Pigs are flying!
Al Haggounia 001 has been updated in the Met Bull!
Link - https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=44857
There were also several other revisions and new approvals in the last two days.
Best regards,
MikeG
--
Dan:
Probably not.
Phil Whitmer
A Catholic priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk enter a bar. The bartender
immediately retorts: What is this, a joke?
__
Does anybody know if Al haggounia 001 is going to have its official
classification of Aubrite changed to EL3 which seems to
Reclassifications in the MetBull can occur when somebody submits to the
NomCom, or NomCom independently finds, sufficient evidence to warrant
publication of an erratum. For simple errors, the evidence can be very
simple (e.g., this meteorite was published as an LL5, but it actually
has Fa19
Hi Dan,
The Al-Haggounia issue comes up here regularly from time to time and
it has been discussed extensively. The general consensus is that
NonCom works like Entmoot. Eventually the classification will get
changed - but nobody knows when.
In the meantime, for your own use, call it an EL3 and
The ents are not currently, and have not previously discussed the
issue. So the question is indeed moot.
jeff
On 6/8/2011 8:38 AM, Michael Gilmer wrote:
Hi Dan,
The Al-Haggounia issue comes up here regularly from time to time and
it has been discussed extensively. The general consensus is
Jeff,
That is the perfect answer. Thanks for the smile.
Bob
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com wrote:
The ents are not currently, and have not previously discussed the issue.
So the question is indeed moot.
jeff
On 6/8/2011 8:38 AM, Michael Gilmer wrote:
08, 2011 1:49 PM
To: Jeff Grossman ; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al haggounia 001
Jeff,
That is the perfect answer. Thanks for the smile.
Bob
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jeff Grossman jngross...@gmail.com wrote:
The ents are not currently, and have
Thanks Greg, .Sorted!
Best Wishes
David
IMCA#5112
- Original Message -
From: Greg Hupé gmh...@centurylink.net
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al haggounia 001
http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite
Does anybody know if Al haggounia 001 is going to have its official
classification of Aubrite changed to EL3 which seems to be appropriate
after doing much research on this meteorite.
Daniel Furlan
meteorite collector and dealer
__
Visit the Archives at
Hi list, Al Haggounia 001 NWA 2965 and NWA 2828, EL7, Aubrite, EL3! This
has been an interesting meteorite from the start. A rare Enstatite and lots
of unanswered questions. Then, on top of that, it turns out to be a huge
find!
NAU (Northern Arizona University) has written a paper and
Hi all, I know the question concerning Al Haggounia 001 or common pairings
of NWA 2965 and NWA 2828 have been on the list for some time but this is
still interesting. Some firmly stand by the call of EL3 and others Aubrite.
NWA 2965 is commonly associated with the bark brown phase and
7:09 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Al Haggounia 001 question
Hi list, This is Tom Phillips. I don't want to waist your time but I
had a
question concerning Al Haggounia 001. I have read what has been written
about the weathering state of Al Haggounia 001 and it has been said
Hi list, This is Tom Phillips. I don't want to waist your time but I had a
question concerning Al Haggounia 001. I have read what has been written
about the weathering state of Al Haggounia 001 and it has been said that it is
likely not fossil but rather a highly water susceptible
Jason,
I never called it a type three if you read my emails
although I am confident with the designation
scientists with decades of experience assigned it. I
am certainly no expert on the degree of metamorphism
determing petrologic types in chondrites so I will
present some notes collected from
Hola Adam, All,
I never called it a type three if you read my emails
although I am confident with the designation
scientists with decades of experience assigned it.
Interestingly put. Well, I did read your emails, as well as those
posted by your brother, and, to be frank, although you don't
Dear Greg, Matteo and all,
Whatever other scientists have found, Albert Jambon has made the classification
as an AUBRITE. He took over a year to work on this
meteorite and he is the ONLY SCIENTIST who went to the site to study even the
age of the ground where the meteorites have been found
in
Hello Adam, All,
Adam said:
It is obvious that this meteorite contains chondrules
therefore calling it anything but a chondrite doesn't
make any sense to me.
Wold Cottage, as well as several Acapulcoites and Winonaites contain
chondrule remains, though the official definitions of such
Hi Jason and List,
Jason, you are talking about primitive achondrites
containing relic chondrules not evolved and brecciated
Aubrites. These are well defined chondrules and can be
found in most of this material. As far as I know, not
a single chondrule, let alone a relic has ever been
found in a
Hi list, I have been fascinated by the difficulty in identifying this
meteorite find as an Aubrite, EL3, EL6, EL6/7 or EL7 (did I miss a few?), but
what
also has me amazed is the dispute on the Fossil Meteorite determination.
I have noticed 4 material types in the just over 100 Kg I have.
Dear List,
I just thought I would throw my opiniion into the
discussion.
It is obvious that this meteorite contains chondrules
therefore calling it anything but a chondrite doesn't
make any sense to me. These round objects cannot be
mistaken for anything else. Radial pyroxene and
barred
Hi list, I have been fascinated by the difficulty in identifying this
meteorite find as an Aubrite, EL3, EL6, EL6/7 or EL7 (did I miss a few?), but
what
also has me amazed is the dispute on the Fossil Meteorite determination.
I have noticed 4 material types in the just over 100 Kg I have.
Hello Adam, Rob, All,
First-off, bit of a brain fart there - I didn't mean Wold Cottage, but
rather was trying to refer to the chondritic clasts in Cumberland
Falls...thanks Bernd...I think I should get some slack for writing
college apps and doing mets at the same time ;)
My point is that
Dear Greg and all,
It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience
often these remain sterile and my level of English does not allow me to make me
understood completely.
Here is that I have to say as comment of this meteorite:
First, all the Moroccan having a
intended.
Best!
Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Philippe
Thomas
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 10:21
An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 (NOT AUBRITE
]
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 (NOT AUBRITE)
Dear Greg and all,
It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience
often these remain
I am confused, if some pieces have chondules (which I
know they do as I also was in Morocco more than once
or twice:) then it is a chondrite, and if it is a
chondrite, it cannot be an Aubrite. I myself cut more
than 50 kilos of pieces most of it was absolute
garbage, since it is millions of years
Mike wrote:
... chondrules in most pieces ...
if some ... chondules ... then it is a chondrite,
if ... a chondrite, it cannot be an Aubrite.
Dr. Grossman posted that the aubrite classification, or the E-chondrite
classification, like all classifications in the Bulletin, is not peer
reviewed
Michael,
I was maybe not enough complete and precise in my first message.
It is evident that the scientists which makes the declaration as an aubrite did
not find chondrules. For them, the circular forms which could be confused with
chondrules are not chondrules. The claimed chondrules are
Hi List, I have some cool photos of the chondrules found in this
meteorite. When I had sent some samples to ASU I would send a photo and they
would
let me know if it was any thing they wanted to look at.
My hobby is micrographs but most of the chondrules were way to large for
Dear Frederic, Matteo and List Members,
Al Haggounia 001(NWA 4420), NWA 2828 and the other Fossil EL3's are NOT, I
repeat, NOT aubrites. I wish they were, I have many, many kilos of NWA 2828.
At first when just the type sample was tested, it came back as an aubrite,
no chondrules were found.
The message Greg just sent shows several misconceptions that I hear a lot.
First, the AGU abstract he cites was not approved by anybody except
the authors and a meeting program committee. It is not peer
reviewed, nor is it endorsed by MetSoc. It is gray literature.
Second, the MetSoc does
Hi List, I am not qualified to take sides in this debate (It never works
out well for me) but I have made some observations on the meteorite in
question.
I have about 100Kg of the stuff. I bought it before any one knew how much
was really out there (bad call). I cut a rather large
I have analysis of laboratory show this material is Aubrite,
and not EL3 some persons continue to say, in my laboratory I
have in analysis this Aubrite and a piece of the EL3 all
say, the 2 analysis its totaly different! For me this
material IS aubrite. STOP
Matteo
- Original Message -
33 matches
Mail list logo
