[meteorite-list] "Undocumented" meteorite in the Met Bulletin
From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Hello Michael and All,
Chlumec is not an undocumented meteorite.
In the MetBull Database entry for Chlumec (that you referenced in your original message), if you scroll down to "References" and click on
"Find references in NASA ADS:"
You will find 3 references (all in Meteoritics 1994) which clearly shows this meteorite to be very well-described, including good recovery data.
The real puzzle is: 'Why is Chlumec "NOT an official name"?'
One reason may be contained in one of the 3 references (shown below).
It appears (in the abstract below) that in the very last sentence, the very last phrase is "terrestrial origin".
It may be this solitary phrase that placed Chlumec in academic limbo.
Forget the "undocumented" comment. This is just another classified meteorite languishing in Provisional purgatory.
Unfortunately, it's a VERY interesting UNGrouped Iron.
But if a name won't be made "official", then that name can't appear in peer-reviewed journals, which in turn, means researchers will shy away from studying that meteorite, which is the definition for this particular kind of meteoritic "limbo".
-- Bob V.
??? Geochemistry and metallography of the Chlumec iron: A meteorite?
??? Kurat, G.; Palme, H.; Brandstatter, F.; Sperl, G.; Spettel, B.; Bukovanska, M.
??? Meteoritics (ISSN 0026-1114), vol. 29, no. 4, p. 488-489
A peculiar iron was recently found in Chlumec Cidlinou, Czech Republic. It is rich in silicate inclusions and contains some C-rich inclusions. There are abundantly present large, irregularly shaped voids. The silicate and C inclusions are described. We report on the bulk metal composition and the metal texture. Analysis of the metal with an electron microprobe revealed a fairly homogeneous composition with an average Ni content of 9.3 wt% and a Ni/Co ratio of 37. The metal contains Cr but little Si and P. Troilite is always Cr-bearing with highly variable Cr-contents ranging from 1 to 75 wt%. The Ni content ranges from 0.3 to 1.5 wt%. Bulk trace-element contents of a metal-rich sample as determined by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) are plotted. The refractory siderophile elements are strongly fractionated, as are the volatile elements. Chlumec does not fit any known Fe meteorite group. Chlumec certainly has a texture untypical for either
Fe meteorite or technical product. The original granular texture has been mechanically deformed. The Chlumec metal could also have been exposed to shock. It does not resemble any modern steel known to us. The Cr contents of the metal and the troilite indicate fairly reducing conditions, which is contradicted by the presence of Fe-rich silicates. The high contents of Sb, As, Mo, and W could indicate a terrestrial origin. On the other hand, the presence of Ir and high contents of Pt as well as the only slightly fractionated Ni/Co ratio seem to point toward an extraterrestrial origin. <The lack of any cosmogenic nuclides in Chlumec indicates either perfect shielding, an old terrestrial age, or a terrestrial origin. "
--- On Mon, 10/3/11, Michael Gilmer <meteoritemike at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Michael Gilmer <meteoritemike at gmail.com>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] "Undocumented" meteorite in the Met Bulletin
> To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, October 3, 2011, 6:50 PM
> Hi List,
> One more question tonight.? I noticed something else a
> bit strange in the Met Bulletin today.
> Chlumec (iron ungrouped) -
> This meteorite is listed as "undocumented meteorite" and
> has the same color coding in the Bulletin as a
> provisional meteorite.? I have never seen this before.?
> What exactly does this mean??
> Apparently the meteorite has find coordinates
> (50? 9' 17"N, 15? 31' 14"E) and a TKW of 3kg,
> but is undocumented.? However, it must have
> been "documented"
> to some degree or we wouldn't see it in the Met Bulletin,
> or it would be listed as one of those "doubtful" meteorites.
> So what gives here?
> Just when I think I have seen it all in the Met Bull, it
> throws another curveball at me.? LOL
> Best regards,
Received on Tue 04 Oct 2011 04:10:23 PM PDT