Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Hello List, What is so hard to understand about this? Let's not forget that the science of meteoritics is big business. Well, not big by Microsoft or American Airlines standards, but compared to collecting it sure is. I was given a number a couple years ago that $12,000,000 a year is given out in grant money to study meteorites. It is hard to put a handle on how many dollars of meteorites are sold in the collecting field to the END consumer. Let's not count the same $5 specimen over and over again as it gets sold and traded to dealer after dealer 6 times then to ebay a few times before getting to a collector as if it were $50 in sales. Researching meteorites pays a lot more each year than all the dealing or field hunting pays. The point is that if a Canadian Meteorite crosses the border and a researcher in the US gets it, the US institution that researcher works for gets the grant money and NOT the Canadian Institution (or researcher who gets the pay check from said institution). This of course goes for any other country that lets a meteorite get out. However, I have not heard too many complaints from the Libyan Meteoritical Society about them losing jobs because they can't get grant money from NASA, because a DaG SNC slipped across of their borders. Folks, it is always about the money. If an attorney is writing a paper on it, ask who is paying him to write the paper? Or ask who is he wanting to see his "advertisement" so someone might hire him in the future as "the foremost legal authority on anti-collecting?" Either way, it comes back to money. I mean come on, do we really believe that he is spending this time because he feels a moral obligation to devote his life to correcting this major injustice is our modern society? I think it is politically incorrect for a scientist to stand up and speak up for the collecting community, so it is hard to know how many support us, and how many really don't. But I have asked around, and I have yet to find one single researcher who bashes dealers and field collectors for "only being in meteorites for profit" who also endorses their paychecks each week and donates them back to the institution they work for. Is this the kettle calling the pot black or what? As far as I know, Art Elhmann at T.C.U. is the only scientist that has been actively contributing to the science who is working for free. I mean, he is getting a pension, but I don't think he makes anything extra for doing what he has done these last few years in helping our science. And even if he did make more money, that is OK, the point is that he is one scientist who supports us. Even Jeff Grossman, who most of us really appreciate what all he does for us, is hesitant to even take a side on this issue! Can we blame him? It seems most researchers might only be in meteorites for the money too. Could it be that they want as big of the $12,000,000 pie as they can get? If they can squeeze out some their competition, and get a monopoly on the money game of meteoritics, then maybe their jobs will be more secure? If only they could squeeze out the collectors and also squeeze out researchers in other countries, then they can keep more money for themselves. But if evil field collectors, smuggle their future pay raises out to researchers in other countries, then that is "bad for science." Don't get dragged off on the rabbit trail of "what is best for science." We all KNOW what is best for science. So do they. They are just hoping their legislators (fellow government employees) won't look deep enough to see the greed behind their requests and add the bill to some Farm Subsidy Bill on page 634. And if their fellow government employees DO see through their requests, maybe a "wink and a nod" will get it passed anyway, especially if the attorney representing the researchers was fraternity bother, in the same law school, as the legislator pushing the Farm Subsidy Bill. Maybe the researchers will agree to help the same legislator in his reelection campaign so he can keep his job security as well. I would have to say that there are some researchers who do care about the science, and odds are pretty good that they are the ones who support the commercial side of the field as well. But unless there is a way to poll the researchers, or if they would want to go on public record (but it might cost some of them their jobs if they buck the trend) we will never know. Just remember the saying "follar the dollar" and things become quite clear. Steve Arnold
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Dear List, It is interesting to note that the Non-Antarctic to Antarctic ratio is different when it comes to planetary material. SNCs Qty Non-AntarcticQty Antarctic 18 10 Lunar Qty Non-Antarctic Qty Antarctic 15 12 This ratio is also starting to favor other rare material. The desert is proving to be bountiful for new study material. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Hi Steve and List Steve thats so true. But, by the same token, those who introduce or lobby for bans on fossil or meteorite are sometimes those most ignorant of the items themselves and are glory seekers. Just ask Mel Fisher's family what credentials the museum curator had who took Fisher to court forcing Florida to back him in saying the treasures Fisher found belonged to Florida. Or, how much of a world class paleontologist is the museum curator who started the T. Rex Sue lawsuit. They were both out for the kudos, since they couldn't and wouldn't profit personally from their actions, or would they? Ask a world class expert in either fieldhow much they depend on the amateur collectors for new finds. Doesn't matter if that amateur is a dealer or not. Only that they bring new material to the attention of the scientists. Mark - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Hello List,What is so hard to understand about this?Let's not forget that the science of meteoritics is big business. Well, not big by Microsoft or American Airlines standards, but compared to collecting it sure is. I was given a number a couple years ago that $12,000,000 a year is given out in grant money to study meteorites.It is hard to put a handle on how many dollars of meteorites are sold in the collecting field to the END consumer. Let's not count the same $5 specimen over and over again as it gets sold and traded to dealer after dealer 6 times then to ebay a few times before getting to a collector as if it were $50 in sales. Researching meteorites pays a lot more each year than all the dealing or field hunting pays.The point is that if a Canadian Meteorite crosses the border and a researcher in the US gets it, the US institution that researcher works for gets the grant money and NOT the Canadian Institution (or researcher who gets the pay check from said institution). This of course goes for any other country that lets a meteorite get out. However, I have not heard too many complaints from the Libyan Meteoritical Society about them losing jobs because they can't get grant money from NASA, because a DaG SNC slipped across of their borders. Folks, it is always about the money.If an attorney is writing a paper on it, ask who is paying him to write the paper? Or ask who is he wanting to see his "advertisement" so someone might hire him in the future as "the foremost legal authority on anti-collecting?" Either way, it comes back to money. I mean come on, do we really believe that he is spending this time because he feels a moral obligation to devote his life to correcting this major injustice is our modern society?I think it is politically incorrect for a scientist to stand up and speak up for the collecting community, so it is hard to know how many support us, and how many really don't. But I have asked around, and I have yet to find one single researcher who bashes dealers and field collectors for "only being in meteorites for profit" who also endorses their paychecks each week and donates them back to the institution they work for. Is this the kettle calling the pot black or what?As far as I know, Art Elhmann at T.C.U. is the only scientist that has been actively contributing to the science who is working for free. I mean, he is getting a pension, but I don't think he makes anything extra for doing what he has done these last few years in helping our science. And even if he did make more money, that is OK, the point is that he is one scientist who supports us. Even Jeff Grossman, who most of us really appreciate what all he does for us, is hesitant to even take a side on this issue! Can we blame him?It seems most researchers might only be in meteorites for the money too. Could it be that they want as big of the $12,000,000 pie as they can get? If they can squeeze out some their competition, and get a monopoly on the money game of meteoritics, then maybe their jobs will be more secure? If only they could squeeze out the collectors and also squeeze out researchers in other countries, then they can keep more money for themselves. But if evil field collectors, smuggle their future pay raises out to researchers in other countries, then that is "bad for science." Don't get dragged off on the rabbit trail of "what is best for science." We all KNOW what is best for science. So do they. They are just hoping their legislators (fellow government employees) won't look deep enough to see the greed behind their requests and add the bill to some Farm Subsidy Bill on page 634. And if their fellow government employees DO see through their requests, maybe a "w
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Dear Sergey and List, I feel the performance increase in rare finds from the desert is attributable to free enterprise and education. Moroccans and nomads know they will get more for an achondrite than a normal chondrite. They have learned that meteorites do not need to be magnetic and are now searching for anything out of place. We receive dozens of non-magnetic samples every month, about 10% being meteorites. Lots of fresh material is starting to show up because they know they will receive more money for it. We have been receiving more W0s and W1s than ever before. Three different mesosiderites have shown up in less than a year! The only thing that doesn't show up in greater numbers are irons. I believe there are now over 7,000 nomads, basically an army, keeping an eye out for meteorites. This has everything to do with the amount of material coming out of the Sahara. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear Adam and List, Yes, you are right that desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica. But why? That was the question actually... What will happened if you will have enough money to send 100 Moroccans to search the ice for one month? ;-) Bernd, can you estimate it, please? ;-) Nothing against - just wondering... Good night (morning) and all the best, Sergey Sergey Vasiliev U Dalnice 839 Prague 5, 15500 Czech Republic www.sv-meteorites.com www.meteorites4you.com www.sv-minerals.com Dear Sergey and List, I wish I had the time to manage just such a database but this would represent a full-time effort. I think Bernd could tweak his data base to extrapolate some of this data. Maybe if we are nice he will do such a thing. My opinion is that the desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica the last two years and will continue to do so just as long as the laws remain favorable. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear List and Adam, I do not have my copy of MetBase 6.0 yet so it is difficult for me to compare the latest SNCs numbers but... ;-) What about somebody who have a time and knowledge (Adam?) will make a mathematic formula to compare hot/cold deserts finds? Something like that: Deserts Finds: QOF = ((n * t)/S) * LUCK * EXPIRIENSE QOF = Quantity Of Finds n = quantity of nomads or other meteorite hunters or scientists involved in prospecting for meteorites t = average time of one nomad (hunter, scientist) searching for meteorites S = area in square km LUCK - I don't know the math for that yet ;-) EXPIRIENSE - All I know about this parameter is that it is going better time wise Sure you can add some parameters for moving ice in Antarctica to enlarge the S. But... you have to accept that penguins were witness of the falls (too bad we can't understand it yet) Anyway: (Non-Antarctic MINUS witness falls) in compare for the deserts. Sergey Dear List, It is interesting to note that the Non-Antarctic to Antarctic ratio is different when it comes to planetary material. SNCs Qty Non-AntarcticQty Antarctic 18 10 Lunar Qty Non-Antarctic Qty Antarctic 15 12 This ratio is also starting to favor other rare material. The desert is proving to be bountiful for new study material. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Dear Sergey and List, I wish I had the time to manage just such a database but this would represent a full-time effort. I think Bernd could tweak his data base to extrapolate some of this data. Maybe if we are nice he will do such a thing. My opinion is that the desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica the last two years and will continue to do so just as long as the laws remain favorable. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear List and Adam, I do not have my copy of MetBase 6.0 yet so it is difficult for me to compare the latest SNCs numbers but... ;-) What about somebody who have a time and knowledge (Adam?) will make a mathematic formula to compare hot/cold deserts finds? Something like that: Deserts Finds: QOF = ((n * t)/S) * LUCK * EXPIRIENSE QOF = Quantity Of Finds n = quantity of nomads or other meteorite hunters or scientists involved in prospecting for meteorites t = average time of one nomad (hunter, scientist) searching for meteorites S = area in square km LUCK - I don't know the math for that yet ;-) EXPIRIENSE - All I know about this parameter is that it is going better time wise Sure you can add some parameters for moving ice in Antarctica to enlarge the S. But... you have to accept that penguins were witness of the falls (too bad we can't understand it yet) Anyway: (Non-Antarctic MINUS witness falls) in compare for the deserts. Sergey Dear List, It is interesting to note that the Non-Antarctic to Antarctic ratio is different when it comes to planetary material. SNCs Qty Non-AntarcticQty Antarctic 18 10 Lunar Qty Non-Antarctic Qty Antarctic 15 12 This ratio is also starting to favor other rare material. The desert is proving to be bountiful for new study material. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Dear Eric and List, I agree, to number each find from Antarctica heavily skews the results. If every one of the Tazas we have gone through each received a number it would number into the thousands, same for Bensour, same for NWA 869. We have over 8,000 individual meteorites, not fragments from Northwest Africa, mostly ordinary chondrites that sit in storage because we cannot find a lab interested in studying them. Using the 3.5:1 ratio would mean we have over 2,285 different finds, a ridiculous number. I feel all of these stones might represent only about 90 falls at the very most, a 25:1 ratio. We have been donating these stones on a regular basis to observatories and schools for hand specimens, at least they are not thrown in a box and forgotten about. I think ratios are very misleading when comparing desert finds to Antarctic finds. All the Best, Adam Hupe - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban In a message dated 8/8/2003 12:25:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are right; it is hard to compare the statistics. I had waited to reply hoping for additional statistics from Bernd (I don't envy you the updating task), but here goes. I have rearranged parts of Jeff's email to make it easier for me to answer. If I have taken anything out of context I apologize in advance. But let's face it... you can't get even close to statements that were made indicating that 95% of new meteorites are commercially collected ones. I agree completely. However this comment line was started in response to comments supporting a collecting ban by individuals who believe the collector/dealer/hunter's contributions are insignificant and completely irrelevant to scientific endevors. That isn't supported by the statistics either. As for rare meteorites, which I will define as non-ordinary-chondrites, there are 1550 from Antarctica and 467 from commercial collections. Let's refine the numbers a bit. Pretty much the start of hot desert collecting was in 1998. Of the numbers you quote above how many are since the start of 1998? Do the same pairing numbers Lindstrom estimated apply to the non-ordinary-chondrites? I don't have access to a database so Jeff if you could let us know I would appreciate it. Meteorites that formed strewn fields get just as many numbers in the Sahara as in Antarctica (one per specimen). I was under the impression that each specimen gets a separate designation in antarctica. If there was a witnessed fall in Antarctica such as bensour in Africa would it get a single name and entry in the catalog listing or would each stone found get a separate designation and entry? I can't make that estimate. That is one of the reasons that I asked about the total mass of Antarctic meteorites. Statistically it would be reasonable to assume the ratio of OCs to other meteorite types would be similar. Certainly differences in weathering will affect the numbers some, but in gross approximation they should be somewhat similar. If there is 10 or 100 times as much mass coming out of the hot desert there should be 10 or 100 times the rare stuff, or at least 2 to 20 times. High mass strewn fields certainly could affect the statistics however neither region has many iron meteorites which would be most likely to affect the approximation. Stony falls aren't big enough that one fall should affect the gross approximation that much. Eric Olson http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Dear Adam and List, Yes, you are right that desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica. But why? That was the question actually... What will happened if you will have enough money to send 100 Moroccans to search the ice for one month? ;-) Bernd, can you estimate it, please? ;-) Nothing against - just wondering... Good night (morning) and all the best, Sergey Sergey Vasiliev U Dalnice 839 Prague 5, 15500 Czech Republic www.sv-meteorites.com www.meteorites4you.com www.sv-minerals.com Dear Sergey and List, I wish I had the time to manage just such a database but this would represent a full-time effort. I think Bernd could tweak his data base to extrapolate some of this data. Maybe if we are nice he will do such a thing. My opinion is that the desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica the last two years and will continue to do so just as long as the laws remain favorable. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear List and Adam, I do not have my copy of MetBase 6.0 yet so it is difficult for me to compare the latest SNCs numbers but... ;-) What about somebody who have a time and knowledge (Adam?) will make a mathematic formula to compare hot/cold deserts finds? Something like that: Deserts Finds: QOF = ((n * t)/S) * LUCK * EXPIRIENSE QOF = Quantity Of Finds n = quantity of nomads or other meteorite hunters or scientists involved in prospecting for meteorites t = average time of one nomad (hunter, scientist) searching for meteorites S = area in square km LUCK - I don't know the math for that yet ;-) EXPIRIENSE - All I know about this parameter is that it is going better time wise Sure you can add some parameters for moving ice in Antarctica to enlarge the S. But... you have to accept that penguins were witness of the falls (too bad we can't understand it yet) Anyway: (Non-Antarctic MINUS witness falls) in compare for the deserts. Sergey Dear List, It is interesting to note that the Non-Antarctic to Antarctic ratio is different when it comes to planetary material. SNCs Qty Non-AntarcticQty Antarctic 18 10 Lunar Qty Non-Antarctic Qty Antarctic 15 12 This ratio is also starting to favor other rare material. The desert is proving to be bountiful for new study material. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
As for rare meteorites, which I will define as non-ordinary-chondrites, there are 1550 from Antarctica and 467 from commercial collections. Let's refine the numbers a bit. Pretty much the start of hot desert collecting was in 1998. Of the numbers you quote above how many are since the start of 1998? Do the same pairing numbers Lindstrom estimated apply to the non-ordinary-chondrites? I don't have access to a database so Jeff if you could let us know I would appreciate it. The pairing numbers are based on the abundances of non-OC's. Since 1998, it's ~5:3 by number and 10:1 by mass in favor of commercial meteorites for rare types. The total is ~500 rare meteorites. Meteorites that formed strewn fields get just as many numbers in the Sahara as in Antarctica (one per specimen). I was under the impression that each specimen gets a separate designation in antarctica. If there was a witnessed fall in Antarctica such as bensour in Africa would it get a single name and entry in the catalog listing or would each stone found get a separate designation and entry? Each stone in BOTH places gets a separate designation. However, as I said, many Saharan meteorites are found as piles of rubble, so the reported number of pieces is high for some. Of course there are a few recent showers in Africa that have a single name. Observed falls in Antarctica would be treated the same as anywhere else: no numbers. I can't make that estimate. That is one of the reasons that I asked about the total mass of Antarctic meteorites. Statistically it would be reasonable to assume the ratio of OCs to other meteorite types would be similar. Certainly differences in weathering will affect the numbers some, but in gross approximation they should be somewhat similar. If there is 10 or 100 times as much mass coming out of the hot desert there should be 10 or 100 times the rare stuff, or at least 2 to 20 times. High mass strewn fields certainly could affect the statistics however neither region has many iron meteorites which would be most likely to affect the approximation. Stony falls aren't big enough that one fall should affect the gross approximation that much. Well, the mass issue is messy. By and large, small stones are not collected in Africa. Or at least, the ones that are never get looked at unless somebody thinks they're special. This is why the mass ratio of rare types is so much greater than the number ratio in the statistics above. The median size of commercial stones of rare types is ~160 g, whereas the same number for Antarctic ones is ~18 g. In Antarctica, all of the gram-sized stones have been collected (including many main masses in this size range!). So you're looking at an incredibly size-biased Saharan collection, and an Antarctic collection that more closely represents what actually falls. I think the Antarctic collection has about the correct number of irons (after correction for pairing) based on fall statistics . The Saharan material has been scavanged by man over the centuries, and the irons are apparently long gone. Of course, in terms of importance to science, the high mass of African/Omani meteorites is not the important issue. Most specimens of these that are deposited in scientific collections now weigh 20 g or less. This is a very hard number to get stats on, but I counted the Libyan and NWA's in the latest bulletin and found that the median size of rare meteorites deposited in collections is on the order of 15 g, which is actually about the same as the median Antarctic size. The rest is eventually destroyed as far as many scientists are concerned, or at least badly compromised. We can do a lot with a few grams (as we have always done with Antarctic meteorites), but future researchers will have precious little material to study, and nobody gets the chance to study hand-sample scale features once the specimen is sliced into a million bits. For Antarctic meteorites, this is the hand we were dealt. But for warm deserts, it is a sociological phenomenon. These are the reasons why many scientists resent commercial meteorite ventures. To me, this situation is a compromise that we can all live with, considering the bad alternatives on both sides (read my editorial in MAPS from 2 years ago). On the subject of this whole thread, I don't know of very many scientists who would say something as silly as commercially collected meteorites have little scientific value. Where in the world did this idea come from? Somebody should count the abstracts from Muenster and see how scientists voted with their feet on this idea. The main problem some museum scientists have is caused by their worry that many of these meteorites are smuggled out of their countries-of-origin, and therefore adding them to their collections is unethical, if not illegal. jeff Eric Olson http://www.star-bits.com __
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
You are right; it is hard to compare the statistics. Many or most of the described multi-fragment Saharan meteorites are those that decrepitated in place in the much harsher weathering environment of hot deserts compared with cold ones. Meteorites that formed strewn fields get just as many numbers in the Sahara as in Antarctica (one per specimen). I grant you that there are at least hundreds and maybe thousands of commercial stones that don't ever get classified, as I said in my last posting... can anybody estimate the actual number? You also have to remember that, according to reports, many Saharan meteorites are intentionally broken up prior to being described, which drives the statistics in the opposite direction. I don't think total mass is a useful number because the statistics are dominated by a few outliers. You really have to go to pairing-corrected statistics. Lindstrom estimated that the average pairing group among antarctic specimens is ~5, which lowers the total number of separate Antarctic meteorites to about 4000. There are many pairings also among commercially collected meteorites, although I don't know if anybody has estimated the ratio in the same way as Lindstrom did. The average pairing group among separately collected meteorites has got to be at least 3, I would guess. So you take the 4000 or so commercial meteorites, and let's allow an equal number of unclassified/undescribed stones, making 8000. Divide by my conservative 3, and you still have 2x as many unique Antarctic meteorites as commercial ones. But let's face it... you can't get even close to statements that were made indicating that 95% of new meteorites are commercially collected ones. As for rare meteorites, which I will define as non-ordinary-chondrites, there are 1550 from Antarctica and 467 from commercial collections. So the ratio of antarctic:commercial meteorites is 3:1 instead of the raw number of 3.5:1 among total meteorites, enhanced by the high-grading that goes on in the commercial sector. Commercial meteorites are still overwhelmingly ordinary chondrites. jeff At 01:30 PM 8/8/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff Grossman wrote: 70% of all known meteorites are Antarctic 20% of all known meteorites have been collected commercially. The remaining 10% include all the falls and sporadic finds throughout history. I respectfully disagree. The naming conventions tilt those numbers significantly toward the antarctic meteorites. In antarctic collecting every individual is given its own designation unless it is a fragment of a closely associated stone. All of these individuals are eventually classified even if 80% of a collection year are obviously related L5s. If every individual coming out of NWA were given its own designation the numbers would completely dwarf the antarctica numbers. In most cases a single stone is classified as representative of itself and possibly hundreds of other similar stones. NWA 801 CR and NWA 869 L5 are examples that come to mind. In addition while all the antarctic meteorites will eventually be classified this is not even close to being the case for hot desert meteorites. Due to lack of instrument time, money, and priorities on rarer meteorite types, many, if not most, ordinary chondrites from NWA will never be classified. That is not a criticism, just reality. Those NWA meteorites that are classified are predominantly the rarer types. A much more realistic determination would be a comparison of different rare types of meteorites. The mars compendium for instance lists 11 hot desert, 10 antarctic, and 7 other mars meteorites for a ratio of 39:36:25 vs the ratio above of 20:70:10. It would be interesting to see how the other rare meteorite types compare. Bernd? I don't know those comparisons but would guess the results would be closer to the mars ratios than the named classification ratio. Another comparison would be total mass. We know that NWA 869 has been estimated at 1500-2000kg alone. What is the mass of all the antartic meteorites? Eric Olson http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Re: collecting Ban. These scientists/time wasters that support a collecting ban would do well to sit down and think about their actions... Firstly 90% of all meteorites are found by 'collectors/hunters' (or dealers to collectors). Do these scientists really want to loose these thousands and thousands of meteorites every year? Who would find them if they banned collecting? - they would just lie in the ground rusting away, or get built on by an ever expanding world. So that would leave the odd 4 man scientific party every year to the Antarctic? Yeah right get real, do they really believe that if the supply of meteorites 'dried up' the government would keep funding labs and research programs? No they would cut back funds! In any case as far as I know every meteorite that has been classified has had a sample donated to science. FACT : Science gets more meteorites due to collecting than it ever would without it! So my message to those that want it banned - do something useful with your time! What they should be doing is encouraging people to get stuff classified and invest in more labs so that the classification is easier and happens quicker! However - It is a shame that many many meteorites never get classified, one has to wonder what undiscovered revelations are sitting in our collections having never been seen by anyone 'in Authority', but hey that's life! Just My 2 quids worth! Mark Ford __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
In a message dated 8/8/2003 12:25:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are right; it is hard to compare the statistics. I had waited to reply hoping for additional statistics from Bernd (I don't envy you the updating task), but here goes. I have rearranged parts of Jeff's email to make it easier for me to answer. If I have taken anything out of context I apologize in advance. But let's face it... you can't get even close to statements that were made indicating that 95% of new meteorites are commercially collected ones. I agree completely. However this comment line was started in response to comments supporting a collecting ban by individuals who believe the collector/dealer/hunter's contributions are insignificant and completely irrelevant to scientific endevors. That isn't supported by the statistics either. As for rare meteorites, which I will define as non-ordinary-chondrites, there are 1550 from Antarctica and 467 from commercial collections. Let's refine the numbers a bit. Pretty much the start of hot desert collecting was in 1998. Of the numbers you quote above how many are since the start of 1998? Do the same pairing numbers Lindstrom estimated apply to the non-ordinary-chondrites? I don't have access to a database so Jeff if you could let us know I would appreciate it. Meteorites that formed strewn fields get just as many numbers in the Sahara as in Antarctica (one per specimen). I was under the impression that each specimen gets a separate designation in antarctica. If there was a witnessed fall in Antarctica such as bensour in Africa would it get a single name and entry in the catalog listing or would each stone found get a separate designation and entry? I can't make that estimate. That is one of the reasons that I asked about the total mass of Antarctic meteorites. Statistically it would be reasonable to assume the ratio of OCs to other meteorite types would be similar. Certainly differences in weathering will affect the numbers some, but in gross approximation they should be somewhat similar. If there is 10 or 100 times as much mass coming out of the hot desert there should be 10 or 100 times the rare stuff, or at least 2 to 20 times. High mass strewn fields certainly could affect the statistics however neither region has many iron meteorites which would be most likely to affect the approximation. Stony falls aren't big enough that one fall should affect the gross approximation that much. Eric Olson http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban - ARMY
THE ARMY IS HERE --- http://www.meteorman.org/NWA_meteorites.htm Best Always, Tim Heitz Midwest Meteorites - Home of the Meteorite Pusher www.Meteorman.Org -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Hupe Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:43 PM To: Sergey Vasiliev Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear Sergey and List, I feel the performance increase in rare finds from the desert is attributable to free enterprise and education. Moroccans and nomads know they will get more for an achondrite than a normal chondrite. They have learned that meteorites do not need to be magnetic and are now searching for anything out of place. We receive dozens of non-magnetic samples every month, about 10% being meteorites. Lots of fresh material is starting to show up because they know they will receive more money for it. We have been receiving more W0s and W1s than ever before. Three different mesosiderites have shown up in less than a year! The only thing that doesn't show up in greater numbers are irons. I believe there are now over 7,000 nomads, basically an army, keeping an eye out for meteorites. This has everything to do with the amount of material coming out of the Sahara. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear Adam and List, Yes, you are right that desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica. But why? That was the question actually... What will happened if you will have enough money to send 100 Moroccans to search the ice for one month? ;-) Bernd, can you estimate it, please? ;-) Nothing against - just wondering... Good night (morning) and all the best, Sergey Sergey Vasiliev U Dalnice 839 Prague 5, 15500 Czech Republic www.sv-meteorites.com www.meteorites4you.com www.sv-minerals.com Dear Sergey and List, I wish I had the time to manage just such a database but this would represent a full-time effort. I think Bernd could tweak his data base to extrapolate some of this data. Maybe if we are nice he will do such a thing. My opinion is that the desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica the last two years and will continue to do so just as long as the laws remain favorable. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear List and Adam, I do not have my copy of MetBase 6.0 yet so it is difficult for me to compare the latest SNCs numbers but... ;-) What about somebody who have a time and knowledge (Adam?) will make a mathematic formula to compare hot/cold deserts finds? Something like that: Deserts Finds: QOF = ((n * t)/S) * LUCK * EXPIRIENSE QOF = Quantity Of Finds n = quantity of nomads or other meteorite hunters or scientists involved in prospecting for meteorites t = average time of one nomad (hunter, scientist) searching for meteorites S = area in square km LUCK - I don't know the math for that yet ;-) EXPIRIENSE - All I know about this parameter is that it is going better time wise Sure you can add some parameters for moving ice in Antarctica to enlarge the S. But... you have to accept that penguins were witness of the falls (too bad we can't understand it yet) Anyway: (Non-Antarctic MINUS witness falls) in compare for the deserts. Sergey Dear List, It is interesting to note that the Non-Antarctic to Antarctic ratio is different when it comes to planetary material. SNCs Qty Non-AntarcticQty Antarctic 18 10 Lunar Qty Non-Antarctic Qty Antarctic 15 12 This ratio is also starting to favor other rare material. The desert is proving to be bountiful for new study material. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Dear List and Adam, I do not have my copy of MetBase 6.0 yet so it is difficult for me to compare the latest SNCs numbers but... ;-) What about somebody who have a time and knowledge (Adam?) will make a mathematic formula to compare hot/cold deserts finds? Something like that: Deserts Finds: QOF = ((n * t)/S) * LUCK * EXPIRIENSE QOF = Quantity Of Finds n = quantity of nomads or other meteorite hunters or scientists involved in prospecting for meteorites t = average time of one nomad (hunter, scientist) searching for meteorites S = area in square km LUCK - I don't know the math for that yet ;-) EXPIRIENSE - All I know about this parameter is that it is going better time wise Sure you can add some parameters for moving ice in Antarctica to enlarge the S. But... you have to accept that penguins were witness of the falls (too bad we can't understand it yet) Anyway: (Non-Antarctic MINUS witness falls) in compare for the deserts. Sergey Dear List, It is interesting to note that the Non-Antarctic to Antarctic ratio is different when it comes to planetary material. SNCs Qty Non-AntarcticQty Antarctic 18 10 Lunar Qty Non-Antarctic Qty Antarctic 15 12 This ratio is also starting to favor other rare material. The desert is proving to be bountiful for new study material. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Without taking sides in this debate, I can help get the statistics straight. 73% of classified and published meteorites are Antarctic (source Metbase v6.0, total 20,366 of 27,732 meteorites ). Of the remaining meteorites, ~56% (~4100) of them are in numbered series directly attributable to commercial collection. Perhaps 100-200 others without numbered names were recently collected in this fashion. I was not able to get a handle on the number of meteorites attributable to Nininger's efforts, but it is probably several hundred. Allowing 400 for the latter two cases, we find that ~17% of all published meteorites have been systematically collected for profit. Of course, you have to augment these numbers for unclassified/undescribed meteorites. I don't know how many Saharan meteorites go undescribed, but there are more than 1000 with provisional names. Assuming these are all meteorites, and using 1200 as the number we can bump the totals up to: 70% of all known meteorites are Antarctic 20% of all known meteorites have been collected commercially. The remaining 10% include all the falls and sporadic finds throughout history. jeff At 03:52 AM 8/8/2003, mark ford wrote: Re: collecting Ban. These scientists/time wasters that support a collecting ban would do well to sit down and think about their actions... Firstly 90% of all meteorites are found by 'collectors/hunters' (or dealers to collectors). Do these scientists really want to loose these thousands and thousands of meteorites every year? Who would find them if they banned collecting? - they would just lie in the ground rusting away, or get built on by an ever expanding world. So that would leave the odd 4 man scientific party every year to the Antarctic? Yeah right get real, do they really believe that if the supply of meteorites 'dried up' the government would keep funding labs and research programs? No they would cut back funds! In any case as far as I know every meteorite that has been classified has had a sample donated to science. FACT : Science gets more meteorites due to collecting than it ever would without it! So my message to those that want it banned - do something useful with your time! What they should be doing is encouraging people to get stuff classified and invest in more labs so that the classification is easier and happens quicker! However - It is a shame that many many meteorites never get classified, one has to wonder what undiscovered revelations are sitting in our collections having never been seen by anyone 'in Authority', but hey that's life! Just My 2 quids worth! Mark Ford __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman Chair, Meteorite Nomenclature Committee (Meteoritical Society) US Geological Survey 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA Phone: (703) 648-6184 fax: (703) 648-6383 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Hi Eric, Dr. Grossman and all, Starbits Wrote: Another comparison would be total mass. We know that NWA 869 has been estimated at 1500-2000kg alone. What is the mass of all the Antarctic meteorites? This is and would be an important consideration. I have noticed that a lot of the Antarctic falls are sometimes very small. Total mass would shed an interesting correlation to non-Antarctic finds. The significance of individual unique falls though can be over looked from a science advantage point. Also the Antarctic falls are from hundreds and thousands of years ago. Perhaps as much as 800,000 years ago, so there is a concentration of the falls on the ice sheets which may be distorting the numbers more. I am sure there are some things I haven't thought of or might be mistaken about. Respectfully and my best! --AL Mitterling __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
Hello all A curiosity, how much ask now the Moroccans for ordinary material? I received email with offers from Moroccans that want from the $2 to the $16/gr. for ordinary material. begin a few to exaggerate with the requests, a time if satisfied with $0.10-20/gr. If you want answer in private... Regards Matteo --- Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Sergey and List, I feel the performance increase in rare finds from the desert is attributable to free enterprise and education. Moroccans and nomads know they will get more for an achondrite than a normal chondrite. They have learned that meteorites do not need to be magnetic and are now searching for anything out of place. We receive dozens of non-magnetic samples every month, about 10% being meteorites. Lots of fresh material is starting to show up because they know they will receive more money for it. We have been receiving more W0s and W1s than ever before. Three different mesosiderites have shown up in less than a year! The only thing that doesn't show up in greater numbers are irons. I believe there are now over 7,000 nomads, basically an army, keeping an eye out for meteorites. This has everything to do with the amount of material coming out of the Sahara. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear Adam and List, Yes, you are right that desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica. But why? That was the question actually... What will happened if you will have enough money to send 100 Moroccans to search the ice for one month? ;-) Bernd, can you estimate it, please? ;-) Nothing against - just wondering... Good night (morning) and all the best, Sergey Sergey Vasiliev U Dalnice 839 Prague 5, 15500 Czech Republic www.sv-meteorites.com www.meteorites4you.com www.sv-minerals.com Dear Sergey and List, I wish I had the time to manage just such a database but this would represent a full-time effort. I think Bernd could tweak his data base to extrapolate some of this data. Maybe if we are nice he will do such a thing. My opinion is that the desert has been easily outperforming Antarctica the last two years and will continue to do so just as long as the laws remain favorable. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: Sergey Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban Dear List and Adam, I do not have my copy of MetBase 6.0 yet so it is difficult for me to compare the latest SNCs numbers but... ;-) What about somebody who have a time and knowledge (Adam?) will make a mathematic formula to compare hot/cold deserts finds? Something like that: Deserts Finds: QOF = ((n * t)/S) * LUCK * EXPIRIENSE QOF = Quantity Of Finds n = quantity of nomads or other meteorite hunters or scientists involved in prospecting for meteorites t = average time of one nomad (hunter, scientist) searching for meteorites S = area in square km LUCK - I don't know the math for that yet ;-) EXPIRIENSE - All I know about this parameter is that it is going better time wise Sure you can add some parameters for moving ice in Antarctica to enlarge the S. But... you have to accept that penguins were witness of the falls (too bad we can't understand it yet) Anyway: (Non-Antarctic MINUS witness falls) in compare for the deserts. Sergey Dear List, It is interesting to note that the Non-Antarctic to Antarctic ratio is different when it comes to planetary material. SNCs Qty Non-AntarcticQty Antarctic 18 10 Lunar Qty Non-Antarctic Qty Antarctic 15 12 This ratio is also starting to favor other rare material. The desert is proving to be bountiful for new study material. All the best, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list === message truncated === = M come Meteorite - Matteo Chinellato Via Triestina 126/A - 30030 - TESSERA, VENEZIA
