Here is a message I sent to the meteorite-list way back on
10/28/1998. A Library of Congress search confirms that Russell T.
Wing was born in 1891, so I was right... he was 93 when I met him in 1984.
jeff
The definitive work on the subject of meteorwrong denial is:
The Discovery of the
They certainly should be considered relict meteorites if there is
evidence that they were once meteorites, although a hunk of Canyon
Diablo iron-shale would not be deserving of a separate name.
jeff
At 09:25 AM 1/6/2007, Jeff Kuyken wrote:
Hi David,
What about irons stony/irons etc? How do
This abstract by Frank Kyte describes what may be a relict piece of
the K-T impactor. I don't know if it was formally published elsewhere.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1996LPI27..717Kamp;data_type=PDF_HIGHamp;type=PRINTERamp;filetype=.pdf
jeff
At 10:12 AM
As I was heavily involved in developing the NomCom rules, let me give
my take on this whole discussion:
Our actions were stimulated by the Osterplana fossil meteorites, as
they are commonly called in the literature. For those who don't know
these, they are a group of several dozen objects
At 05:49 PM 2/28/2007, Mr EMan wrote:
In the for what its worth category, the degree of
fluorescence in feldspar chondrules is the means for
defining the intermediate grades within the 3 grades,(
e.g 3.1, 3.2 , etc.) I don't know what wavelength is
the standard for that examination. If you've
For those of you who don't know what you're looking at in this
picture, here is a little explanation.
All of the colored bars and the circular rim in this picture are the
mineral olivine. The black stuff in between the bars is either
feldspathic glass (possible if this is a highly
There is no such naming convention.
Jeff
At 01:03 AM 10/3/2007, Sterling K. Webb wrote:
The name of the village closest to the
crater site is CARANCAS, not Carnacas.
Under the naming convention, the nearest
named human settlement would end up
as the name of the meteorite when all the
dust
Just a second...
Tulung Dzong fell March 26, 1944, in Tibet. According to MetBase,
the coordinates are not known exactly, but the reported location is
over 4000 m, about 20 km from any ground as low as 3843 m. This
unclassified stone is held by the Geological Survey of India, Calcutta.
Here is what I can tell everybody about official names and synonyms.
Every meteorite is given one, and only one, official name. This is
the name that must be used in publications. There are no rules for
how the name is chosen, only guidelines. Mainly the guidelines call
for naming the
-numbers be combined and the new name assigned to them too,
or will they be preserved independently from the new paired geographical
name?
Best!
Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Jeff
Grossman
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Oktober
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
It seems to me that there are at least four or five different things
that people may be trying to describe using various terms, including
fossil and paleo. 1) The original minerals in a meteorite may be
partially or completely converted to terrestrial minerals on
earth. 2) During alteration
How about this abstract: Nininger, H.H. (1973) Fossil meteorites.
Meteoritics 8, p.61.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=%3F%3F%3F%3FMetic...8db_key=GENpage_ind=86data_type=GIFtype=SCREEN_VIEWclassic=YEShigh=46562617c114850
jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know of any study that reports Mn in iron meteorites; just in
silicate inclusions in some irons. I assume it is present at sub-ppm levels.
jeff
At 08:14 PM 12/14/2007, Jeff Kuyken wrote:
Hey list,
Does anyone know what kind of levels (%) Mn is generally present in iron
meteorites? I
Just a note: the Nomenclature Committee has officially named the 2007
Peru impactor Carancas. See the entry at
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/index.php?code=45817
jeff
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
There is little reason to use this file. The
Meteoritical Bulletin database can plot any
search results in google earth, and it is always up to date.
Jeff
At 04:11 PM 1/9/2008, Pelé Pierre-Marie wrote:
I just found this on Google :
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php?Number=279959
Did anybody else catch last night's Colbert Report? He did a segment
on meteorites. If you can get the rebroadcast tonight, it's worth a look.
Jeff
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192,
There was a bug on the MetBull database site that reported longitudes
between 0 and 1 degree west as negative east longitudes. Wold
Cottage was one. It is fixed. Good catch.
Also, I modified the little google maps applet in the database to
allow you to use USGS topo maps and aerial photos
Y'all,
I've analyzed the webserver log files from the nearly 3 years of the
Meteoritical Bulletin Database's existence online. Would anybody
like to guess which article has been looked at more times than any
other (30% more than the second-most viewed)? This is not counting
views by google
how much
we appreciate that you keep this invaluable source of information
online and up to date. I have only a slight idea of the work you
must put into this but from my perspective it is worth every bit of it.
cheers
Svend
www.meteorite-recon.com
- Original Message -
From: Jeff
Congratulations to several of you who were right on the money. Here
are the top 20, including the number of times the full page was
viewed. I almost suppressed the results for the pseudometeorites in
the #2 and #5 positions since most of these hits were people
following links from the
Here is an extract of all known fall times from MetBase, for those
who want to play with the data. Comma-separated format. I have
suppressed the names of the meteorites.
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/csv/times.csv
Jeff
At 06:29 PM 2/16/2008, chris aubeck wrote:
I received them and managed
The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish
announcements of new masses when they are
significant. Submit the report to the
editor. You will need good evidence that the
additional mass is really part of same fall.
jeff
At 08:39 PM 3/22/2008, Dave Gheesling wrote:
Matt List,
First, Matt,
At 12:22 PM 5/20/2006, David Weir wrote:
... then NWA 3133 was determined to be a CV metachondrite and was
eventually classified as an ungrouped primitive achondrite. I
suspect it will eventually be reclassified as CV metachondrite
consistent with what is presented on the NAU website. NWA 1839
If any coordinates published in the MB are in error, please submit
the correction to the Editor, Harold Connolly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or one of the AEs. If you can support
the correction, it will be made in the database right away and an
erratum will be printed. None of the MB coordinates are
there you have it.
Jeff
At 07:25 PM 7/22/2006, David Weir wrote:
Hello Adam,
I just wanted to bring to your attention the new MetSoc abstract
written by Jeff Grossman et al. which disputes the initial
classification of your CO3.0 NWA 2918, and argues that it's actually
a CO3.1. I see that you still
NomCom rules have absolutely no bearing on pairings like this. After
all, such publications do nothing to change the names of the
specimens. What this allows you to do is talk about the NWA 773
pairing group to mean the whole collection, preferably after citing
the source for doing so.
This answer comes from Randy Korotev, emailed to me in response to
Dave's question:
If these stones really are all from one meteorite, which is my
working hypothesis, it is the most lithologically (rock-type)
complex lunar meteorite there is. It's a coarse-grained
breccia. On my web site,
At 05:02 PM 7/31/2006, David Weir wrote:
My point about NomCom concerned the issue of whether these new
Bulletin entries (e.g., NWA 2727) would be permitted to include a
statement about its likely pairing to NWA 773. I didn't think that
NomCom rules would permit this, even though it would be
Dear all,
It is simply not true that scientists only collect meteorites in
Antarctica. I personally know of many scientific collecting
expeditions, including countries like Oman, Morocco, Mauritania,
Libya, Niger, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Chile, Australia, and
the US, all in the last
Yes, I noticed that too. Could just be a
coincidence, however. The dates are almost 2 weeks apart.
jeff
At 02:21 PM 8/30/2006, Bjorn Sorheim wrote:
Michael Farmer wrote:
Hello everyone, well here is the preliminary
classification data on the MOSS Norway meteorite fall.
Dr Jeff Grossman
of CO3 meteorites, 50% of them are in July! Those are some
astronomical odds!
Mike Farmer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff
Grossman
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:35 AM
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list
What the heck is a paleometeorite, how is it different from a
fossil meteorite, and why is NWA 2828 called this?
jeff
At 01:33 PM 9/5/2006, Greg Hupe wrote:
Dear List Members,
I am pleased to announce a new and very rare EL3 Paleo-Meteorite. It
is NWA 2828 and was originally thought to be
NaturesVault (eBay)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMCA 3163
- Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] AD - New Rare EL3 Paleo-Meteorite - NWA 2828
What
I have written such a page for Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite_falls
jeff
At 05:01 PM 9/11/2006, you wrote:
List,
If you have 'The Catalogue of Meteorites' or similar resource one
can quite esily find the falls (and finds) up to 2000.
But what about the most recent falls
Do any of you know the real location of the Lefroy iron? The NHM
catalogue has it in the sea north of Tasmania.
jeff
At 08:27 PM 9/22/2006, Norbert F. Kammel wrote:
Hi, List Steve,
WHOOPS!
I have covered my head in shame, I just didn't know better. But Bob
Walker did! Ref. forwarded
Hi all,
Moss has been approved by the Nomenclature Committee. The write-up on
it can be viewed at
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/index.php?code=36592. Note that we
expect the uncertainty on the petrologic type to be removed once the
analyses are all done.
Jeff
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman
No way Felix is 3.2. Jones and Scott (1990) had it at 3.2, but more recent
data show it to be significantly higher. Kainsaz is a solid 3.2, and all
properties of Felix show it to be more equilibrated than Kainsaz. Data on
TL (Sears) and on amoeboid olivine inclusions (Chizmadia) show Felix
Dear list and Ms. Kallis,
Let me reiterate the statements we made.
The petrology and geochemistry of this object strongly suggest that it has
a terrestrial
origin. (http://meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/shirokovsky.pdf)
and, in my email to the list on 2 June 2003:
There is at present no
Sorry to disappoint you, but Joel's Iron was named long before there was a
NomCom. This name would indeed violate the modern Guidelines for Meteorite
Nomenclature had it been found recently. There are other meteorites with
similar grandfathered names, e.g.. Lutschaunig's Stone, Holland's
Mike,
The Meteoritical Society is not an authority on geographic names. The
NomCom does the best it can in approving names for meteorites based on
geographic names, but mistakes do get made. We often have to rely on
people with local knowledge of the find area (or the submitter of the
New groups names are not a NomCom issue, although there are people who
think it should be. Group names come into being through consensus. Many
group names have died at birth, never being adopted by anybody other that
the person who wrote the initial publication (e.g., F chondrites, CA
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Need help naming new group
New groups names are not a NomCom issue, although there are people who
think it should be. Group names
The NomCom would recognize classifications done by anybody with a proven
track record in meteorite geochemistry and petrology. Several
members of the dealer community have described meteorites from their own
analyses. These dealers understand that the NomCom may ask for a
second opinion on
+
Message-Id:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:13:35 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: analytical classifiucation
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
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
? Or is this
a sort of a nonsense question, from the viewpoint of the NomCom... :-)
Btw: this is, what I was thinking of when I made that P.S. remark
about that Begaa stone with my last post.
Alex
Berlin, Germany
Jeff Grossman wrote:
This meteorite is listed in the Provisional Names page:
http
816, and there are probably other gaps, too, in all the
numbers known so far. This surely is for good reason and perhaps Jeff
Grossman may comment on this, if he likes to do so.
Alex
Berlin, Germany
P.S., on a side note: I wonder why that meteorite once inofficially
sold under the name of Begaa never
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
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
The relationship that you found was
documented in meteorites shortly after the first electron microprobes
became available to meteorite researchers. The landmark paper
was:
KEIL
K. and
FREDRIKSSON
K. (1964) The iron, magnesium, and calcium distribution in coexisting
olivines and rhombic pyroxenes
to
arrive at a status of general acceptance by the scientific community?
Should CH-BEN be abandoned? Are both of them valid side by side
for the time being?
Jeff Grossman, can you shed some light on this?
When Weisberg et al. wrote their comprehensive paper on
these primitive chondritic
At 11:43 PM 9/16/2003 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff,
Thank you for the explanation and clarification that clans do not necessarily
tie two groups together...though they are thought to be related due to
similarities. So it goes something like this... (with a few questions at the
bottom).
Norbert stated the facts well about ungrouped and anomalous chondrites.
There are no rules or guidelines for grouping meteorites. However, a lot
of researchers subscribe to the idea, which I think originated with John
Wasson, that it takes 5 to sufficiently define the properties of a bunch of
We are voting on Dronino now. Results should be announced very soon.
jeff
At 01:44 AM 11/16/2003 +0200, Pekka Savolainen wrote:
Well,
all I have seen, is the article on the site of the Vernadsky Institute;
http://www.geokhi.ru/~meteorit/dronino1-e.html
The Laboratory's analysis showed that
Olivine in Albareto was measured by Mason (1963) [GCA 27, 1011-1023] to be
Fa27 (The Catalogue of Meteorites and MetBase both contain an erroneous
value for Mason). Rubin (1990) [GCA 54, 1217-1232] confirmed Mason's data,
getting Fa26.6, as well as a Co content of kamacite of 14.4 mg/g.
For whoever's interested, check out the listing on Amazon.com for this
upcoming book by Al Rubin:
Disturbing the Solar System
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA
Brachinites are indeed primitive achondrites. This class of meteorites is
defined as those whose bulk compositions are approximately chondritic, but
whose textures are igneous or metamorphic. [They] are generally thought to
be ultrametamorphosed chondrites or residues of very low degrees of
There are ordinary chondrites more reduced than the H group. Burnwell is
one. Others were studied by:
Wasson J. T., Rubin A. E., Kallemeyn G. W. (1993) Reduction during
metamorphism of four ordinary chondrites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 57 (8),
1867-1878.
If memory serves, some of the
Yes, but the Wasson paper has the final word, as the McCoy work is not
peer-reviewed.
jeff
At 08:33 PM 7/13/2002, David Weir wrote:
Hello Jeff and List,
Another paper was later written by McCoy, Keil, Scott, Benedix, Ehlmann,
Mayeda, and Clayton, titled Low-FeO Ordinary Chondrites: A Nebular
We are just days away from releasing a preview version of the new
bulletin. There will be several weeks during which you can make comments
to the editor before publication.
We are just days away from releasing a preview version of the new
bulletin. There will be several weeks during which
What is this entry for NWA 2035, classified as just anomalous?
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Oops... ignore that please!
At 11:19 AM 5/10/2005, you wrote:
What is this entry for NWA 2035, classified as just anomalous?
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
This happens all the time with meteorites that get on the market before
they come to the NomCom. It's just a fact of life. If a meteorite is
found halfway between towns, then usually the person who submits it to us
chooses. Hyphenated names are only used in special circumstances (there
will
then the TKW will have been updated.
Roman Jirasek
www.meteoritelabels.com
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Is Amgala Official? / New Bulletin
This happens all
Okay all you testers out there. I developed a meteorites of the world
add-on for World Wind. If anybody wants to try it out, it's posted on the
MetBull database site, http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php
Make sure you read the note that appears next to the link to the
add-on. It's
yet? I'd like to
be able to look at some of the real and purported impact structures from
altitude.
Tracy Latimer
From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: [meteorite-list] New toy
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:12:19 -0400
Okay all you testers out
Petrological type 7 is generally taken to be an extension of the
solid-state metamorphic sequence defined by Van Schmus and Wood
(1967). Mittlefehldt and Lindstrom (2001, Meteoritics Planetary Science,
vol. 36, no. 3, p. 439-457) endorsed this concept and specifically excluded
from type 7
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.
This is, of course, formally named the Kendrapara meteorite,
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?code=12276.
jeff
t 01:46 PM 5/27/2005, Paul H wrote:
An article about the September 27, 2003 meteorite
shower and the meteorites recovered from it is
available online for downloading. The
This sort of pairing question is not really the domain of the NomCom. It
has to be worked out in the literature. Once the meteorites are announced,
which these now are, we do not consider publication of supplemental
information like pairings. The exception would be if somebody wanted to
Okay list, time to make yourselves useful...
Everybody wants the NomCom to publish and make official the name NWA
869. So please, if you know anything, help contribute to the facts so I
can produce a writeup for submission to the committee.
Here's what I've got:
* At least 400 kg of
Looks like you found a typo! It's not type 4, that's certain from the
description.
jeff
At 06:30 AM 6/30/2005, Jeff Kuyken wrote:
G'day folks,
I have just finished the very tedious task of updating my Classification
List with all of the new meteorites. (Now over 10,000 meteorites) It should
Some of you may enjoy reading this document on the subject of nomenclature
of impactites:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/scmr/docs/paper_12/scmr_paper_12_1.pdf
jeff
At 04:42 AM 7/11/2005, Jeff Kuyken wrote:
Maybe this will help but I'm not sure that it works for all examples. I
think this is something
Am I the only one who really liked the name given to this asteroid?
jeff
At 02:49 PM 7/26/2005, Darren Garrison wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:04:12 +, tracy latimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have no desire to be wiped out, or even seriously inconvenienced by space
junk; I fully expect
The reason NASA ADS doesn't turn up anything is because this is a virtually
unstudied meteorite, so there is no scientific literature on it. In fact,
ADS gives one hit on the proper name, Northwest Africa 859, and three
hits on Taza; all of these hits are to popular literature. If and when
When this meteorite came to my attention as a member of the NomCom, warning
bells went off in my head too. Enough evidence was presented to us to
convince us that these were meteorites, although I expected this not to be
the case, that we had to name them. But the find story is very odd. My
If you want to see the Kalahari 008/9 location from Google Earth, download
that program from http://kh.google.com/download/earth/index.html, then take
the snippet of code below, paste it into a text file, save it as
kalahari.kml, and then launch the file. There must be a better way to
send
The Nomenclature Committee is not the arbiter of such issues. The
MetBull is just like any other publication when it comes to the use
such terms, the product of editing by a group of scientists, and no
more or less authoritative than other publications.
jeff
At 08:36 AM 9/2/2005, Greg Hupe
Gee, I would define Total Available Weight as that material which is
accessible and ready for use in scientific research. This would include
the pieces in Morocco museums, but not pieces in the hands of collectors.
Availability is a matter of perspective and access, which is different for
No, I don't think so. My point is that availability depends on who
you are. A typical scientist has neither a large (or any) meteorite
collection nor a budget for purchasing specimens. To him or her,
privately owned meteorites are not directly available. It's
different for a researcher at
Obviously there is disagreement among scientists
on what to call PV. I personally see no reason
to call it type 7, a primitive achondrite, an
achondrite OR to coin a new term. If I take the
conclusions of the Ruzicka study as a given, that
you had H6 material near its peak metamorphic
Dronino has been classified as an ungrouped ataxite by Vernadsky and
UCLA. It was in the last vote by the NomCom. I'll find out
tomorrow if it was actually approved (I didn't know of any serious
problems), but you can be confident in its classification as a real iron
meteorite.
jeff
At 02:38 AM
This story is about the Wahba volcanic crater near Jeddah, not the Wabar
impact site.
jeff
At 10:55 PM 2/8/2004 -0700, Michael Farmer wrote:
This is not true! Waber is 18 hours in the sand dunes, and is small craters,
not larger than Meteor Crater.
What crap is this? Anyone elaborate?
Mike
Metamorphic subtypes (the tenths place in the petrologic type) are
routinely determined in a variety of ways, some more accurate and
reliable than others. For a given meteorite, you have to look into
what was done before you can evaluate the usefulness of the assigned
number.
The most reliable
One of the reasons that type 7 ordinary chondrites are rare may be that
many researchers do not think the distinction between 6 and 7 is
significant and therefore never classify anything as type 7. As far as
anymeteorite called type 6/7 is concerned, don't forget that the slash in
a
Fresh H chondrites have 9-13 volume% metal plus sulfide, L chondrites have
6-7 vol% metal plus sulfide. But notice that a perfectly respectable H
chondrite with 9% only has slightly more metal+sulfide than a perfectly
respectable L with 7%. It's not always easy to distinguish on this
basis.
Not gonna happen. The types-1 and -2 designations are archaic, even for
carbonaceous chondrites. The problem is that some type 3's are aqueously
altered and some type 2's are thermally metamorphosed. This is what
happens when you use one digit to signify two variables. Since the type
3.0-6
We'll update the provisional list in the next few months. It will be
posted on the web site when done.
jeff
At 11:29 AM 4/28/2004 +0200, Pierre-Marie PELE wrote:
Hello to the List.
I'ml searching any information for NWAs ranging from NWA 1957 to NWA 2999
and from NWA 3010 to 3200.
Why is
Here's a quote from Mittlefehldt's article in the 1998 Planetary
Materials volume:
Howardites have long been known to be polymict breccias (Wahl
1952). More recently, numerous polymict breccias with bulk
compositions like those of eucrites have been recovered from Antarctica,
leading to
Some of you may enjoy looking at a web page I decided to put
together. It's not done yet, but will be soon.
http://meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/areas/regions.html
jeff
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman
Chair, Meteorite Nomenclature Committee (Meteoritical Society)
US Geological Survey
954 National
Just out of curiosity, how can you determine the
weathering level of a meteorite like this, which
lacks significant metal and sulfide? The scale
up to W4 is defined by these and only these minerals:
W0: No visible oxidation of metal or sulfide. A
limonitic staining may be noticeable in
The Meteoritical Bulletin database actually does
more than this... if you do a query that gives
you a list of meteorites, you can click map all
at the head of the column with the little earth
symbols in it and Google Earth will map all of
them at once for you. Try it, for example, on this
To the list -
For those who may be interested, I just completed scanning all of the
Meteoritical Bulletins back to No. 1 (1957). They're all online now
at http://meteoriticalsociety.org/simple_template.cfm?code=pub_bulletin.
Jeff
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US
Does anybody out there have access to Meteoritical Bulletin No. 16
(1960)? The Smithsonian copy, which I used for the official website,
only has page 1, and I know there is at least one other page.
Thanks,
Jeff
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey
It's finally happened: NWA 869 has been recognized as an official
meteorite name by the Nomenclature Committee. Thanks again to all of
you who wrote to me last summer with info on this.
jeff
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?code=31890
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703)
If you take the info in the MetBull database on face value, you find
that there are 581 metric tons of approved plus provisional
meteorites out there, broken down as (rounded to nearest ton):
Irons+stony irons: 521 tons
Ordinary chondrites: 52 tons
Carbonaceous chondrites: 3 tons
HED
USGS to the rescue:
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=140:3:16545549617422319301::NO::P3_FID:1076685
Click on one of the mapping services to the right of this page,
preferably Topozone, to see where it is. Google maps doesn't show it.
This GNIS site is an excellent resource for US
Different. A slash means it was classified as being transitional
between the two types, H4 and H5. A hyphen means it is a breccia of
H4 through H5 lithologies.
jeff
At 09:45 AM 1/17/2006, Dave Carothers wrote:
Good day all.
I have perhaps a very dumb question that I haven't been able to
IMCA 4264
website: www.jensenmeteorites.com
-- Original message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Dave and List,
1. Jeff Grossman wrote this in 1998 (private communication)
about Açfer 160, classified as an LL3.8-6 chondrite:
The hyphen implies a continuous
1 - 100 of 392 matches
Mail list logo
