[meteorite-list] Fwd: Ad: North American meteorite - San Bernardino Wash (L5)

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 02:45:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CABEOBjKC9RULuWW_+pRxM_SUk8yOghL8rS0PDOB+1Doik+RSKw_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Bob,
I'm confused. I addressed that. You're saying that, because they're
L5's, they are paired, despite the fact that they look different?

Over 1/10 meteorites found is "L5." Seriously. Almost 5,000 approved
meteorites are L5s, out of ~48,000 total approved meteorites. If you
find a meteorite and you keep looking, there's a ~1/10 chance that the
next (new) meteorite you find will be an L5.

The requirements are clear. "...[A] single (collective) name may be
given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking
fragments are found within a few meters of each other."

"[S]imilar-looking fragments are found within a few meters of each other."

I don't really understand why you'd try to claim a pairing. Could
they be paired? Maybe. If you're arguing for the *possibility,* I
won't argue with you. There's a very small, but indisputable, chance.
 Seems illogical to hedge your bet on it since they look so different,
though.

Regards,
Jason

www.fallsandfinds.com


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I started to write a reply but then I realized that I was just repeating
> what I wrote earlier.
> So, I'll just reprint it here:
>
>> But, to directly answer your question, I would have to refer you to my
>> latest Meteorite-Times article:
>> http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/jan14.htm
>> for my description of how a cluster of obviously-paired fragments found at
>> SBW had such a variation in "looks",
>> that it prompted me to sample a number of them and to actually have two of
>> those fragments classified.
>> For your convenience, I'll show them here:
>>
>> Pinto Mountains -- (L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxene
>> Fs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)-- 1955 stone
>> San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% (n=7) -- (UCLA
>> type-specimen) -- 2010 stone
>> San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% (n=24)
>> -- 2012A fragment
>> San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% (n=14)
>> -- 2012B fragment
>
> 'Nuff said.
> Bob V.
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:51 PM, Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Helo Bob, All,
>
>>I agree, they definitely look different.
>
> 'Nuff said. You could assume "microclimates," but I wouldn't start
> putting forth a hypothesis like that without something substantial
> like argon data to tie the two stones together. The Meteoritical
> Bulletin is clear on pairing:
>
> http://meteoriticalsociety.org/?page_id=59
>
> a) Level of scrutiny. Sequential names comprising a prefix and numeric
> suffix will be given to new meteorites without checking for possible
> pairings, although a single (collective) name may be given in cases
> where fragments fit together or similar-looking fragments are found
> within a few meters of each other.
>
> b) Pairing groups. Two or more newly discovered meteorites in dense
> collection areas may be considered paired with each other or with
> another formally named meteorite if there is overwhelming evidence,
> including geographic data, that is consistent with the meteorites
> being part of a single fall. The evidence must be evaluated by the
> Committee. All approved members of a pairing group will be named with
> a geographic prefix plus a number in the same way as are unpaired
> meteorites; special type-specimen requirements will apply to newly
> paired meteorites (section 7.1f). If two or more numbered meteorites
> with formal names are subsequently determined to be paired, their
> names should not be changed. Pairing groups may be referred to
> collectively by the lowest specimen number, the most widely studied
> mass number or the largest mass number (e.g., the EET 87711 pairing
> group).
>
> To emphasize the important part, "a single (collective) name may be
> given in cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking
> fragments are found within a few meters of each other."
>
> They look different and weren't found within meters; the necessary
> evidence clearly isn't there. Anything else is guesswork.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes Jason,
>> I agree, they definitely look different.
>> But what has me puzzled is something that is not all that apparent in our
>> images. The exterior of our two stones.
>> Your stone has a very well-preserved exterior (even though your interior
>> is a uniformly-colored W3), whereas,
>> my exterior (which is not visible in the image) is gone, actually eroded.
>> Yet somehow, my stone's interior
>> is less weathered than your stone (my stone was classified as "W1").
>> I wonder, if the interior of my stone were to weather to a "W3", just how
>> much it would look like your stone?
>>
>>
>> But, to directly answer your question, I would have to refer you to my
>> latest Meteorite-Times article:
>> http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/jan14.htm
>> for my description of how a cluster of obviously-paired fragments found at
>> SBW had such a variation in "looks",
>> that it prompted me to sample a number of them and to actually have two of
>> those fragments classified.
>> For your convenience, I'll show them here:
>>
>> Pinto Mountains -- (L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxene
>> Fs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)-- 1955 stone
>> San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% (n=7) -- (UCLA
>> type-specimen) -- 2010 stone
>> San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% (n=24)
>> -- 2012A fragment
>> San Bernardino Wash -- (L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% (n=14)
>> -- 2012B fragment
>>
>>
>> This just might be a case of (very) micro-environments acting immediate to
>> where each fragment is found, that is causing all of these differences.
>>
>> I'm open to any and all other explanations,
>> Bob V.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:48 PM, Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Bob, All,
>>>Just home from a hunt, haven't had the opportunity to reply until now.
>>>I don't have photos of the other stone/fragments, but I do have a few
>>>photos of SBW#1 on hand:
>>>
>>>http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/DSCN7095.jpg
>>>
>>>http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/DSCN7101.jpg
>>>
>>>http://meteoritegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/comparison.jpg
>>>
>>>Is there any evidence for pairing beyond "equilibrated L?" As you can
>>>see, that slice looks a bit different.
>>>Regards,
>>>Jason
>>>
>>>www.fallsandfinds.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> For those collectors with an interest in North American meteorites,
>>>> I would like to bring your attention to an eBay offering (ending soon)
>>>> of a classified find from the California Mojave Desert:
>>>> San Bernardino Wash (L5)
>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/221353605398
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This under-appreciated meteorite promises to become better-known now
>>>> that
>>>> additional field-work and research results are starting to appear on the
>>>> Internet:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/#q=San+Bernardino+Wash+L5+meteorite+strewn-field
>>>>
>>>> Although the study of this area is too early to determine the possible
>>>> TKW of this meteorite,
>>>> it certainly will not rival Gold Basin (L4/6), but it promises to be the
>>>> next "Trilby Wash".
>>>> The specimens that I am offering are the remaining slices from the
>>>> samples used to determine pairing.
>>>> These two classifications confirmed their pairing to the SBW(L5)
>>>> type-specimen held at UCLA.
>>>> I will only be offering additional specimens for auction until the cost
>>>> of this lab-work has been defrayed.
>>>> But, as usual, I will continue to accept requests for samples by any
>>>> interested researchers.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your interest,
>>>> 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
>
>
Received on Thu 23 Jan 2014 05:45:30 AM PST