[meteorite-list] Re: NWA 2092
From: Jim Strope <jim_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:31:11 2004 Message-ID: <002201c41c93$c6486520$6401a8c0_at_DJQVK441> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C41C72.3ECDF130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dave and List........ Here is the latest update on NWA 2092. As of yesterday, 4/6, Dr Bunch, has informed me that NWA 2092, the first = LL6/7, has been approved by the nomenclature committee and Dr Grossman = as was originally stated. It is accepted as the first LL6/7.!!!! I don't have the complete writeup yet but will forward it to the list = when I receive it. Best Wishes to all...... =20 Jim Strope 421 Fourth Street Glen Dale, WV 26038 http://www.catchafallingstar.com At 11:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, David Weir wrote: >Hello list, > >I'm staying out of the fray here, but since I shared my thoughts on >Mike's new meteorite classification (NWA 2092), and since we heard = from >Jeff Grossman on the possible ambiguity of the exact meaning of this >classification, and since Mike wasn't able to share the = classification >details, I felt compelled to investigate this classification with the >source, Dr. Ted Bunch, and report back here. > >He told me that the LL6/7 was meant to imply a transition from 6 to = 7, >and shared with me his reasons, which are consistent with a = transitional >metamorphic stage between 6 and 7, despite any mutual exclusivity = that >Dodd's rules may imply. Ted's use of a slash between the 6 and 7 is >consistent with the recommendations of NomCom, and is not used to = imply >an "I'm not sure" scenario, which Jeff indicated is sometimes done. = I'll >let the write-up speak for itself, which Ted says will likely be a = full >separate entry in the Bulletin. > >Regards, >David > ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C41C72.3ECDF130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV>Hi Dave and List........</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is the latest update on NWA 2092.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As of yesterday, 4/6, Dr Bunch, has informed me that NWA 2092, the = first=20 LL6/7, has been approved by the nomenclature committee and Dr = Grossman=20 as was originally stated. It is accepted as the first LL6/7.!!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't have the complete writeup yet but will forward it to the = list when=20 I receive it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Wishes to all......</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jim Strope<BR>421 Fourth Street<BR>Glen Dale, WV 26038</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A=20 href=3D"http://www.catchafallingstar.com">http://www.catchafallingstar.co= m</A><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV>At 11:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, David Weir wrote:<BR>><I>Hello=20 list,<BR></I>><I><BR></I>><I>I'm staying out of the fray here, = but since=20 I shared my thoughts on<BR></I>><I>Mike's new meteorite = classification (NWA=20 2092), and since we heard from<BR></I>><I>Jeff Grossman on the = possible=20 ambiguity of the exact meaning of this<BR></I>><I>classification, = and since=20 Mike wasn't able to share the classification<BR></I>><I>details, I = felt=20 compelled to investigate this classification with = the<BR></I>><I>source,=20 Dr. Ted Bunch, and report back here.<BR></I>><I><BR></I>><I>He = told me=20 that the LL6/7 was meant to imply a transition from 6 to = 7,<BR></I>><I>and=20 shared with me his reasons, which are consistent with a=20 transitional<BR></I>><I>metamorphic stage between 6 and 7, despite = any=20 mutual exclusivity that<BR></I>><I>Dodd's rules may imply. Ted's = use of a=20 slash between the 6 and 7 is<BR></I>><I>consistent with the = recommendations=20 of NomCom, and is not used to imply<BR></I>><I>an "I'm not sure" = scenario,=20 which Jeff indicated is sometimes done. I'll<BR></I>><I>let the = write-up=20 speak for itself, which Ted says will likely be a = full<BR></I>><I>separate=20 entry in the=20 = Bulletin.<BR></I>><I><BR></I>><I>Regards,<BR></I>><I>David<BR></= I>><I><BR></I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C41C72.3ECDF130-- Received on Wed 07 Apr 2004 07:30:47 AM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|