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

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:00:49 +0200
Message-ID: <002c01cb298d$326ea270$6502a8c0_at_name86d88d87e2>

Huh, I found even a paper, which postulates, that the HEDs are from Mercury
and the angrites from Venus....

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/otp2004/pdf/3012.pdf



;-)
Martin



-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason
Utas
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2010 11:27
An: Shawn Alan; Meteorite-list; Adam Hupe
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of
Angrites"for sale - AD

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#For
mation_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
Received on Thu 22 Jul 2010 07:00:49 AM PDT