[meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites" for sale - AD

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:27:22 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGPOxazz2z0lHbDrn8HEBvJRktLK35G9XI4Q4n_at_mail.gmail.com>

Shawn,
Well-said -
But I can't emphasize enough the fact that such large bodies existed
in large numbers in the early solar system. That much is obvious from
the large numbers of ungrouped (and grouped) differentiated
achondrites that we have in our collections here on earth, as well as
from all various types of iron meteorites, which represent the cores
of diffeentiated planetismals. All in all, we have meteorites that
suggest well over 30-40 such bodies in the early solar system, and
computer-run models in some cases suggest hundreds of such bodies.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1d.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#Formation_of_planets

Note that wikipedia suggests 50-100 such bodies. I wouldn't usually
reference wikipedia for something like this, but see references 35-36
for the article - that's actually a decent estimate that's been backed
up by some serious work done by experts -- it's not just a crap
wikipedia reference.

So, angrites may be from Mercury. If we say that, regardless of their
composition and history, they just needed to be from a large
planetismal capable of some metamorphic activity, then we've got a
1/50 to 1/100 chance that angrites are, in fact, from Mercury.

The trouble is that their chemistry and age suggest that they're not
from Mercury.

I agree. They *might* be from Mercury. And yes, some smart people
have said that they *might* be from Mercury.
But it seems to me that this article is being deemed credible because
of its authors, and not because of what it actually says.

>I do not refute Melinda Hutson's article that was never peer reviewed and
contains several errors according to the classifying scientists. I asked
scientists about the article and they stated, it is obvious that she didn't read
the original peer reviewed abstract carefully, even mistaking the type of
petrology that was discussed using formulas that simply do not apply to the
texture NWA 2999 exhibits.

I'd like to know what these errors were, and how the error might have
affected her conclusions. Perhaps Adam or someone else would be
willing to explain her errors and how they suggest that angrites are
actually from Mercury.

Seems like this is the perfect sort of topic for the list...

Regards,
Jason




Hi Jason and List,

I do not refute Melinda Hutson's article that was never peer reviewed and
contains several errors according to the classifying scientists. I asked
scientists about the article and they stated, it is obvious that she didn't read
the original peer reviewed abstract carefully, even mistaking the type of
petrology that was discussed using formulas that simply do not apply to the
texture NWA 2999 exhibits.

There were several prestigious coauthors listed in the original paper; Unique
Angrite NWA 2999: The Case For Samples From Mercury.

Who am I to argue with the world's best? I will keep an open mind and hope for
some ground truth that will hopefully settle it once and for all. I think the
authors were making a point of having an open mind and that the subject should
be debated possibly stimulated more scientific interest in Angrites. It took a
long time to win over the scientific community that some of these meteorites
were actually from Mars. It was debated to death and now nobody argues about
the Shergottite parent body any more.

Best Regards,

Adam
______________________________________________

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Shawn Alan <photophlow at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Listers,
>
> I would have to say NWA 2999 and the other Angrites that might have a connection to Mercury in fairness is speculative, like with the rest of the meteorites that can?t be traced back to a parent body because of the lack of physical evidence. This was also true with the Moon and Mars meteorites, but we have samples taken from the surface to prove otherwise.
>
> But in all in fairness there is good evidence that points to the likelihood that NWA 2999 and other Angrites ?could be? in fact from Mercury.
>
> This argument can be supported by an article which Jason posted in one of his posts on this topic of NWAs from Mercury.
>
> CORONAS AND SYMPLECTITES IN PLUTONIC ANGRITE NWA 2999 AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
> MERCURY AS THE ANGRITE PARENT BODY. S. M. Kuehner1, A. J. Irving1, T. E. Bunch2, J. H. Wittke2,G. M. Hup? and A. C. Hup?, 1Dept. of Earth & Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195,
> (kuehner at u.washington.edu), 3Dept. of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011.
>
> In the research article, the authors make good points about the connection that NWA 2999 and Mercury has, and that the NWA meteorite have gone through a vertical tectonics process which occurs on Earth and Mercury. This observation can suggest that NWA 2999 could be from Mercury but the only way to prove that NWA 2999 is indeed from Mercury is to send a probe to the surface and bring back actual rocks samples from the surface and subsurface. Down below is the abstract that suggests this process to be evident in the connection with NWA 2999 and Mercury.
>
> The Mercury Connection: Papike et al. [9] suggested that angrites might be samples from Mercury based on volatile depletion, and systematic of plagioclase compositions and Fe/Mn ratios in mafic minerals. The spectacular symplectite and corona textures in NWA 2999 evidently require a
> parent body capable of several kilometers of vertical tectonics. Of the silicate planets, only Earth and Mercury are known to have appropriate tectonic processes. Similar textures are well-known in deepseated
> terrestrial plutonic rocks (including mantle peridotites [10] ) exhumed by continental plate tectonic collisions, but on Mercury this could be accomplished by thrust faulting, for which there is
> strong evidence [11]. Dynamical calculations [12] predict that several percent of material ejected from Mercury could reach Earth, so it would not be too surprising to find Hermean meteorites. Additional
> arguments supporting this conjecture were given by Irving et al. [1].
>
> Shawn Alan
>
>
> [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites" for sale - AD
> Jason Utas meteoritekid at gmail.com
> Wed Jul 21 20:13:36 EDT 2010
> ? ? ? ? Previous message: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites" for sale - AD
> ? ? ? ? Next message: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites" for sale - AD
> ? ? ? ? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> ________________________________________
> Hello Greg, All,
> I managed to turn up these pages:
>
> http://www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_DORBIGNY.HTM
>
> http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/nwa-2934-angrite-meteorite-possible-nwa-2999-3164-1
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1876.pdf
>
> So, NWA 2836, 2999, 3164 (all three supposedly paired), D'Orbigny, and
> Asu88 all display similar translucent crystals.
>
> Angrites are some of the rarest material on earth - that should stand
> alone. Trying to put one in some way "above" the others doesn't make
> much sense to me.
>
> Without getting into this too deeply - researchers have been trying to
> find a meteorite from another one of the terrestrial planets (other
> than Mars) for decades.
> Trying to cram a square peg into a round hole ain't the way to do it.
>
> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Metic..30..269L
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995LPI....26..865L
>
> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070021589_2007019150.pdf
>
> In my opinion, it's a little much to claim that a meteorite came from
> a single parent body based only three main points:
> 1) Both are depleted in sodium and are highly refractive (so were
> other parent bodies that formed in the region).
> 2) There's an observed feature (corona around a plagioclase crystal)
> that may have been formed by tectonic action on its parent body...or
> some other form of decompression or change in conditions while
> crystallization was taking place...
> 3) And, yeah, they're from a differentiated body.
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1344.pdf
>
> To be frank, the arguments *against* the origins of Angrites being
> Mercury are significantly better.
> 1) They cooled too soon for them to be form Mercury.
> 2) They have too much iron.
> 3) The scarping on Mercury isn't present in large enough examples to
> explain the features observed in Angrites.
>
> The things that rule a Mercutian origin out for Angrites are much more
> basic, sweeping sort of problems. Their general composition and
> crystallization ages are *wrong,* based on our understanding of how
> things formed in the early solar system and the composition of
> Mercury's crust (this is big-picture stuff). And compare that to the
> fact that we have two chemical/petrographic features that suggest that
> they're from Mercury; the whole differentiated body thing seems kind
> of overblown at this point. We now know of *many* ungrouped
> achondrites that appear to have come from large differentiated bodies.
> Very circumstantial evidence.
>
> In my opinion, it's like selling pieces of martian meteorites under
> the banner of "remains of life may have been found in ALH 84001, so
> this meteorite I'm selling you may contain traces of martian life."
>
> I mean, I guess you could claim that...and yet, reputable dealers don't....
> I have the feeling that this whole 'Angrites are from Mercury' problem
> is getting overlooked a bit because there's no media frenzy of 'LIFE'
> surrounding it. Either way, the critical literature seems to carry
> *significantly* more weight, from a relatively objective observer's
> point of view.
>
> I've heard similar comments from various well-regarded researchers.
> Check your May 2008 Meteorite magazines.
> Melinda Hutson notes that "Four of the eight arguments given in the
> original abstract on NWA 2999 actually argue against Mercury as the
> Angrite parent body." In fact, she goes on to repudiate every single
> point, relegating them to, at best, circumstantial evidence.
>
> In my opinion, dealers need to stop pushing Angrites as being from
> Mercury. They're rare enough to warrant being paid whatever for them
> anyways - compare them to NWA 011, Ibitira, etc. But cooler because
> we know more about them.
> Insubstantial claims regarding their origins need not be made.
>
> Yep, got carried away. Well, they're damn cool and I know more about
> them now. Time well spent.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Greg Catterton
> <star_wars_collector at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi to all, I am happy to announce that NWA 6291 is an awesome and very rare angrite.
>
>>
>
>> I have several very nice slices for sale including one of the 4 translucent slices. After extensive research, I have not been able to come across any angrite that has offered translucent crystals and slices like you would find in a pallasite other then this one.
>
>>
>
>> This is likely paired with NWA 2999, but due to its unique appearance, it stands above and beyond 2999 and any of its pairings enough to raise the question of if it was actually paired or not. NWA 2999 and its pairings are also unique to the angrite class, which makes this one even more special!
>
>>
>
>> Then there is the possible Mercury connection... how cool is it that this material is thought to be ejecta from the planet Mercury?
>
>>
>
>> You can see some of the material available for sale here:
>
>> http://www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com/Angrite_Meteorites.php
>
>>
>
>> I also have a very limited amount of thin sections that are very generous is size. Rather then offer a small limited sample for section, I choose to get nice portions that showed the incredible nature of this material at its best.
>
>>
>
>> Samples for sale are from micros up to the 44 gram main mass.
>
>>
>
>> Contact me for price and more photos - I am still offering a discount for research use.
>
>>
>
>> Greg Catterton
>
>> www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
>
>> IMCA member 4682
>
>> On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
>
>> On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ______________________________________________
>
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> ? ? ? ? Previous message: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites" for sale - AD
> ? ? ? ? Next message: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites" for sale - AD
> ? ? ? ? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> ________________________________________
> More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Thu 22 Jul 2010 05:27:22 AM PDT