[meteorite-list] CONCEPTION JUNCTION, MISSOURI PALLASITE - AD/test

[Jeff Grossman]

I released it just now: 
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=53877

Jeff

On 8/27/2011 7:50 PM, Dave Gheesling wrote:
> Michael&  All,
>
> Dr. Wasson submitted his classification of the Conception Junction pallasite
> (PMG) to the Nomenclature Committee last month, and presumably it will be
> posted to the Meteorite Bulletin before long.  Since much of this
> information is not publicly available at the moment, please find below an
> excerpt from Dr. Wasson's contribution to the monograph.  He also complied
> an interesting chart for comparative analysis, but I'm not sure how to post
> that information with plain text.  Anyway, hope this helps answer some of
> the good questions that have been posted:
>
> "The information I report here shows there is no main-group pallasite that
> is closely related to Conception Junction.  Conception Junction is unique.
>
> "If I compare Conception Junction with other main group pallasites (PMG)
> with Au contents within 10% of that in Conception Junction (i.e. in the
> range 2.0 to 2.5 mg/g Au), only Seymchan and PCA 91004 have Ir
> concentrations within a factor of two of that in Conception Junction.
>
> "If I sort on Ir, I find that there is no other PMG among the 40 that I have
> studied that has a closely similar Ir value.  The nearest are Pescora
> Escarpment 91004 (0.76 mg/g Ir), Seymchan (0.67 mg/g) and Barcis, a scarcely
> studied Russian PMG (0.32 mg/g Ir).
>
> "The Co content of this sample is high (6.0 mg/g). If I sort my PMG data on
> the basis of Co, I find that there are three irons with higher Co, namely
> Krasnojarsk, Rawlinna 001 and one sample of Phillips County, and a couple
> more that are slightly lower, namely Springwater and Zaisho.
>
> "The Ni content is also rather low, as is shown in the chart below comparing
> Conception Junction to PCA 91004, Seymchan, Barcis and Krasnojarsk.
>
> "In summary, the composition of the metal in Conception Junction differs
> from all other known pallasites."
>
> All the best,
>
> Dave
> www.fallingrocks.com
> www.conceptionjunctionpallasite.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Fowler
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 4:04 PM
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Cc: Michael Fowler
> Subject: [meteorite-list] CONCEPTION JUNCTION, MISSOURI PALLASITE - AD/test
>
>
>
> Wasson's statement that:
>
> .there is no main-group pallasite that is closely related to Conception
> Junction. Conception Junction is unique."
>
> leaves open the question at to what is the classification?  Is it ungrouped,
> or perhaps, main group anomalous?
>
> I would be most interested to know the major and trace element analysis so I
> could form my own opinion.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mike Fowler
> Chicago
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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