[meteorite-list] Samples

From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:44:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <220666.57812.qm_at_web33103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Little 5 and 10 gram things, YES
Michael Farmer
Not that they dont need to be classified, but with so
many of them, many of them paired, it leaves the
limited number of scientists with little time for more
important meteorites.
Michael Farmer
--- Dave Carothers <david.carothers at verizon.net>
wrote:

> Are there that many meteorites being found in Nevada
> and California to "clog
> the whole system"?
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Farmer" <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com>
> To: "JKGwilliam" <h3chondrite at cox.net>; "Mark
> Crawford" <mark at meteorites.cc>
> Cc: "'AL Mitterling'" <almitt at kconline.com>;
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
>
>
> >A major part of the problem are the people hunting
> in
> > Nevada/California, submitting every 2 or 3 gram
> > chondrite they find, it has clogged the whole
> system.
> > Michael Farmer
> > --- JKGwilliam <h3chondrite at cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I know that many of the Arizona meteorite hunters
> >> had loyalties to
> >> University of Arizona and/or Arizona State
> >> University in the
> >> past. Several years ago, it wasn't unusual to
> get
> >> a classification
> >> (free) done in just a few months depending on who
> >> you knew at which
> >> school and what you relationship to them was. The
> >> Arizona
> >> universities were excited to see more Arizona
> >> material start showing
> >> up. But as time went by and meteorite hunting
> >> popularity increased,
> >> so did the amount of material submitted to labs
> for
> >>
> >> classification. I don't know if I'm right, but I
> >> suppose that the
> >> meteorite scientists might have lost their
> interest
> >> in the common
> >> stuff after seeing so much of it. Prior to that,
> >> there was very
> >> little material submitted for classification.
> >>
> >> Just my opinion,
> >> John
> >> At 12:17 PM 12/29/2007, Mark Crawford wrote:
> >> >John/list,
> >> >
> >> >At the risk of sounding naive, why /wouldn't/
> you
> >> pay for
> >> >professional classification? If Bessey's fee of
> >> around $80 is
> >> >typical (and I admit, I don't know if that's the
> >> case), why would
> >> >you risk lost samples or interminable delays?
> Why
> >> not just add an
> >> >extra buck/gramme to the sale price?
> >> >
> >> >I guess what I'm asking is, what's the
> >> non-financial reason for
> >> >lodging with a non-fee-charging establishment?
> Do
> >> 'professional'
> >> >labs only validate a limited range of types (eg
> -
> >> Bathurst don't do
> >> >irons)? Do you have no say over where the type
> >> specimen gets lodged?
> >> >
> >> >Mark
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >JKGwilliam wrote:
> >> >>I suppose the only solution is to pay for the
> >> classification
> >> >>services so true "professionals" will be
> handling
> >> your
> >> >>specimen. Please don't misunderstand my use of
> >> the word
> >> >>"professional." I'm talking about scientists
> who
> >> are also business
> >> >>professionals.
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >>
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
Received on Sat 29 Dec 2007 08:44:40 PM PST