[meteorite-list] RE: NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION
Hi all, a mix up can always happen. It can happen to everyone. As Greg said, co-operation and exchange of experience always brings good results. That's was a good example why this list exists. Thanks to Greg for clearing this subject and for his honesty. No doubt on his reliability as well on Dr. Bunch's. best regards, Christian IMCA #2673 www.austromet.com Christian Anger Korngasse 6 2405 Bad Deutsch-Altenburg AUSTRIA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Hupe Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:30 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [meteorite-list] NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION Dear List Members, I just received an email from Dr. Bunch, there was an error in the lab. Here is part of his email: Dr. Bunch's reply: Yes there is a mistake. Your section number is RHH4 and was read as PHH4, the data of which is ET's CO3.5. Yours is an R3.8. complied the data before I left and I did not double check it. --- R3.8 S1W3Fa39.3 ± 1.2; FeO/MnO = 72-76 (we started to use this constraint which is foolproof in identifying some carbonaceous chondrites, don't need O2 data anymore). We have used our hundreds of analyses to provide the following FeO/MnO ranges: R = 68-90; CK, 100 - 130; CO, 110- 150; CV 140). Some overlap but other compositional characteristics overcome the minor overlap of CK and CO, which do not look the same anyhow. I don't know who said that it looked like (NWA)3146, many Rs do but they are not paired with (NWA)3146... Sorry about the mistake and thank you for pointing it out. Thank you Christian, Marcin and all who brought attention to this mistake. It just shows that when we work together, good things happen. I have corrected the current auctions on eBay to reflect the R3.8 classification and have notified the two members who purchased some using Buy it Now. Now, I wonder if crow tastes good with mustard... Best regards, Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection naturesvault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMCA 2185 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION
Hi Christian, Marcin and all, Just another example of our(my) ever expanding knowledge of these extraterrestrials. I am never too stubborn or let my pride get in the way to make a correction when it comes up. It is our duty to make these corrections when needed. With all of the material going through the labs now, I am surprised mistakes don't happen more often. Take care everyone, Greg P.S. Be sure to check out my new R3.8 (likely paired to some others out there...) ;-) - Original Message - From: Christian Anger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:33 PM Subject: RE: NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION Hi all, a mix up can always happen. It can happen to everyone. As Greg said, co-operation and exchange of experience always brings good results. That's was a good example why this list exists. Thanks to Greg for clearing this subject and for his honesty. No doubt on his reliability as well on Dr. Bunch's. best regards, Christian IMCA #2673 www.austromet.com Christian Anger Korngasse 6 2405 Bad Deutsch-Altenburg AUSTRIA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Hupe Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:30 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [meteorite-list] NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION Dear List Members, I just received an email from Dr. Bunch, there was an error in the lab. Here is part of his email: Dr. Bunch's reply: Yes there is a mistake. Your section number is RHH4 and was read as PHH4, the data of which is ET's CO3.5. Yours is an R3.8. complied the data before I left and I did not double check it. --- R3.8 S1W3Fa39.3 ± 1.2; FeO/MnO = 72-76 (we started to use this constraint which is foolproof in identifying some carbonaceous chondrites, don't need O2 data anymore). We have used our hundreds of analyses to provide the following FeO/MnO ranges: R = 68-90; CK, 100 - 130; CO, 110- 150; CV 140). Some overlap but other compositional characteristics overcome the minor overlap of CK and CO, which do not look the same anyhow. I don't know who said that it looked like (NWA)3146, many Rs do but they are not paired with (NWA)3146... Sorry about the mistake and thank you for pointing it out. Thank you Christian, Marcin and all who brought attention to this mistake. It just shows that when we work together, good things happen. I have corrected the current auctions on eBay to reflect the R3.8 classification and have notified the two members who purchased some using Buy it Now. Now, I wonder if crow tastes good with mustard... Best regards, Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection naturesvault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMCA 2185 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Re: NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION
Hi Greg and all! I´m sure that there are a lot of mistakes in the darkness of classifi-cation and I´m also sure that we all have this feeling from time to time. If there is a stone in my collection, let´s say a R3.8 and I see a stone on the table of a dealer, which shows the same characteristic features on the outside and also a cut looks identical (same color and inclusions) but is classified as R4. Who realy think it´s a different stone??? How many Rs should exist under this conditions who are unpaired??? What will happen, when I give one stone of a significant fell to one lab and one other to the next lab? I would get to claasifications and they could be differently, cause the used micro probes are different or the rock it self is different, caused by brecciation or xenolithic clasts. And finally: Where is the sense of data, if it looks like there is nobody who compares them??? --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- Von: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Christian Anger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [meteorite-list] Re: NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION Datum: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:49:05 -0400 Hi Christian, Marcin and all, Just another example of our(my) ever expanding knowledge of these extraterrestrials. I am never too stubborn or let my pride get in the way to make a correction when it comes up. It is our duty to make these corrections when needed. With all of the material going through the labs now, I am surprised mistakes don't happen more often. Take care everyone, Greg P.S. Be sure to check out my new R3.8 (likely paired to some others out there...) ;-) - Original Message - From: Christian Anger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:33 PM Subject: RE: NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION Hi all, a mix up can always happen. It can happen to everyone. As Greg said, co-operation and exchange of experience always brings good results. That's was a good example why this list exists. Thanks to Greg for clearing this subject and for his honesty. No doubt on his reliability as well on Dr. Bunch's. best regards, Christian IMCA #2673 www.austromet.com Christian Anger Korngasse 6 2405 Bad Deutsch-Altenburg AUSTRIA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Hupe Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:30 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [meteorite-list] NWA 2921 Classification CORRECTION Dear List Members, I just received an email from Dr. Bunch, there was an error in the lab. Here is part of his email: Dr. Bunch's reply: Yes there is a mistake. Your section number is RHH4 and was read as PHH4, the data of which is ET's CO3.5. Yours is an R3.8. complied the data before I left and I did not double check it. --- R3.8 S1W3Fa39.3 ± 1.2; FeO/MnO = 72-76 (we started to use this constraint which is foolproof in identifying some carbonaceous chondrites, don't need O2 data anymore). We have used our hundreds of analyses to provide the following FeO/MnO ranges: R = 68-90; CK, 100 - 130; CO, 110- 150; CV 140). Some overlap but other compositional characteristics overcome the minor overlap of CK and CO, which do not look the same anyhow. I don't know who said that it looked like (NWA)3146, many Rs do but they are not paired with (NWA)3146... Sorry about the mistake and thank you for pointing it out. Thank you Christian, Marcin and all who brought attention to this mistake. It just shows that when we work together, good things happen. I have corrected the current auctions on eBay to reflect the R3.8 classification and have notified the two members who purchased some using Buy it Now. Now, I wonder if crow tastes good with mustard... Best regards, Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection naturesvault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMCA 2185 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
