[meteorite-list] Primitive Achondrite Question

From: cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 9:25:27 -0500
Message-ID: <20111206092527.2X03E.67390.imail_at_fed1rmwml105>

Ted, Jeff, Doug, list,
Given what we now know about Almahatta Sita and how the classification type depends largely on what sample piece is being tested at the time.
Couldn't this help explain why your (Ted's) Butt has been getting the workout as of late?
Maybe you were right all along and perhaps their are more mixed batches of soup yet to be acknowledged than we once realized?
Carl
meteoritemax

--
Cheers
---- Ted Bunch <tbear1 at cableone.net> wrote: 
> Well stated Jeff and I agree! Thank you. There is the thing about
> "metachondrite" terminology, but we shall leave this "dead horse" alone for
> the time being. 
> 
> Two of these unremitting classification issues in 3 days is much too much
> for me in one week, especially when my butt is tied to both of them.
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> On 12/5/11 7:02 PM, "Jeff Grossman" <jngrossman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Type 7 is considered by most of those who use it to represent the
> > highest degree of thermal metamorphism that a chondrite can experience
> > without melting.  As implied in that first sentence, some petrologists
> > don't distinguish these from type 6.  The term "primitive achondrite" is
> > widely taken to be the next stage: you make them when a chondrite
> > partially melts, and the process of crystal-melt separation begins.  The
> > "primitive" part says that the bulk composition is still fairly close to
> > chondritic.  But these definitions are not used by everybody, and you
> > will get arguments about them.
> > 
> > Clearly, the "LL" part of an LL7 classification for NWA 3100 is
> > unlikely.  O isotopes are below the terrestrial fractionation line,
> > which basically rules it out.  So it is not an LL7.  Bunch has shown
> > that the O isotopes are closer to CR chondrites.
> > 
> > The hard part is the type 7 vs. primitive achondrite distinction.  Bunch
> > et al.'s 2005 and 2008 LPSC abstracts do not report anything in NWA 3100
> > that I take as evidence of melting or differentiation.  So I don't see
> > any reason to call these primitive achondrites, at least not based on
> > these findings.  I think the Bunch et al.'s conclusion that NWA 3100 is
> > a CR6 is the best we have right now, but I think you still have to think
> > of this as preliminary.  Ted can correct me, but I think it was actually
> > the nomcom that pushed for calling this a PAC, amid controversy on the
> > committee.
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > 
> > On 12/5/2011 8:23 PM, Ruben Garcia wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> 
> >> I just bought a smallish collection and several of the slices that
> >> came with are NWA 3100. Mike Farmer's card was included and lists NWA
> >> 3100 as an LL7.  The Met-Bul calls NWA 3100 a Primitive achondrite -
> >> not an LL7.
> >> 
> >> My question is this,
> >> 
> >> Does LL7 denote a particular Primitive achondrite? If so which one? If
> >> not then what type is this?
> >> 
> >> BTW - I think Ted Bunch did the classification
> >> 
> > 
> > ______________________________________________
> > 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 Tue 06 Dec 2011 09:25:27 AM PST