[meteorite-list] Met List updating was Mbale TKW

[Anne Black]

Yes, but...........

The study of Almahata Sitta is nowhere near finished.
Prof. Bischoff at the University of Muenster is studying each and every 
fragment one at a time, that is how he discovered that one fragment was 
a Bencubbinite. But he has more fragments to go thru. No way to guess 
what else he might find!
And Dr. Bunch called it a "Garbage Pile" of a meteorite, but a very 
nice garbage pile!   ;-)


Anne M. Black
www.IMPACTIKA.com
IMPACTIKA at aol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Mendy Ouzillou <ouzillou at yahoo.com>
To: MEM <mstreman53 at yahoo.com>; Prof. Zelimir Gabelic
 a Université de Haut
 e Alsace ENSCMu, <zelimir.gabelica at uha.fr>
Cc: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; Jeff Grossman 
<jngrossman at gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 11:42 am
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Met List updating  was Mbale TKW


Elton,

Timely question because this specific issue came to mind regarding 
Almahata
Sitta.  AMH has many unique classifications depending on the stone that 
is/was
being analyzed. I think the word used has been "rubble pile", but 
keeping track
of the weights and unique classifications would be of great use.



Mendy Ouzillou


>________________________________
> From: MEM <mstreman53 at yahoo.com>
>To: "Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu,"
<zelimir.gabelica at uha.fr>; Mendy Ouzillou <ouzillou at yahoo.com>
>Cc: "meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com" 
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>;
Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com>
>Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:34 AM
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list]Met List updating  was Mbale TKW
>
>
>
>This is probably for Jeff Grossman but I am curious as to the process 
for
updating details of a meteorite in the bulletin.  A TKW is one that is 
commonly
encountered.  In the case where a follow on researcher reclassifies  
the
meteorite based on a different mineralogy in a second specimen after 
the first
approval is published. Following that line of thought just how do we 
catalog
duel lithology where the lithologies are from entirely different 
classes? 
Examples could be eucrite vs howardite or an EL 5 which we later find 
is mainly
an and Enstatite achondrite in other studied samples. Do you go back 
and change
the classification? Do you catalog both classifications?  Do you stick 
with the
original?
>
>
>Elton
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> FM
>>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mbale TKW
>>
>>Hi Mendy,
>>
>>You are perfectly right, this is not an exact weight (200-250 kg is 
indeed
just a range). I don't have that paper but this is part of the summary 
I got.
But it is clear that this figure is just deriving from a (here 
"breakup") model.
>>
>>I am sorry for my misleading word "update". By this, I meant this 
should
perhaps be added as a side remark to the writeup for Mbale, which I did 
in my
own catalog, understanding that I maintained the official tkw and the 
number of
pieces really collected (or at least reported).
>>
>>Sorry for the confusion. Excellent remark though.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Zelimir
>>
>
>
> 
______________________________________________

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