Aloha Jason,
Gao Chergach, Pultusk falls produced significantly less melt pieces than
Chelyabinsk. My guess is you’d be lucky to find a Gao, Chergach or Pultusk IMB
in 25-50 stones (or more), versus one in 3 for Chelyabinsk. Because of this, I
do not believe researchers where aware of IMB,
Let me try that again with a more accurate Subject line...
On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Marc Fries wrote:
Howdy all
I'm looking for a meteorite to buy or borrow for a scientific study.
Does anyone have a piece of Happy(a)? It is listed as an H3 but appears to
be an impact melt,
I do. See my collection gallery...near the center bottom of my home page
Www.mhmeteorites.com
Matt
Marc Fries chief_scient...@galacticanalytics.com wrote:
Let me try that again with a more accurate Subject line...
On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Marc Fries wrote:
Howdy all
I'm looking
On 10/30/2013 6:02 AM, Marc Fries wrote:
Let me try that again with a more accurate Subject line...
Hi Marc!
Looking at the pictures and the lack of information in the bulletin,
this one would be worthy of another stab at classification! Happy (b)
and (c) could use some new work too!
Jim
Hello All,
Gao, Chergach, Pultusk, and other ordinary chondrites often have their
impact melt portions ignored when being characterized. Chelyabinsk
would be the most recent obvious example of this -- LL5 S4 W0
Except, when you read the petrographic description:
...A significant portion (1/3) of
Hi Jason and all!
I think the description of the impact melt was sufficient for
Chelyabinsk unless new information comes forward.
However, with Happy, at least two of them are not fully classified, (b)
and (c). All three Happy's are vague at best, unlike Chelyabinsk!
It is one that could
6 matches
Mail list logo
