Re: [meteorite-list] Habital Planet Discovery Announcement
See you there at the Bar, Guido. Icecubes not necessary, and heavy enough to rest for a while. Waiting for very strange meteorites to come in. Best, Matthias - Original Message - From: countde...@earthlink.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:37 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Habital Planet Discovery Announcement Hello List, Maybe...just maybe... http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100929/sc_afp/usastronomyplanet_20100929210707 Best to all, Count Deiro IMCA 3536 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Tr : Tr : AW: nwa 5400 pairing to nwa 5363
hi all, albert wrote today to me. he said, ' I did write to Norbert. He has the data now. . thanks albert for your effort and your help ; and thanks norbert for helping this issue to move on to the good way. do we have this data now all the best aziz habibi - Message transféré De : Norbert Classen riffr...@timewarp.de À : habibi abdelaziz azizhab...@yahoo.com; meteorite list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Envoyé le : Mer 29 septembre 2010, 23h 11min 20s Objet : AW: [meteorite-list] nwa 5400 pairing to nwa 5363 Dear Aziz All, You wrote: he said too that he has given all the data that confirm the pairing including the isotope to norbert classen in end june where they talk abaout this and as i asked him to do so. Maybe there's a slight misunderstanding here. I actually emailed with Dr. Jambon in June, and we also intended to meet at the Ste. Marie Show at the end of June where Dr. Jambon wanted to show me all the data (including the O-isotope data). However, unfortunatelly we missed each other at the show, and so the meeting didn't take place. Don't get me wrong, I have no reason to doubt Dr. Jambon's word on this - I just wanted to get the facts straight. Maybe you misunderstood Dr. Jambon? But up to this day I haven't seen the O-isotope data for NWA 5363. All I have seen is a writeup on NWA 5363 which didn't include the O-isotope data. Again, that doesn't mean much, and I'm also looking forward to the official publication of NWA 5363. This will hopefully answer all the questions. We all need to remember that meteorite classification (including the voting process on new meteorites at the NomCom of the Meteoritical Society) takes time. So we as collectors should, IMHO, be patient, and wait with conclusions until the scientific work has been done and published. All the best, Norbert -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- hi all and i m happy that this issue is becoming a very polit and civilised discussion; well 3 months that i do not want to get caught inside this discussion any more, but well this is becoming repeated to a point that we forget what the debat is about, for nwa 5363; i get a talk on albert jambon mobile , i asked him that many dealers or collectors still think that nwa 5400 is not paired to nwa 5363 and he answered me this. he said that he have submited to the nomcom all the information, and he coudln't have said that they are paired if he haven't done isotope so clearly he indicate that he has done isotope and have submited them to the nomcom dr wisberg or so , its on the phone. and he said he is surprised why the nomcom didn't pubilsh them yet, he said too that he has given all the data that confirm the pairing including the isotope to norbert classen in end june where they talk abaout this and as i asked him to do so. so i ask here do we have any guy from the nomcom here , please end this torture and tell us if you have this data or not,and why you didn't publish them. thanks aziz habibi __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Albert JAMBON UPMC Univ Paris 06 (UMR 7193) Institut des Sciences de la Terre Paris Laboratoire Magie 46-0 4eme étage, Case 110 4 place jussieu 75252 Paris Cedex O5 France Tel: 33 (0) 144 27 51 35 FAX: 33 (0) 144 27 39 11 Vient de paraître : Géochimie : géodynamique et cycles http://www.dunod.com/auteur-dunod-9782100516124-76933-albert-jambon.html Parcours de Planétologie d'Ile de France http://www.aerov.jussieu.fr/themes/APACHE/PlanetoIDF/index.html Site du master SDUEE http://www.master.sduee.upmc.fr __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Habital Planet Discovery Announcement
Yep, Any emerging life forms on the new planet would have a wide range of stable climates to choose from and to evolve around, depending on their longitude, Vogt said. If it has a bound rotation, one side always facing the sun and if it has a dense atmosphere, and if it has water - then I would expect it to have a catastrophic climate. (And we'd need moore gravity for not being blown away by the tempests...) Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Sterling K. Webb Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 04:28 An: countde...@earthlink.net; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Habital Planet Discovery Announcement Hi, Count, List, Also reported here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth-like-exoplanet-possibly-habitabl e-100929.html The finder is excessively enthusiastic about the chances of life. There are problems with a three-earth-mass. It will not be like a Big Earth. It's more complicated than that. (The Yahoo article has the mass wrong, BTW.) If you start with the same recipe mix of ingredients as the Earth and just made a bigger batch of planet, is it just the same as the Earth, only more so? Nope, more of the same is definitely not the same. If the Earth were bigger, the volume of water would increase faster than the increase in surface area, so the oceans would be deeper. Because of the deeper oceans and the greater gravity, the pressures at the bottoms of those oceans would be much higher. Continents and their mountains would be much lower, because the temperatures in the crust would increase faster with depth, until the fluid point would be reached in the crust instead of the mantle like it is on our Earth. Mountains can only pile up until the pressures under them are about 3000 to 3500 atmospheres, and that zone would be reached at shallower and shallower depths on a bigger and bigger Earth. Since the solid crust of a larger Earth would be much thinner, heat transfer to the surface much faster, vulcanism much livelier, plate tectonics much zippier. This Earth has a diameter 1.40 times that of our Earth: 11,200 miles across. It would have twice the surface area, 2.75 times the volume, and 3 times the mass (compressibility squishes). It's surface gravity would be 51% greater. If the planet is four Earth masses, its diameter would be 1.58 times the Earth's without accounting for compressibility and about 1.50 to 1.53 Earth radii squished. Its surface gravity would be 73% greater than the Earth's, in that case. But I'll continue to calculate based on three E-masses... Because it would have 3 times the water but only two times the surface, the average ocean depth would be about 4500 meters! The pressure at the depths of these oceans would be about 9000 atmospheres. The highest mountains possible would be about 4000 meters (calculating from the median diameter), so if you were the greatest mountain climber on this Super Earth, standing on the top of Super Earth's highest mountain, you would still have 500 meters of water above you! On our Earth, the crust is about 30 kilometers thick, but the lithosphere (rocks that stay stiff and not slushy and slippy) is about 75 kilometers, so the Earth's lithosphere contains all the crust and the top part of the mantle. The crust of the Super Earth would be about 60 km thick, but the lithosphere would only be about 40 kilometers thick. This means that it would be very difficult to sink pieces of crust (subduction) and equally difficult to bring deep basalt magmas to the surface. On the other hand, the Super Earth's silicate crust would be recylced very rapidly with lots of local vulcanism and lots of hotspots and have a very similar composition everywhere. The only weathering that would be possible would be chemical, because all the volitiles are released into the oceans rather than the atmosphere. So a bigger Earth is not just a bigger Earth. Knowing that somebody will ask how much bigger a bigger Earth has to be before there's no land at all, just oceans, the answer is: somewhere between 2-1/2 and 3 Earth masses is the point where the median ocean depths equal the height of the highest possible mountain. Whoops! No continents. This Super Earth is a WaterWorld! Possibly very few islands. That's serious. It means No Surfing, because there's no land for the waves to break on. It's almost certain that it would have more water than our Earth, because the star is metall-poor (see below). A red dwarf is a main sequence star: once a dwarf, always a dwarf. It's just a low-mass star with a longer lifetime (25 billion years?) than our Sun (10 billion years?). At a third of a solar mass, it's got a respectable little heliosphere and all the usual solar (or stellar) apparatus, just less extensive than a G0 dwarf star like us. But it doesn't have as big
[meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question
Hi All, I'm a confessed specific gravity advocate for all things mineralogical, including meteorites. It seems to me that there is very little useful specific gravity information on the web concerning meteorites, with the singular exception of Randy L. Korotev', excellent website at Washington University in St. Louis; an informative website listing various specific gravity values for various meteorite types and classifications. It occurs to me that many people may not be taking specific gravity measurements of their meteorite specimens because of some sort of biased but unfounded fear of specimen contamination. Is this true? One of the benefits of measuring specific gravity is in being able to spot density anomalies in meteorites. For example, you procure a small meteorite specimen of a meteorite has been classified as an L ordinary stoney chondrite, with a range of specific gravity values, as found on Professor Korotev' s.g. list, of between 2.50 and 3.96 (with an average s.g. of 3.35). When you, yourself, measure the specific gravity of your L chondrite, and it's s.g. value comes in at 4.06, what does that mean? Would such a s.g. reading #1: be possible? And #2: be meaningful? Are meteorite specific gravity values exclusively constrained to the range of values that the scientists peg them at? And, if not, if actual specific gravity measurements cam occur outside the conventionally accepted range of values of the experts, should anyone give a hoot one way or another? Best wishes, Dave Gunning __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question
Hi, Here is the way around contamination http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug99/densityMeasure.html. Guy Consolmagno has published data for hundreds of meteorites. Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of David Gunning Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:46 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Subject: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question Hi All, I'm a confessed specific gravity advocate for all things mineralogical, including meteorites. It seems to me that there is very little useful specific gravity information on the web concerning meteorites, with the singular exception of Randy L. Korotev', excellent website at Washington University in St. Louis; an informative website listing various specific gravity values for various meteorite types and classifications. It occurs to me that many people may not be taking specific gravity measurements of their meteorite specimens because of some sort of biased but unfounded fear of specimen contamination. Is this true? One of the benefits of measuring specific gravity is in being able to spot density anomalies in meteorites. For example, you procure a small meteorite specimen of a meteorite has been classified as an L ordinary stoney chondrite, with a range of specific gravity values, as found on Professor Korotev' s.g. list, of between 2.50 and 3.96 (with an average s.g. of 3.35). When you, yourself, measure the specific gravity of your L chondrite, and it's s.g. value comes in at 4.06, what does that mean? Would such a s.g. reading #1: be possible? And #2: be meaningful? Are meteorite specific gravity values exclusively constrained to the range of values that the scientists peg them at? And, if not, if actual specific gravity measurements cam occur outside the conventionally accepted range of values of the experts, should anyone give a hoot one way or another? Best wishes, Dave Gunning __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question]
--- Original Message Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question From:David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Date:Thu, September 30, 2010 7:55 am To: Peter Scherff petersche...@rcn.com - Howdy, Thanks for the e-burp. There was no link, however, to the published data for hundreds of meteorites, mentioned in your e-burp. Why allude to information that cannot be referenced and verified? While it's interesting to read of your specific gravity bead method, there are other less convoluted ways or dealing with the fear of potential contamination in meteorites and mineral samples, in general. What particularly interests me is exploring ways and utilizing lower tech methods that bring the ordinary collector into the the loop. Your suggested method would seem to exclude that possibility. Hi, Here is the way around contamination http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug99/densityMeasure.html. Guy Consolmagno has published data for hundreds of meteorites. Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of David Gunning Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:46 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Subject: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question Hi All, I'm a confessed specific gravity advocate for all things mineralogical, including meteorites. It seems to me that there is very little useful specific gravity information on the web concerning meteorites, with the singular exception of Randy L. Korotev', excellent website at Washington University in St. Louis; an informative website listing various specific gravity values for various meteorite types and classifications. It occurs to me that many people may not be taking specific gravity measurements of their meteorite specimens because of some sort of biased but unfounded fear of specimen contamination. Is this true? One of the benefits of measuring specific gravity is in being able to spot density anomalies in meteorites. For example, you procure a small meteorite specimen of a meteorite has been classified as an L ordinary stoney chondrite, with a range of specific gravity values, as found on Professor Korotev' s.g. list, of between 2.50 and 3.96 (with an average s.g. of 3.35). When you, yourself, measure the specific gravity of your L chondrite, and it's s.g. value comes in at 4.06, what does that mean? Would such a s.g. reading #1: be possible? And #2: be meaningful? Are meteorite specific gravity values exclusively constrained to the range of values that the scientists peg them at? And, if not, if actual specific gravity measurements cam occur outside the conventionally accepted range of values of the experts, should anyone give a hoot one way or another? Best wishes, Dave Gunning __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question]
Hi Dave, Father Guy's results are published in Meteoritics. I am at work now and can't look up the issue/s. Thanks, Peter __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question]
Hi, Dave, You should try actually reading the references that people give to help you with your question. If you had, you would have found the citation to the published data in about 30 seconds, just like I did: Consolmagno, G. J. and D. T. Britt, 1998, The Density and Porosity of Meteorites from the Vatican Collection, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, vol. 33, p. 1231-1241. Getting unpaid internet access to a scholarly journal is another matter, though. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:08 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question] --- Original Message Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question From:David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Date:Thu, September 30, 2010 7:55 am To: Peter Scherff petersche...@rcn.com - Howdy, Thanks for the e-burp. There was no link, however, to the published data for hundreds of meteorites, mentioned in your e-burp. Why allude to information that cannot be referenced and verified? While it's interesting to read of your specific gravity bead method, there are other less convoluted ways or dealing with the fear of potential contamination in meteorites and mineral samples, in general. What particularly interests me is exploring ways and utilizing lower tech methods that bring the ordinary collector into the the loop. Your suggested method would seem to exclude that possibility. Hi, Here is the way around contamination http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug99/densityMeasure.html. Guy Consolmagno has published data for hundreds of meteorites. Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of David Gunning Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:46 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Subject: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question Hi All, I'm a confessed specific gravity advocate for all things mineralogical, including meteorites. It seems to me that there is very little useful specific gravity information on the web concerning meteorites, with the singular exception of Randy L. Korotev', excellent website at Washington University in St. Louis; an informative website listing various specific gravity values for various meteorite types and classifications. It occurs to me that many people may not be taking specific gravity measurements of their meteorite specimens because of some sort of biased but unfounded fear of specimen contamination. Is this true? One of the benefits of measuring specific gravity is in being able to spot density anomalies in meteorites. For example, you procure a small meteorite specimen of a meteorite has been classified as an L ordinary stoney chondrite, with a range of specific gravity values, as found on Professor Korotev' s.g. list, of between 2.50 and 3.96 (with an average s.g. of 3.35). When you, yourself, measure the specific gravity of your L chondrite, and it's s.g. value comes in at 4.06, what does that mean? Would such a s.g. reading #1: be possible? And #2: be meaningful? Are meteorite specific gravity values exclusively constrained to the range of values that the scientists peg them at? And, if not, if actual specific gravity measurements cam occur outside the conventionally accepted range of values of the experts, should anyone give a hoot one way or another? Best wishes, Dave Gunning __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Rocks from Space Picture of the Day - September 30, 2010
http://www.rocksfromspace.org/September_30_2010.html __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NASA's EPOXI Mission Sets Up for Comet Hartley 2 Flyby
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-317 NASA's EPOXI Mission Sets Up for Comet Flyby Jet Propulsion Laboratory September 29, 2010 PASADENA, Calif. - Earlier today, navigators and mission controllers for NASA's EPOXI mission watched their computer screens as 23.6 million kilometers (14.7 million miles) away, their spacecraft successfully performed its 20th trajectory correction maneuver. The maneuver refined the spacecraft's orbit, setting the stage for its flyby of comet Hartley 2 on Nov. 4. Time of closest approach to the comet was expected to be about 10: 02 a.m. EDT (7:02 a.m. PDT). Today's trajectory correction maneuver began at 2 p.m. EDT (11 a.m. PDT) today, when the spacecraft fired its engines for 60 seconds, changing the spacecraft's velocity by 1.53 meters per second (3.4 mph). We are about 23 million miles and 36 days away from our comet, said EPOXI project manager Tim Larson of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. I can't wait to see what Hartley 2 looks like. On Nov. 4, the spacecraft will fly past the comet at a distance of about 700 kilometers (435 miles). It will be only the fifth time in history that a spacecraft has been close enough to image a comet's nucleus, and the first time in history that two comets have been imaged with the same instruments and same spatial resolution. We are imaging the comet every day, and Hartley 2 is proving to be a worthy target for exploration, said Mike A'Hearn, EPOXI principal investigator from the University of Maryland, College Park. EPOXI is an extended mission that utilizes the already in flight Deep Impact spacecraft to explore distinct celestial targets of opportunity. The name EPOXI itself is a combination of the names for the two extended mission components: the extrasolar planet observations, called Extrasolar Planet Observations and Characterization (EPOCh), and the flyby of comet Hartley 2, called the Deep Impact Extended Investigation (DIXI). The spacecraft will continue to be referred to as Deep Impact. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., manages the EPOXI mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. The University of Maryland, College Park, is home to the mission's principal investigator, Michael A'Hearn. Drake Deming of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., is the science lead for the mission's extrasolar planet observations. The spacecraft was built for NASA by Ball Aerospace Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo. For more information about EPOXI visit http://epoxi.umd.edu/. DC Agle 818-393-9011 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. a...@jpl.nasa.gov 2010-317 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] '100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet?
Wow - 100% chance of life; how do they figure that? Still want that ticket - only 20 light-years away. Could stay a whole year - 37 days. So that would be about 9 days for each season - WOW! Greg S. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30/100-percent-chance-for-life-on-newly-found-planet/?hpt=C2 '100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet? Gliese 581g may be the new Earth. A team of astronomers from the University of California and the Carnegie Institute of Washington say they've found a planet like ours, 20 light years (120 trillion miles) from Earth, where the basic conditions for life are good. The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent, Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. I have almost no doubt about it. The planet is three times the size of Earth, but the gravity is similar. Dr. Elizabeth Cunningham, planetarium astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, says the discovery is a huge deal. It could have liquid water on the surface, she said. That's the first step to find life. The Gliese 581 system's orbit compared to our own solar system. The planet labeled G is the one scientists believe could very likely support life. There are hundreds of known extrasolar planets that have been discovered in the Milky Way, but this is the first that could support life. Earthlings won't be traveling to Gliese 581g any time soon unfortunately. Scientists say a spaceship traveling close to the speed of light would take 20 years to make this journey. But if we did - we'd find some other things familiar. The atmosphere and gravity are similar to Earth, and if you're from the polar regions, you'd definitely feel right at home. Scientists say the highest average temperature is about -12 degrees Celcius (10 Fahrenheit), but they point out that the planet doesn't have a night and day - one side continually faces the star and the other side faces the darkness of space. This means one side is blazing hot and the other freezing cold. Gliese orbits a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. Cunningham says it's a Goldilocks planet. It's not too hot, it's not too cold, it's just right for water to form, Cunningham said. The area is called the Goldilocks zone. Other planets near Gliese 581g have been discovered, but they are not habitable and are mainly comprised of gas. Gliese 581g, however, is a rocky planet. It was discovered using the Keck telescope in Hawaii which has been observing the star Gliese 581 for 11 years. Keck's long-term observations of the wobble of nearby stars enabled the detection of this multi-planetary system, said Mario R. Perez, Keck program scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington. Astronomers are excited this new planet was discovered so fast and relatively close by. I'm surprised we found one so fast, Cunningham said. The implication is either we were very lucky or these planets could be relatively common. Gliese 581g is in the constellation of Libra. While Earth takes 365 days to orbit our star, the sun, Gliese 581g orbits its star in 37 days. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] MRO HiRISE Images - September 29, 2010
MARS RECONNAISSANCE ORBITER HIRISE IMAGES September 29, 2010 o Linear Dunes and Sand Sheets in Herschel Crater http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_016916_1655 o Layered Bedrock in Oyama Crater near Mawrth Valles http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_018820_2035 o Very Fine Layers in Juventae Chasma http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_002590_1765 o Kaiser Crater Dune Field http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003141_1330 o Pedestal Crater in the Medusa Fossae Formation http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003253_1880 o Ares Vallis Cataract http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003538_1885 All of the HiRISE images are archived here: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ Information about the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is online at http://www.nasa.gov/mro. The mission is managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology, for the NASA Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. Lockheed Martin Space Systems, of Denver, is the prime contractor and built the spacecraft. HiRISE is operated by the University of Arizona. Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp., of Boulder, Colo., built the HiRISE instrument. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] New Paper About Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis
Dear Friends, A new paper about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis has been published. Associated with it are a number of comments, both pro and con, about it. The paper is: Holliday, V. T., and D. J. Meltzer, 2010, The 12.9-ka ET Impact Hypothesis and North American Paleoindians. Current Anthropology. vol. 51, pp. 575–607 (Oct. 2010) 0011-3204/2010/5105-0002 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/656015 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/656015 The Current Anthropology press release about the above paper can be found at: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/story/10.1086/pr.2010.09.29.3011 Comments about this paper is “No Evidence For Clovis Comet Catastrophe, Archaeologists Say” by Alton Parrish at: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/195/688/No_Evidence_For_Clovis_Comet_Catastrophe,_Archaeologists_Say.html Yours, Paul H. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] '100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet?
I have 100% certainty that someone just bought themselves 15 minutes of fame, and that's about it. Interesting planet - from what I understand it is tidally locked with its star so that one side is always facing its sun. The light from the star is reddish. So picture that - you'd basically live somewhere on a ring around the permanently-lit side of the planet to avoid the hottest parts directly under the sun and the coldest parts on the permanently dark side, with the red sun always hanging in place. I wonder if there would be seasons at all. No seasons means no major weather changes, and anything that lived there probably wouldn't be driven to migrate. And any critters that MIGHT live there would probably be adapted to see better in the red light than we can. Fascinating. No doubt we'll have more info in hand about this planet in the coming years. Cheers, Marc Fries On Sep 30, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Thunder Stone wrote: Wow - 100% chance of life; how do they figure that? Still want that ticket - only 20 light-years away. Could stay a whole year - 37 days. So that would be about 9 days for each season - WOW! Greg S. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30/100-percent-chance-for-life-on-newly-found-planet/?hpt=C2 '100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet? Gliese 581g may be the new Earth. A team of astronomers from the University of California and the Carnegie Institute of Washington say they've found a planet like ours, 20 light years (120 trillion miles) from Earth, where the basic conditions for life are good. The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent, Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. I have almost no doubt about it. The planet is three times the size of Earth, but the gravity is similar. Dr. Elizabeth Cunningham, planetarium astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, says the discovery is a huge deal. It could have liquid water on the surface, she said. That's the first step to find life. The Gliese 581 system's orbit compared to our own solar system. The planet labeled G is the one scientists believe could very likely support life. There are hundreds of known extrasolar planets that have been discovered in the Milky Way, but this is the first that could support life. Earthlings won't be traveling to Gliese 581g any time soon unfortunately. Scientists say a spaceship traveling close to the speed of light would take 20 years to make this journey. But if we did - we'd find some other things familiar. The atmosphere and gravity are similar to Earth, and if you're from the polar regions, you'd definitely feel right at home. Scientists say the highest average temperature is about -12 degrees Celcius (10 Fahrenheit), but they point out that the planet doesn't have a night and day - one side continually faces the star and the other side faces the darkness of space. This means one side is blazing hot and the other freezing cold. Gliese orbits a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. Cunningham says it's a Goldilocks planet. It's not too hot, it's not too cold, it's just right for water to form, Cunningham said. The area is called the Goldilocks zone. Other planets near Gliese 581g have been discovered, but they are not habitable and are mainly comprised of gas. Gliese 581g, however, is a rocky planet. It was discovered using the Keck telescope in Hawaii which has been observing the star Gliese 581 for 11 years. Keck's long-term observations of the wobble of nearby stars enabled the detection of this multi-planetary system, said Mario R. Perez, Keck program scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington. Astronomers are excited this new planet was discovered so fast and relatively close by. I'm surprised we found one so fast, Cunningham said. The implication is either we were very lucky or these planets could be relatively common. Gliese 581g is in the constellation of Libra. While Earth takes 365 days to orbit our star, the sun, Gliese 581g orbits its star in 37 days. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question]
One of the papers on density and porosity can be downloaded here: http://homepage.mac.com/brother_guy/.Public/Asteroid%20Densities.pdf directly from Brother Guy's webpages More references: CONSOLMAGNO G.J. et al. (1977) Composition and evolution of the eucrite parent body: evidence from rare earth elements (GCA 41, 1271-1282). BRITT D.T., CONSOLMAGNO G.J. (1996) Estimating porosities from bulk densities (abs. Meteoritics 31, 1996, A022). CONSOLMAGNO G.J. et al. (1996) Density and porosity measurements of the Vatican meteorite collection (abs. Meteoritics 31, 1996, A031). CONSOLMAGNO G.J. et al. (1997) Model porosities of chondrites and the nature of asteroidal material (MAPS32, Suppl., A031-A032). CONSOLMAGNO G.J. et al. (1998) Metamorphism, shock, and porosity: Why are there meteorites? (Meteoritics 33-4, 1998, A034). CONSOLMAGNO G.J. et al. (1998) The porosities of ordinary chondrites: Models and interpretation (MAPS 33-6, 1998, 1221). CONSOLMAGNO G.J. et al. (1998) The density and porosity of meteorites from the Vatican collection (MAPS 33-6, 1998, 1231-1241). Another paper on asteroid densities: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999M%26PS...34..479W Densities of Martian meteorites: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_40458.htm A short summary paper: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2001/pdf/5171.pdf Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:08 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question] --- Original Message Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question From:David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Date:Thu, September 30, 2010 7:55 am To: Peter Scherff petersche...@rcn.com - Howdy, Thanks for the e-burp. There was no link, however, to the published data for hundreds of meteorites, mentioned in your e-burp. Why allude to information that cannot be referenced and verified? While it's interesting to read of your specific gravity bead method, there are other less convoluted ways or dealing with the fear of potential contamination in meteorites and mineral samples, in general. What particularly interests me is exploring ways and utilizing lower tech methods that bring the ordinary collector into the the loop. Your suggested method would seem to exclude that possibility. Hi, Here is the way around contamination http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug99/densityMeasure.html. Guy Consolmagno has published data for hundreds of meteorites. Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of David Gunning Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:46 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Subject: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question Hi All, I'm a confessed specific gravity advocate for all things mineralogical, including meteorites. It seems to me that there is very little useful specific gravity information on the web concerning meteorites, with the singular exception of Randy L. Korotev', excellent website at Washington University in St. Louis; an informative website listing various specific gravity values for various meteorite types and classifications. It occurs to me that many people may not be taking specific gravity measurements of their meteorite specimens because of some sort of biased but unfounded fear of specimen contamination. Is this true? One of the benefits of measuring specific gravity is in being able to spot density anomalies in meteorites. For example, you procure a small meteorite specimen of a meteorite has been classified as an L ordinary stoney chondrite, with a range of specific gravity values, as found on Professor Korotev' s.g. list, of between 2.50 and 3.96 (with an average s.g. of 3.35). When you, yourself, measure the specific gravity of your L chondrite, and it's s.g. value comes in at 4.06, what does that mean? Would such a s.g. reading #1: be possible? And #2: be meaningful? Are meteorite specific gravity values exclusively constrained to the range of values that the scientists peg them at? And, if not, if actual specific gravity measurements cam occur outside the conventionally accepted range of values of the experts, should anyone give a hoot one way or another? Best wishes, Dave Gunning __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] [RE: Specific Gravity Question]
--- On Thu, 9/30/10, Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Getting unpaid internet access to a scholarly journal is another matter, though. I find that many, if not most scientists are more than happy to send seriously interested parties electronic versions of any and all published papers if requested. I have no doubt Guy would be happy to send his paper to anyone that is interested in his work. -- Richard Kowalski Full Moon Photography IMCA #1081 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Habital Planet Discovery Announcement
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:27:42 -0500, you wrote: Because it would have 3 times the water but only two times the surface, the average ocean depth would be about 4500 meters! The pressure at the depths of these oceans would be about 9000 atmospheres. The highest mountains possible would be about 4000 meters (calculating from the median diameter), so if you were the greatest mountain climber on this Super Earth, standing on the top of Super Earth's highest mountain, you would still have 500 meters of water above you! Which has serious implications to the types of life that would be possible/likely. On Earth, the elements needed by the primary producers in the ocean (phytoplankton) are mostly supplied from erosion of the land-- either supplied through run-off into the ocean or through wind-blown sand and dust. No land means no elements delivered to the top layers of the ocean means that the phytoplankton equivalent would be limited to only the equilibrium-state elements dissolved into the sea water which means orders of magnitude lower biomass production as compared to a world with continents and erosion. Think of agricultural nitrate and phosphate run-offs causing algal blooms. Think of experiments seeding the ocean surface with iron leading to as much as 85x increase in growth of diatoms. Very low production of phytoplankton means very low production of zooplankton, means very small production of the critters that eat the plankton, means very low production of the critters that eat the critters that eat the plankton... The most likely ecosystems on a waterworld would be hydrothermal vent communities with primary producers being chemoautotrophs, the way they are on the abyssal plains of Earth. You could imagine life-forms that would bulk up on building blocks down at the hydrothermal vents and then migrate to the surface waters, but _why would they_? It would be a stretch to imagine selective pressures that would lead to that. If you are currently packing for a trip to Gliese 581g, you better make room for Alvin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/iron.htm __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Ad: October Natural History Auction - Heritage Auction Galleries
Hello Everyone! Heritage Auction Galleries' Natural History Internet Auction is now live and ready for bidding. Although we do not many meteorites for this auction, the catalog is still worth a look: http://historical.ha.com/common/auction/catalog.php?SaleNo=810091type=yinan-meteorite For our Internet Auction we gathered many pieces that have low or no reserves. Auction ends with the live-online session October 17th. Here are some highlights: A 20.9 gram slice of Esquel, with a starting bid of only $150: http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=810091Lot_No=81045type=yinan-meteorite A 439 gram etched end-piece of Sikhote-Alin: http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=810091Lot_No=81046 A very pretty 20.7 gram Moldavite, starting at $150: http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=810091Lot_No=81047 A very nicely etched Nantan slice, 437 grams: http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=810091Lot_No=81043 A very large 595 gram Muonionalusta slice: http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=810091Lot_No=81042 And a couple of other pieces here and there. - Yinan Wang __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question]
Hi Sterling, I've never declined to read any reference that's been offered for my additional understanding, on any subject matter. More to the point, you might ought to climb down from your high horse, for a minute, and actually read the actual intent of my question. My question centered around the idea of an individual taking their own specific gravity measurement of their own meteorites. I take it from your response that you would defer to Brother Consolmagno for any specific gravity measurements you might be curious about. Just because the good Brother is associated with the Vatican, I wonder, do you treat his findings as gospel? If so, good for you. Now, I am sure the good Brother is very exacting in his methods and measurements. I have no difficulty with that. Good for him! Most of his references, however, according to the links you provided, have to do with measuring the the grain bulk density of asteroids. That's quite a headful and a rarefied arena I would not presume to know much about. And has, for the most part, little, if any, practical application with actually measuring the specific gravity of meteorites. As may be, I think it's rather silly of you to compare measuring home grown specific gravity values of meteorites with measuring the bulk grain density of asteroids (or the bulk grain density of meteorites, for that matter). They are horses of different colors. One valuable insight I was able to glean from the good Brother's writing is when he suggests that his margin of error in his measurements is something on the order of plus or minus .07 percent, if I understand correctly. That agrees with my own estimation of a possible range of error for ordinary specific gravity measurements for meteorites. My stated interest has to do with common meteorites (if such a term may apply!) and how ordinary people might gain more insight into their own ordinary meteorites (to the extent that any meteorite can be thought of as being ordinary!) by utilizing traditionally proven time worn methods of measuring the specific gravity of their own space rocks. Is there something intrinsically wrong with wanting to do that? Glad tidings! Dave Gunning Hi, Dave, You should try actually reading the references that people give to help you with your question. If you had, you would have found the citation to the published data in about 30 seconds, just like I did: Consolmagno, G. J. and D. T. Britt, 1998, The Density and Porosity of Meteorites from the Vatican Collection, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, vol. 33, p. 1231-1241. Getting unpaid internet access to a scholarly journal is another matter, though. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:08 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question] --- Original Message Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question From:David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Date:Thu, September 30, 2010 7:55 am To: Peter Scherff petersche...@rcn.com - Howdy, Thanks for the e-burp. There was no link, however, to the published data for hundreds of meteorites, mentioned in your e-burp. Why allude to information that cannot be referenced and verified? While it's interesting to read of your specific gravity bead method, there are other less convoluted ways or dealing with the fear of potential contamination in meteorites and mineral samples, in general. What particularly interests me is exploring ways and utilizing lower tech methods that bring the ordinary collector into the the loop. Your suggested method would seem to exclude that possibility. Hi, Here is the way around contamination http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug99/densityMeasure.html. Guy Consolmagno has published data for hundreds of meteorites. Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of David Gunning Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:46 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Subject: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question Hi All, I'm a confessed specific gravity advocate for all things mineralogical, including meteorites. It seems to me that there is very little useful specific gravity information on the web concerning meteorites, with the singular exception of Randy L. Korotev', excellent website at Washington University in St. Louis; an informative website listing various specific gravity values for various meteorite types and classifications. It occurs to me that many people
[meteorite-list] Amateur Meteoriticists?
David's original question got me thinking a little bit about a conversation Guy I had over dinner a few weeks ago, during his last visit to Tucson. Ill get to that in a moment. My own question is this. Are there (m)any amateur meteoriticists out there? IOW, amateurs who contribute to the Science of Meteorites, just as many, many amateur astronomers are doing very real and valuable science, often collaborating with professionals in various areas of research to secure needed observations. Now of course very few amateurs can afford or have the skill set to have a microprobe in their basements, but I would imagine that there are some areas of research that amateurs can contribute to the science. I'm wondering how many amateurs are actively contributing and publishing papers? Now to a more direct response to David. Over dinner Guy commented a bit about his work and how amateurs could perform density and specific gravity measurements of their own meteorites. I suggested contacting him, and other scientists for copies of their papers if you don't have access to pay sites. Guy is rather busy and a response may take a while, but I'm sure he'd be happy to correspond with anyone seriously interested in contributing to this effort and offer some direction on how to proceed. I can't say he is looking for co-authors, but he may be able to direct interested amateurs to the researchers who would be interested. -- Richard Kowalski Full Moon Photography IMCA #1081 --- On Thu, 9/30/10, David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question] To: Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 5:44 PM Hi Sterling, I've never declined to read any reference that's been offered for my additional understanding, on any subject matter. More to the point, you might ought to climb down from your high horse, for a minute, and actually read the actual intent of my question. My question centered around the idea of an individual taking their own specific gravity measurement of their own meteorites. I take it from your response that you would defer to Brother Consolmagno for any specific gravity measurements you might be curious about. Just because the good Brother is associated with the Vatican, I wonder, do you treat his findings as gospel? If so, good for you. Now, I am sure the good Brother is very exacting in his methods and measurements. I have no difficulty with that. Good for him! Most of his references, however, according to the links you provided, have to do with measuring the the grain bulk density of asteroids. That's quite a headful and a rarefied arena I would not presume to know much about. And has, for the most part, little, if any, practical application with actually measuring the specific gravity of meteorites. As may be, I think it's rather silly of you to compare measuring home grown specific gravity values of meteorites with measuring the bulk grain density of asteroids (or the bulk grain density of meteorites, for that matter). They are horses of different colors. One valuable insight I was able to glean from the good Brother's writing is when he suggests that his margin of error in his measurements is something on the order of plus or minus .07 percent, if I understand correctly. That agrees with my own estimation of a possible range of error for ordinary specific gravity measurements for meteorites. My stated interest has to do with common meteorites (if such a term may apply!) and how ordinary people might gain more insight into their own ordinary meteorites (to the extent that any meteorite can be thought of as being ordinary!) by utilizing traditionally proven time worn methods of measuring the specific gravity of their own space rocks. Is there something intrinsically wrong with wanting to do that? Glad tidings! Dave Gunning Hi, Dave, You should try actually reading the references that people give to help you with your question. If you had, you would have found the citation to the published data in about 30 seconds, just like I did: Consolmagno, G. J. and D. T. Britt, 1998, The Density and Porosity of Meteorites from the Vatican Collection, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, vol. 33, p. 1231-1241. Getting unpaid internet access to a scholarly journal is another matter, though. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:08 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question]
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Densities - Brother Guy
Aloha - This looks like a possible source of information - :-) Grain densities, Bulk Densities, and Porosity... Now to find a source of those tiny glass beads! Cheers - ted Stony Meteorite Porosities and Densities: A Review of the Data through 2001 D. T. BRITT1 and G. J. CONSOLMAGNO S.J http://homepage.mac.com/brother_guy/.Public/Meteorite%20Densities.pdf --- On Thu, 9/30/10, Richard Kowalski damoc...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Richard Kowalski damoc...@yahoo.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Amateur Meteoriticists? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 3:05 PM David's original question got me snip .. Now to a more direct response to David. Over dinner Guy commented a bit about his work and how amateurs could perform density and specific gravity measurements of their own meteorites. I suggested contacting him, and other scientists for copies of their papers if you don't have access to pay sites. ...snip... I can't say he is looking for co-authors, but he may be able to direct interested amateurs to the researchers who would be interested. -- Richard Kowalski Full Moon Photography IMCA #1081 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Densities - Brother Guy
--- On Thu, 9/30/10, ted brattstrom volcano...@yahoo.com wrote: Now to find a source of those tiny glass beads! Seem to be pretty common at sand blasting suppliers. -- Richard Kowalski Full Moon Photography IMCA #1081 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Amateur Meteoriticists?
Hi Richard, IOW, amateurs who contribute to the Science of Meteorites Yes there are. Only a very few of these, who are doing the field work and who brought and are bringing the largest part of the world meteorite inventory to the labs, institutes and museums do have an academic degree in geology. And each amateur purchasing a meteorite contributes to science in helping these people to continue their work. Best! Martin __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Twice Blessed Yankee Lobsterman
Hi Dave, I was only trying to tell you that those are not official meteorites, but if you were well aware that the two Round Pond meteorites had not been mentioned with official citations, I would think that you would be well aware that they then cannot be considered meteorites (since they have not been officially classified). Regarding wasting our time and what your style is, I have not seen too many postings from you, so I have no idea what your style is or whether you were wasting our time. From what you said in your e-mail, I assumed you were a meteorite newbie, not just a newbie to this list. Like I said above, I was just trying to let you know that they aren't official (so you probably won't find many details about them). If you had told us that the Maine Geological Survey mentioned them on their website, maybe that could've helped us research it, don't you think? And next time, you might want to say that you have already done some research and therefore others who want to help you won't repeat what you have already done. Regards, Bob -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of David Gunning Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:05 AM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Twice Blessed Yankee Lobsterman Hi Rob Elton, Believe it or not, guys, I was well aware that the two Round Pond meteorites had not been mentioned with official citations. You think I would want to waste peoples time without first getting the factual lay of an issue? That's not my style. I first learned about the Round Pond meteorites on a web site hosted by the Maine Geological Survey. Unless I'm mistaken that information is offered by the Maine Geological Survey without qualifiers. Because of the source, I took the information at face value, statistically improbable or not. There is another Maine meteorite report that references a 321 lb. metallic stone having been found on the shore of Great Chebeague Island in Casco Bay, in 1973. As I lived on a neighboring island in Casco Bay for five years and never heard of it PLUS the lack of mention by the Maine Geological Survey in any of their public literature, I did not make mention of that particular meteorite in my original query to the list. I mean, how on earth could an islander hide a 321 lb. metallic stone meteorite. . .without half the other islanders knowing about it? Talk about your statistical improbabilities. . . ! Now, if it turns-out that the story of the lobsterman meteorite finder was either factually incorrect or a creative fabrication on the part of the State of Maine and the Maine Geological Survey I would suggest to all interested parties, from the Governor on down, that the citizens of Maine, myself included, deserve better than to be fibbed to in such a bald faced manner. I'd like to know the Maine peat bog location you've referenced, Elton, if it's not too much trouble. Best wishes, Dave Gunning __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3143 - Release Date: 09/28/10 23:37:00 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorites in Maine Web Page (Maine Geological Survey)
The web page that the Maine Geological Survey has on Maine meteorites is Meteorites in Maine: Is the sky falling??? at: http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/minerals/sites/mar99.htm This web page states: Though many meteorites probably have landed in Maine, only 5 have been found and authenticated and described in the scientific literature, and portions of each are preserved in museum collections. Nowhere in this web page is there any mention of meteorites being found by lobstermen as described in previous posts, which started with: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2010-September/069269.html I am a little skeptical of such finds without seeing some documentation because last year, a person call me and another geologist to tell us that he had hauled up a 3-foot in diameter meteorite from the bottom of the the Gulf of Mexico off of Terrebonne Island, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana while fishing. Anyway he brought over to my office in the back of his minivan. It turned out to be a well rounded boulder of granite gneiss. I still wonder how a 3-foot in diameter nicely rounded boulder of granite gneiss ended up on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Best wishes, Paul __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question]
Aloha, Thanks for the note. Yeah, that Brother Guy fellow is a rare bird. I am not so concerned with taking precise specific gravity value measurements (I've been doing that for years) so much as wanting to get the word out that there are ways of dealing with potential contamination issues, which seems to be the big bugaboo for most folks. The actual process of taking and achieving an exacting specific gravity measurement is so straight forward a child could do it. Appears to me that the willingness to measure specific gravity may be a reasonably accurate bellwether of whether a person is really, really interested in meteorites for what they are, and might be, as opposed to being used as mere lucrative commodities to be bought and sold. Such is life! Dave Gunning Aloha - Just started looking through this: http://homepage.mac.com/brother_guy/.Public/Meteorite%20Densities.pdf and at the end, it has grain density And bulk density for a whole bunch of meteorites, and meteorite classes... (yeah, it's got the porosity data too...) In that listing, it doesn't give the sub-class of H / L / LL, but that should be able to be looked up if you want to get finer information out of this data. Now, this doesn't address how to do it at home, other than replicating the process that they used (small glass beads - and all) Looked pretty interesting cheers = ted --- On Thu, 9/30/10, David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question] To: Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 2:44 PM Hi Sterling, I've never declined to read any reference that's been offered for my additional understanding, on any subject matter. More to the point, you might ought to climb down from your high horse, for a minute, and actually read the actual intent of my question. My question centered around the idea of an individual taking their own specific gravity measurement of their own meteorites. I take it from your response that you would defer to Brother Consolmagno for any specific gravity measurements you might be curious about. Just because the good Brother is associated with the Vatican, I wonder, do you treat his findings as gospel? If so, good for you. Now, I am sure the good Brother is very exacting in his methods and measurements. I have no difficulty with that. Good for him! Most of his references, however, according to the links you provided, have to do with measuring the the grain bulk density of asteroids. That's quite a headful and a rarefied arena I would not presume to know much about. And has, for the most part, little, if any, practical application with actually measuring the specific gravity of meteorites. As may be, I think it's rather silly of you to compare measuring home grown specific gravity values of meteorites with measuring the bulk grain density of asteroids (or the bulk grain density of meteorites, for that matter). They are horses of different colors. One valuable insight I was able to glean from the good Brother's writing is when he suggests that his margin of error in his measurements is something on the order of plus or minus .07 percent, if I understand correctly. That agrees with my own estimation of a possible range of error for ordinary specific gravity measurements for meteorites. My stated interest has to do with common meteorites (if such a term may apply!) and how ordinary people might gain more insight into their own ordinary meteorites (to the extent that any meteorite can be thought of as being ordinary!) by utilizing traditionally proven time worn methods of measuring the specific gravity of their own space rocks. Is there something intrinsically wrong with wanting to do that? Glad tidings! Dave Gunning Hi, Dave, You should try actually reading the references that people give to help you with your question. If you had, you would have found the citation to the published data in about 30 seconds, just like I did: Consolmagno, G. J. and D. T. Britt, 1998, The Density and Porosity of Meteorites from the Vatican Collection, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, vol. 33, p. 1231-1241. Getting unpaid internet access to a scholarly journal is another matter, though. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: David Gunning davidgunn...@fairpoint.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: davidgunn...@fairpoint.net Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:08 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] [Fwd: RE: Specific Gravity Question] --- Original Message Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Specific Gravity Question
Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks from Space Picture of the Day - September 30, 2010
Hi Laurence, Your Canyon Diablo diamonds on Picture of the Day are pretty cool! I appreciate your sharing images from the ASU collection. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) gmh...@htn.net www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Michael Johnson mich...@rocksfromspace.org To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Rocks from Space Picture of the Day - September 30,2010 http://www.rocksfromspace.org/September_30_2010.html __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3168 - Release Date: 09/30/10 02:34:00 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Subject: Re: Habital Planet Discovery Announcement
Listees, And now we have this to contemplate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316538/Gliese-581g-mystery-Scientist-spotted-mysterious-pulse-light-direction-newEarth-planet-year.html Best to all, Count Deiro IMCA 3536 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Subject: Re: Habital Planet Discovery Announcement
Not to doubt the scientific trustworthiness of the Daily Mail, but they state that the light pulse was seen December, 2008, long before it was announced that the star Gliese 581 has habitable planets in orbit around it. But Gliese 581 c, the first low mass extrasolar planet found to be near its star's habitable zone, was discovered in April 2007, and Gliese 581 b, approximately Neptune-sized and the first planet detected around Gliese 581, was discovered in August 2005. Discovered at the same time as Gliese 581 c, a third planet, Gliese 581 d, has a mass of roughly 7 Earths, or half a Uranus, and an orbit of 66.8 Earth days. It orbits just within the outer limit of the habitable zone. The fourth planet, Gliese 581 e, was announced on 21 April 2009. This planet, at an estimated minimum mass of 1.9 Earths, is currently the lowest mass exoplanet identified around a normal star. The more distant Gliese 581 f was found at the same time. Gliese 581 was much in the news by December, 2008. It was known that there were low-mass planets and that there were planets in the habitable zone. The BEBO message had been sent just two months before, in October, 2008. It is certainly not true that the pulse was long before it was announced that the star Gliese 581 has habitable planets in orbit around it. It was well known. Unrepeated signals don't count. Basic rule of SETI. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: countde...@earthlink.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:40 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Subject: Re: Habital Planet Discovery Announcement Listees, And now we have this to contemplate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316538/Gliese-581g-mystery-Scientist-spotted-mysterious-pulse-light-direction-newEarth-planet-year.html Best to all, Count Deiro IMCA 3536 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Other Earths -- WAS: Re: Habitable Planet, etc.
Hi Sterling, list. Thanks a bunch for your imput! I came up with a fictional (though as plausible as possible) rocky planet orbiting HIP 56948 - which I intend for it to have a somewhat higher gravity than Earth's, but wasn't sure whether to make it bigger like this new Super Earth. On it inhabits a sentient race of humanoids with their own languages (one of which I'm working on), cultures, etc. Many to which value meteorites as highly sacrad objects. I plan to publish this eventually.. So I'm kind of wondering in this point to make it it smaller than Earth (but perhaps denser?)so that the surface area would be closer to its center of gravity at the core. All the best --- -Melanie IMCA: 2975 eBay: metmel2775 Known on SkyRock Cafe as SpaceCollector09 I eat, sleep and breath meteorites 24/7. - Original Message From: Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net To: Carl 's carloselgua...@hotmail.com; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 10:27:11 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Other Earths -- WAS: Re: Habitable Planet, etc. Hi, Carl, and Other Inquiring Minds, How much is slightly? Well, I just answered that one, Carl, but the principle involved is this: a bigger planet means that when you're on the surface of it, you're much further away from the center of its mass, hence gravity does not go up directly as the diameter increases. Imagine that we could build a spherical shell that com- pletely enclosed the Earth, but was erected 4000 miles above the Earth's surface. Massive as it would be, it would be a minimal increase of the Earth's mass. If you walked around on the outside of that shell, you would be 8000 miles from the Earth's center instead of the 4000 miles from the center we are down here. The gravity would be only 25% of normal gravity on the outside of that (imaginary) shell. Imagine a planetary system where an Earth-like world condenses from a heavy-metal-and-element-poor nebula, like one that forms a calcium-rich or light-metal-rich star. (They exist, BTW.) Without an iron core of any great size, they would be made of rock only, rich in silicon, calcium, magnesium, aluminum... A lithophile planet, not a siderophile planet, is perfectly possible. Basalt would be a rare deep-mantle stone and iron a precious gem-metal, both almost never seen. It would be a low-density world. It would not compress as easily as iron-rich worlds. It would be much bigger for its mass than a world like Earth, hence it would have a much greater diameter but a LOWER surface gravity. Imagine a two-Earth-mass world with a density of 3.26, like a heavy rock; that's only 60% of the density of our Earth. It would have 3.33 times the volume of Earth, 2.19 times the surface area of Earth, and 1.49 times the diameter of the Earth (11,840 miles in diameter). Its surface gravity would only be 88% of the Earth's, despite having twice the mass! It would have a deep siliac crust and very high mountains, higher rates of erosion, no plate tectonics, no volcanoes. The only vertical movements in the crust would be isotasy; continents would be buoyant plutons of less dense rock. There would be twice the water of the Earth spread out over 2.2 times the area --- the oceans should be similar to Earth's. With twice the atmosphere of Earth and lower gravity, the air would have a much greater scale height, meaning air pressure would not fall off as rapidly with altitude as the Earth's. The air would be denser and breathable (if it contain oxygen) at much greater altitudes -- you could breath on top of a 52,000-foot-high mountain and fly a piston-engine aircraft to 135,000 feet or more. Sounds like an interesting place, doesn't it? (I've always thought so.) There are millions of possible world-recipes and likely billions of possible semi-Earth combinations that could be made from them. It's NOT going to be the same old solar system repeated over and over again. What if Gliese 581g was made of low-density rock like my sample world (above)? It would be 3 times the mass, 5 times the volume, 1.70 times the diameter, 2.92 times the surface area, and have a surface gravity of just 1.04 gees, ocean depths the same as ours. But Gliese 581 doesn't seem to be the right kind of star for that blend of materials. Some K2 light-metal-rich dwarf somewhere... Planet-building is fun. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: Carl 's carloselgua...@hotmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] (OT) Habital Planet Discovery Announcement Good evening All, Sorry for being really dense about stuff like this but I don't quite understand how a planet with a mass three to four times and a diameter 1.2 to 1.4 times Earth will only have it's gravity only slightly higher? How much is slightly? Thanks for
