[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:49:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABEOBj+Ygy1Fa2_zh6LWB+sjtMHdedZ7-uT+bOBoa2pFi=Pcpg_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,
1) I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dr.
Jenniskens went through the work of obtaining the type specimen and he
should be able to work on it as he sees fit. If that delays the
publication of the meteorite for a few months, it doesn't matter.
Doing so does not adversely affect anyone or anything, in any way.

2) Carl -- I think the difference here is that the stone has had all
of the work necessary for approval completed, but it is being held up
so that Dr. Jenniskens can oversee the additional work that is being
done. If he had given the type sample to UCLA earlier on, he might
not have been able to accommodate sample requests (and he has been
very forthcoming with doing so), so I think it's less a matter of
control as one of opportunity. Many of the studies that have been
performed on the rock are not often done on equilibrated ordinary
chondrites. It's still valuable information, but not data that is
usually included in a Meteoritical Bulletin writeup.

Which isn't to say that UCLA is not capable of doing the same,
but....none of this matters. The stone will be approved and UCLA will
get their type specimen. Since Dr. Rubin already received a small
sample in order to describe the stone petrographically, he is included
in the consortium and will be a co-author in any publications turned
out by it (thus rendering Michael Farmer's most recent criticism
somewhat moot). Since Dr. Jenniskens did put in a lot of trajectory
calculation/outreach/recovery effort, I don't see why he's not
entitled to work on the specimen first.

3) The destructive work mentioned by some in a negative light includes
many studies outlined here:

http://asima.seti.org/n/

Stuff like Ar-Ar dating, raman spectroscopy, and other studies require
the dissolution or otherwise destruction of small portions of the
meteorite. It's standard procedure. Most of those kinds of studies
aren't performed on your average equilibrated chondrite fall, though,
so...be glad that it's happening with this one. More of this kind of
information could help us better understand the histories of these
bodies in the solar system.

So for those of you saying that SETI/Dr. Jenniskens is doing things
they can't or shouldn't....they're not. They're just organizing
things.

4) Having met with Lisa Webber and Glen Rivera a few times after they
handed N#1 over to Dr. Jenniskens, I don't think Richard Montgomery's
statement holds any water, either. They seemed genuinely happy to
provide the stone for analysis. I can't see how or why that would have
changed in the time since then, since they had already handed over the
stone and clearly expected ~20+ grams to go to an institution.

5) Some people seem to not like Dr. Jenniskens. I loaned them N#5 for
non-destructive work and picked it up in person last Friday night.
SETI's pretty cool, and they seem to be doing good work, most of it
pertaining to asteroids, near-Earth/Earth-crossing bodies, Mars, and a
variety of other things. This kind of thing is really right up their
alley.

6) Michael Mulgrew's recent comment makes no sense to me. Every
meteorite must be studied to some extent prior to publication, or it
could not be published. Some meteorites require O-isotope analyses,
some require trapped gas analyses, and others require only a few
mineralogical data points and a petrographic description. Where to
draw that line can be somewhat arbitrary, but one must be careful.
There was some confusion a few years ago because O-isotope data was
not obtained on a new NWA acapulcoite, and it was classified as an
winonaite. Later pairings were worked on more thoroughly. Novato is
a little different because we all know it's an L6, but still. The
write-up in the bulletin will reflect the variety of analyses
performed on the rock, I'm sure. Since most folks wouldn't go through
the trouble of doing this much work on an L6, I'm glad that someone is
organizing it.

7) Re: Jim's comments about find numbers (and apparently bragging
rights) -- No. Without the 'consortium,' publicly posted numbers,
etc. we would have much less of an idea of where/how many of the
Sutter's Mill meteorites were recovered. The majority of the
information shared on the SETI website would not be known, the strewn
field would be poorly known (relative to now), etc. And the fall is
now well-documented, and the information is publicly shared. That's
worth a heck of a lot.

How many of you checked the SETI website for updates while hunting for
SM or N? Yeah. Useful.

Really not sure where all of the criticism is coming from. This
meteorite isn't lost. It's not in limbo. It's being studied and will
be approved. This should be done with in a few months. A scientist
wants to do a thorough job on it. Sounds good to me.

Regards,
Jason



On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com> wrote:
> I seem to think this is a control issue. Someone wants total control over the meteorite. Sad to dominate a meteorite fall.
> Never seen this type of action before.
> Submission changes nothing about the science or the papers released later. It is simply the act of registering the meteorite officially. I think they don't want to release the type specimen or else the receiving institution (UCLA) or (NASA) will then possibly release papers outside the control of the "Consortium"?
> My two kopeks.
> Michael
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Carl Agee <agee at unm.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'm having a hard time understanding this "problem" with Novato. Since
>> when do deposit samples not get analyzed and worked on? Maybe I'm
>> missing something here but the way I do it, is the sample gets ID-ed
>> and classified and then if it merits further research that happens
>> next, in that order. For example, you cannot submit an abstract to
>> LPSC or MetSoc on an unclassified or provisional meteorite.
>> Classification is absolutely the first thing that should happen.
>>
>> Carl Agee
>> --
>> Carl B. Agee
>> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>> MSC03 2050
>> University of New Mexico
>> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>>
>> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>> Email: agee at unm.edu
>> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, hunting costs money, lots and lots of it. Ask me, I'm on the other side of the planet right now and western unions as coming in daily. No credit cards accepted where I am:)
>>> But we have responsibilities. Pay to play, including getting the type specimen properly curated. I am in 100% agreement with the noncom on this one.
>>> Science must come first.
>>>
>>> Michael Farmer
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On May 1, 2013, at 7:38 AM, robert crane <rrobber1 at msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem I have is every one should spend their hard earned money in the field looking for these damn things to ease the people that don't leave their driveway. I'm sorry before u bitch and complain get off your ass and not spend time in Stewart Valley or in Franconia getting DCA crap classified. Work in the field and contribute. Make a contribution to science before u bitch about other people. Hunting ain't free.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, "Richard Montgomery" <rickmont at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the stones from this find was "lent" to the NASA team, with an open mind and naivte perhaps; a situation that definitely shook her by total surprise and dismay, when another finder of another stone offered a perspective. She wasn't pleased to learn that she may never see it again.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Verish" <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>>>>> To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:34 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Rob,
>>>>> for clearing the air and getting this thread back on track.
>>>>> And now that the dust has settled, we're back to my original concern:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we have to wait for just the name to be approved?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the question I am posing to the List, stated another way:
>>>>>
>>>>> If everyone is in agreement with the Jenniskins arrangement, then why can't the Committee credit UCLA for the type specimen and move forward with approving at least the name "Novato" (if need be, at least provisionally)? I mean, what is the difference whether the type specimen goes first to UCLA, then goes to NASA, or vice-versa? I mean, for goodness sake, it's NASA we're talking about here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we have to wait for the results from the consortium before we know the approved name of this meteorite?
>>>>> I mean, we didn't even have a consensus classification for Sutter's Mill, but that name still got approved! We didn't have to wait for the results of the consortium, then. Why now?
>>>>>
>>>>> But before I conclude, allow me to state several things
>>>>> FOR THE RECORD:
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to any unfounded assertions that may get printed on this List, there is no "problem" getting type-specimens from finders to researchers:
>>>>>
>>>>> There were 8 Sutter's Mill finds donated from finders & property owners.
>>>>> The name "Sutter's Mill" was approved BEFORE a classification could be agreed upon and long before the consortium published their results.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were 2 Battle Mountain specimens voluntarily donated by finders to researchers. The name "Battle Mountain" was approved 30 days after the fall. What delay?
>>>>>
>>>>> Other US falls with "no problems" getting type-specimens:
>>>>> Mifflin, Lorton, Whetstone Mtns, Ash Creek - no delays in name approval.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finders of the "Novato" meteorite were making arrangements to submit type specimens to researchers, prior to Jenniskins announcement to the Press that he was submitting the Webber stone as a type specimen. Days after his announcement is when I finally made my Novato find, and at that time I never dreamt we would be having this discussion in 2013. If it becomes necessary, I am prepared (as are other finders) to submit a type specimen to UCLA. But not until we all have been given a proper explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Bob V.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Mon, 4/29/13, Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>>>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>>>>>> To: "Pat Brown" <scientificlifestyle at hotmail.com>, "Jim Wooddell" <jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net>, "Met List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>>> Date: Monday, April 29, 2013, 8:51 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been informed by one of the Novato finders that this is
>>>>>> a non-issue.
>>>>>> Dr. Jenniskens has long-since pledged to donate more
>>>>>> than adequate Novato type specimen to UCLA for it to be
>>>>>> approved by the Nomenclature Committee. That it hasn't happened
>>>>>> already is simply because Dr. Jenniskens wished to ensure that all
>>>>>> academic requests for meteoritical material were handled promptly.
>>>>>> 29 grams
>>>>>> of the first recovered stone were generously donated by Lisa
>>>>>> Webber to SETI for scientific analysis; of that, whatever is not
>>>>>> consumed
>>>>>> in destructive analyses has been promised to UCLA.
>>>>>> So there is no cause for alarm; people just need to be patient.
>>>>>> --Rob
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it's still the "Novato" (provisional) meteorite.
>>>>>> It still is not in the Meteoritical Bulletin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the slice that Brien Cook originally cut with the intention of submitting it to UCLA. But when he read that someone else was going to supply the type-specimen, he then placed it on eBay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be nice if some Institute or consortium would make an offer and try to repatriate this slice and make it a type-specimen so that this US-fall could finally be made "official". All I'm saying is, this "leaving an official-status hanging-in-mid-air" would never happen in Canada. They would just simply buy the type-specimen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's time for the US to catch-up with Canada. It's time for a change.
>>>>>> Bob V.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carl B. Agee
>> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>> MSC03 2050
>> University of New Mexico
>> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>>
>> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>> Email: agee at unm.edu
>> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Wed 01 May 2013 01:49:44 PM PDT