AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877

From: John Birdsell <birdsell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Sep 13 13:14:08 2004
Message-ID: <4145D544.7070209_at_email.arizona.edu>

Hi Adam and thanks for the note. We know of around 60 g of picritic
shergottite fragments that look identical to NWA 1110, and that were not
part of the original 118 grams. This suggests that either several
pieces of NWA 1068 hit rocks and broke into fragments, or perhaps more
likely, a mass exploded at low elevation spreading fragments over a
larger area than the 12 x 12 meter region that you mentioned???

Cheers


-John & Dawn

Adam Hupe wrote:

>Dear List,
>
>We do know where all of NWA 1110 was found as does the journalist who
>documented our second expedition to Marrir. The first trip was published in
>Meteorite Magazine. Every piece of NWA 1110 was found by a Nomadic family in
>a 12 meter X 12 meter area 14 kilometers from the village of Marrir. This
>is not a strewn field. We figured NWA 1068 must have hit a rock on impact
>and shattered into several hundred pieces scattering them over a small area.
>The location alone is enough to make pairing statements after a qualified
>scientist authenticated every piece and the NomCom approved the scientists'
>work by making it official.
>
>Adam
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Birdsell" <birdsell_at_email.arizona.edu>
>To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
>Cc: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>; <laser_maniac@hotmail.com>
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 9:40 AM
>Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
>
>
>
>
>>Hello Adam, Stan and List. Adam-I think you missed the point that Stan
>>and I were trying to make. We all agree that it would be best if
>>every single stone found in the desert could be independently
>>classified, the problem is that there are not enough resources or people
>>willing to do so. The question was basically, how can fragments of some
>>potential meteorite be paired with a classified fragment that has been
>>properly analyzed and microprobed, when the remaining fragments have not
>>even had a window polished into them, let alone been microprobed? This
>>is particularily the case when there is no provenance as to the location
>>in which these fragments were found as they could have been found in
>>several different locations. It would seem in such a case that the best
>>"guestimate" one could make in such a case would be to say that these
>>non-analyzed fragments "probably" pair with the analyzed ones. For
>>example, in the case of the 118g of "NWA 1110", presumably around 116g
>>have not been microprobed. In this case, it seems that the most accurate
>>statement would be something along the lines of... "the NWA 1110
>>non-analyzed fragments making up ~116g "probably" pair with NWA 1110's
>>microprobed fragments". We are wondering about this because we are
>>coming up against a similar predicament with several other falls.
>>
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>>-John & Dawn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Adam Hupe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dear John and List,
>>>
>>>The word apparent double standard would apply here. If you feel it is ok
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>pick numbers at random for additional finds when it comes to NWA and not
>>>others, why is this not happening with the Antarctic, Sahara, DAGs, SAUs
>>>
>>>
>and
>
>
>>>Dhofars? Why is it that when a Martian meteorite was announced as NWA
>>>
>>>
>1068
>
>
>>>some dealers are using a number that describes a pairing instead (NWA
>>>
>>>
>1110)?
>
>
>>>Could it be that they are too lazy to apply for their own numbers, have
>>>their material studied and submitted for vote. NWA 1110 is not a
>>>
>>>
>catchall
>
>
>>>for additional finds, it is an official set of tested pebbles that happen
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>be Martian. Using the name NWA 869 is meaningless because like Kem Kem
>>>
>>>
>it
>
>
>>>has become a catchall stone. I would go as far as to say, you would
>>>
>>>
>better
>
>
>>>off selling NWA 869 as unclassified because an unclassified stone seems
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>be worth more on the open market these days. This one of the reasons I
>>>object strongly when it comes to rare material.
>>>
>>>All the best,
>>>
>>>Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "John Birdsell" <birdsell_at_email.arizona.edu>
>>>To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
>>>Cc: "stan ." <laser_maniac_at_hotmail.com>
>>>Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:53 AM
>>>Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello Stan and List. Yes, this was exactly the point that we made in an
>>>>earlier posting (The Probem with Reductionism ad Infinitum). The
>>>>members of this list have not yet received any response from Adam on
>>>>this matter and we wonder if he or anyone else have a reasonable
>>>>explanation for this apparent double standard.
>>>>
>>>>-John & Dawn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>stan . wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this
>>>>>>issue was addressed
>>>>>>in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as
>>>>>>it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees
>>>>>it's own nwa number and must be classified...
>>>>>
>>>>>my argument against the current guidelines is such:
>>>>>
>>>>>if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments
>>>>>of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative
>>>>>thin section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if
>>>>>there are many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get
>>>>>the same nwa number with little or no testing done to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same
>>>>>people, and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find
>>>>>- but it's found after the original stuff is published - then the new
>>>>>material must have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure, and
>>>>>oxygen isotopse data taken before the material will be considered
>>>>>paired to the orignial find.
>>>>>
>>>>>I challange anyone to give me a valid scientific reason why material
>>>>>sumbited before publishing can all be considered nwa xxx based upon a
>>>>>cursory visual examination - yet material found after a write up in
>>>>>the met bul requires exhaustive additional testing to qualify as a
>>>>>pairing - testing that science make take years to complete for even
>>>>>the most exotic meteorites such as martian and lunars.
>>>>>
>>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
>>>>>FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>>>>>
>>>>>______________________________________________
>>>>>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 Mon 13 Sep 2004 01:13:40 PM PDT