[meteorite-list] Samples

From: JKGwilliam <h3chondrite_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:04:14 -0700
Message-ID: <20071230210414.SHCZ18667.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net_at_fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>

Point well taken Mike. The institutions that classify meteorites for
free have been overwhelmed with a lot of common material, much of
which consists of very small samples. Maybe we need to remember why
these institutions exist in the first place. Research of meteorites
helps academia develop a better understanding of our solar system and
beyond. Common chondrites may still have something to offer in terms
of new finds, but I think that the rarer material, the achondrites,
planetary and lunar material is what researchers really want to spend
their time, and their limited budgets on.

John

At 05:36 PM 12/29/2007, Michael Farmer wrote:
>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
> >
Received on Sun 30 Dec 2007 04:04:14 PM PST