Dear Rhett,Bernd and list In general when obtaining a measurement outside the norm (here Fa% for H within 17-20), the inference "this is an anomalous meteorite" should not be put forward before answering the questions:
-does the norm apply to this case? (obviously not for type 3 which by definition show a large range in Fa%, with an average showing a standard deviation of several %) -then is there systematic bias? (possible for weathered finds, oxidation of olivine starts by turning Fe to rust therefore decreasing Fa%) -is the Fa% measurement well calibrated and what is the error bar? (It is really difficult to get absolute precision below half a percent for this parameter) -is the studied sample representative? -is the meteorite correctly classified? (possible case of Oviedo which may turn to be an L) excluding type 3, finds and incompletely classified meteorites and allowing for a half percent error leave practically no anomalies in Bernd's list! By the way why is Burnwell not fully classified? Pierre ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
