[meteorite-list] Conception Junction

From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:35:20 -0400
Message-ID: <8CE325792627096-80C-E4DB_at_webmail-m127.sysops.aol.com>

Thanks Dave & Co., for completing a trifecta with a bonus this week
very stylishly. This list is great ... where else can a week's
postings turn up the first news of meteorites under classification from
Missouri, Kenya, and Tucson; and actually material for sale from the
scarcest carbonaceous type avalaible, a CM1 ?

A week to remember!

Kindest wishes
Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Gheesling <dave at fallingrocks.com>
To: 'Bernd V. Pauli' <bernd.pauli at paulinet.de>;
meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2011 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Conception Junction


Bernd, Michael G., & All,

I see that Robert got a draft of this note out earlier, but I've added a
little more detail here as well. Michael M. hit on part of this in his
post, but you raised a reasonable question that we're happy to address.

Obviously we had concerns about specimen transport prior to acquiring
the
meteorite in Conception Junction -- not because the landowner wasn't
credible, but rather because it was possible a the stone was
transported by
a native American, perhaps centuries ago.

It's hard in photographs to notice this at first due to a lack of
perspective (even with a scale cube), but the average crystal diameter
of
Brenham specimens we used for comparison was about 7.5 millimeters,
whereas
Conception Junction crystals average only about 4.5 millimeters --
among the
smallest of all known pallasites. It's painfully obvious in a direct
comparison that the two are quite different based on physical
characteristics alone (for several reasons, not just crystal size,
including
crystal aesthetics and the relatively unique exterior).

Then of course there are the findings of UCLA's Dr. John Wasson, the
world's
authority on iron and pallasitic meteorites, which are detailed in the
monograph through his contribution to same. To summarize, he wrote (as
Michael M. noted), "The information I report here shows there is no main
group pallasite that is closely related to Conception Junction.
Conception
Junction is unique." He had several other points to make as well,
including, "In summary, the composition of the metal in Conception
Junction
differs from all other known pallasites."

Apologies for the bit of redundancy included in this post, but hope it
helps...

All the best,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Bernd
V.
Pauli
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 1:49 PM
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: [meteorite-list] Conception Junction

MichaelG. wrote:

"In all seriousness, it is an attractive pallasite.
 At first glance, it has a passing resemblance to Brenham."

In all seriousness: not only at first glance does it look like Brenham.
It
does look suspiciously like Brenham.

Maybe it is a transported Brenham mass!

Cheers,

Bernd


______________________________________________
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

______________________________________________
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 Fri 26 Aug 2011 06:35:20 PM PDT