RE: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this issue was addressed in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below). Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration. but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees it's own nwa number and must be classified... my argument against the current guidelines is such: if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative thin section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if there are many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get the same nwa number with little or no testing done to them. now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same people, and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find - but it's found after the original stuff is published - then the new material must have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure, and oxygen isotopse data taken before the material will be considered paired to the orignial find. I challange anyone to give me a valid scientific reason why material sumbited before publishing can all be considered nwa xxx based upon a cursory visual examination - yet material found after a write up in the met bul requires exhaustive additional testing to qualify as a pairing - testing that science make take years to complete for even the most exotic meteorites such as martian and lunars. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
Hello Stan and List. Yes, this was exactly the point that we made in an earlier posting (The Probem with Reductionism ad Infinitum). The members of this list have not yet received any response from Adam on this matter and we wonder if he or anyone else have a reasonable explanation for this apparent double standard. -John Dawn stan . wrote: Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this issue was addressed in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below). Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration. but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees it's own nwa number and must be classified... my argument against the current guidelines is such: if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative thin section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if there are many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get the same nwa number with little or no testing done to them. now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same people, and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find - but it's found after the original stuff is published - then the new material must have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure, and oxygen isotopse data taken before the material will be considered paired to the orignial find. I challange anyone to give me a valid scientific reason why material sumbited before publishing can all be considered nwa xxx based upon a cursory visual examination - yet material found after a write up in the met bul requires exhaustive additional testing to qualify as a pairing - testing that science make take years to complete for even the most exotic meteorites such as martian and lunars. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
Dear John and List, The word apparent double standard would apply here. If you feel it is ok to pick numbers at random for additional finds when it comes to NWA and not others, why is this not happening with the Antarctic, Sahara, DAGs, SAUs and Dhofars? Why is it that when a Martian meteorite was announced as NWA 1068 some dealers are using a number that describes a pairing instead (NWA 1110)? Could it be that they are too lazy to apply for their own numbers, have their material studied and submitted for vote. NWA 1110 is not a catchall for additional finds, it is an official set of tested pebbles that happen to be Martian. Using the name NWA 869 is meaningless because like Kem Kem it has become a catchall stone. I would go as far as to say, you would better off selling NWA 869 as unclassified because an unclassified stone seems to be worth more on the open market these days. This one of the reasons I object strongly when it comes to rare material. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: stan . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:53 AM Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877 Hello Stan and List. Yes, this was exactly the point that we made in an earlier posting (The Probem with Reductionism ad Infinitum). The members of this list have not yet received any response from Adam on this matter and we wonder if he or anyone else have a reasonable explanation for this apparent double standard. -John Dawn stan . wrote: Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this issue was addressed in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below). Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration. but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees it's own nwa number and must be classified... my argument against the current guidelines is such: if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative thin section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if there are many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get the same nwa number with little or no testing done to them. now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same people, and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find - but it's found after the original stuff is published - then the new material must have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure, and oxygen isotopse data taken before the material will be considered paired to the orignial find. I challange anyone to give me a valid scientific reason why material sumbited before publishing can all be considered nwa xxx based upon a cursory visual examination - yet material found after a write up in the met bul requires exhaustive additional testing to qualify as a pairing - testing that science make take years to complete for even the most exotic meteorites such as martian and lunars. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
Hello Adam, Stan and List. Adam-I think you missed the point that Stan and I were trying to make. We all agree that it would be best if every single stone found in the desert could be independently classified, the problem is that there are not enough resources or people willing to do so. The question was basically, how can fragments of some potential meteorite be paired with a classified fragment that has been properly analyzed and microprobed, when the remaining fragments have not even had a window polished into them, let alone been microprobed? This is particularily the case when there is no provenance as to the location in which these fragments were found as they could have been found in several different locations. It would seem in such a case that the best guestimate one could make in such a case would be to say that these non-analyzed fragments probably pair with the analyzed ones. For example, in the case of the 118g of NWA 1110, presumably around 116g have not been microprobed. In this case, it seems that the most accurate statement would be something along the lines of... the NWA 1110 non-analyzed fragments making up ~116g probably pair with NWA 1110's microprobed fragments. We are wondering about this because we are coming up against a similar predicament with several other falls. Thanks! -John Dawn Adam Hupe wrote: Dear John and List, The word apparent double standard would apply here. If you feel it is ok to pick numbers at random for additional finds when it comes to NWA and not others, why is this not happening with the Antarctic, Sahara, DAGs, SAUs and Dhofars? Why is it that when a Martian meteorite was announced as NWA 1068 some dealers are using a number that describes a pairing instead (NWA 1110)? Could it be that they are too lazy to apply for their own numbers, have their material studied and submitted for vote. NWA 1110 is not a catchall for additional finds, it is an official set of tested pebbles that happen to be Martian. Using the name NWA 869 is meaningless because like Kem Kem it has become a catchall stone. I would go as far as to say, you would better off selling NWA 869 as unclassified because an unclassified stone seems to be worth more on the open market these days. This one of the reasons I object strongly when it comes to rare material. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: stan . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:53 AM Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877 Hello Stan and List. Yes, this was exactly the point that we made in an earlier posting (The Probem with Reductionism ad Infinitum). The members of this list have not yet received any response from Adam on this matter and we wonder if he or anyone else have a reasonable explanation for this apparent double standard. -John Dawn stan . wrote: Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this issue was addressed in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below). Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration. but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees it's own nwa number and must be classified... my argument against the current guidelines is such: if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative thin section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if there are many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get the same nwa number with little or no testing done to them. now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same people, and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find - but it's found after the original stuff is published - then the new material must have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure, and oxygen isotopse data taken before the material will be considered paired to the orignial find. I challange anyone to give me a valid scientific reason why material sumbited before publishing can all be considered nwa xxx based upon a cursory visual examination - yet material found after a write up in the met bul requires exhaustive additional testing to qualify as a pairing - testing that science make take years to complete for even the most exotic meteorites such as martian and lunars. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman
Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
Dear List, We do know where all of NWA 1110 was found as does the journalist who documented our second expedition to Marrir. The first trip was published in Meteorite Magazine. Every piece of NWA 1110 was found by a Nomadic family in a 12 meter X 12 meter area 14 kilometers from the village of Marrir. This is not a strewn field. We figured NWA 1068 must have hit a rock on impact and shattered into several hundred pieces scattering them over a small area. The location alone is enough to make pairing statements after a qualified scientist authenticated every piece and the NomCom approved the scientists' work by making it official. Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 9:40 AM Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877 Hello Adam, Stan and List. Adam-I think you missed the point that Stan and I were trying to make. We all agree that it would be best if every single stone found in the desert could be independently classified, the problem is that there are not enough resources or people willing to do so. The question was basically, how can fragments of some potential meteorite be paired with a classified fragment that has been properly analyzed and microprobed, when the remaining fragments have not even had a window polished into them, let alone been microprobed? This is particularily the case when there is no provenance as to the location in which these fragments were found as they could have been found in several different locations. It would seem in such a case that the best guestimate one could make in such a case would be to say that these non-analyzed fragments probably pair with the analyzed ones. For example, in the case of the 118g of NWA 1110, presumably around 116g have not been microprobed. In this case, it seems that the most accurate statement would be something along the lines of... the NWA 1110 non-analyzed fragments making up ~116g probably pair with NWA 1110's microprobed fragments. We are wondering about this because we are coming up against a similar predicament with several other falls. Thanks! -John Dawn Adam Hupe wrote: Dear John and List, The word apparent double standard would apply here. If you feel it is ok to pick numbers at random for additional finds when it comes to NWA and not others, why is this not happening with the Antarctic, Sahara, DAGs, SAUs and Dhofars? Why is it that when a Martian meteorite was announced as NWA 1068 some dealers are using a number that describes a pairing instead (NWA 1110)? Could it be that they are too lazy to apply for their own numbers, have their material studied and submitted for vote. NWA 1110 is not a catchall for additional finds, it is an official set of tested pebbles that happen to be Martian. Using the name NWA 869 is meaningless because like Kem Kem it has become a catchall stone. I would go as far as to say, you would better off selling NWA 869 as unclassified because an unclassified stone seems to be worth more on the open market these days. This one of the reasons I object strongly when it comes to rare material. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: stan . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:53 AM Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877 Hello Stan and List. Yes, this was exactly the point that we made in an earlier posting (The Probem with Reductionism ad Infinitum). The members of this list have not yet received any response from Adam on this matter and we wonder if he or anyone else have a reasonable explanation for this apparent double standard. -John Dawn stan . wrote: Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this issue was addressed in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below). Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration. but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees it's own nwa number and must be classified... my argument against the current guidelines is such: if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative thin section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if there are many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get the same nwa number with little or no testing done to them. now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same people, and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find - but it's found after the original stuff is published - then the new material must have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure
Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
Hi Adam and thanks for the note. We know of around 60 g of picritic shergottite fragments that look identical to NWA 1110, and that were not part of the original 118 grams. This suggests that either several pieces of NWA 1068 hit rocks and broke into fragments, or perhaps more likely, a mass exploded at low elevation spreading fragments over a larger area than the 12 x 12 meter region that you mentioned??? Cheers -John Dawn Adam Hupe wrote: Dear List, We do know where all of NWA 1110 was found as does the journalist who documented our second expedition to Marrir. The first trip was published in Meteorite Magazine. Every piece of NWA 1110 was found by a Nomadic family in a 12 meter X 12 meter area 14 kilometers from the village of Marrir. This is not a strewn field. We figured NWA 1068 must have hit a rock on impact and shattered into several hundred pieces scattering them over a small area. The location alone is enough to make pairing statements after a qualified scientist authenticated every piece and the NomCom approved the scientists' work by making it official. Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Adam Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 9:40 AM Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877 Hello Adam, Stan and List. Adam-I think you missed the point that Stan and I were trying to make. We all agree that it would be best if every single stone found in the desert could be independently classified, the problem is that there are not enough resources or people willing to do so. The question was basically, how can fragments of some potential meteorite be paired with a classified fragment that has been properly analyzed and microprobed, when the remaining fragments have not even had a window polished into them, let alone been microprobed? This is particularily the case when there is no provenance as to the location in which these fragments were found as they could have been found in several different locations. It would seem in such a case that the best guestimate one could make in such a case would be to say that these non-analyzed fragments probably pair with the analyzed ones. For example, in the case of the 118g of NWA 1110, presumably around 116g have not been microprobed. In this case, it seems that the most accurate statement would be something along the lines of... the NWA 1110 non-analyzed fragments making up ~116g probably pair with NWA 1110's microprobed fragments. We are wondering about this because we are coming up against a similar predicament with several other falls. Thanks! -John Dawn Adam Hupe wrote: Dear John and List, The word apparent double standard would apply here. If you feel it is ok to pick numbers at random for additional finds when it comes to NWA and not others, why is this not happening with the Antarctic, Sahara, DAGs, SAUs and Dhofars? Why is it that when a Martian meteorite was announced as NWA 1068 some dealers are using a number that describes a pairing instead (NWA 1110)? Could it be that they are too lazy to apply for their own numbers, have their material studied and submitted for vote. NWA 1110 is not a catchall for additional finds, it is an official set of tested pebbles that happen to be Martian. Using the name NWA 869 is meaningless because like Kem Kem it has become a catchall stone. I would go as far as to say, you would better off selling NWA 869 as unclassified because an unclassified stone seems to be worth more on the open market these days. This one of the reasons I object strongly when it comes to rare material. All the best, Adam - Original Message - From: John Birdsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: stan . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:53 AM Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877 Hello Stan and List. Yes, this was exactly the point that we made in an earlier posting (The Probem with Reductionism ad Infinitum). The members of this list have not yet received any response from Adam on this matter and we wonder if he or anyone else have a reasonable explanation for this apparent double standard. -John Dawn stan . wrote: Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this issue was addressed in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below). Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration. but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees it's own nwa number and must be classified... my argument against the current guidelines is such: if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative thin section
Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
The word apparent double standard would apply here. If you feel it is ok to pick numbers at random for additional finds when it comes to NWA and not others, why is this not happening with the Antarctic, Sahara, DAGs, SAUs and Dhofars? just for the sake of clarity, i dont think this is a problem with only nwa's, but ALL numbered series of meteorites. i only used nwa in my posts as i assumed it would be clear what i was tlaking about - meteorites named by number from areas of dense finds _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
