meteorite times magazine
DESCRIPTION
November 2014 IssueTRANSCRIPT
Meteorite Times MagazineContentsby Editor
Featured Articles
Accretion Desk by Martin HorejsiJim’s Fragments by Jim TobinMeteorite Market Trends by Michael BloodBob’s Findings by Robert VerishMicro Visions by John KashubaNorm’s Tektite Teasers by Norm LehrmanMr. Monning’s Collection by Anne BlackIMCA Insights by The IMCA TeamMeteorite of the Month by EditorTektite of the Month by Editor
Terms Of Use
Materials contained in and linked to from this website do not necessarilyreflect the views or opinions of The Meteorite Exchange, Inc., nor thoseof any person connected therewith. In no event shall The MeteoriteExchange, Inc. be responsible for, nor liable for, exposure to any suchmaterial in any form by any person or persons, whether written, graphic,audio or otherwise, presented on this or by any other website, web pageor other cyber location linked to from this website. The MeteoriteExchange, Inc. does not endorse, edit nor hold any copyright interest inany material found on any website, web page or other cyber locationlinked to from this website.
The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. shall not be held liable for anymisinformation by any author, dealer and or seller. In no event will TheMeteorite Exchange, Inc. be liable for any damages, including any lossof profits, lost savings, or any other commercial damage, including butnot limited to special, consequential, or other damages arising out ofthis service.
© Copyright 2002–2014 The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. All rightsreserved.
No reproduction of copyrighted material is allowed by any meanswithout prior written permission of the copyright owner.
Meteorite Times Magazine
Borodino: A Rock for the AgesMart in Horejsi
The Borodino meteorite takes its name f rom the town of Borodino, Russia. Two days af ter themeteorite’s fall, the hamlet also extended its name to to the immensely bloody “Battle of Borodino.” Forthis installment of The Accretion Desk, I would like you do download and listen to the linked music f ile ofTchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture while reading this story.
Link: Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky_-_1812_overture.ogg
The crusted portion of my f ragment of Borodino was witness to aterrible battle where over 70,000 men lost their lives a mere 48hours af ter the meteorite’s fall.
The fall of the Borodino meteorite is historically signif icant on many f ronts including the f ront lines ofwar. On September 5th, 1812, as Napoleon was marching towards Moscow, a small stone fell f rom the skylanding near a Russian artillery battery just outside the village of Gorki. The battery Commander, named A.L. Dietrichs, was an of f icer in the 11th Pskov infantry regiment of Lieutenant General Kaptsevich’s 7thInfantry Division. Dietrichs was given the stone by a sentry who picked it up shortly af ter its fall.
The matrix of Borodino is much less eventful than the war thatraged all around Borodino, both the town and the meteorite.
After the battle, and for the next 80 years the Borodino meteorite remained in the Dietrichs’ family. In1892 the descendants of A. L. Dietrichs presented the stone to the Museum of Mines in Leningrad wholater provided it to the Russian Academy of Sciences. For clarif ication, Saint Petersburg was founded byPeter the Great in 1703, and was renamed Petrograd in 1914, then renamed Leningrad ten years later in1924. That name held until 1991 when the name of Russia’s “Cultural Capitol” once again would be knownas Saint Petersburg, Russia.
The Borodino meteorite’s weight is much greater as a historical event than a rock f rom space. At only500 grams or a little over one pound, the Borodino H5 chondrite in its roughly egg-shaped initial formwould have been of little nuisance when carried in the pocket of a wool battle coat. Especially consideringthe other distractions.
A tremendous battle took place on September 7th, 1812 between Napoleon’s French Grande Armée andthe Imperial Russian Army of General Mikhail Kutuzov. Over a quarter-million troops fought that day. Morethan 70,000 men lost their lives in battle with many more dying shortly af ter due to injury orstarvation making it the bloodiest single f ight of the French invasion of Russia
The Battle of Borodino was the turning point in the war. Napoleon lost a third of his men, and the Frenchlost their momentum and began their retreat. Much commemoration of the Battle of Borodino, also knownas the Battle of 1812, was written, painted, and put to musical score. One of the most famouscommemorations, and one we of ten hear at least once a year in America on the 4th of July is Pyotr IlyichTchaikovsky famous 1812 Overture complete with canon f ire. Tchaikovsky wrote the Overture in 1880 butit was not publicity preformed for two years. As you might imagine, the logistics of 16 muzzle-loadedartillery detonations during a musical score is a logistical nightmare.
In 1969, A. K. Stanyukovich chased down some loose ends in the Borodino meteorite story. In 1973,NASA published a translation into English under the title of , “Where and when did the Borodino meteoritefall?” It’s short and worth a read. Here is the link to the e-zine formatted article.
http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/4482794/where-and-when-did-borodino-meteorite-fall
From a historical meteorite collecting standpoint, there are few peers to Borodino. In the rarif ied air offamous historic witnessed falls, the backstory, culture, world events, and chain of custody all play asignif icant role in the meteoritically spiritual value of a stone. Somehow the Borodino meteorite made it of fthe bloodiest battlef ield in the Napoleonic Wars, through eight decades of family curation, f inally landingthe hands of science.
Battlefield souvenirs are a controversial issue. I will never question the decision of someone who wasactually there, but saving a rock when so many lost their lives transmits a rare but necessary responsibilityonto the meteorite collector. A tremendous ef fort was put into preserving the Borodino meteorite. Andevery keeper of such treasures has the responsibility to honor those who died in the battle that gave fameto a meteorite now in their posession.
Although the specimen of Borodino in my collection is small at a little over 0.13 grams, it does representroughly 1/3500 of the accounted for material today. That is equivalent to a one gram sample of a 3500gTKW, or two grams of a 7kg fall. Or 10 grams of a 35kg fall. As you can see, in all cases the relative
TKW, or two grams of a 7kg fall. Or 10 grams of a 35kg fall. As you can see, in all cases the relativeamount is signif icant. Now overlay the fact that the vast majority of Borodino remains in a single mass withthe second largest piece almost completing the entire TKW. With both of those specimens in institutionalcollections, the amount of Borodino available to the private collector is just slightly more than zero.
When the bicentennial of the 1812 Battle of Borodino was commemorated two years ago, I paused toconsider the implications and contributions the Borodino meteorite made to culture, science, and meteoritecollecting. Even if not a rare type, nor an exceptional fall event having hit nothing but air and soil, the Stoneof Borodino symbolizes optimism for better future just before one of the darker times in history. Had thesentry given up hope, or had Commander Dietrichs not taken the time, energy or inspiration to somehowpreserve the stone throughout the battle, or had his descendants not believed in the importance of therock caring for it long af ter every witness to the fall had died, we would all be lesser people.
War is hell. But hell can be overcome by indomitable optimism. Even in of death, a message can be passedto the next generation. And the one af ter that. And the one af ter that. The Battle of Borodino wasimmortalized in paintings, writings and song as well as within a single meteorite- Borodino: A Rock for theAges.
Until next time….
For scale, there are 70,000 dots below, each representing a soul who lost his life during the Battle ofBorodino. That’s 700 rows of 100 dots each.
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
******************************************************************
EDITORS NOTE: 18 pages of dots removed for magazine layouts
******************************************************************
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….
R.I.P.
Meteorite Times Magazine
Meteorite Hunters vs The WeatherJames Tobin
In my last article I mentioned that I might try to get in a trip meteorite hunting in the autumn. Well, thisarticle begins when I got an email f rom my f riend Richard Garcia that a trip meteorite hunting was being puttogether and would I like to go. Not too tough a question, but I had to look at my schedule and check howfree I was.
I got back to Richard about a day later saying that I would love to go and I got some more details. It waspretty easy for me. He was driving and I could ride with him. He had made hotel arrangements and even ifthere was no bed space for me I was happy to take a sleeping bag and sleep on the f loor. It was a greatgroup of hunters that were going. I think they were all Facebook f riends but I did not think I had actuallymet any of them in person.
Yelland Dry Lake was a spot that Paul and I had seriously considered hunting several years ago. But it isjust a little too far to go for the number of days that we usually have for vacation. So this was going to bemy chance to hunt the lake even though it had been a few years and there had been plenty of people therebefore me. It looked like pieces of meteorite were still being found so I felt good about my chances off inding some pieces, but whether I did or not it would be fun and I would get to know a few more of thehunters f rom my part of the country.
I got most of my stuf f together a couple days before we were scheduled to leave. Compared to going outof town for astrophotography meteorite hunting is a breeze to pack for. Just a bag of clothes personalstuf f , my small hunting bag that holds all the required equipment of the modern meteorite hunter and forYelland just my magnet stick. Not much compared to the four accessory cases large tub two telescopes,mount and laptop and a hundred other things that go to do star images.
My hunting bag is a small surplus military canvas bag with a zillion little pockets and pouches. It is great forholding all the things one needs to hunt for space rocks. I am little old school when it comes to meteoritehunting. Af ter twenty years of using GPS equipment I still don’t trust them solely for recording the locationof f inds. I had everything I needed except a small notebook for writing down the f ind information to put inthe plastic bag with the pieces if I found any. I looked around the house for a notebook and could not f indone so it was of f to the store to buy one. But, that was really all I needed that I did not have. I did notknow if we would use them with this group as Paul and I have in the past but I put in my walkie-talkieswhich were basically new and had never been used for hunting. They were replacements for my old onesthat had some problems the last time we tried using them.
The weather report for the next week for Ely, Nevada was changing day by day as I checked it on myphone. One of the days now was showing wind and one was showing thunderstorms. I knew that I had lostthe leather strap on my hat and I had chased it enough in my life across day lakes. So I needed to makesome kind of a strap and that would be about all the prep work for this trip.
I know that not all the readers have hunted meteorites so here is a short list of the things we take to f indand record space rocks. Camera: either phone or small digital, magnet stick and of ten a metal detector,handheld GPS, extra batteries, loupe or magnifying glass, bandanas to cover back of my neck worn undermy hat, plastic baggies, pen and paper, sunblock, spade or a hammer and pick combo, small pack or daybag, cell phone if there is service or handheld communicators. I add to this a diamond f ile for f ield testingand a digital scale that stays in my luggage to weigh f inds in the evening.
I had about an hour and a half drive to Richard’s house and I wanted to get there a little early so we wouldbe sure to leave when he wanted. I was driving in the opposite direction of the rush hour traf f ic but therewould still be some spots where it could be bumper to bumper. Richard had done the planning and hadbeen to Yelland before. He wanted to do the same thing that Paul and I have done which was drive halfway to the distant location on the af ternoon and evening of the night before we are really starting. Thenget a f resh rested start for the last several hours drive and hunt most of the f irst real day. Las Vegas isjust about half way and we had reservations for the night there Thursday night and would head out earlyto meet up with some of the other guys around noon Friday at the dry lake.
Af ter a great visit with Richard at his home which included the tour of his observatory we were on the
road. Las Vegas is well what can I say its Las Vegas. We had dinner with Richard’s brother at a Mexicanrestaurant they wanted to try and the food was very tasty. A little time spent in the casino of the hotel andit was time for a restless night of sleep. Not that I wanted a restless night but I guess I was like a little boybefore a big adventure. I was really ready to get out hunting af ter a couple years of indulging in otherhobbies.
It is another few hours drive up to Yelland Dry Lake f rom Las Vegas and we f illed the time with greatconversation. Robert and Robby Hoover were coming up that af ternoon and we soon got a phone call thatthey were just a couple hours behind us on the road. The weather report had been changing f rom good tobad to worse over the last couple days. But going on was the only thing we wanted to do. It was close tonoon when we started the of f road last miles toward the lake bed. It was very windy and patchy clouds, iteven then looked like it was getting rainy in the distance.
Richard stopped the Jeep as close as he could to the lake bed and I grabbed my bag and started outhiking. He f inished up getting his stuf f and followed a few minutes later. In just a few minutes more mywalkie-talkie squawked and Richard was telling me he had found a meteorite already near the place heentered the lake bed. It was a great piece f rom the outside of a larger stone. It was a rounded corner witha few red spots on a nice mottled surface.
This is Richard’s very nice meteorite he found on YellandDry Lake in a minute or two. It is am exterior corner pieceand that is quite special. Most pieces are broken internalshards f rom larger masses.
In just a few more minutes one of the four rocks that stuck to my magnet stick that day jumped up. Itlooked like a meteorite enough but not like the few samples I had seen of Yelland. I showed it to Richardand he agreed it might be a meteorite but thought the same thing that it looked dif ferent. Af ter gettinghome I went to the Met Bulletin and looked at the pictures posted of Yelland and some of them do looklike this little stone.
This is the f irst of the meteorites I found on Yelland DryLake. It is dif inately a meteorite but has a little dif ferent lookthan most of the pieces.
Richard had lost phone service so I had been sending messages to Robert and Robby Hoover using myphone until my phone got unreliable too. We were on the lake bed when our walkie-talkies crackled with abroken up call f rom Robby. They were just a little too far away but were out there. When they did notarrive af ter a time Richard said that at 3 pm he would head out to look for them and asked if I was going tostay on the lake and hunt. I said I would keep hunting. The weather was starting to turn worse. There hadbeen some rain on my side of the lake but not enough to get wet just sprinkles. It was raining more on theother side we were heading for where it was thought our best chance would be. I was well into the middleof the lake and far f rom the Jeep when the second of the four stones that my magnet picked up wastouched. It was nice sized and though it had a lot of clay on it I was hopeful it was my f irst Yelland thatlooked like a Yelland. I bagged it and recorded the location. Doing this was pretty hard in forty mile an hourwinds. I had stopped trying to wear a hat. It would not stay on and was just billowing out to the side of myhead pulling on the strap around my neck. It went into my pack until later. Richard had made his way muchfurther to the other side of the lake bed but had hunted back toward me since it was nearly the time hehad said he was going to leave to look for the Hoovers. I showed him the piece I had found and we spokefor a minute then I moved on into the lake further to where he had pointed me.
Af ter cleaning up this stone some it looked just like it shouldand made me pretty content since I was not going to beskunked for the whole trip. The red spots we saw on it af tercleaning were very much like thoses on Richard’s nice cornerpiece.
I hunted in the rain and wind for I guess another 30-45 minutes when I saw the two vehicles on the edge
of the lake. A f igure was making his way out toward the direction I was going so I walked toward him. Injust a few moments I was greeted by Robby Hoover.
The weather continued to deteriorate and I was heading back to the vehicles. I could see Richard comingin my direction and when he reached us he was still determined to make it to the spot out there where wewould have our best chance for f inding a few meteorites. We made a great try at getting there, but theclouds continued to darken and the rain got stronger and the f ierce wind grew as we pressed on Whenthe lightning began striking ever few seconds on the mountains of f the sides of the lake we turned back.We were the highest objects on the lake bed we were starting to look like candidates for getting struck bylightning.
We were trying one more time to make our way across thelake to the area where we would have our best chance, butas you can see in this picture the clouds are getting ominousand the wind and rain were not subsiding. Within minutes ofthis image that Robby Hoover took the lightning was strikingevery few seconds on the hills around the lake and it wastime to accept that we had to leave.
Somewhat disappointed that we were only there for about three or four hours and not sure we would beable to return the next day we retreated f rom the lake. The 50 odd miles f rom Yelland to Ely, Nevadaseemed like the longest 50 miles of my life there is something about that drive that seems to take foreverto pass.
Richard had found a nice stone and I had found a something or two. I would clean up the one at the hotellater and get the clay of f it so we could see the color better. We headed to our hotel and the Hooversheaded to theirs. We had called the other guys that were going to come up in the evening and told themto not come because of the rain and wind. They had not really started yet. We would hear later that theydecided to go to Franconia to hunt to save their weekend.
Af ter checking into the hotel we met up with Robert and Robby for dinner. The pizza and beer were onRichard since he had said f irst one to f ind a meteorite buys. That is what Paul and I do too so that wasnormal fun for me. But, he had been the f irst and my f ind was still somewhat in debate since it was so dirtywith clay on all but one side. And my other little piece was more meteorite looking but dif ferent. Both hadbeen found af ter his immediate f ind.
Dinner was great I had not met the Hoovers before that day and this meal was our f irst time to converse.It was another of those crazy things that happens with weird f requency. Within minutes Robert says that
he was a pilot for the Catalina Island seaplane company. I ask if it was the one under the Vincent ThomasBridge, and he says yes. In shock I tell him that I worked at the Catalina Steamship company next door thatshared the same launching ramp. I used to f ly in the seaplanes to Catalina to see f riends who owned ahotel in Avalon about once a week during several summers. We missed working at the same time by onlyabout a year. The SS Catalina stopped running and ended up half sunk in Ensenada Mexico. His seaplaneswere grounded (if you can actually ground a “sea” plane) because of too much corrosion f rom seawater.But, if I had worked there only months more I might have taken my early morning f light with Robert as pilot.On those f lights I was always the only passenger so I sat by the pilot and we chatted on the trip.
A lot more great conversation at dinner about a host of topics which included a new plan for our trip. Wewould see what the rain did overnight and likely head south to the Alamo Breccia site at Hancock Summit,hunt and play there for a couple hours then head to Stewart Valley for hopefully a few hours to f ind somemeteorites.
It did rain all night and as late as 4:30-5 am I was still hearing thunder in the hotel room. There was nodoubt af ter a whole night of hard rain we would not be trying to return to Yelland “not so dry” Dry Lake.
Robby and Robert Hoover and Richard Garcia under theExtraterrestrial Highway sige at the fork in the road headingto the Alamo Breccia.
It was about a two and half hour drive down to the Alamo Breccia site and we arrived at just about 10 am.Richard said we had to leave near 12 or we would not have any time at Stewart Valley. The hike up to thetop of the breccia layer is not my favorite hike. As any longtime reader of my articles knows I have someacrophobia. But, I did make it up to the highest spot again and had a picture taking moment with Richardand Robby. I found a dime up there. Do not know if it was accidentally dropped or some crazy geocachingdeposit. I had said I was not going to take back much breccia but I did bring back my small bag stuf fed withit. Robert and Robby had not been there before so I did my best along with Richard to see that they foundsome nice pieces that would look great when cut.
Almost nothing is as much fun as hunting fossils exceptmaybe hunting meteorites. Here are a few pictures of theAlamo Breccia and one petroglyph image. There are not a lotof petroglyphs there as in other places in southern Nevadabut it is always fun and interesting to see any that you f ind.
Two hours passes fast up there on the ridge and we were back on the road headed toward StewartValley. We got there af ter a stop for gas and a bite to eat at 4 pm. That gave us about 2 ½ to 3 hours tohunt. Richard wanted to f ind one as fast as he could so I would know what they looked like. He drovearound on the lake looking out the window and found one in a few minutes. We stopped near there and hefound another in about a minute. He called Robert and Robby f rom where they were and we all huntednearby that spot. In a few minutes Robert had found one then another. Then Robby found one. Then hisdad had found another and then another making four for Robert. I was not seeing anything even close tothe right color and though I was touching everything nothing was sticking to my magnet stick.
Af ter an hour or so of this I was starting to smell skunk on me and was thinking I would probably not f indone for there was not much light remaining. The Hoovers were ready to go and said goodbye. Richardtook the jeep over to another spot that had been productive in the past and I got my magnet stick andstarted hunting again. In just a matter of seconds I touched toward the only stone I had seen that wasbrown and clack. It jumped onto my magnet. Richard was still just feet away since it had only been aminute. I held the end of the magnet stick toward him and he looked at the stone and held out his hand tocongratulate me. There were only a few minute lef t until it was just too dark to continue hunting. But, I hadfound one. Richard had given me the ones he found since I needed at least two.
I was carrying beads this trip and needed two meteorites. There is a wonderful program called Beads ofCourage that serves children with serious illness by providing a bead for each procedure and special eventor challenge overcome during treatment. They have a bead kit that you can purchase with a donation. Itconsists of two beads and a note card and a pin or string. You can carry the two beads on an adventureor on a hike or bike race or really whatever. You keep one of the beads and you send back the other withthe report card and you post images to a website. Then that returned bead is gotten by a child and theybecome a participant in the adventure or journey. Well I had decided to carry beads on this trip and if Ifound meteorites to include a meteorite that was found in with the returned bead and images. So I neededthe second meteorite or I would have to give away my only found Stewart Valley. So big thanks to Richardfor providing the actual recovered meteorite that is being sent to a very courageous child.
This is the Stewart Valley meteorite I found.
Since I did f ind a meteorite at Stewart Valley the Dairy Queen sof t serve ice cream cones were on me atBaker on the way home.
I had cleaned up the Yelland at the hotel and it was looking a lot better that it was a meteorite. I got homefrom the trip at about 12:30 am on Sunday morning almost two days early. Got few hours sleep but wentstraight to the garage in the morning to put a window on that stone f rom Yelland. It was 25.4 grams when Istarted and 25 exactly when I f inished lapping it. There was no more doubt af ter lapping it. The stone hada nice sprinkling of small metal grains and I was an even happier hunter.
Here is the Yelland Meteorite af ter grinding a window on thenearly f lat broken side. It has a nice scattering of metalgrains and is my newest found treasure along with theStewart Valley.
Paul and I got in our traditional autumn astrophotography trip a couple weeks later and here is one of theimages I took on that trip just for the fun of it.
This is the Orion Nebula shot for this year. With over two hours of total exposure time it is much deeperthan last year’s image. But there is no end to how long you can shoot this area. Who knows next year Imay go even longer to see what else I can bring out. Its my favorite object to image.
Meteorite-Times MagazineMeteorite Market Trendsby Michael Blood
Like 3 likes. Sign Up to see what your friends like.
This Month’sMeteorite Market Trends
by Michael Blood
Please Share and Enjoy:
Meteorite Times Magazine
UPDATE: San Bernardino Wash (L5)Robert Verish
Nomenclature Committee voted on my 2012 findsand officially named them San Bernardino Wash
Since my f irst article on this subject back in January 2014, there has been a lot of ef fort (includingadditional f ieldwork) to get my UCLA-classif ied f inds f rom the San Bernardino Wash (SBW) strewn-f ield(as well as subsequent f inds) approved by the Nomenclature Committee (NomCom) and included in theMeteoritical Bulletin Database. This “Update” reports on those ef forts.The UCLA classif ications for my 2012 SBW f inds were submitted to the NomCom. The Committee’sdecision was to formally include them with earlier found stones. My f inds are now of f icially named “SanBernardino Wash (L5)”.
This is exciting news because this conf irms that there is a new, Gold Basin-style strewn-field and it islocated in Southern California. What I mean by “Gold Basin-style”, is that both strewn-f ields arecomprised of stones with variable appearances (due to variations in weathering, shock stage, andlithology). Yet despite very pronounced dif ferences among the Gold Basin (GB) stones in their “looks”,studies have shown that all of them are now deemed to have come f rom the same fall. This is now thesame case for the San Bernardino Wash strewn-f ield.
This is a distinction that I make, for example, as opposed to a “Franconia-style” of concentration of f inds.If you remember, the Franconia Area was once considered a singular strewn-f ield (because the H-chondrites appeared similar, superf icially), but upon further study, it has been shown that there weremultiple H-chondrite falls in that area. Hence, the Yucca Dense Collection Area (DCA) designation. (Formore details, I refer the reader to Melinda Hutson 2013 paper – see Ref . #2)
In order to clarify what I mean by variations in Gold Basin stonys, I need to refer the reader to my 2001abstract and my 2005 articles where I presented evidence for the heterogeniety among the meteoritesfound in the Gold Basin/Hualapai Wash area. It was ten years ago, but readers may remember discussionsabout “Gold Basin (L6)”with “high-shock-stage” and strangely dark groundmass. For those not familiar withthese topics, these terms came about as a result of my examination of many dozen of meteorites f rom theGold Basin Area. Two dozen candidate stones were classif ied, resulting in 18 classif ications that were not“L4″.
The following Gold Basin (L6) & (L5) meteorites were submitted to the NomCom and were approved:
Hualapai Wash 002 – L6, S5, W3 (highly shocked)
Hualapai Wash 003 – L5, S4, W2 (highly shocked) – Finder Donald O’Keef feHualapai Wash 004 – L5, S3, W2 (metal veined) – Finder Donald O’Keef feHualapai Wash 005 – L6, S3, W2 (unweathered)Hualapai Wash 006 – L6, S4, W2 (hi-shock & petrologic grade)Hualapai Wash 007 – L6, S4, W3 (hi-shock & petrologic grade)Hualapai Wash 008 – L5, S5, W1 (impact-melt breccia)Hualapai Wash 009 – L6, S4, W4 (highly shocked & weathered)Hualapai Wash 010 – L6, S4, W1 (2.35kg mass)Hualapai Wash 011 – L6, S4, W1 (Fa 24.0+/-0.3%)Hualapai Wash 012 – L6, S4, W3 (Fa 24.2+/-0.2%)Hualapai Wash 013 – L6, S4, W5 (Fa 23.8+/-0.4%)Hualapai Wash 014 – L6, S4, W3 (Fa 24.3+/-0.3%)Hualapai Wash 015 – L6, S3, W4 (Fa 24.3+/-1.5%)Hualapai Wash 016 – L6, S3, W1 (Fa 24.0+/-0.7%)Hualapai Wash 017 – L6, S5, W3 (Fa 25.0+/-0.4%)Hualapai Wash 018 – L5, S4, W1 (Fa 24.6+/-0.5%)Hualapai Wash 019 – L5, S4, W1 (Fa 23.9+/-0.2%)
But while these approved meteorites were awaiting the next edition of the Meteoritical Bulletin, someonelodged a complaint which resulted in the Committee editing them out of the MetBull Database. Theapprovals were rescinded (which is the reason why there is such a large gap in the Hualapai Washnumbering sequence). All of the Hualapai Wash (L6) were deemed to be Gold Basin (L6). It wasrecommended that the classif ication for Gold Basin be revised to “L4-6″, but that never happened. Norwas it ever reconciled how the Gold Basin meteoroid could have such a range of petrologic grade andshock stage (L4-6 S3-5 W1-5) while never exhibiting any obvious brecciation.
The reason that I am dredging-up this historical muck is only to give some insight into my thought processabout how I would eventually handle the classif ications for my SBWash f inds. I have been unfairlycriticized for (initially) not submitting my SBWash classif ications to the NomCom. But in my defense (af terexperiencing the major rejection by the NomCom of my Hualapai Wash classif ications), why would I everwaste the NomCom’s time with my SBWash f ind classif ications when they are so obviously paired to thealready approved and cataloged “San Bernardino Wash” meteorite?
But when the unfair criticism became decidedly vindictive and comments turned into personal insults, Ichanged my mind and decided to submit my f indings to the NomCom. I will now endeavor to recount thestory of how my 2012 meteorite f ind became the of f icially recognized main mass of the San BernardinoWash meteorite. But f irst, I would like to point-out that I have had a long historyof involvement trying to recover meteorites f rom this area of the Pinto Mountains known as the DaleMining District. Here is a list of some of the activities in which I was involved:The revised classif ication for Dale Dry Lake was due to my ef forts.I proved the “Pinto Mountains Iron Meteorites” to be meteor-wrongs and had them deaccessioned f romthe San Bernardino County Museum of Natural History collection. I am quite familiar with a wide variety ofmeteor-wrongs f rom this locality.I proved that Nininger’s 19kg Twentynine Palms (1955) L-chondrite is the main-mass of the PintoMountains (both meteorites found by the same f inder) by obtaining a piece of Pinto Mountains that wasinherited by the nephew of the f inder, and personally physically-paired it to the type-specimen of“Twentynine Palms (1955)” in the collection at ASU.I belong to a prospectors club that has a claim in the Dale Mining District and my fellow members can vouchthat I have been long urging them to keep examining their sluice-boxes for meteorites. In fact, one of theoriginal f inders of the SBW meteorite, Fred Mason (also f rom San Diego County) is a fellow prospectorand Franconia strewn-f ield hunter.I have invested a lot of time and ef fort conducting meteorite-recovery and outreach in this part ofSouthern California.What I’m saying is that I am NOT a “late-comer to this party”!
More pointedly, I was invited to this meteorite locality by Fred Mason to join him at his gold prospect andhe would show me where he found his f ragments of the SBW meteorite. In my f irst article about SBW(which was posted earlier this year) I recounted that reunion with Fred and how I eventually recognizedthat one of the hot-rocks that I metal-detected was actually a f ragment of that meteorite he found earlier.Here in this article, we now pick-up the action where we had lef t-of f in the previous article:
Close-up image of a sub-gram fragment that I found with my metal-detector on the same outcropwhere Fred Mason discovered his f ragments. My f ield ID for this is “San Bernardino Wash ‘a’cluster” This small f ind, nonetheless, is independent corroboration of the earlier Fred Masonrecovery.
My initial f ind is important, particularly to the original f inders, because it verif ies their recovery story, andshows that (far f rom being an interloper intruding into the their claim site) I was making a signif icantcontribution to the recovery ef fort. Encouraged that I actually did f ind a trace amount of the SBWmeteorite, I returned to this locality to renew my search.The following photos are in-situ images of some of my subsequent f inds:
In-situ image of my 2nd f ind at this locality: San Bernardino Wash “b” – Riverside County, CA
Image of my 2nd f ind (343 g) at this locality, af ter it was “plucked” f rom the ground: San Bernardino Wash“b” – Riverside County, CA
In-situ image of my 3rd f ind at this locality: San Bernardino Wash “c” – RiversideCounty, CA
In-situ image of my 3rd f ind with my 2nd f ind placed side-by-side: San Bernardino Wash “b” & “c” –Riverside County, CA
In-situ image of another f ragment f rom the San Bernardino Wash “c” cluster – so far,there have been an additional 24 f ragments found (TKW=630g) f rom this “splatter-cluster” .
Eventually in 2013, I got around to cutting some of these f ragments. One individual stone appeared to bemuch less weathered compared to the other f ragments, possibly indicating very micro-environment-controlled weathering of some f ragments. So, in order to determine if this “less weathered” individual waspaired to the more weathered f ragments, these two specimens were sampled, thin-sectioned, micro-probed, and characterized by UCLA. The resulting [similiar] classif ications showed that my two specimenswere paired, AND that they were paired, as well, to the earlier classif ied San Bernardino Wash (L5) stonesalready in the Meteoritical Bulletin Database (MBD).– see table below for comparison.The following meteorite specimens were characterized by Dr. Alan Rubin, UCLA:
Pinto Mountains — 1955 stone(L6 S3 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.3% n=16; low-Ca pyroxeneFs20.3Wo1.5 n=17)
San Bernardino Wash — 2010 stone(L5 S2 W3 Fa24.6+/-0.6% n=7) — (UCLA type-specimen)
SanBernardino Wash“b” — 2012 f ind (L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8+/-0.4% n=14)
SanBernardino Wash“c” — 2012 f ind (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2% n=24)
Although not necessarily a part of this study, but for completeness, a sample of my Pinto Mountainsspecimen was thin-sectioned and characterized, as well. Even though there were some variations inweathering grade (W1-W3) and even less in shock stage (S1-S2), all of the SBW fragments found in thisstudy had many common characteristics. This stood in contrast to my Pinto Mountains specimen whichdisplayed a more recrystallized (less f riable) groundmass, and chondrules that were more equilibrated withthe matrix.
The data in the above table appeared in my earlier article on “SBWash (L5)” which was published in midJanuary of 2014.So, the fact that I had made more SBWash f inds and already had them CLASSIFIED by UCLA was allpublic knowledge by the time I made my f irst post to the Meteorite-List about “the new North Americanmeteorite strewn-f ield” on the 20th of January 2014.
Since my post to the Meteorite-List the remainder of this unfolding story revolves around UCLA and theNomCom.
Since my post the remainder of this past year has been spent communicating with the NomCom, as well as,travelling to UCLA to have meetings with the classif ier. This eventually led-up to the vote by the NomComon a name for my f inds, but in the interim there was a good deal of involvement by all parties involved,which has lef t UCLA and the NomCom wondering why all of this was necessary, particularly just for anordinary chondrite?
I certainly could go into a lot more detail about all of this “involvement”, but suf f ice to say that the f inaldecision to pair my f inds to the San Bernardino Wash Meteorite was in no way done in a casual manner.And of course, there still remains the job of how best to document in the MBD this increase in TKW and inthe additional amount of type-specimen held by UCLA. Still to be answered is what to do with the twoclassif ications done by UCLA for my f inds? Does all the classif ier’s time/ef fort/funding not get recognizedor documented somewhere? And if not, what then is the status of the “additional type-specimens”? Ifthese specimens become divorced f rom their classif ications, then what accurate scientif ic purpose do theyserve?
With all of these questions still pending, I feel that it would be best to record, here, in this article how thenaming of the San Bernardino Wash meteorite unfolded.Below is a portion of the email message that I sent to the Editor of the Meteoritical Bulletin. This is how Isubmitted the classif ications done by UCLA, and how I requested that a name be approved by theNomCom for these classif ied meteorites.
(quote)> Attached you will f ind the MB-submission forms for the meteorites that I found in 2012.> They were all found within the San Bernardino Wash strewn-f ield located in> Riverside County, CA.>> In an attempt to pair these f inds to the San Bernardino Wash (L5) meteorite,> we encountered some dissimilarities among these meteorites.> What is at the heart of the problem is that, although I found all these meteorites> in a several meter wide “cluster” or “splatter zone”, none of them can be> physically-paired. Worse, my initial f ind is clearly a f resh, individual stone,> and all of the subsequent f inds f rom the cluster are weathered f ragments> which have no possibility of being related, let alone physically-paired,> to the discovery stone. This has produced a situation,> where an apparent pre-existing cluster of L-chondrite splatter f ragments> has had another L-chondrite mass subsequently fall onto that cluster.> (Note: there is a remote possibility that the individual stone is f rom the> same fall as the mass that produced the splatter f ragments. But> the coincidence that the (much less-weathered) individual stone was> somehow able to singularly protect itself f rom weathering, is too dif f icult> to reconcile. Also, the dif ference in shock stage and in porosity> makes this scenario all too improbable.)>>> In an ef fort to resolve this issue, I have brought all of my found f ragments> and their thin-sections to Dr. Rubin to compare with the type-specimens> and thin-section (in the UCLA collection) for the San Bernardino Wash (L5)> meteorite. Af ter his careful comparison, and examination, as well as,
> characterization, it is our opinion that the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities> and that these three meteorites are not paired (or at least, can NOT be> proven to be paired) So, the more prudent course of action is to give> separate names to each of these meteorites. For example:> San Bernardino Wash (b) and San Bernardino Wash (c)> Please contact me should you have any questions.> Bob Verish(unquote)
The table below is a representation of the data that appears in an “MB-submission-table”, meaning that thisis the form that submitters send to the NomCom in order to request their approval for a proposed namefor a meteorite. This form was attached to the above message that I sent to the Editor of the MeteoriticalBulletin, and he presented this data (and hopefully, the information in my message to him) to theCommittee in order for the request to be brought up for a vote:
Please Note: This table may not be formatted correctly or show completely on your screen. Use this link toview this table correctly: http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2014/nov14.htm
Proposedname
FindDate Mass PiecesClassShoWeaFa Classif ierType
spec loc MainmassFinderComments Submitter
SanBernardinoWash (b)
2012April18
343.10only 1 L5 S2 W1 Fa23.8±0.4‰(n=14)
AlanRubin,UCLA
23 g UCLAVerish R. S.Verish
Found inRiversideCounty; f ieldID: RSV-PMb; slightlymoreequilibratedand lesschondrule-rich than SanBernardinoWash; moreshocked thanSanBernardinoWash (c);much lessweatheredthan either ofthose twometeorites;but, if adegree ofheterogenietyis allowed, itis probablethat all theSanBernardinoWashL-chondritesare paired.
Verish
SanBernardinoWash ( c )
2012April18
650.00>24 L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0±0.2‰(n=24)
AlanRubin,UCLA
41 g UCLAVerish R. S.Verish
Found inRiversideCounty; f ieldID: RSV-Dale; slightlymoreequilibrated,less shockedand lesschondrule-rich than SanBernardinoWash.If a degreeofheterogenietyis allowed, itis probablethat all theSanBernardinoWash L-
Verish
chondritesare paired.
And below is the message sent to me f rom the Editor of the Met. Bull. indicating the results of the vote bythe NomCom:
To: Robert Verish <[email protected]>
Subject: Status of job 20140913190136
Dear submitter,
Here is the current status of samples you submitted to the NomenclatureCommittee
for job 20140913190136 (San Bernadino Wash B+C):
The following meteorites have been rejected:
San Bernardino Wash (b) (343.10 g, L5) [Report date 2014 Sep 29.]
San Bernardino Wash (c) (650.00 g, L5) [Report date 2014Sep 29.]
Job=20140913190136 (San Bernadino Wash B+C)
Submitted by Robert Verish ([email protected])
San Bernardino Wash (b) (343.10 g, L5)
Vote: Approve=1, Disapprove=7, Abstain=0, Conf licted=0
Decision: Pending (did not pass: must be rejected or revoted)
Votes and comments
Reject:Reject – probably paired with SB Wash, since it is found in a known strewnfield, as mentioned in writeup history. Perhaps theentry for SB Wash could be updated instead, adding these two new fragments. Reject:Recommend revising current entry for SB Wash instead of making new entries. Reject:Not enough evidence that this is unpaired with SB Wash, which is also L5, S2. Reject:Seems like more samples of the same meteorite– no new name warranted. Accept:What is the distance from SB Wash?
San Bernardino Wash (c) (650.00 g, L5)
Vote: Approve=1, Disapprove=7, Abstain=0, Conf licted=0
Decision: Pending (did not pass: must be rejected or revoted)
Votes and comments
Reject:Not enough evidence that this is unpaired with SB Wash. Put a note in bulletinunder the original meteorite about the two new pieces. Reject:Recommend revising current entry for SB Wash instead of making new entries. Accept:What is the distance from SB Wash? Reject:same comments as other SB Wash (b) Reject:no new name warranted
The above reprint is the message sent to me f rom the Editor of the Meteoritical Bulletin describing theaction taken by the NomCom and the results of their vote. These results indicate that my meteoritesformerly known as “SB Wash (b) ” or Field ID “RSV-PMb”, and “SB Wash (c)” or Field ID “RSV-Dale” arenow collectively known as the “San Bernardino Wash (L5)” meteorite. This is the formal notif ication that anylabeled specimens currently held in collections should revise their labels and catalogs, if any of theseformer names or f ield IDs were used, and instead, to use the approved name, “San Bernardino Wash”.Fortunately for me, I did not use any other name on my labels for the specimens that I disseminated toother collections.NOTE to collectors holding samples of my San Bernardino Wash (L5) f inds – any and all statements orcomments declaring that “your specimens are not San Bernardino Wash” are inaccurate and unauthorized,and should be ignored.
It was also the concensus of the Committee that the entry for San Bernardino Wash in the MeteoriticalBulletin Database (MBD) be updated to ref lect these additional masses. So, I extracted the alreadyexisting information that appeared in my “MB-submission-table” (see above) and sent that condensed data
to the Editor for the Met. Bull. At the request of the webmaster for the MBD, I sent that same informationto him, as well. Although that data hasn’t been incorporated into the MBD, yet (at least, not at the time ofthe writing of this article) the following table would be a very accurate representation as to how this newinformation would appear:
SanBernardino Wash
Basicinformation
Name: SanBernardino Wash This is an OFFICIAL meteorite name.Abbreviation: There is no of f icialabbreviation for this meteorite.Observed fall: NoYear found: 2010Country: United StatesMass: 1250 g
Classificationhistory:
Recommended: L5
This is 1 of 5236 approved meteorites (plus 1 unapproved name) classif ied asL5. <ahref=”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=L5&sfor=types&stype=exact&lrec=200&srt=name”>[show all]
Search for other: <ahref=”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=&sfor=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=L+chondrites+%28type+4-7%29&srt=name”>L chondrites (type 4-7), <ahref=”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=&sfor=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=Ordinary+chondrites+%28type+4-7%29&srt=name”>Ordinary chondrites (type 4-7), <ahref=”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=&sfor=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=L+chondrites&srt=name”>L chondrites, and <ahref=”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=&sfor=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&categ=Ordinary+chondrites&srt=name”>Ordinary chondrites
Comments:Approved 28 Feb 2012Revised 8 Mar 2012: updated massRevised ?? Sep 2014: updated Mass, Pieces,Main mass, Type specimensand Comments
WriteupWriteup from MB 100:
San Bernardino Wash 34°0’2″N, 115°43’47″W
California, USA
Found: 2010
Classif ication: Ordinary chondrite (L5)
History: Bob Perkins of Highland,California found the f irst and second stones while metal-detecting for gold withGary Crabtree near the “Rusty Gold Mine,” in the Dale Mining District. Severalf ragments were subsequently found by Fred Mason, of Arizona.
Writeup from MB 103:
San Bernardino Wash
[additional] History: On 18 April 2012additional stones were recovered by Robert Verish, also of San Diego,California. His f irst f ind (343.1g) was a nearly whole, slightly weatheredindividual stone. The subsequent stones (~650g) were all just a few meters away,forming a 20m wide “splatter zone” comprising ~24 badly weathered f ragments,none of which could be physically-paired to the 343g stone.
Datafrom:MB100Table 0Line 0:
State/Prov/County: CaliforniaDate: 2010Latitude: 34°0’2″NLongitude: 115°43’47″WMass (g): 258Pieces: 10Class: L5Shock stage: S2Weathering grade: W3Fayalite (mol%): 24.6±0.6 (n=7)
Ferrosilite (mol%): 20.4Wollastonite (mol%): 1.3 (n=8)Classif ier: A.E. RubinType spec mass (g): 22.1Type spec location: UCLAMain mass: JUtasFinder: Bob PerkinsComments: Submitted by JUtas
Datafrom:MB103Table 0Line 0:
Mass (g): 1250Pieces: >34Classif ier: A.E. RubinType spec mass (g): 86.1Type spec location: UCLAMain mass: VerishComments: Submitted by Verish;
Specimens: 22.1g (3 samples f rom the initial 10pieces), 23g (f rom the 343g stone) and 41g (f romthe main mass); Because the 343g stone looks muchless weathered, it was micro-probed by A.E. Rubin(classif ier, UCLA) and characterized as being, “notonly much less weathered, but also more shocked,slightly more equilibrated, and less chondrule-richthan the other San Bernardino Wash stones”
Institutionsandcollections
<ahref=”http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullCollectionInfo.php?coll=UCLA”>UCLA: Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, United States (institutional address;updated 17 Oct 2011)<ahref=”http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/MetBullCollectionInfo.php?coll=JUtas”>JUtas: Jason Utas, United States (private address; updated 8 Jun 2010)Verish: Robert Verish, Meteorite-Recovery Lab, P.O. Box 463084,Escondido, CA 92046, United States; Website (private address; updated 27 May 2009)
Catalogs:References: Published in Meteoritical
Bulletin, no. 100, MAPS 46, in preparation (2013)
Find references in NASA ADS:Find references in Google Scholar:
Geography: Coordinates: Recommended:: (34° 0′ 2″N, 115° 43′ 47″W)
Statistics:
This is 1 of 243 approved meteorites f rom <ahref=”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=California&sfor=places&stype=exact&lrec=200&country=United+States&srt=name”>California, United States (plus 24 unapproved names)
This is 1 of 1738 approved meteorites f rom <ahref=”/meteor/metbull.php?sea=&sfor=names&stype=contains&lrec=200&country=United+States&srt=name”>United States (plus 355 unapproved names) (plus 28 impact craters)
View Google Map
Proximitysearch:
Find nearbymeteorites: enter search radius (km):
Also see: See what others liked Thislists the most popular meteorites among people who looked up thismeteorite.
Revisionhistory: Revision history This listsimportant revisions made to data for this record.
Once this new information gets recorded, what remains to be done will be the uploading of images ofSBWash specimens into the Encyclopedia of Meteorites. The following images would be good examples:
– IMAGE GALLERY —
Thin-section taken from my fragment found at the Fred Mason locality:
Cheap, hastily made thin-section for visual-pairingpurposes of my specimen f rom the Fred Mason f indlocality.
Close-up. This thin-section was visually-paired to the SBW(L5) type-specimen atUCLA, which corroborates the Fred Masonf ind location and the existence of a strewn-f ield.
– IMAGE GALLERY —>Part-slices from the “W1″ fragment:
San Bernardino Wash (L5 S2 W1 ) – RiversideCo., CA
San Bernardino Wash (L5 S2 W1 ) – RiversideCo., CA
– IMAGE GALLERY —Part-slices from the “S1 W3″ fragments:
San Bernardino Wash (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2%n=24) – Riverside Co., CA
San Bernardino Wash (L5 S1 W3 Fa24.0+/-0.2%n=24) – Riverside Co., CA
Latest f ind (unclassif ied) f rom the San
Bernardino Wash Area – by an anonymous goldprospector. “The continual gold prospecting withmetal detectors has inadvertently resulted in therecovery of additional chondritic stones.” —RSV
Hope you enjoyed the images!I concluded my previous SBW article by saying, “There may be more information forthcoming about thismeteorite, at a later time – if more are found.” and that still remains the case, even now.
References:
1.) San Bernardino Wash (L5) in Meteorite-Times — the January 2014 “Bob’s Findings article.
2.) Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) Meeting (LPSC 2005). This poster presentation was titled:“ATMOSPHERIC FRAGMENTATION OF THE GOLD BASIN METEOROID AS CONSTRAINED FROMCOSMOGENIC NUCLIDES”by Kees Welten, D. J. Hillegonds, A. J. T. Jull and David A. KringPoster presentation at: Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) Meeting (LPSC 2005).This is the link to that abstract: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf /2352.pdf Among other things, this abstract concluded that:“The radionuclide results f rom f if teen (15) new L-chondrite specimens f rom the Gold Basin Area indicatethat all samples are part of the same shower, which should be reclassif ied as an L4-6 chondrite breccia.”
3.) “Stones f rom Mohave County, Arizona: Multiple falls in the “Franconia strewn f ield”by Melinda Hutson, Alex Ruzicka, A. J. Timothy Jull, James E. Smaller and Ryan Brownin Meteoritics & Planetary Science (M&PS): Volume 48, Issue 3, pages 365–389, March 2013Abstract: One of the most productive and well-sampled dense collection areas for meteorites on Earth isthe “Franconia strewn f ield” in Mohave County, Arizona, which since 2002 has yielded hundreds ofmeteorites in an ellipsoidal area approximately 5 × 16 km across. Based on petrographic, mineral-chemical,and terrestrial age data, we conclude that among 14 meteorites examined, there are at least 6 andpossibly 8 distinct meteorites represented, which fell over a period of approximately 0–20 kyr ago. Theseinclude equilibrated H-chondrites such as Franconia (H5) and Buck Mountains (BM) 001 (H6); H3–6breccias such as Buck Mountains Wash and BM 004; and L6 chondrites such as BM 002 and BM 003(which may be paired), Palo Verde Mine, and BM 005. To conf idently pair such meteorites of ten requiresthorough petrographic examination, mineral-chemical analyses, and terrestrial ages. We estimate that 50 ±10% of the larger specimens in this area are paired, yielding a relatively high value of approximately 2.3–2.9 distinct meteorites km−2. The meteorite f lux estimated for Franconia area is higher than the f luxinferred f rom contemporary f ireball data for larger masses. We suggest that one large H3–6 meteoroid fellin the area, most likely that of Buck Mountains Wash approximately 4 kyr ago, which produced an ellipticalstrewn f ield with masses generally increasing toward one end, and which raised the meteorite productivityin the recovery area.
4.) San Bernardino Wash in Meteoritical Bulletin: Entry for San Bernardino Wash – as originally published inMeteoritical Bulletin, no. 100, MAPS 46, (2014).
5.) Photo Gallery of San Bernardino Wash Meteorites on the “California Meteorites dot Com” website.
Any and all meteorite classif ications that appear in this article are courtesy of Dr. Alan Rubin, UCLA.
There are many active claims in the San Bernardino Wash area. All of these are “placer & hardrockgold claims”, and even though meteorites can NOT be included in a gold claim (because they are“non-relocateable”), there is no way to distinguish between metal-detecting for meteorites (which isallowed) from metal detecting for gold (which requires permission from the claim-holder)! This article inno way suggests prospecting on a claim without permission. For more information, see BLM Land UsePolicy.)
My previous articles can be found *HERE*
For for more information, please contact me by email: Bolide*chaser
Meteorite Times Magazine
ASU Higher MagnificationJohn Kashuba
This is a selection of photos of various thin sections in the horde released by Arizona State Universityearlier this year. Most are at a higher magnif ication than those I usually place here.
Complex chondrule. Diameter 0.6mm. Allende CV3
Complex chondrule. Diameter 1mm. Allende CV3
Barred olivine chondrule. The upper portion of this chondrule displays four warm colored segments ofbars whose arrangement suggests the hourglass conf iguration that Roger Warin, Frédéric Hatert and Idiscussed in the November 2010 issue of Meteorite magazine. We found that hourglass chondrules aremineralogical twins. Diameter 0.45mm. Faith H5
Crystals in vugs. Gladstone H4
Crystals in a vug. Field of view 0.52mm wide. Gladstone H4
Barred olivine chondrule with two distinct sets of bars, each with its associated rim. New Concord L6
Like the broken barred olivine chondrule in Selma H4 we looked at in September 2014, this BO chondrulebroke and slipped “vertically” before being sectioned. We could demonstrate the geometry of this byholding a peeled cooked egg point up and slicing it in half with a knife f rom top to bottom; then sliding oneof the halves down, vertically, one third of its height; then making a horizontal cut through both pieces atthe level of the center of the stationary half . Taiban L5
Barred olivine chondrule with metal blebs (sparkling blue). Cross-polarized transmitted light and incidentlight. Wellman (a) H5
Meteorite Times Magazine
A complete Australite detached flange ring!Norm Lehrman
Figure 1: an Aussie lens, a f langed button, and rarest of all, acomplete detached f lange ring!
Flanged Australite buttons are perhaps the most coveted tektite morphology that exists, and they are,indeed, glorious things. But they have an occasional of fspring that is much, much rarer: the detachedf lange ring.
The majority of Australites appear to have started atmospheric re-entry as spheres, which were alwaysthermally modif ied in subsequent gravitationally-accelerated f light. Flanges formed (and were sometimespreserved) in Australites of a very narrow initial size range. Above a certain size, temperatures wereunable to equilibrate between the red hot f rontal face and the vacuum-refrigerated posterior of the tektite.This thermal stress led to the explosive spalling of f lakes f rom the expanding leading surface and theformation of f luted ablation cores. Within the critical dimension range, thermal stresses did equilibratesuf f iciently to preclude breakage, and molten glass f rom the face f lowed into the pressure shadowsringing the shoulder to form coiled f langes of secondary glass. But very of ten, the process went too far,and the f langes themselves were ablated away, leaving the most common Australite morphology of all, thediscoid lens.But what of the lost f langes? Once in a great while, they detached intact and survived as perfect rings.These are rare treasures and it took me over 20 years to acquire the specimen featured in this article. Sofar, I have never had another opportunity to obtain another one at any price.
Figure 2: A f langed button arrested by the cold of darkf light moments before it lost its ring.
All specimens are f rom the author’s private collection. The detached ring weighs 0.9 grams.
Meteorite Times Magazine
Laura Atkins InterviewPaul Harris
This feature is devoted to one of the personalities within the meteorite community. This month we aredelighted to share an interview we had with Laura Atkins.
(MT) What or who got you interested in meteorites and how old were you when you got your f irstmeteorite?
(LA) I have always been a rock hound, treasure hunter, artifact and fossil f inder since I can remember, andeven have some of them still to this day f rom when I was very young child. I admire them fondly, but theyhave only memory value. I started hunting meteorites specif ically in my adult life, with my Nephew LarryAtkins. Our passion and our like views and spirit, make the exchange of ideas and curiosity a natural thingfor us. I can remember a time he would talk about going to the Tucson Gem and Mineral show, and Iwanted to go terribly, but wasn’t able to get away f rom work. Later and with a dif ferent job, I said, “I’mgoing”, and that was pretty much the start of my great meteorite adventures.
(MT) What was your f irst meteorite?
(LA) My f irst meteorite was a Gold Basin, found 2 of them on f irst trip two mornings in a row about 100feet or less f rom camp…then nothing the rest of the trip. Nothing too big to brag about, just about the sizeof a half dollar, but still my f irst f ind.
(MT) Do you still have it?
(LA) Yes, I still have them and out on display too!
(MT) Do you have special areas of interest that you focus on in regards to meteorites (thin sections,photography, chemistry, age dating.. etc.)?
(LA) The hunt is one of my favorite parts of the experience, searching for these rare treasures has methinking about them daily and yearning to head out for a search. The excitement is like no other! I watchand listen for reports, and get that feeling every time it looks like there is a possibility for a f ind.
I am a very visual person, so the meteorite itself , thin sections, composition, and the story behind each oneis the source for my artwork. I am currently working on a body of work pertaining to meteorites, andspecif ic f inds. I look for specif ic meteorites, and when I come across one that has a great story or has alook that I feel I can use for inspiration, I purchase the piece and use the actual meteorite and its story inthe works. I combine research, computer graphics, and hand printing on rice papers and dif ferentsubstrates for the f inal pieces. Some are graphically hidden in the piece, and also done as assembly, withthe actual piece shown in the work unaltered. I have plans to show at the Tucson Gem & Mineral show in2016.
(MT) Does your Family share in your interest in meteorites?
(LA) Yes, my Nephew Larry Atkins and my brother Brent Hiller, along with myself get together every yearto go on one major hunt. I have several other nephews that hunt and collect as well, so I guess you couldcall it a family thing. Everyone in the family is very supportive and understands the drive, even if they don’tgo out in the f ield.
(MT) Do you have any special approaches to collecting
(LA) As for approaches, that goes back to my artwork, and what I feel I would like to work with in the piece.It is win win for me on collecting. I learn daily about the science, the piece itself and its history. Pallasites,irons, rare f inds, all falls collectively peak my interest. I don’t have a humidity controlled storage, so thatdoes af fect my decisions in collecting specif ic pieces.
(MT) Do you mind saying how many locations your collection represents?
(LA) Just a small collection at this time.
(MT) Is your collection displayed or kept in a dry box or both?
(LA) Both. I keep a few out on display, but some are kept in a locked safe.
(MT). In what ways do you use your computer for meteorites. (met-list, Social Media, meteorite research,shopping, etc.)
(LA) All of the above. I read and research dif ferent types, and study as much as I can about them byclassif ication. I use the American Meteor Society pages for research on new sightings and information, andsearch eBay occasionally for particular meteorites if I’m looking to buy. Some of the most interesting viewscome f rom the conversations in the meteorite-list.
(MT) Do you ever hunt for meteorites?
(LA) Yes, I generally go out to AZ every year for a couple of weeks to do some hunting. Sometimessuccessful, and sometimes not. I recently have been going out doing some interviews on some sightedfalls and making contacts.
(MT) What is your favorite meteorite in your collection?
(LA) Kediri, L4. This came f rom a trade with ASU. I made the trade to acquire the Kediri, for a nice IndianButte that I found out in Stanf ield, AZ.
(MT) What is your favorite overall if it is not the one above?
(LA) Indian Butte, since this was my most major f ind.
(MT) What makes these of special interest?
(LA) For the Indian Butte, I was one of the hunters that got to experience that incredible hunt and had agreat f ind. There were about 12 of us out there putting in a lot of hours in a dangerous setting. Thatparticular hunt was one of the highlights of a lifetime! The energy, f riendship, and camaraderie was likenothing I had ever experienced, and a true reason for engaging in the search for these treasures. I mademany lifetime f riends.
(MT) What meteorites are currently on your wish list?
(LA) I think Seymchan is next on the list…I have a few others in mind as well, but just one at a time. I justpurchase a couple of Allende slices for some artwork, so that particular search is over for right now. I’mnow looking for just the right Seymchan to catch my eye!
(MT) What methods have been most successful in building your collection? (Buying at shows, f romdealers by mail, auctions on the web, trading… etc)
(LA) Finding them myself of fers the greatest satisfaction! All other pieces have been thru trade, gif t orsearching the met-list or ebay.
(MT) Which Shows do you attend?
(LA) Tucson Gem & Meteorite Show which is so amazing. There is something about that show that makesme want to go every year! If you have ever been, you will understand!
(MT) Do you also collect related materials like impact glasses,
(LA) I don’t have any at this time, but do hope to add them to my collection.
(MT) Do you prepare any of your own specimens? (cut, polish, etch,etc.)
(LA) No, that is something that I have to rely on the experts to handle.
(MT) Have you had to take any special measures to protect them from the environment?
(LA) Not yet because I try to be selective with my purchases.
Meteorite Times Magazine
Meteorite of the Month: Gebel KamilPaul Harris
Our Meteorite of the Month is kindly provided by Tucson Meteorites who hostsThe Meteorite Picture of the Day.
Contributed by Doug Ross, IMCA 2641
2035 grams. 16 x12 x6 cm. Iron, ungroupedTKW 1600 kg. Fall not observed. Found 2009 in East Uweinat Desert, Egypt.
Submit Pictures to Meteorite Pictures of the Day
catchafallingstar.com Nakhla Dog Meteorites
Michael Blood Meteorites The Meteorite Exchange
Impactika Rocks From Heaven
Aerolite Meteorites Big Kahuna Meteorites
Sikhote-Alin Meteorites Michael Farmer
Meteorite Times MagazineMeteorite-Times Sponsorsby Editor
Please support Meteorite-Times by visiting our sponsors websites. Clickthe bottom of the banners to open their website in a new tab / window.
Schoolers Nevada Meteorites
Advertise Here
Once a few decades ago this opening
was a framed window in the wall
of H. H. Nininger's Home and
Museum building. From this
window he must have many times
pondered the mysteries of
Meteor Crater seen in the distance.
Photo by © 2010 James Tobin