[meteorite-list] Repository of photos...

From: Nicholas Gessler <gessler_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun Nov 21 13:47:48 2004
Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20041121104413.0448d5e0_at_mail.ucla.edu>

Hi Jeff, et al,

Regarding a repository of photos, I too think it would be extraordinarily
useful.
To this end, I noticed that Marvin Kilgore has a book in press to partially
satisfy this need.
It would be nice to have some professional reviews of it.
Jeff, Alan, are you game?
Marvin had a galley proof at the Costa Mesa show.
Perhaps he'd loan a copy for review?

Cheers,
Nick

At 10:34 AM 11/21/2004, John Birdsell wrote:
>Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high quality
>photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire
>meteorite community.
>
>Cheers
>-John
>
>Jeff Grossman wrote:
>
>>There are several reasons for this result. Among these are:
>>
>>1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites.
>>2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be that a
>>lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire
>>structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a
>>small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are breccias,
>>this can be a problem.
>>3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to make
>>a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on opposite
>>sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful work
>>and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't
>>matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort happen.
>>4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites should
>>be described. Someday this will be fixed.
>>5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the
>>use of type 7).
>>
>>We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that
>>agree to house type specimens and make them available for research
>>whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a
>>network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and the
>>numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed
>>research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example, one
>>could be set up in short order. Is there?
>>
>>On the question of pairing... for most meteorites, pairing studies are of
>>little scientific interest and not worth taking the time to do.
>>Visual pairings are almost worthless. For the important meteorites,
>>pairings get worked out in the scientific literature over time. This may
>>be unsettling for some dealers, but that's the way it is.
>>
>>jeff
>>
>>At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote:
>>
>>>Just to add a note...
>>>There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites.
>>>
>>>Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs. Chances
>>>are you will get different results.
>>>For instance, I have "L5's" that came back as "L4's" and "L6's".
>>>"Regolith" this and "Primitive" that.
>>>I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite OR
>>>eucrite. I understand some of it is "interpretive".
>>>
>>>The system itself is flawed.
>>>
>>>Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have type
>>>specimens on hand.
>>>
>>>This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge role.
>>>
>>>So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for meteorite
>>>"data sharing"? It will make ALL our lives easier...
>>>
>>>Matt Morgan
>>>Mile High Meteorites
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com
>>>[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Rob
>>>Wesel
>>>Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM
>>>To: Michael Farmer; meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>>>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
>>>
>>>
>>>While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the
>>>collector,
>>>truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike:
>>>
>>>"Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of this,
>>>we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people
>>>MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see
>>>tonight."
>>>
>>>So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to prove
>>>pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because repeat
>>>lab
>>>fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't like
>>>it
>>>one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my "likely
>>>paired"
>>>howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab,
>>>specimens I
>>>know are paired.
>>>While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks
>>>this
>>>of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same baker...they're
>>>
>>>eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be felt
>>>by
>>>all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with
>>>incessant
>>>pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But
>>>this
>>>is what we do...for now.
>>>
>>>Rob Wesel
>>>------------------
>>>We are the music makers...
>>>and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
>>>Willy Wonka, 1971
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Michael Farmer" <meteoritehunter_at_comcast.net>
>>>To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
>>>Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM
>>>Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
>>>
>>>
>>> > To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in the
>>> > meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that
>>> > NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large or
>>> > meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my
>>>expeditions.
>>> > The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers.
>>> > Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper title
>>>(as Dr
>>> > Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not own
>>> > numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens and
>>>must
>>> > not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or someone
>>>told
>>> > you it is the same).
>>> > Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our
>>>business
>>> > and hobby. Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is
>>>guilty
>>> > of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to
>>>start
>>> > people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we
>>>see
>>> > tonight.
>>> >
>>> > I perused eBay today and it is still rampant with sellers using
>>> > numbers
>>> > they seem to have drawn from a hat. So please ask you seller next time
>>>you
>>> > buy something, how they got that number, who it was assigned to and if
>>>not
>>> > them, just how they came to call it that.
>>> > Mike Farmer
>>> >
>>> > ______________________________________________
>>> > Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>______________________________________________
>>>Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>
>>>
>>>______________________________________________
>>>Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>>Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
>>US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
>>954 National Center
>>Reston, VA 20192, USA
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>Meteorite-list mailing list
>>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sun 21 Nov 2004 01:47:40 PM PST