[meteorite-list] New Meteorites Discovered in Australia

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Jul 13 16:58:45 2006
Message-ID: <003901c6a6be$db7f7c00$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

The UW and Carnegie laboratories expressed an interest in NWA 595 and did
not have a sample to study at that time. I privately purchased a NWA 595
specimen and donated it for additional study expecting nothing in return
other than goodwill. This is where these results came from. I can tell you
that NWA 595 looks nothing like NWA 3151 from a visual standpoint and there
is not even a remote chance of them being paired according to scientists. I
cannot speak for NWA 4042 which I have not seen and was classified as a
primitive achondrite. All I see from this new report is that the Brachinite
parent body(s) may be more heterogeneous than once thought.

Trying to pigeonhole NWA 3151 into a new group will not work because it fits
the definition of a true Brachinite, has been peer reviewed and officially
determined to be Brachinite. No new data on NWA 3151 which was not reviewed
has been announced that would change its classification. I do not understand
your reluctance to contact scientists when these questions come up. If
there is a change in the status of the classification on NWA 3151, I will be
responsible for announcing this since I am the main mass holder. I can tell
you unequivocally that the status has not changed, no plans are in the works
to change the classification and it is the world's largest official
Brachinite by far.

Adam



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Weir" <dgweir_at_earthlink.net>
To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
Cc: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Meteorites Discovered in Australia


> Adam wrote:
>
> Don't forget that NWA 3151 is definitely a Brachinite. All data was
> submitted including the O-isotope results to the Meteoritical Society,
> peer reviewed and then voted on making it official. I checked with Dr.
> Irving again and he said that nowhere did he state that the NWA 3151
> classification status has changed or is likely to change.
>
> Take Care,
> ----------------------------------
> Hello Adam,
>
> You're correct that Drs. Irving and Rumble didn't say that NWA 3151 is
> not a brachinite in their new abstract (#5288). What they did argue was
> that NWA 3151 is isotopically and petrologically similar to NWA 595 and
> NWA 4042, and that these three Saharan stones are not isotopically
> identical to Brachina. That said, it means that if NWA 3151 is indeed a
> true brachinite, then it follows that NWA 595 is the first true
> brachinite from the Sahara, in contrast to your advertising slogan for
> NWA 3151. Additionally, in their concluding statement, they suggested
> that "if all these specimens (including Brachina) derive from the same
> parent body, then it must be isotopically quite heterogeneous." (did you
> read that "if"?) From their data and discussion I feel that they are
> leaving the door open for a separate parent body for these Saharan
> brachinites distinct from Brachina. Their own data reveal a disparity in
> O-isotopes between Brachina and the rest of the Saharan brachinites,
> which is consistent with a separate parent body, just as it is
> consistent with a heterogeneous common parent body. I hope the former
> wins the day so I can add another new group to my collection
> (eventually). Thanks again Adam for the potential new group member
> (although I already do have NWA 595 and 4042).
>
> Adam, I would appreciate you telling me how I haven't understood this
> abstract correctly, or you can pass this post on to your close friend
> Dr. Irving and maybe he can tell me what I have misunderstood. I'm
> always open for learning and I make corrections almost as often as I get
> something right. However, I thought I was getting pretty good at it
> after 12 years.
>
> David (B.S. in Landscape and Ornamental Horticulture)
Received on Thu 13 Jul 2006 04:56:46 PM PDT