[meteorite-list] NWA 4734

From: Zelimir Gabelica <Zelimir.Gabelica_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:05:02 +0100
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20080123181256.02e1a770_at_pop.univ-mulhouse.fr>

Hi Aziz, Martin, list

Nice that some of you could confirm that all NWA 4734 fragments belong to
one single stone and that the so far known total weight should be indeed
around 1412 g (or 1417 or 1422 g, depending if the Heirs' fragment was 40
or 44.5 or 50 g).
For the pairing affair, I roughly agree with Aziz and believe that
scientists would consider further investigations in that direction as this
really seems to be of interest.

I also received yesterday night (my time) a mail from Mbark Ait Lakid (also
nicknamed Oumama), in French, that I wish to send to the list as such, as
per his request, after my most reliable translation (my additional comments
or guesses are between brackets):
-------------
Dear Zelimir,

I am Mbark Ait Lkaid (nicknamed Oumama).
Thank you for your interest regarding NWA 4734; let me tell you the real
story about this meteorite:

I received 477 g (of that stone) that I sold to Habibi.
Then I further received another 895 g.
Habibi sent 20 g to (Albert) Jambon and its provisional classification (NB:
as I understand, performed by Jambon) resulted in the (provisional) name
NWA 4683.
Jambon knew that I owed the 895 g mass and visited me. I then offered him
20 g for the classification of these 895 g.
As it dealt with the very same stone, he (Jambon) made one single
classification and named both stones NWA 4734.

I was really surprised last week to read that the NomCom reported in Met.
Bull. does not mention that this further mass (895 g) was also analyzed,
but just stated that "several other pieces of the same stone are with M.
Oumama in Rissani"...
The 44.5 g that Chladni's (Heirs) purchased come from another dealer.

As a result, 2 big mistakes clearly remain, thus the (officially reported)
tkw (477 g instead of 1372 g) and the purchase place (Erfoud versus Rissani).
I hope my above statings could clear to some extent this issue.
I have no access to the "mailing list" so please could you inform the
meteoritical community about these facts so that they appear more clear to
all...

Respectfully,

Mbark
-----------
I can't add anything else but just note that Mbark's report confirms the
statements of Martin and Aziz.
Perhaps should one suggest the NomCom (Jeff ?) possibly takes into account
these remarks for a future correction of the Met. Bull. text regarding NWA
4734.

Best wishes,

Zelimir

NB: heredown is the original mail received from Mbark Ait Lkaid, in French:
-----------------
Bonsoir Dr.zelimir,
je suis mbark ait lkaid (mon surnom est mbark oumama).
merci pour l'interet que vous avez envers la nwa 4734.
je vais te raconter l'histoire reelle de cette m?t?orite.:
j'ai re?u 477gr que j'ai vendus ? Habibi puis j'ai re?u les autres pi?ces
faisant 895gr.
Habibi a envoy? 20gr ? Jambon et la classification provisoire ?tait sous
nwa 4683.
Jambon a su que je poss?de les 895gr et il m'a rendu visite .j'ai lui
offert 20gr pour une classification de 895.
et puisqu'il s'agit du meme caillou il a fait une seule classification sous
la nwa 4734.
je suis vraiment surpris la semaine deni?re quant j'ai vu au MB que la
nomcom ne declare pas au titre la masse analys? pourtant ils la glisset
entre ligne en utilisant juste mon surnom.
les 44.5gr de chladni's est achet?s d'un autre marchand.
donc deux grandes fautes sont bien claires : la masse (477gr/1372gr) et le
lieu de vente(Erfoud/Rissani).
j'?sp?re que j'ai pu eclaicir l'affaire un peu.
j'ai pas accc?s au mailling list.et je vous demande si vous le voulez bien
de renseigner la communaut? m?t?oritiques de ces faits pour toous sois claire.
respect,
mbark
-------------





A 06:03 23/01/2008 -0800, habibi abdelaziz a ?crit :
>salut zelimir,and bonjour les listoides.
>
>
>
>about the TKW of nwa 4734 = 477 habibi +895 oumama+ stefan ralew 40 gr or so.
>total =1412 gr.
>the stone is complete , so nothing missing, .you can see photo on oumama link.
>
>on the pairing 25000km apart they should studies isotope of the two
>meteorite to see if they have the same ages , in space , and also the same
>ages in earth.
>so to do that needs collaboration from the arctic team who ever owned the
>lap specimen and the nwa4734.
>two sample from this two stone must be studies and compared to establish
>the launch-pairing.
>and here i ask who is doing studies of ages in spaces an earth , is it
>always dr kisushumi,
>
>and for any simple guy ,to see the photo of the two stone you will say
>they are the same paired.
>*
>outside all this fiction , those stone are among the best lunar that i
>have seen , many collector have slice or sample and they are very pretty
>and under microscope it's jewelry.
>
>so the fact that many scientist didn't arrive to a compromise to give here
>a name satisfies my curiosity.
>
>the first time i have seen this lunar , i sad this is shergotite, than
>once in my office under microscope i change completely the done. and
>spent two month dreaming.
> and i m still dreaming.
>
>
>all the best
>aziz habibi
>
>
>
><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:#40ffff;" face="comic sans ms">habibi aziz
>box 70 erfoud 52200 morroco
>phone. 21235576145
>fax.21235576170</font>
>
>
>----- Message d'origine ----
>De : Zelimir Gabelica <Zelimir.Gabelica at uha.fr>
>? : Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>;
>meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Cc : habibi abdelaziz <azizhabibi at yahoo.com>
>Envoy? le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 17h39mn 16s
>Objet : Re: [meteorite-list] debat , , monzogabbro /dolerite/ mare basalt/
>lunar.
>
>Hi Aziz, Martin,
>
>Very interesting reading!
>I have a couple of comments/questions though:
>
>A) Comments:
>
>1) Among the possible pairings cited in the web reference (and Met. Bull)
>reported by Aziz, the NWA 773 is a norite and (from the pics in Met. Bull.)
>has a slightly different texture than NWA 4734 (this latter obviously shows
>more pronounced/distinct phenoclasts).
>2) LAP 02234, also cited as possibly paired, should be wrong (mistyping ?)
>as it is a LL6 (Met. Bull.)
>
>B) My questions concerns the tkw:
>
>1) The tkw as in Met. Bull. is reported as being of 477 g (Aziz's piece).
>Why the are the 895 g that are with Oumama ignoired in this total ?
>
>2) On the other hand, Martin reported that the tkw of "his" NWA 4734 (that
>was offered for sale by end 2007) was of 1439 g, a weight (mass) that does
>not correspond to the above cumulated total of 1372 g....
>
>On the other hand, I agree that, before any firther detailed study of the
>LAP samples, one should neither add their masses to the tkw of NWA 4734,
>nor should be added those of NWA 032 or NWA 479 that, at least according to
>the pics, obviously exhibit the very same texture (see pics in Met. Bull.),
>but the question of the tkw of the sole NWA 4734 still remains open.
>
>
>As noted by the comment of Albert Jambon to Aziz, the most puzzling enigma
>would be to explain how rocks found 25,000 km apart, that by all means have
>a quasi identical texture (see the LAP pics in Met. Bull.) can be paired.
>I foresee an interesting folow-up in the future investigations...
>
>Any firther comment or answer ?
>
>Thanks and best wishes to all,
>
>Zelimir
>

Prof. Zelimir Gabelica
Universit? de Haute Alsace
ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC,
3, Rue A. Werner,
F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France
Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94
Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15
Received on Wed 23 Jan 2008 01:05:02 PM PST