[meteorite-list] nova 001
From: Sharkkb8_at_aol.com <Sharkkb8_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:06:14 2004 Message-ID: <a.27faf069.2af98a5c_at_aol.com> --part1_a.27faf069.2af98a5c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Walter Branch writes: > Someone correct me if I am mistaken but isn't Nova 001 of dubious origin? > Yes, it seems like there's a cloud over this meteorite, and it's one of those stories about which many people seem to be relatively tight-lipped. The AMNH lists it as of Mexican origin, found in 1978: http://research.amnh.org/earthplan/collects/meteornp.htm Going back into our list archives, one finds the following two posts (I have an instinct to be nervous about posting third-party statements, but since these appeared on the list before, I'll assume there's no breach of net-iquette in re-posting them): Russ K. of NEMS: << This one is right out of the Meteorite X-Files. The "truth" is out there but I doubt you'll see it in print. Allan T. did the work on it and is correct in that it was originally reported as Nuevo Mercurio (b).The confusion arose from conflicting reports of where it was found.We have some in our Reference Collection. Nova 001 is a real ureilite, I saw the 350 gram mass back in 1992 although I think a few grams had already been taken off. The issue over Nova 001 is not is it real, or does any exist. It's the reported locality. >> Allan Treiman added: << The 349 grams missing from Nullabor 010 is probably the Nova 001 ureilite. Ron Farrell reported it to the NomCom as having been found in the Nuevo Mercurio strewn field. Its initial name was Neuvo Mercurio (b), if memory serves. But there were enough questions about its actual origin that the NomCom voted to give it a name without a place. The name Utopia 001 was considered but rejected. >> Gregory --part1_a.27faf069.2af98a5c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2> <BR> Walter Branch writes:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Someone correct me if I am mistaken but isn't Nova 001 of dubious origin?<BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Yes, it seems like there's a cloud over this meteorite, and it's one of those stories about which many people seem to be relatively tight-lipped. The AMNH lists it as of Mexican origin, found in 1978:<BR> <BR> http://research.amnh.org/earthplan/collects/meteornp.htm<BR> <BR> Going back into our list archives, one finds the following two posts (I have an instinct to be nervous about posting third-party statements, but since these appeared on the list before, I'll assume there's no breach of net-iquette in re-posting them):<BR> <BR> Russ K. of NEMS: <BR> <BR> << This one is right out of the Meteorite X-Files. The "truth" is out there but I doubt you'll see it in print. Allan T. did the work on it and is correct in that it was originally reported as Nuevo Mercurio (b).The confusion arose from conflicting reports of where it was found.We have some in our Reference Collection. Nova 001 is a real ureilite, I saw the 350 gram mass back in 1992 although I think a few grams had already been taken off. The issue over Nova 001 is not is it real, or does any exist. It's the reported locality. >><BR> <BR> Allan Treiman added:<BR> <BR> << The 349 grams missing from Nullabor 010 is probably the Nova 001 ureilite. Ron Farrell reported it to the NomCom as having been found in the Nuevo Mercurio strewn field. Its initial name was Neuvo Mercurio (b), if memory serves. But there were enough questions about its actual origin that the NomCom voted to give it a name without a place. The name Utopia 001 was considered but rejected. >><BR> <BR> Gregory<BR> <BR> </FONT></HTML> --part1_a.27faf069.2af98a5c_boundary-- Received on Tue 05 Nov 2002 03:55:56 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|