been published yet, if not, how am I, or anyone supposed to read it? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: d freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Dave Bob Holmes wrote: Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hi Tom It was stated in one of the earlier posts where it was published. The article was published in Feb. issue of MAPS. Here is an abstract of the article; http://meteoritics.org/Abst_40-2.htm#Ruzicka I'm not sure if the PV article is available for purchase. It might be and I can check if anyone is interested. I would also like to point out that several other fine articles were in this issue as well including but not limited to; http://meteoritics.org/Current%20Issue.htm 1) A meteorite impact crater field in eastern Bavaria? A preliminary report 2) Regolith history of lunar meteorites 3) Spectral reflectance of Martian meteorites: Spectral signatures as a template for locating source region on Mars 4) The formation of the Widmanstätten structure in meteorites I especially like the last article. It discusses the four possible mechanisms for the formation of Widmanstätten structure in meteorites. Unfortunately the abstract does not do the article justice. It is actually much more readable and interesting than the abstract. If this makes anyone decide to become a member the the Meteoritical Society they do start at the beginning of the year so you would receive all 2005 issues. Mike -- Mike Jensen IMCA 4264 Jensen Meteorites 16730 E Ada PL Aurora, CO 80017-3137 303-337-4361 website: www.jensenmeteorites.com Dave Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Not up to speed with the issues, Robert Woolard just posted yesterday (may 17th) new info about PV and a possible new classification! How is it my talking about the classification of PV is not up to speed? Read more books and papers, can you direct me to one published book that talks about Portales Valley's possible new classification, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite),? I don't even know if the new paper has been published yet, if not, how am I, or anyone supposed to read it? Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: d freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Maybe Tom could use the tip of reading more books and papers and asking a few less questions that are not really up to speed with the issues. Dave Bob Holmes wrote: Tom, The word 'lazy' came from your post, not mine. Perhaps there was an error in the initial classification, but obviously many people realized the need for clarification and were quite diligent in their pursuits. This is an ongoing process. I for one, thank Jeff Grossman for standing up and explaining what the process was. You complain about all the negativity on the list, but here you are again (the Pope, Barringer, remember?), espousing negativity. What is it you want from 'them'? Bob - Original Message - From: Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Bob, I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Was it wrong? Was it a rush to judgment? Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further and thought it needed to be something more than an H6 ordinary chondrite. If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Tom, I agree with Bob. Ask anyone who anxiously waited for the official classification of Portales Valley to be released, and you will find that with few exceptions, every one was shaking their heads in disbelief when the announcement was made. I seriously doubt that anyone spoke negatively about you for saying the classification should be something other than an ordinary H6. Rather, you were probably attacked for making derogatory remarks about scientist being too lazy to do their job right. To me, that shows a lack of understanding on YOUR part about how the system works. JKG At 09:52 AM 5/17/2005, Bob Holmes wrote: Tom , I don't believe you were ever chided for questioning the need for reclassifying, I believe the problem stemmed from your derogatory remarks about those working (or not working, lazy, as you assert), on PV. AND as you can see now, work was being done, they were not sitting on their hands, doing nothing. Further, it seems to me as though they had a new type of class and wanted to be sure of their results. That PV was not an ordinary H6 is not an opinion that was yours alone, and you were part of a vast majority. Instead of patting yourself on the back, why don't you apologize for your derisive insinuations about those who have put much time and effort into the study of PV. Bob Holmes __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hola Tom, No one said you are stupid (except your own post)! You are ruffling some feathers because your comments seem to be too insensitive. Scientists - which can include even you and me - normally have no problem being questioned (well, sort of...), that is typically how progress is made. But to play that game on friendly terms, if you have been too lazy to lift a finger for you own education (even if it means via Google!), I would say you are way too arrogant to be taken seriously when you start telling these guys who are busting their buns to turn out papers and teach and have a family life, not to mention deal with the educational politics and institutional beaurocracies, without you having the necessary tools to really understand what they are up against and how science usually works in your neck of the woods. It ain't no fun having a jack-in-the-box in Kingman pop up saying You're wrong, I told you so - and for those more experienced, it can be downright funny or even pathetic to listen to that. Meteoritics, like all sciences is developing all the time as we learn more, sometimes what was a right answer falls from favor because of the benefit of hindsight which a researcher simply doesn't have! I won't comment on the Pope and Barringer provocations, you already have figured them out I hope. But you have a great inquiring mind which could be kicked into shape with you own initiative to be a good scientist. Let me suggest you enroll in Pre-Algebra at the Kingman Campus of the Mohave Community College. You seem to have the time...It starts June 6 and is over by July 11 and costs $126. Then with that course you can take the Geology classes below you like and in the process of lab work, get an appreciation for the scientific mentod and what it is like to have someone who has hindsight to be pressuring you for answers you are still discovering, and then having to produce written evaluations in the way of assignments, lab reports, not even mentioning tests. Instead of throwing stones from your house and bickering your intelligence away over the internet, you could even sign up for some of these courses via the distance education for $60 extra a piece if you are too lazy yourself to go to class! Below is the summer schedule for Pre-Algebra, the prerequisite for the Geology courses, and then I am sure you could sweet-talk the professors into any of the courses listed. The Geology-Rockhounding course is really cool, if you opted for just that. Tom, you may not fully appreciate the opportunity you have living where you do to get out in the field with experts, meet more like minded people which will add to your interest and finally be able to better position and found your questions for more satisfying responses. XXX said this so I am right! is really a hollow response. The math class this summer would have you set to go forward and classes are only $42 a credit there special for you in Kingman. Who knows, being lazy might help you be a better scientist - as long as you aren't t lazy as some of your posts get close to being! Anyway brought to you by your friendly e-neighborhood college counselor (sp?). Man, how luck you are to have the time and location for this!!! Don't let it be taken from you...Maybe you can intern at Killgore's:) Saludos, Doug _www.mohave.edu_ (http://www.mohave.edu) $42/credit Pre-Algebra 211 602 06/06/2005 07/11/2005 - MTWTh HEIDRICH SHERRI L 5:30 PM - 8:20 PM KINGMAN GLG 060 ROCK-HOUND GEOLOGY: Covers a study of basic mineralogy, including rocks, minerals, fossils, and features of the land surface, and techniques of prospecting for minerals and metals.Special emphasis is placed on local geology and topics of interest to individual class members. Designed for the amateur rock hound as well as jewelry makers. Includes field trips. Credit Hours: 3 (Three lecture; two lab) Prerequisites: none GLG 101 PHYSICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to geologic processes on and within the Earth. Topics covered include concepts in mineral and rocks, tectonic processes, weathering and erosion, sedimentation, structural deformation, landscape development and ground water. Laboratory work and additional field trips are included to provide observational examples of the above topics and to learn geologic field techniques of data gathering. Credit Hours: 4 (Three lecture; three lab) Prerequisites: ENG 085, 089 and MAT 021 or appropriate score on Assessment Test Lab fee=$20 GLG 102 HISTORICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to the evolutionary history of the earth and life on the planet. Topics covered include concepts in stratigraphy, rock dating, tectonic events, global climate, ecologic changes and the study of faunal and floral succession over geologic periods of time. Laboratory work and additional field trips are included to provide
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
If this proposed reclassification happens, what does this say about the original classification? Things are reclassified all the time. Mount Egerton was originally classified as a mesosiderite, it is now an aubrite. Yilmia was an EL5 and is now an EL6. There are lots of other examples. As more information comes in through more research or new improved equipment things change. Was it wrong? Absolutely not. Was it a rush to judgment? You obviously know nothing about David Kring to even think this question let alone ask it. He doesn't rush anything and if every T isn't crossed or i dotted it doesn't go out. It is one of the reasons the U of Arizona does so few classifications because he nails down every detail and it takes forever to get a classification out. Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? How could it go from an H6 ordinary chondrite to a Portalesite, H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite) Did it experience a metamorphous between studies. What a judgmental load of crap this statement is. Not only was the classifier lazy, but also incompetent because he gave a classification that didn't match your views and some new proposed classification somebody called it 7 years later. Your implication the classifier was obviously incompetent or the stone metamorphosed between analysiss is ridiculous. I did not call anyone working on it lazy, I asked why the original group did not make up a new classification for this unique meteorite. Wrong. direct quote from Tom K March 2004 I have to ask, was Portales Valley classified as a H6 ordinary chondrite because they were to lazy to make up a new classification? Tom you make basically the same statement in this email saying the classifier was to lazy to do a proper classification. Did they not want to take the time out to study it enough to properly classify it (lazy)? Apparently Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries among others I am sure, could see this meteorite needed to be studied further What makes you thing the original classifiers don't continue to work on PV? If this reclassification does happen, I think my question back in March of 2004 is a fair and valid question, why was PV called a H6 ordinary chondrite? Nobody has ever said it was ordinary including the classifiers. Both David Kring and Alex Rubin called it an H6 although with different qualifiers because according to the classification scheme in 1998 that is what it was. Astronomers are always being reprimanded for telling us a killer asteroid is going to strike the Earth next year. They come out and say it before they get all the information and when they finally do get all the information, they look bad for jumping the gun. Wrong again. The astronomers post the information so other astronomers can look for the rock. It is the media that finds the information and mis-reports it and then blames the astronomers for the media's lack of understanding. A scientist came out and said PV was an H6 ordinary chondrite. Now it looks like all the info might be in and someone had jumped the gun. Do these two branches of science have to play by the same rules, find out all the info before you talk? Jumped the gun??? So at what point is it acceptable to you, Tom? Should the classification be published after the classification work is done OR do they have to wait for everybody all over the world to complete every single study that will ever be made on the meteorite and then pool the information decades later before anything can be published? The second alternative is certainly what you appear to be asking for. -- Eric Olson Feeling cranky this morning. ELKK Meteorites http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Great post Doug, Geeze, learning from othersinteresting concept! Dave F. (who is not proud tom, and is not a blogger participant ever) and would like to see Mr. Tom get some help somewhere before he turns into a paranoid schizophrenic! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola Tom, No one said you are stupid (except your own post)! You are ruffling some feathers because your comments seem to be too insensitive. Scientists - which can include even you and me - normally have no problem being questioned (well, sort of...), that is typically how progress is made. But to play that game on friendly terms, if you have been too lazy to lift a finger for you own education (even if it means via Google!), I would say you are way too arrogant to be taken seriously when you start telling these guys who are busting their buns to turn out papers and teach and have a family life, not to mention deal with the educational politics and institutional beaurocracies, without you having the necessary tools to really understand what they are up against and how science usually works in your neck of the woods. It ain't no fun having a jack-in-the-box in Kingman pop up saying You're wrong, I told you so - and for those more experienced, it can be downright funny or even pathetic to listen to that. Meteoritics, like all sciences is developing all the time as we learn more, sometimes what was a right answer falls from favor because of the benefit of hindsight which a researcher simply doesn't have! I won't comment on the Pope and Barringer provocations, you already have figured them out I hope. But you have a great inquiring mind which could be kicked into shape with you own initiative to be a good scientist. Let me suggest you enroll in Pre-Algebra at the Kingman Campus of the Mohave Community College. You seem to have the time...It starts June 6 and is over by July 11 and costs $126. Then with that course you can take the Geology classes below you like and in the process of lab work, get an appreciation for the scientific mentod and what it is like to have someone who has hindsight to be pressuring you for answers you are still discovering, and then having to produce written evaluations in the way of assignments, lab reports, not even mentioning tests. Instead of throwing stones from your house and bickering your intelligence away over the internet, you could even sign up for some of these courses via the distance education for $60 extra a piece if you are too lazy yourself to go to class! Below is the summer schedule for Pre-Algebra, the prerequisite for the Geology courses, and then I am sure you could sweet-talk the professors into any of the courses listed. The Geology-Rockhounding course is really cool, if you opted for just that. Tom, you may not fully appreciate the opportunity you have living where you do to get out in the field with experts, meet more like minded people which will add to your interest and finally be able to better position and found your questions for more satisfying responses. XXX said this so I am right! is really a hollow response. The math class this summer would have you set to go forward and classes are only $42 a credit there special for you in Kingman. Who knows, being lazy might help you be a better scientist - as long as you aren't t lazy as some of your posts get close to being! Anyway brought to you by your friendly e-neighborhood college counselor (sp?). Man, how luck you are to have the time and location for this!!! Don't let it be taken from you...Maybe you can intern at Killgore's:) Saludos, Doug _www.mohave.edu_ (http://www.mohave.edu) $42/credit Pre-Algebra 211 602 06/06/2005 07/11/2005 - MTWTh HEIDRICH SHERRI L 5:30 PM - 8:20 PM KINGMAN GLG 060 ROCK-HOUND GEOLOGY: Covers a study of basic mineralogy, including rocks, minerals, fossils, and features of the land surface, and techniques of prospecting for minerals and metals.Special emphasis is placed on local geology and topics of interest to individual class members. Designed for the amateur rock hound as well as jewelry makers. Includes field trips. Credit Hours: 3 (Three lecture; two lab) Prerequisites: none GLG 101 PHYSICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to geologic processes on and within the Earth. Topics covered include concepts in mineral and rocks, tectonic processes, weathering and erosion, sedimentation, structural deformation, landscape development and ground water. Laboratory work and additional field trips are included to provide observational examples of the above topics and to learn geologic field techniques of data gathering. Credit Hours: 4 (Three lecture; three lab) Prerequisites: ENG 085, 089 and MAT 021 or appropriate score on Assessment Test Lab fee=$20 GLG 102 HISTORICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to the evolutionary history of the earth and life on the planet. Topics
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Geeze, learning from othersinteresting concept That is why I ask the questions you don't like me asking! : ) Thanks, Tom peregrineflier - Original Message - From: d freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite email List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; Tom Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bob Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JKGwilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Great post Doug, Geeze, learning from othersinteresting concept! Dave F. (who is not proud tom, and is not a blogger participant ever) and would like to see Mr. Tom get some help somewhere before he turns into a paranoid schizophrenic! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola Tom, No one said you are stupid (except your own post)! You are ruffling some feathers because your comments seem to be too insensitive. Scientists - which can include even you and me - normally have no problem being questioned (well, sort of...), that is typically how progress is made. But to play that game on friendly terms, if you have been too lazy to lift a finger for you own education (even if it means via Google!), I would say you are way too arrogant to be taken seriously when you start telling these guys who are busting their buns to turn out papers and teach and have a family life, not to mention deal with the educational politics and institutional beaurocracies, without you having the necessary tools to really understand what they are up against and how science usually works in your neck of the woods. It ain't no fun having a jack-in-the-box in Kingman pop up saying You're wrong, I told you so - and for those more experienced, it can be downright funny or even pathetic to listen to that. Meteoritics, like all sciences is developing all the time as we learn more, sometimes what was a right answer falls from favor because of the benefit of hindsight which a researcher simply doesn't have! I won't comment on the Pope and Barringer provocations, you already have figured them out I hope. But you have a great inquiring mind which could be kicked into shape with you own initiative to be a good scientist. Let me suggest you enroll in Pre-Algebra at the Kingman Campus of the Mohave Community College. You seem to have the time...It starts June 6 and is over by July 11 and costs $126. Then with that course you can take the Geology classes below you like and in the process of lab work, get an appreciation for the scientific mentod and what it is like to have someone who has hindsight to be pressuring you for answers you are still discovering, and then having to produce written evaluations in the way of assignments, lab reports, not even mentioning tests. Instead of throwing stones from your house and bickering your intelligence away over the internet, you could even sign up for some of these courses via the distance education for $60 extra a piece if you are too lazy yourself to go to class! Below is the summer schedule for Pre-Algebra, the prerequisite for the Geology courses, and then I am sure you could sweet-talk the professors into any of the courses listed. The Geology-Rockhounding course is really cool, if you opted for just that. Tom, you may not fully appreciate the opportunity you have living where you do to get out in the field with experts, meet more like minded people which will add to your interest and finally be able to better position and found your questions for more satisfying responses. XXX said this so I am right! is really a hollow response. The math class this summer would have you set to go forward and classes are only $42 a credit there special for you in Kingman. Who knows, being lazy might help you be a better scientist - as long as you aren't t lazy as some of your posts get close to being! Anyway brought to you by your friendly e-neighborhood college counselor (sp?). Man, how luck you are to have the time and location for this!!! Don't let it be taken from you...Maybe you can intern at Killgore's:) Saludos, Doug _www.mohave.edu_ (http://www.mohave.edu) $42/credit Pre-Algebra 211 602 06/06/2005 07/11/2005 - MTWTh HEIDRICH SHERRI L 5:30 PM - 8:20 PM KINGMAN GLG 060 ROCK-HOUND GEOLOGY: Covers a study of basic mineralogy, including rocks, minerals, fossils, and features of the land surface, and techniques of prospecting for minerals and metals.Special emphasis is placed on local geology and topics of interest to individual class members. Designed for the amateur rock hound as well as jewelry makers. Includes field trips. Credit Hours: 3 (Three lecture; two lab) Prerequisites: none GLG 101 PHYSICAL GEOLOGY: An introduction to geologic processes on and within the Earth. Topics covered include concepts in mineral and rocks, tectonic processes, weathering and erosion
Fw: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hello all- Forwarding the below message as requested Rob Wesel http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: steve eshbaugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Wesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:55 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hi Rob: I can't get anything put on the list so I thought I'd go through another list member. Please forward to all list members. Just a reminder Deep Impact is on schedule for a July 4th rendezvous with the comet Tempel 1 More information may be obtained at www.nasa.gov For the Great Comet Crater Contest go to www.planetary.org Thanks Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had a nice evening chat with Dr. Ruzicka a while back, this paper is the completion of a very long endeavor. He is very erudite and enthusiastic on the subject and I am glad to see the finished work. Portales Valley deserves it. Rob Wesel http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard To: Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list - Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
Hello Robert and all, I've always considered PV a round peg in a square hole. I mean that even a quick glance at PV is enough to know it doesn't make sense to lump it in with the run-of-the-mill ordinary chondrite. So this change in heart by the classification gods is really good news. Looking forward to knowing more Martin - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 pm Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we . http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info
I had a nice evening chat with Dr. Ruzicka a while back, this paper is the completion of a very long endeavor. He is very erudite and enthusiastic on the subject and I am glad to see the finished work. Portales Valley deserves it. Rob Wesel http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Robert Woolard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Portales Valley Classification Info Hello List, Well for years now, I know a lot of us were puzzled by the classification of Portales Valley as an H6 ordinary chondrite. (See my article in the May 2001 issue of Meteorite, titled Portales Valley - A Not So Ordinary (Ordinary Chondrite??)! In the recent past, the classification was modified a bit, being changed to read as an H6 Impact Melt Breccia . I am excited to be able to say that there is a distinct chance the true uniqueness of PV may soon be reflected in a possible new moniker for this intriguing meteorite. David Weir was kind enough to make me aware of a new and comprehensive paper by Alex Ruzicka, Marvin Killgore, David Mittlefehldt, and Marc Fries in the current MAPS. In this detailed work, we now have the proposed reclassification of PV as an H7, metallic-melt breccia (primitive achondrite), with the case made for a new meteorite type designation of Portalesite due to this metallic-melt breccia characteristic. You can read David's updated description of PV on his excellent website here: http://www.meteoritestudies.com Many thanks to David for news of this exciting paper, and to the authors of the paper as well. Sincerely, Robert Woolard __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
