[meteorite-list] "Oregon meteorite generating interest" -The Columbian

From: almitt2 at localnet.com <almitt2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:44:30 -0400
Message-ID: <20100923004430.9bon54pxc9sk4k88_at_webmail.localnet.com>

Hi Rob and all,

I've seen the data for this and know there are differences. With less
than 10 IIIF irons existing, the probability of two being found 100
miles apart from one another are just astronomical and nearly
impossible.

How many times have we seen big differences in the span of a single
meteorite fall. Also there are variations in research which can lead to
questions on pairing when most likely specimens are from the same fall.
I'd say the same is true for this fall also.

While I would like to see an increase in Oregon finds or falls (I've
done my best to try to increase them), I am pretty firmly convinced
this one is related being a rare iron type. Odds of a stream dumping
this close together are ultra rare, unless they came down at the same
time. If this is the case then they are still probably related.

I'd like to see more research done to prove me wrong. Best to all.

--AL Mitterling

Quoting Rob Wesel <nakhladog at comcast.net>:

> FWIW
>
> This one has been published since June and includes a K Falls comparison in
> the write-up
>
> Geochemistry: (snip)These data suggest a designation of Group IIIF, an
> uncommon type (with <10 individuals known), although Ga is high compared to
> other IIIF irons by ~30%, probably owing to analytical error. This is the
> same group designation as for Klamath Falls, which was found ~78 km to the
> northwest, raising the possibility that both could have been in the same
> strewn field. However, the two meteorites are probably not paired, as
> Klamath Falls has a smaller kamacite bandwidth (0.5 mm), and concentrations
> for Ir, Pt, and Re that are ~0.002x, ~0.12x, and ~2.8x the values in the new
> iron.
>
> Rob Wesel
Received on Thu 23 Sep 2010 12:44:30 AM PDT