John Divelbiss 11/4/2021 12:26:42 PM |
thanks Andreas...yes, I understand the isotope PLOTS, and was curious about why the classifier just didn't say UNGROUPED "until further notice"...instead of just the C2 designation. The O isotopes for MUNDRABILLA 012 would be awesome to know at this point. Any volunteers out there...who has some? |
Andreas Ruh 11/4/2021 3:40:17 AM |
@John: The oxygen isotopic composition of Tagish lake is close to CI chondrites whereas the oxygen isotope composition of NWA 13456 plots in the CV-CK field. It would be interesting to know the oxygen isotopic composition of Mundrabille 012. |
Bernd Pauli 11/3/2021 1:35:14 PM |
Corrections: Moeller and Ca-Al, sorry! |
Bernd Pauli 11/3/2021 1:33:39 PM |
M*LLER-ULFF F. et al. (1993) Mundrabilla 012: A new CV2 (?) chondrite find from SW Australia (abs. Meteoritics 28-3, 1993, 451, excerpt): The size and abundance of chondrules, the abundance of "metal" and the presence of a Ca-A1 inclusion are characteristic of the CV chondrite group and inconsistent with the properties of known CI, CO, CM, CR, and CK carbonaceous chondrites. |
John Divelbiss 11/3/2021 10:53:46 AM |
Mundrabilla 012 is a CV2 in the METBull ??? hmmmm...? |
John Divelbiss 11/3/2021 10:50:40 AM |
:)...are there any CK2 or CV2's yet? |
Roberto Vargas 11/3/2021 9:02:49 AM |
Hi John D, that*s a very good question. The short answer is that it needs further study to either be placed in the *ungrouped* category or to be placed in an already established *group* (ie: CV or CK). |
John Divelbiss 11/3/2021 6:53:45 AM |
congrats Roberto. How is this C2 different than the several C2-ung meteorites, like Tagish Lake? Should this NWA also be C2-ung? Was it (ung) left off by accident or for a reason? |
|