[meteorite-list] Planetary Pairings...some facts, some guesses

From: Greg Hupe <*gmhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:30:04 -0400 Message-ID: <2A49FB2E5CA04C8399916B5D147D4AE1_at_greg323a964987> · gmhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com

--
Carl or Debbie Esparza
Meteoritemax
---- Greg Hupe <gmhupe at htn.net> wrote:
> Hello Martin, Zelimir and List,
>
> Martin wrote:
> "no worries, was a simple typo, digittwiddler. I meant NWA 3136  not NWA
> 3163."
>
> It's alright, Martin. I made the same typo when I first mentioned NWA
> 4472/4483. Easy to do when we have so many classification numbers under 
> our
> belts.
>
> As for NWA 5400 which I purchased in Morocco as a single stone and took
> samples from two other rocks that 'appeared' similar, these were all
> analyzed by the same scientists and lab. The two samples turned out to be
> 'just' brachinites like I have already pointed out last week in a previous
> email. And, "No", not from the same source as the "NWA 5363" box of rocks.
> Lets all quit worrying about that story, the same scientists are trying to
> get all of that mess figured out as we speak. They have already analyzed
> several samples from supposed pairings and have found them not to be 
> paired
> to NWA 5400 as Peter Marmet has also pointed out. NWA 6292 turns out to be
> paired, way cool! As I pointed out in an earlier email, "...if pairings 
> are
> determined, I welcome that, but be patient and let the qualified 
> scientists
> do their jobs!" This whole discussion is like a broken record...just keeps
> repeating itself!
>
> Best regards,
> Greg
>
> ====================
> Greg Hupe
> The Hupe Collection
> NaturesVault (eBay)
> gmhupe at htn.net
> www.LunarRock.com
> IMCA 3163
> ====================
> Click here for my current eBay auctions:
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Planetary Pairings...some facts, some 
> guesses
>
>
> Hi Zelimir,
>
> no worries,
> was a simple typo, digittwiddler.
>
> I meant NWA 3136  not NWA 3163.
>
> NWA 3163/4483/4881 are paired and beautiful.
>
>
> > who gave it for
> >classification to different institutes,
>
> No, all three were classified by Irving, Kuehner et al.
>
> To us it makes often most sense, if we by our own suspect a pairing,
> to give it there, where the classification of the first stone was made.
>
> Anyway the top classifiers of the world are in close contact which
> each-other.
> Lunars and Martians are so rare, but also so important, that possible
> pairings will be always cleared.
> But it wouldn't make much sense, to give such a stone to an university,
> without any experiences with such materials or to a college - because at
> best they would end anyway again in the labs, of those, who had already 
> all
> lunars in their hands - and that is good so.
>
> The whole NWA 5400 debate would e.g. have been unnecessary, if the 
> suspected
> pairings would have been handed in there, where 5400 was classified.
>
> Best!
> Martin
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Zelimir Gabelica [mailto:Zelimir.Gabelica at uha.fr]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. September 2010 13:25
> An: Martin Altmann; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Betreff: Planetary Pairings...some facts, some guesses
>
> Hi Martin, list,
>
> NWA 3163 IS paired with NWA 4483 and 4881 (Korotev & Met. Bull.).
> All the other unpaired from your compilations are correct.
>
> This being and, on another note, because NWA 4483
> was quasi certified having been found in Algeria
> (Ralew and also Met. Bull. database), I guess it
> is also so with its two pairings?
> In Met. Bull. database, both NWA 3163 and NWA
> 4881 are reported coming from "Algeria or Mauritania".
> Wouldn't it then be right to claim that all three come from Algeria ?
>
> Would this conclusion hold based on an as simple statement ?
> Not sure....
>
> Let's now consider more in depth the above (rather simple) pairing issue.
> Here are the purchase circumstances for the three
> paired meteorites (MetBull database):
>
> NWA 3163: Purchased by Hup? in Ouarzazate, in 2005
> NWA 4483: Purchased by Ralew in Erfoud, in 2006
> NWA 4881: Purchased by Ralew in Ouarzazate, in 2007
>
> This suggests that a Lunar found "somewhere
> between Mauritania and Algeria" or "somewhere in
> between ?" (these 2 countries do share a common
> border), pre 2005, was brought to Ourzazate where
> sold to two different dealers (probably by two
> different vendors) in an interval of two years,
> while the same meteorite was also sold (probably
> by a third person) to Ralew in Erfoud in 2006.
> Excellent example of a meteorite walking from one
> vendor to another, from one place to another,
> with time, to finally reach different dealers.
>
> Whatever it be, it is amazing that science is
> today able to (start to) reconstitute (partly)
> this meteorite and define its identity and status
> from an independent sophisticated analysis of the
> 3 NWA samples that wandered independently in
> space and time, ending up independently in the
> basket of different dealers who gave it for
> classification to different institutes, who
> eventually came into conclusion that it is the
> (probably) the very same meteorite.
>
> This is a real performance and confirms that Greg
> Hup? is right when he decides to have every
> fragment of an important meteorite probed for its O isotopic abundance.
> But...what a waste of time and money!
> Wouldn't it be far more simple that once a
> meteorite is found, all the fragments are
> assembled by the finder and sold (or distributed
> among other vendors) under the same provisional
> code until it is eventually classified ?
> We all know (from our early debating this topic)
> that this is totally illusory because money and
> personal interests would predominate over scientific interests.
>
> And, by the way, the "almost happy end" regarding
> this Lunar pairing issue was likely because it is
> a Lunar that is often readily classified by
> institutes.....but this possibly suggests that
> most of the NWA ordinary chondrites (or even
> achondrites) will never get the chance to have
> their pairing status defined, simply because it
> is less interesting to study them.
>
> This perhaps explains the large number of NWA's
> found and their relatively low tkw's....
>
> Large speculative debate....
>
> Take care,
>
> Zelimir
>
>
> At 01:07 29/09/2010, you wrote:
> >Though I wrote it privately...  ;-)
> >
> >But especially the lunars and Martians, which are always checked, if they
> >are paired,
> >there one can see well, that there is no rule, that no stone comes alone
> >from NWA.
> >
> >Some have immediate pairings, from some every few years another sample
> >surfaces,
> >others there suddenly after a long break of many years more comes to 
> >light.
> >
> >
> >So far unpaired NWA-Martians are:
> >
> >NWA 817
> >NWA 856
> >NWA 998
> >NWA 1195
> >NWA 1669
> >NWA 1950
> >NWA 2046
> >NWA 2626
> >NWA 2646
> >NWA 2737
> >NWA 2800
> >NWA 3137
> >NWA 4222
> >NWA 4468
> >NWA 4480
> >NWA 4797
> >NWA 5029
> >NWA 5289
> >NWA 5718
> >NWA 5789
> >NWA 5990
> >NWA 6162
> >
> >So from the 28 different NWA-Martian, there are only 6 which build up a
> >pairing group.
> >22 are unpaired.
> >
> >Moon:
> >
> >Unpaired:
> >
> >NWA 482
> >NWA 2200
> >NWA 2998
> >NWA 3163
> >NWA 4734
> >NWA 4819
> >NWA 4884
> >NWA 4898
> >NWA 4932
> >NWA 5000
> >NWA 5153
> >NWA 5207
> >NWA 5744
> >
> >(The NWA 773 - Anoual I lumped together)
> >
> >
> >So there 13 out of 19 unpaired.
> >
> >
> >Well, and as far as the general rareness of NWAs compared to historical
> >finds/falls is concerned.
> >To me it seems, that the NWAs in general - also if you take paired 
> >numbers
> >together - have on average a much smaller tkw than non-desert-finds. 
> >Well
> >one would need some ling winter-evenings to verify that.
> >
> >Though sometimes - tiny fragments, without any crust, non-magnetic
> >achrondites - e.g. some of the Martians from the NWA 2975 - or if you
> >remember the tiny peas of the NWA 1068 group, looking like sandstone.
> >For me it's a sheer riddle, how you can find such pieces at all!
> >Crawling on my knees through the field, I wouldn't find them.
> >
> >Or cause we just had it NWA 4485, NWA 4472 - all around a fat weathering
> >crust, white like chalk.
> >Who the heck would ever pick up such a stone from the field and suspect 
> >it
> >to be a meteorite?
> >
> >It is truly amazing, what the hunters do down there.
> >
> >Best!
> >Martin
>
> 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10
> 01:37:00
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 
01:37:00