Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User
Talstarone
Lunar Man
Reged: 09/12/06
Loc: Pinetops, NC
|
Accumulation
#2890436 - 01/27/09 04:24 AM Attachment (38 downloads)
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Ever have one of those meteorite specimens you let accumulate?
Every week I have been buying about 100 to 200 milligrams of Norton County(a lovely light colored specimen(Aubrite if I am correct))
Well after 6 weeks this seems to be what it turns into(and I already have a couple of more pieces ordered).
Total Weight is 1393 milligrams(with another 150 milligrams ordered)
|
csa/montana
Den Mama
Reged: 05/14/05
Loc: montana
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Talstarone]
#2890768 - 01/27/09 10:31 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Todd, you can never have too much of a good thing! 
They are indeed all beautiful!
|
zagami
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/22/08
Loc: The Big Sky
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Talstarone]
#2890821 - 01/27/09 11:00 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi Todd,
Yes, Norton County is an aubrite and at one time was the lead candidate for what a meteorite from Mercury might look like- an enstatite-rich achondrite.
Aubrites are almost completely enstatite, "a magnesium endmember of the pyroxene silicate mineral series." Enstatite achondrites differ greatly from enstatite chondrites in terms of iron. While enstatite chondrites like Abee are upwards of 32% by weight iron, aubrites have only about 1.6% iron and therefore magnets tend to ignore them.
Aubrites are named for Aubres, France, where the type specimen fell on September 14, 1836. Aubres has a TKW of only 800g. A few of us have Aubres in our collections thanks to an English dealer who managed to get a piece out of a major collection some years ago. I believe when it was available, the price was about $2000/g with pieces in the half to couple gram range. I managed to trade for a nice little slice of about a gram.
Norton County used to be the largest stony meteorite in the world until it was displaced by Jilin, China in 1976.
The recovery and ownership of Norton County, also known as Furnas County, was a contentious issue between two leading meteorite scientists of the time, H. H. Nininger and L. LaPaz. It led to a war between the two waged in the media and through "scientific" publications. LaPaz, in his dislike for Nininger, even went so far as to somehow miss all references to Nininger in his book "Space Nomads" including the not listing of any of Nininger's works in the recommended reading section. Now that's a feat since Nininger was so well published on the subject of meteorites, and the rest of the pickings were pretty thin and mostly meteor and astronomy related.
Here's a link to the IMO history at the UNM.
http://epswww.unm.edu/iom/history.html
There are still some strong loyalties out there.
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Loc: Oort Cloud 9
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: zagami]
#2890892 - 01/27/09 11:42 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Sweet collection of Norton Todd! That's some really nice looking micros. 
Martin, FWIW, I think Nininger was slighted on more than one occasion. Nininger was ahead of his time, not just in the science of meteoritics, but also in collecting and marketing them. Meteorite collecting as a stand-alone hobby did not exist in Nininger's time. Sure, a few monied mineral collectors had some, and a few average folks had one that was used by grandpa to hold open the barn door, but people like us with collections of meteorites simply didn't exist outside of academia. Where Nininger was demonized for what he did with meteorites, today he would be lionized for those same actions. Nininger has done more lasting work for meteoritics than anyone else from his time. The proof is on collector's bookshelves everywhere - afterall, how many people cite LaPaz as an inspiration nowadays?
Regards and clear skies,
MikeG
|
Talstarone
Lunar Man
Reged: 09/12/06
Loc: Pinetops, NC
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Glassthrower]
#2890986 - 01/27/09 12:50 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Thanks Indeed for the kind words everyone.
And Martin,Thank You Sincerely for the Post and Link.I really appreciate you giving me a run down on these pieces.
I wasnt sure on the Aubrite designation because Maria Hass from the IMCA contacted me last year and told me a specimen I thought was an Aubrite,actually wasnt.
I might have been thinking about 2828,having its designation changed instead.
|
Dick Lipke
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/20/07
Loc: Marine City,Mich.
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Talstarone]
#2891058 - 01/27/09 01:23 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Martin,
in mentioning Norton County as aubrite and what a meteorite from Mercury may look like.
What is your feeling of the Angrite specimen NWA 2999 and the speculation that it could have originated from Mercury.
Dick
|
zagami
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/22/08
Loc: The Big Sky
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Dick Lipke]
#2891184 - 01/27/09 02:39 PM Attachment (33 downloads)
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi Dick,
The whole Mercury thing is a tough question. I'm avoiding any guesses right now for three main reasons. First, we have a spacecraft that will be going into orbit around Mercury soon. It should provide more data that will allow us better modeling of what such a meteorite would look like. Second, I really believe that there is a bit of information clouding consumer meteorite science right now when the equation of meteorite price and abundance also contains a variable for parent body. We tend to promote something even if the science leans otherwise. And third, I know there are scientists who study such things day in and day out for a living, so I don't mind waiting for their announcements.
Here is link to an slightly dated article I think best sums up the situation:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Metic..30..269L
Here is another followup article that builds on the above article.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/acm2008/pdf/8289.pdf
And here's a pic of me with Stanley Love, the author of the first article shortly after he returned to earth from STS-122.
|
edwincjones
Close Enough
Reged: 04/10/04
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: zagami]
#2891299 - 01/27/09 03:21 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
".....the whole Mercury thing is a tough question.............."
I realize that my math and physics is weak, but
it is easy to visualize most ejection material from the moon landing on the earth since we are the big, nearby, object
the odds of mars ejection material hitting earth seems less likely
but how does the mercury ejection material get the force necessary to make it to earth instead of falling into the sun?
edj
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Loc: Oort Cloud 9
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: edwincjones]
#2891360 - 01/27/09 03:48 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I agree with Ed, it does seem unlikely, at first, that material from Mercury could hit Earth. But, we do know that meteorites from Mars have landed here (or they originated from a parent body that contains atmospheric gases identical to Mars), and Mercury has a lower escape velocity than Mars. So we have to look at this in steps :
1) Could a Mercury meteorite be ejected from the surface with sufficient velocity to escape? - in all likelihood yes.
2) Could that meteorite escape the sun's gravitational field and achieve an Earth-crossing orbit? - not so likely I think.
Of course I have no understanding of the mathematical complexities or the physics of the problem, so my opinion is strictly from the peanut gallery. But based on a recent article I read in Meteorite magazine, I'd say (cautiously) that it's unlikely that Mercurian meteorites are landing on Earth, or at least not in any statistically-significant amount.
If we consider that angrites *may* be from Mercury, let's look at the numbers : the Meteoritical Bulletin shows 17 approved angrites. Only three have significant TKW's -
D'Orbigny - 16.55 kilos
NWA 4931 - 2.14 kilos
Sahara 99555 - 2.71 kilos
The rest of the angrites weigh under 1kg, and in many cases are measured in a handful of grams. One Antarctic angrite has a measley TKW of .6 grams.
If Mercurian meteorites are possible, but very rare, a meteorite type like angrite would fit the conjectured statisical profile.
If we examine the other likely candidate, aubrites, then we run into a statistical snafu. We have 58 approved aubrites. One of them, Al-Haggounia 001, has a TKW measured in metric tons. Norton County clocks in at 1.1 metric tons. While aubrites are considered scarce compared to OC's, there seems to be much more aubrite laying around than I would expect from a Mercurian origin. If all aubrites turned out to be Mercurian, then it would seem that such meteorites are more common than our initial arguments dictate. IMO, more likely, would be that certain aubrites may be currently misclassified and might turn out to be Mercurian on further analysis. There are some aubrites with anomalous properties, like LaPaz Icefield 03719, Mount Egerton, NWA 1235 and others. Perhaps one or more of those are Mercurian?
As Martin states, there is much uncertainty right now regarding the Mercury question. The science to support the existence of lunar, martian, and vestan meteorites is much more solid.
Regards and clear skies,
MikeG
|
zagami
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/22/08
Loc: The Big Sky
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Glassthrower]
#2891397 - 01/27/09 04:08 PM Attachment (34 downloads)
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi All
The first article I linked to at:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Metic..30..269L
provides direct answers to most of the questions Mike poses. Also TKW is a tough indicator of much. Spectrographic measurements of the asteroids place the carbonaceous ones has abundant, yet that hardly is reflected in our meteorites. Until Allende, the entire class of Cs was rare.
Also, remember that any meteorite with a label has enough similarities with others as to be grouped. There are many odd ducks out there that are ungrouped, and rarely make it onto the consumer radar.
I remember visiting the Hupe's in Seattle and we went to WSU to look at a new specimen in Tony's lab. It was really odd, and for a short time, a Mercurian meteorite was tossed around as a possibility.
In the end, however, it turned out to be an olivine diogenite. I wrote about that adventure in the November 2002 issue of Meteorite Magazine in my column titled: Digging Down Deeper: NWA 1459 - The First Non-Antarctic Olivine Diogenite. Here's a pic of the cover of the issue in case you want to look for it.
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Loc: Oort Cloud 9
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: zagami]
#2891431 - 01/27/09 04:21 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi Martin,
Thanks for sharing your insights and your experiences with olivine diogenite. I have a small micro of NWA 1459 and larger micros of NWA 1877. The largest piece of OD that I have suggests that a large slice would be spectacular to behold, even if it would cost a king's ransom. I didn't know that OD was once considered for Mercurian origin - how I would love to have every back issue of Meteorite! A recent sale on the list saw an entire collection of them sold, but I don't know how much it went for. Such a collection would be an invaluable reference. I treasure my issues.
I agree that TKW is troublesome, and my conjecture was strictly layman arm-chair quarterbacking. I guess the scarcity of carbonaceous meteorites on Earth is testament to their friable nature. Iron asteroids (or huge asteroids with iron cores) are apparently as scarce in space as carbonaceous ones are abundant. Yet, we have a lot of meteoritic iron laying around on Earth, so it says something about their survivability and resistance to weathering, since they fall in smaller numbers compared to others. I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, that enstatite-rich meteorites tend to be friable, so if Mercurian meteorites are enstatite-rich, then wouldn't they have a low survivability and be in very low supply? Especially consider the reduced odds of a Mercurian meteorite arriving here in the first place, then it has to survive the trip through the atmosphere. Then it has to be found, of course. In any case, I would think that Mercurian meteorites would be in short supply - probably more rare than lunars.
Regards and clear skies,
MikeG
|
zagami
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/22/08
Loc: The Big Sky
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Glassthrower]
#2891469 - 01/27/09 04:39 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi Mike,
ODs were not considered Mercurian. Instead, NWA 1459 was an unknown that fell outside of general categories. ODs were Antarctic-only and not at the top of anyone's list of suspects for what 1459 might be. Once it was realized that 1459 was an OD, the case was closed.
Regarding your other questions, I don't know. But while aubrites are generally friable, there are also some fairly durable aspects to them. The article does go into significant detail about the anticipated chemical signature of such a critter along with the author's rational.
Further, there are some stats in the article including the chance of a Mercury meteorite as less than one percent of the chance of a Mars meteorite, and there is roughly a 10 percent chance that "a mercurian rock could exist in current meteorite collections."
However, given that the pub date is well before Meteorites 2.0, the great hot desert invasion, I would venture that the chance one such beast is already in captivity is upwards of 50%.
|
Dick Lipke
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/20/07
Loc: Marine City,Mich.
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Glassthrower]
#2891531 - 01/27/09 05:11 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
That was the main thing that had me baffled. I wondered how could anything on Mercury escape the gravitational pull of the Sun. It would seem there would be some sort of visual evidence on Mercury of a violent collision that had enough force to propel any thing from its surface to escape the Suns pull.
I had mentioned before on CN of a slice of Angrite on e-Bay I was interested in.Then in the Nov. 2008 issue of Astronomy magazine had a story of angrite may have originated from Mercury appeared.The next day the price for that slice tripled.
The article even had photos of NWA 2999 from the Greg Hupe collection.
There was a article last year in Meteorite magazine that disputed the claim of angrite coming from Mercury.
|
Talstarone
Lunar Man
Reged: 09/12/06
Loc: Pinetops, NC
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Dick Lipke]
#2891767 - 01/27/09 07:11 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I could see the chance of some pieces of Mercury making it here.
Now,I would like to see a piece of Venus Make it here.That would be Strictly Amazing.
But just to jump off point for one second,is it NWA 2828 that is No Longer Considered an Aubrite?
And if it isnt 2828 would you know which specimen had been considered an Aubrite for a while, and then had its classification change.
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Loc: Oort Cloud 9
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Talstarone]
#2891805 - 01/27/09 07:27 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
That was the main thing that had me baffled. I wondered how could anything on Mercury escape the gravitational pull of the Sun. It would seem there would be some sort of visual evidence on Mercury of a violent collision that had enough force to propel any thing from its surface to escape the Suns pull.
I had mentioned before on CN of a slice of Angrite on e-Bay I was interested in.Then in the Nov. 2008 issue of Astronomy magazine had a story of angrite may have originated from Mercury appeared.The next day the price for that slice tripled.
The article even had photos of NWA 2999 from the Greg Hupe collection.
There was a article last year in Meteorite magazine that disputed the claim of angrite coming from Mercury.
Hi Dick,
I recall that discussion we had about angrite and the article in meteorite magazine. While the article in the magazine is the opinion of one author, she did present a compelling case for rejecting the Mercury connection. I don't know enough to check her math, but to my ears it certainly sounded convincing. While she did not outright reject the possibility, she did cast very serious doubts on the current arguments for the connection.
Regardless of whether angrite is eventually connected to Mercury, it remains an a very rare type with great interest. Afterall, there are less than 20 known angrites, so they are valuable from a collector's standpoint either way.
Regards and clear skies,
MikeG
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Loc: Oort Cloud 9
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Glassthrower]
#2891833 - 01/27/09 07:36 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I could see the chance of some pieces of Mercury making it here.
Now,I would like to see a piece of Venus Make it here.That would be Strictly Amazing.
But just to jump off point for one second,is it NWA 2828 that is No Longer Considered an Aubrite?
And if it isnt 2828 would you know which specimen had been considered an Aubrite for a while, and then had its classification change.
I have not heard anything official about NWA 2828 being misclassified as an aubrite. AFAIK, the official classification still stands and has not been seriously challenged. But, I will say, from the first moment I laid eyes on NWA 2828, I thought it was weird looking for an aubrite. It doesn't resemble (much) any of the aubrites I have handled or seen. In fact, it reminds me of an EL-type meteorite, or one of the highly-weathered "fossil" meteorites like Al-Haggounia 001.
It's funny, because when I first started collecting, Al-Hagg 001 was officially classified as an EL-3 chondrite. It has since been changed to aubrite in the Met Bulletin. If this is truly the case, then the global TKW of the aubrite class has just swelled dramatically. I have owned several large Al-Hagg 001 fragments and slices, and I have my doubts that they are true aubrites. Of course, they are heavily altered from weathering, so it's hard to tell just by casual examination. But, it would be interesting if Al-Hagg 001 and NWA 2828 turned out to have opposite classification histories - one was EL then changed to aubrite, while the other is aubrite and will be changed to EL.
Al-Hagg and NWA 2828 do look similar, in a casual way, so I tend to think they are of the same petrologic type, with 2828 being a little less weathered/altered. Whatever classification they might finally have, IMO they are very similar.
Regards and clear skies,
MikeG
|
zagami
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/22/08
Loc: The Big Sky
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Glassthrower]
#2892038 - 01/27/09 09:15 PM Attachment (35 downloads)
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Oddly, when there was some major confusion about 2828 (I think there is a formal classification, with a few other scientists that agree to disagree), I was given a hundred grams or so that I could play with as if my opinion mattered. I had no idea, especially given the extreme weathering of the material, and the lack of comparables. I still have the pieces around here somewhere, but can't seem to find them now. But comparing anything weathered to a fresh aubrite is like comparing mud to snow.
Something I forgot to mention is there is a second lithology for Norton County other than the pearly white. Portions of it are jet black with a sprinkling of white needles and inclusions. The material looks a lot like Orgueil but with sharper details. The stuff is beautiful, but rare.
Here's a quick pic of some of the black material in Norton.
|
Talstarone
Lunar Man
Reged: 09/12/06
Loc: Pinetops, NC
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: zagami]
#2892834 - 01/28/09 09:18 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Here is the E-Mail I reeceived from Maria Hass and the link stating that 2828 is no longer being classified as an Aubrite.So,now I am completely confused.
From: Maria Haas <dragonsoup@msn.com>
Subject: RE: IMCA - eBay Item #230279153345
To: advance375a@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 10:54 PM
Hi Todd,
Here's a link to an eBay help page for future reference: http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/questions/revise-item.html. By the time you get this email it will be too late to change your auction for NWA 2828 but I'm sure your buyer will understand your explanation. It is possible that they don't know the classification changed either and will appreciate the additional detailed information about their purchase. I have a piece of NWA 2965 here and it's more important to me that it's a Paleo/Fossil meteorite than an EL3.
If you do decide to put something else up on eBay, I'd be happy to help you with the clickable logo while you're setting up the auction.
Thank you for being so receptive.
Best Wishes,
Maria Haas
Treasurer
I.M.C.A., Inc.
www.IMCA.cc
--- On Mon, 8/11/08, Maria Haas <dragonsoup@msn.com> wrote:
From: Maria Haas <dragonsoup@msn.com>
Subject: IMCA - eBay Item #230279153345
To: advance375a@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 4:35 PM
Hi Todd,
I was just looking at eBay auctions and I found a problem with your NWA 2828 listing, Item #23027915345. There was a conflict with the classifications of 2828 and 2965 because the initial classifications were done in two different labs with small representative samples and the classification has changed. You can read all about it here:
http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html
While this information has been submitted to the Met Bull, it has not yet been published there yet. NWA 2828 is not an Aubrite, it is an Enstatite chondrite (EL3).
Also, your wording about the IMCA could imply a guarantee that does not exist:
"Authenticity Is Guaranteed By My Membership In The IMCA(International Meteorite Collectors Association)(Note:The Cube Is For Scale Size Only, And Is Not Included) "
A better way to word that sentence would be "I am a member of the I.M.C.A. (International Meteorite Collectors Association) and guarantee the authenticity of this specimen."
You put a picture of your logo in your auction (and I used to do that too) but the IMCA requests that you add a "clickable" logo there instead. Instructions on how to do this can be found on the IMCA website at: http://imca.cc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=29
You will have to log-in to view that page. Alternatively, if my link doesn't work, you can click on "Logos" in the menu on the left side of the page to access the instructions.
Please feel free to contact me with questions.
Best Wishes,
Maria Haas
Treasurer
I.M.C.A., Inc.
www.IMCA.cc
Member #5520
Member #5520
Edited by Talstarone (01/28/09 09:20 AM)
|
zagami
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/22/08
Loc: The Big Sky
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: Talstarone]
#2892986 - 01/28/09 10:38 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi Todd,
This kind of confusion is rare, but not unknown in meteorite classification. It is as old as the science. The difference with today's confusion is that it is intertwined in the public marketplace which causes an entirely new layer of repercussions to consider.
The MetBul is online and lists 2828 as an aubrite:
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?code=33302
Published data dumps are still in circulation promoting the aubrite class as well.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2006/pdf/5264.pdf
However, if one keeps digging, even back in 2006, there was concern about the aubrite class. This is a good read on the topic.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.P51E1247K
What stones like 2828 and its siblings have done is shown us the limits of our classification scheme. Applying the same tools and inferences to extremely weathered and ancient material may not work. It's just that the abundance of such material in the past was very small to non-existent.
And regarding the marketplace, the laws covering the advertising of items for sale, and those who trust the laws to protect them, are not used to science's ability (and abject need, for that matter) to change positions on a data-driven result.
As with the 2828 material I was given, it is just sitting somewhere. I remember thinking that all this was so confusing that I'll just wait a year or two till it sorts itself out.
This is just the nature of the sport. If someone needs absolutes, then I can suggest some other man-made hobbies. To me, I actually relish this kind of stuff because it puts the collector right in the middle of the gory details of meteorite science. And for those who feel this is a trial by fire, savor it and learn from it. It will make you a more educated collector bringing new depth to the mystery of these stones and their impact on science and culture.
|
zagami
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/22/08
Loc: The Big Sky
|
Re: Accumulation
[Re: zagami]
#2893053 - 01/28/09 11:00 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
For those who might not read far enough down in the dense abstract about the reclassification of 2828, I have taken the liberty post a paragraph here. The article at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.P51E1247K
states:
"Our original classification was based on a very small specimen of an apparently igneous-textured rock, but the discovery of chondrules and the absence of twinned enstatite now suggests that it is instead an unequilibrated enstatite chondrite.
Additional primary phases noted previously [1] are sodic plagioclase (An14- 15Or3-4), troilite, graphite, daubreelite, alabandite, oldhamite, schreibersite, glass and very rare kamacite. The well-formed, round chondrules containing glass coupled with the unrecrystallized matrix lead us to re-classify NWA 2828 as an EL3 chondrite."
Basically this blames the small piece submitted for classification as not representative of the whole meteorite. This is a common problem when there is either a low TKW, or if there more of a consideration for preserving material for exchange than to donate material for analysis.
Consider all the cross-class meteorites including H/L, L3-6, LL(L)3, L/LL4 and so on. Heck, is a class 7 chondrite even a universally accepted designation? It sure is used in meteorite marketing.
|
|
0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: darklighteditor
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 2288
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
