[meteorite-list] Fwd: analytical classification
From: GT40dawg_at_aol.com <GT40dawg_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:20:59 2004 Message-ID: <195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_at_aol.com> --part1_195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_alt_boundary" --part1_195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To all: Dean- Thanks for all of your patience in my recent e-mails concerning the abovementioed subject. Below is the reply I received from Jeff, with my initial e-mail to him attached. Analyzing the olivines in a meteorite sample will not be an issue. So, if olivines are the main mineral phase of concern for H/L/LL classification, I can be of help to you also. LIke I said earlier, 2 analyses would be $100 4 analyses would be $150 6 analyses would be $200 These analyses can be multiple analyses on one sample, or single analyses on several samples (i.e. 6 olivine and/or pyroxene analyses on one NWA or one olivine analyses on 6 seperate NWAs, or any combination thereof). Hopefully, this has cleared the issue up for everybody involved. In summary, I can classify a sample as an H, L, or LL using the method discussed in Jeff's e-mail, I can get results to you faster than the institutions, and all sample material will be returned to you if so desired. Metamorphic grade, howver, will only be an estimate. Any further thoughts? Hopefully, all of this info will persuade some of you to send some work my way. Please let me know what you think. Sincerely, Randy in N.O. --part1_195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE= =3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">To all:<BR> <BR> Dean-<BR> <BR> Thanks for all of your patience in my r= ecent e-mails concerning the abovementioed subject.<BR> <BR> Below is the reply I received from Jeff= , with my initial e-mail to him attached. Analyzing the olivines in a=20= meteorite sample will not be an issue. So, if olivines are the main mi= neral phase of concern for H/L/LL classification, I can be of help to you al= so.<BR> <BR> LIke I said earlier, 2 analyses would b= e $100<BR> =20= 4 analyses would be= $150<BR> =20= 6 analyses would be= $200 <BR> <BR> These analyses can be multiple analyses= on one sample, or single analyses on several samples (i.e. 6 olivine and/or= pyroxene analyses on one NWA or one olivine analyses on 6 seperate NWAs, or= any combination thereof).<BR> Hopefully, this has cleared the issue u= p for everybody involved. In summary, I can classify a sample as an H,= L, or LL using the method discussed in Jeff's e-mail, I can get results to=20= you faster than the institutions, and all sample material will be returned t= o you if so desired. Metamorphic grade, howver, will only be an estima= te.<BR> Any further thoughts? Hopefully,=20= all of this info will persuade some of you to send some work my way. P= lease let me know what you think.<BR> <BR> <BR> Sincerely, <BR> <BR> Randy in N.O.</FONT></HTML> --part1_195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_alt_boundary-- --part1_195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <jgrossman_at_usgs.gov> Received: from rly-xb04.mx.aol.com (rly-xb04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.105]) by air-xb01.mail.aol.com (v94.1) with ESMTP id MAILINXB11-306e3f08752a135; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:14:51 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by rly-xb04.mx.aol.com (v94.27) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXB48-a83f087520124; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:14:41 -0400 Received: from hathor.er.usgs.gov (pcp02137540pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net[68.48.25.136](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20030706191440013007t3lve>; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:14:40 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030706150511.02917898_at_gsvaresm02.er.usgs.gov> X-Sender: jgrossman_at_gsvaresm02.er.usgs.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:13:35 -0400 To: GT40dawg_at_aol.com From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_usgs.gov> Subject: Re: analytical classifiucation In-Reply-To: <42.3a59e0a5.2c39cbb4_at_aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> For a proper classification of ordinary chondrites, one would normally make a quantitative analysis of the Fe/(Fe+Mg) ratio in olivine. This allows separation of H, L, and LL groups. We also do expect at least a rough estimation of metamorphic grade. One could also use pyroxene compositions, but the most comprehensive studies of ordinary chondrites focus on olivine, and so this is what everybody uses for classification. It's also a very simple mineral to analyze.<br><br> jeff<br><br> At 03:00 PM 7/6/2003 -0400, you wrote:<br> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Dr. Grossman-<br><br> I am sure that you have recieved some e-mails concerning my classification of meteorites via electron microprobe. My approach is to differentiate between H and L chondrites, based on the presence of either bronzite or hypersthene pyroxene. Does this sound acceptable? Most schemes I've seen use this nomenclature. Of course, this does not cover the problem of metamorphic grade, but I want to classify between Hs or Ls based on this information.<br><br> It sounds like there is a lot of potential to do so, and it would help me immensely if I could get this approved for the ordinary chondrites. As far as my background, I have a BS and MS in Geology (geochemistry and petrology) and a vast amount of experience with the equipment.<br><br> Any thoughts?<br><br> <br> Randy in N.O. </blockquote> <x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep> Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman<br> Chair, Meteorite Nomenclature Committee (Meteoritical Society)<br> US Geological Survey <br> 954 National Center<br> Reston, VA 20192, USA<br> Phone: (703) 648-6184 fax: (703) 648-6383<br><br> </font></html> --part1_195.1cd8bd23.2c39ed3d_boundary-- Received on Sun 06 Jul 2003 05:23:09 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|