[meteorite-list] NWA 1827

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 7 15:14:37 2005
Message-ID: <010e01c4f4f4$1699eb00$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

Hi Dave,

I used the term verbally paired. The University of Washington studied NWA
1817 and 1827 and then collaborated with NAU on other pairings. This shows
that scientists can sort out pairing issues after the fact and that the
assignment of NWA numbers for each batch is acceptable. With unique numbers
this paper demonstrates that more accurate TKWs can be determined.

All the best,

Adam


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Weir" <dgweir_at_earthlink.net>
To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
Cc: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 1827


> Hello Adam,
>
> You replied:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> NWA 1817 and NWA 1827 came up before on the List as far as piggy-backing
> goes. We informed the List that we own the main mass of NWA 1817.
> Another List member said that Dr. Bunch said it was OK for the number
> NWA 1827 to be used. I am saying this statement is false because Dr.
> Bunch did not study NWA 1827 and would not say it is OK to use somebody
> else's lab number.
>
> Hope this clears this one up,
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks Adam, yes it almost clears it up... at least the part about not
> using others lab numbers. However, while I have no idea what Dr. Bunch
> told Mike with regards to his use of the 1827 number, the reason he said
> whatever he said must not be for the reason you stated - that he didn't
> study this meteorite. If you look at the MetBull #88 published
> description of NWA 1827, you'll see that it does include T. Bunch, NAU,
> along with the team from UWS, as responsible for the classification and
> mineralogy. It also says that Dr. Bunch performed comparative studies of
> this sample (NWA 1827), along with your sample (1879), Mike's sample
> (1912), and several others (see previous abstract link), and determined
> that they are all paired.
>
> I guess this clears it up for me.
>
> Regards,
> David
Received on Fri 07 Jan 2005 03:04:24 PM PST