[meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites"forsale - AD

[Martin Altmann]

It's not my conclusion :-)
I'm happy and content with our (at least most of them) HEDs originating from
Vesta.
And I almost can't wait - until Dawn will finally arrive at Vesta next year!

Go Dawn, go!!
Martin

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Shawn
Alan
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2010 13:33
An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of
Angrites"forsale - AD

 Martin and Listers,
 
The paper you provided that "postulates" that HEDS are from Mercury and
Angrites are from Venus suggests that from the solar system zonation model
that would be the case which is in question, but not to suggest that those
classes are from Mercury or Venus but that the model is flawed, which needs
to be reevaluated. Hence, the conclusion is mocking the solar system
zonation model by your postulated statement.  
 
:)~
Shawn Alan

 
 
 
[meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of Angrites"for sale -
ADMartin Altmann altmann at meteorite-martin.de 
Thu Jul 22 07:00:49 EDT 2010 


Previous message: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of
Angrites" for sale - AD 
Next message: [meteorite-list] Springwater 52 Kilo main mass in the news! 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

Huh, I found even a paper, which postulates, that the HEDs are from Mercury 
and the angrites from Venus.... 

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/otp2004/pdf/3012.pdf 



;-) 
Martin 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com 
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason

Utas 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2010 11:27 
An: Shawn Alan; Meteorite-list; Adam Hupe 
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of 
Angrites"for sale - AD 

Shawn, 
Well-said - 
But I can't emphasize enough the fact that such large bodies existed 
in large numbers in the early solar system. That much is obvious from 
the large numbers of ungrouped (and grouped) differentiated 
achondrites that we have in our collections here on earth, as well as 
from all various types of iron meteorites, which represent the cores 
of diffeentiated planetismals. All in all, we have meteorites that 
suggest well over 30-40 such bodies in the early solar system, and 
computer-run models in some cases suggest hundreds of such bodies. 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1d.html 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#For

mation_of_planets 

Note that wikipedia suggests 50-100 such bodies. I wouldn't usually 
reference wikipedia for something like this, but see references 35-36 
for the article - that's actually a decent estimate that's been backed 
up by some serious work done by experts -- it's not just a crap 
wikipedia reference. 

So, angrites may be from Mercury. If we say that, regardless of their 
composition and history, they just needed to be from a large 
planetismal capable of some metamorphic activity, then we've got a 
1/50 to 1/100 chance that angrites are, in fact, from Mercury. 

The trouble is that their chemistry and age suggest that they're not 
from Mercury. 

I agree. They *might* be from Mercury. And yes, some smart people 
have said that they *might* be from Mercury. 
But it seems to me that this article is being deemed credible because 
of its authors, and not because of what it actually says. 


>I do not refute Melinda Hutson's article that was never peer reviewed and 

contains several errors according to the classifying scientists. I asked 
scientists about the article and they stated, it is obvious that she didn't 
read 
the original peer reviewed abstract carefully, even mistaking the type of 
petrology that was discussed using formulas that simply do not apply to the 
texture NWA 2999 exhibits. 

I'd like to know what these errors were, and how the error might have 
affected her conclusions. Perhaps Adam or someone else would be 
willing to explain her errors and how they suggest that angrites are 
actually from Mercury. 

Seems like this is the perfect sort of topic for the list... 

Regards, 
Jason 









Previous message: [meteorite-list] Its official! NWA 6291 "The King of
Angrites" for sale - AD 
Next message: [meteorite-list] Springwater 52 Kilo main mass in the news! 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

More information about the Meteorite-list mailing 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