[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 11:12:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKBPJW-cZ766J-wf1pP=muX+M9OfJY1WhtyosPWmyBZXMvoZKQ_at_mail.gmail.com>

Just a small correction, not to blow my own horn, but to clear up a
misconception in Jason's post.

> 7) Re: Jim's comments about find numbers (and apparently bragging
> rights) -- No. Without the 'consortium,' publicly posted numbers,
> etc. we would have much less of an idea of where/how many of the
> Sutter's Mill meteorites were recovered. The majority of the
> information shared on the SETI website would not be known, the strewn
> field would be poorly known (relative to now), etc. And the fall is
> now well-documented, and the information is publicly shared. That's
> worth a heck of a lot.

This is not 100% true. I was tracking and tallying the finds before
the official page went online. I still have hundreds of emails from
the public and finders who contacted me to share info. I was in
touch with Dr. Jenniskens early on and he told me he was tracking the
finds also, so we agreed to share data. At that point, I stopped
collecting or archiving find coordinates and asked the finders who
contacted me to forward that data to Dr. Jenniskens. From that point
on, I stopped collecting coordinates and just focused on finds,
finder's name and weights, to calculate the TKW.

After that, I was still getting oodles of emails, full of photos and
questions. I weeded out the meteorwrongs and forwarded the legitimate
finds to Jenniskens. Numerous times, finders contacted me first and I
always sent them to Jenniskens.

If there was no official page by SETI/NASA/Whoever, I would have
continued the tally and would have included find coordinates. I was
glad that Jenniskens was handling the coordinates, because that
lessened my work load a bit.

I did this for science and to help people work together to share data.
 And I expect, that if I had not done it, somebody else would have
stepped forward to do it.

Best regards,

MikeG


On 5/1/13, Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello All,
> 1) I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dr.
> Jenniskens went through the work of obtaining the type specimen and he
> should be able to work on it as he sees fit. If that delays the
> publication of the meteorite for a few months, it doesn't matter.
> Doing so does not adversely affect anyone or anything, in any way.
>
> 2) Carl -- I think the difference here is that the stone has had all
> of the work necessary for approval completed, but it is being held up
> so that Dr. Jenniskens can oversee the additional work that is being
> done. If he had given the type sample to UCLA earlier on, he might
> not have been able to accommodate sample requests (and he has been
> very forthcoming with doing so), so I think it's less a matter of
> control as one of opportunity. Many of the studies that have been
> performed on the rock are not often done on equilibrated ordinary
> chondrites. It's still valuable information, but not data that is
> usually included in a Meteoritical Bulletin writeup.
>
> Which isn't to say that UCLA is not capable of doing the same,
> but....none of this matters. The stone will be approved and UCLA will
> get their type specimen. Since Dr. Rubin already received a small
> sample in order to describe the stone petrographically, he is included
> in the consortium and will be a co-author in any publications turned
> out by it (thus rendering Michael Farmer's most recent criticism
> somewhat moot). Since Dr. Jenniskens did put in a lot of trajectory
> calculation/outreach/recovery effort, I don't see why he's not
> entitled to work on the specimen first.
>
> 3) The destructive work mentioned by some in a negative light includes
> many studies outlined here:
>
> http://asima.seti.org/n/
>
> Stuff like Ar-Ar dating, raman spectroscopy, and other studies require
> the dissolution or otherwise destruction of small portions of the
> meteorite. It's standard procedure. Most of those kinds of studies
> aren't performed on your average equilibrated chondrite fall, though,
> so...be glad that it's happening with this one. More of this kind of
> information could help us better understand the histories of these
> bodies in the solar system.
>
> So for those of you saying that SETI/Dr. Jenniskens is doing things
> they can't or shouldn't....they're not. They're just organizing
> things.
>
> 4) Having met with Lisa Webber and Glen Rivera a few times after they
> handed N#1 over to Dr. Jenniskens, I don't think Richard Montgomery's
> statement holds any water, either. They seemed genuinely happy to
> provide the stone for analysis. I can't see how or why that would have
> changed in the time since then, since they had already handed over the
> stone and clearly expected ~20+ grams to go to an institution.
>
> 5) Some people seem to not like Dr. Jenniskens. I loaned them N#5 for
> non-destructive work and picked it up in person last Friday night.
> SETI's pretty cool, and they seem to be doing good work, most of it
> pertaining to asteroids, near-Earth/Earth-crossing bodies, Mars, and a
> variety of other things. This kind of thing is really right up their
> alley.
>
> 6) Michael Mulgrew's recent comment makes no sense to me. Every
> meteorite must be studied to some extent prior to publication, or it
> could not be published. Some meteorites require O-isotope analyses,
> some require trapped gas analyses, and others require only a few
> mineralogical data points and a petrographic description. Where to
> draw that line can be somewhat arbitrary, but one must be careful.
> There was some confusion a few years ago because O-isotope data was
> not obtained on a new NWA acapulcoite, and it was classified as an
> winonaite. Later pairings were worked on more thoroughly. Novato is
> a little different because we all know it's an L6, but still. The
> write-up in the bulletin will reflect the variety of analyses
> performed on the rock, I'm sure. Since most folks wouldn't go through
> the trouble of doing this much work on an L6, I'm glad that someone is
> organizing it.
>
> 7) Re: Jim's comments about find numbers (and apparently bragging
> rights) -- No. Without the 'consortium,' publicly posted numbers,
> etc. we would have much less of an idea of where/how many of the
> Sutter's Mill meteorites were recovered. The majority of the
> information shared on the SETI website would not be known, the strewn
> field would be poorly known (relative to now), etc. And the fall is
> now well-documented, and the information is publicly shared. That's
> worth a heck of a lot.
>
> How many of you checked the SETI website for updates while hunting for
> SM or N? Yeah. Useful.
>
> Really not sure where all of the criticism is coming from. This
> meteorite isn't lost. It's not in limbo. It's being studied and will
> be approved. This should be done with in a few months. A scientist
> wants to do a thorough job on it. Sounds good to me.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com>
> wrote:
>> I seem to think this is a control issue. Someone wants total control over
>> the meteorite. Sad to dominate a meteorite fall.
>> Never seen this type of action before.
>> Submission changes nothing about the science or the papers released later.
>> It is simply the act of registering the meteorite officially. I think they
>> don't want to release the type specimen or else the receiving institution
>> (UCLA) or (NASA) will then possibly release papers outside the control of
>> the "Consortium"?
>> My two kopeks.
>> Michael
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Carl Agee <agee at unm.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm having a hard time understanding this "problem" with Novato. Since
>>> when do deposit samples not get analyzed and worked on? Maybe I'm
>>> missing something here but the way I do it, is the sample gets ID-ed
>>> and classified and then if it merits further research that happens
>>> next, in that order. For example, you cannot submit an abstract to
>>> LPSC or MetSoc on an unclassified or provisional meteorite.
>>> Classification is absolutely the first thing that should happen.
>>>
>>> Carl Agee
>>> --
>>> Carl B. Agee
>>> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>>> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>>> MSC03 2050
>>> University of New Mexico
>>> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>>>
>>> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>>> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>>> Email: agee at unm.edu
>>> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, hunting costs money, lots and lots of it. Ask me, I'm on the other
>>>> side of the planet right now and western unions as coming in daily. No
>>>> credit cards accepted where I am:)
>>>> But we have responsibilities. Pay to play, including getting the type
>>>> specimen properly curated. I am in 100% agreement with the noncom on
>>>> this one.
>>>> Science must come first.
>>>>
>>>> Michael Farmer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On May 1, 2013, at 7:38 AM, robert crane <rrobber1 at msn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem I have is every one should spend their hard earned money in
>>>>> the field looking for these damn things to ease the people that don't
>>>>> leave their driveway. I'm sorry before u bitch and complain get off
>>>>> your ass and not spend time in Stewart Valley or in Franconia getting
>>>>> DCA crap classified. Work in the field and contribute. Make a
>>>>> contribution to science before u bitch about other people. Hunting
>>>>> ain't free.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, "Richard Montgomery"
>>>>> <rickmont at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the stones from this find was "lent" to the NASA team, with an
>>>>>> open mind and naivte perhaps; a situation that definitely shook her by
>>>>>> total surprise and dismay, when another finder of another stone
>>>>>> offered a perspective. She wasn't pleased to learn that she may never
>>>>>> see it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Verish"
>>>>>> <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral"
>>>>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:34 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Rob,
>>>>>> for clearing the air and getting this thread back on track.
>>>>>> And now that the dust has settled, we're back to my original concern:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we have to wait for just the name to be approved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the question I am posing to the List, stated another way:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If everyone is in agreement with the Jenniskins arrangement, then why
>>>>>> can't the Committee credit UCLA for the type specimen and move forward
>>>>>> with approving at least the name "Novato" (if need be, at least
>>>>>> provisionally)? I mean, what is the difference whether the type
>>>>>> specimen goes first to UCLA, then goes to NASA, or vice-versa? I mean,
>>>>>> for goodness sake, it's NASA we're talking about here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we have to wait for the results from the consortium before we
>>>>>> know the approved name of this meteorite?
>>>>>> I mean, we didn't even have a consensus classification for Sutter's
>>>>>> Mill, but that name still got approved! We didn't have to wait for the
>>>>>> results of the consortium, then. Why now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But before I conclude, allow me to state several things
>>>>>> FOR THE RECORD:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to any unfounded assertions that may get printed on this
>>>>>> List, there is no "problem" getting type-specimens from finders to
>>>>>> researchers:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were 8 Sutter's Mill finds donated from finders & property
>>>>>> owners.
>>>>>> The name "Sutter's Mill" was approved BEFORE a classification could be
>>>>>> agreed upon and long before the consortium published their results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were 2 Battle Mountain specimens voluntarily donated by finders
>>>>>> to researchers. The name "Battle Mountain" was approved 30 days after
>>>>>> the fall. What delay?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other US falls with "no problems" getting type-specimens:
>>>>>> Mifflin, Lorton, Whetstone Mtns, Ash Creek - no delays in name
>>>>>> approval.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finders of the "Novato" meteorite were making arrangements to submit
>>>>>> type specimens to researchers, prior to Jenniskins announcement to the
>>>>>> Press that he was submitting the Webber stone as a type specimen. Days
>>>>>> after his announcement is when I finally made my Novato find, and at
>>>>>> that time I never dreamt we would be having this discussion in 2013.
>>>>>> If it becomes necessary, I am prepared (as are other finders) to
>>>>>> submit a type specimen to UCLA. But not until we all have been given a
>>>>>> proper explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Bob V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Mon, 4/29/13, Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>>>>>>> To: "Pat Brown" <scientificlifestyle at hotmail.com>, "Jim Wooddell"
>>>>>>> <jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net>, "Met List"
>>>>>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, April 29, 2013, 8:51 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been informed by one of the Novato finders that this is
>>>>>>> a non-issue.
>>>>>>> Dr. Jenniskens has long-since pledged to donate more
>>>>>>> than adequate Novato type specimen to UCLA for it to be
>>>>>>> approved by the Nomenclature Committee. That it hasn't happened
>>>>>>> already is simply because Dr. Jenniskens wished to ensure that all
>>>>>>> academic requests for meteoritical material were handled promptly.
>>>>>>> 29 grams
>>>>>>> of the first recovered stone were generously donated by Lisa
>>>>>>> Webber to SETI for scientific analysis; of that, whatever is not
>>>>>>> consumed
>>>>>>> in destructive analyses has been promised to UCLA.
>>>>>>> So there is no cause for alarm; people just need to be patient.
>>>>>>> --Rob
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, it's still the "Novato" (provisional) meteorite.
>>>>>>> It still is not in the Meteoritical Bulletin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the slice that Brien Cook originally cut with the intention
>>>>>>> of submitting it to UCLA. But when he read that someone else was
>>>>>>> going to supply the type-specimen, he then placed it on eBay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be nice if some Institute or consortium would make an offer
>>>>>>> and try to repatriate this slice and make it a type-specimen so that
>>>>>>> this US-fall could finally be made "official". All I'm saying is,
>>>>>>> this "leaving an official-status hanging-in-mid-air" would never
>>>>>>> happen in Canada. They would just simply buy the type-specimen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time for the US to catch-up with Canada. It's time for a
>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>> Bob V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carl B. Agee
>>> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>>> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>>> MSC03 2050
>>> University of New Mexico
>>> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>>>
>>> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>>> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>>> Email: agee at unm.edu
>>> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
-------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thu 02 May 2013 11:12:10 AM PDT