[meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:26:59 +0100
Message-ID: <002a01c83283$263b6370$177f2a59_at_name86d88d87e2>

Hi Philippe et al,

I see no reason for bringing commotion or even personal aspects in the
debate as substantion, why one classification should be preferred to others.
It is simple - scientists got differing results or drew different
conclusions from their results or maybe analysed different
samples/lithologies from that find.
Only as an example, here an abstract from some also very experienced
classificators, who initially classified a part of that material as aubrite,
but found later strong evidence (e.g. chondrules) that it was an enstatite
chondrite and therefore they revised the original classification and
additionally suspected the stuff to be paired with others from that find,
which they had classified as E-chondrites before.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.P51E1247K

That's a totally normal process. New finds&facts lead to new results.

Therefore I'd think a discussion with the argumentation, my Mommy cooks
better than your Mommy, or as it happened to ask an apology because other
scientists came to a different result analysing one's material than others,
is pointless, because it won't change the physical properties of the stone.
Neither is science a democratic affair, facts stay facts.
So if e.g. that stuff will turn out to have chondrules, than it doesn't help
to ignore that result and simply to raise the finger in an acclamation and
to declare it to be an aubrite.

Anyway, we are simple laymen, so we can sit back and wait. Only thing we
need is some patience until the case will be cleared
- and I'm very confident, that this will happen, on the one hand aubrites
are a very rare type, therefore of a scientific importance, on the other
hand this particular meteorite is one of the very largest finds in history.
So let's wait until the scientist, who worked on it, will bring together all
their results to discuss that tricky case... and until their final result
will be published.

The only problem I see, is a minor one, cause it's nonscientifical
and only concerns the dealer: How to price the material meanwhile?
Should he maintain his low price as it would be an old E-type,
should he raise the price, because some say it's an aubrite.
and if so, should he later, if the consensus will be, that it's no aubrite,
refund his clients or should he disclaim then any responsibility?
(What if he finds chondrules in his stone?).

I'm quite glad, that we aren't in that dilemma, because we haven't any for
sale. (I guess, if we had, we would decide either to remove it from sale
until science comes to a final decision or we would continue to price it at
the established low level of the old, extremely weathered E-chondrite).

Just my thoughts, no offense intended.
Best!
Martin

 




-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Philippe
Thomas
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 10:21
An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)
Wichtigkeit: Hoch

Dear Greg and all,

It is not usual for me to participate in the debates because by experience
often these remain sterile and my level of English does not allow me to make
me understood completely.

Here is that I have to say as comment of this meteorite:

First, all the Moroccan having a relationship with the business of
meteorites know Al Haggounia's strewnfield (Western Sahara not Algeria) for
a long time before that you and I let us be
dealers of meteorites. At this time, nobody was certain that he can involve
a meteorite, the knowledge of Moroccan were not the one from now and it is
necessary to say that first sight
has it is not evident to recognize a meteorite in this material. The first
analyzed pieces and declared numbers were classified EL6, E6 and the first
one which has been classified as an
aubrite was the NWA 2736.

This classification launched a new rush on Al Haggounia, and hundreds of
kilos of this material met itself has Erfoud.

In April, 2006, when I met my Moroccan partner in Erfoud, he showed me
several hundreds of kilos of this material in bags which had just arrived
from Western Sahara. In these hundreds
of kilos, I chose carefully several kilos of all the representative parts of
this meteorite to give them later to Albert Jambon. As well as Fred Beroud,
Ali Hmani and Ait Ouzrou, who agreed
to make a common declaration rather than multiply the numbers NWA, supplied
a big quantity of material to Albert Jambon.

I think that Albert Jambon is the most qualified person to describe this
meteorite. Before subjecting his declaration he went up an expedition to go
on the spot in association with the
other French and Moroccan scientists. The strewnfield as described by Albert
Jambon and others scientists who participated in the expedition is a classic
strewnfield, an ellipse 40 km
long with the also classic distribution of the big and small pieces. On the
strewnfield the geologists make the dating of the ground and all the
analyses to describe the strewnfield. They
found themselves several pieces of this meteorite. In Laayoune, Albert
Jambon also saw several hundreds of kilos of this meteorite with Moroccan
involved in the search on the
strewnfield. What gives approximately 3 tons for this meteorite if we add
the various pairings.

There is no doubt, and I believe that everybody agrees, that all this
material NWA xxxx and Al Haggounia 001 with different results of analysis is
the same. It was classified EL6, E6,
aubrite, EL6 / 7, EL3... Three different laboratories have classified this
meteorite as an aubrite.
For the owners of a part of this meteorite which supplied the typical sample
has a scientist so that he made the analysis, there is no reason for not
believing the scientist in question
whom he has to trust in the quality of his work it is a question of respect.

In this case, in which we are certain that it is about the same meteorite,
the various classifications raise naturally a problem. The important
weathering of this meteorite explains maybe
the difficulty of the determination.

To end, I think that no dealer can grant himself the right to say such
analysis is the good and such the other one is false and there is no reason
to say that the good analysis is EL3.

Best wishes,
Philippe

http://www.meteoritica.com/
Received on Thu 29 Nov 2007 07:26:59 AM PST