[meteorite-list] Novato update

Wed May 1 16:15:33 EDT 2013

Hello Michael, Carl,
Michael: You're assuming far too much about his motives.
Carl: I think he's figured that out by now.  The delay still doesn't
affect anyone in a tangible way.
Regards,
Jason

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com> wrote:
> I'm just saying that in the scientific world the same bullshit seems to be
> happening as in the private sector. Everyone is guarding their territory and
> all for self gain. I am in Russia and I've
> been hunting more than a week and haven't seen scientist one out here in the
> mud. But I am sure I will hear crying when I am selling Chelyabinsk back
> home. I have already spread it throughout the world via donations and sales
> so all can work as they see fit without a boss overseer.
> At least I can admit it:)
> Mike
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 12:57 AM, Carl Agee <agee at unm.edu> wrote:
>
> Jason
> People can take as much time as they please before submittal for
> classification. All I am saying is that no science on it can be published at
> LPSC or MetSoc if it is not classified. Also the name Novato hasn't been
> approved.
> Carl Agee
>
> On May 1, 2013 11:50 AM, "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>> 1) I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.  Dr.
>> Jenniskens went through the work of obtaining the type specimen and he
>> should be able to work on it as he sees fit.  If that delays the
>> publication of the meteorite for a few months, it doesn't matter.
>> Doing so does not adversely affect anyone or anything, in any way.
>>
>> 2) Carl -- I think the difference here is that the stone has had all
>> of the work necessary for approval completed, but it is being held up
>> so that Dr. Jenniskens can oversee the additional work that is being
>> done.  If he had given the type sample to UCLA earlier on, he might
>> not have been able to accommodate sample requests (and he has been
>> very forthcoming with doing so), so I think it's less a matter of
>> control as one of opportunity.  Many of the studies that have been
>> performed on the rock are not often done on equilibrated ordinary
>> chondrites.  It's still valuable information, but not data that is
>> usually included in a Meteoritical Bulletin writeup.
>>
>> Which isn't to say that UCLA is not capable of doing the same,
>> but....none of this matters.  The stone will be approved and UCLA will
>> get their type specimen.  Since Dr. Rubin already received a small
>> sample in order to describe the stone petrographically, he is included
>> in the consortium and will be a co-author in any publications turned
>> out by it (thus rendering Michael Farmer's most recent criticism
>> somewhat moot).  Since Dr. Jenniskens did put in a lot of trajectory
>> calculation/outreach/recovery effort, I don't see why he's not
>> entitled to work on the specimen first.
>>
>> 3) The destructive work mentioned by some in a negative light includes
>> many studies outlined here:
>>
>> http://asima.seti.org/n/
>>
>> Stuff like Ar-Ar dating, raman spectroscopy, and other studies require
>> the dissolution or otherwise destruction of small portions of the
>> meteorite.  It's standard procedure.  Most of those kinds of studies
>> aren't performed on your average equilibrated chondrite fall, though,
>> so...be glad that it's happening with this one.  More of this kind of
>> information could help us better understand the histories of these
>> bodies in the solar system.
>>
>> So for those of you saying that SETI/Dr. Jenniskens is doing things
>> they can't or shouldn't....they're not.  They're just organizing
>> things.
>>
>> 4) Having met with Lisa Webber and Glen Rivera a few times after they
>> handed N#1 over to Dr. Jenniskens, I don't think Richard Montgomery's
>> statement holds any water, either.  They seemed genuinely happy to
>> provide the stone for analysis. I can't see how or why that would have
>> changed in the time since then, since they had already handed over the
>> stone and clearly expected ~20+ grams to go to an institution.
>>
>> 5) Some people seem to not like Dr. Jenniskens.  I loaned them N#5 for
>> non-destructive work and picked it up in person last Friday night.
>> SETI's pretty cool, and they seem to be doing good work, most of it
>> pertaining to asteroids, near-Earth/Earth-crossing bodies, Mars, and a
>> variety of other things.  This kind of thing is really right up their
>> alley.
>>
>> 6) Michael Mulgrew's recent comment makes no sense to me.  Every
>> meteorite must be studied to some extent prior to publication, or it
>> could not be published.  Some meteorites require O-isotope analyses,
>> some require trapped gas analyses, and others require only a few
>> mineralogical data points and a petrographic description.  Where to
>> draw that line can be somewhat arbitrary, but one must be careful.
>> There was some confusion a few years ago because O-isotope data was
>> not obtained on a new NWA acapulcoite, and it was classified as an
>> winonaite.  Later pairings were worked on more thoroughly.  Novato is
>> a little different because we all know it's an L6, but still.  The
>> write-up in the bulletin will reflect the variety of analyses
>> performed on the rock, I'm sure.  Since most folks wouldn't go through
>> the trouble of doing this much work on an L6, I'm glad that someone is
>> organizing it.
>>
>> 7) Re: Jim's comments about find numbers (and apparently bragging
>> rights) -- No.  Without the 'consortium,' publicly posted numbers,
>> etc. we would have much less of an idea of where/how many of the
>> Sutter's Mill meteorites were recovered.  The majority of the
>> information shared on the SETI website would not be known, the strewn
>> field would be poorly known (relative to now), etc.  And the fall is
>> now well-documented, and the information is publicly shared.  That's
>> worth a heck of a lot.
>>
>> How many of you checked the SETI website for updates while hunting for
>> SM or N?  Yeah.  Useful.
>>
>> Really not sure where all of the criticism is coming from.  This
>> meteorite isn't lost.  It's not in limbo.  It's being studied and will
>> be approved.  This should be done with in a few months.  A scientist
>> wants to do a thorough job on it.  Sounds good to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I seem to think this is a control issue. Someone wants total control
>> > over the meteorite. Sad to dominate a meteorite fall.
>> > Never seen this type of action before.
>> > Submission changes nothing about the science or the papers released
>> > later. It is simply the act of registering the meteorite officially. I think
>> > they don't want to release the type specimen or else the receiving
>> > institution (UCLA) or (NASA) will then possibly release papers outside the
>> > control of the "Consortium"?
>> > My two kopeks.
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> > On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Carl Agee <agee at unm.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm having a hard time understanding this "problem" with Novato. Since
>> >> when do deposit samples not get analyzed and worked on? Maybe I'm
>> >> missing something here but the way I do it, is the sample gets ID-ed
>> >> and classified and then if it merits further research that happens
>> >> next, in that order. For example, you cannot submit an abstract to
>> >> LPSC or MetSoc on an unclassified or provisional meteorite.
>> >> Classification is absolutely the first thing that should happen.
>> >>
>> >> Carl Agee
>> >> --
>> >> Carl B. Agee
>> >> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>> >> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>> >> MSC03 2050
>> >> University of New Mexico
>> >> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>> >>
>> >> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>> >> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>> >> Email: agee at unm.edu
>> >> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, hunting costs money, lots and lots of it. Ask me, I'm on the
>> >>> other side of the planet right now and western unions as coming in daily. No
>> >>> credit cards accepted where I am:)
>> >>> But we have responsibilities. Pay to play, including getting the type
>> >>> specimen properly curated. I am in 100% agreement with the noncom on this
>> >>> one.
>> >>> Science must come first.
>> >>>
>> >>> Michael Farmer
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>
>> >>> On May 1, 2013, at 7:38 AM, robert crane <rrobber1 at msn.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> The problem I have is every one should spend their hard earned money
>> >>>> in the field looking for these damn things to ease the people that don't
>> >>>> leave their driveway.  I'm sorry before u bitch and complain get off your
>> >>>> ass and not spend time in Stewart Valley or in Franconia getting DCA crap
>> >>>> classified. Work in the field and contribute. Make a contribution to science
>> >>>> before u bitch about other people. Hunting ain't free.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, "Richard Montgomery"
>> >>>> <rickmont at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> One of the stones from this find was "lent" to the NASA team, with
>> >>>>> an open mind and naivte perhaps; a situation that definitely shook her by
>> >>>>> total surprise and dismay, when another finder of another stone offered a
>> >>>>> perspective.  She wasn't pleased to learn that she may never see it again.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Verish"
>> >>>>> <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>> >>>>> To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral"
>> >>>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:34 AM
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks Rob,
>> >>>>> for clearing the air and getting this thread back on track.
>> >>>>> And now that the dust has settled, we're back to my original
>> >>>>> concern:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Why do we have to wait for just the name to be approved?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Here is the question I am posing to the List, stated another way:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If everyone is in agreement with the Jenniskins arrangement, then
>> >>>>> why can't the Committee credit UCLA for the type specimen and move forward
>> >>>>> with approving at least the name "Novato" (if need be, at least
>> >>>>> provisionally)? I mean, what is the difference whether the type specimen
>> >>>>> goes first to UCLA, then goes to NASA, or vice-versa? I mean, for goodness
>> >>>>> sake, it's NASA we're talking about here.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Why do we have to wait for the results from the consortium before we
>> >>>>> know the approved name of this meteorite?
>> >>>>> I mean, we didn't even have a consensus classification for Sutter's
>> >>>>> Mill, but that name still got approved! We didn't have to wait for the
>> >>>>> results of the consortium, then. Why now?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But before I conclude, allow me to state several things
>> >>>>> FOR THE RECORD:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Contrary to any unfounded assertions that may get printed on this
>> >>>>> List, there is no "problem" getting type-specimens from finders to
>> >>>>> researchers:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There were 8 Sutter's Mill finds donated from finders & property
>> >>>>> owners.
>> >>>>> The name "Sutter's Mill" was approved BEFORE a classification could
>> >>>>> be agreed upon and long before the consortium published their results.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There were 2 Battle Mountain specimens voluntarily donated by
>> >>>>> finders to researchers. The name "Battle Mountain" was approved 30 days
>> >>>>> after the fall. What delay?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Other US falls with "no problems" getting type-specimens:
>> >>>>> Mifflin, Lorton, Whetstone Mtns, Ash Creek - no delays in name
>> >>>>> approval.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Finders of the "Novato" meteorite were making arrangements to submit
>> >>>>> type specimens to researchers, prior to Jenniskins announcement to the Press
>> >>>>> that he was submitting the Webber stone as a type specimen. Days after his
>> >>>>> announcement is when I finally made my Novato find, and at that time I never
>> >>>>> dreamt we would be having this discussion in 2013. If it becomes necessary,
>> >>>>> I am prepared (as are other finders) to submit a type specimen to UCLA. But
>> >>>>> not until we all have been given a proper explanation.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -- Bob V.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --- On Mon, 4/29/13, Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>> >>>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>> >>>>>> To: "Pat Brown" <scientificlifestyle at hotmail.com>, "Jim Wooddell"
>> >>>>>> <jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net>, "Met List"
>> >>>>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> >>>>>> Date: Monday, April 29, 2013, 8:51 PM
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi All,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I've been informed by one of the Novato finders that this is
>> >>>>>> a non-issue.
>> >>>>>> Dr. Jenniskens has long-since pledged to donate more
>> >>>>>> than adequate Novato type specimen to UCLA for it to be
>> >>>>>> approved by the Nomenclature Committee. That it hasn't happened
>> >>>>>> already is simply because Dr. Jenniskens wished to ensure that all
>> >>>>>> academic requests for meteoritical material were handled promptly.
>> >>>>>> 29 grams
>> >>>>>> of the first recovered stone were generously donated by Lisa
>> >>>>>> Webber to SETI for scientific analysis; of that, whatever is not
>> >>>>>> consumed
>> >>>>>> in destructive analyses has been promised to UCLA.
>> >>>>>> So there is no cause for alarm; people just need to be patient.
>> >>>>>> --Rob
>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Actually, it's still the "Novato" (provisional) meteorite.
>> >>>>>> It still is not in the Meteoritical Bulletin.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This is the slice that Brien Cook originally cut with the intention
>> >>>>>> of submitting it to UCLA.  But when he read that someone else was going to
>> >>>>>> supply the type-specimen, he then placed it on eBay.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It would be nice if some Institute or consortium would make an
>> >>>>>> offer and try to repatriate this slice and make it a type-specimen so that
>> >>>>>> this US-fall could finally be made "official".   All I'm saying is, this
>> >>>>>> "leaving an official-status hanging-in-mid-air" would never happen in
>> >>>>>> Canada. They would just simply buy the type-specimen.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It's time for the US to catch-up with Canada.  It's time for a
>> >>>>>> change.
>> >>>>>> 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
>> >>> ______________________________________________
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Carl B. Agee
>> >> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>> >> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>> >> MSC03 2050
>> >> University of New Mexico
>> >> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>> >>
>> >> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>> >> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>> >> Email: agee at unm.edu
>> >> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
>> > ______________________________________________
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>