Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Fall Term
2010
susceptibility) supplements detailed chemical and isotopic analyses for small samples (thin
sections or ~300 mg portions) by providing whole-rock data for samples massing in the tens of
grams. With the advent of fast, non-destructive and non-contaminating measurement techniques
including helium ideal-gas pycnometry for grain density, the Archimedean ―glass bead‖ method
for bulk density and (with grain density) porosity, and the use of low-field magnetometry for
magnetic susceptibility, all of which rely on compact and portable equipment, this has enabled a
comprehensive survey of these physical properties for a wide variety of meteorites. This
dissertation reports on the results of that survey, which spanned seven major museum and
university meteorite collections as well as the Vatican collection. Bulk and grain densities,
porosities and magnetic susceptibilities are reported for 1228 stones from 664 separate
meteorites, including several rare meteorite types that are underrepresented in previous studies.
Summarized here are data for chondrites (carbonaceous, ordinary and enstatite) and stony
achondrites.
Several new findings have resulted from this study. From the use of a ―weathering
modulus‖ based on grain density and magnetic susceptibility to quantify weathering in finds, it is
observed that the degree of weathering of ordinary chondrites is dependent on their initial
porosity, which becomes reduced to less than ~8% for all finds, but for enstatite chondrites
ii
weathering actually increases porosity. Grain density and magnetic susceptibility, which have
been shown to distinguish H, L and LL ordinary chondrites, also may distinguish shergottites,
nakhlites and chassignites from each other, but the two groups of enstatite chondrites (EH and
EL) remain indistinguishable in these properties. H chondrite finds exhibit a slight negative
trend in porosity with increasing petrographic type, and all chondrite falls together exhibit a
pronounced negative trend in porosity spanning all petrographic types. The overall trend
corresponds roughly to a positive trend in porosities with respect to both degree of oxidation and
traits constrain models of conditions in the solar nebula and the formation of chondrite parent-
body precursors.
iii
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Work of this nature would not be possible without the support of a large number of
people and institutions. To begin with, many curators and collections managers made their
meteorite collections available to me and made me feel welcome at their institutions. These are
(in roughly chronological order) Br. Guy Consolmagno at the Vatican Observatory; Denton Ebel
and Joe Boesenberg at the American Museum of Natural History; Glenn MacPherson, Linda
Welzenbach, Cari Corrigan and many others at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum
of Natural History; Art Ehlmann and Teresa Moss at the Monnig collection at Texas Christian
University; Carl Agee and James Karner at the Institute of Meteoritics, University of New
Mexico; Meenakshi Wadhwa and Laurence Garvie at the Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona
State University; Caroline Smith, Gretchen Benedix and Deborah Cassey at the Natural History
Museum, London; and Philipp Heck, James Holstein and Paul Sipiera at the Field Museum of
Natural History.
Then there is the tremendous support I have received from the remainder of the scientific
community. In particular, I should mention Jon Friedrich, Tom Kohout, Phil McCausland, and
Melissa Strait, all of whom have strongly encouraged my work. The list here could go on and
on, but for the sake of brevity I will only add a few others. George Flynn, Pierre Rochette, Alan
Rubin, and Melissa Strait provided valuable reviewer feedback for various papers which found
v
Many others outside the field of meteoritics have supported me in this work as well. I
wish to thank my Jesuit superiors, especially Fr. Tim McMahon (provincial) and Fr. David
Fleming (formation assistant) for approving my doctoral studies back in 2007, and the current
provincial and formation assistant, Fr. Douglas Marcouiller and Fr. John Armstrong, who
continue to support my studies. The Jesuits at Jesuit High School in Tampa, where I have
resided while pursuing the Ph.D., have also been quite welcoming and supportive. Also, the
My thesis committee has been more than supportive; they have encouraged me to
complete the dissertation in a timely manner and are all eager to see me become a productive
member of the scientific community. They are Dan Britt, Br. Guy Consolmagno, Humberto
Campins and Joe Harrington. Dan and Guy are also responsible for my being here in the first
place; Dan needed a graduate student to do this study for which he had grant funding, and Guy
Speaking of grants, this work is funded by NASA Planetary Geology and Geophysics
grants NNX09AD91G and NNG06GG62G. On top of that, the Smithsonian Institution funded
my work there in the summer of 2008 with a 10-week Smithsonian Institution Graduate Research
Fellowship.
Last but not least, I want to thank my parents. Mom and Dad, where would I be without
you?
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1.1 Shock.............................................................................................................................. 8
vii
2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 22
viii
3.5 L Chondrite Finds ............................................................................................................... 60
ix
4.3.2 Shock............................................................................................................................ 96
5.3.3 Grain Density, Magnetic Susceptibility and Metallic Iron Content .......................... 111
x
6.2.5 Angrites ...................................................................................................................... 132
7.3 Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility as a Classification Tool ............................... 147
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
With Comparison Data Taken from Common Brown and Blue Glass Bottles. ........163
Figure 6: The Bead Method Apparatus, Including Shake Platform and Nalgene Beaker. ..........164
Figure 7: Data from Measurements on Quartz Utilizing a 77-cm3 Cup, Made Without
Figure 8: Data from Measurements Made Using the ―Soft Tap‖ Settling Method. ....................166
Figure 9: Data from Measurements Using the ―Free Shake‖ Settling Method............................167
Figure 10: Data for Measurements Made Using the 5-second Secured Shake Method. .............168
Figure 11: Volume Discrepancy for the Secured-Shake Method Using 700-800 μm Diameter
Beads. .........................................................................................................................169
Figure 12: Volume Discrepancy for the Secured-Shake Method Using 700-800 μm Diameter
Figure 13: Bulk Density of Small Glass Beads (ρbead ) vs. Relative Humidity. ..........................171
xii
Figure 14: The SM-30 Magnetic Susceptibility Meter. (a) Photograph of the Meter. (b)
Diagram......................................................................................................................172
Figure 15: Operation of the SM-30 Magnetic Susceptibility Meter. (a) Photograph of the
Device as Utilized (Inverted, with the Meteorite Placed Atop and Centered Over
Figure 16: SM-30 Geometric Correction Factor α as a Function of Bulk Volume. ....................174
Figure 17: Comparison of Magnetic Susceptibility Measurements Made Using the SM-30
(Vertical Axis) with Those Utilizing the KLY-2 (Horizontal Axis) for the Same
Figure 18: Discrepancy in Log Units Between Measurements Made Using the SM-30 and
Figure 19: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for Ordinary Chondrite Falls in the
Figure 20: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for All Stones from OC Falls. ................178
Figure 22: Porosity as a Function of Petrographic Type for H Chondrite Falls. .........................180
Falls. ...........................................................................................................................181
Figure 24: Grain Density/Bulk Density Relationship for H Falls, For Use in Determination of
Figure 25: Comparison of Model Porosities for H Finds with Actual Porosities for H Falls......183
xiii
Figure 27: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility of H Finds. ............................................185
Figure 29: Bulk Density vs. Weathering Modulus for H Finds. ..................................................187
Figure 30: Model Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for H Finds. ..............................................188
Figure 33: Comparison of Model Porosities for L Finds with Actual Porosities for L Falls. .....191
Figure 34: Porosity as a Function of Petrographic Type for L Chondrites, Including Measured
Figure 37: Bulk Density vs. Weathering Modulus for L Finds. ..................................................195
Figure 38: Model Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for L Finds. ...............................................196
Figure 40: Magnetic Susceptibility as a Function of Petrographic Type for LL Falls. ...............198
Figure 41: Comparison of Model Porosities for LL Finds with Actual Porosities for LL Falls. 199
Figure 45: Bulk Density vs. Weathering Modulus for LL Finds. ................................................203
Figure 46: Model Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for LL Finds. ............................................204
xiv
Figure 47: Histogram of Porosities for Brecciated and Non-Brecciated Ordinary Chondrite
Falls. ...........................................................................................................................205
Figure 48: Grain Density / Magnetic Susceptibility Plot for K and R Chondrites. .....................206
Figure 53: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility for the CR Clan: CR, CB and CH
Figure 54: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility for CI and CM Carbonaceous
Chondrites. .................................................................................................................212
Figure 55: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility for CO Carbonaceous Chondrites. ........213
Figure 56: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility for CK Carbonaceous Chondrites. ........214
Figure 57: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility for CV Carbonaceous Chondrites. ........215
Figure 58: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility for Ungrouped Carbonaceous
Chondrites. .................................................................................................................216
Figure 59: Bulk Density vs. Petrographic Type for Carbonaceous Chondrite Falls. ..................217
Figure 60: Grain Density vs. Petrographic Type for Carbonaceous Chondrite Falls. .................218
Figure 61: Porosity vs. Petrographic Type for Carbonaceous Chondrite Falls. ..........................219
Figure 62: Magnetic Susceptibility vs. Petrographic Type for Carbonaceous Chondrite Falls. ..220
Figure 63: Bulk Density vs. Shock for Carbonaceous Chondrites. .............................................221
Figure 64: Grain Density vs. Shock for Carbonaceous Chondrites. ............................................222
xv
Figure 66: Magnetic Susceptibility vs. Shock for Carbonaceous Chondrites. ............................224
Figure 71: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptiblity for Enstatite Chondrites. ..........................229
Figure 72: Enstatite Chondrite Finds and Their Properties Grouped By Weathering: (a)
Figure 75: Mass-Weighted Average Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for Falls
Figure 80: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for SNC (Martian) Meteorites in this
Study. .........................................................................................................................238
Figure 81: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for HED Meteorites in this Study...........239
Figure 82: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibilities for Aubrites, Angrites and Ureilites in
xvi
Figure 83: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for Acapulcoites and Lodranites in this
Study. .........................................................................................................................241
Figure 84: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for Primitive Achondrites in this Study. 242
Figure 85: Porosity vs. Shock State for All Chondrite Falls........................................................243
Figure 86: Grain Density vs. Shock State for All Chondrite Falls. .............................................244
Figure 87: Magnetic Susceptibility vs. Shock State for All Chondrite Finds. .............................245
Figure 88: Porosity vs. Petrographic Type for All Chondrite Falls. ............................................246
Figure 89: Grain Density vs. Petrographic Type for All Chondrite Falls. ...................................247
Figure 90: Bulk Density vs. Petrographic Type for All Chondrite Falls. ....................................248
Figure 91: Magnetic Susceptibility vs. Petrographic Type for All Chondrite Falls. ...................249
Figure 92: Porosity vs. Oxidation State for All Chondrite Falls..................................................250
Figure 93: Porosity vs. Percentage Matrix for All Chondrite Falls. ............................................251
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) of Glass Beads. ........................... 254
Table 3: Results Per Settling Method for Small Beads in the 77 cm3 Container........................ 255
Table 10: Data for H/L and L/LL Chondrites. ............................................................................ 272
Table 11: Average Porosities of Brecciated and Non-Brecciated OC Falls. .............................. 273
Table 14: Physical Properties of Carbonaceous Chondrite Falls by Petrographic Type. ........... 279
Table 17: Mass-weighted Averages by Meteorite for Enstatite Chondrites. .............................. 282
Table 18: Data for Lunar Meteorites, Apollo Samples, and SNC. ............................................. 283
xviii
Table 19: Data for HEDs. ........................................................................................................... 284
Table 20: Data for Aubrites, Angrites and Ureilites. .................................................................. 287
Table 22: Summary of Physical Property Averages for All Meteorite Groups. ......................... 289
Table 23: Data for Mesosiderites, Pallasites and Iron Meteorites. ............................................. 291
Table 24: Porosity Averages by Shock Stage for All Chondrite Falls. ...................................... 293
Table 25: Porosity Averages by Petrographic Type for Chondrite Falls. ................................... 294
xix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Monnig The Monnig Collection, Texas Christian University (Fort Worth, TX)
NASA NASA Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility, Johnson Space Center (Houston TX)
xx
Abbreviations for achondritic meteorite groups used in data tables:
Aca Acapulcoite
Ang Angrite
Aub Aubrite
Bra Brachinite
Cha Chassignite
Dio Diogenite
Euc Eucrite
How Howardite
Lod Lodranite
Nak Nakhlite
She Shergottite
Ure Ureilite
Win Winonaite
xxi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
When it comes to understanding the origins and composition of the solar system, no
current method of study exhibits more promise than the laboratory study of retrieved materials.
limited number of celestial bodies to be sampled this way. To date, the only materials returned
to Earth by this method are lunar samples from the Apollo and Luna programs, some dust from
comet Wild 2 collected by the Stardust mission (cf. Brownlee et al., 2006), and possibly some
dust from asteroid 25143 Itakawa collected by the Japanese Hayabusa mission (cf. Yoshikawa et
al., 2010). This is not to say that there is a severe lack of extraterrestrial materials with which to
work; given enough time and favorable orbits, much material finds its own way to Earth without
the expenditure of a single dollar in mission costs. Some of this is in the form of interplanetary
dust particles (IDPs), which are scooped from the upper atmosphere in aerogel (cf. Reitmeijer,
1998). Larger stones can be retrieved from the ground in the form of meteorites.
There are more than twenty-two thousand recovered meteorites (Grady, 2000) sampling
from a large but indeterminate number of solar system objects. Most of the objects are asteroids,
though some meteorites have been linked to the moon or Mars (Hutchison, 2004). This provides
an abundant supply of solar system materials to study in the luxury of a laboratory setting.
1
terms of their abundances; the Earth itself manufactures a selection bias in terms of the number
and types of materials that reach this planet and survive atmospheric entry.
The factors that influence the availability of meteorites are favorable orbits for
encountering Earth, favorable entry velocities, and internal strength of the rocks making up the
asteroid. Near-Earth asteroids satisfy the first two criteria; because their orbital dynamics brings
them in proximity to Earth, they are more likely to encounter the planet, and their orbital speeds
are similar to that of the Earth, resulting in favorably low entry velocities. Asteroids and comets
from farther out in the solar system, on the other hand, are less likely to meet the two criteria.
conversion of potential to kinetic energy means its relative velocity to the Earth will be much
higher than for near-Earth objects (NEOs). In addition, outer system materials tend to be less
coherent and have reduced internal strength, which means they have even further reduced odds
of surviving atmospheric entry and impact with the ground. In one such example, the fall of the
very friable carbonaceous chondrite Tagish Lake, some material only survived intact because it
Most (73%) of the meteorite falls recovered are of a class known as ordinary chondrites
(Grady, 2000). On the other hand, ordinary-chondrite analogous asteroids occupy only a small
percentage of the population (Gaffey et al., 1993). They are more representative of the
abundances (approximately 80%) of OC analogs found in NEOs (Bottke et al., 2002). Therefore,
while the variety of meteorites available for study is considerable, the vast majority of available
meteorites sample only a small portion of the solar system. Some meteorite types, such as those
originating from Mars or from the outer asteroid belt, are much rarer than ordinary chondrites
and due to their rarity may be more scientifically valuable, and undoubtedly other portions of the
2
solar system are entirely unrepresented in existing meteorites. Though meteorites present an
otherwise unattainable supply of solar system material for the purpose of research, certain parts
These meteorites enable detailed analyses of mineralogy, composition, and isotopes that,
among other things, provide useful information as to the age and geologic history of the parent
bodies from which they originated. Most of the research performed on meteorites is of this
variety, and generally involves the removal of some material from the meteorite for the creation
of thin sections or for more destructive forms of analysis. In recent years, there has been
growing recognization that, in addition to chemical and isotopic analyses, the study of bulk
physical properties of whole stones provides a useful avenue of research without requiring
destructive measures. One key such property is porosity, or the volume percentage of space
within a rock that is not filled by solid matter. Contributors to porosity include microcracks,
voids, or possibly even small gaps between adjacent crystals or inclusions. While this property
may be studied in thin sections (e.g. Corrigan et al., 1997; Strait and Consolmagno 2002, 2005,
2010), it is best understood in terms of its whole-rock value. Porosity, being a structural rather
than mineralogical property, is potentially influenced by a number of factors including (but not
limited to) local gravitational compression, shock, and the range of physical sizes of minerals
within the rock. This property will have been primarily influenced by the conditions under
which the rock lithified, though subsequent history (including collisional events) would have
further modified the structure of the rock and thus influenced porosity.
In addition to other useful information porosity reveals about these processes, meteorite
porosity also yields clues to the structure of the meteorites’ asteroid analogs. Asteroids tend to
be more porous than their analogous meteorites, which indicates a high degree of macroporosity,
3
or pore space that resides as larger-scale cracks and voids between the individual stones
comprising the asteroid. Those asteroids beyond ~1020 kg tend to have negligible
macroporisities, indicating that their self-gravity is strong enough to compress the pore space
away. Many asteroids have macroporosities of around 20%, indicating that they exist
structurally as ―rubble piles‖ composed of stones loosely bound together gravitationally, rather
than as a coherent monolith. Other asteroids, in particular those objects in the outer asteroid belt
that have been connected with carbonaceous chondritic meteorites, have macroporosities upward
of 70%, indicating a very loose structure (Britt et al., 2002; Consolmagno et al., 2008).
in the whole rock) requires two distinct density measurements, both of which are defined as total
mass divided by volume, but for different volumes. Bulk density uses the complete volume
enclosed by the bulk stone, while grain density uses the volume that is only occupied by the solid
material making up the stone. The difference in the two volumes is due entirely to porosity.
Measurement of these two densities has historically involved destructive techniques such as
immersion in a liquid or slicing the sample into a simple geometric form such as a
parallelepiped, which because they were either contaminating or destructive limited their ability
meteoritics (cf. Faeth and Willingham, 1955; Cadenhead et al., 1972) allowed for the non-
destructive, non-contaminating measurement of grain density, but it was not until the advent of
the Archimedean ―glass bead‖ method (Consolmagno and Britt, 1998) that bulk densities could
also be measured quickly and efficiently without destruction or threat of serious contamination.
These methods (described in greater detail in Chapter 2) enabled the study for the first
time of the density and porosity of very large numbers of meteorites of a wide variety of types,
4
especially the most underrepresented kinds of meteorites. Consolmagno and Britt (1998) tested
and widely applied the techniques at the Vatican meteorite collection (also Consolmagno et al.,
2006), where they were developed with the intent of surveying meteorite porosities. The current
study was instituted in 2007 with the purpose of expanding the survey to other major meteorite
collections and also to include the measurement of magnetic susceptibility (another useful
physical property that will be discussed later). The reassurance that the techniques were non-
destructive and non-contaminating allowed curators and collections managers to permit their
application to large portions of their collections, including rare meteorite types. Research took
place at eight major meteorite collections. This included four museum collections (American
Museum of Natural History, Field Museum of Natural History, the Natural History Museum in
London, and the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History), three
universities (Arizona State University, Texas Christian University, and the University of New
Mexico) and the Vatican collection. This dissertation is the primary report of the results of that
survey. At least one physical property is reported for 1228 stones from 664 meteorites, of which
1019 stones had the full suite of bulk and grain density, porosity and magnetic susceptibility.
The following sections of this chapter provide (a) a basic meteorite primer that will
describe classification, shock and weathering, and various terminology that will occur
throughout the dissertation, and (b) a discussion of some of the many scientific questions that
motivate this research and that this study may help answer.
5
1.1 Meteorite Basics
Meteorites, which originate from a wide range of sources within the solar system, are
very diverse. They are most immediately subdivided, based on the amount and distribution of
iron, into three categories: irons, stony-irons and stony meteorites. Irons, as the name suggests,
are composed predominantly of iron metal (in the form of Fe-Ni alloys) and originated in the
cores of differentiated parent bodies. Stony-irons are a roughly even mix of iron and stony
material (mostly silicates), and are thought to originate somewhere near the core-mantle
boundaries of differentiated parent bodies, though the nature of their formation is a subject of
some debate. Stony-irons may be further subdivided into mesosiderites, which are resolidified
silicate-and-metal mixtures, and pallasites, which are composed of large crystals of olivine
embedded in Fe-Ni metal. Iron and stony-iron meteorites were not extensively studied in this
Stony meteorites, which are predominantly composed of silicates but many of which
have iron abundances exceeding that of most terrestrial crustal rock, are subdivided into
chondrites and achondrites. Chondrites, which are solidified aggregates composed of chondrules
(glassy melts created by localized heating of dust in the solar nebula over short time scales;
Connolly et al., 2006) embedded in a matrix of very fine particles, have chemical compositions
that are very near solar average abundances except for volatiles (Hutchison, 2004). They are
thought to be extremely primitive and have not been extensively processed since their initial
formation. Chondrites are further subdivided into three classes: ordinary chondrites (OC),
carbonaceous chondrites (CC), and enstatite chondrites (EC). In addition to the three primary
classes, there are the rare Rumuruti-like (R) chondrites and Kakangari-like (K) chondrites.
6
Ordinary chondrites are subdivided into three further groups which vary by the amount of
total Fe and metal and are named accordingly: H (high-Fe), L (low-Fe) and LL (both low Fe and
low metal). Historically, they had more descriptive but also more confusing names such as
olivine-bronzite (H), olivine-hypersthene (L) and olivine-pigeonite (LL; Mason, 1962). Enstatite
chondrites are subdivided into two groups, which by way of analogy with ordinary chondrites
were designated EH and EL (Sears et al., 1982). Carbonaceous chondrites, on the other hand,
come in many varieties, with each group named after a type-specimen (Hutchison, 2004). These
Chondrites have undergone varying degrees of thermal or aqueous processing, for which
van Schmus and Wood (1967) devised a petrographic type scheme in order to quantify the kind
and amount of processing a given meteorite has undergone. The scheme, which is based on the
degree to which chondrules have equilibrated with surrounding matrix, ranges from 1 (most
strongly aqueously altered) to 6 (most strongly thermally equilibrated), with a petrographic type
scheme have included the further gradation of type 3 into a range from 3.0 (unequilibrated) to 3.9
(just shy of type 4) and the addition of petrographic type 7, which applies in rare cases. It should
be noted that thermal alteration does not rule out any aqueous alteration or vice versa – the type
scheme expresses the primary mode of equilibration, not the only mode. All ordinary chondrites
and enstatite chondrites are thermally equilibrated, and so occupy types 3-6 (or 7), while
carbonaceous chondrites tend either to be aqueously altered (for example, CM and CI) or type 3
(CV, CO), though some are more thermally altered (for example, CK).
7
Achondrites are a catch-all category, meaning simply ―not chondrites.‖ They include
some chemically primitive meteorites that have undergone varying degrees of processing, such
as acapulcoites, lodranites and ureilites. Ureilites, though achondrites, are thought to be related
to CV carbonaceous chondrites. Achondrites also include materials from varying depths in the
crusts of differentiated parent bodies including the Moon, Mars, and the asteroid 4 Vesta. With
the exception of howardites, eucrites and diogenites (HEDs) which originate from 4 Vesta
(Consolmagno and Drake, 1977), achondrites are among the rarest meteorite types.
1.1.1 Shock
Impact events between celestial bodies can induce changes within the rocks involved, and
the effects of shock metamorphism are observed in meteorites. Stöffler et al. (1988, 1991)
devised a shock classification scheme for chondrites (adapted for enstatite chondrites by Rubin et
al., 1997) based on fracturing and equilibration of olivine, Ca-poor pyroxene, and plagioclase.
The effects on these minerals are dependent primarily on the maximum shock pressure. The
scheme ranges from S1 (least shocked, with maximum pressure less than 5 GPa) to S6 (strongly
shocked, with maximum pressure exceeding 75 GPa; Hutchison, 2004). There is an additional
category for shock melts, which have been so severely shocked as to produce liquefaction and
resolidification of whole rocks. The shock classification scheme is applicable to many other
meteorites as well. A given meteorite’s shock classification only expresses the maximum impact
pressure experienced by the object. Many meteorites show signs of multiple shock events.
8
Shock is important in terms of physical properties in a number of ways. In addition to
causing fracturing and melting of minerals within the rock, it affects whole-rock structure.
Shock events tend to compress meteorites, potentially removing intergranular pore space. At the
same time, the rapid compression and relaxation that occurs as a shock wave passes through rock
meteorite porosities, Consolmagno et al. (2008) observed that ordinary chondrite porosities drop
considerably between shock states S1 and S3 or S4, and then tend to level off as additional shock
creates as much pore space in the form of cracks as it destroys due to compression.
From the moment a meteorite arrives on the Earth, interaction with the terrestrial
environment begins to alter it. Most of the meteorites collected in recent years are finds. Many
of those collected in hot desert regions have terrestrial ages of tens of thousands of years, as
determined by the decay of cosmogenic nuclides (Bland et al., 1998b, 2006), and so have
experienced considerable amounts of weathering. In order to properly interpret the data in this
study, it is important to consider the effects of terrestrial weathering. In this dissertation, the
term ―weathering‖ will refer exclusively to terrestrial weathering processes. It should be noted
that the term ―weathering‖ also is used by planetary scientists to refer to various space-
weathering processes, including processes that are relevant for meteorites and their parent-
bodies.
9
The effects of weathering are many and varied, depending both on local environmental
conditions and composition of the meteorite. For ordinary chondrites, which have been
extensively studied (Bland et al., 1996, 1998b), one of the primary effects is oxidation (rusting)
of Fe in all of its phases including Fe-bearing silicates, though the most pronounced effect is on
Fe-Ni metal and a somewhat lesser effect is the oxidation of troilite (FeS). As such, H
chondrites experience more severe weathering effects than L and LL. The products of Fe
oxidation include goethite, magnetite and others (Bland et al., 1998b, 2006; Consolmagno et al.,
2008) which have a density roughly half that of Fe-Ni metal. The lower-density material
occupies a greater volume than the original material, so it expands to fill existing pore space.
This has the effect of reducing total porosity. Oxidation of metal also reduces grain density, but
since it does not significantly alter the total mass or bulk volume of the rock it does not have a
significant effect on bulk density. Since metals have substantially higher magnetic susceptibility
than iron oxides, another effect of weathering on Fe-rich meteorites is a reduction in magnetic
susceptibility.
Other effects of weathering, such as the creation of carbonates, are minor in comparison
with rusting for ordinary chondrites, but they may be more important for other meteorite types.
For example, some preliminary porosity data (Consolmagno et al., 2008) suggests that CO finds
may have had their porosity reduced by carbonate expansion. Highly porous meteorites such as
carbonaceous chondrites are also prone to the absorption of atmospheric water; experiments on
dehydrated CCs exposed to air indicate rapid reabsorption of their original quantities of water.
Anecdotally, in the course of this study when masses were measured for some of the
carbonaceous chondrites, the measured masses were slightly higher than those on the collection
records, an effect that can be attributed to the absorption of a small mass of water.
10
At least for hot desert finds, ordinary chondrite weathering is a two-stage process. Stage
one weathering occurs quite rapidly but at a rate that depends on local environmental conditions.
Fe metal oxidizes during this stage, expanding into existing pore space. The continued
weathering of the interior of the meteorite depends on the ability of air and moisture to penetrate
the interior, which it can do only through pore space. Once the porosity is reduced to the point
that weathering agents can no longer reach the interior (or reactive grains have been ―protected‖
by an oxide buffer), weathering rates slow to almost nil for stage 2, in which the slow
degradation of the meteorite exterior may continue but internal weathering has effectively
stopped. Under the right conditions, a meteorite can survive stage 2 weathering for many
thousands of years. For the purposes of this study, all finds can be thought to be in stage 2.
Weathering of Antarctic (cold desert) finds varies somewhat from those collected in hot
deserts, in part because of small adjustments in weathering chemistry. Antarctic finds weather at
a different rate and their long-term interaction with ice may affect them structurally.
Consolmagno et al. (1998) observe that Antarctic meteorites may have enhanced porosities over
falls, indicating that their weathering mechanism is not merely different in magnitude but in kind
from that of hot deserts. This study includes data from almost no Antarctic meteorites, and so
for the purposes of this study only the hot desert weathering effects will be considered.
Weathering is strongest for finds, but it should be noted that even falls are weathered,
though to a lesser degree. Bland et al. (1998a) conducted a study comparing stones of Holbrook
(L/LL6) collected shortly after they fell in 1912 with a stone collected in 1968. After a mere 56
years in the Arizona desert, the latter stone had experienced about 9.7% Fe conversion into Fe3+,
which is about half the 20% maximum Fe conversion before porosity stabilization (Bland et al.,
11
2006). Even those meteorites which have been collected promptly after a fall experience some
Weathering classification for finds is varied and in many cases depends on the subjective
judgment of the one making the classification. Antarctic meteorites are given a weathering grade
rustiness, and C being extremely rusty). A commonly-used scheme rates weathering grades of
polished thin sections based on degree of oxidation of various phases. This system ranges from
W0 (unweathered) through degrees of oxidation of metal and troilite (W1-W4) and in more
extreme cases (W5 and W6) alteration of mafic silicates (Jull et al., 1991; Wlotzka 1993; Al-
Kathiri et al., 2005). Another, more quantitative method of establishing weathering grades
(Bland et al., 1996, 1998b) uses 57Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy to measure the abundance of Fe3+,
which is one of the products of oxidation processes that is not found in unweathered ordinary
chondrites.
While meteorite physical properties have been studied to varying degrees (cf. Britt and
Consolmagno, 2003; Consolmagno and Britt, 1998; Consolmagno et al., 1998, 2006; Flynn and
Klock, 1998; Guskova 1985; Keil, 1962; Kohout et al., 2006; Kukkonen and Pesonen, 1983;
Matsui et al., 1980; Pesonen et al., 1993; Rochette et al., 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010;
Wilkison and Robinson, 2000; Yomogida and Matsui, 1981, 1983), the scale of this survey is
unprecedented for density, porosity and magnetic susceptibility data collected under a consistent
12
methodology. It should enable the exploration of numerous questions for which sufficient
statistics were previously lacking. That being said, this study was primarily limited by the
availability of meteorites themselves. Though the rarest meteorite types were particularly
targeted for study, their very rarity means that in many cases there still is not a statistically
significant number of stones that have been measured. Nevertheless, for all meteorite types
included in this survey, the total size of the available database marks an improvement over
previous data, allowing at the very least the exploration of some questions merely hinted at in
previous studies. In the remainder of this section, some of those questions will be discussed.
Consolmagno et al. (2004, 2006) observed that grain density and magnetic susceptibility
together serve as a reliable tool for classifying ordinary chondrites into H, L and LL groups.
Differences in total Fe and in the amount of metal in the different OC groups results in
differences in density (since Fe-Ni metal is more than twice as dense as most silicates) and
magnetic susceptibility. It is not as robust as proper analysis, but the use of one or both physical
properties can be applied to large numbers of stones and is good for first-look classification.
Among other things, this permits the identification of ―ringers‖ (misidentified or misclassified
stones). Consolmagno et al (2004) measured multiple stones from individual meteorites, and
13
observed that for some large showers there were a few stones that did not conform to the grain
density and magnetic susceptibility of the rest of the shower. They attributed this discrepancy to
mislabeling, either by intention or accident. In particular, one stone of L’Aigle (L6) had grain
density and magnetic susceptibility unambiguously in the LL region, despite having documented
―ringers‖ are indeed mislabeled stones or perhaps genuine members of the shower as
It would be good to know the extent to which this classification scheme is effective,
whether a significant number of meteorites reside as ―outliers‖ or whether the regions exhibit
significant overlap with the addition of data from hundreds of OC falls. As a side benefit, this
While the use of grain density and magnetic susceptibility to classify OCs and identify
potentially mislabeled stones is promising, it raises the question of whether the technique may be
applied to other meteorite types. In particular, any two groups that differ in total Fe and iron
metal should also be distinguishable at least in part by these physical properties. One intriguing
class of meteorites to which to apply this technique is enstatite chondrites, which are grouped
into ―high-Fe‖ (EH) and ―low-Fe‖ (EL). In a review paper, Consolmagno et al. (2008) reported
grain density measurements for only 14 EC stones of which there is a small difference between
the two groups (EH being about 0.09 g cm-3 higher in grain density on average than EL) with
14
considerable overlap in the data, though it should be noted that grain densities were measured by
different investigators using different methods. On the other hand, in a study of magnetic
average magnetic susceptibility between EH and EL. This survey provides further data for both
grain density and magnetic susceptibility, conducted on the same samples, that may help shed
light on whether and to what extent there is a difference in grain density and/or magnetic
susceptibility, and what that says about the total iron and metal content of the groups.
It may also be asked whether other meteorite groups may be distinguished in grain
meteorites (HED, SNC, lunites, etc.) may be distinguishable. Because they are lower in total
metal, small differences should stand out in magnetic susceptibility, and since some are higher in
denser minerals (such as dunite) than others, differences in density may also appear, though since
dunite is not strongly magnetic, density and magnetic susceptibility may not necessarily correlate
as they do in higher-iron materials. For example, do shergottites differ from nakhlites, both of
Also intriguing is the question of the ranges occupied by each group. Different classes of
meteorites (for example, CK and OC) may experience considerable overlap in physical
properties, rendering the technique useless for distinguishing different meteorite classes from
each other. Nevertheless, each group occupies a region in grain density-magnetic susceptibility
space. Better definition of those regions will provide better understanding about mineralogy and
15
1.2.2 Questions about Weathering
important to be able to understand how this effect influences the physical properties so as to
better interpret the data, separating out terrestrial from parent-body influences.
The effects of weathering on ordinary chondrite physical properties have been described
(Bland et al., 1996, 1998b, 2006; see Section 1.1.2) and studied to some degree (Consolmagno et
al., 1998, 2006). With an increased database of ordinary chondrite finds, this opens the
range of porosities is access of terrestrial weathering agents into the interior cut off or
significantly restrained, marking the shift from rapid stage 1 weathering to slow stage 2
weathering? Is the cutoff porosity zero, or some small but finite amount?
properties may help quantify the effect itself. Since grain density and magnetic susceptibility of
ordinary chondrites are affected by weathering in a predictable manner, this suggests the
possibility that these two properties might be used to quantify the degree of weathering, at least
in terms of oxidation of Fe metal. Can such a quantifier be constructed, and if so, do any
weathering-related trends appear in the other measured physical properties: bulk density and
porosity?
16
1.2.2.2 Weathering in Other Stony Meteorites
other meteorite types? The effect of OC weathering on grain density and magnetic susceptibility
depends strongly on the amount of metal available, so presumably a quantifier of this sort could
only be applied to high-Fe meteorites. These should include enstatite chondrites, but for
carbonaceous chondrites there may not be enough total metal available to have a substantial
effect on these physical properties. Nevertheless, there are other questions that may be asked.
For example, do other meteorite types differ substantially between falls and finds in any
of the four physical properties (grain and bulk density, porosity, and magnetic susceptibility)?
With the exception of ordinary chondrites, there has been up to now a lack of good statistics for
any of the meteorite groups. For many groups, discerning weathering-related differences will
prove impossible even with this study due simply to lack of available examples of either falls or
finds, especially since Antarctic finds have been excluded. For example, K chondrites are
represented by a small number of finds and only one fall (Kakangari). Nevertheless, in at least a
For the carbonaceous chondrites, statistics in this study are generally much lower than for
ordinary chondrites, but better than for most achondrites excepting HEDs. Among carbonaceous
chondrites, it was observed that CO finds tend to have lower porosity than falls (Consolmagno et
al., 2008), a trend which may be due to the formation of terrestrial carbonates within pore space
(Greenwood and Franchi, 2004). Nevertheless, this finding is based on five CO finds and only
one fall. Is the result a true effect of weathering, or was the fall (Warrenton) unusually porous?
This study contains multiple CO falls which will help shed light on this question. Another
17
question is whether the other carbonaceous chondrite groups experience similar reductions in
As described above, impact shocks both reduce porosity by compression and may
increase porosity by the introduction of cracks. Consolmagno et al. (1998) observed that
porosity decreases with shock state, leveling off above S4 when presumably the introduction of
new cracks balances the compressive effect of shock. With the addition of more data, does this
result remain robust? Also, can it be extended beyond ordinary chondrites? Are similar affects
observed in OC or EC? There are sufficient data in this dissertation to begin to address these
questions.
One of the big unanswered questions about meteorites is how primitive materials from
the solar nebula became the solid rock of meteorites. Even the mechanisms by which
planetesimals formed and grew follow a number of diverse theories (cf. Boss and Goswami,
2006; Chambers, 2006; Cuzzi and Weidenschilling, 2006), but almost all of these theories are
18
satisfied with the formation of loose aggregates. Almost nothing is known of the mechanisms by
which the collections of chondrules, inclusions, dust and debris became bound together to form
new rock. The best idea is that these aggregates lithified through shock-induced heating and
Regolith breccias, which are broken material that recombined and re-lithified, are also
probably lithified by shock processes. Shock lithification of breccias has been extensively
studied (cf. Ashworth and Barber, 1976; Bischoff et al., 1983; Clark et al., 1992). Since such a
process will affect porosity, it seems reasonable to expect that porosities of chondrites should
exhibit similarities to those of regolith breccias. In our database are hundreds of ordinary
chondrite falls, of which many tens are regolith breccias. A comparison of the porosities of
brecciated and non-brecciated ordinary chondrites may yield some insights into whether the
process by which ordinary chondrites lithified is comparable to the process by which regolith
breccias re-lithified.
Based on comparison of meteorites with their asteroid analogs, we have a generally good
sense of where (roughly) in the solar system the meteorites originated, and so can compare
physical properties (in particular, porosity) to other meteoritic properties that vary based on the
location of origin. This may shed some light upon the processes under which they formed and
19
In addition, comparison of seemingly unrelated properties between asteroids and their
meteorite analogs may prove useful for understanding how meteorites relate structurally to their
measured in meteorites and asteroid macroporosity? Since the two properties are thought to
subsequent shock events, and macroporosity is related to the way separate stones of a parent
body are packed), any observed relationship would raise further questions about the relationship
The most important questions are often the unanticipated ones. In the end, it is hoped
that this dissertation primarily serves as a tool for use by other investigators exploring questions
that have not been anticipated or that require data from additional properties that are not
In the next chapter, the methods by which meteorite physical properties have been
measured are described in detail. Chapters three through six together form a report of the data
resulting from this study, including some interpretation of results and a discussion of the
20
significance of some of those results. Each of those chapters addresses a major class of
chondrites, chapter five on enstatite chondrites, and chapter six on achondrites. The final chapter
(7) serves as a summary and conclusion in which some of the important results of the study are
highlighted and in which bigger-picture questions that pertain to data from more than one chapter
will be addressed.
21
CHAPTER 2: MEASUREMENT METHODS
2.1 Background
Measuring physical properties on the scale of this study requires techniques that are fast,
easily, the measurement of density and porosity has historically required methods that risk
contamination or the deposition of residues, or involve altering the sample, and this in turn has
limited the number of meteorites for which porosity has been measured. Porosity requires the
determination of two different densities (bulk and grain) from their corresponding volumes. The
problem here is that meteorites are irregularly-shaped solids, making determination of volume
depending on whether and to what extent the medium of measurement penetrates pore space
within the sample. Bulk volume requires minimal pore penetration, and grain volume requires
the opposite extreme, but many methods will result in something in-between.
Many of the methods employed for determination of density or volume utilize liquids and
the principle of Archimedes. For example, Keil (1962) measured densities for 63 ordinary
chondrites by submersing them in water, a technique also employed for measuring bulk density
of 368 meteorites by Pesonen et al. (1993). Aside from contamination concerns, water may
migrate into pore space after even a short exposure, resulting in an overestimate of bulk density.
22
Fujii et al. (1981) utilized a clever technique in which the samples were first thoroughly soaked
in toluene to the point that effectively all pore space was filled. After submerging the sample in
toluene to determine grain density, they then submerged the sample in water (immiscible to
Matsui et al. (1980) modified the Archimedean method by first wrapping their sample in
clear plastic, then encasing it in clay before submerging. They varied the amount of clay, thus
varying the total volume, and then extrapolated their data to zero clay to determine the volume of
the meteorite without the clay wrapping. To avoid liquid contamination, other researchers have
avoided Archimedean methods altogether. For example, Yomogida and Matsui (1981, 1982,
1983) cut their samples into precise parallelepipeds so their volumes could be determined by
precise measurement of linear dimensions (length × width × height). A method that shows
promise for the future is modeling volume through 3-D laser scans (e.g. Herd et al., 2003; Smith
et al., 2006; McCausland et al., 2007), though at the moment there are some problems with the
technique, both in terms of data acquisition (low-albedo surfaces such as fusion crusts are hard to
image) and in terms of analysis (which can take hours per sample), that prevent its use on large
numbers of meteorites. The use of x-ray microtomography (e.g. McCausland et al., 2010) for
creating 3-dimensional models also shows considerable promise for future applications and
avoids some of the problems of 3-D lasers, though the instrumentation is very expensive and
the pressure change of a gas expanding over a specific volume yields volume displaced by the
sample, has been widely available for measurement of grain volume/density since the
introduction of an apparatus in 1955 (Faeth and Willingham, 1955). However, the development
23
of a reliable non-destructive and non-contaminating method for bulk density determination
would have to wait until the late 1990s. Consolmagno and Britt (1998) developed an
Archimedean method in which spherical glass beads serve the role of the fluid. The glass beads
are easily removed, do not interact chemically with the sample, and in the event of a few beads
remaining after measurement are easily distinguished from native minerals in the sample. The
technique has become widely employed since its introduction, and shows promise for application
Measurement of grain density requires immersion of the sample into a medium that
penetrates and fills pore space, so as to be displaced only by the solid material of the sample.
Gases are the preferred medium for such measurements, as they can more easily flow through
small cracks and other openings, and are less likely to leave residues. The use of gas for density
measurement is possible due to the ideal gas law, which expresses the relationship between the
pressure of gas, its volume and temperature. The better the medium approximates an ideal gas,
the better it is for this method. Gaseous helium is the best medium for this use. It is an inert
monatomic gas which, due to the two electrons in its S1 valence shell, has the smallest atomic
radius of any element, allowing it to easily penetrate very small voids, yet it does not penetrate
Faeth and Willingham (1955) developed an apparatus for measuring grain densities using
helium pycnometry, and a variant of their apparatus was employed in the early 1970s to measure
24
grain densities of some lunar samples from the Apollo program (e.g. Cadenhead et al., 1972;
Cadenhead and Stetter, 1975), during which many of the fundamental questions about the
method were resolved. Yomogida and Matsui (1981, 1982, 1983) employed a commercially
available pycnometer (Shimadzu Seisakusho model 1302) for measurements of grain density on
numerous Antarctic meteorites from the Japanese expeditions. Other devices for the same
technique have been extensively used in meteorite studies (e.g. Kuoppamäki et al., 1996;
Pesonen et al., 1997; Consolmagno and Britt, 1998; Flynn and Klock, 1998; Flynn et al., 1999;
McCausland and Flemming, 2006), and today the method is quite common for grain density
measurements of meteorites.
2.2.1 Theory
The ideal gas law, expressed simply, is the basic relationship between the gas pressure P,
the volume it occupies V, the temperature of the gas T, and the number of moles of gas n.
PV nRT (1)
where R is the gas constant (8.314472 J K-1 mol-1). In the specific case where the temperature
and quantity of gas are held constant, the pressure and volume vary together:
PV constant (2)
25
PV
i i Pf V f (3)
By varying the volume that the gas occupies and measuring the variation in pressure, one can
take advantage of this property to determine the volume Vs displaced by an object placed within
the gas. Consider the case of a chamber that changes its volume from V1 to V2, both of which are
known quantities (Figure 1). In this case, the volume occupied by the gas is (at the beginning)
V1-Vs, and (at the end) V2-Vs. Their corresponding pressures are P1 and P2. Equation 3 becomes:
PV
1 1 PV
2 2
VS (5)
P1 P2
2.2.2 Measurement
manufactured by Quantachrome Instruments (Boynton Beach, FL). This device employs two
chambers milled out of solid aluminum blocks and connected through a valve (Figure 3).
*
As of April 2010, we upgraded to a Quantachrome Ultrapyc 1200e. This device operates on the same principles
using the same basic engineering (and same cell specifications) as the Ultrapycnometer 1000. The primary
difference is in the electronic control systems which are more sophisticated and are compatible with computer
interface. Measurements conducted at the Field Museum (Chicago) were performed with the 1200e.
26
Volume change is facilitated by the opening of the valve, transitioning the effective volume from
that of the one chamber (known as the ―cell‖) to that of both the cell and the second chamber
(called VA, to maintain notation consistent with the operator’s manual). To complicate the
matter a bit, we do not evacuate the chambers (a process that risks causing migration of material
out of the meteorite), and the transducer measures pressures above local atmospheric pressure
PA.
Initially, the meteorite is placed in the cell, and atmosphere in both the cell and VA is
replaced by helium at atmospheric pressure through a flow purgation process. Then the valves
are closed and helium is pumped into the cell to an initial overpressure Pi. Thus, there are two
PAVA n2 RT (7)
Each refers to a different quantity of helium (one for the cell and the other for VA). Adding
Equations 6 and 7 yields the equation of state for the whole system.
After the valve is opened, the pressure equilibrates between the two chambers. The final
27
Comparing the initial to the final state results in the following:
This is effectively the same as the basic ideal-gas relationship in Equation 4, and the solution has
the form of Equation 5, but with the appropriate terms substituted in:
PV
i cell Pf (Vcell VA ) Pf
VS Vcell VA (12)
Pi Pf ( Pi Pf )
To perform this calculation on real measurements, both Vcell and VA must be known.
Since these volumes include complicated features such as metallic tubing that may vary
somewhat depending on temperature they must be measured directly rather than assumed based
on geometry. These are measured to high precision using a set of stainless steel calibration
spheres. There are in fact three cell sizes (large [4.8 cm dia. x 7.5 cm tall], medium [4.0 cm dia.
x 3.9 cm tall] and small [2.4 cm dia. x 2.2 cm tall]) and two VA sizes (one used for both large and
medium cells, and one for the small cell). Separate calibrations must be made for each of them.
28
2.2.3 Other Considerations
2.2.3.1 Ramp-up
The pycnometer has a documented ramp-up (Quantachrome, 2003), where initial volume
measurements have lower value than subsequent ones, as can be seen in Figure 4. This is due in
part to the sample not being in complete thermal equilibrium with the device, despite the practice
of placing the sample in the cell storage compartment of the pycnometer which is designed to
equilibrate with the rest of the device. It may also be due in part to an incomplete exchange of air
inside the sample for helium. To accommodate this, each measurement included 15 consecutive
runs, and the reported grain volume was taken from the average of the last five to six of them.
At this point, the ramp is not completely leveled off, but the slope and variability is greatly
reduced after 10 runs. Calibration measurements are also based on a 15-run measurement, so
sample volumes should be reliable. Measurements on zero-porosity quartz and topaz standards
are self-consistent under separate calibrations, and are also consistent with volume measurements
While helium permeates even tiny openings, it is not 100% permeable through every
substrate. (If it were, it would be impossible to store.) Pores that are fully enclosed within
29
minerals will not be permeated. However, most meteorites are shot through with microcracks,
and helium has the ability to penetrate even very small cracks, and the high pressures employed
(>10 psi over atmospheric) assist the mobility of the gas, so this concern is minimized in most
cases. We see in studies of large carbonaceous chondrite and ordinary chondrite showers
(Macke et al., 2008) very little variability in grain density between stones from the same
meteorite, suggesting that helium is penetrating each stone to the same degree. If permeability
were an issue, large stones would have demonstrably lower grain densities than small stones due
to helium failing to penetrate the interior of the rock. This trend is not observed.
A related issue is that of air and other volatiles residing deep within the rocks. In theory,
if these gases were not being replaced by helium in the measurement, it should affect results,
again with a size-dependent bias. Cadenhead and Stetter (1975) recommended placing the
sample under vacuum and baking it at above 45 C to force the outgassing of any volatiles. This
approach has drawbacks, such as affecting future measurements of the same volatiles within the
sample. Also, exposure to vacuum and removal of moist terrestrial air has been observed to
force migration of certain water-soluble interior species to the exterior and to accelerate
weathering (Gounelle and Zolensky, 2001). For these reasons, vacuum exposure is not
acceptable for large-scale use. Given the somewhat high pressures used by the Ultrapycnometer
and a sequence of multiple consecutive measurements per sample resulting in constant transport
of helium in and out of the meteorite, atmospheric gases will be largely replaced by helium as of
the final few measurements. Again, in our studies of large meteorite showers we see no evidence
for size-dependent bias in grain density results that would be anticipated if this concern had
significant effect.
30
2.2.3.3 Residual Helium Deposition
A concern when introducing any foreign material into a sample is whether the medium
will leave a residue of any kind. This is an especially important consideration with helium
because even a small amount of residual helium will affect possible trace noble gas
measurements in the future. Of particular concern are carbonaceous chondrites, with their high
carbon content that, in a manner similar to activated charcoal, may adsorb helium. This effect is
expected to be negligible for this work (Steele and Halsey, 1954; Kini and Stacey, 1963).
Indeed, trace noble gas measurements were performed on a sample of ordinary chondrite before
and after pycnometry, with no difference observed (Tim Swindle, private communication).
Based on the repeatability of the pycnometry measurements on the same samples (quartz
and topaz) under different machine calibrations, a uniform uncertainty was set for all
measurements made with the same cell. For the large cell, uncertainty is 0.06 cm3. For medium,
it is 0.04 cm3, and for the small cell it is 0.02 cm3. These uncertainties are generally much larger
than the statistical variation among the last six runs in a set, and reflect repeatability of the
instrument under varying conditions rather than precision of a specific measurement. In those
rare instances where the standard deviation of the six runs used for grain density determination
exceeds the preset uncertainty, the standard deviation is used instead. What is not factored in to
the quoted measurement uncertainties is the effect of any impermeable pore space on the grain
31
volume. For grain densities, uncertainties are calculated by standard propagation of errors using
Bulk volume measurements require a medium or technique that does not penetrate the
interior of the meteorite, providing instead a measure of the volume enclosed by the outer
uncompressible fluid of known density. (Often water is used for the fluid.) The volume of fluid
displaced is the same as the volume of the displacing object. The displaced volume can be found
by measuring the mass of the system, as described in Section 2.3.1. We employ this method, but
substitute non-contaminating glass beads to serve as the fluid. As well as being non-
contaminating, the beads also do not penetrate interior pore space, thus yielding a reliable
2.3.1 Theory
The basic principle operates as follows: Begin with a container of known mass mcup and
volume Vcup. Fill it completely with the fluid, so as to overflow the container. Then insert the
sample, after measuring its mass mS. Excess fluid will spill out of the container. (For the sake of
32
this argument, effects of surface tension such as a meniscus are ignored. They will be irrelevant
anyway when the technique is applied to glass beads.) The mass mtotal of the filled cup is then
measured. The volume displaced by the sample is the volume of the cup minus the volume of
The volume of fluid remaining in the cup, however, is determined by the mass of fluid remaining
mtotal mcup mS
VS Vcup . (15)
ρfluid
2.3.2 Measurement
As described in the introduction to this chapter, the use of an actual fluid of any type is
highly problematic for bulk density measurements of meteorites, not only because of the
possibility for contamination but also because liquids are likely to penetrate interior space, thus
33
throwing off the measurement. To get around this problem, Consolmagno and Britt (1998)
developed a method for performing the measurement using small glass beads that collectively
behave as a fluid. The beads, as used in this study, include two different size-sorts: 40-80 µm in
diameter, and 700-800 µm. We use BALLOTINITM impact beads manufactured by Potters
Industries Inc. (Valley Forge, PA). These beads are produced in large quantities for industrial
use, and so are widely available. (See Table 1 and Table 2, and Figure 5 for chemical analysis of
the beads, courtesy R. Korotev, personal communication.) The smaller beads provide greater
precision of measurement, but the larger beads are preferred for measurements at many
collections because they can more easily be removed from the samples.
Replacing the term ―fluid‖ in Equation 15 with ―bead‖, the calculations do not vary:
mtotal mcup mS
VS Vcup (16)
ρbead
One thing that does vary, however, is the density of the beads. It is not a perfectly
incompressible fluid, and local environmental conditions may affect packing efficiency and
hence bead density. The density of beads must then be measured directly through calibration
measurements, in which the cup is filled entirely with beads but with no sample present. Bead
density is then:
mcalib mcup
ρbead (17)
Vcup
34
where mcalib is the total mass of the bead-filled cup in the calibration measurement. Substituting
Equation 17 into Equation 16 yields a new form for the sample volume calculations:
mtotal mcup mS
VS Vcup (18)
mcalib mcup
Vcup
mcalib mS mtotal
VS Vcup (19)
mcalib mcup
The apparatus used in this study is seen in Figure 6. In this study, we made multiple
measurements per sample in order to establish statistical uncertainty, since mtotal and mcalib may
vary by as much as 1% between two measurements made under the same conditions. Typically,
five sample measurements are sandwiched between two sets of five calibration measurements,
with the averages used in calculations of sample bulk volume. Uncertainties for both mtotal and
mcalib are determined statistically, and uncertainties in bulk volume and density are calculated by
propagation of errors.
To avoid bias based on orientation of the meteorite, it was rotated between each
measurement. Under some circumstances the number of measurements was varied. For
example, for some friable meteorites the number of sample measurements was reduced to four or
three to minimize the possibility that the beads would abrade the sample.
35
For each measurement, the beads are poured into the cup to the point of overflowing, and
are encouraged to settle. Different settling methods were tested (see below), but we settled on a
―secured shake‖ method in which the sample is held down onto a vibrating platform that shakes
for a duration of 5 seconds. At the cessation of the shaking, the surface is scraped level using a
straight edge, and any beads sticking to the outside of the container due to static are carefully
The glass bead method assumes that the beads behave as an incompressible fluid, but this
is not the case. In particular, the beads do not flow perfectly as a fluid; nor do they maintain at
all times the most efficient packing arrangement. Uneven flow around irregular samples may
efficiency. While the Archimedean glass bead method has become widely applied, little work
has been done either to standardize the method (necessary for comparison of results), to establish
the degree of bias present in a given method, or to establish which variations of the method
minimize bias. Existing systematic error studies in the bead method have been limited to
specific measurement methods employed by other investigators, which do not precisely match
our method or methods applied elsewhere. For example, Wilkison and Robinson (2000) discuss
an elaborate setup in which the bead-filled cup is suspended in a container filled with foam
pellets. One of the first steps in this meteorite physical property survey was to study systematic
error in our method and to establish a standard method to be applied throughout the survey. This
36
has been published in Macke et al. (2010a), and much of the following discussion is taken from
that paper.2 In addition to limiting ourselves to methods compatible with our measurement
apparatus which is notably simpler than Wilkison and Robinson’s, we sought a method that all
investigators may apply, and so applied the criteria that the methods should be easily repeatable,
simple to employ (not requiring an overly sophisticated apparatus) and minimally contaminating
For the most part, the key variable here is the method of settling the beads so they flow
around the sample and achieve a good packing arrangement. To this end, I tested various
methods of settling the beads, ranging from no settling to a short vigorous shake with the
container secured to the shake platform. Because early work with the bead method employed the
small bead sizes (40-80 µm), the most thorough testing has been performed on that size beads,
and so most of the following discussion focuses on that size. By the time the 700-800 µm beads
began to be employed, many of the other settling methods had already been ruled out as less
accurate, and so only the dominant settling method was tested with the larger beads.
mass from 9.3 g to 89.9 g. Because quartz has a low density (2.62-2.65 g cm-3) compared to the
~3.3 g cm-3 of meteorites, we added three topaz samples (density 3.54 g cm-3) ranging in mass
from 50 to 67 g. Both the quartz and topaz standards are fully crystalline, with no visible
inclusions or voids. Because bulk and grain volumes for zero-porosity samples are the same, the
actual volumes of the standards were determined via helium pycnometry. All of the bead
method measurements were performed using two cup sizes: 77 cm3 and 155 cm3. For all
methods, the 155-cm3 cup exhibited greater overall uncertainties, but volume measurements
were within uncertainties of actual volumes. Smaller cups yield greater precision, so while the
2
Those portions of the dissertation that come from this source are used with permission. See Appendix C.
37
77cm3 cup does produce measurable systematic error, it is generally preferred over the larger
container for small samples. Unless otherwise noted, the following refers to the 77-cm3 cup,
which is the cup size employed for the majority of meteorite measurements in this survey. (The
larger cup is employed only where the meteorite does not fit in the smaller cup.)
The four settling methods that were tested are as follows: Method #1 is a control, in
which no physical settling method is employed. Beads are merely poured directly into the
container, and the surface is leveled. Method #2 employs five taps on the side of the container
using the bristles of a soft brush. It will be referred to hereafter as ―soft tap.‖ Method #3
employs a vigorous five-second shake using the shake platform, while the cup sits freely on the
surface of the platform (―free shake‖). Method #4 is the same as method #3, except the cup is
manually held securely onto the surface of the platform (―secured shake‖). Additional variations
were also tested in an attempt to identify an optimal settling method, but none of those
represented any improvement, and so are not reported here. For each method, the test involved
multiple bulk volume determinations on each of the standards, and the results were compared
Though it hasn’t yet been employed in our research, there are circumstances under which
it may be desirable to skip the settling of beads altogether, for instance in the measurement of
extremely friable meteorites. We also wanted to establish whether settling itself had an effect on
measurement. For this method, we poured beads directly into the container and leveled it off
38
without any shaking or tapping. For some measurements, we placed a thin bed of beads into the
bottom of the cup before inserting the sample. In other cases, we placed the sample into an
empty cup and poured beads atop it. We found (Table 3) that this method tends to overestimate
the bulk volume of the sample by as much as 3%. The average volume overestimate is 1.6% ±
2.4%, with the ―±‖ representing one standard deviation among the individual results unless
otherwise stated. The average uncertainty in individual measurements was 2.0%. As will be
apparent for all settling methods in this study, the two smallest quartz samples (masses 9.3 and
9.8 grams) exhibited highly unreliable results, with individual measurement uncertainties near 4
percent. This may be expected because precision breaks down at small sample volumes.
This method does exhibit volume dependence (Figure 7). For samples sized 7 to 10 cm3,
the bias is near 3 percent, but this falls with larger volume. Our largest sample, at 29.0 cm3,
exhibited an overestimate of only 1.5% ± 0.5%. Eliminating the three smallest samples, the
The soft tap method using taps from a soft-bristled brush produced an overestimate of
sample volume in both quartz and topaz (Table 3), though to a lesser degree in topaz. On
average, quartz volumes were overestimated by 2.7% ± 2.6%. Topaz volumes were
39
overestimated by 1.4 % ± 0.7 %, though uncertainties in individual measurements range up to
1.4%. The data show no obvious mass or volume dependency (Figure 8), though the spread in
results for the two smallest quartz crystals is significantly larger than that of the rest of the set.
This method is strongly dependent on a number of factors that may be difficult to control.
For example, the strength of the tap and even the hardness or number density of the bristles may
affect how well the beads settle. By experience we have found that it is difficult to maintain
consistency between measurements in particular with regard to tap strength. This may explain
the inconsistency in the results. In theory, this method should not produce different results for
topaz than for quartz since the method should not allow for the sample itself to greatly influence
Unsecured shaking of the cup tended to underestimate sample volumes in quartz (Table
3), but with a volume-dependent trend visible in the quartz data (Figure 9). At low masses (and
hence small volumes), volumes are underestimated by approximately four percent, but this is
reduced for masses above 40 grams to near zero. As with the soft tap, the two samples below 10
grams produced unreliable results. This curve can be approximated by a linear relationship
40
This relationship fits the existing data (not considering the three smallest quartz samples) quite
well, with a correlation over 0.999. Nevertheless, it will probably not hold for samples
significantly larger than those in the study, since the trend appears to be asymptotic to zero while
the above relationship does not have that quality. For larger samples, the bias can be assumed to
be zero.
Secured shaking is perhaps the most thoroughly studied method, since early indications
showed it had the least systematic error over the range of quartz masses, though for masses
below 10 grams it still suffers from large uncertainties. For quartz (not including the two masses
below 10 g), volume discrepancy averages 0.5% ± 0.8%. This fits the average within the 0.4%
to 1.1% range of uncertainties of most of the individual measurements. With topaz, the average
volume bias is a slight underestimate of -0.5% ± 0.7%, again putting the average within the
significant source of systematic error overall. No clear volume dependence is apparent either
(Figure 10).
41
2.3.4 Further Considerations
Most of the meteorites in this survey were measured with glass beads of substantially
larger size, with radii ranging from 700-800 μm in diameter, of the same manufacture as the 40-
80 μm beads. The larger bead size enhances their visibility, making them easy to remove
completely from meteorites following measurement. The ―secured shake‖ settling method was
employed for these measurements. Systematic error studies using the same quartz and topaz
standards were performed using the larger beads in the ―secured shake‖ settling method. These
larger beads exhibit a mass- or volume-independent systematic error (Figure 11). For the 77-cm3
cup, the volume was overestimated by an average 2.0% ± 1.0%. Large uncertainty is seen for
not only the two smallest quartz samples, but also the 14 g sample, indicating that the method is
best used for samples greater than 15-20 g (or a corresponding ~4 cm3). Eliminating data from
these small samples, the volume overestimate is more consistently overestimated by 2.3% ±
0.4%. For the 155-cm3 cup (Figure 12), we eliminated the smallest samples as they were not
measured using this method, and included measurements of combinations of the three topaz
pieces to represent larger-volume samples. For the larger cup, the volume discrepancies all but
disappeared, producing a slight average volume underestimate of 0.16% ± 1.34%, well within
the individual measurement uncertainties of approximately 1.7%. As with the smaller beads,
measurement precision using the 155-cm3 cup was significantly reduced compared to the 77-cm3
cup.
42
2.3.4.2 Environmental Effects
Three environmental factors (temperature, pressure, and relative humidity) were recorded
as the bead method was applied, both during systematic error studies and during some meteorite
measurements. This yielded 72 independent measurements of bead density ρbead for the small
cup and small beads, covering a temperature range of 21.5 to 26 C, atmospheric pressure of 997
to 1026 mb, and humidity range from 31% to 68%. For the 155-cm3 cup and small beads, we
between bead density and temperature or pressure. However, a clear negative trend is observed
with relative humidity. For each percentage increase in relative humidity, bead density (for
small beads) decreases by approximately 1.×10-3 g cm-3 (see Figure 13). This correlation held
for both cup sizes, with the ―secured shake‖ settling method. For the ―soft tap‖ method a
negative trend is also observed, but there are too few data points for meaningful quantitative
analysis. This negative density trend may be due to an increased cohesion between beads as
humidity increases. This in turn would reduce the ability of beads to flow freely into the optimal
packing arrangement, leaving them in a packing arrangement that has lower bulk density. The
developing at the surface of the bead pail after it has been left sitting for an extended period of
time.
This raises the question of whether humidity influences bulk volume in sample
measurements using the ~60 µm beads. It is not clear that there should be any such influence;
after all, if calibration measurements are made under the same environmental conditions, bead
density variations should be accounted for and no systematic error should be introduced. We
43
performed a Monte-Carlo simulation that confirms this intuition. However, there may be effects
other than variations in bead density that would influence results. For example, if humidity
impedes the smooth flow of beads, then they may not completely fill small gaps and cavities in
the samples to be measured. This would result in an overestimate of volume that would increase
with humidity. With current observations of zero-porosity standards, however, no such trend is
observed. Nevertheless, the current data exist over a relatively small humidity range and further
measurement may yield different results. Given the relatively small magnitude of the effect, we
We also recorded environmental conditions for measurements performed with the ~750
µm beads. We have 208 measurements with the small cup and 47 with the 155-cm3 cup,
1021 mb for the 155-cm3 cup), and relative humidity range of 22% to 56%. As in the case with
the small beads, there is no correlation between bead density and temperature or pressure. On
the other hand, there is also no correlation between bead density and humidity for the larger size-
sort of beads. Whatever phenomenon results in reduced bead density for small beads does not
apply to the larger size. This emphasizes the fact that the effect is not a property of the glass
itself, but results most likely from the high surface-area-to-volume ratio in the small beads.
As a medium is exposed to an external magnetic field, this will induce a magnetic response in the
medium, based on the amount and type of magnetic materials within the medium. The magnetic
44
M χν B (22)
This factor, the magnetic susceptibility, is a unitless intrinsic property of the material. Magnetic
susceptibility of a rock is most strongly affected by those minerals contained within that have
very high magnetic susceptibilities, such as ferromagnetic materials like iron metal. As such,
this physical property serves as a reasonably good first-order indicator of the quantity of total
Because instruments for measuring magnetic susceptibility are widely available and most
are quite portable, numerous studies have already been conducted on meteorite magnetic
over 900 meteorites as well as numerous lunar samples from the Russian Luna program (see
Herndon et al., 1972, for a review of their results), though their work has remained largely
unknown outside Russia. More recently, a collaborative effort including Pierre Rochette, Jérôme
Gattacceca and others has resulted in a substantial database of magnetic susceptibilities for
representatives of most meteorites of all types (Rochette et al., 2003, 2008, 2009, 2010).
already been shown to have correlations with grain density in ordinary chondrites (Consolmagno
et al., 2006) and was worth further study. Many of the above studies, especially those by
Rochette et al., are more extensive in their scope and the total number of stones measured.
the very same stones for which I measured densities and porosity. Magnetic susceptibility may
would not be sufficient simply to use literature values for this property. To further explore
45
relationships between meteorite grain density and magnetic susceptibility or porosity and
magnetic susceptibility, what was needed was a fresh measurement of magnetic susceptibility for
2.4.1 Instrument
meter (Figure 14). It was originally designed for measuring magnetic susceptibilities of large
boulders in the field. This device exposes the sample to a low magnetic field created by an
electric oscillator at a frequency of 9 kHz (Terraplus, 2003). The presence of magnetic materials
within the sample induces a shift in frequency proportional to the total magnetic susceptibility.
Two measurements are performed: one with the sample, and a subsequent measurement on air.
The instrument determines the magnetic susceptibility of the sample by subtracting the air
The device contains a magnetic pickup coil that lies up against the back surface of the
machine, with the controls on the front (Figure 14b). For normal operation, the device rests
against the object of interest, its back facing the object, with the controls facing the user. In
performing measurements on small meteorites, the normal operation of the device is altered
wooden table or plastic crate), sticking out from the edge enough to expose the pushbutton for
activating a measurement. The meteorite is placed atop the device, on what is normally the
backside and centered at the location of the coil (Figure 15). For the air measurement, the
46
meteorite is removed while the meter and everything else remains in place. The meter reports
volume magnetic susceptibility χν, which is unitless in SI units. For consistency with magnetic
susceptibility measurements reported in the literature, these are converted into mass magnetic
χν
χ (23)
ρbulk
Mass magnetic susceptibilities are recorded in units of 10-9 m3 kg-1. Following measurement,
further adjustments of the results must take place to accommodate the sample size and geometry.
These are discussed further in the following sections. Because meteorite magnetic
susceptibilities vary over many orders of magnitude, the final results are reported in log units.
As stated above, the SM-30 is designed for use on large boulders, which approximate an
infinite half-plane in the perspective of the meter. The magnetic field of the device remains
and 5 cm in diameter (Folco et al., 2006), extending well beyond the volume enclosed by most of
the hand-sized meteorite stones in this study, which due to size limitations of the pycnometer
chamber (see Section 2.2) do not extend more than 5 cm above the meter except in rare cases.
Because much of the magnetic field lies outside the sample, the magnetic susceptibility reading
47
will be much lower than the actual magnetic susceptibility of the sample. A correction factor α
is required:
χ uncorrected
χcorrected (24)
α
SM-30 measurements of 315 volcanic pebbles of varying size and mineralogy with
measurements on the same pebbles made using a Kappabridge KLY2 Geofysika susceptometer
This correction alone does a reasonably good job of matching SM-30 results with
expected magnetic susceptibilities, and has been field tested in Antarctica with good results
(Folco et al., 2006). In our database are measurements from a number of stones in the Vatican
collection, many of which had also been measured by Pierre Rochette using the KLY-2
(Rochette, personal communication). The correlation is not bad, with most SM-30
measurements within about log χ = ±0.2 from KLY-2-derived values. However, as Gattacceca et
al. (2004) note, measurements made by the SM-30 are dependent somewhat on shape as well as
volume. Their correction assumes that the object is roughly ellipsoidal. The results are most
48
strongly affected when the shape of the object diverges significantly from an ellipsoid. The most
notable affects occur when there are polished surfaces, which sit perfectly flat on the meter,
presenting a much larger volume to the strongest part of the field than is assumed by the
correction.
Further corrections can be made by first classifying stones based on simple shape. Stones
in the Vatican collection can be characterized by three basic shapes: ―slabs‖, ―sliced chunks‖,
and ―chunks‖. Slabs have been sliced on two opposing sides, presenting the entire mass of the
stone in a relatively thin layer just above the strongest part of the field, with nothing but air
above that. This group also includes ―end caps‖, for which one side is sliced and the opposite is
rough, but when laid flat the entire stone is thin in the vertical dimension compared with the
horizontal. Sliced chunks, many of which are stones cut in half, present a large flat surface upon
which the stone rests during measurement, though the whole stone has a substantial extension in
all dimensions. The remainder of stones fell into a catch-all category, but are characterized by an
For slabs, SM-30 measurements (after the first-order correction) were reduced by 0.105.
For sliced chunks, the reduction was 0.04. Chunks showed a magnetic-susceptibility-dependent
offset that became more pronounced as magnetic susceptibility increased. This is consistent with
a small non-linear response of the device for high magnetic susceptibilities (SM-30 manual), and
49
Figure 17 and Figure 18 compare the SM-30 data with the KLY-2 data before and after these
corrections have been applied. As is apparent, the fit is much tighter after the corrections have
been applied.
based on one standard deviation of the discrepancy in log χ space for each geometrical type
according to the Vatican data, with a minimum allowable uncertainty set at ±0.08 consistent with
findings of Folco et al. (2006). For most stones, the uncertainty lay between 0.08 and 0.12. An
exception was applied in the few cases where the uncertainty derived from the original correction
factor exceeded that based on the shape, in which case the larger uncertainty was used.
50
CHAPTER 3: ORDINARY CHONDRITES
3.1 Introduction
Ordinary chondrites are by far the most abundant kind of meteorite fall, making up about
74% of all observed falls. However, in part because they are less likely to stand out against a
background of terrestrial rocks than iron meteorites, and in part because when they weather they
are more likely to disintegrate, they only constitute 63% of collected finds (Grady, 2000). Even
that number is higher than historical reports; prior to the extensive collection of well-preserved
meteorite finds in hot desert regions and Antarctica, Mason (1962) reported the percentage of
chondrites among finds at less than 35%. As their name suggests, ordinary chondrites are
chondrites, that is, they are characterized by the presence of spherules of predominantly olivine
and other silicates that condensed from melt droplets. The origin of the chondrules is still a
subject of study, but they may have been caused by localized and rapid heating and cooling of
clumps of dust particles within the early solar nebula (Connolly et al., 2006). Space between
Chondrites are primitive meteorites; structurally, they have seen little change since the
initial formation of their parent bodies. Nevertheless, they exhibit signs of post-formation
processing. Most ordinary chondrites have at least some history of thermal alteration leading to
partial equilibration of chondrules with surrounding matrix material, and giving them
51
petrographic types ranging from 3 to 6 (and in some cases 7). They are also affected by shock
events, such as impacts, that compress existing pore space yet at the same time introduce new
Ordinary chondrites are further subdivided into three main groups, plus two intermediate
groups with smaller populations. These differ by total quantity of iron and ratio of metallic iron
to FeO, and have been named to reflect that. H chondrites are high iron, typically 8 vol % Fe
(Righter et al., 2006) and Fe0/FeO of 0.58 (Weisberg et al., 2006). L chondrites are lower in iron
(about 3 vol% Fe and Fe0/FeO of 0.29), and LL chondrites are lower still (1.5 vol% Fe and
Fe0/FeO of 0.11). The intermediate groups, H/L and L/LL, exhibit intermediate quantities of
Because the three groups differ so dramatically in their abundance of total iron and
metallic iron, magnetic susceptibility has been posited as a good first-glance physical property
for rough classification of ordinary chondrites (Rochette et al., 2003) and this has been tested in
Antarctica (Folco et al., 2006). Nevertheless, some overlap still exists between the groups.
Consolmagno et al. (2004, 2006), studying ordinary chondrite falls from the Vatican Observatory
collection, found that when this property is combined with grain density in the construction of a
grain density/ magnetic susceptibility plot (Figure 19), the three groups form three distinct
regions. Thus, the combination of grain density and magnetic susceptibility provides an even
more powerful tool for classifying ordinary chondrite falls. Because the techniques for
measuring these properties are fast and non-destructive, they can be applied to large portions of a
collection and may help to identify mislabeled or misclassified meteorites. Visible in Figure 19
are a couple of these so-called ―ringers‖ that plot in the wrong group for their type.
52
The situation is not as straightforward for finds, as Consolmagno et al. (2006) note.
Weathering has a significant effect on metal grains within ordinary chondrites. They oxidize,
forming low-density minerals such as goethite. These weathering products fill available pore
space. Once pore space is filled, however, the rate of weathering is significantly reduced
because the paths to the interior become blocked (Bland et al., 1996, 1998b). The conversion of
metallic iron into lower-density weathering product reduces grain density, though its expansion
into pre-existing pore space means bulk density is not significantly altered (Consolmagno et al.,
1998). In addition, the weathering products are also less magnetic than metallic iron, thus
reducing total magnetic susceptibility (Consolmagno et al., 2008). The varying degree to which
a stone may be weathered means that grain density and magnetic susceptibility are not useful for
Ordinary chondrites have already been studied to some length using the same
measurement techniques described here, especially during the development of these same
techniques using the meteorite collection at the Vatican Observatory. As such, this chapter is not
intended to be an in-depth analysis of the results of the study. Rather, it is for the most part a
report of the data. I refer the reader to Consolmagno et al. (1998, 2006, 2008) for further detail
and analysis. Nevertheless, some results from the extensive additional data this study has
provided are unexpected. So as not to overlook important conclusions, some highlights as well
That being said, this chapter does include one unique analytical approach in the area of
weathering for ordinary chondrite finds. Currently, weathering classification schemes are non-
standardized and rely to large degree on the personal judgment of the investigator. In addition,
individual stones from the same meteorite may weather to differing degrees based on differences
53
in the stone size, the local environment, and even differences in curation practices at, for
example, two different collections. Because of this, weathering grades reported in the literature
are not necessarily useful. Since grain density and magnetic susceptibility both vary according
to the degree of weathering, I present here a ―weathering modulus‖ based on the total extent to
which these two properties differ from each population’s mean for unweathered falls. This
modulus will then serve to demonstrate how the other two properties (bulk density and porosity)
In this study are included 207 stones from 116 H chondrite falls. The data are presented
in Table 4. A plot of grain density and magnetic susceptibility showing all H, L and LL falls can
be found in Figure 20. Grain densities for H falls average (by stone) 3.71 g cm-3, with a range
from 3.18 g cm-3 to 4.14 g cm-3. Bulk densities averaged 3.35 g cm-3, ranging from 2.51 to 3.77
g cm-3. This yields an average porosity of 9.5%, with a range from 0 to 26.6%. Magnetic
susceptibilities ranged from log χ = 4.57 to 5.64, with an average value in log space of log χ =
5.30.
Consolmagno et al. (1998) report a general dependence of porosity on shock, with the
average porosity decreasing as shock increases due to compaction of pore space. The data
reported here are consistent with that conclusion, with average porosity 9.3% for shock stage S1
and 12.0% for S2, dropping to 5.5% for S4, as exhibited in Figure 21. This analysis is based on
whole-meteorite porosity values, not individual stones, since some meteorites have a large
54
number of stones in the database and thus might bias the results. Each meteorite’s porosity is
determined by the mass-weighted average grain and bulk density for all stones from that
meteorite. Unfortunately, this also reduces the number of data points available, yielding no more
than four porosity measurements for all categories except S3, for which there are 20. The low
statistics are partly responsible for the fact that porosity for S1 is less than S2; one meteorite with
2.8% porosity has thrown off the average. Omitting it yields an average porosity of 11.5%,
petrographic type, a finding that is reiterated in Consolmagno et al. (2008). However, with the
increased quantity of data now available for study, that finding may be questioned. Omitting
type 3 meteorites, for which there are only two data points, I find no significant change in
average porosity from petrographic type 4 to 5, which both reside near 10%, but for petrographic
type 6 the average porosity drops to 7.8% (Figure 22). This drop corresponds to an increase in
average bulk density from 3.33 to 3.42 g cm-3. The reduction in porosity for more thermally
chondrules and matrix may result in the elimination of some of the interstitial spaces between
them.
Curiously, there may also be a correlation between petrographic type and magnetic
susceptibility, as the average magnetic susceptibility increases from log χ = 5.12 for petrographic
type 3 to 5.34 for type 6 (Figure 23). Most of the difference for that property lies between type 3
and 4, but there is a steady rise from type 4 to 6. This may be indicative of a small increase in
the metallic iron quantity within more thermally processed meteorites. Since relatively minor
thermal processing should not result in migration of metals out of the meteorite, this may be
55
indicative of minor differences within parent bodies during the time of formation that may be
consequent upon local conditions within the solar nebula where they formed.
For H finds, the database includes 79 stones from 63 meteorites. They are reported in
Table 5. The average bulk density was slightly higher than for falls at 3.43 g cm-3, but with a
range from 2.86 to 4.21 g cm-3. It should be noted that the one stone measuring 4.21 g cm-3 is a
piece of Acme with a mass of only 5.6 g, rendering the bulk density measurement unreliable.
Omitting that one, the next highest bulk density was 3.69 g cm-3. Grain densities were in general
much lower than for falls, with an average value of 3.51 g cm-3 and a range from 3.19 to 3.79 g
cm-3. Magnetic susceptibilities were also much lower than for falls. The average log χ was
5.05, with the population ranging from 4.41 to 5.61. Porosities were also significantly affected
by weathering, as expected. The average porosity dropped to 2.8%, with many stones near zero
and the highest value only 10.2%. The 5.6 g stone of Acme was omitted from this calculation,
since its anomalously high bulk density measurement resulted in a negative porosity of -25%.
bulk density is not expected to vary considerably during weathering, it is still possible to estimate
56
the original porosity of the stone if the original grain density can be determined. This was
determined by plotting grain density against bulk density for H falls and making a linear fit
(Figure 24). The fit, which is good to within about 3% for most stones in the population, is as
follows:
Model porosities for the finds overlap actual porosities of the falls reasonably well
(Figure 25). Using the model porosities, it is possible to add further data to seek trends of
porosity based on shock, petrographic type, etc. I have done so for petrographic type in Figure
26. The additional data continues to support the observed drop in average porosity for
petrographic type 6, and using median values there is now visible a slight downward trend in
modulus based on a distance in grain density / magnetic susceptibility space from the mean
values for falls of a given population (Macke et al., 2010b). This is not, strictly speaking, a
physical quantity, as it does not correlate directly to physical relationships, is unit-dependent, and
is indeterminate in its own units (though not technically unitless). Nevertheless, it remains a
57
useful tool for establishing degree of weathering, from which weathering-related trends can be
For the case of H finds, the weathering modulus (WH) follows the expression:
2 2
WH 5 (log χ )0 log χ 1.2( ρg 0 ρg ) (28)
where (log χ)0 and ρg0 represent the mean fall values for magnetic susceptibility (in log units of
10-9 m3 kg-1) and grain density (in g cm-3), respectively. The factor of 1.2 in the grain density
term is there to better fit the ellipse occupied by the H fall population in grain density-magnetic
susceptibility space. The factor of 5 is an arbitrary scaling factor, giving the weathering modulus
a range from zero up to just over 5. Curves for unit values of the modulus have been plotted on
Figure 27.
Curiously, a plot of porosity as a function of weathering modulus (Figure 28) has little to
no slope; that is, while all H finds have significantly reduced porosities as compared to H falls,
their porosity does not vary with degree of weathering for modulus values over 1. Below 1, the
degree of weathering is minimal but not dismissable. There are only a few stones with porosities
greater than 8%, and two of these have modulus values below 1. However, there were no stones
There was no a priori expectation that bulk density should vary with degree of
weathering, as the weathering products should fill existing volume without substantial alteration
of mass. However (Figure 29), bulk density varies inversely with weathering modulus. This
trend becomes more understandable if, instead of bulk density, model porosity is plotted as a
58
function of weathering modulus (Figure 30). While actual porosities do not vary noticeably with
All of this is consistent with the chondrite weathering model of Bland et al. (1996,
1998b). That model includes two stages of weathering. The first stage operates on relatively
short time scales3, during which oxidation reactions in metal cause low-density weathering
products to fill existing pore spaces. Once porosity is reduced to near zero, this process comes to
a halt primarily because weathering agents no longer have access to the interior of the specimen.
The second stage of weathering, during which the sample slowly fragments and crumbles,
operates on much longer time scales that may be thousands of years. In general, any find will
have completed stage one of weathering by the time it is collected. So, all stones will have had
porosities reduced to near zero. (Notably, it appears that a stone can still have up to 8% porosity
when stage one weathering ceases.) Those stones that originated with higher porosities and
thus had higher model porosities would have more interior space into which weathering products
might expand. In effect, they were less protected from weathering. Therefore, it stands to reason
that they would be more strongly weathered, with a greater reduction of unweathered metal than
3
As a side project, I have been studying this effect on Park Forest, an L chondrite that fell in a suburb of Chicago in
2003. Some of the samples used in the study had been collected in 2010, after being exposed to the elements in
northern Illinois for seven years. After such a short time, they already exhibit strongly reduced grain density and
magnetic susceptibility. The study is at this time incomplete, and so is not included in this dissertation.
59
3.4 L Chondrite Falls
The database includes 216 stones from 122 L chondrite falls (Table 6). Average porosity
for the group was slightly lower than for H chondrites at 8.0%, ranging from 0 to 16.3%. Grain
density ranged from 3.39 g cm-3 to 3.90 g cm-3, with an average of 3.58 g cm-3, while bulk
density averaged 3.30 g cm-3 and ranged from 2.98 to 3.86 g cm-3. Magnetic susceptibility
averaged log χ = 4.87 and ranged from 3.81 to 5.47. However, the ranges include a few
―ringers‖ that may actually be H chondrite stones (for example, a 52 g stone of L’Aigle with
magnetic susceptibility 5.23 and grain density 3.78 g cm-3) or LL chondrites (for instance, a
Unlike with H chondrite falls, no discernible trend related to petrographic type is visible
in any of the physical properties measured for L falls (see Figure 31 for porosity). However, if
anything the inverse correlation between shock state and porosity is even more pronounced for L
chondrites (Figure 32), dropping from a mean value of 11.9% for S2 to 3.4% for S6.
107 stones from 67 L finds were measured (Table 7). As with H finds, porosity is
significantly reduced as compared to falls. L find porosities averaged 3.6%, ranging from zero to
12.1%. Bulk densities were 2.94 to 3.56 g cm-3, with an average of 3.34 g cm-3, while grain
densities averaged 3.46 g cm-3 and ranged from 3.27 to 3.79 g cm-3. The average magnetic
susceptibility was 4.62 in log units, with a range from 3.90 to 4.62.
60
3.5.1 Model Porosities of L Finds
Once again, a fit was made between L fall grain and bulk densities, yielding the
relationship:
For most L’s this will result in a grain density within 0.01 g cm-3 of 3.58 g cm-3. Most actual
grain densities for falls came to within 2% of their model values. Average model porosity for
finds was 6.9% and ranged from zero to 17.9%, with good overlap with fall actual porosities.
(Figure 33).
Observing the relationship of model porosity and petrographic type (Figure 34), there is
no obvious difference between types 4, 5, and 6. However, for type 3 stones the porosity is
observably lower. The database contains ten L3 meteorites, so the result cannot be dismissed
due to low statistics; its average is more than one standard deviation of the mean from the others.
As with that for H finds, a weathering modulus was determined for L finds (Figure 35).
2 2
WL 5 (log χ )0 log χ 1.6( ρg 0 ρg ) (30)
61
and the values for the centroids were also adjusted to match the averages for L falls. The same
patterns described above for H finds are also seen with L finds: porosity does not exhibit any
dependence on weathering (Figure 36), but bulk density is inversely correlated (Figure 37) and
model porosity is positively correlated (Figure 38) with the weathering modulus.
LL chondrites are much less abundant than H and L, and this is reflected in the fact that
the database of measurements includes only 51 stones from 33 LL falls (Table 8). Bulk densities
averaged 3.18 g cm-3, with a range from 2.80 to 3.51 g cm-3. Grain densities were tighter,
ranging from 3.41 5o 3.63 g cm-3, with an average value of 3.52 g cm-3. This resulted in a
porosity range from zero to 19.4%, averaging 9.5%. Magnetic susceptibilities were as low as
3.33, but in an extreme case (probably also a ringer) went as high as 5.15, and the average was
4.13. This particular group has greater variability in grain density and magnetic susceptibility
than H and L, and the region it occupies in grain density/ magnetic susceptibility space (Figure
20) is less well defined or constrained than is that for the other two groups.
Looking at the data by petrographic type, no obvious trends are visible in porosity
(Figure 39). However, LL falls do exhibit a statistically significant negative trend in magnetic
susceptibility with petrographic type (Figure 40), from an average log χ = 4.41 for LL3 to 3.93
for LL6 (and the one LL7 meteorite in the data has log χ = 3.33). Organized by shock state, no
trends are apparent, though the relatively low number of LL meteorites with published shock
62
values (only one S1, and no S4 or S5s are in the database) has proven a hindrance for meaningful
The database contains 12 stones from 10 LL finds (Table 9). Average bulk density was
3.22 g cm-3, with a range from 2.93 to 3.41 g cm-3. Grain density ranged from 3.27 g cm-3 to
3.50 g cm-3, with a mean of 3.42 g cm-3. LL finds have an average porosity of 5.8%, with most
stones below 12% porous, though Zerga has a porosity as high as 14.2%. The mean magnetic
susceptibility was log χ = 4.05, with a high end of 4.65 and a low value of 3.66, excepting Zerga
Based on data from LL falls, model grain densities follow the relation:
This yields grain densities that lie within 2% of the actual values for LL falls. From this, model
porosities were calculated (Figure 41). They average 8.4%, with a range from 3.6% to 16.0%
(including Zerga), though excluding Zerga the model porosities remained below 12%.
63
As can be seen in Figure 42, the addition of model porosities does not help extract any
petrographic-type based trends in the data. Due to the lack of LL finds with reported shock
values, the inclusion of model porosities does not significantly alter that relationship either.
Because LL finds occupy a much larger range, especially in magnetic susceptibility, than
H and L, and because the total number of falls is lower for LLs than for the other two
populations, the region in grain density/magnetic susceptibility space occupied by LL falls is not
densely populated enough to clearly define its shape. It also raises some doubts as to the
receive a large weathering value due to the fact that it lies far from the centroid of the region; or
consistent with the main population of falls. Nevertheless, I attempted to determine a weathering
2 2
WLL 1.5 (log χ )0 log χ 10( ρg 0 ρg ) . (32)
Note that the ellipsoids of constant WLL are stretched in the magnetic susceptibility dimension
and slightly compressed in the grain density dimension as compared to H and L weathering
64
As can be seen from Figure 44, Figure 45 and Figure 46, the lack of large numbers of LL
finds in the data make extracting weathering trends a challenge. However, the data are not
inconsistent with the same trends observed for H and L finds: No substantial correlation of
porosity with weathering modulus, but an inverse correlation of bulk density and a positive
In addition to H, L and LL, some ordinary chondrites have been classified as intermediate
H/L or L/LL. For completeness, their data, covering 53 stones from 10 meteorites, have been
included in Table 10. Of these, all but two stones from two meteorites are falls. For the two
finds, model porosities have been included based on average grain densities for each category.
No attempt to establish a weathering modulus for these intermediate types was made.
The transformation of aggregates in parent bodies into the rocks comprising meteorites is
still one of the unanswered questions in the formation of planetary bodies. It is thought that the
and Cuzzi, 2006) In order to better understand the relationship between shock and lithification,
it is important to compore those meteorites that are known to have been lithified by shock
65
melting (i.e. breccias) with unbrecciated meteorites. If the process by which chondrites
originally lithified is similar to the process by which breccias lithify, the two groups should
exhibit similarities in porosity. The massive quantity of data available for ordinary chondrites
enables a good analysis of brecciated and non-brecciated populations. For this analysis, breccias
were identified based on the listing in the Catalogue of Meteorites (Grady, 2000). Grady (2000)
also identifies a number of veined ordinary chondrites (most non-brecciated, but some also
The meteorites were divided into brecciated and non-brecciated meteorites, though
veined meteorites were excluded from the analysis. All of the analysis was conducted on whole-
meteorite values (not individual stones). There were 54 breccias identified, 152 non-breccias
and 55 veined meteorites. At first glance, porosities of the breccias and non-breccias were quite
similar (Table 11). Both groups ranged from basically zero porosity to 26.6% porous. Breccias
averaged 8.5% ± 0.6%, while unbrecciated OCs averaged 9.3% ± 0.4%, with error bars based on
one standard deviation of the mean. Given that the error bars of the two populations overlap, this
would seem to indicate that brecciated and unbrecciated OCs share similar porosities. The
veined population had a slightly lower average porosity of 8.2% ± 0.5%, marking it lower on
The similarity on average between breccias and non-breccias does not mean an overall
similarity between the two populations. For one thing, among the 54 breccias only one (Sena)
has a porosity exceeding 15%, while the non-breccias have eighteen out of 152 above 15%
porous. Using Poisson statistics for the uncertainties, this means that the percentage of high-
porosity breccias is 2% ± 2%, while for non-breccias it is significantly higher at 12% ± 3%.
66
With such large numbers of meteorites represented, it is possible to analyze the distribution of
porosities over the whole population, as expressed in histogram form in Figure 47. While the
the breccias exhibit increasing population numbers ranging from 0 to about 12%, then a sharp
From the population distribution, it is clear that the breccias experienced different
processes, likely stronger shock that compressed the higher-porosity materials. This indicates
that the process by which the aggregate precursor material for ordinary chondrites lithified is
different, either in kind or in magnitude, from the process by which breccias lithify.
In the course of this study, a total of eighteen stones with labels attributing them to
ordinary chondrite falls had grain densities and magnetic susceptibilities that were inconsistent
with those of the main population for their group. These stones were identified as being more
than three standard deviations from the centroid of their respective groups. They are plotted as
orange symbols in Figure 20. Many of them reside squarely within the population of another
group; for instance, stones labeled ―H‖ that are consistent with L falls. The outliers will remain
unidentified until the curators have had a chance to examine the stones. (Curators have been
notified of the outliers.) Some of them may be mislabeled or misidentified stones. It is also
conceivable, though unlikely in most cases, that some may be stones of a different chondrite type
67
that were included in the original fall. Five of the stones are from the Vatican collection, and
Ten of the eighteen stones are labeled ―H‖, and of these five are consistent with L, with
another three depleted in grain density or magnetic susceptibility. It is quite possible that some
or all of these outliers may be the result of a measurable degree of weathering of the high-iron
ordinary chondrites, despite their status as falls. Two other stones (Le Pressoir and Phû Hong,
both from the Vatican collection) have very high grain densities and above average magnetic
susceptibilities. Both of these stones are small (one 13.3 g, the other 4.0 g), so a likely
explanation here is that they contain large metal grains that bias the results.
In a few cases, weathering can be clearly ruled out. For example, one stone of St.
Mesmin (LL) is enhanced in magnetic susceptibility. It rests within the L population but would
not be inconsistent with an H/L either. One stone of L’Aigle (L) resides within the H region.
Discerning the source of such discrepancies may prove an impossible task. Potential causes
unscrupulous collectors and dealers, the presence of pre-existing meteorites in the area of a fall,
or even heterogeneous inclusions within the fall itself. The case of the L’Aigle stone is
would rule out curatorial error, but does not rule out the possibility of an unscrupulous dealer
who may have attached the name of this historically significant meteorite to a stone of lesser
value.
In general, these outliers are limited to just one stone per meteorite. Two exceptions
include L’Aigle and Pultusk (H), with two outliers apiece. Curiously, Pultusk’s two outliers
were located in two different meteorite collections. Both are approximately consistent with the L
68
falls, but further examination is necessary in order to determine whether these stones are L or are
merely weathered.
The two other major classes of chondrite types, carbonaceous chondrites and enstatite
chondrites, will be dealt with in subsequent chapters. However, there are a few sui generis
chondrite types that do not fit into any of the three major classes. Of these, the database includes
9 stones of 6 Rumuruti-like (R) chondrites, and one stone from Kakangari, belonging to the
Kakangari-like (K) chondrite group. The data are presented in Table 12.
R chondrites, of which there 106 known meteorites (76 non-Antarctic) and just one
known fall (Rumuruti), are chemically similar to H chondrites though with higher Olivine
content (Hutchison, 2004), but have lower chondrite/matrix ratios (Kallemeyn et al., 1996), are
more strongly oxidized and have unusual oxygen isotopic ratios, plotting below the terrestrial
fractionation line.
All six of the R chondrites in this study are finds. They have an average grain density of
3.52 g cm-3 (range 3.45 g cm-3 to 3.59 g cm-3), average bulk density of 3.14 g cm-3 (range 2.79 g
cm-3 to 3.32 g cm-3), porosity of 10.9% (range 5.6% to 19.2%), and magnetic susceptibility of log
χ = 3.11 (range 2.72 to 3.63). Some of the low density and magnetic susceptibility values (as
compared to H chondrites, see Figure 48) may be accounted for by weathering, but not all. The
entire magnetic susceptibility range is substantially less than that of even the lowest H find (as
well as L finds). Even though total iron content of R chondrites is comparable to H chondrites,
69
the former are much more oxidized (prior to weathering), with a negligible Fe0/Fetot ratio
(compared to a ratio of 0.6 for H chondrites; Hutchison, 2004). The oxidation and lack of
None of the above discussion pertains to porosities. It is likely that R porosities are
driven down artificially by weathering, and that fresh R falls would have even higher porosities
The K chondrite grouplet contains only three members (Kakangari, Lea County 002, and
Lewis Cliff 87232) of which Kakangari is the only fall. These meteorites do not fit into any of
the three major classes (ordinary, carbonaceous, or enstatite), but have traits of each. They have
high metal content (comparable to H chondrites), very high percentage matrix comparable to
carbonaceous chondrites, but are enriched in enstatite. Their oxygen isotopic ratios lie below the
terrestrial fractionation line. They have low oxidation states, though higher than R chondrites
In the database of this study, just one stone from Kakangari has been measured for
physical properties. Its grain density (3.45 g cm-3 ± 0.01 g cm-3) and magnetic susceptibility
(5.09 ± 0.10) are most comparable to L chondrites, and are much higher than the R group due to
lower degree of oxidation. The bulk density of 3.04 g cm-3 ± 0.05 g cm-3 gives it a porosity of
12.0% ± 1.5%.
70
CHAPTER 4: CARBONACEOUS CHONDRITES
4.1 Introduction
Carbonaceous chondrites are among the most primitive meteorites. They are also
considerably less abundant than ordinary chondrites; there are 413 known non-Antarctic
carbonaceous chondrites, of which there are 43 falls. Based on spectrographic studies, the best
match for asteroidal analogs for carbonaceous chondrites are C-type asteroids (and perhaps some
originate from X-type or K-type; Consolmagno et al., 2008; Burbine et al., 2002), which are low-
albedo, colorless asteroids (Chapman et al., 1975) that generally reside in the outer portion of the
asteroid belt, though it is unclear whether the asteroids originated in that part of the belt or
migrated there over time. Regardless, carbonaceous chondrites probably originated farther out in
Like ordinary chondrites, their elemental compositions (except for volatiles) closely
resemble those of the Sun. The CI group of carbonaceous chondrites possesses the closest match
of all meteorite types to Solar composition (Hutchison, 2004). Unlike ordinary chondrites,
carbonaceous chondrites exhibit less thermal alteration overall, and many are aqueously altered.
In the petrographic-type scheme of van Schmus and Wood (1967), carbonaceous chondrites
range from strongly aqueously altered (petrographic type 1) to moderately thermally altered
71
(petrographic type 4). There are a few minor exceptions; for example NWA 2388 is classified as
Britt and Consolmagno (2003) observed a marked difference in grain and bulk densities between
the aqueously-altered (hydrated) groups CM and CI, and the anhydrous groups CK, CO and CV.
Consolmagno et al. (2008) remark that the hydrated groups had low grain densities (below 3 g
cm-3) as compared to typical grain densities above 3 g cm-3 for the anhydrous groups. Likewise,
they observed hydrated CCs to have low bulk densities and (on average) higher porosities than
anhydrous CCs. They did not carry this analysis further, however, by comparing porosity or
techniques on thin sections, which applied to most of the meteorites in their study, while bulk
porosity of larger (6.2 cm long) core samples were measured using a sonic profiling technique.
The latter, which are better for comparison purposes with whole-stone porosities described in
Rochette et al (2008) measured magnetic properties for 594 stones of 222 carbonaceous
chondrites, including numerous Antarctic meteorites. It should be noted that their database
includes a number of meteorites for which the measured mass is significantly less than 10 g, and
measurements may be biased at lower masses by minor variation in metal abundance (inclusion
or exclusion of metal grains, etc.). Nevertheless, they observed that the different types of
however, are not sufficient for use as a classification tool. Rochette et al. (2008) also attempted
72
to couple their data with grain density from literature values, though their technique lacked
density and magnetic susceptibility measurements conducted in a consistent manner and applied
This study includes data for 196 stones from 63 carbonaceous chondrites, a mild
improvement over the 52 meteorites discussed in earlier works. Of those 196 stones, however, a
full suite of measurements has been produced for 167 stones covering 60 of the 63 carbonaceous
chondrites in the study, as opposed to only 17 meteorites before. This unprecedented database
will permit testing of earlier observed trends. It also will permit the exploration of trends
4.2 Data
The data for the 196 carbonaceous chondrites in the study are listed in Table 13 and are
represented graphically in Figure 49 through Figure 52. The discussion of the data will be
grouped under four subheadings, one for each of the following classes or major groupings of
from other carbonaceous chondrites, are believed to form in the same part of the solar nebula
73
under similar conditions as each other, and so were grouped together into a clan by Weisberg et
al. (1995). Despite differences from other CCs, these meteorites are still classified carbonaceous
abundance ratios (normalized to CI) greater than or (in the case of CI) equal to 1, while that for
ordinary and enstatite chondrites is less than 1. Because CR-clan refractory lithophile/Mg ratios
are near to or exceed 1, they are considered carbonaceous chondrites. In addition CR-clan
chondrites have oxygen isotopic abundances that, like carbonaceous chondrites, lie below the
4.2.1.1 CR
almost all are petrographic type 2. They were first recognized as a group by McSween (1977).
Of the three groups in the CR clan, CRs have the lowest total metal abundance at a maximum of
about 8 vol% (Weisberg et al., 1993), with most of the metal residing in chondrules. Based on
near-solar refractory lithophile abundances, they are thought to be very primitive, though they
are depleted in volatiles (Weisberg et al., 2006). CRs are all breccias (Hutchison, 2004). There
are 121 known CRs, of which 38 are non-Antarctic and only three (Al Rais, Kaidun, and
In this study are included data for nine stones from seven CR meteorites, including one
stone of Al Rais and three of Renazzo. Grain density averaged 3.42 g cm-3 (range 3.06 g cm-3 to
3.88 g cm-3), which coupled with an average bulk density of 3.11 g cm-3 (range 2.29 g cm-3 to
74
3.94 g cm-3) yields an average porosity of 9.5% (range zero to 25.0%), which is below typical
porosities for most carbonaceous chondrites. Magnetic susceptibilities averaged log χ = 5.02,
Of the CRs, Al Rais has an unusually low density (both grain and bulk) and an unusually
high porosity. Omitting this meteorite, the lowest bulk density of the remaining CRs is 2.89 g
cm-3, the lowest grain density is 3.30 g cm-3, and the highest porosity is 18.2%. This anomaly
does not extend to magnetic susceptibility, however; Al Rais has a magnetic susceptibility of
4.89, which is below average but not outside the range of the remaining population.
In terms of grain density, CR falls are unusual in that they exhibit lower values than CR
finds (Figure 53). It is not clear whether there is any porosity difference between falls and finds,
though it is noteworthy that the highest-porosity stone (Al Rais) is a fall, while the lowest-
porosity belongs to a find (Tafassasset). Since only two meteorite falls are represented in the
data, it is unclear whether the observed difference is due to a genuine weathering effect or can be
simply accounted for by natural variation among meteorites of this type. The range in grain
densities of the CR meteorites and the variability in data from the three stones of Renazzo (with
porosities ranging from 3.7% to 18.2%) suggest that their brecciated nature lends them a certain
degree of heterogeneity.
4.2.1.2 CB
The CB group was first identified as a distinct group relatively recently by Weisberg et
al. (2001). They are characterized by very high (more than 40 vol%) metal abundances occurring
75
in clasts, and CBs may also contain inclusions of material of other chondrite types. CBs are
further subdivided into two groups: CBa is somewhat lower in metal, ranging 40-60%, and CBb
has metal abundances exceeding 70 vol% (Krot et al., 2002). There are 14 known CB
meteorites, of which 8 are non-Antarctic and only Gujba is an observed fall. In our database are
only four stones from two meteorites (Bencubbin and Hammadah al Hamra 237), both finds, of
which only one stone apiece has a full suite of physical property measurements. Bencubbin is a
CBa, and HaH 237 is a CBb. Petrographic types for CB meteorites are not listed in the
Due to their very high metal content, CBs have the highest grain densities of any
chondrites in the study. They averaged 5.65 g cm-3, grouping tightly at 5.63 g cm-3 and 5.66 g
cm-3. They also are among the highest in magnetic susceptibility, with an average of log χ = 5.57
and a range from 5.31 to 5.79. The average is slightly lower than but statistically consistent with
the mean value of 5.65 ± 0.04 reported by Rochette et al. (2008). On a grain density/magnetic
susceptibility plot (Figure 53), CBs reside well above the regions occupied by other chondrites.
Bulk densities are also high (average 5.25 g cm-3, range 4.90 g cm-3 to 5.55 g cm-3), with a low
average porosity of 3.9% (from two porosity measurements of 2.0% and 5.8%). No obvious
difference between the CBa and the CBb stones is apparent in any of the physical properties
measured.
76
4.2.1.3 CH
Like CB, CH carbonaceous chondrites are also very high in metal compared to other
carbonaceous chondrites, though to a lesser extent than CB. While CB may be 60 vol% or more
metal, CH is about 20 vol% metal (Weisberg et al., 1988). This metal abundance gives the group
its designation (―H‖ for high metal, ―C‖ for carbonaceous chondrite; Krot et al., 2002). CH
chondrites exhibit low alteration states, and all CHs listed in the Meteoritical Bulletin Database
are petrographic type 3. There are 22 known CH meteorites (12 non-Antarctic and no falls).
Our database includes just two stones from one CH find (Acfer 214), though both stones have
Acfer 214’s grain density (3.65 ± 0.02 g cm-3) is fully 2 g cm-3 less than the CB group,
primarily the result of having less than half the total metal content, though it is within the overall
range of the CR group. Magnetic susceptibility (log χ = 5.30 ± 0.12) is also less than CB and a
little higher than the CR average. This is compatible with the value of 5.36 ± 0.10 reported by
Rochette et al. (2008). Grain density and magnetic susceptibility values are also consistent with
H ordinary chondrites and overlap those of CRs (Figure 53), demonstrating that while grain
density and magnetic susceptibility can distinguish ordinary chondrite types from each other
(Consolmagno et al., 2006 and Chapter 3 of this dissertation), they are not equally useful for
distinguishing carbonaceous chondrites from ordinary chondrites. The measure of bulk density
for the stones may be a bit off. Acfer 214 averages 3.77 ± 0.08 g cm-3, yielding a negative
porosity. However, it should be noted that porosity values of both stones, while negative, are
within measurement uncertainty of zero. From this it should be inferred that Acfer 214 has
effectively zero porosity. Whether this is indicative of CH as a group is doubtful; Acfer 214 is a
77
find, and a meteorite with as much metal as it possesses would likely experience weathering
much like ordinary chondrites (Bland et al., 1998b) that would reduce porosity to near zero.
In addition to the CR group, two other types of carbonaceous chondrite exhibit strong
(Weisberg et al., 2006; Brearley, 2006). These are CI’s, all of which are petrographic type 1, and
4.2.2.1 CI
Ivuna-type carbonaceous chondrites (CI) are highly porous and extremely friable. They
are also quite rare (only eight meteorites of the type are known), and most collections only
possess a modest mass of the material. Two of the key falls in this category, Alais and Orgueil,
both fell in France and hence their main masses are at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
in Paris. A third key fall, Ivuna, fell in Tanzania and its main mass is held by the Tanzania
Geological Survey (Grady, 2000). Of the remaining meteorites, only Yamato 980115 is larger
than 15 grams.
CI carbonaceous chondrites are chemically among the most primitive of meteorite types.
Elemental abundance ratios of CIs relative to Si are very near abundance ratios of the solar
78
photosphere, except in the case of the most volatile species (Anders and Grevesse, 1989). While
they have retained the elemental signatures of the solar nebula quite well, this does not mean that
they are unprocessed. CIs show signs of extreme aqueous alteration, with all known CIs being
petrographic type 1. They also have no chondrules (with the possible exception of Yamato
82162; Hutchison, 2004) though whether that is original or the result of aqueous processing is
unclear (Weisberg et al., 2006). Their matrix is composed largely of phyllosilicates and other
Due to their extreme friability, even the relatively benign methods employed in this study
present a possible risk of damage to the samples. Hence, curators have been wary of permitting
their CI specimens to be subject to physical property measurements. The two CI samples in the
database (both from Orgueil) are from the Vatican collection, and density and porosity
measurements were conducted on just one of them by the curator of the collection, Guy
Consolmagno, using techniques compatible with those presented here. Magnetic susceptibility
measurements on both samples were conducted by Jérôme Gattacceca and Pierre Rochette using
a KLY2 magnetic susceptibility meter. The data were published originally in Britt and
The grain density of Orgueil is 2.42 g cm-3, making it one of the least dense chondrites in
this study. Together with a bulk density of 1.57 g cm-3, this gives it a porosity of 34.9%. The
two samples in the study had an average magnetic susceptibility of log χ = 4.49, with the two
measurements being 4.11 and 4.86. On a plot of grain density and magnetic susceptibility
(Figure 54), it resides well below the rest of the chondrites, but not to the lower left (low in both
grain density and magnetic susceptibility) as basalts tend to do. There is sufficient metallic iron
79
in CI chondrites to give them magnetic susceptibilities comparable to L falls despite their low
densities.
The porosity result is higher than some of the results based on liquid immersion
techniques, which grossly underestimated the porosity (Consolmagno et al., 2008) by producing
bulk density measurements much higher than their actual values. Also, Corrigan et al. (1997)
measured porosity for Orgueil matrix of only 4% using SEM point-counting techniques on a thin
section of matrix material, with similar results for matrix from Alais and Ivuna. It is likely that
the production of thin sections either compressed the sample (destroying pore space) or, akin to
observations of Strait and Consolmagno (2010), pore space appeared as voids that were large
4.2.2.2 CM
Mighei-type (CM) carbonaceous chondrites are also aqueously altered, though to a lesser
degree than the CI’s. Most CMs are petrographic type 2, though a few are type 1. Unlike CIs,
vol%), and a small amount of metal. Nevertheless, their matrix abundance of about 70 vol% is
420 known CM meteorites are listed in the Meteoritical Bulletin Database, of which 36
are non-Antarctic and 15 are falls. Our database includes physical properties for 43 stones from
13 meteorites, including 14 stones from Murchison and 12 from Murray. All of the meteorites
measured were falls except for one stone each of Cimarron and El-Quss Abu Said. The only
80
falls not represented were Boroskino, Erakot, Haripura, Maribo, and Sayama. The main mass of
Boroskino is at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, with no more than 3.8 g available at any
other institution. With the exception of a few grams, Erakot and Haripura are both at the
Geological Survey of India in Calcutta (Grady, 2000), and Sayama is privately held in Tokyo
(Meteoritical Bulletin Database). All of the meteorites in the study were also petrographic type 2.
Due to the large contributions from just two meteorites, all averages reported here are calculated
Bulk densities are rather low, though not as low as Orgueil. They average 2.20 g cm-3,
with a range from 1.88 g cm-3 to 2.47 g cm-3. Grain densities average 2.92 g cm-3, with a low of
2.74 g cm-3 and a maximum value of 3.26 g cm-3. CMs are quite porous, averaging 24.7% and
ranging from 15.0% to 36.7%. Of the CMs, only Murchison was measured for bulk porosity by
Corrigan et al. (1997), and their result of 23% compares favorably to the average 22.1% porosity
(with a standard deviation among individual measurements of 2.2%) for the 14 stones measured
in this study. Their point-counting-based matrix porosities for the remaining CMs averaged a low
6%.
Magnetic susceptibilities on average were log χ = 3.93, which is below that of Orgueil,
but covered a wide range from 3.30 to 4.77. Curiously, the two finds (Cimarron and El-Quss
Abu Said) exhibit higher-than-average magnetic susceptibilities of 4.48 and 4.32, respectively,
and exhibit no obvious weathering-related effects in any of the other physical properties that
were measured. Individual measurements were almost all within uncertainties of the results of
Rochette et al. (2008), and their mean value for the entire group of log χ = 3.90 (σmean = 0.06) is
81
Figure 54 plots grain densities and magnetic susceptibilities for CMs as well as CIs. CM
grain densities are higher than CIs, while their magnetic susceptibilities are lower. In terms of
magnetic susceptibility, CMs are comparable to LL falls. Also visible on the plot is a cluster of
CM falls that lie between log χ = 3.3 and 4.0, and constrained in grain density between 2.7 and
3.0 g cm-3. These 26 stones belong to two falls: Murchison and Murray.
Because of the abundance of stones for Murchison and Murray, this provides an excellent
opportunity to explore the homogeneity of stones from the same fall. Unlike extremely
heterogeneous falls such as the ureiliite Almahata Sitta (Jenniskens et al., 2009; Bischoff et al.,
2010), Murchison and Murray are relatively uniform in texture, and so by comparing stones from
each fall it will be possible to get a sense of the homogeneity of the parent body on scales
approximating the size of the original meteoroid, approximately decimeters to meters. In all
parameters and for both meteorites, variation among stones (determined by one standard
deviation) was less than 10% from the mean value, with the greatest degree of variability in the
porosities. For Murchison, grain density ranged from 2.87 g cm-3 to 3.05 g cm-3 (mean 2.96 g
cm-3), with a variability of 0.05 g cm-3, or 1.6% of the mean value. Bulk density averaged 2.31 g
cm-3, ranging from 2.15 g cm-3 to 2.40 g cm-3. Variability in bulk density was 0.07 g cm-3, or
3.1% of the mean. Porosity ranged from 18.7% to 24.9%, with a variability of 2.2% (10.0% of
the mean 22.1% porosity). Magnetic susceptibility averaged 3.73, with a range from 3.54 to
3.90. Variability was 0.13, or 3.6% of the average. It should be noted that the mean
uncertainties for the individual measurements were 0.01 g cm-3 for grain density, 0.02 g cm-3 for
bulk density, 0.9% for porosity, and 0.09 for magnetic susceptibility. This indicates that, while
measurements did vary between stones, the differences were not many times larger than
82
measurement uncertainty. Overall, the stones from Murchison that were included in the study
Murray produces similar results. For brevity, only standard deviations will be given.
Bulk density varied 0.05 g cm-3 (2.3% of the mean), grain density varied 0.02 g cm-3 (0.7% of
the mean), porosity 1.8% (8.6% of the mean), and magnetic susceptibility 0.15 (4.0%). Mean
measurement uncertainties for the stones were the same as for Murchison, but the overall
variability is less. This indicates that Murray, at least for the stones in this survey, is more
Anhydrous carbonaceous chondrites may or may not exhibit signs of some aqueous
alteration, but tend to have few if any of the secondary hydrous phases, such as phyllosilicates.
They also possess various secondary anhydrous phases that formed in the absence of water
(Brearley, 2006). In terms of the schema of van Schmus and Wood (1967), anhydrous CCs are
almost all of petrographic type 3, with the exception of CKs that range into the thermally
equilibrated petrographic types 4-6. They tend also to have lower total matrix abundances than
the hydrous groups, ranging from 30-50% (Weisberg et al., 2006), although some sources put
CK matrix abundances as high as 75% (Hutchison, 2004; Brearley and Jones, 1998).
83
4.2.3.1 CO
mineralogically similar in anhydrous minerals, have similar chondruls size, similar refractory
lithophile element abundances, and similar oxygen isotopic compositions, (Kallemeyn and
Wasson, 1982; Weisberg et al., 2006), though they show no signs of aqueous alteration
(Brearley, 2006) and are all petrographic type 3, though varying from petrographic type 3.0 to as
high as 3.8. They have abundant matrix, but at ~34 vol% (Weisberg et al., 2006) the matrix is
considerably less abundant than that of CMs. The similarities are enough that CO and CM have
195 CO meteorites are recognized, with 116 non-Antarctic but just 6 falls. Among COs,
we have measured 33 stones from 14 meteorites, though there are no more than 4 stones
measured for any one meteorite. Of the six CO falls, five are represented, with only Moss
(which fell in 2006) missing from the database. Averaging by stone, bulk density is 3.03 g cm-3,
grain density is 3.52 g cm-3, porosity is 13.6%, and magnetic susceptibility is log χ = 4.49.
Averaging by meteorite, the values are 3.06 g cm-3, 3.48 g cm-3, 11.6% and 4.48, respectively.
By stone, bulk density ranged from 2.18 g cm-3 to 3.48 g cm-3, grain density ranged from 2.99 g
cm-3 to 3.78 g cm-3, porosity from 0 to 41.3%, and magnetic susceptibility from 3.91 to 5.00.
Corrigan et al. (1997) measured bulk porosities for two CO meteorites: Isna and Lancé.
Their 4% average porosity for Isna is substantially lower than the porosities of any of the three
stones in this study, which in total average 14.5%. Their result for Lancé of 8.3% porosity is
much closer to the 9.2% average of the four stones in our database, especially when the fact that
two of the four stones in the study had porosities below 8.3% is taken into account. It is not clear
84
why there should be such a discrepancy between the results of Corrigan et al. (1997) and our
results for Isna, though the authors report an unaccountable inability to produce useful results for
Ornans, another CO3, indicating that perhaps porous CO chondrites may present a unique hazard
Of all carbonaceous chondrites, COs exhibit perhaps the greatest disparity between falls
and finds. Six of the CO meteorites in this study were falls, while eight were finds, giving a
good representation for each group. The difference is most apparent in porosity: falls averaged
19.4% porous (by meteorite), ranging 9.2% to 34.2% while finds averaged 5.7% and ranged
from zero to 14.5%. This considerable drop in porosity for finds corresponds to a drop in
average grain density (3.64 g cm-3 for falls, 3.35 g cm-3 for finds) and a modest drop in magnetic
susceptibility (4.57 for falls, 4.41 for finds). On top of these more predictable effects, there is
also a notable increase in average bulk density for finds (3.16 g cm-3) as compared with falls
(2.93 g cm-3). On a grain density-magnetic susceptibility plot (Figure 55), CO falls are
somewhat clustered near L and LL falls, while CO are clearly separated from the main group of
falls. Unlike OC finds, which are affected primarily by the oxidation of metal during
weathering, the primary difference between CO falls and finds is in grain density rather than
magnetic susceptibility. If the primary weathering product is carbonates rather than iron oxides,
Rochette et al. (2008) agrees well with the magnetic susceptibility data presented here.
They break down their averages for CO into finds and falls. In the case of CO finds, we add data
for Dar al Gani 023, 078 and 749, and for Rainbow, that are not listed in their data, though of
course they add numerous Antarctic finds. They get an average magnetic susceptibility for CO
finds of log χ = 4.49 ± 0.06 (σmean), which is a little higher than but within uncertainties of our
85
average find magnetic susceptibility of 4.41 ± 0.09. Likewise, their mean for CO falls is log χ =
Despite other similarities between COs and CMs, physical properties of the two groups
differ by a wide margin, both in the structure-related properties and in the mineralogically related
properties. Considering falls alone, CMs on average have much higher porosities, but are lower
in density (both grain and bulk) and have much lower magnetic susceptibilities. Comparing the
two populations in Figure 54 and Figure 55, the difference between CO falls and CM falls is
4.2.3.2 CK
to CO and CV groups, though more closely related to CV. They are marked by very low carbon
content (< 1 mg/g), high oxidization, high abundance of refractory lithophiles, and low
abundance of refractory inclusions (Kallemeyn et al., 1991). Despite being strongly oxidized,
they exhibit signs of anhydrous thermal metamorphism, making them quite unusual as
carbonaceous chondrites go by having petrographic types greater than three, ranging from CK3
to CK6. They have abundant matrix and possess large chondrules (averaging ~600 µm diameter)
190 records for CKs exist in the Meteoritical Bulletin Database, of which 86 are non-
Antarctic. However, only two falls are known: Karoonda and Kobe. We have physical
properties for 19 stones from 7 meteorites, including 12 stones of Karoonda itself. The average
86
bulk density by stone was 2.90 ± 0.05 g cm-3 (by meteorite, 3.00 ± 0.11 g cm-3). For grain
density, the average by stone was 3.58 ± 0.02 g cm-3 (3.55 ± 0.04 g cm-3 by meteorite).
Porosities therefore averaged 17.8%, though this is heavily influenced by Karoonda with an
average porosity of 21%. The average porosity by meteorite is a much lower 14.0%. In terms
of magnetic susceptibility, the average value by stone (log χ = 4.67 ± 0.01) was roughly the same
This magnetic susceptibility average is just a little higher than the mean of 4.62 ± 0.03
recorded by Rochette et al. (2008), but error bars of each group (based on σmean) overlap. The
agreement is remarkable given the difference in which stones are represented. Aside from
Karoonda, Maralinga and Dar al Gani 275 and 431, which agree among the two datasets within
The overall variability of stones in this class is low in the mineralogically dependent
only ranged from 4.59 to 4.77 by stone (4.60 to 4.72 by meteorite). Grain densities ranged from
3.37 g cm-3 to 3.66 g cm-3 (both by stone and by meteorite). In grain density-magnetic
susceptibility space (Figure 56), CKs reside in the same region as L/LL ordinary chondrites such
as Holbrook, and with the exception of a couple CK finds are tightly clustered. Bulk densities
ranged from 2.54 g cm-3 to 3.39 g cm-3 (by meteorite, 2.66 g cm-3 to 3.39 g cm-3) because
porosities covered the range from zero to 23.4% (23.3% by meteorite). The considerable
variability in porosities may be due in part to the influence of weathering. Finds were on average
low in porosity, ranging from zero to 17.6%, while falls were all above 16%, most above 20%.
It should be noted that all of the fall stones belonged to just one meteorite: Karoonda, making it
87
uncertain whether the observed effect is due to weathering or just a basic difference between
As was the case with Murchison and Murray for the CMs, the abundance of measured
stones of Karoonda permits the exploration of homogeneity for that fall. Again, the 12 stones
exhibited homogeneity in all properties measured to within 10%. Standard deviations were: for
grain density, 0.04 g cm-3 (1.0% of the mean 3.60 g cm-3); for bulk density, 0.07 g cm-3 (2.4% of
the mean 2.85 g cm-3); for porosity, 2.1% (10.0% of the mean 21.1% porosity); and for magnetic
susceptibility 0.04 (0.9% of the mean 4.67). Average measurement uncertainties were 0.10 g
cm-3 for bulk density, 0.04 g cm-3 for grain density, 2.7% for porosity, and 0.08 for magnetic
susceptibility. Therefore, variability among the stones measured was within the bounds of
measurement uncertainty. One particular outlier skews some of the results: a 28.1 g fragment
from the American Museum of Natural History (reference 3970A) has a grain density noticeably
lower than all of the others, yielding a low porosity of 16.4%. If this is omitted (though it should
not be omitted in a proper analysis), the standard deviation for the grain density of the remaining
4.2.3.3 CV
exhibit various signs of some aqueous or thermal metamorphism (Hutchison, 2004; Brearley,
2006) but with one exception (the CV2 meteorite Mundrabila 012) all are petrographic type 3
88
(Meteoritical Bulletin Database). Among carbonaceous chondrites, they are relatively abundant
with 176 recorded meteorites, of which 93 are non-Antarctic and 7 are observed falls. Perhaps
the best known CV is Allende, of which more than 2 metric tons fell in the state of Chihuahua,
Mexico in 1969 (King et al., 1969; Hutchison, 2004). Allende contains CAIs that have been
dated as among the oldest material in the solar system at 4.568 ± 0.003 Ga (Allègre et al., 1995).
CAIs from other CVs and CMs have been dated with comparable dates (Russell et al., 2006).
CVs can be further subdivided. McSween (1977) divided the CV chondrites into
oxidized (CVo) and reduced (CVr) subgroups based on metal and Ni contents. The oxidized
subgroup formed in a predominantly oxidizing environment, and meteorites of this type are
characterized among other things by fayalitic olivine rims around chondrules and CAIs, higher
total Fe, Ni enrichment in metal, and higher magnetite to metal ratios, all compared to the
reduced subroup (Krot et al., 1995). CVs as a whole have only undergone minor metamorphism
after parent body formation (almost all are CV3 in the petrographic schema of van Schmus and
Wood, 1967), and the oxidation of CVo’s occurred after formation of chondrules and CAI’s.
Weisberg et al. (1997) proposed a further subdivision of the oxidized subgroup into Allende-like
(CVoA) and Bali-like (CVoB) meteorites, but for the purposes of this analysis that distinction will
not be made. MacPherson and Krot (2002) suggest that, because CVr’s may have been more
compacted, they should have less porosity than CVo, and Consolmagno et al. (2008) note that
CVo porosities may exceed CVr porosities by a considerable margin, but caution that their results
In this study are data from 75 stones of 12 CVs, including 52 stones of Allende alone.
This includes 4 falls and 8 finds. It also includes five meteorites designated CVo and three CVr,
according to Krot et al. (1995). (Four meteorites had not been designated in either group.) The
89
following averages and ranges are all by meteorite rather than by stone. Grain densities for the
entire population of CVs averaged 3.54 g cm-3, with a range from 3.25 g cm-3 to 3.68 g cm-3.
Bulk densities averaged 3.03 g cm-3 (range 2.59 g cm-3 to 3.46 g cm-3), and porosities averaged
14.6%, with a range from 0.6% to 27.7%. Magnetic susceptibilities averaged log χ = 4.08, with a
range from 3.23 to 4.86. This is consistent with an average 4.12 ± 0.07 reported by Rochette et
al. (2008).
Of the meteorites included in the porosity study of Corrigan et al. (1997), there is a mix
of agreement and discrepancy. Our average porosity for Allende was 21.9% with a standard
deviation of 2.9%, in good agreement with both their bulk porosity (20%) and matrix porosity
(25%) for the meteorite. Likewise, there is good agreement with Mokoia (27.7% vs. their 24%
bulk and 30% matrix porosities) and Leoville (2.1% vs. their bulk 2% porosity). Efremovka and
Vigarano results, on the other hand, disagree. They measured bulk porosities of 7% for
Efremovka and 1.9 to 7% for various lithologies in Vigarano, while our data are 0.5% and 8.3%,
respectively, with variances on the order of 1%. Both of these are low-porosity meteorites, and
Subdividing the CVs into their oxidized and reduced subgroups provides some tantalizing
insights into the differences between the two groups. While their grain densities are similar
(both have an average grain density of 3.50 g cm-3, slightly lower than ungrouped CV meteorites,
which average 3.62 g cm-3), their bulk densities are very different. The average CVo bulk
density is 2.87 g cm-3, while for CVr it is 3.37 g cm-3. Because the grain densities are the same
on average, the difference is entirely structural, due to a much higher porosity for the CVo group
than for the CVr group. Indeed, CVo meteorites average 19.7% porous, while CVr’s average
only 3.6%, an even greater disparity between the two groups than Consolmagno et al. (2008)’s
90
initial report. There is also a considerable difference in magnetic susceptibilities between the
two groups. The average CVo magnetic susceptibility is log χ = 3.84, while for CVr the average
is 4.70. This difference may be accountable for the abundance of unoxidized metal in CVr as
compared to CVo. Rochette et al. (2008) do not distinguish averages for oxidized and reduced
subgroups, but do note that CVr’s tend to higher magnetic susceptibilities while CVo meteorites
The differences listed above incorporate both falls and finds. However, there may be
some weathering effect present. Most notably, the CVo find Nova 002 has a grain density of
3.25 g cm-3, much lower than average, and a correspondingly low porosity of 6.0%. In Figure
57, which plots grain density against magnetic susceptibility for CVs, Nova 002 lies far outside
the region occupied by other CVo’s. Omitting it and the other CVo find, Axtell (which exhibits
no obvious weathering effects), yields an average CVo porosity of 24.8%. The average magnetic
susceptibility for CVo falls is slightly higher when finds are omitted, at 3.95, but it should be
recognized that Nova 002’s magnetic susceptibility is higher than average at 4.12. If the same is
done for the CVr subgroup, the only fall for which data have been collected is Vigarano, which
has a porosity averaged among all stones that were measured of 8.3% but a lower-than-average
The four CV meteorites in this study that are not explicitly grouped into CVo or CVr (Dar
al Gani 1040, Sahara 98044, and NWAs 2140 and 3118) are not necessarily on their own. They
probably belong to either the oxidized or reduced subgroups, but have not yet been designated to
one or the other. In the absence of more definitive analysis, grain density and magnetic
susceptibility may be used for tentative group assignments. DaG 1040, NWA 2140 and NWA
3118 each lie clearly within the CVo region (Figure 57). By way of confirmation, each also has
91
porosities exceeding 20%, more closely resembling the expected porosities of CVo rather than
CVr. Sahara 98044, on the other hand, resides ambiguously between the two regions. Given its
low porosity of 5.2% ± 2.0%, it likely should be assigned to the CVr subgroup.
Of all of the meteorites in this study, no single meteorite is better represented than
Allende, with 52 total stones included, 40 of which possess the full suite of measurements. The
stones group fairly well in all properties, which is illustrated for grain density and magnetic
susceptibility in Figure 57. Standard deviations among the population are: for grain density, 0.06
g cm-3 (1.6% of 3.65 g cm-3); for bulk density, 0.08 g cm-3 (2.7% of 2.86 g cm-3); for porosity,
2.7% (12.7% of 21.5% mean porosity); and for magnetic susceptibility, 0.06 (1.6% of 3.65).
Average measurement uncertainties are 0.03 g cm-3, 0.05 g cm-3, 1.5%, and 0.10, respectively,
indicating that variability is small but exceeds measurement uncertainties for densities and
porosity, though not for magnetic susceptibility. 39 of the stones were measured from the
collection at the American Museum of Natural History, while 12 stones were at the Smithsonian
Institution-National Museum of Natural History and one was in the Vatican collection. The two
different collections (AMNH and NMNH) yielded slight discrepancies for all of the properties
measured. Grain densities were higher for AMNH stones (3.66 ± 0.01 g cm-3) than for NMNH
(3.62 ± 0.02 g cm-3), as were magnetic susceptibilities (3.66 ± 0.01 and 3.61 ± 0.02,
respectively). Bulk densities were lower for AMNH (2.84 ± 0.01) than for NMNH (2.93±0.01),
resulting in higher average porosities (23.4% ± 0.4% and 19.0% ± 0.5%, respectively), with all
uncertainties given as σmean. While differences in any one property may be accountable to
methodological errors, especially since work at AMNH was performed before measurement
techniques were perfected, the fact that differences are apparent in every physical property
included in the study suggests that the populations as a whole differ. This may be attributable to
92
differences in their curation history at two different institutions under different climate
One very likely culprit is humidity: carbonaceous chondrites can act like a sponge,
absorbing water from the air. By way of illustration, one stone of the CM2 Murray at the Field
Museum was measured at 0.16 g more than its catalog listing. The extra water adds mass,
raising bulk density. Because the additional material has low density (1.0 g cm-3), it will reduce
the overall grain density of the stone, and by filling space it will also reduce porosity. Also,
measurements.
A few carbonaceous chondrites do not fit neatly into subgroups. Of these, we have data
for Adelaide, Coolidge, Ningqiang, Dar al Gani 430, Loongana 001, and Northwest Africa 1152.
Aside from Ningqiang, all are finds. Because they do not form a subgroup of their own, it is not
particularly meaningful to express average values for the physical properties measured. Their
data are included in Table 13, with grain densities and magnetic susceptibilities also presented
graphically in Figure 58. They range in grain density from 3.27 g cm-3 (Adelaide) to 3.66 g cm-3
(Ningqiang), and in bulk density from 2.80 g cm-3 (Ningqiang) to 3.55 g cm-3 (Coolidge).
Ningqiang has the highest grain density of the group and the lowest bulk density, giving it the
highest total porosity (23.6%). Magnetic susceptibilities for this group ranged from 4.32
93
Earlier attempts at classifying Ningqiang had placed it as an anomalous CV (Rubin et al.,
1988), though Kallemeyn et al. (1991) later dubbed it an anomalous CK due to petrographic and
chemical similarities, calling it closer to CK than CV. Unlike most CKs, it is relatively
unequilibrated and is assigned petrographic type 3. Its grain density and magnetic susceptibility
are quite consistent with that of the CK group (Figure 56 and Figure 58) These properties also
reside within the region defined by the oxidized subgroup of CVs (Figure 57 and Figure 58),
though its magnetic susceptibility (log χ = 4.69) is considerably higher than the average of 3.84
for CVo. Bulk density and porosity are also similar to CVo falls such as Allende, but not
NWA 1152 had also been originally classified as a CV (Russell et al., 2002) and is
included among CV3s in the data of Rochette et al (2008), though the Meteoritical Bulletin
Database currently lists it as ungrouped. Its density (bulk density 2.84 g cm-3, grain density 3.49
g cm-3) and porosity (18.9%) are consistent with CVo or ungrouped CV, though like Ningqiang it
has an unusually high magnetic susceptibility of 4.81. Of the remaining meteorites in this group,
Adelaide had at one time been considered CM (Grady, 2000), though its grain density and
magnetic susceptibility exceed the range of CM, while its porosity (3.1%) is much lower than
4.3 Discussion
The carbonaceous chondrites are a diverse group, as their physical properties indicate.
Nevertheless, there are a few general conclusions that can be pulled from the data. First,
94
carbonaceous chondrites are more porous and less dense on average than ordinary chondrites.
This is no surprise, as it has been observed before (cf. Consolmagno et al., 2008). Even more
For the purposes of this aspect of the study, only CC falls were included so as to avoid
the influences of any possible weathering effects in the finds. When the data are organized by
petrographic type, this naturally groups them by different chondrite types. For example, the one
meteorite with a petrographic type of 1 is the one CI (Orgueil) in this study. Type 2 consists of
CM and CR falls. Type 3 is occupied by CV, some CO, and Ningqiang, and type 4 consists of
other CO falls and the CK fall Karoonda. (CH and CB are not represented, since there are no
falls in the study.) When grouped in this way, however, their physical properties begin to reveal
trends. The average values of the data are presented in Table 14.
Bulk and grain densities (Figure 59 and Figure 60) are both very low for the aqueously
altered petrographic types (1 and 2), with type 1 much lower than type 2 in both physical
properties, and both show signs of leveling out for petrographic types 3 and above (though
above type 4). Porosity follows an inverse trend (Figure 61), with porosity decreasing on
average with increasing petrographic type. In Chapter 7, this result will be extended to include
all chondrites: carbonaceous, enstatite, and ordinary, and it will be discussed further there.
95
Unlike the other three physical properties, magnetic susceptibility exhibits no overall
trend. With the exception of the type 2 group (CMs and CRs), which are low compared to the
others, all groups have magnetic susceptibility averages at approximately log χ = 4.5.
4.3.2 Shock
For this analysis, there were too few falls with shock states recorded in the literature
(Grady, 2000; Meteoritical Bulletin Database) to get any meaningful data; almost all falls were
S1, with only one S2, two S3, and nothing higher than that. In order to increase the number of
higher-shock meteorites in the analysis, it became necessary to expand it to include finds as well.
This may result in some interference in the data due to weathering-related effects. The addition
of finds increased the number of S2 to 12, with three S3 and two meteorites of S4. Results are
summarized in Table 15. The bias toward low-shock meteorites itself raises an interesting
question: is there a selection effect at play here, or do carbonaceous chondrites suffer relatively
little shock? That question, unfortunately, lies outside the scope of this dissertation.
Bulk density follows an increasing trend (Figure 63) from S1 to S4, with grain density
staying relatively level at least over the interval S2 to S4 (Figure 64). This implies that shock
compression has taken place, a fact that is not so obvious in the porosity data (Figure 65)
primarily because of the inclusion of the S3 meteorite Felix (CO3) with a porosity of 21%. With
only two S3 meteorites with porosity values in the sampling, this one high-porosity exception (of
which three separate stones were measured, so the porosity is not erroneous) hides what should
otherwise be a reduction of porosity with increasing shock. The fact that this one meteorite that
96
has suffered substantial shock has not been compressed as virtually all other shocked meteorites
have is itself an intriguing question that will require careful structural analysis to resolve (also
As for magnetic susceptibility, the lack of hard data for S3 and S4 makes it impossible to
determine if any trend is present. One noticeable feature in the magnetic susceptibility data
(Figure 66) is the difference in magnetic susceptibility between S1 and S2, each of which are
represented by a statistically meaningful number of meteorites. Since this difference does not
continue into shock stages 3 and 4, it is likely that there is some sampling bias present. The S1
population samples a large number of different meteorite types, including most of the CM and
CVo that have low magnetic susceptibilities, while the S2 population is dominated by CO finds.
97
CHAPTER 5: ENSTATITE CHONDRITES
Note: The contents of this chapter are taken from a paper that is in press (Macke et al.,
2010c)4 and has been inserted here with minor modifications, including the inclusion of updated
data, the removal of the abstract, the removal of the acknowledgments and measurement sections
(which are redundant with information already provided in this dissertation), a new discussion
of weathering modulus applied to ECs, and typographical adjustments. Please see Chapter 2 of
5.1 Introduction
enstatite are relatively rare among known meteorites, with only 17 recorded falls (a little over 1%
of all meteorite falls) and about 400 finds, mostly Antarctic with only 110 non-Antarctic finds
known (Grossman, 2009). Most of the iron in ECs is contained within metal grains (Dodd,
1981). By analogy of the H-L-LL nomenclature adopted for groups of ordinary chondrites
which differ in total iron content, the two groups of ECs were named EH and EL for high-Fe and
low-Fe by Sears et al. (1982), though differences between the two groups in chemistry,
4
Meteoritics & Planetary Science © 2010 by the Meteoritical Society. Used with permission (see Appendix C).
98
mineralogy and texture were understood at least as early as the 1960s (Anders, 1964; Keil,
1968), and the two groups exhibit sufficient differences to establish their origins on separate
parent bodies (Keil, 1989). The two groups also differ in degree of thermal metamorphism, with
most EHs being type 4 or 5 on the petrographic type scheme of van Schmus and Wood (1967)
and most ELs type 6, though representatives for both groups covering the range from type 3 to
type 6 are known (e.g. Sears et al., 1984; Prinz et al., 1984; Zhang et al., 1993).
Though many studies on chemistry and mineralogy of enstatite chondrites have been
conducted, there have been relatively few studies of their physical properties, such as density and
porosity. To date the only systematic studies have been Guskova (1985) and Rochette et al.
(2008). Guskova (1985) measured density and magnetic properties for 21 stones from ten
meteorites in the collections of the Soviet Union, many of which were small and one less than 1
g. Rochette et al. (2008) measured magnetic susceptibilities of ~150 stones from 72 meteorites,
including many Antarctic finds. No study of porosity conducted under a consistent methodology
for a statistically meaningful number of enstatite chondrites has been conducted before now.
Physical properties, generally measured on bulk samples of greater than 10 grams, yield
information about the whole rock at scales generally not studied in more detailed chemical
analyses. Grain density, the density of the solid component of the meteorite, is effectively a
mass-weighted average of the mineral species composing the sample. Porosity is the percentage
of the sample occupied by pore space (cracks, voids, and intergranular spaces), and is determined
by comparison of grain density with bulk density (the density determined by the total volume
enclosed by the sample). Physical properties such as porosity are informative of physical
conditions under which the meteorite parent bodies formed and under which they were
99
asteroids. Magnetic susceptibility, the degree to which a sample exposed to a magnetic field will
respond to that field, is also an important physical property. It depends primarily on the quantity
Nevertheless, these phases constitute less than 1 wt% of the typical enstatite chondrite (Keil,
1968) and so are negligible compared to the contribution of metallic iron. In the case of ordinary
chondrites, magnetic susceptibility in conjunction with grain density (also largely dependent on
the quantity of dense iron metal relative to less-dense silicates and other phases) has been shown
to serve as a viable tool for rapid classification of stones into H, L, and LL subgroups
(Consolmango et al., 2006). The same should occur for EH and EL if the difference in their iron
content is significant.
The dearth of studies of enstatite chondrite physical properties is due in part to their
relative rarity and to the lack until recently of methods for measuring bulk density that would
avoid contaminating or destroying specimens, as would be the case with typical fluid immersion.
Consolmagno and Britt (1998) developed a fast, non-destructive, and non-contaminating method
for performing these studies on hand-sized stones using small glass beads that collectively
behave as an Archimedean fluid. The development of this technique, in conjunction with other
fast, non-destructive and non-contaminating techniques for measuring grain density and
magnetic susceptibility, has enabled large surveys of many hand-sized stones in major meteorite
collections.
With this goal in mind, we have visited eight major meteorite collections: the Natural
History Museum in London, the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, the Smithsonian Institution
100
in Washington DC, the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the Field Museum
in Chicago, and three university collections at Arizona State University, the University of New
Mexico, and Texas Christian University. We have performed physical property measurements
on 1228 stones from over 664 individual meteorites, of which 46 stones were from enstatite
chondrites. All but one of the stones from enstatite chondrites exceeded 10 g (The exception, a
7.3 g piece of Pillistfer from the Vatican collection, has only been measured for magnetic
known falls and a large percentage of the non-Antarctic finds with > 10 g stones available for
study. Our measurements included 18 stones from nine EH meteorites (five falls, four finds) as
well as 28 stones from 14 EL meteorites (six falls, eight finds). This data set provides sufficient
statistics of enstatite chondrite physical properties to establish trends caused by weathering and
to study whether the EH/EL distinction is manifest in grain density and magnetic susceptibility.
5.2 Results
A summary of all data can be seen in Table 16 and Figure 67 through Figure 70. Grain
density ranged from 3.17 to 4.46 g cm-3, with the majority of stones falling between 3.5 and 3.8 g
cm-3. This is slightly lower than found in H chondrite falls (3.6 to 3.9 g cm-3) and roughly
comparable to L falls (3.5 to 3.9 g cm-3). Enstatite chondrite finds exhibit significantly reduced
101
grain density compared with falls (Figure 67). The average grain density for finds is 3.51 g cm-3,
which is significantly lower than the average for falls at 3.66 g cm-3. That being said, one stone
of the EL find Blithfield had an anomalously high grain density of 4.46 g cm-3. This drop in
grain density in finds has not previously been observed in enstatite chondrites due to low
of weathering of iron which expands as it oxidizes and has been well-studied in ordinary
Since our data indicate that finds are no longer representative of the original densities of
the meteorites, we restrict further discussion of grain density to falls. EH and EL grain densities,
while not identical, are quite similar and exhibit substantial overlap (Figure 67). The average
grain density for EH falls was 3.66 g cm-3, with a standard deviation of 0.06 g cm-3, while for EL
falls it was also 3.66 g cm-3 with a larger standard deviation of 0.16 g cm-3. Even eliminating
the somewhat anomalous sample of Khairpur (4.17 g cm-3), the average EL fall is 3.63 g cm-3
with a standard deviation of 0.10 g cm-3. The range for EH falls is from 3.52 g cm-3 to 3.76 g
cm-3, and for EL falls (not counting the aforementioned sample of Khairpur) is 3.45 g cm-3 to
3.80 g cm-3.
Bulk density results follow the same trends established under grain density. Bulk density
for the entire population ranged from 2.89 g cm-3 to 4.51 g cm-3, with the majority of stones
falling between 3.35 g cm-3 and 3.65 g cm-3. As with grain density, enstatite chondrite finds
102
exhibit a significant reduction in bulk density as compared with falls (Figure 68), with the
average bulk density for all falls being 3.49 g cm-3, and the average for finds is 3.32 g cm-3
(including the anomalously high bulk density of the aforementioned Blithfield stone). This is
unlike comparable results for ordinary chondrites, where no substantial change in bulk density is
Again, EH and EL falls do not exhibit strong differences in this property. The average
bulk density for EH falls is 3.56 ± 0.12 g cm-3 (with ―±‖ representing one standard deviation of
sample values), and for all EL falls it is 3.58 ± 0.21 g cm-3. Eliminating the high value for the
same Khairpur stone as before, it is 3.55 ± 0.16 g cm-3. The range for EH falls is 3.25 g cm-3 to
3.73 g cm-3, and for EL falls (minus Khairpur) it is 3.15 g cm-3 to 3.78 g cm-3.
5.2.3 Porosity
Porosities for enstatite chondrites are on the low end for the chondrite group. Measured
porosities in this survey ranged from effectively zero to 13%, with most stones falling below 7%.
By comparison, ordinary chondrites average about 9% porosity with a range that exceeds 20%,
and carbonaceous chondrites tend to much higher porosities. Consolmagno et al. (2008) noted
the possibility of two populations of enstatite chondrites; one with relatively high porosity
(above 10%) and one with low (below ~6%), but cited the need for more statistics. We do not
see such a trend in these data. Only four stones exceeded 10%, two of which belong to
meteorites with multiple stones included in the survey, but are the only members of their group
to have high porosity. We do, however, see an unexpected trend with regard to finds. Rather
103
than a reduction in porosity, finds exhibit on average an enhanced porosity (Figure 69). The
average enstatite chondrite fall has a porosity of 2.4%, with a range from zero to 11.7%. The
average find has a porosity of 5.5%, with a range from zero to 13.2%, and with most stones
exhibiting porosities greater than 2%. Finds include the two stones (Sahara 97096 and North
West Forrest) with the highest porosity measured in this survey. Porosity enhancement in finds
EH and EL fall populations have very similar porosities. Both range between zero and
11.7%, with average values of 2.8% and 2.1%, respectively. All but one of the EH falls in this
study exhibit porosities below 5%, while all but one of EL falls lies below 7%, with three stones
between 5% and 7%. Given measurement uncertainties typically exceeding 1%, we do not
Magnetic susceptibilities are reported in log units of 10-9 kg3 m-1. Values ranged from
4.16 to 5.72, with most stones between 5.3 and 5.6. The effect of weathering on finds is most
observable in magnetic susceptibility as a severe reduction (Figure 70), due to the loss of
magnetic components in the material. In a plot of grain density against magnetic susceptibility
(Figure 71), both of which vary with metallic iron content, it is apparent that the reduction in
magnetic susceptibility correlates with that of grain density, though the effect is much more
pronounced in magnetic susceptibility. Falls averaged 5.48, with a range from 5.30 to 5.68,
while finds averaged 5.03, with a range from 4.16 to 5.72. EH and EL falls are again quite
104
similar. EH fall magnetic susceptibilities averaged 5.45, ranging from 5.30 to 5.58, and EL fall
values averaged 5.50, ranging from 5.30 to 5.68. The averages for the two groups of falls are
within measurement uncertainties of those reported by Rochette et al. (2008) for falls in their
survey.
5.3 Discussion
As noted, weathered finds exhibit on average a reduced grain density, bulk density and
established weathering states, for a number of reasons. First, only a few meteorites from this set
have had determinations of weathering states made. Even in those cases, weathering
determinations were made for stones other than those measured in this survey, and weathering
effects can differ for stones of differing volumes. In addition, criteria for determining
weathering states are not well-established and rely to some degree on the personal judgment of
the investigator.
Though we cannot easily link our data to established weathering states, we can determine
a rough degree of weathering for all stones, and establish how the degree of weathering affects
trends in physical properties. Because the weathering effect on magnetic susceptibility due to
oxidation of metallic iron in iron-rich meteorites is well understood (Consolmagno et al., 2006)
105
and is the most pronounced of the four effects, we arbitrarily subdivided the enstatite chondrite
finds into four groups based on that property, as in Figure 72a. Group 0 exhibits minimal
alteration, and group 3 is the most severely altered. By coincidence of the data, there are
recognizable gaps between each of the groups. The three meteorites with recorded weathering
states are in the following groups: Ilafegh 009 (W0/1) and Sahara 97096 (W1) and are in group
The weathering effects of all four properties in this survey correlate with each other.
Grain density correlates somewhat with magnetic susceptibility (Figure 72a), though the effect
on grain density is clearly less pronounced that that of magnetic susceptibility. This is quite
reasonable if the primary effect of weathering is oxidation of metals. As iron oxidizes (reducing
magnetic susceptibility), it expands, thus increasing grain volume without significantly affecting
Trends in bulk density and porosity are also related to degree of weathering (Figure 72b).
Group 0, as expected, aligns with falls. Groups 1 through 3 are clearly distinguished on the bulk
density/ porosity plot, and progress along a trend toward decreased bulk density and increased
porosity as weathering state increases. This is the first time such a trend has been observed,
because it is the first time enough statistics have been gathered to make the trend visible.
This result can be better illustrated by use of the weathering modulus, as described in
Chapter 3 of this dissertation. For ECs, the weathering modulus takes the following form:
2 2
WEC 4 (log χ )0 log χ 1.2( ρg 0 ρg ) (33)
106
In a plot of porosity vs. weathering modulus (Figure 73), there is an obvious positive correlation
between porosity and degree of weathering. It should be noted that this is measured porosity and
not model porosity. Since EC weathering behavior is obviously not the same as that of OCs, it
cannot be assumed that bulk density remains relatively unaltered in the weathering process; in
fact, the average EC find bulk density is 3.32 g cm-3, or 0.25 g cm-3 less than EC falls. Thus, any
model porosities calculated from EC find bulk densities would be at best misleading.
The results for bulk density and porosity, unlike those for grain density and magnetic
susceptibility, are somewhat unexpected. To first order, oxidized metals should expand into
available pore space, reducing porosity while not substantially affecting bulk density, as is
observed in ordinary chondrites (Bland et al., 1998b, Consolmagno et al., 1998). Two possible
explanations exist for the observed trends in enstatite chondrites. The first is an extension of the
standard model for weathering. Enstatite chondrites begin with very low porosity, so that even
minor weathering would fill what pore space exists. With further weathering, the expanding iron
oxides would force apart the meteorite, cracking it and introducing new pore space while at the
same time increasing the bulk volume and hence decreasing bulk density. The question here is
how much of this expansion can take place before the structural integrity of the stone is
compromised and the stone disintegrates. None of the samples in this survey were excessively
friable, and so this explanation begs the question of why that would be the case. The second
possibility is that materials are leached out during weathering. One obvious candidate mineral is
oldhamite (CaS), which is so water soluble that samples of the EH4 fall Parsa exhibited signs of
oldhamite loss due simply to moisture in the environment where it was stored (Bhandari et al.,
1980). ―Pits‖ left over from oldhamite leaching were observed in Yilmia (Buseck and
Holdsworth, 1972). Oldhamite alone is insufficient to account for the observed effects, however.
107
First, it is not so abundant to account for the excess porosity; literature values place its
abundance in falls between 0-2 wt% (Keil, 1968; Bhandari et al., 1980; Rubin and Keil, 1983;
Rubin et al., 1997; Rubin, 1983a,c). Assuming the maximum 2% original abundance and total
loss, this can account for less than 3% porosity. This also assumes that oxidation products from
metals do not fill in the new cavities, which is not a reasonable assumption as oxidation products
have been observed even in mildly weathered falls (cf. Bhandari et al., 1980). Second, oldhamite
is a low-density phase compared to the average EC grain density, so its loss would actually
increase grain density. Finally, it would not be able to account for the considerable drop in
magnetic susceptibility over 1.5 orders of magnitude. To account for all of the observed effects
through leaching, it is necessary that metals rather than merely accessory phases are leached out
during weathering. These two possibilities (cracking vs. leaching) can be resolved by further
5.3.2 Heterogeneity
Where multiple stones from an individual meteorite have been measured, results have
varied widely, much more than is typical in other chondrites. For those meteorites with multiple
stones measured, the bulk density range was on average 0.3 g cm-3, grain density range was 0.2 g
cm-3, porosity 6%, and magnetic susceptibility 0.23, all of which exceed individual measurement
uncertainties. The range is exaggerated among finds compared to falls, not a surprising result
given the variable effect of weathering on different sized stones, though weathering is not the
108
For particular meteorites, variability is even more extreme than described above. The
most extreme example, Blithfield, ranges about 1 g cm-3 in both bulk density and grain density,
and ranges in magnetic susceptibility by about 0.41 (a factor of about 2.6). This inhomogeneity
is not atypical for Blithfield, which is an impact breccia with large troilite-rich clasts (Rubin,
1984); one small sample studied by Keil (1968) had an anomalously low iron content of 12.9
wt%, much lower than the ~25 wt% average for the other Type II’s in his study. This has been
attributed to the fact that the sample studied by Keil was one of these troilite-rich clasts (Rubin,
1984). For a truly representative sample of Blithfield, as much as 200 g may be required (Rubin,
personal communication). While Blithfield may be the most inhomogeneous meteorite in this
study, it is not the only one to exhibit large variability. Many other enstatite chondrites are
breccias, including Abee (Dawson et al., 1960; Rubin and Keil, 1983), Adhi Kot (Rubin, 1983a),
Atlanta (Rubin, 1983b), Hvittis (Rubin, 1983c), and Happy Canyon (Rubin et al., 1997), which
may account for much of the inhomogeneity, though non-brecciated ECs also exhibit
considerable variability between stones. Khairpur is not listed as a breccia, but of the three
stones measured, one 24.9 g stone is anomalously high in both grain density and magnetic
Hutson (1996) compiled literature data from seven separate studies of enstatite chondrite
elemental abundances and observed a large degree of intra-meteorite variability in bulk chemical
abundances, in particular in iron and sulfur. These were attributed to the fact that all of the
analyses had been performed on samples below 8 g. Jarosewich (1990) observed in the context
of ordinary chondrites that for meteorites with coarse iron grains the inclusion or exclusion of
individual iron grains may skew results, and recommended a minimum mass of 10 g for
homogeneity. Many enstatite chondrites have very coarse metal grains, with EL grains much
109
coarser than EH (Easton, 1983), and so this effect must be taken into consideration. (Easton’s
work expresses a difference due to petrograpic type, since all EL’s in the work were type 6 and
all EH’s were type 4-5, but this does not invalidate the statement, since as a population ELs are
dominated by type 6 and EHs are dominated by lower petrographic types, and the ―definitive‖
studies of the chemical and mineralogical differences between EH and EL were performed on
EL6 and EH4-5 stones. In addition, there are indications that the size difference may not be
solely due to petrologic type and even EL3 metal grains are larger than EH3 grains [Schneider et
al, 1998].) Nevertheless, all but one of the stones in our survey exceeded 10 g, some by an order
of magnitude, and so we conclude that the variability we observe is due to larger-scale causes.
We have compared the variation in grain density with sample mass for EC falls (Figure 74), and
find not only that the standard deviation of grain density results increases with decreasing mass,
but that it exceeds similar results for H and L falls. The data exhibit scale-dependent variability
that remains above 0.08 g cm-3 for all masses below ~ 40 g and does not appear to level out until
at least ~ 60 g. This indicates that the samples exhibit scale-dependent inhomogeneities at low
masses, and we consider the minimum mass for a representative homogeneous sample to be at
least 40 g. Also plotted in Figure 74 are EH and EL fall data, from which it is apparent that EL
falls are considerably more inhomogeneous than EH falls. We observe a similar effect in bulk
density, for masses up to ~ 60 g, though that physical property may be strongly influenced by
porosity variations as well as mineralogical differences and so is not included here. Curiously,
we do not see any scale-dependent effects in magnetic susceptibility, and Rochette et al (2008)
only observed heterogeneity below 1 g. The reason for the discrepancy eludes us, though grain
density data alone are sufficient to establish that EC falls are heterogeneous below 40 g.
110
5.3.3 Grain Density, Magnetic Susceptibility and Metallic Iron Content
Since both grain density and magnetic susceptibility vary with the amount of metallic
iron present in a sample, together they give a respectable first-order indicator of relative amounts
of iron metal present in various meteorites. In the case of ordinary chondrites, the difference in
metal between H, L, and LL falls results in three distinct populations on a grain density/
magnetic susceptibility plot (Figure 20). If the EH-EL distinction is truly analogous to the H-L-
LL distinction among ordinary chondrites, then they too should group in two distinct
populations. We do not observe this, as can be seen in Figure 75. For that figure, we used mass-
weighted meteorite averages (Table 17) of only those meteorites for which we measured more
than 40 g. This has the disadvantage of considerably reduced statistics over the use of individual
stones (there are only four EH and five EL data points), but it resolves doubts that may arise
from the inherent variability among stones. The basic result does not change if individual stones
are included. The two populations overlap so closely as to be unable to distinguish whether the
small observed difference in population averages is real or a result of statistics of small numbers.
populations, with EH slightly higher in both grain density and EL slightly higher in magnetic
susceptibility, but with a substantial overlap between the two. Grain density averaged (by
meteorite, not by stone) 3.69 g cm-3 for EH, with one standard deviation of 0.06 g cm-3, and
averaged 3.68 g cm-3 with standard deviation of 0.13 g cm-3 for EL. Magnetic susceptibility
averaged 5.45 ± 0.05 for EH and 5.50 ± 0.05 for EL. The centroids and range for the data are
particularly sensitive to small variations in the data; in an earlier analysis of the data that
111
included fewer stones, the magnetic susceptibility for EL was lower than for EH and the EL
grain density was as low as 3.63 g cm-3. The similarities between EH and EL in both magnetic
susceptibilities and grain densities implies no substantial difference in metallic iron quantities.
We point out also that some ELs have grain density and magnetic susceptibility values that
exceed that of some EHs, indicating that in those instances the ELs actually have more metallic
Rochette et al (2008) were the first to note the almost identical magnetic susceptibility
values for EH and EL populations and to infer from the data that the groups do not differ in
quantity of iron metal. They did not question the literature with regard to the total iron quantity
of the two populations, and they posited that the reported differences in iron were likely due to
nonmetallic sulfide-bearing phases such as troilite (FeS). They also cited the similarities in grain
density between the two groups (based on literature data) as confirmation of this. However,
given the fact the density of troilite at 4.9 g cm-3 is higher than the average EC density of ~3.64 g
cm-3, any sizeable difference in the quantity of the mineral should appear as a recognizable
In order to better understand how grain density and iron content vary with mineralogy in
enstatite chondrites, we constructed a simple model based on a mixture of nearly pure enstatite at
3.1 g cm-3, pure kamacite (7.9 g cm-3) to represent the metal, troilite (4.9 g cm-3), and 8 wt%
plagioclase (2.7 g cm-3), based on abundances given in Mason (1966). We varied the kamacite
and troilite percentages, leaving enstatite as the dependent quantity. We chose to use the same
metallic iron quantity (21.5%, close to values determined by Keil, 1968) to represent both EH
and EL, and varied the amount of troilite. In this case, a 3.5 wt% difference in the abundance of
troilite (from 7.5% to 11%) accounted for the (largest reported) difference between the average
112
grain densities of the two groups of 3.69 and 3.63 g cm-3. This difference corresponds to a
difference of only 2.2 wt% in total Fe between the two groups (26.2% and 24.0%, respectively).
(If we consider the actual average grain densities for meteorites with > 40 g measured, the
differences between the populations fall to less than 1% for troilite and less than 0.7% for total
Fe.) This model is relatively insensitive to the abundance values chosen; for a specified metallic
abundance, the observed difference in grain densities can be achieved by varying the troilite
exemplify this, the sulfur abundances according to the models are 4% (EH) and 2.7% (EL), while
values from the literature (compiled in Hutson 1996) average 5.3% and 3.1%, respectively.
Some of this difference can be accounted for with the incorporation of varying amounts of other
sulfide-bearing phases such as oldhamite (CaS). Nevertheless, a few important conclusions can
still be drawn from the model. First, if the observed difference in average grain density is to be
achieved by iron metal alone, the difference in metal quantity must be very small (about 2%).
Also, in that case the troilite variation between the two groups must also be very small (much
less than 3.5%) which is not consistent with the literature (cf. Mason 1966). Second, even
keeping the metallic iron quantities the same, the variation in troilite is not very dramatic, and the
resulting difference total iron abundance of just over 2% is nowhere near as pronounced as some
We would like to point out also that the meteorite-to-meteorite variation implies a
considerable range of iron abundances within both EC subgroups. Based on grain densities
alone, the range in total Fe abundance between EH falls for which we measured more than 40 g
is anywhere from 4% to 5%, depending whether it is metal or troilite that varies, and for EL falls
113
the range is anywhere from 6% to 7% (omitting Khairpur). With smaller stones taken into
account, EH falls vary by as much as 8-9% Fe and EL falls vary by as much as 12-13%. Much
Our results here are consistent with some other findings as well. Most notably, Keil
microprobe x-ray analysis of meteorite thin sections. He analyzed 3 ―Type I‖ (EH) meteorites,
and 7 ―Type II‖ (EL). He found an average 25.3 wt% Fe for type I, and 23.3 wt% Fe for type II,
with substantial variation among the two groups – with standard deviations of 3.6 wt% for type I
and 6.0 wt% for type II. His data include finds as well as falls, and one sample of Blithfield is
clearly anomalous, with only 12.9 wt% Fe and a total metal abundance an order of magnitude
lower than all other samples in the study. Eliminating this, the average iron in Keil’s type II
group increases to 25.1 wt% (standard deviation 4.4%). We also note that the sample in Keil’s
study with the highest measured iron content belonged to an EL, not an EH. Using Keil (1968)’s
mineral abundances with fresh averages calculated for the EH and EL falls, we modified our
simple model to include other minor phases. This produced average grain densities of 3.63 g cm-
3
for EL and 3.68 g cm-3 for EH and total Fe abundances at 24.1 wt% and 26.0 wt% for EL and
EH, respectively, with a standard deviation among individual meteorites of 5 wt% and 3 wt%,
respectively. This indicates both that Keil’s data are consistent with our own and that our model
produces Fe abundances that are reasonably consistent with the modal analysis. In addition,
114
and an EL (MacAlpine Hills 88136), each of petrographic type 3 and with minimal weathering,
This of course raises the question of why some earlier studies have exhibited more
pronounced differences in iron quantity. In one of the definitive studies of chemical abundances
in ECs, Kallemeyn and Wasson (1986) observe a notable hiatus in Fe/Mg ratios between EH and
EL, which differ from each other by a factor of almost 2. Fe/Si ratios also differ at 0.9 and 0.6,
respectively. We note that the magnesium-normalized abundances are in part influenced not
only by absolute Fe, but by absolute Mg as well which exaggerates the difference. Wasson and
Kallemeyn (1988) list individual element abundances, and Mg is more abundant in EL than EH
by a factor of 1.3 on average. Si abundances follow a similar trend. They still observed a
difference in absolute Fe between the groups (290 mg/g for EH and 220 mg/g for EL). This is a
difference of 7 wt% in absolute abundance, and a relative difference between the two of about
We do not question the instrumental accuracy of the neutron activation analysis that they
and other researchers performed. One possible explanation is that the excess Fe is hidden in
nonmetallic phases that do not significantly affect grain density or magnetic susceptibility,
though the studies by Keil (1968) and Hutson (1996) should then testify to the difference if it is
present, which they do not. Another possibility that must be seriously considered is that of
sample bias when preparing small quantities of material for analysis. We remind the reader that
Jarosewich (1990) observed in studies of ordinary chondrites the need for representative samples
of 10 g or more to properly accommodate metal grain sizes. We present one possible scenario in
which biases could be introduced in sample preparation. The INAA techniques employed by
Kallemeyn and Wasson, which are described in detail in Kallemeyn et al. (1989), make use of
115
250-300 mg sample sizes. They note that, due to inclusion or omission of metal grains, Fe and
siderophile abundances in ordinary chondrites may vary by 10% (Kallemeyn et al., 1989). Given
large metal grains in ECs, this may influence results of ECs to an even greater extent. Hutson
(1996) posits that in studies performed on small EC samples, coarse metal grains are biased
against in the sampling. In describing their method for sample preparation, Kallemeyn and
Wasson (1986) note that on the unsawn surfaces of their 250-300 mg chunks, they removed any
visible ―rusty patches‖. These rusty patches may have originally been metal grains, and their
removal (coupled with natural removal of surface metal grains due to weathering) may
negatively influence total Fe. Since EL6 metal grains are larger than EH4-5, it is at least
conceivable that more Fe was removed from EL than EH, exaggerating the difference.
The question of the true degree of Fe difference and where the difference resides can be
better resolved through modal abundance studies utilizing large thin sections of representative
sizes. None of these results should be taken to imply that there is no difference between the two
groups of enstatite meteorites classified as EH and EL. That there are two distinct populations of
enstatite chondrites was recognized by Anders (1964) long before the EH/EL nomenclature was
adopted. Given their significant systematic trace element differences, it is almost certain that
they even come from different parent bodies (Keil, 1989). However, the density and magnetic
susceptibility trends now indicate that these differences are not related to a systematic difference
in Fe or metal content.
116
5.4 Conclusions
Enstatite chondrites have not yet divulged all they have to tell us. We see in this study
intriguing trends that call for further study of this class of meteorite. The counterintuitive
weathering trend in bulk density and porosity of finds itself raises important questions, such as
the underlying cause of the trend of increasing porosity with weathering and how, if the
weathering is due to expansion of oxidized iron to form new cracks, the stone maintains its
structural integrity and how far the process can continue before disintegration.
The similarity we observe in these properties, especially grain density and magnetic
susceptibility, between EH and EL subgroups at the scale of bulk stones also calls for further
study of iron as well. If there is a genuine difference in iron, why do we not see it? Is it fully
accounted for by the presence of nonmetallic iron-bearing minerals such as troilite? Or is the
discrepancy between our work and the literature due to sample bias for small fragments used in
Our homogeneity results present a word of caution for investigators. Many forms of
analysis, such as neutron-activation analysis, provide high-precision results for very small
samples, and so have become favored for such analyses, but when the meteorite in question
exhibits variability at decagram scales, the possibility for bias in small samples cannot be
ignored. We consider the need for representative sizes for future studies. One viable method is
SEM analysis of thin sections of surface area comparable to the cross-section of a typical
117
CHAPTER 6: ACHONDRITES
Note: The contents of this chapter are taken from a paper that is in press (Macke et al.,
2010d)5 with minor modifications, including the inclusion of updated data, a minor expansion of
Section 6.2.1 to incorporate data from Apollo samples and their preliminary analysis, the
removal of the abstract, the removal of the acknowledgments and measurement sections (which
are redundant with information already provided in this dissertation), and typographical
adjustments. Please see Chapter 2 of this dissertation for more detail regarding the
measurement techniques.
6.1 Introduction
bodies have undergone considerably more processing than those of the chondrites, but to
different degrees. Some, including lunites, shergottites, nakhlites and chassignites (SNCs) and
howardites, eucrites and diogenites (HEDs) come from the upper mantle and crust of
differentiated parent bodies. Others including ureilites, brachinites, winonaites, acapulcoites and
lodranites retain much of the basic chemistry and mineralogy of chondrites, indicating little if
5
Meteoritics & Planetary Science © 2010 by the Meteoritical Society. Used with permission (see Appendix C).
118
any differentiation in the parent body. Meteorites among most of the achondrite types, with the
notable exception of HEDs, are rare on Earth, depriving us of good statistics in the analysis of
Because these meteorites originate on parent bodies that have undergone considerable
processing or differentiation, they form a valuable piece of the puzzle that is our solar system.
They can provide clues as to how parent bodies form and differentiate, and can give some insight
as to the similarities and differences between Earth and other planetary bodies in the solar
system.
Much has been done to study the chemistry and mineralogy of achondrites, but relatively
few have sought to systematically study physical properties such as density, magnetic
susceptibility, and porosity. A group from the Geological Survey of Finland (Kukkonnen and
Pesonen, 1983; Terho et al., 1991, 1993; Pesonen et al., 1993) studied bulk density and magnetic
properties for 368 meteorites of all classes from Finnish collections, including 19 achondrites.
Rochette et al. (2009) conducted an extensive study of magnetic susceptibilities for 291 different
achondrites, including numerous Antarctic stones, though their study did not include density or
In order to determine porosity, two distinct density measurements are required: grain
density and bulk density, both of which are determined by sample mass divided by a volume.
Grain density, or the density due solely to contributions from solid matter within the sample,
uses only that portion of the sample volume that actually contains solid matter, omitting any pore
space. Bulk density, on the other hand, uses the total volume enclosed by the exterior shape of
the meteorite, including all pore space. Determining these two measures, especially bulk
density, has historically required techniques such as liquid immersion (cf. Keil, 1962; Pesonen et
119
al., 1993) or slicing the sample into simple geometric shapes (cf. Yomogida and Matsui, 1981)
that either damage or risk contaminating otherwise pristine samples. This had limited density
measurements to a select few samples designated for the purpose, leaving the vast majority of
contaminating method for measuring bulk density by immersion in a ―fluid‖ composed of glass
beads, and this in combination with helium ideal-gas methods for determining grain densities
allowed large-scale surveys of density and porosity for hand-sized stones (Consolmagno et al.,
1998, 2006, 2008). Initial work focused primarily on ordinary and carbonaceous chondrites due
to their ready availability in statistically-significant numbers, but the methods are just as
Consolmagno et al. (2006) found that grain density in conjunction with magnetic
susceptibility, both of which vary with metallic iron content, serve as a useful first-order
classification scheme for ordinary chondrites into H, L and LL subgroups, while at the same time
they identified a few mislabeled meteorites. This demonstrates the value of measuring physical
properties, especially those such as grain density and magnetic susceptibility that depend on bulk
mineralogy, when more detailed chemical analysis is not possible for a given sample either due
portion of a given sample for the analysis. Intra-group and inter-group variability in these
stones from the same meteorite may be indicative of inhomogeneities that may have been missed
120
With the desire to explore further any trends that may be present in porosity or other
physical properties for other meteorite types, we undertook a survey of density and porosity, as
well as magnetic susceptibility, for stony meteorites of all types at major collections throughout
the United States, as well as the Natural History Museum in London and the Vatican meteorite
collection. The U.S. collections included the American Museum of Natural History, the
Smithsonian Institution, Arizona State University, University of New Mexico, and the Monnig
collection at Texas Christian University. To date, our database includes 1228 stones from 664
meteorites, of which there are 201 stones from 116 achondrites, including five Apollo lunar
samples. This provides us with sufficient numbers of stones for most achondritic subgroups to
begin observing their different ranges, similarities and differences in each property. This paper
is intended to serve primarily as a report of our data, with only first-order attempts at
interpretation given.
6.2 Results
At least one physical property is reported for 201 stones from 116 meteorites, of which
there is a complete set of measurements for 181 stones. The data are summarized in Table 18
121
6.2.1 Lunar Meteorites and Apollo Samples
Data for four lunar meteorites (all finds) and five Apollo samples are included in this
study. The four meteorites are Dhofar 081, Northwest Africa (NWA) 482, NWA 773, and NWA
5000, all of which are lunar breccias. The Apollo samples include low-Ti basalts (12051,19 and
15555,62; Meyer, 2005, 2009c), one brecciated gabbroic anorthosite (15418,179; Meyer, 2008),
and two crystalline-rich impact breccias from the rim of the Fra Mauro crater (14303,14 and
14321,220; Meyer, 2009a, 2009b). Because they represent a wide range of lithologies, lunar
apparent (Figure 76 and Figure 77) that lunar materials tend to the low end in grain and bulk
densities, reflecting the remarkably low density of the lunar crust and low total iron content.
Magnetic susceptibilities (Figure 79) are also low, but are similar to those of other materials from
Lunar meteorites and Apollo samples in this study differ considerably in porosity.
Among lunar meteorites, porosities range from almost nil to about 11% (for NWA 773). On the
other hand, Apollo samples range from about 2% up to 22%. The average meteorite porosity
was 5%, while the average for Apollo was 12.7%. The low porosity of lunar meteorites
compared with Apollo samples may indicate that the stress of the impact event and terrestrial
atmospheric entry selects for stronger materials; most higher-porosity materials may not survive
the journey. If so, this serves as a word of caution for interpreting other meteorite data; there
may be a sampling bias due to the stresses of removing rocks from parent bodies and delivering
122
The preliminary data are based on a relatively small number of sources representing a
range of lithologies. A much larger sampling is necessary to extract trends and differences
among different types of lunar materials. Further data will also help confirm a difference in
porosities between lunar return materials and lunar meteorites. The acquisition of further lunar
data is the subject of ongoing research and extends beyond the limits of this dissertation.
6.2.2 SNC
Shergottites, nakhlites and chassignites (SNCs) are igneous meteorites, some volcanic
and some of plutonic origin. SNCs were linked to a common parent body by O isotopic
compositions that lie along a common fractionation line (Clayton and Mayeda, 1983). Based on
their late crystallization ages (McSween et al., 1979; Wasson and Wetherill, 1979), isotopic
ratios of trapped gases (Bogard and Johnson, 1983, Bogard et al., 1984) and other evidence it has
become accepted that the common parent body of SNCs is the planet Mars. Nakhlites are
clinopyroxenites predominantly composed of magnesian augite with some Fe-rich olivine, and
chassignites are dunites dominated by Fe-rich olivine (Hutchison, 2004). Shergottites are a
diverse group, including basaltic shergottites that in some cases represent surface or near-surface
years. Britt and Consolmagno (2003) summarized density and porosity data from the literature
for 8 stones from 4 SNCs, and by the subsequent review (Consolmagno et al., 2008) the database
had grown to 12 stones from 7 SNCs. Coulson et al. (2007) used SEM analysis to determine
123
porosity for numerous thin sections, supplementing the data with He-pycnometry-measured grain
densities for 4 stones and bulk density using the glass bead method for 2 stones. Rochette et al.
(2001, 2005, 2009) measured magnetic properties (magnetic susceptibility and magnetic
In this study, we measured 16 stones from 10 SNC meteorites. This includes 9 stones
from 5 shergottites, 6 stones from 4 nakhlites, and one chassignite stone (Chassigny). These are
about 15% of the 68 known non-Antarctic SNC’s (56 shergottites, all but 3 of which are
numbered African finds; 6 nakhlites; 2 chassignites; and 4 ungrouped). Data are summarized in
Table 18. Grain density averaged 3.37 g cm-3, ranging from 3.08 g cm-3 to 3.73 g cm-3. Bulk
density averaged 3.08 g cm-3, ranging from 2.83 g cm-3 to 3.48 g cm-3. Porosity ranged from 3%
to 17%, averaging about 9%. Average magnetic susceptibility was log χ = 3.11, with a range
The individual groups (shergottite, nakhlite and chassignite) exhibit clear differences in
density and magnetic susceptibility, though no clear differences are apparent in porosity. The
differences are most apparent in magnetic susceptibility. Shergottites group tightly around an
average magnetic susceptibility of log χ = 2.85, with a standard deviation of 0.05. One meteorite
is excepted here: Los Angeles lies well outside the rest of the population with a magnetic
susceptibility of 3.52 ± 0.12. Though Los Angeles is a basaltic shergottite, its mineralogy is
unusual as being much more ferroan than other basaltic shergottites (Rubin et al., 2000). It also
has an abundance of titanomagnetite and is the most magnetic of the Martian meteorites
(Rochette et al., 2001), so the high magnetic susceptibility is not unexpected. Nakhlites group
somewhat more loosely than shergottites, with an average magnetic susceptibility of 3.40
124
(standard deviation 0.19), and the one chassignite in the study has a magnetic susceptibility of
2.98 ± 0.08.
Grain densities also differ, though shergottites and nakhlites are more similar in this
property than in magnetic susceptibility. They have respective averages of 3.31 g cm-3 (standard
deviation 0.07 g cm-3) and 3.42 g cm-3 (standard deviation 0.07 g cm-3). Again, Los Angeles was
omitted from the shergottite average, since it is exceptionally low at 3.08 ± 0.02 g cm-3.
Chassigny exhibits a grain density (3.73 ± 0.04 g cm-3) that is much higher than that of the other
two groups. It is also considerably higher than the typical density of terrestrial dunite (3.2-3.4 g
Bulk densities reflect somewhat the trends in grain densities, with shergottites and
nakhlites similar (3.01, standard deviation 0.14; and 3.10, standard deviation 0.12, respectively),
and Chassigny exhibiting a much higher bulk density of 3.48 ± 0.08 g cm-3. In this case, Los
Angeles was not exceptionally different from the other shergottites, and so was included in the
population average. Because bulk density roughly trends with grain density for the groups, their
porosities are similar. Shergottite porosities averaged 8.7%, with a standard deviation of 3.3%.
The average nakhlite porosity was 9.3% with a slightly larger standard deviation at 4.9%.
Chassigny’s porosity was 6.8% ± 2.3%, also consistent with the other two groups.
The three populations are clearly distinct on a plot of grain density and magnetic
susceptibility (Figure 80), with shergottites and nakhlites near each other but clearly separate,
and Chassigny notably distant from the other stones. Los Angeles’ anomalous grain density and
magnetic susceptibility also are exhibited, with the meteorite plotting to the right of and below
the rest of the shergottites. Curiously, the population of shergottites includes the basaltic
125
shergottites Shergotty, Zagami, and Los Angeles as well as the olivine-phyric shergottites Dar al
Gani 476 and Sayh al Uhaymir 005 (Goodrich, 2002). Lherzolitic shergottites are not
Also apparent on the plot are the differences between falls (solid shapes) and finds (open
shapes). At this point we caution the reader that the total number of stones represented in this
analysis is small, so the low statistics should be taken into consideration. The differences
between falls and finds are most apparent in grain density for shergottites (Los Angeles
excepted) and nakhlites, with finds exhibiting higher grain densities than falls. Most of the iron
present in SNCs is already heavily oxidized, so weathering will not further affect it in ways
detectable in the physical properties included in this study. Secondary effects, such as the
leaching of a low-density mineral component, may account for the unusual increase in density in
the finds. We also note that the shergottite falls in this study are all basalts, while the finds are
all olivine-phyric, so the difference in grain density between falls and finds for shergottites may
be accounted for by the small mineralogic differences between the two groups rather than by
weathering effects.
6.2.3 HED
A common parent body for howardites, eucrites and diogenites was speculated as far
back as 1918 (Hutchison, 2004), and that parent body is currently believed to be the asteroid 4
Vesta (Consolmagno and Drake, 1977; Ruzicka et al., 1997). Diogenites are orthopyroxene
cumulates, while eucrites are basalts, some of which are also cumulate. Eucrites and diogenites
126
may be unbrecciated, monomict or polymict, but howardites, being mixtures of eucritic and
diogenitic material, are all polymict breccias (Bischoff et al., 2006; Hutchison, 2004).
of 31 eucrites, and 20 stones of 11 diogenites. Our data are summarized in Table 19. Average
grain density for the entire set was 3.25 g cm-3, ranging from 2.96 g cm-3 to 3.51 g cm-3. Bulk
density averaged 2.89 g cm-3 and ranged between 2.61 g cm-3 and 3.37 g cm-3. Porosity averaged
10.9%, ranging from zero to 20%. Magnetic susceptibility covered a large range, from 2.56 to
4.44, with an average of 3.12. These values are based on individual stones, but using meteorite
averages the results do not differ significantly. Most of the range in magnetic susceptibility is
due to eucrites, with howardites and diogenites having values from 2.62 to 3.67. Most eucrites
are breccias (some polymict) and would thus be expected to exhibit more inhomogeneity than
other types. The average magnetic susceptibility for eucrite stones (3.07) nearly matches that of
diogenites (3.04), though both are lower than the average for howardites (3.34). Nevertheless,
all populations overlap in magnetic susceptibility, and the range for howardites is entirely
contained within the range for both diogenites and eucrites. Rochette et al (2009) also observed
this trend in magnetic susceptibilities, attributing the higher average values for howardites to a
Though magnetic susceptibilities for eucrites vary widely, they occupy a tight range of
grain densities, from 2.99 g cm-3 to 3.34 g cm-3. Eucrite grain densities are lower than diogenites
(Figure 76), which range from 3.36 g cm-3 to 3.51 g cm-3. Diogenites are dominated by En67-85
orthopyroxenite (Hutchison, 2004), which at a density of 3.4-3.5 g cm-3 is consistent with the
127
naturally have grain densities that lie between and overlap the two other groups, though they
more strongly overlap eucrites than diogenites. They lie between 2.96 g cm-3 and 3.36 g cm-3.
Bulk densities follow the same trend as grain densities, with diogenites higher in bulk
density than eucrites and howardites lying between. One significant difference is that in bulk
density the range of eucrites overlaps that of diogenites by quite a bit, a difference again
accountable by variations in the structure of eucritic breccias. All three groups occupy similar
ranges in porosities, averaging near 10% and ranging up to 20%, though the range for diogenites
Each of the three populations was well-represented with both falls and finds, with the
lowest representation being diogenites with only 36% (4) finds. There is a small difference in
average porosity between falls and finds in both howardites and diogenites, each being higher for
densities of the falls and finds for each group are nearly identical (Figure 81), so the porosity
difference is related to degree of compaction rather than any chemical change due to weathering.
Since the same result is not seen in eucrites, for which a much larger population is represented,
this small porosity difference may be an artifact of sampling. We conclude from this that
Eighteen of the 31 eucrites in our data are monomict breccias, but we also have
represented seven polymict breccias, five cumulates, and two other eucrites (Agoult and NWA
2690). We compared the physical properties of each group to see if there was any visible effect
due to brecciation. No difference in grain density is discernible, either between breccias and
non-breccias or monomict and polymict breccias. Breccias exhibit lower average bulk density
(2.83 g cm-3) than non-breccias (2.92 g cm-3) due to a somewhat higher average porosity among
128
breccias (11.4%) than non-breccias (7.8%). We point out that the populations overlap
Polymict breccias possess slightly higher average porosity (12.9%, standard deviation 4.0%) than
monomict breccias (11.0%, standard deviation 4.5%). The only significant difference between
monomict breccias, cumulates and ordinary eucrites each exhibit similar averages (overall, 2.98
with a standard deviation of 0.43). Polymict breccias, on the other hand, average 3.45 with a
standard deviation of 0.47. We also note that magnetic susceptibilities of both groups of breccias
extend to higher values than for non-breccias, which only range up to log χ = 3.3. Both polymict
and monomict populations extend above log χ = 4, though the monomict range is more densely
populated at low values than that of the polymict breccias. A modest enhancement in magnetic
susceptibility for polymict breccias is also reported by Rochette et al (2009) and is given the
same explanation as that for the enhancement found among howardites; namely the enhancement
in metal during regolith-forming processes. While our average magnetic susceptibility for
unbrecciated eucrites and cumulates is essentially the same as that of 2.93 ± 0.3 reported by
Rochette et al. (2009), our average for polymict eucrites exceeds the 3.03 ± 0.3 that they report;
nevertheless, they may have omitted as ―outliers‖ some of the highest-valued meteorites such as
6.2.4 Aubrites
Aubrites are 75-98 vol% FeO-free enstatite (Watters and Prinz, 1979; Hutchison, 2004)
and may be related to enstatite chondrites (ECs), though they originated on separate parent
129
bodies (Keil, 1989). Like ECs, the most abundant metal is kamacite, though the total abundance
of metal in aubrites is substantially less than that of their chondritic relatives, ranging from trace
quantities to 0.7 vol% (Watters and Prinz, 1979; Mittlefehldt et al., 1998), as opposed to near 10
9 falls. They are tightly grouped in grain densities, ranging from 3.11 g cm-3 to 3.29 g cm-3 ,
averaging 3.21 g cm-3 (with one outlier—a 4 g piece of Bishopville—at 3.44 g cm-3 ) consistent
with a dominance of enstatite (density 3.1 g cm-3) mixed with smaller amounts of higher-density
phases. Their bulk densities are not so tightly constrained, spanning 0.62 g cm-3 (2.53 g cm-3 to
3.15 g cm-3, average 2.90 g cm-3), thus yielding porosities ranging from 2% to 21.5% (average
9%). Magnetic susceptibilities also span a wide range of values, from log χ = 2.94 to 4.72
(average 3.58).
susceptibility. For example, we measured five stones from Cumberland Falls. Between the
highest and lowest values for grain density is only about a 2% difference, and only about 4% for
bulk density. On the other hand, for magnetic susceptibility in log units the five stones range
from 3.24 to 4.26, or a difference of 30% in log space (an absolute difference of a factor of 10)
and well beyond measurement uncertainties. Rochette et al. (2009) also reported considerable
variation in aubrite magnetic susceptibilities, with standard deviations among measurements for
individual meteorites as large as 0.70 in log units, with most aubrite standard deviations in the
0.3-0.4 range. This is substantially higher than standard deviations of meteorites in other
achondrite categories, most of which were lower than 0.2. Variations in the quantity of kamacite
may easily account for this phenomenon. Kamacite is strongly magnetic, so small variations in
130
its abundance on the order of a few tenths vol% (effectively doubling or tripling the abundance
of the mineral) may have disproportionate affects on magnetic susceptibility. At the same time,
the low absolute abundance of the dense metal means that such small variations would not have
Physical properties of aubrites are not at all comparable to the same properties of ECs
(Macke et al., 2010c and Chapter 5 of this dissertation). This is largely the result of different
metal abundances. At an average of 3.66 g cm-3 for falls, enstatite chondrites have higher grain
density. Likewise, magnetic susceptibility (averaging 5.47) is also much higher. These values
are similar to those of H chondrites. More intriguing than density and magnetic susceptibility,
however, is porosity. ECs have very low porosity, with less than 7% porosity for falls, while
aubrites have porosities ranging upwards of 20%. This suggests a considerable difference in the
conditions under which aubrites formed as opposed to ECs which enabled aubrites to remain
largely uncompacted.
known to have much higher metal content than aubrites (Stepniewski et al., 2000), and
consequently has much higher grain density and magnetic susceptibility (Figure 82). In fact, its
grain density and magnetic susceptibility are similar to those of EC finds (Macke et al., 2010c).
This is consistent with speculation that Zakłodzie formed from melting of an enstatite chondritic
Of the aubrites in our survey, we have only one find (Shallowater). It exhibits no obvious
effects of weathering on physical properties; even its magnetic susceptibility is higher than
average for the population. Among the finds reported in Rochette et al. (2009), only one (LaPaz
Icefield 03719) has anomalously low magnetic susceptibility (1.96). The others are within the
131
normal range of magnetic susceptibilities for aubrites, including some of the higher values.
Inter-meteorite and intra-meteorite magnetic susceptibility variation swamps any effect that
weathering may have had. From this we conclude that weathering of aubrites has negligible
6.2.5 Angrites
Angrites are igneous basalts containing Ca-Al-Ti-rich pyroxene, Ca-rich olivine, and
anorthitic plagioclase. (Weisberg et al., 2006) They are very rare, with only 14 non-Antarctic
stones known, of which Angra dos Reis is the only fall. In part because of their rarity, we only
have two angrite stones in our survey, one for NWA 4590 and the other for NWA 4801. They
are similar in all properties measured. Grain densities were 3.48 g cm-3 and 3.37 g cm-3,
respectively. Bulk densities were 3.24 g cm-3 and 3.18 g cm-3. Porosities were 7% and 6%, with
uncertainties of order 1% each. Magnetic susceptibilities were 3.15 and 2.77, marking the
largest difference between the two stones. These properties are comparable to those of
Rochette et al. (2009) report magnetic susceptibilities for 10 angrites, with most values
ranging from 2.61 to 3.14, though they report an anomalously high value of 4.54 for the paired
NWA 3164-5167. For NWA 4590 and 4801, they report respective values of 2.82 (lower than
our 3.15) and 3.14 (higher than our 2.77). Since their measurements were performed on different
stones from different collections, this may reflect some degree of heterogeneity in magnetic
susceptibilities. We rule out the possibility of accidentally switching samples; if the raw
132
measurement values are switched, the adjusted final values still do not compare well with
Rochette et al. (2009) and the difference between our two stones is exaggerated. In addition, we
see higher grain density for the sample with higher magnetic susceptibility, consistent with
expectations. We note that our sample of NWA 4801 is visibly weathered with a reddish-brown
coating on the exterior, which we do not see on NWA 4590. Therefore, we do not discount the
possibility that the discrepancy may be accounted for by variable amounts of weathering
6.2.6 Ureilites
159 non-Antarctic ureilites are known, of which only six are falls. Ureilites are composed
of olivine and pyroxene embedded in a carbon-rich matrix (Hutchison, 2004; Weisberg et al.,
2006) Their oxygen isotopes fall along a mixing line common to CM and CV carbonaceous
chondrites (Clayton et al., 1976; Clayton and Mayeda 1988) rather than a mass-dependent
fractionation line, indicative of a low degree of processing (Goodrich, 1992). They may in fact
be related to the CVs, possibly originating from CV-like precursors (Rubin, 1988).
Our study includes 20 stones from 11 ureilites, including one fall (Novo-Urei). These
range in grain density from 3.25 to 3.53 g cm-3 (average 3.36 g cm-3), and in bulk density from
3.04 to 3.36 g cm-3 (average 3.22 g cm-3). This group possesses relatively low porosities that
range from zero to about 12.5%, with a low average value (4%) and with most stones below 8%.
Magnetic susceptibility is higher for ureilites as a group than for the groups discussed so far, and
ranges over almost one and a half orders of magnitude, with the minimum value of 3.93 and a
133
maximum 5.28 (average 4.60). This range overlaps that of all of the ordinary chondrite groups
Our average magnetic susceptibility is a little higher than the average of log χ = 4.39
reported by Rochette et al (2009), though the range of their data was larger, with values as low as
3.61 and as high as 5.32. Considering only those meteorites for which our data sets overlap, their
average (4.54) and range (4.06 to 5.22) are more consistent with values reported here.
Meteorite-by-meteorite comparison yields only one notable inconsistency: all three of the stones
of Nova 001 we measured are more than 0.1 higher than the 4.14 average reported by Rochette et
al. (2009).
Curiously, the ureilites as a group are comparable in grain density and magnetic
environments, though not that of Allende, which originated in oxidizing environments (Figure
82), though grain densities of reduced CVs on average are slightly higher than that of ureilites.
Structurally, the low porosity of ureilites is also reflected in reduced CVs, though not in oxidized
CVs which have porosities on the order of 20%. This suggests that, if there is indeed an original
relationship between ureilites and CVs, they are likely more closely related to those that
Due to the fact that ureilites have higher iron content and correspondingly higher
magnetic susceptibility, it stands to reason that they should exhibit weathering effects
comparable to that of ordinary chondrites. We have only one fall represented in our study
(Novo-Urei), though it is represented by four stones. Its magnetic susceptibility (4.96) is above
average for the population, as is its grain density (3.43). Its porosity, averaging 7.4%, is slightly
above the average for the population. This indicates that the other ureilites may be weathered
134
somewhat, though the low statistics of falls in the population prevent us from speaking
conclusively. We note that Goalpara, a find, exceeds Novo-Urei in grain density, magnetic
susceptibility and porosity. Rochette et al. (2009) add the falls Haverö and Dyalpur. All of their
falls have magnetic susceptibility values (averaged per meteorite) of at least 4.90, increasing the
likelihood that values substantially below 4.9 in finds may result from weathering. In the event
that weathering of finds does have an effect on ureilite physical properties, it should still not
greatly affect the comparison with reduced CV carbonaceous chondrites, since most of the CVs
in the comparison were also finds and should have been affected in the same manner.
This dissertation does not contain measurements of Almahata Sitta, the ureilite that fell
recently in the Sudan after being tracked in space as asteroid 2008 TC3. This meteorite is an
anomalous polymict ureilite that is quite heterogeneous (Jenniskens et al., 2009) and has been
reported to contain stones that classify as enstatite chondrites and ordinary chondrites
(Horstmann and Bischoff, 2010; Bischoff et al., 2010). Some preliminary physical property
measurements have been performed (Kohout et al., forthcoming), but because of its unusual and
heterogeneous nature, we consider it a priority to study numerous stones from the fall.
measured ten stones from eight meteorites in this group (six stones from four acapulcoites and
four stones from three lodranites), including representatives from the only two known falls,
Acapulco and Lodran. The acapulcoites are more tightly grouped than the lodranites, with grain
135
density averaging 3.69 g cm-3 (range from 3.55 to 3.88 g cm-3), bulk density averaging 3.46 g
cm-3 (range from 3.33 to 3.59 g cm-3), and magnetic susceptibility averaging 5.20 (from 4.99 to
5.51). These values are comparable to those of H and L ordinary chondrites (Figure 83) and
reflect the high iron content of these primitive achondrites. Acapulcoite porosities ranged from
2% to 12%. On the other hand, lodranite grain densities ranged from 3.38 to 4.16 g cm-3, bulk
densities from 3.24 to 3.82 g cm-3, magnetic susceptibilities from 4.74 to 5.68, and porosities
from 0 to 9%. Their averages (grain density 3.74 g cm-3, bulk density 3.53 g cm-3, magnetic
susceptibility 5.24 g cm-3, and porosity 5.4%) are all within the range occupied by acapulcoites.
The large spread in lodranite physical properties is likely related to the considerable
variation in mineralogy, including metal (0.5-20%; Hutchison, 2004) between meteorites in this
group. It is possible that some of that variation may be the result of weathering processes.
While acapulcoites show no significant difference between falls and finds in any of the
properties measured (cf. Figure 83), the two lodranite falls (both stones from Lodran) are much
higher in all four properties than the two finds. Grain density, magnetic susceptibility and
porosity trends are all consistent with weathering patterns expected for meteorites with iron
Brachinites are olivine-rich meteorites with very little to no Ca-poor pyroxene, and are
somewhat depleted in metal-sulfide compared with ordinary chondrites. Their origins are
uncertain and may vary by meteorite (Mittlefehldt et al., 1998), though one possible origin is the
136
partial melting of a CI-like precursor (Nehru et al., 1996). Winonaites are similar in composition
and texture to silicate inclusions in IAB iron meteorites, indicating that winonaites originated as
IAB inclusions (Hutchison, 2004). In fact, the winonaite Mt. Morris (Wisconsin) may be paired
with the IAB iron Pine River (Bevan and Grady, 1988). Winonaites likely originate from a
parent body that partially differentiated above ~1000 C, may have gone through a stage of break-
up and reassembly to facilitate mixing of silicates and metal, and cooled slowly (Benedix et al.,
2000). Both brachinites and winonaites have approximately ordinary chondrite composition.
From this set we measured 15 stones from 8 meteorites. This includes 8 stones from 4
brachinites, 6 stones from 3 winonaites, and one stone of an ungrouped primitive achondrite.
Only 14 non-Antarctic brachinites are known, and of winonaites only 13 are known, of which
Pontlyfni is the only observed fall. Brachinite averages were: grain density, 3.55 g cm-3
(standard deviation 0.06 g cm-3); bulk density, 3.48 g cm-3 (standard deviation 0.26 g cm-3); and
magnetic susceptibility 4.06 (standard deviation 0.19). All stones had porosities below 7%
except Eagle’s Nest, which was 15% porous. All of the brachinites in this study were finds,
Winonaites exhibited on average higher grain density (3.60 g cm-3, standard deviation
0.25); and magnetic susceptibility (4.90, standard deviation 0.40) than brachinites, though the
average bulk density (3.24 g cm-3, standard deviation 0.19) was lower than that of brachinites.
This resulted in porosities that were considerably higher. Porosity ranged from 4 to 13%,
averaging roughly 8%. Winonaite physical properties were roughly consistent with that of H and
L ordinary chondrites (Figure 84), as well as acapulcoites and lodranites. The one winonaite fall
in the study (Pontlyfni) had higher grain density, magnetic susceptibility and porosity than the
137
finds, indicating that the finds were subject to a possible weathering effect similar to the possible
effect seen in lodranites, though as with lodranites the lack of a statistically significant number of
falls means we cannot rule out the possibility that Pontlyfni simply originated with more metallic
iron than the others. The normal bulk density and high porosity of Pontlyfni compared to
winonaite finds does not appear to support this hypothesis, but rather provides support for the
6.3 Conclusions
The achondrites in this study can be subdivided into two categories: primitive achondrites
that retain most of the chemistry of their chondritic precursors but nevertheless have been
substantially processed, and other achondrites, most of which originate from the upper mantle
acapulcoites, lodranites, brachinites and winonaites compare favorably with those of ordinary
chondrites (and ureilites compare well with CVr). Even so, different types within this category
exhibit differences in averages and ranges for these values that are indicative of different
mineralogies. These differences are not enough to classify stones based on their physical
properties, as is the case with OC falls (Consolmagno et al., 2006), but the technique may be
used to eliminate incompatible meteorite types without removal of a portion of the stone, as is
required in standard classification. For example, an achondrite with grain density and magnetic
susceptibility in the H-chondrite range may be a winonaite, acapulcoite, or possibly lodranite, but
138
is unlikely to be a ureilite or brachinite. This distinction may be especially useful for ―triage‖
when confronted with a large shower from a particularly inhomogeneous fall such as Almahata
Sitta. In the case of Almahata Sitta, grain density and magnetic susceptibility should enable
rapid identification of those stones which are not ureilitic, since H chondrites as well as enstatite
chondrites will have higher grain density and magnetic susceptibility than ureilite stones. L
chondrites will also have higher density, though magnetic susceptibility will be consistent with
ureilites.
Grain densities and magnetic susceptibilities for the achondrites originating from
differentiated parent bodies, such as lunites, HEDs, SNCs, and angrites, are on average lower
than those of ordinary chondrites or primitive achondrites, primarily due to a much lower
quantity of metallic iron. This difference is most pronounced in magnetic susceptibility. Due to
the considerable overlap in physical properties between different meteorite types, they do not
form a useful classification tool for this category, though as with the primitive achondrites they
may be used to eliminate certain meteorite types. Also, if a stone is known to be an HED and if
the grain density is at the high end or low end of the HED spectrum, this may establish whether it
cannot be identified solely on the basis of grain density and magnetic susceptibility. If a stone is
known to be Martian, on the other hand, density and magnetic susceptibility together may be
With regard to bulk density and porosity, trends are less apparent or informative. Bulk
density is in part influenced by grain density, and so roughly follows the trends reported for that
property above. However, it is also dependent on structure, and porosity is fully dependent on
structure. Porosity shows no clear trend or any notable difference between primitive and other
139
achondrites as a whole. Indeed, variations in porosity within a given meteorite type are far
greater than differences on average between any two groups. Achondrites result from
considerable physical and chemical processing, which will destroy any primitive structure. With
some imagination, one may see minute trends within stones from differentiated parent bodies
such as SNCs and HEDs. Nakhlites appear less porous on average than shergottites, and
chassignites even less so, and diogenites appear less porous than eucrites. This may be indicative
of greater compression of those materials formed deeper within the parent body. However, we
caution that the differences are small and may not be genuine.
Due to the rarity of most achondrites and the present dearth of samples from many
groups, this study will not remain the final word on their physical properties. With luck, more
stones will fall or be discovered and will be made available for study, thus helping to provide
140
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The wealth of information produced by a study of this sort (summarized in Table 22)
presents an opportunity to explore trends and relationships not merely within meteorite groups,
but between them as well. We can begin to draw some conclusions, but at the same time the new
data points to other areas that require further study. This study is a start, but not the end point.
In this chapter, I will examine the various scientific questions presented in the introduction, and
will discuss what we have learned and where there is need for more research. In the last section
(7.5), I will examine the overall trends among all chondrite falls and what these may indicate
about the formation of their parent bodies and possibly about conditions within the solar nebula.
7.1 Weathering
Since the majority of recovered meteorites are finds, many of which exhibit substantial
properties and, insofar as it may be possible, to account or correct for it. This study indicates
that weathering varies by meteorite type. This is understandable, since the chemical reactions
that take place during the weathering process are largely dependent on the mineral species
present. Achondrites from differentiated parent bodies, including SNCs and HEDs, exhibit
141
minimal effects due to weathering on density, porosity or magnetic susceptibility. This is
explained by the low abundance of metal. That being said, shergottites and nakhlites may have a
slight increase in grain density and/or magnetic susceptibility as a result of weathering, possibly
due to the loss of a low-density nonmetallic phase, though more research is necessary to establish
the veracity of this effect. Among primitive achondrites, the lack of statistically significant
numbers of both falls and finds for most populations prevents conclusive claims regarding
weathering patterns. For the more metal-rich meteorite types such as ureilites, finds appear to
have lower grain density, magnetic susceptibility and porosity than falls, a trend that is consistent
For carbonaceous chondrites, the issue is complicated by the low numbers of finds and
the fact that each group of carbonaceous chondrites differs widely from others in physical
between falls and finds for most groups, with one notable exception. CO finds have strongly
reduced grain densities and much lower porosities than CO falls. This result is not new; it was
reported for much lower numbers of samples in Consolmagno et al. (2008) and is thought to be
caused by the expansion of weathering-related carbonates into pore space. It should be noted
that CO is the best represented carbonaceous chondrite group in the data, with 14 different
meteorites of which six are falls and eight are finds. This, along with the tremendous degree to
which weathering affects this particular type, is why we can draw conclusions about COs but not
about other CC groups. One thing is clear; if weathering does affect other CC groups, the effect
is much smaller than for CO, and so this calls for further research and more data. We do have
better statistics for the other groups than were present in other studies, but this is still insufficient
142
The effect of weathering on ordinary chondrites, however, has been well understood for
some time (Bland et al., 1996, 1998b). It thus came as no surprise that the OC results in this
study agreed with those of other studies; OC finds exhibit reduced grain density, porosity and
magnetic susceptibility as a result of oxidation of metal and its subsequent expansion into
existing pore space. While it had been hypothesized that this effect may be used to quantify the
degree of weathering, the closest approach to this prior to this study is Rochette et al.’s (2003)
better quantified by considering both grain density and magnetic susceptibility, which I have
Using the weathering modulus, I have been able to explore correlations of degree of
weathering on bulk density and porosity. An unexpected result from this analysis is that bulk
density exhibits a negative correlation with degree of weathering. Conversely, model porosities
constructed from bulk densities correlate positively with weathering, indicating that the most
weathered stones are those that started with the highest porosities. In retrospect, this result
makes sense, since the higher-porosity stones have more space into which the weathering
Enstatite chondrites produced the most unexpected weathering results by far. As with
ordinary chondrites, bulk densities for ECs correlated negatively with degree of weathering (as
determined by the weathering modulus), but unlike OCs, EC porosities (not just model
porosities) exhibited a positive correlation with weathering. Somehow, the more weathered the
stone, the more pore space was created as a result of weathering. This raises the question of its
cause; is it the introduction of new cracks in a stone that has very little original pore space into
which weathering product may expand, or is the weathering process causing excessive leaching
143
of some mineral phase? If the latter, what phase is it? Further detailed analyses of sections of
7.2 Homogeneity
In order to better understand how indicative the data in this study are for the materials
making up the parent bodies from which meteorites come, it is important to have some grasp of
the homogeneity of the populations. Two questions are implicit here: first, how homogeneous
are meteorite groups? That is, how similar is one meteorite from a population to another from
the same population? Second, how homogeneous are stones from individual meteorites? The
former question focuses on entire populations, while the latter focuses on the homogeneity of the
original source asteroid from which an individual meteorite fell. On top of that is the question of
scale-dependent homogeneity; some meteorites contain clasts of varying density or metal content
that may strongly affect results if the size of the sample is too small. The question here is, what
scale is necessary for a representative sample? To avoid further complication due to weathering-
For the question of population homogeneity, the answer varies by meteorite type and by
which physical property is studied. Ordinary chondrite falls (in particular H and L) are tightly
constrained in grain density and magnetic susceptibility, though they exhibit considerable
variation in porosity. This suggests mineralogical heterogeneity is low, but structural variation
does occur. The key factor here is likely shock; more strongly shocked meteorites will have
substantially reduced porosity, though their grain density and magnetic susceptibility are not
144
strongly affected. With enstatite chondrites, the population as a whole is tightly constrained in
grain density/magnetic susceptibility space, but with somewhat more variability than ordinary
chondrites. EC falls, however, are much coarser mineralogically and exhibit scale-dependent
variations in grain density and magnetic susceptibility below masses of ~40-60 g, a feature that is
not observed in ordinary chondrites. In contrast, their porosities vary (by population) much less
than OCs, which may be attributed to the fact that ECs as a whole have very low porosities to
begin with.
For carbonaceous chondrites, this question depends on the individual subgroups, with the
most tightly constrained being CK, for which both falls and finds reside in grain
density/magnetic susceptibility space between H and L OC populations. Porosity varies more for
the population, but if finds are omitted only one meteorite (Karoonda) remains. The CV group
occupies the other end of the homogeneity spectrum. The CVr subgroup, with low porosity,
moderately high magnetic susceptibility and low grain density, is more tightly constrained than
the CVo subgroup, whose magnetic susceptibility range covers almost two orders of magnitude.
Among achondrites, the paucity of falls limits the possibility for drawing strong
conclusions for most groups, with the exception of HEDs for which there are ample numbers of
samples for this purpose. Each of the subgroups (howardites, eucrites, and diogenites) are tightly
constrained in grain density, but because of their low average metal content the low magnetic
susceptibility values are particularly sensitive to small variations in metal and other magnetic
materials and so varies more than grain density. Taking advantage of this fact, we can see a
greater degree of variation among eucrite breccias than among non-brecciated eucrites,
howardites or diogenites. Among SNCs, shergottites and nakhlites may be tightly constrained in
grain density and magnetic susceptibility, but the different lithologies vary between each other.
145
Also, the unusual shergottite Los Angeles provides a note of caution when drawing conclusions;
while a population as a whole may be homogeneous, one must always allow for the presence of
outliers. Lunar materials, on the other hand, are quite heterogeneous in all properties, including
porosity. This is in part because they sample very different lithologies from different regions on
the lunar surface. If anything, this only underscores the need to study very large numbers of
lunar materials to obtain representative data for each of the major lunar lithologies.
stones from certain ordinary and carbonaceous chondrites, including Holbrook, Gold Basin,
Pultusk, Allende, Murchison, Murray, and Karoonda, allow for better understanding of the
decimeter-scale homogeneity of the parent asteroids from which they came. By and large, stones
from these meteorites varied less than four percent in all of the physical properties measured
except porosity (for which small variations in density became exaggerated), indicating very little
heterogeneity. Most telling of all is the fact that stones of Allende from two collections
exhibited measurable differences in all four properties, indicating that Allende is homogeneous
to the degree that small environmental influences became significant in the analysis.
While ordinary chondrite and carbonaceous chondrite parent bodies are largely
homogeneous on the decimeter scale, the same cannot be necessarily said about other kinds of
meteorites, although more study is needed in order to establish their degrees of homogeneity. In
large part, the lack of study here so far is due to the lack of large numbers of stones from
individual meteorites from these groups. One telling point is the observed scale-dependent intra-
meteorite heterogeneity of enstatite chondrites, which begs for further study of large stones.
Also, among achondrites, the vast range of magnetic susceptibilities covered by just a few stones
of the aubrite Cumberland Falls is undeniable. Another tantalizing object for future study is
146
Almahata Sitta, the meteorite remnants of asteroid 2008-TC3 that fell in the Sudan in 2008. As
chondrite parent bodies (Jenniskens, 2009; Horstmann and Bischoff, 2010; Bischoff et al., 2010).
It may yield clues to processes by which parent bodies break up and recombine.
Since Consolmagno et al. (2004, 2006) demonstrated that the use of grain density and
magnetic susceptibility together serves as a good first-order classification tool for ordinary
chondrite falls, this naturally led to the question of whether the technique could be applied to
other meteorite types. The results here were quite mixed. Most notably, the two classes of
enstatite chondrites (EH and EL) were completely indistinguishable in either grain density or
magnetic susceptibility. While it rendered null the possibility of using the technique for
classification, this result did provide solid grounds for examining the question of whether the two
types of enstatite chondrite have any difference in total iron and/or metal content.
Other groups for which the technique may be useful are SNCs and HEDs, though with
caveats for each. For HEDs, the three constituent groups (howardites, eucrites and diogenites)
densities. In this sense, eucrites and diogenites are distinguishable from each other, but
howardites complicate the question by overlapping both, especially eucrites. Eucrite or diogenite
stones whose grain densities or magnetic susceptibilities fall outside the howardite region are
147
distinguishable, but otherwise these physical properties are not useful. With SNCs, shergottites,
nakhlites and the one chassignite in the study each (excepting Los Angeles) occupied distinct
regions in grain density/magnetic susceptibility space. The number of SNCs surveyed was
relatively low, so it is necessary to increase the statistics before drawing solid conclusions. Of
course, given the rarity of Martian meteorites, it may prove impossible to substantially expand
the database.
Regardless of the usefulness of this technique for classification, one thing that is
necessary a priori is some knowledge of the general type of meteorite. Many different meteorite
types occupy overlapping regions in grain density/magnetic susceptibility space. For example,
low-metal meteorites such as SNCs, HEDs, angrites, and lunar meteorites each overlap to
ordinary chondrites and primitive achondrites also overlap. One cannot, for instance, distinguish
a CH from an H chondrite on the basis of grain density and magnetic susceptibility alone.
Nevertheless, the technique remains useful as a negative indicator. Each meteorite type
occupies a distinct region in grain density/magnetic susceptibility space, although some of the
regions are quite large. A meteorite whose physical properties lie substantially outside the
region occupied by a given meteorite type can be ruled out as a candidate for that type. In one
example, these measurements were performed on an unclassified meteorite at one of the museum
collections. (Since it has not been classified, it is not included among the meteorites reported in
this study.) This meteorite had an unusual texture that caused the collections manager to suspect
it might belong to the SNCs, but its magnetic susceptibility of 5.3 ruled it out as a Martian
meteorite. With a grain density of 3.6 g cm-3, the meteorite may have been an H chondrite, an
148
acapulcoite, a CH chondrite, or one of a number of other meteorite types consistent with those
Not included in the analysis of this dissertation were the mesosiderites and iron
meteorites. A few meteorites of these types were analyzed in the process of the research, and for
completeness have been included in Table 23. Nevertheless, two primary issues related to the
very high metal content of these groups prevented more detailed study. First, the samples were
very high in density (5 to 8 g cm-3), which had an unpredictable effect on the settling behavior of
the glass beads when they were immersed. This in turn caused bulk density measurements to
have large uncertainties and to be unreliable, which also meant unreliable porosities. Second,
due to the excess metal the response of the magnetic susceptibility meter was in a highly
could be made.
There is room for further analysis of mesosiderites and iron meteorites in the future. In
particular, grain density may be a useful analytical tool. It may prove useful for determining the
metal-to-silicate ratio in mesosiderite falls, or could be used on iron finds to establish degree of
weathering.
149
7.5 Overall Trends from Chondrite Falls
Within Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of this dissertation, the three major types of chondrites
(ordinary, carbonaceous and enstatite) have been treated separately. In large part, this is to be
expected, as their different compositions and formation histories influence their densities and
magnetic susceptibilities in quite different ways. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for
considering all chondrites together as a single group. In particular, all chondrites are to some
degree remnants of the early planet-forming processes in the solar nebula. By comparing them
with each other, perhaps some clues to conditions within various parts of the solar nebula may
stand out.
In relation to ordinary chondrites (Chapter 3), it was apparent that shock is one of the
major influences on porosity, as shock compresses material and causes transport of metals into
existing pore space. At the same time, new pore space in the form of cracks is created, albeit not
to the same extent as the pre-existing porosity is destroyed. This pattern holds true for all
chondrites (Figure 85 and Table 24) as well. It also presents a word of caution for examining
trends related to other characteristics such as petrographic type; porosities will naturally scatter
and tend lower due to varying shock histories. A large spread in porosities for these other
150
Grain density, on the other hand, does not appear to exhibit any shock-related trends
(Figure 86). There is a decrease on average for S1 compared to other groups, but this is
accounted for by the disproportionate number of S1 carbonaceous chondrites like CM with very
low grain densities; the groups are not evenly distributed among all shock states. The lack of a
general trend conforms to expectations, since shock should not significantly alter the overall
mineral composition of the meteorite except in extreme cases where it induces thermal
metamorphism. The same goes for magnetic susceptibility (Figure 87), though low-shock (S1)
meteorites are somewhat lower on average than higher-shock (S2-6) meteorites. Again, this may
serve as low-χ ―outliers‖ for the S2 and S3 populations, as can be seen in Figure 87.
trend from petrographic type 3 to 6. However, when all chondrite falls are included (Table 25
and Figure 88), the trend reverses, going from highest porosity at low petrographic types (types 1
and 2) to lowest porosity at high petrographic types (5 and 6). This is a trend that ranges from
extremely aqueously altered to extremely thermally processed, and gives some indication that
porosity may be affected by alteration history or more likely by the localized conditions under
which the parent body formed and which subsequently led to aqueous or thermal alteration. This
151
In terms of other physical properties, both bulk density and grain density (Figure 89 and
Figure 90) are substantially lower for petrographic types 1 and 2 (all of which are carbonaceous
chondrites) than for the other groups, but average densities tend to level out for the thermally-
processed petrographic types 3-6. With magnetic susceptibility (Figure 91), each petrographic
The true value of the data in this work may well be found when it is considered not by
itself, but in the context of the extensive work performed by other investigators. In particular,
studies involving processed samples such as thin sections provide supplementary data with
which physical properties, especially porosity, may be compared. To illustrate this further, I
have selected two properties: matrix abundance and oxidation state (expressed as a ratio of
oxidized Fe [Feox] to Feox + MgO, where Feox includes contributions from both FeO and Fe2O3).
These data are not readily available for all meteorites in this study, and so for the purposes of this
analysis it is limited to averages by meteorite type. Average matrix abundances were taken from
Brearley and Jones (1998) and average Feox/(Feox+MgO) was taken from Wasson and Kallemeyn
(1988). Neither source made the distinction between oxidized and reduced CV. In addition,
The reason for exploring porosity as a function of oxidation state originated as a basic
observation: oxidized CV meteorites in this study are substantially more porous than reduced
CV, and enstatite chondrites, which are the most reduced chondrite group, also have extremely
152
low porosities. When porosities are compared with their oxidation states (Figure 92), this basic
observation points to a trend by which porosity correlates to degree of oxidation. The most
reduced (EH and EL) are also the least porous, and the most heavily oxidized (CI) are the most
porous.
Comparing porosity to matrix abundance is also logical; after all, much of the pore space
may exist as intergranular spaces within the matrix. Porosity does indeed correlate positively
with percentage matrix (Figure 93) in an approximately linear manner. This indicates that, shock
of approximately 35% at 100% matrix. If one assumes that matrix grains can be approximated
by spheres of uniform size, optimal packing of the grains would result in only 26% porosity. On
the other hand, random packing of uniform spheres in shaken containers does produce
approximately 36% porosity (Torquato et al., 2000). Therefore one may infer from the data that
matrix is assembled more or less randomly, and serves as the key contributor to meteorite
porosity. This result, of course, is only preliminary. Matrix grains are neither uniform in size
nor in shape. A substantial variation in grain sizes allows small grains to fill pore spaces left by
larger grains; therefore, grain size variation will reduce total pore space. Irregular shapes, on the
other hand, may affect porosity either positively or negatively, depending on the manner in
which they are packed. If irregular edges jam into each other, then they will tend to leave larger
pore spaces open, but the irregular shapes may also manage to fit into gaps that would otherwise
153
7.5.4 Implications for the Solar Nebula
The three observed porosity trends reported in this section (petrographic type, matrix
abundance and oxidation) are further remarkable when one considers the relationships between
these properties and their further relationships to the solar nebula. The most aqueously altered
meteorites (CMs and CIs) are also among the highest in matrix abundance and also are the most
heavily oxidized. CIs are at the extreme end here, and the one sample of a CI (Orgueil) included
in this study has one of the highest porosities of any meteorite that was measured. At the other
extreme are enstatite chondrites, which are among the most reduced chondrites, have low matrix
abundance, and ELs tend to be strongly thermally equilibrated. They have the lowest average
porosities of any of the chondrite groups in this study. Ordinary chondrites lie between the
extremes in terms of oxidation and matrix abundance, though they admittedly are well
represented in all petrographic types for thermally equilibrated meteorites from 3 to 6 (and some
The overall porosity trend also follows some models for the locations of parent bodies in
the early solar system, with EH and EL parent bodies forming closer to the Sun, ordinary
chondrite parent bodies at intermediate distances (nearer Earth), and carbonaceous chondrites
somewhat further out. Hutchison (2004) further connects this model with the availability of
water in different regions of the solar nebula, from almost no available water near the Sun to
much greater amounts available further out. In the range of CI’s, water availability reaches
higher than 10 wt% (about 30 vol%, close to the measured CI porosity). Using this, it may be
possible to extract from this study a few implications for conditions of formation within the solar
nebula.
154
Before proceeding, it is important to introduce a caveat. Researchers have been tackling
questions about the early solar system and the formation of early planetesimals and meteorite
parent bodies, and have almost as many theories as there are people exploring the question. It
would be extremely naïve to assume that the addition of a relatively small datum to the existing
body of knowledge would tell the tale conclusively, but it may point to some questions and ideas
worth pursuing.
In this case, one thing worth pursuing is the role of water in the lithification of early solar
system materials. It is possible (T. McCoy, personal communication) that matrix grains were
encased in water ice, especially farther from the Sun. It is within the realm of possibility that the
water may have played a role in the binding of grains together. The departure of water through
sublimation or vaporization at some time after the formation of parent-body precursor material
would leave pore space. Prior to vaporization, aqueous alteration could take place in those
meteorite precursors where water was abundant enough. Water may have also provided the
but leaves a few questions remaining, especially for the most reduced materials such as enstatite
chondrites. If water was key to aggregation of materials prior to lithification, how did such
reduced meteorites lithify? This indicates that, while water may have been important, it is not
the whole story. Other factors, such as van der Waals forces, must not be discounted in
Whatever model is produced, this study provides a key constraint related to porosity.
Objects forming near the Sun had low porosity, and the further out they were, the higher their
155
porosity. Any reasonable model of the formation of bodies from the solar nebula must also
macroporosity trend in asteroids from about 2-4 AU; those closer to the Sun have low
macroporosities while those farther out have higher macroporosities (Consolmagno et al., 2008;
Consolmagno and Britt, 2008). While the former can be described by the lithification of
individual stones, the latter is a result of larger-scale processes that bring existing stones together
to form asteroids. The fact that both follow a similar trend is not to be expected a priori, but
7.6 Conclusion
This study is the most comprehensive survey of meteorite density, porosity and magnetic
susceptibility performed to date, and offers the further advantage of consistent measurement
techniques and equipment across meteorites from a wide range of collections. With these data, it
has been possible to corroborate trends already observed in the literature, to discover some new
trends, and in a few cases to contradict pre-existing observations that were based on less
extensive observations.
While the analyses that have been presented in this dissertation are in themselves
scientifically valuable, the true value of the research is the production of a database that will be
made available to other investigators. The process of mining the database and comparing these
156
data with different measurements performed by other researchers promises to be fruitful for
years to come.
157
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
158
Vs
P1
V1
Vs
P2
V2
As the volume of the chamber expands from V1 to V2, the pressure drops from P 1 to P2.
From the pressure change, the volume V S displaced by the sample can be determined.
159
Figure 2: The Quantachrome Ultrapycnometer 1000.
160
transducer
PA+ Pi
Pi PA
Vs valve
Vcell VA
PA+ Pf
Pf PA+ Pf
Vs
Vcell VA
The instrument contains two chambers connected through a valve. When the valve is
opened, the gas expands from the cell into V A, causing a drop in pressure from Pi to Pf.
Pressures (above ambient atmospheric pressure PA) are measured by the transducer
attached to the cell. Since the chamber volumes are known, the volume Vs displaced by
the sample can be calculated.
161
The vertical axis is, for each subsequent run number, the average pycnometer
measurement for all the meteorite samples in the survey divided by the final reported
volume for each. Error bars are 1 standard deviation among the individual
measurements. Reported volumes are taken from the average of the last six runs for each
sample.
162
REE Analysis of Glass Beads
100
Concentration / Chondrites
10
163
Figure 6: The Bead Method Apparatus, Including Shake Platform and
Nalgene Beaker.
164
The small dots represent a fit (linear on a volume-volume curve) to the data after
eliminating the three smallest samples. Low-mass samples (below about 15 g) have very
large error bars and are unreliable. Above 15 g, samples exhibit a roughly 2% volume
overestimate that depends on sample size.
165
Figure 8: Data from Measurements Made Using the ―Soft Tap‖ Settling
Method.
166
The small dots represent a fit (linear in volume-volume) to all but the three smallest
samples. This settling method produces an overall underestimate in volume, with the
effect reducing as volume increases, approaching zero for samples over ~30 cm3.
167
Excepting the two quartz samples under 10 g, data indicate very small discrepancies from
the actual volume. Error bars represent the variation among individual measurements,
but individual measurement uncertainties in most cases are comparable to or larger than
error bars shown.
Figure 10: Data for Measurements Made Using the 5-second Secured
Shake Method.
168
Figure 11: Volume Discrepancy for the Secured-Shake Method Using
700-800 μm Diameter Beads.
169
Figure 12: Volume Discrepancy for the Secured-Shake Method Using
700-800 μm Diameter Beads and the 155-cm3 Cup.
170
Figure 13: Bulk Density of Small Glass Beads (ρbead ) vs. Relative
Humidity.
171
control buttons
pickup coil
Top View
Side View
(a)
(b)
Figure 14: The SM-30 Magnetic Susceptibility Meter. (a) Photograph of the Meter. (b) Diagram.
172
meteorite
Table
(a) (b)
Figure 15: Operation of the SM-30 Magnetic Susceptibility Meter. (a) Photograph of the Device
as Utilized (Inverted, with the Meteorite Placed Atop and Centered Over the Magnetic Coils). (b)
Diagram of the Device in Operation.
173
Based on Gattacceca et al. (2004). Note the log-log axes. The correction factor overlays
data comparing measurements on pebbles made with the SM-30 (M) with KLY2-derived
reference susceptibilities for the same pebbles (Kr). Pebble data provided by J.
Gattacceca (private communication).
174
(a) (b)
SM-30 measurements have been adjusted for bulk volume in both plots. In (a) no shape correction has been applied,
and (b) has been corrected for shape.
Figure 17: Comparison of Magnetic Susceptibility Measurements Made Using the SM-30
(Vertical Axis) with Those Utilizing the KLY-2 (Horizontal Axis) for the Same Stones in the
Vatican Collection.
175
(a) (b)
The horizontal axis contains KLY-2 values. SM-30 measurements have been adjusted for bulk volume in both
plots. In (a) no shape correction has been applied, and (b) has been corrected for shape.
Figure 18: Discrepancy in Log Units Between Measurements Made Using the SM-30 and Those
Utilizing the KLY-2 for the Same Stones.
176
Ordinary Chondrites - Vatican Stones
4.20
H
4.10
L
LL
4.00
3.90
Grain Density (g cm-3)
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Magnetic Susceptibility (log χ)
This plot follows Consolmagno et al. (2006), though original data are used. Note that H,
L, and LL fall primarily into separate regions (encircled). There are a few stones that
appear in the wrong regions. These are possibly misclassified or mislabeled stones.
177
Outliers are highlighted in yellow.
Figure 20: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for All Stones from
OC Falls.
178
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
179
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
180
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
181
H Chondrite Falls
4.30
4.10
3.90
Grain Density (g cm-3)
3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00
Figure 24: Grain Density/Bulk Density Relationship for H Falls, For Use
in Determination of Model Porosities for H Finds.
182
H Find Model Porosities
30.00%
H Fall Porosity
H Find Model Porosity
25.00%
20.00%
Porosity
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 3.50 3.70 3.90
183
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
184
Contours labeled (1), (2), (3) and (4) represent weathering moduli at those values.
185
Figure 28: Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for H Finds.
186
Figure 29: Bulk Density vs. Weathering Modulus for H Finds.
187
Figure 30: Model Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for H Finds.
188
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
189
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
190
L Find Model Porosities
20.00%
18.00%
L Fall Porosities
L Find Model Porosities
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
Porosity
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 3.50 3.70 3.90
191
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
192
Contours labeled (1), (2), (3) and (4) represent weathering moduli at those values.
193
Figure 36: Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for L Finds.
194
Figure 37: Bulk Density vs. Weathering Modulus for L Finds.
195
Figure 38: Model Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for L Finds.
196
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
197
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
198
LL Find Model Porosities
25.00%
LL Fall Porosities
LL Find Model Porosities
20.00%
15.00%
Porosity
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 3.50 3.70
199
Numbers in parentheses below each category are the number of data points for that
category.
200
Contours labeled (1), (2), (3) and (4) represent weathering moduli at those values.
201
Figure 44: Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for LL Finds.
202
Figure 45: Bulk Density vs. Weathering Modulus for LL Finds.
203
Figure 46: Model Porosity vs. Weathering Modulus for LL Finds.
204
OC Falls: Regolith Breccia Porosities
30%
Normal OCs
Breccias
25%
Percentage of Population
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 - 3% 4% - 6% 7% - 9% 8% - 12% 12% - 15% 16% - 18% 19%+
Porosity Bin
205
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L, and LL ordinary chondrite falls are
displayed in yellow.
206
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group names are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
207
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group names are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
208
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group names are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
209
H Range
L Range
LL Range
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group names are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
210
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
Figure 53: Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility for the CR Clan:
CR, CB and CH Carbonaceous Chondrites.
211
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
212
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
213
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
214
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
215
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
216
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
217
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
218
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
219
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
220
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
221
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
222
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
223
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
224
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual stones
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
225
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual stones
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
226
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual stones
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
227
H Range
L Range
50% of population
Median
LL Range Individual stones
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
228
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow
229
(a) (b)
Figure 72: Enstatite Chondrite Finds and Their Properties Grouped By Weathering: (a) Selection
of Groups Based on Grain Density and Magnetic Susceptibility; (b) Porosity and Bulk Density of
the Same Groups.
230
Figure 73: Porosity as a Function of Weathering Modulus for EC Finds.
231
For comparison purposes, H and L ordinary chondrite data are overlaid. Data were
ordered by mass, and running bins created (ten stones per bin for EC, five for EH and EL,
and twenty each for H and L, with bin sizes based on total number of stones per group),
from which the standard deviation of grain densities was calculated. The sample mass is
the average mass per bin.
232
The ovals represent 1-σ and 2-σ from the mean for (solid) EH and (dashed) EL.
233
Ordinary Chondrite Range
50% of population
Median
Individual stones
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
234
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual stones
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
235
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual stones
OC Range
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
236
Average value and σmean
50% of population
H Range Median
Individual stones
L Range
LL Range
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of stones represented in each
group.
237
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
Figure 80: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for SNC (Martian)
Meteorites in this Study.
238
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow
Figure 81: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for HED Meteorites
in this Study.
239
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow and the region occupied by reduced CVs is in blue.
240
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
Figure 83: Grain Density vs. Magnetic Susceptibility for Acapulcoites and
Lodranites in this Study.
241
For reference, the regions occupied by H, L and LL ordinary chondrite falls are displayed
in yellow.
242
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
Figure 85: Porosity vs. Shock State for All Chondrite Falls.
243
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
Figure 86: Grain Density vs. Shock State for All Chondrite Falls.
244
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
Figure 87: Magnetic Susceptibility vs. Shock State for All Chondrite
Finds.
245
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
Figure 88: Porosity vs. Petrographic Type for All Chondrite Falls.
246
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
Figure 89: Grain Density vs. Petrographic Type for All Chondrite Falls.
247
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
Figure 90: Bulk Density vs. Petrographic Type for All Chondrite Falls.
248
Average value and σmean
50% of population
Median
Individual meteorites
Numbers in parentheses below group labels are number of meteorites represented in each
group.
249
Chondrite Falls: Porosity vs. Oxidation State
40.0%
CI
CK
35.0% CM
CO
CR
CV
30.0% H
L
LL
25.0% EH
EL
Porosity
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 92: Porosity vs. Oxidation State for All Chondrite Falls.
250
Chondrite Falls: Porosity vs. Matrix Abundance
40.0%
CI
CK
35.0%
CM
CO
30.0% CR
CV
25.0%
H
L
Porosity
LL
20.0% EH
EL
15.0% K
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 93: Porosity vs. Percentage Matrix for All Chondrite Falls.
251
APPENDIX B: TABLES
252
Table 1: Electron-Probe Micro Analysis (EPMA) of Glass Beads.
Sample SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Cr2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O TOTAL
5 Density beads, 750 µm 73.02 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.03 4.37 8.75 13.69 0.08 100.09
5 Density beads, 750 µm 73.24 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 4.51 8.89 13.68 0.05 100.57
5 Density beads, 750 µm 73.72 0.06 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.06 4.27 8.62 13.43 0.10 101.02
5 Density beads, 750 µm 73.49 0.03 0.94 0.02 0.09 0.01 3.69 9.12 13.54 0.21 101.15
5 Density beads, 750 µm 74.35 0.03 0.18 0.02 0.10 0.00 3.91 8.54 13.74 0.10 100.96
5 Density beads, 750 µm 73.24 0.02 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.02 4.35 8.77 13.62 0.07 100.30
6 Density beads, 60 µm 73.70 0.04 0.20 0.00 0.12 0.00 4.32 8.79 13.44 0.05 100.67
6 Density beads, 60 µm 74.63 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.56 0.00 4.02 8.73 13.32 0.00 101.42
6 Density beads, 60 µm 73.67 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.13 0.09 4.30 8.71 13.43 0.03 100.56
6 Density beads, 60 µm 74.08 0.24 0.11 0.01 0.67 0.04 4.17 8.62 13.46 0.02 101.42
6 Density beads, 60 µm 73.62 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.00 3.06 9.89 13.90 0.04 100.66
7 Density beads, 750 µm (original bead to check calibration) 72.08 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.00 4.33 8.67 13.62 0.07 99.02
17 Density beads as a check (last check) 73.01 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.00 3.92 8.87 13.30 0.01 99.31
Average (all) 73.53 0.04 0.24 0.01 0.16 0.02 4.09 8.84 13.55 0.06 100.55
Standard Deviation 0.651 0.062 0.248 0.011 0.207 0.030 0.387 0.347 0.174 0.053
Average (large) 73.31 0.03 0.33 0.01 0.07 0.02 4.20 8.76 13.62 0.10 100.44
Average (Small) 73.79 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.27 0.02 3.96 8.93 13.47 0.03 100.67
Data courtesy R. Korotev.
253
Table 2: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) of Glass Beads.
254
Table 3: Results Per Settling Method for Small Beads in the 77 cm3 Container.
255
Table 4: Data for H Chondrite Falls.
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Agenb H5 Fall LNHM BM19971 31.24 3.29 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.02 8.5% ± 1.2% 4.83 ± 0.10
Agen H5 Fall Vatican 8 9.18 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.16 ± 0.08†
Agen H5 Fall Vatican 6 36.8 3.37 ± 0.02 3.77 ± 0.04 10.5% ± 1.1% 5.20 ± 0.09
Agen H5 Fall Average 3.33 3.69 9.6% 5.07
Alessandriab H5 Fall AMNH 2224 8.83 3.27 ± 0.10 3.77 ± 0.03 13.3% ± 2.7% 5.42 ± 0.08
Allegan H5 S1 W0 Fall AMNH 371 92.81 3.06 ± 0.05 3.73 ± 0.01 18.0% ± 1.3% 5.32 ± 0.09
Allegan H5 S1 W0 Fall NMNH 2632 26.089 3.11 ± 0.05 3.64 ± 0.02 14.6% ± 1.5% 5.23 ± 0.08
Allegan H5 S1 W0 Fall NMNH 2633 17.974 2.97 ± 0.06 3.68 ± 0.03 19.3% ± 1.7% 5.33 ± 0.08
Allegan H5 S1 W0 Fall Vatican 25 145.37 2.94 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.29 ± 0.09
Allegan H5 S1 W0 Fall Vatican 24 294.96 3.39 ± 0.03‡ n.d. n.d. 5.12 ± 0.08†
Allegan H5 S1 W0 Fall Average 3.19 3.71 14.0% 5.26
Ambapur Nagla H5 Fall AMNH 401 82.51 3.07 ± 0.05 3.66 ± 0.01 16.2% ± 1.3% 5.40 ± 0.09
Arbol Solo H5 Fall CMS 1046-1 32.02 3.13 ± 0.04 3.63 ± 0.02 13.8% ± 1.3% 5.50 ± 0.09
Archie H6 Fall AMNH 4000 46.26 3.47 ± 0.02 3.60 ± 0.01 3.7% ± 0.7% 5.22 ± 0.10
Avanhandava H4 S2 Fall NMNH 6882 14.031 2.88 ± 0.39 3.18 ± 0.03 9.4% ± 12.4% 5.18 ± 0.10
Avanhandava H4 S2 Fall IOM C 135.1a 35.34 3.04 ± 0.03 3.67 ± 0.02 17.0% ± 0.9% 5.22 ± 0.12
Avanhandava H4 S2 Fall Average 2.99 3.51 14.8% 5.20
Barbotanb H5 S3 Fall AMNH 3904 84.22 3.44 ± 0.01 3.71 ± 0.01 7.2% ± 0.4% 5.15 ± 0.09
Barbotan H5 S3 Fall Vatican 82 83.19 3.53 ± 0.02 3.78 ± 0.04 6.6% ± 1.0% 5.27 ± 0.09
Barbotan H5 S3 Fall Average 3.49 3.75 6.9% 5.21
Batha H4 Fall Vatican 91 37.715 3.48 ± 0.02 3.89 ± 0.04 10.5% ± 1.1% 5.14 ± 0.10
Bath H4 Fall Vatican 90 156.8 3.43 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Bath H4 Fall Vatican 89 477.1 3.41 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Bath H4 Fall Average 3.42 3.89 12.0% 5.14
Beardsley H5 S3 Fall NMNH 2658 36.509 3.28 ± 0.20 3.64 ± 0.01 9.9% ± 5.5% 5.27 ± 0.09
Beardsley H5 S3 Fall Vatican 97 9.87 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.03 ± 0.08†
Beardsley H5 S3 Fall Vatican 96 17.42 3.41 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.29 ± 0.08
Beardsley H5 S3 Fall Average 3.32 3.64 8.8% 5.20
Beaver Creek H5 S3 Fall NMNH 2659 17.42 3.24 ± 0.09 3.62 ± 0.03 10.4% ± 2.6% 5.30 ± 0.08
Beaver Creek H5 S3 Fall Vatican 98 204.26 3.14 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.27 ± 0.10
Beaver Creek H5 S3 Fall Average 3.15 3.62 13.1% 5.28
Benldb H6 Fall CMS 1173-1 88.6 3.46 ± 0.05 3.70 ± 0.01 6.6% ± 1.5% 5.26 ± 0.12
b
Bielokrynitschie H4 Fall CMS 150-1 18.13 3.39 ± 0.06 3.59 ± 0.03 5.5% ± 1.7% 5.16 ± 0.08
Bielokrynitschie H4 Fall LNHM BM66213 47.12 3.49 ± 0.05 3.67 ± 0.02 4.8% ± 1.4% 5.34 ± 0.10
Bielokrynitschie H4 Fall Average 3.46 3.65 5.0% 5.25
Binningup H5 Fall LNHM BM1989,M13 34.35 3.19 ± 0.04 3.72 ± 0.02 14.3% ± 1.1% 5.29 ± 0.09
Bjelaja Zerkov H6 Fall Vatican 118 13.26 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.41 ± 0.08†
Bur-Gheluai H5 S3 Fall IOM C 202.1 31.1 3.54 ± 0.05 3.66 ± 0.02 3.2% ± 1.4% 5.29 ± 0.08
Bur-Gheluai H5 S3 Fall Vatican 152 1287.49 3.54 ± 0.07‡ 3.64 ± 0.04‡ 2.7% ± 2.2% 5.38 ± 0.08
Bur-Gheluai H5 S3 Fall Average 3.54 3.64 2.8% 5.33
Burnwell H4 S3 Fall LNHM BM2000,M4 65.24 3.51 ± 0.04 3.73 ± 0.01 5.9% ± 1.1% 5.34 ± 0.12
a
Cañellas H4 Fall CMS 790-1 28.06 3.32 ± 0.04 3.68 ± 0.02 9.8% ± 1.3% 5.30 ± 0.10
Cangas de Onis H5 S3 Fall IOM C 199.2 19.06 3.64 ± 0.09 3.65 ± 0.03 0.3% ± 2.5% 5.12 ± 0.10
Cangas de Onis H5 S3 Fall Vatican 167 46.76 3.50 ± 0.02 3.82 ± 0.04 8.4% ± 1.1% 5.27 ± 0.09
Cangas de Onis H5 S3 Fall Vatican 168 12.46 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.25 ± 0.08†
Cangas de Onis H5 S3 Fall Average 3.54 3.77 6.2% 5.21
Cape Girardeau H6 Fall Vatican 181 97.91 3.42 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d. 5.40 ± 0.09
Capilla del Monte H6 Fall LNHM BM1964,68 22.79 3.34 ± 0.08 3.70 ± 0.02 9.7% ± 2.2% 5.27 ± 0.10
Carancas H4-5 S3 W0 Fall CMS 1615-1 19.46 3.17 ± 0.07 3.68 ± 0.03 13.9% ± 1.9% 5.23 ± 0.08
Carancas H4-5 S3 W0 Fall Vatican 1486 32.38 3.06 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.12 ± 0.09
Carancas H4-5 S3 W0 Fall Average 3.10 3.68 15.8% 5.17
Castaliaa H5 Fall CMS 347-1 24.06 3.37 ± 0.05 3.62 ± 0.02 6.9% ± 1.6% 5.05 ± 0.10
Castalia H5 Fall LNHM BM50804 26.68 3.40 ± 0.05 3.70 ± 0.02 8.1% ± 1.4% 5.14 ± 0.08
Castalia H5 Fall Average 3.38 3.66 7.5% 5.10
Ceresetoa H5 Fall LNHM BM33297 21.88 3.23 ± 0.06 3.67 ± 0.02 12.0% ± 1.7% 5.21 ± 0.10
Cereseto H5 Fall Vatican 199 11.99 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.29 ± 0.08†
Cereseto H5 Fall Average 3.23 3.67 12.0% 5.25
Charsonvilleb H6 S4 Fall CMS 538-2 58.35 3.54 ± 0.09 3.71 ± 0.01 4.5% ± 2.5% 5.39 ± 0.10
Charsonville H6 S4 Fall Vatican 206 11.89 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.64 ± 0.08†
Charsonville H6 S4 Fall Average 3.54 3.71 4.5% 5.51
Charwallis H6 Fall CMS 562-2-1 44.18 3.39 ± 0.04 3.60 ± 0.01 5.6% ± 1.0% 5.33 ± 0.09
Collescipoli H5 Fall Vatican 233 9.24 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.37 ± 0.08†
256
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Dashoguz H5 S3 W0/1 Fall Monnig M1148.1 97.26 3.14 ± 0.05 3.74 ± 0.01 16.0% ± 1.3% 5.32 ± 0.09
Dhajala H4 S1 Fall NMNH 5832 49.564 3.21 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 13.6% ± 1.0% 5.18 ± 0.09
Dhajala H4 S1 Fall IOM C 158.1 41.65 3.23 ± 0.04 3.73 ± 0.01 13.4% ± 1.0% 5.16 ± 0.09
Dhajala H4 S1 Fall Average 3.22 3.72 13.5% 5.17
Djati-Pengilon H6 Fall LNHM BM1964,564 77.29 3.64 ± 0.03 3.73 ± 0.01 2.4% ± 0.9% 5.19 ± 0.09
Djati-Pengilon H6 Fall Vatican 271 10.54 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.14 ± 0.08†
Djati-Pengilon H6 Fall Average 3.64 3.73 2.4% 5.16
Donga Kohrod H6 Fall LNHM BM85671 35.16 3.42 ± 0.05 3.70 ± 0.02 7.6% ± 1.4% 5.37 ± 0.09
a
Doroninsk H5-7 Fall CMS 1103-1 68.12 3.52 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 5.4% ± 0.8% 5.47 ± 0.09
Dwalenia,b H4-6 Fall CMS 841-1 27 3.32 ± 0.05 3.71 ± 0.02 10.4% ± 1.5% 5.29 ± 0.08
Ehole H5 Fall Monnig M1153.1 18.87 3.37 ± 0.07 3.74 ± 0.03 9.8% ± 2.0% 5.49 ± 0.08
Eichstädt H5 Fall LNHM BM84188 33.31 2.51 ± 0.03 3.42 ± 0.01 26.6% ± 0.9% 5.25 ± 0.09
Épinal H5 Fall Vatican 1105 3.43 3.48 ± 0.12‡ 3.71 ± 0.08‡ 6.3% ± 4.0% 5.36 ± 0.08†
Farmville H4 S3 Fall NMNH 937 4 38.949 3.50 ± 0.09 3.70 ± 0.02 5.5% ± 2.6% 5.38 ± 0.10
Favars H5 Fall Vatican 330 14.83 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.50 ± 0.08†
Fermoa H3-5 Fall Vatican 1186 75.79 3.39 ± 0.02 3.88 ± 0.04 12.7% ± 1.0% 5.22 ± 0.09
a
Florence H3 Fall CMS 218-1-1 20.69 3.14 ± 0.05 3.66 ± 0.03 14.0% ± 1.5% 5.38 ± 0.12
a
Forest City H5 S2 Fall Vatican 341 36.09 3.43 ± 0.03 3.80 ± 0.04 9.8% ± 1.1% 5.33 ± 0.09
Forest City H5 S2 Fall Vatican 340 88.35 3.45 ± 0.02 n.d. n.d. 5.33 ± 0.09
Forest City H5 S2 Fall Average 3.44 3.80 9.5% 5.33
Forest Vale H4 Fall Monnig M1247.1 29.88 2.96 ± 0.08 3.69 ± 0.03 19.7% ± 2.3% 5.33 ± 0.12
Gao-Guenie H5 Fall Vatican 1368 21.06 3.55 ± 0.05 3.60 ± 0.04 1.4% ± 1.8% 5.26 ± 0.12
b
Gladstone (stone) H4 S3 Fall IOM C 13.25 25.44 3.48 ± 0.08 3.54 ± 0.02 1.7% ± 2.3% 5.07 ± 0.10
Gross-Divina H5 Fall Vatican 374 9.51 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.37 ± 0.08†
Grünebergb H4 Fall LNHM BM35179 21.19 3.55 ± 0.09 3.73 ± 0.03 4.7% ± 2.6% 5.34 ± 0.10
Guareña H6 S1 W3 Fall CMS 787-1 51.98 3.61 ± 0.04 3.71 ± 0.02 2.8% ± 1.1% 5.24 ± 0.10
Hessle H5 Fall LNHM BM1927,1288 37.65 3.21 ± 0.04 3.71 ± 0.01 13.3% ± 1.3% 5.29 ± 0.09
Hessle H5 Fall Vatican 392 10.28 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.19 ± 0.08†
Hessle H5 Fall Vatican 391 64.81 3.29 ± 0.02 3.78 ± 0.04 12.8% ± 1.0% 5.29 ± 0.09
Hessle H5 Fall Average 3.26 3.75 13.0% 5.26
Ipiranga H6 S3 Fall IOM C 163.3 66.42 3.42 ± 0.05 3.74 ± 0.01 8.5% ± 1.4% 5.34 ± 0.10
Jilin H5 Fall IOM C 205.3 33.56 3.49 ± 0.06 3.70 ± 0.02 5.7% ± 1.8% 5.39 ± 0.09
Juancheng H5 S2 Fall LNHM BM1999,M23 43.54 3.61 ± 0.04 3.63 ± 0.01 0.7% ± 1.2% 5.23 ± 0.09
Juancheng H5 S2 Fall Vatican 1434 201.92 3.53 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.25 ± 0.08
Juancheng H5 S2 Fall Average 3.55 3.63 2.4% 5.24
Kabo H4 Fall CMS 977-1 21.49 3.43 ± 0.04 3.63 ± 0.02 5.4% ± 1.4% 5.27 ± 0.12
Kerilis H5 Fall Vatican 494 47.59 3.40 ± 0.04 3.88 ± 0.04 12.4% ± 1.4% 5.33 ± 0.12
b
Kernouvé H6 S1 Fall Vatican 499 29.69 3.40 ± 0.03 3.77 ± 0.04 9.7% ± 1.1% 5.49 ± 0.08
Kernouvé H6 S1 Fall Vatican 1379 17.96 3.65 ± 0.07 3.74 ± 0.04 2.5% ± 2.0% 5.51 ± 0.08†
Kernouvé H6 S1 Fall Average 3.49 3.76 7.1% 5.50
Kesen H4 S3 Fall NMNH 3329 85.651 3.47 ± 0.03 3.68 ± 0.01 5.6% ± 0.9% 5.32 ± 0.10
Kesen H4 S3 Fall IOM C 48.5 60.52 3.43 ± 0.07 3.64 ± 0.01 5.7% ± 1.9% 5.46 ± 0.09
Kesen H4 S3 Fall Vatican 503 184.44 3.48 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.37 ± 0.09
Kesen H4 S3 Fall Average 3.47 3.66 5.2% 5.38
Kilbourn H5 Fall CMS 250-1 25.82 3.30 ± 0.05 3.65 ± 0.02 9.7% ± 1.4% 5.21 ± 0.12
Kilbourn H5 Fall Vatican 504 18.72 3.41 ± 0.05 3.81 ± 0.04 10.5% ± 1.6% 5.21 ± 0.12
Kilbourn H5 Fall Average 3.34 3.72 10.0% 5.21
Lançonb H6 Fall Monnig M 588.3 62 3.49 ± 0.04 3.77 ± 0.01 7.4% ± 1.2% 5.38 ± 0.09
Lançon H6 Fall Vatican 546 22.43 3.39 ± 0.03 3.76 ± 0.04 9.9% ± 1.1% 5.42 ± 0.08
Lançon H6 Fall Average 3.46 3.77 8.1% 5.40
Le Pressoir H6 Fall Vatican 550 13.25 n.d. 4.02 ± 0.04 n.d. 5.53 ± 0.08†
Leighton H5 Fall CMS 1192-1 42.09 3.54 ± 0.07 3.59 ± 0.02 1.5% ± 2.0% 5.17 ± 0.12
b
Limerick H5 S3 Fall NMNH 4836 173.15 3.52 ± 0.05 3.70 ± 0.00 5.0% ± 1.5% 5.29 ± 0.12
Limerick H5 S3 Fall Vatican 558 33.93 3.46 ± 0.02 3.77 ± 0.04 8.3% ± 1.1% 5.33 ± 0.09
Limerick H5 S3 Fall Vatican 559 13.78 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.40 ± 0.08†
Limerick H5 S3 Fall Average 3.51 3.71 5.5% 5.34
Lixnab H4 Fall CMS 943-1 23.37 3.42 ± 0.05 3.68 ± 0.02 7.1% ± 1.5% 5.30 ± 0.08
Lixna H4 Fall LNHM BM1985,M28 67.51 3.46 ± 0.04 3.67 ± 0.01 5.7% ± 1.0% 5.45 ± 0.09
Lixna H4 Fall Average 3.45 3.67 6.1% 5.38
Macáub H5 Fall CMS 1105-1 42.08 3.43 ± 0.04 3.55 ± 0.02 3.4% ± 1.1% 5.35 ± 0.09
Marilia H4 S3 Fall IOM C 133.1 45.81 3.38 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 9.1% ± 0.9% 5.30 ± 0.09
257
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Marilia H4 S3 Fall LNHM BM1982,M5 33.41 3.36 ± 0.07 3.77 ± 0.02 10.9% ± 1.8% 5.46 ± 0.09
Marilia H4 S3 Fall Average 3.37 3.74 9.9% 5.38
Menow H4 S2 W1 Fall Vatican 609 27.51 2.99 ± 0.02 3.55 ± 0.04 15.8% ± 1.0% 5.31 ± 0.10
Misshof H5 Fall Vatican 627 7.32 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.41 ± 0.08†
Molinaa H5 Fall CMS 220a 98.21 3.51 ± 0.06 3.64 ± 0.01 3.6% ± 1.6% 5.20 ± 0.10
a
Monroe H4 S2 Fall Vatican 645 37.966 3.61 ± 0.03 3.76 ± 0.04 4.1% ± 1.3% 5.47 ± 0.09
Monroe H4 S2 Fall Vatican 646 26.783 3.54 ± 0.02 3.77 ± 0.04 6.0% ± 1.1% 5.27 ± 0.08
Monroe H4 S2 Fall Average 3.58 3.77 4.9% 5.37
Mooresfort H5 Fall Monnig M1173.1 34.21 3.33 ± 0.04 3.74 ± 0.02 11.0% ± 1.2% 5.38 ± 0.09
Mooresfort H5 Fall LNHM BM61309 46.77 3.42 ± 0.03 3.68 ± 0.01 7.1% ± 1.0% 5.27 ± 0.09
Mooresfort H5 Fall Average 3.38 3.70 8.8% 5.33
Mornansb H5 Fall LNHM BM63551 35.68 3.36 ± 0.04 3.72 ± 0.02 9.8% ± 1.1% 5.47 ± 0.09
Mount Browne H6 S3 W2-3 Fall CMS 1184-1 43.68 3.30 ± 0.04 3.70 ± 0.02 10.8% ± 1.2% 5.21 ± 0.10
Mount Browne H6 S3 W2-3 Fall LNHM BM1920,325 52.98 3.44 ± 0.03 3.68 ± 0.02 6.4% ± 1.0% 5.34 ± 0.10
Mount Browne H6 S3 W2-3 Fall Average 3.38 3.69 8.4% 5.28
Nanjemoy H6 Fall Monnig M1161.1 33.11 3.40 ± 0.04 3.77 ± 0.02 9.7% ± 1.1% 5.37 ± 0.09
Naoki H6 Fall CMS 614-1-1 42.46 3.37 ± 0.03 3.69 ± 0.02 8.5% ± 1.1% 5.34 ± 0.09
a
Noblesville H4-6 Fall CMS 1582-1 34.32 3.37 ± 0.10 3.67 ± 0.02 8.2% ± 2.7% 5.18 ± 0.12
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6088 75.681 3.04 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 18.2% ± 0.8% 5.48 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6089 58.325 3.01 ± 0.03 3.70 ± 0.01 18.8% ± 0.8% 5.47 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6092 37.455 3.01 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 19.2% ± 0.8% 5.38 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6093 42.661 3.05 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 18.0% ± 0.8% 5.45 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6094 39.561 3.08 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 17.2% ± 0.9% 5.47 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6097 43.532 3.09 ± 0.06 3.72 ± 0.01 17.1% ± 1.5% 5.39 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6098 59.477 3.10 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 16.7% ± 0.8% 5.48 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6100 26.831 3.10 ± 0.03 3.73 ± 0.02 16.9% ± 1.0% 5.43 ± 0.08
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6110 22.414 3.05 ± 0.04 3.72 ± 0.02 18.0% ± 1.2% 5.43 ± 0.08
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall NMNH 6120 82.929 3.03 ± 0.03 3.75 ± 0.01 19.2% ± 0.8% 5.41 ± 0.09
Nuevo Mercurio H5 Fall Average 3.05 3.72 18.1% 5.44
Nullesa H6 S3 Fall NMNH 1470 100.764 3.24 ± 0.22 3.70 ± 0.01 12.4% ± 5.9% 5.23 ± 0.10
Ochanska H4 S3 Fall NMNH 1788 27.637 3.46 ± 0.05 3.62 ± 0.02 4.5% ± 1.4% 4.97 ± 0.08
Ochansk H4 S3 Fall Monnig M 199.2 47.06 3.32 ± 0.05 3.75 ± 0.01 11.6% ± 1.5% 5.37 ± 0.09
Ochansk H4 S3 Fall Vatican 706 183.77 3.29 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.33 ± 0.09
Ochansk H4 S3 Fall Vatican 705 209.83 3.28 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.38 ± 0.08
Ochansk H4 S3 Fall Vatican 704 1026.57 3.23 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Ochansk H4 S3 Fall Average 3.25 3.70 12.2% 5.26
Ogi H6 S2 W2 Fall NMNH 616 37.654 3.49 ± 0.04 3.69 ± 0.01 5.4% ± 1.1% 5.24 ± 0.12
Ohaba H5 Fall CMS 1079-1 28.42 3.27 ± 0.04 3.68 ± 0.03 11.3% ± 1.3% 5.23 ± 0.08
a
Orvinio H6 S3 Fall NMNH 308 49.684 3.47 ± 0.03 3.62 ± 0.01 4.2% ± 0.9% 5.34 ± 0.12
Orvinio H6 S3 Fall Vatican 726 382 3.67 ± 0.09‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Orvinio H6 S3 Fall Vatican 1494 155.15 3.37 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.28 ± 0.09
Orvinio H6 S3 Fall Average 3.57 3.62 1.3% 5.31
Oum Dreygaa H3-5 S4 W0 Fall Monnig M1147.1 75.43 3.47 ± 0.06 3.71 ± 0.01 6.4% ± 1.6% 5.24 ± 0.09
Ourique H Fall CMS 1599-1 35.54 3.40 ± 0.09 3.68 ± 0.02 7.7% ± 2.4% 5.39 ± 0.09
Paitan H6 Fall LNHM BM1987,M2 50.65 3.53 ± 0.04 3.60 ± 0.02 1.9% ± 1.2% 5.30 ± 0.09
a
Peekskill H6 Fall Vatican 1165 32.05 3.30 ± 0.05 3.87 ± 0.04 14.8% ± 1.4% 5.25 ± 0.12
Phû Hong b
H4 Fall Vatican 1044 3.97 3.49 ± 0.17 4.14 ± 0.22 15.5% ± 6.0% 5.35 ± 0.08†
Pultuska,b H5 S3 Fall NMNH 463 A 43.503 3.48 ± 0.05 3.70 ± 0.01 5.9% ± 1.3% 5.27 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 463 B 41.511 3.47 ± 0.04 3.67 ± 0.01 5.5% ± 1.0% 5.28 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 463 C 32.987 3.54 ± 0.04 3.73 ± 0.02 5.0% ± 1.2% 5.36 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 812 38.633 3.55 ± 0.04 3.69 ± 0.01 3.8% ± 1.1% 5.28 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 1117 A 61.655 3.51 ± 0.03 3.69 ± 0.01 5.0% ± 0.9% 5.28 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 1117 B 22.586 3.53 ± 0.05 3.69 ± 0.02 4.3% ± 1.4% 5.25 ± 0.08
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 1615 93.678 3.40 ± 0.03 3.70 ± 0.01 8.1% ± 0.8% 5.28 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 2560 30.509 3.57 ± 0.03 3.70 ± 0.02 3.6% ± 1.0% 5.26 ± 0.08
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 3003 80.504 3.52 ± 0.03 3.69 ± 0.01 4.6% ± 0.8% 5.32 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall NMNH 3004 53.506 3.28 ± 0.03 3.54 ± 0.01 7.4% ± 0.9% 4.89 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 769 8.14 3.75 ± 0.10 3.79 ± 0.04 0.9% ± 2.8% 4.57 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 770 8.201 3.57 ± 0.08 3.80 ± 0.04 6.1% ± 2.3% 5.25 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 762 19.98 3.46 ± 0.03 3.83 ± 0.04 9.6% ± 1.2% 5.35 ± 0.08
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 767 8.35 3.66 ± 0.10 3.81 ± 0.04 3.9% ± 2.7% 5.28 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 771 5.81 3.36 ± 0.10 3.82 ± 0.04 12.1% ± 2.7% 5.32 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 514 9.653 3.63 ± 0.10 3.77 ± 0.04 3.8% ± 2.7% 5.35 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 761 20.07 3.52 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.04 5.5% ± 1.2% 5.17 ± 0.08
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 772 4.78 3.57 ± 0.13 3.89 ± 0.19 8.2% ± 5.7% 5.39 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 768 8.18 3.22 ± 0.06 3.54 ± 0.04 9.1% ± 2.0% 5.40 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 763 13.04 3.77 ± 0.08 3.78 ± 0.04 0.3% ± 2.3% 5.42 ± 0.08†
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 766 8.45 3.37 ± 0.06 3.81 ± 0.09 11.6% ± 2.5% 5.45 ± 0.08†
258
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 760 63.48 3.43 ± 0.07 3.85 ± 0.04 10.9% ± 2.1% n.d.
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 759 101.83 3.41 ± 0.03 3.80 ± 0.04 10.1% ± 1.3% 5.39 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 758 186.12 3.50 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.39 ± 0.09
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Vatican 757 510.18 3.39 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Pultusk H5 S3 Fall Average 3.44 3.72 7.5% 5.27
Quenggouk H4 Fall Vatican 783 51.72 3.24 ± 0.02 3.81 ± 0.04 15.1% ± 1.0% 5.23 ± 0.09
Ranchapur H4 Fall LNHM BM1925,441 64.95 3.45 ± 0.03 3.61 ± 0.01 4.3% ± 1.0% 5.22 ± 0.10
a
Rancho de la Presa H5 Fall CMS 98.1x 16.9 3.48 ± 0.19 3.64 ± 0.03 4.3% ± 5.3% 5.27 ± 0.12
b
Richardton H5 S2 W2 Fall NMNH 3362 34.504 3.02 ± 0.03 3.70 ± 0.02 18.3% ± 1.0% 5.24 ± 0.10
Richardton H5 S2 W2 Fall LNHM BM1937,1390 65.41 3.13 ± 0.05 3.71 ± 0.01 15.7% ± 1.4% 5.38 ± 0.10
Richardton H5 S2 W2 Fall Average 3.09 3.71 16.6% 5.31
Searsmont H5 Fall CMS 105s 25.8 3.24 ± 0.05 3.72 ± 0.02 12.9% ± 1.4% 5.25 ± 0.08
a
Sena H4 Fall CMS 785 26.97 2.61 ± 0.03 3.55 ± 0.03 26.6% ± 1.1% 5.44 ± 0.09
Sharps H3.4 S3 Fall NMNH 640 B 32.932 3.47 ± 0.05 3.60 ± 0.02 3.6% ± 1.3% 4.88 ± 0.12
a
Shupiyan H6 Fall LNHM BM1915,143 65.31 3.35 ± 0.06 3.71 ± 0.01 9.8% ± 1.6% 5.29 ± 0.10
Simmern H6 Fall CMS 591.1 65.66 3.44 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.01 7.5% ± 0.9% 5.31 ± 0.09
St. Germain-du-Pinel H6 S3 Fall Vatican 900 27.295 3.33 ± 0.06 3.76 ± 0.04 11.5% ± 1.8% 5.33 ± 0.12
a
Ställdalen H5 S3 Fall CMS 185a 51.77 3.64 ± 0.04 3.70 ± 0.02 1.7% ± 1.2% 5.44 ± 0.09
Ställdalen H5 S3 Fall Vatican 906 10.08 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.35 ± 0.08†
Ställdalen H5 S3 Fall Average 3.64 3.70 1.7% 5.40
Supuheea H6 Fall Vatican 916 278.43 3.55 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.35 ± 0.10
Thuathe H4 S2-3 Fall Vatican 1448 24.792 3.55 ± 0.04 3.84 ± 0.04 7.5% ± 1.5% 5.37 ± 0.08
Timochin H5 S3 Fall LNHM BM373 42.3 2.84 ± 0.03 3.65 ± 0.01 22.1% ± 0.9% 5.22 ± 0.10
Timochin H5 S3 Fall LNHM BM35183 36.76 3.25 ± 0.04 3.71 ± 0.02 12.5% ± 1.1% 5.37 ± 0.10
Timochin H5 S3 Fall Vatican 929 27.08 3.30 ± 0.03 3.80 ± 0.04 13.2% ± 1.2% 5.35 ± 0.08
Timochin H5 S3 Fall Average 3.09 3.71 16.8% 5.31
Tirupati H6 Fall CMS 616.1 30.24 3.24 ± 0.04 3.76 ± 0.02 13.8% ± 1.1% 5.51 ± 0.08
Tjabe H6 Fall CMS 1144 22.85 3.30 ± 0.04 3.68 ± 0.02 10.2% ± 1.3% 5.47 ± 0.08
Torino H6 Fall Vatican 1396 66.24 3.49 ± 0.03 3.86 ± 0.04 9.7% ± 1.3% n.d.
Torino H6 Fall Vatican 962 94 3.32 ± 0.07 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Torino H6 Fall Vatican 961 107.81 3.30 ± 0.07 3.83 ± 0.04 13.8% ± 1.9% n.d.
Torino H6 Fall Average 3.35 3.84 12.8% n.d.
Torrington H6 Fall CMS 510.1x 47.3 3.50 ± 0.04 3.72 ± 0.01 5.8% ± 1.1% 5.35 ± 0.10
b
Toulouse H6 Fall Vatican 966 34.737 3.65 ± 0.03 3.71 ± 0.04 1.5% ± 1.3% 5.18 ± 0.08
Toulouse H6 Fall Vatican 967 13.37 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.34 ± 0.08†
Toulouse H6 Fall Average 3.65 3.71 1.5% 5.26
Trenzanob H3/4 Fall LNHM BM1985,M49 23.83 3.08 ± 0.06 3.71 ± 0.02 16.9% ± 1.6% 5.37 ± 0.08
Trenzano H3/4 Fall Vatican 973 11.71 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.59 ± 0.08†
Trenzano H3/4 Fall Average 3.08 3.71 16.9% 5.48
Tysnes Islanda H4 Fall Vatican 976 11.62 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.24 ± 0.08†
Uberabab H5 S3 Fall Vatican 978 24.91 3.33 ± 0.03 3.83 ± 0.04 13.0% ± 1.1% 5.29 ± 0.10
Uberaba H5 S3 Fall Vatican 977 89.74 3.32 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d. 5.32 ± 0.09
Uberaba H5 S3 Fall Average 3.32 3.83 13.3% 5.31
Udipib H5 Fall LNHM BM1985,M50 79.63 3.36 ± 0.03 3.68 ± 0.01 8.7% ± 0.9% 5.44 ± 0.09
Weston H4 Fall LNHM BM1985,M52 60.79 3.24 ± 0.03 3.73 ± 0.01 13.1% ± 0.9% 5.24 ± 0.10
Weston H4 Fall Vatican 1023 14.85 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.23 ± 0.08†
Weston H4 Fall Vatican 1022 74.821 3.20 ± 0.03 3.79 ± 0.04 15.4% ± 1.2% 5.18 ± 0.09
Weston H4 Fall Average 3.22 3.76 14.4% 5.22
Yatoor H5 Fall CMS 259s 51.31 3.26 ± 0.05 3.69 ± 0.02 11.6% ± 1.5% 5.42 ± 0.09
Yonozu H4/5 Fall IOM C 49.5 24.81 3.14 ± 0.03 3.48 ± 0.02 9.7% ± 1.0% 5.07 ± 0.10
a
Zag H3-6 S3 W0/1 Fall IOM C 350.1 78.67 3.54 ± 0.03 3.73 ± 0.01 5.0% ± 0.9% 5.29 ± 0.09
Zag H3-6 S3 W0/1 Fall IOM C 350.2 33.66 3.58 ± 0.04 3.71 ± 0.02 3.6% ± 1.2% 5.30 ± 0.08
Zag H3-6 S3 W0/1 Fall Average 3.56 3.73 4.6% 5.29
Zaoyang H5 Fall LNHM BM1999,M16 28.07 3.09 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.02 17.0% ± 1.0% 5.40 ± 0.08
Zebrak H5 Fall CMS 860 23.04 3.23 ± 0.05 3.67 ± 0.02 12.0% ± 1.5% 5.32 ± 0.12
Zebrak H5 Fall LNHM BM76153 75.53 3.27 ± 0.03 3.69 ± 0.01 11.4% ± 0.7% 5.35 ± 0.09
Zebrak H5 Fall Average 3.26 3.69 11.5% 5.33
Zhovtnevyi H5 S3 Fall CMS 743a 61.04 3.35 ± 0.03 3.64 ± 0.01 7.9% ± 1.0% 5.24 ± 0.09
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
a
Breccia (Grady, 2000)
b
Veined (Grady, 2000)
259
Table 5: Data for H Chondrite Finds.
260
Bulk Grain Model Magnetic Weathering
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Density Density Porosity Porosity Susceptibility Modulus
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Octave Mine H5 S1 W3 Find CMS 1566 22.29 3.40 ± 0.04 3.39 ± 0.02 -0.4% ± 1.4% 8.3% 4.82 ± 0.10 3.09
b
Oczeretna H4 Find LNHM BM48368 85.06 3.41 ± 0.03 3.70 ± 0.01 7.8% ± 0.9% 8.1% 5.21 ± 0.10 0.43
O'Donnell H5 S2 W2 Find CMS 1470-2 19.33 3.43 ± 0.09 3.39 ± 0.04 -1.2% ± 2.7% 7.6% 4.94 ± 0.12 2.63
Orlovka H5 Find LNHM BM1933,272 52.92 3.52 ± 0.04 3.60 ± 0.01 2.3% ± 1.1% 5.6% 5.15 ± 0.09 1.00
Ovid (B) H5 S1 W2 Find CMS 1562 25.17 3.68 ± 0.05 3.54 ± 0.03 -3.7% ± 1.6% 2.1% 5.07 ± 0.12 1.53
Ozona H6 Find LNHM BM1953,154 54.44 3.28 ± 0.03 3.39 ± 0.01 3.4% ± 1.1% 11.3% 4.84 ± 0.09 2.98
Pipe Creek H6 Find Vatican 746 25.257 3.37 ± 0.02 3.63 ± 0.04 7.2% ± 1.1% 9.2% 5.45 ± 0.12 0.90
Pipe Creek H6 Find Vatican 744 100.35 3.45 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 7.4% 5.55 ± 0.10 n.d.
Pipe Creek H6 Find Vatican 745 79.26 3.43 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 7.8% 5.54 ± 0.12 n.d.
Pipe Creek H6 Find Average 3.43 3.63 5.6% 7.8% 5.52 -
Plainview (1917) a H5 S3 Find IOM C 33.2 78.54 3.51 ± 0.06 3.64 ± 0.01 3.7% ± 1.7% 5.9% 5.27 ± 0.10 0.42
Plainview (1917) H5 S3 Find IOM C 33.3a 62.88 3.49 ± 0.07 3.64 ± 0.01 4.1% ± 1.9% 6.3% 5.24 ± 0.12 0.54
Plainview (1917) H5 S3 Find Average 3.50 3.64 3.9% 6.1% 5.25 -
Prairie Dog Creek H3.8 Find Vatican 754 154.15 3.32 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 10.4% 4.87 ± 0.09 n.d.
Sacramento Wash 001 H4 S2 W3 Find CMS 1546 28.13 3.15 ± 0.04 3.32 ± 0.02 5.2% ± 1.4% 14.3% 4.63 ± 0.10 4.06
Saline H5 Find Vatican 816 30.82 3.56 ± 0.02 3.69 ± 0.04 3.4% ± 1.2% 4.7% 5.16 ± 0.12 0.73
Saline H5 Find Vatican 815 219.57 3.56 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.8% 5.41 ± 0.08 n.d.
Saline H5 Find Average 3.56 3.69 3.5% 4.8% 5.28 -
Tatum H4 S2 W4 Find IOM C 264.1&2 30.34 3.05 ± 0.07 3.21 ± 0.01 5.1% ± 2.3% 16.8% 4.45 ± 0.09 5.20
Texline H5 S4 WA Find IOM C 39.1 29.8 3.44 ± 0.10 3.65 ± 0.03 5.8% ± 2.8% 7.6% 5.37 ± 0.12 0.50
Tolar H4 S2 W5 Find CMS 1510 54.68 3.26 ± 0.04 3.34 ± 0.01 2.2% ± 1.3% 11.6% 4.55 ± 0.10 4.37
a †
Tomhannock Creek H5 Find Vatican 957 15.67 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.18 ± 0.08 n.d.
Travis County (a) H5 S4 W3 Find CMS 225ax 44.61 3.41 ± 0.06 3.49 ± 0.02 2.2% ± 1.8% 8.1% 5.15 ± 0.12 1.51
Travis County (a) H5 S4 W3 Find Vatican 969 71.11 3.45 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d. 7.2% 5.22 ± 0.12 n.d.
Travis County (a) H5 S4 W3 Find Average 3.44 3.49 1.5% 7.6% 5.19 -
Travis County (b) H4 S2 W3 Find NMNH 6871 65.127 3.41 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.01 4.5% ± 1.2% 8.3% 5.12 ± 0.10 1.24
Two Buttes H5 Find FMNH ME 2633 #1 31.08 3.29 ± 0.06 3.46 ± 0.02 4.7% ± 1.9% 10.9% 4.78 ± 0.12 3.01
Wairarapa Valley H5 Find FMNH ME 1882 #1 62.03 3.55 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.01 0.8% ± 1.1% 5.0% 5.10 ± 0.10 1.30
Warm Springs Wilderness H4-6 S2 W1 Find CMS 1545 35.23 3.52 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.02 2.9% ± 1.2% 5.6% 5.08 ± 0.10 1.22
Wikieup H5 Find FMNH ME 2870 #1 25.89 3.25 ± 0.07 3.59 ± 0.03 9.4% ± 2.0% 11.9% 5.22 ± 0.12 0.83
Witchelina H4 Find FMNH ME 2702 #1 18.15 3.36 ± 0.05 3.49 ± 0.03 3.7% ± 1.6% 9.4% 4.70 ± 0.12 3.28
Wray H4 Find FMNH ME 2387 #1 24.43 3.50 ± 0.05 3.63 ± 0.02 3.5% ± 1.4% 6.1% 5.23 ± 0.12 0.59
Wray (a) H4 Find LNHM BM1959,905 60.85 3.48 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.01 3.8% ± 1.1% 6.5% 5.27 ± 0.12 0.56
Wynella H4 Find FMNH ME 2724 #2 95.69 3.38 ± 0.06 3.46 ± 0.01 2.2% ± 1.6% 8.8% 4.87 ± 0.09 2.61
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
a
Breccia (Grady, 2000)
b
Veined (Grady, 2000)
261
Table 6: Data for L Chondrite Falls.
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Achiras L6 Fall AMNH 3933 A 26.84 3.48 ± 0.04 3.58 ± 0.02 3.1% ± 1.1% 4.92 ± 0.12
Achiras L6 Fall AMNH 3933 B 17.72 3.50 ± 0.05 3.53 ± 0.04 0.8% ± 1.8% 4.88 ± 0.12
Achiras L6 Fall Average 3.48 3.56 2.2% 4.90
Aguada L6 Fall AMNH 3934 A 52.85 3.25 ± 0.06 3.54 ± 0.01 8.1% ± 1.6% 4.79 ± 0.10
Aguada L6 Fall AMNH 3934 B 21.67 3.44 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.02 3.4% ± 1.3% 4.72 ± 0.08
Aguada L6 Fall Average 3.30 3.54 6.8% 4.76
Aïr L6 Fall CMS 1326 36.69 3.38 ± 0.05 3.50 ± 0.01 3.4% ± 1.4% 4.96 ± 0.12
Alfianello L6 S5 W2 Fall NMNH 2210 23.593 3.26 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.02 7.8% ± 1.4% 4.88 ± 0.08
Alfianello L6 S5 W2 Fall IOM C 61.1 33.69 3.21 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.02 9.3% ± 1.1% 5.03 ± 0.09
Alfianello L6 S5 W2 Fall Vatican 20 66.582 3.27 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.04 8.9% ± 1.3% 4.78 ± 0.10
Alfianello L6 S5 W2 Fall Vatican 19 152.91 3.25 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.93 ± 0.09
Alfianello L6 S5 W2 Fall Average 3.25 3.56 8.7% 4.91
Andover L6 Fall LNHM BM86762 19.78 3.12 ± 0.07 3.59 ± 0.03 13.1% ± 1.9% 5.03 ± 0.08
Angers L6 Fall AMNH 1049 18.86 2.98 ± 0.04 3.51 ± 0.03 15.0% ± 1.2% 4.25 ± 0.08
Aptb L6 S4 Fall Vatican 37 50.208 3.31 ± 0.02 3.61 ± 0.04 8.4% ± 1.0% 4.99 ± 0.09
Atoka L6 Fall Monnig M 40.1 36.76 3.35 ± 0.03 3.58 ± 0.02 6.5% ± 1.1% 5.02 ± 0.09
Atoka L6 Fall Vatican 1085 17.43 3.21 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.89 ± 0.08
Atoka L6 Fall Average 3.30 3.58 7.8% 4.95
Aumaleb L6 S4 Fall AMNH 407 56.11 3.35 ± 0.02 3.55 ± 0.01 5.9% ± 0.7% 5.14 ± 0.09
Aumale L6 S4 Fall Vatican 60 121.51 3.36 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.85 ± 0.09
Aumale L6 S4 Fall Average 3.35 3.55 5.6% 4.99
Aumièresb L6 Fall AMNH 652 45.37 3.23 ± 0.02 3.53 ± 0.02 8.6% ± 0.7% 4.66 ± 0.09
Aumières L6 Fall Vatican 62 72.34 3.19 ± 0.02 3.61 ± 0.04 11.6% ± 1.0% 4.68 ± 0.09
Aumières L6 Fall Vatican 64 22.3 3.21 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.04 10.5% ± 1.3% 4.69 ± 0.08
Aumières L6 Fall Vatican 65 15.72 3.15 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.70 ± 0.08
Aumières L6 Fall Average 3.20 3.58 10.6% 4.68
Ausson L5 S2 Fall AMNH 1051 13.88 3.25 ± 0.07 3.54 ± 0.05 8.3% ± 2.4% 5.47 ± 0.08
Ausson L5 S2 Fall NMNH 2645 19.805 3.21 ± 0.03 3.55 ± 0.03 9.6% ± 1.2% 5.01 ± 0.08
Ausson L5 S2 Fall Vatican 69 48.397 3.21 ± 0.02 3.69 ± 0.04 12.8% ± 1.0% 4.76 ± 0.20
Ausson L5 S2 Fall Vatican 67 104.026 3.23 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.04 11.9% ± 1.2% 4.96 ± 0.09
Ausson L5 S2 Fall Vatican 70 21.996 3.20 ± 0.03 3.63 ± 0.04 11.9% ± 1.2% 4.94 ± 0.08
Ausson L5 S2 Fall Average 3.22 3.65 11.6% 5.03
Aztec L6 Fall Monnig M 855.1 28.71 3.42 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.02 4.9% ± 1.2% 4.95 ± 0.08
Bachmut L6 Fall AMNH 409 22.31 3.30 ± 0.04 3.52 ± 0.02 6.3% ± 1.3% 5.03 ± 0.08
b
Bald Mountain L4 Fall CMS 302.1x 84 3.33 ± 0.03 3.56 ± 0.01 6.5% ± 0.9% 5.17 ± 0.10
b
Baldwyn L6 Fall AMNH 4830 28.55 3.39 ± 0.05 3.56 ± 0.02 4.6% ± 1.5% 4.78 ± 0.08
Barwell L5 S3 Fall NMNH 2612 36.958 3.36 ± 0.08 3.60 ± 0.02 6.6% ± 2.2% 4.87 ± 0.10
Bath Furnace L6 Fall AMNH 616 49.84 3.41 ± 0.05 3.49 ± 0.01 2.4% ± 1.6% 5.14 ± 0.09
Bath Furnace L6 Fall Vatican 93 44.194 3.28 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.04 9.4% ± 1.4% 4.96 ± 0.12
Bath Furnace L6 Fall Vatican 92 45 3.86 ± 0.04 3.90 ± 0.04 0.9% ± 1.4% n.d.
Bath Furnace L6 Fall Average 3.50 3.66 4.3% 5.05
Berlanguillasb L6 Fall Vatican 109 10.91 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.94 ± 0.08†
Beustea L5 Fall LNHM BM64340 33.41 3.26 ± 0.04 3.60 ± 0.02 9.3% ± 1.3% 5.10 ± 0.10
Blanket L6 Fall CMS 203bx 81.9 3.29 ± 0.03 3.52 ± 0.01 6.6% ± 0.9% 4.99 ± 0.09
Bocas L6 Fall LNHM BM92564 32.98 3.19 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.02 10.5% ± 1.2% 4.84 ± 0.09
Borib L6 Fall Vatican 132 23.564 3.27 ± 0.04 3.61 ± 0.04 9.5% ± 1.3% 4.99 ± 0.08
Bovedy L3 Fall Monnig M1172.1 32.37 3.47 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.02 3.6% ± 1.4% 5.06 ± 0.12
Bruderheim L6 S4 Fall NMNH 2081 24.573 3.33 ± 0.04 3.55 ± 0.02 6.1% ± 1.2% 5.12 ± 0.08
Bruderheim L6 S4 Fall IOM C 50.11 61.62 3.38 ± 0.03 3.58 ± 0.01 5.6% ± 1.0% 4.97 ± 0.10
Bruderheim L6 S4 Fall Vatican 151 11.51 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.98 ± 0.08†
Bruderheim L6 S4 Fall Average 3.36 3.57 5.7% 5.02
Buschhofb L6 Fall CMS 958s 55.3 3.17 ± 0.03 3.54 ± 0.01 10.5% ± 1.0% 4.80 ± 0.09
a
Cabezo de Mayo L6 Fall Vatican 158 61.72 3.26 ± 0.02 3.60 ± 0.04 9.6% ± 1.0% 4.81 ± 0.09
Çanakkale L6 Fall CMS 731 34.05 3.29 ± 0.04 3.51 ± 0.02 6.3% ± 1.3% 4.71 ± 0.09
Chadong L6 S3 W0/1 Fall Monnig M1103.1 50.2 3.26 ± 0.03 3.62 ± 0.02 10.1% ± 0.9% 5.07 ± 0.09
a
Chandakapur L5 Fall CMS 729s 118.67 3.30 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.01 6.1% ± 1.5% 4.77 ± 0.10
Chantonnaya L6 S6 Fall Vatican 201 25.052 3.46 ± 0.04 3.55 ± 0.04 2.4% ± 1.5% 4.96 ± 0.08
b
Château-Renard L6 Fall LNHM BM1920,295 59.78 3.30 ± 0.03 3.58 ± 0.01 7.8% ± 0.9% 4.99 ± 0.09
Château-Renard L6 Fall Vatican 211 46.78 3.37 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.04 5.8% ± 1.3% 5.01 ± 0.09
Château-Renard L6 Fall Average 3.33 3.58 6.9% 5.00
262
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Chervettaz L5 Fall LNHM BM86761 25.97 3.02 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.02 15.5% ± 1.2% 4.80 ± 0.10
Chitado L6 Fall CMS 1239-1 17.66 3.08 ± 0.06 3.51 ± 0.03 12.2% ± 1.9% 4.85 ± 0.10
Cilimus L5 Fall LNHM BM1980,M16 45.59 3.34 ± 0.04 3.63 ± 0.02 8.0% ± 1.1% 4.95 ± 0.09
Clohars L4 Fall LNHM BM1960,330 35.77 3.27 ± 0.03 3.50 ± 0.01 6.7% ± 1.0% 4.70 ± 0.10
b
Colby (Wisconsin) L6 S3 Fall NMNH 618 21.819 3.38 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.02 5.0% ± 1.3% 4.98 ± 0.08
b
Dandapur L6 Fall CMS 440 21.55 3.15 ± 0.04 3.49 ± 0.02 9.9% ± 1.3% 4.73 ± 0.08
Dandapur L6 Fall LNHM BM53321 69.52 3.38 ± 0.03 3.49 ± 0.01 3.3% ± 1.0% 4.96 ± 0.09
Dandapur L6 Fall Average 3.32 3.49 4.9% 4.85
Demina L6 Fall LNHM BM1956,320 39.27 3.26 ± 0.05 3.52 ± 0.01 7.4% ± 1.4% 4.91 ± 0.09
a,b
Drake Creek L6 Fall Monnig M 624.3 44.76 3.18 ± 0.03 3.60 ± 0.01 11.6% ± 0.9% 4.59 ± 0.10
b
Durala L6 Fall Vatican 1130 31.801 3.29 ± 0.03 3.62 ± 0.04 9.2% ± 1.3% 4.90 ± 0.09
Elenovka L5 S2 W0 Fall NMNH 5952 15.783 3.06 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.03 15.6% ± 1.3% 4.87 ± 0.08
Elenovka L5 S2 W0 Fall IOM C 26.5 22.42 3.02 ± 0.05 3.56 ± 0.02 15.3% ± 1.6% 4.89 ± 0.12
Elenovka L5 S2 W0 Fall Average 3.03 3.59 15.4% 4.88
Ergheo L5 S3 Fall Vatican 303 107.61 3.35 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.17 ± 0.10
Ergheo L5 S3 Fall Vatican 305 17.301 3.50 ± 0.08 3.50 ± 0.03 0.1% ± 2.4% 4.81 ± 0.10
Ergheo L5 S3 Fall Vatican 304 32.681 3.50 ± 0.03 3.49 ± 0.03 -0.2% ± 1.4% 4.68 ± 0.12
Ergheo L5 S3 Fall Average 3.39 3.49 2.9% 4.56
Farmingtona L5 S4 Fall Vatican 326 109.5 3.39 ± 0.03 3.48 ± 0.03 2.5% ± 1.4% 4.90 ± 0.12
Farmington L5 S4 Fall Vatican 327 47.901 3.40 ± 0.04 3.55 ± 0.04 4.0% ± 1.6% 5.14 ± 0.09
Farmington L5 S4 Fall Vatican 325 154.22 3.64 ± 0.08‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Farmington L5 S4 Fall Vatican 324 213.75 3.32 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Farmington L5 S4 Fall Vatican 323 518.35 3.25 ± 0.08‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Farmington L5 S4 Fall Average 3.34 3.50 4.4% 5.02
Fisherb L6 S5 Fall NMNH 212 2 38.176 3.41 ± 0.07 3.51 ± 0.02 2.8% ± 2.1% 4.85 ± 0.12
Fisher L6 S5 Fall Vatican 338 127.08 3.31 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.88 ± 0.09
Fisher L6 S5 Fall Average 3.33 3.51 5.1% 4.86
Forsythb L6 Fall LNHM BM1985,M82 67.12 3.23 ± 0.03 3.55 ± 0.01 8.8% ± 0.9% 4.87 ± 0.09
b
Fukutomi L5 S3 Fall IOM C 172.1 32.65 3.46 ± 0.05 3.54 ± 0.02 2.2% ± 1.6% 4.73 ± 0.12
b
Futtehpur L6 Fall LNHM BM1985,M83 35.82 3.16 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.02 12.0% ± 1.3% 4.91 ± 0.09
b
Gambat L6 Fall Vatican 349 98.76 3.30 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.04 ± 0.10
Gifu L6 S4 Fall IOM C 47.5 21.31 3.37 ± 0.09 3.52 ± 0.02 4.3% ± 2.6% 5.03 ± 0.10
b
Girgenti L6 S4 Fall Vatican 360 52.491 3.33 ± 0.02 3.61 ± 0.04 7.6% ± 1.1% 4.93 ± 0.09
b
Grossliebenthal L6 Fall Vatican 377 19.901 3.29 ± 0.05 3.62 ± 0.04 9.1% ± 1.6% 4.72 ± 0.08
Grossliebenthal L6 Fall Vatican 376 21.46 3.23 ± 0.04 3.61 ± 0.04 10.5% ± 1.4% 4.71 ± 0.08
Grossliebenthal L6 Fall Average 3.26 3.61 9.8% 4.71
Guangrao L6 Fall CMS 1518D 46.8 3.30 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.02 8.0% ± 1.1% 5.00 ± 0.09
a
Hedjaz L3.7 S4 W1 Fall Vatican 386 24.442 3.55 ± 0.04 3.58 ± 0.04 1.0% ± 1.6% 4.90 ± 0.08
Hedjaz L3.7 S4 W1 Fall Vatican 387 17.41 3.39 ± 0.06 n.d. n.d. 5.00 ± 0.08†
Hedjaz L3.7 S4 W1 Fall Average 3.48 3.58 2.8% 4.95
Homesteada L5 S4 Fall Vatican 437 14.01 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.05 ± 0.08†
Homestead L5 S4 Fall Vatican 436 29.657 3.37 ± 0.04 3.61 ± 0.04 6.7% ± 1.4% 5.12 ± 0.08
Homestead L5 S4 Fall Vatican 435 262.16 3.43 ± 0.08‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Homestead L5 S4 Fall Vatican 434 583.71 3.36 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Homestead L5 S4 Fall Vatican 433 1090.59 3.32 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Homestead L5 S4 Fall Average 3.35 3.61 7.3% 5.09
Honolulub L5 S3 Fall LNHM BM25460 24.17 3.25 ± 0.05 3.55 ± 0.02 8.4% ± 1.4% 4.67 ± 0.12
Honolulu L5 S3 Fall Vatican 441 101.25 n.d. 3.62 ± 0.04 n.d. 4.78 ± 0.08†
Honolulu L5 S3 Fall Average 3.25 3.60 9.9% 4.72
Jackalsfontein L6 Fall CMS 836 19.71 3.37 ± 0.06 3.51 ± 0.03 4.1% ± 1.8% 4.90 ± 0.12
Jhung L5 S3 Fall NMNH 2157 20.495 3.19 ± 0.05 3.53 ± 0.04 9.7% ± 1.6% 4.91 ± 0.12
Kediri L4 Fall Monnig M1212.1 120.64 3.27 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.01 6.7% ± 1.5% 4.74 ± 0.12
a
Kendleton L4 S3 Fall Monnig M 32.12a 51.01 3.39 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.01 5.6% ± 0.8% 5.08 ± 0.09
Kendleton L4 S3 Fall IOM C 288.1 81.57 3.38 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.01 5.1% ± 1.0% 4.94 ± 0.09
Kendleton L4 S3 Fall Vatican 1083 121.15 3.35 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.04 6.2% ± 1.3% 4.90 ± 0.09
Kendleton L4 S3 Fall Average 3.36 3.57 5.7% 4.97
Khohar L3.6 S4 Fall NMNH 1252 83.209 3.38 ± 0.06 3.53 ± 0.01 4.1% ± 1.7% 4.88 ± 0.09
b
Kuleschovka L6 Fall LNHM BM44774 32.16 3.19 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.02 10.2% ± 1.3% 4.80 ± 0.09
Kuttippuram L6 Fall Monnig M1401.1 43.2 3.26 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.01 8.7% ± 0.9% 4.71 ± 0.09
b
Kyushu L6 S5 Fall NMNH 568 44.914 3.45 ± 0.04 3.58 ± 0.02 3.7% ± 1.2% 5.09 ± 0.09
Kyushu L6 S5 Fall IOM C 51.5 44.42 3.36 ± 0.04 3.51 ± 0.01 4.2% ± 1.3% 5.04 ± 0.09
Kyushu L6 S5 Fall LNHM BM1905,68 34.39 3.29 ± 0.06 3.51 ± 0.01 6.1% ± 1.7% 4.92 ± 0.10
Kyushu L6 S5 Fall Vatican 521 42.62 3.32 ± 0.02 3.60 ± 0.04 7.9% ± 1.1% 4.89 ± 0.09
263
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Kyushu L6 S5 Fall Average 3.36 3.55 5.4% 4.99
a
L’Aigle L6 S4 Fall Vatican 525 48.78 3.31 ± 0.02 3.44 ± 0.03 4.0% ± 1.1% 4.59 ± 0.09
L’Aigle L6 S4 Fall Vatican 523 215.18 3.39 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.78 ± 0.08
L’Aigle L6 S4 Fall Vatican 526 24.13 3.25 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.04 11.3% ± 1.2% 4.81 ± 0.08
L’Aigle L6 S4 Fall Vatican 528 9.45 3.35 ± 0.07 3.71 ± 0.04 9.6% ± 2.1% 4.96 ± 0.08†
L’Aigle L6 S4 Fall Vatican 524 52.02 3.56 ± 0.02 3.78 ± 0.04 5.8% ± 1.1% 5.23 ± 0.09
L’Aigle L6 S4 Fall Vatican 527 19.5 n.d. 3.70 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d.
L’Aigle L6 S4 Fall Average 3.39 3.63 6.8% 4.87
La Bécasse L6 Fall Vatican 530 10.56 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.84 ± 0.08†
La Criolla L6 S4 W2 Fall NMNH 6294 30.814 3.17 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.02 11.4% ± 1.0% 4.89 ± 0.09
a,b
Lalitpur L6 Fall LNHM BM63058 79.11 3.19 ± 0.03 3.56 ± 0.01 10.5% ± 0.8% 4.81 ± 0.09
Leedey L6 S3 Fall CMS 489.15 34.59 3.26 ± 0.09 3.55 ± 0.01 8.4% ± 2.6% 4.99 ± 0.09
Leedey L6 S3 Fall Vatican 1081 22.59 3.28 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.04 10.3% ± 1.2% 4.95 ± 0.08
Leedey L6 S3 Fall Average 3.27 3.60 9.1% 4.97
Leighlinbridge L6 S3 Fall Monnig M 908.1 65.69 3.34 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.01 6.9% ± 0.9% 5.02 ± 0.09
Leighlinbridge L6 S3 Fall LNHM BM2001,M1 73.07 3.31 ± 0.03 3.56 ± 0.01 7.0% ± 0.8% 5.15 ± 0.09
Leighlinbridge L6 S3 Fall Average 3.32 3.57 7.0% 5.08
Lesves L6 Fall LNHM BM81535 56.43 3.15 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.01 11.7% ± 0.8% 4.91 ± 0.09
Lissa b
L6 Fall Vatican 562 21.09 3.59 ± 0.07 3.55 ± 0.04 -1.2% ± 2.2% 4.94 ± 0.08†
Lissa L6 Fall Vatican 561 28.99 3.27 ± 0.02 3.67 ± 0.04 10.9% ± 1.1% 4.92 ± 0.08
Lissa L6 Fall Average 3.40 3.62 6.1% 4.93
Little Piney L5 Fall LNHM BM24005 97.96 3.21 ± 0.03 3.83 ± 0.01 16.3% ± 0.7% 4.70 ± 0.10
Lua L5 Fall LNHM BM1928,480 35.63 3.30 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.01 7.2% ± 1.1% 5.03 ± 0.09
Lundsgård L6 Fall CMS 973s 89.76 3.29 ± 0.05 3.54 ± 0.01 7.1% ± 1.5% 5.03 ± 0.09
Lundsgård L6 Fall Vatican 574 17.57 3.29 ± 0.05 n.d. n.d. 4.99 ± 0.08
Lundsgård L6 Fall Average 3.29 3.54 7.1% 5.01
Madrida,b L6 Fall IOM C 363.1 57.28 3.30 ± 0.03 3.55 ± 0.01 6.9% ± 1.0% 4.88 ± 0.12
b
Marion (Iowa) L6 Fall Vatican 589 30.65 3.21 ± 0.02 3.64 ± 0.04 11.9% ± 1.1% 4.71 ± 0.10
Marmande L5 Fall Vatican 592 25.1 3.15 ± 0.02 3.66 ± 0.04 13.8% ± 1.1% 4.97 ± 0.08
Mascombes L6 Fall Vatican 594 3.93 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.81 ± 0.08†
Mauerkirchen L6 Fall Vatican 596 2.29 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.95 ± 0.08†
Mernb L6 Fall Vatican 612 14.46 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.86 ± 0.08†
Mezö-Madarasa L3.7 S2 Fall Vatican 614 29.9 3.40 ± 0.02 3.51 ± 0.04 3.1% ± 1.2% 4.82 ± 0.08
Mezö-Madaras L3.7 S2 Fall Vatican 613 38.93 3.40 ± 0.02 3.51 ± 0.04 3.2% ± 1.1% 4.78 ± 0.10
Mezö-Madaras L3.7 S2 Fall Average 3.40 3.51 3.2% 4.80
Milena L6 Fall CMS 335s 53.19 3.27 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.01 8.5% ± 0.8% 4.91 ± 0.09
b
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 1781 30.938 3.30 ± 0.03 3.54 ± 0.02 6.8% ± 1.0% 4.66 ± 0.10
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 467 1 32.415 3.37 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.02 5.8% ± 1.1% 4.82 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 467 2 33.093 3.22 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.02 9.0% ± 1.1% 4.80 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 467 3 23.933 3.24 ± 0.04 3.53 ± 0.02 8.3% ± 1.1% 4.88 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 467 4 31.311 3.27 ± 0.03 3.54 ± 0.02 7.7% ± 0.9% 4.81 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 467 5 28.742 3.24 ± 0.03 3.53 ± 0.02 8.2% ± 0.9% 4.84 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 1717 1 25.705 3.22 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.02 8.9% ± 1.1% 4.80 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 1717 2 13.998 3.35 ± 0.09 3.51 ± 0.04 4.4% ± 2.8% 4.94 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 1717 3 22.939 3.26 ± 0.04 3.53 ± 0.02 7.5% ± 1.2% 4.81 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall NMNH 1717 4 17.628 3.25 ± 0.05 3.48 ± 0.03 6.8% ± 1.6% 4.72 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 635 66.32 3.27 ± 0.02 3.68 ± 0.04 11.2% ± 1.0% 4.90 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 636 55.38 3.24 ± 0.02 3.70 ± 0.04 12.5% ± 1.0% 4.79 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 632 100.85 3.27 ± 0.01 3.65 ± 0.04 10.4% ± 1.0% 4.95 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 634 74.49 3.28 ± 0.01 3.66 ± 0.04 10.3% ± 1.0% 4.98 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 639 25.62 3.24 ± 0.02 3.68 ± 0.04 11.9% ± 1.0% 4.85 ± 0.08
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 640 22.34 3.23 ± 0.03 3.69 ± 0.04 12.5% ± 1.2% 4.78 ± 0.10
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 631 101.94 3.23 ± 0.03 3.69 ± 0.04 12.5% ± 1.2% 4.95 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 637 36.52 3.22 ± 0.02 3.64 ± 0.04 11.5% ± 1.0% 4.84 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Vatican 633 92.56 3.23 ± 0.04 3.67 ± 0.04 11.9% ± 1.3% 4.97 ± 0.09
Mócs L5-6 S3-5 Fall Average 3.26 3.63 10.3% 4.85
Monte Milone L5 S3 Fall Vatican 648 8.49 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.69 ± 0.08†
Monze L6 Fall IOM C 29.2 21.72 3.31 ± 0.04 3.50 ± 0.02 5.3% ± 1.3% 4.93 ± 0.12
Monze L6 Fall Vatican 650 165.37 3.28 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.01 ± 0.09
Monze L6 Fall Average 3.28 3.50 6.1% 4.97
Nerftb L6 Fall Vatican 684 39.61 3.39 ± 0.03 3.64 ± 0.04 6.9% ± 1.2% 5.11 ± 0.09
b
New Concord L6 S4 Fall Vatican 695 63.66 3.28 ± 0.01 3.64 ± 0.04 9.8% ± 1.0% 4.95 ± 0.09
Nikolskoe L4 S2 W1 Fall NMNH 1732 23.777 3.04 ± 0.04 3.60 ± 0.02 15.6% ± 1.3% 4.98 ± 0.08
Oesel L6 Fall Vatican 713 22.301 3.13 ± 0.02 3.64 ± 0.04 14.2% ± 1.0% 4.84 ± 0.08
a
Ojuelos Altos L6 Fall CMS 782 71.5 3.08 ± 0.05 3.50 ± 0.01 11.8% ± 1.5% 3.81 ± 0.10
264
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Paculaa L6 Fall CMS 96a 65.3 3.37 ± 0.04 3.61 ± 0.01 6.7% ± 1.0% 5.06 ± 0.09
Park Forest L6 Fall FMNH ME 3353 #1 159.4 3.40 ± 0.06 3.55 ± 0.00 4.3% ± 1.6% 4.92 ± 0.09
Pavlograd L6 Fall Vatican 738 40.87 3.28 ± 0.02 3.63 ± 0.04 9.6% ± 1.0% 4.86 ± 0.09
Perpeti L6 Fall Monnig M1403.1 46.18 3.24 ± 0.03 3.61 ± 0.02 10.3% ± 1.0% 4.86 ± 0.12
Pricetown L6 Fall Vatican 756 30.19 3.18 ± 0.02 3.64 ± 0.04 12.5% ± 1.0% 4.74 ± 0.08
Putinga L6 Fall Vatican 780 13.08 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.03 ± 0.08†
Rakovka L6 Fall Vatican 787 15.34 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.93 ± 0.08†
Ramsdorfa L6 Fall CMS 703.2 48.81 3.14 ± 0.03 3.53 ± 0.02 11.0% ± 0.9% 4.89 ± 0.10
Reliegos L5 Fall CMS 786 33.67 3.26 ± 0.09 3.52 ± 0.02 7.4% ± 2.5% 5.02 ± 0.09
Renqiu L6 Fall CMS 1289 78.49 3.39 ± 0.06 3.39 ± 0.01 0.2% ± 1.7% 4.76 ± 0.09
b
Salles L5 Fall LNHM BM1985,M38 71.33 3.23 ± 0.03 3.58 ± 0.01 9.6% ± 0.9% 4.78 ± 0.09
Saratov L4 S2 W1 Fall NMNH 5956 28.076 3.07 ± 0.04 3.58 ± 0.02 14.1% ± 1.1% 5.02 ± 0.08
Saratov L4 S2 W1 Fall IOM C 329.1 35.22 3.18 ± 0.04 3.58 ± 0.02 11.3% ± 1.3% 4.92 ± 0.09
Saratov L4 S2 W1 Fall Vatican 1082 90.68 3.07 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.93 ± 0.09
Saratov L4 S2 W1 Fall Average 3.10 3.58 13.5% 4.96
Schönenbergb L6 Fall Vatican 857 14.37 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.80 ± 0.08†
Schönenberg L6 Fall LNHM BM67208 39.47 3.25 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.01 9.6% ± 1.0% 5.03 ± 0.09
Schönenberg L6 Fall Average 3.25 3.59 9.6% 4.92
Segowlie L6 Fall Vatican 864 13.02 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.47 ± 0.08†
Sevrukovo L5 Fall Vatican 866 19.91 3.65 ± 0.08 3.54 ± 0.04 -3.1% ± 2.4% 4.95 ± 0.10
a,b
Shelburne L5 S4 Fall Monnig M 260.4 37.68 3.46 ± 0.05 3.61 ± 0.02 4.3% ± 1.6% 4.86 ± 0.09
Shelburne L5 S4 Fall Vatican 873 13.44 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.75 ± 0.08†
Shelburne L5 S4 Fall Vatican 871 67.83 3.28 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.04 10.4% ± 1.3% 5.00 ± 0.10
Shelburne L5 S4 Fall Average 3.34 3.64 8.3% 4.87
St. Christophe-la-Chartreuse L6 Fall Vatican 892 38.81 3.44 ± 0.04 3.63 ± 0.04 5.3% ± 1.5% 4.97 ± 0.10
St. Michel L6 Fall Vatican 904 38.77 3.37 ± 0.03 3.62 ± 0.04 6.9% ± 1.2% 4.81 ± 0.09
St. Michel L6 Fall Vatican 905 32.42 3.47 ± 0.06 3.66 ± 0.04 5.0% ± 1.8% 4.98 ± 0.08
St. Michel L6 Fall Average 3.42 3.64 6.1% 4.90
Suizhou L6 Fall IOM C 334.1 40.02 3.22 ± 0.03 3.56 ± 0.02 9.5% ± 1.0% 4.75 ± 0.10
Tadjera L5 Fall LNHM BM71574 36.19 3.39 ± 0.04 3.52 ± 0.01 3.6% ± 1.2% 4.95 ± 0.12
Tadjera L5 S4 Fall Vatican 918 31.42 3.58 ± 0.08 3.51 ± 0.04 -2.0% ± 2.5% 4.92 ± 0.12
Tadjera L5 S4 Fall Average 3.48 3.52 1.1% 4.94
Tenhamb L6 S4 Fall NMNH 2472 19 48.873 3.35 ± 0.03 3.46 ± 0.01 3.3% ± 1.0% 4.77 ± 0.09
Tenham L6 S4 Fall IOM C 119.1&3 37.07 3.30 ± 0.04 3.49 ± 0.01 5.5% ± 1.1% 4.84 ± 0.09
Tenham L6 S4 Fall Vatican 1132 20.75 3.38 ± 0.05 3.55 ± 0.04 4.7% ± 1.8% 4.80 ± 0.12
Tenham L6 S4 Fall Average 3.34 3.49 4.4% 4.80
Tennasilmb L4 S3 W2-3 Fall NMNH 483 60.46 3.20 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.01 10.6% ± 0.9% 5.01 ± 0.09
Tennasilm L4 S3 W2-3 Fall Vatican 925 57.301 3.29 ± 0.03 3.70 ± 0.04 10.9% ± 1.1% 4.82 ± 0.09
Tennasilm L4 S3 W2-3 Fall Average 3.24 3.63 10.7% 4.91
Tourinnes-la-Grosse L6 S3 Fall Vatican 968 45.43 3.27 ± 0.04 3.68 ± 0.04 11.0% ± 1.3% 5.01 ± 0.09
Umm Ruaba L5 Fall CMS 1051 57.64 3.32 ± 0.05 3.52 ± 0.01 5.7% ± 1.6% 5.08 ± 0.12
Valdinizza L6 Fall Monnig M 832.1 27.24 3.25 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.02 8.6% ± 1.3% 5.11 ± 0.08
b
Vouillé L6 S5 Fall Vatican 1007 124.01 3.32 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.01 ± 0.09
Woolgorong L6 Fall CMS 712 78.7 3.19 ± 0.05 3.56 ± 0.01 10.3% ± 1.5% 4.83 ± 0.09
a
Zavid L6 Fall IOM C 200.1 25.79 3.32 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.02 6.8% ± 1.2% 5.07 ± 0.08
Zavid L6 Fall Vatican 1040 69.23 3.23 ± 0.04 3.58 ± 0.04 9.8% ± 1.3% 4.93 ± 0.09
Zavid L6 Fall Average 3.26 3.58 9.0% 5.00
Zhaodong L4 Fall Monnig M1266.1 66.32 3.46 ± 0.03 3.60 ± 0.01 3.9% ± 0.9% 4.97 ± 0.10
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
a
Breccia (Grady, 2000)
b
Veined (Grady, 2000)
265
Table 7: Data for L Chondrite Finds.
266
Bulk Grain Model Magnetic Weathering
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Density Density Porosity Porosity Susceptibility Modulus
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
JaH 055 L4-5 S2 W3 Find Average 3.30 3.38 2.2% 7.8% 4.78 -
Julesburg L3.6 S3 W1.5 Find Vatican 1080 56.346 3.44 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d. 3.8% 4.93 ± 0.12 n.d.
Kermichel L6 Find Vatican 1077 37.66 3.28 ± 0.03 3.44 ± 0.03 4.7% ± 1.4% 8.4% 3.90 ± 0.12 4.96
Kermichel L6 Find Vatican 1076 61.68 3.28 ± 0.04 3.48 ± 0.03 5.6% ± 1.4% 8.4% 4.08 ± 0.12 4.02
Kermichel L6 Find Vatican 497 220.7 3.27 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. 8.8% n.d. n.d.
Kermichel L6 Find Vatican 496 426.38 3.25 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. 9.2% n.d. n.d.
Kermichel L6 Find Average 3.26 3.47 5.9% 9.0% 3.99 -
Kingfisher L5 S6 Find NMNH 1521 78.717 3.32 ± 0.06 3.36 ± 0.01 1.2% ± 1.7% 7.2% 4.54 ± 0.12 2.37
Kingfisher L5 S6 Find IOM C 124.3 19.93 3.31 ± 0.09 3.35 ± 0.02 1.2% ± 2.8% 7.6% 4.51 ± 0.12 2.59
Kingfisher L5 S6 Find Average 3.32 3.36 1.2% 7.3% 4.53 -
Lakewood L6 Find Vatican 539 26.97 3.30 ± 0.04 3.47 ± 0.03 4.9% ± 1.6% 8.0% 4.52 ± 0.12 1.98
b
Long Island L6 S4 Find IOM C 281.1 110.13 3.34 ± 0.05 3.43 ± 0.01 2.7% ± 1.6% 6.8% 4.43 ± 0.09 2.48
Long Island L6 S4 Find Vatican 566 77.25 3.24 ± 0.03 3.44 ± 0.03 5.8% ± 1.4% 9.5% 3.98 ± 0.10 4.60
Long Island L6 S4 Find Vatican 568 41.42 3.36 ± 0.02 3.51 ± 0.04 4.3% ± 1.1% 6.3% 4.38 ± 0.09 2.52
Long Island L6 S4 Find Vatican 567 50.51 3.36 ± 0.02 3.50 ± 0.04 4.0% ± 1.1% 6.2% 4.24 ± 0.10 3.21
Long Island L6 S4 Find Average 3.32 3.46 4.0% 7.4% 4.26 -
Loongana 003 L5 S3 W4 Find IOM C 310.12 15.9 3.22 ± 0.05 3.46 ± 0.03 7.1% ± 1.7% 10.2% 4.66 ± 0.08 1.41
Lutschaunig's L6 Find LNHM BM36107 31.55 3.35 ± 0.04 3.50 ± 0.02 4.4% ± 1.2% 6.6% 4.79 ± 0.10 0.76
Stone
Macy L6 Find LNHM BM1986,M30 53.24 3.11 ± 0.03 3.41 ± 0.01 8.8% ± 0.8% 13.2% 4.45 ± 0.09 2.47
b †
Mainz L6 Find Vatican 1463 15.14 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.68 ± 0.08 n.d.
McCook L6 S2 W2 Find CMS 1423 23.22 3.24 ± 0.08 3.55 ± 0.03 8.8% ± 2.4% 9.5% 4.62 ± 0.12 1.28
McKinney L4 S6 Find Vatican 603 35.59 3.49 ± 0.02 3.53 ± 0.04 1.0% ± 1.2% 2.6% 4.74 ± 0.10 0.78
McKinney L4 S6 Find Vatican 602 96.21 3.48 ± 0.03 3.52 ± 0.04 1.2% ± 1.4% 2.9% 4.66 ± 0.10 1.16
McKinney L4 S6 Find Vatican 604 29.4 3.09 ± 0.10 n.d. n.d. 13.9% n.d. n.d.
McKinney L4 S6 Find Vatican 601 141.26 3.46 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 3.4% 4.82 ± 0.12 n.d.
McKinney L4 S6 Find Vatican 600 368.89 3.56 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. 0.5% n.d. n.d.
McKinney L4 S6 Find Vatican 599 384.57 3.45 ± 0.08‡ n.d. n.d. 3.7% n.d. n.d.
McKinney L4 S6 Find Average 3.48 3.52 1.1% 2.8% 4.74 -
Melrose (a) L5 Find LNHM BM1937,385 41.21 3.29 ± 0.03 3.41 ± 0.02 3.7% ± 1.0% 8.3% 4.45 ± 0.10 2.47
Moorabie L3.8 S4-5 Find NMNH 6302 127.98 3.49 ± 0.05 3.52 ± 0.01 1.0% ± 1.6% 2.6% 5.20 ± 0.12 1.73
†
Ness County (1894) L6 S6 Find Vatican 687 119.04 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.08 ± 0.08 n.d.
Ness County (1894) L6 S6 Find Vatican 688 31.72 3.29 ± 0.03 3.53 ± 0.04 6.9% ± 1.2% 8.2% 4.16 ± 0.12 3.55
Ness County (1894) L6 S6 Find Vatican 689 28.79 3.40 ± 0.03 3.51 ± 0.04 3.3% ± 1.3% 5.2% 4.71 ± 0.10 0.99
Ness County (1894) L6 S6 Find Vatican 686 697.47 3.35 ± 0.07‡ 3.35 ± 0.03‡ -0.2% ± 2.3% 6.4% 4.42 ± 0.08 2.90
Ness County (1894) L6 S6 Find Average 3.35 3.36 0.2% 6.4% 4.34 -
NWA 1696 L3-6 S1-3 W1 Find CMS 1502 20.47 3.28 ± 0.06 3.49 ± 0.02 6.0% ± 1.8% 8.4% 4.84 ± 0.12 0.72
NWA 5243 L3 S2 W2 Find CMS 1595-1 48.02 3.01 ± 0.03 3.30 ± 0.01 8.8% ± 0.8% 16.0% 3.98 ± 0.10 4.99
Pampa (b) L4-5 S4 Find IOM C 284.1 104.75 3.19 ± 0.05 3.35 ± 0.01 4.7% ± 1.5% 10.9% 4.25 ± 0.09 3.59
Pierceville (Stone) L6 S3 Find IOM C 32.2 33.69 3.29 ± 0.08 3.33 ± 0.02 1.1% ± 2.6% 8.2% 4.06 ± 0.12 4.55
Pinto Mountains L6 S5 Find IOM C 93.22 60.7 3.37 ± 0.03 3.44 ± 0.01 2.2% ± 1.0% 6.0% 4.72 ± 0.10 1.33
Quinçay L6 Find Vatican 1059 29.44 3.34 ± 0.02 3.56 ± 0.04 6.1% ± 1.1% 6.7% 4.69 ± 0.08 0.90
Roosevelt Co. 106 L6 S6 W2 Find CMS 1436 74.72 3.24 ± 0.03 3.43 ± 0.01 5.6% ± 0.9% 9.5% 4.43 ± 0.10 2.49
Roy (1933) L5 S3 Find NMNH 2290 A 35.72 3.42 ± 0.06 3.40 ± 0.02 -0.7% ± 2.0% 4.5% 4.40 ± 0.10 2.75
Roy (1933) L5 S3 Find IOM C 37.2 23.42 3.17 ± 0.08 3.38 ± 0.03 6.2% ± 2.6% 11.4% 4.23 ± 0.12 3.54
Roy (1933) L5 S3 Find Vatican 806 11.34 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.20 ± 0.08† n.d.
Roy (1933) L5 S3 Find Average 3.32 3.39 2.2% 7.4% 4.28 -
Taiban (b) L6 W3 Find IOM C 153.2 22.02 3.37 ± 0.09 3.37 ± 0.03 -0.1% ± 2.7% 5.9% 4.42 ± 0.12 2.84
Temple L6 Find FMNH ME 2560 #1 33.39 3.40 ± 0.05 3.45 ± 0.01 1.5% ± 1.5% 5.1% 4.28 ± 0.10 3.10
Tryon L6 Find FMNH ME 2890 #1 50.61 3.32 ± 0.03 3.41 ± 0.01 2.6% ± 1.0% 7.5% 3.90 ± 0.10 5.03
Tulia (B) L6 Find FMNH ME 2322 #4 32.6 3.25 ± 0.04 3.37 ± 0.02 3.8% ± 1.3% 9.4% 4.33 ± 0.09 3.18
Valkeala L6 Find FMNH ME 2974 #1 33.13 3.37 ± 0.03 3.43 ± 0.01 1.8% ± 1.1% 6.0% 4.29 ± 0.09 3.14
Valle de Allende L Find FMNH ME 3086 #1 38.14 3.35 ± 0.03 3.47 ± 0.02 3.3% ± 1.1% 6.4% 4.62 ± 0.12 1.54
Wacondaa L6 S4 Find NMNH 6561 65.627 3.18 ± 0.06 3.50 ± 0.01 9.3% ± 1.9% 11.3% 4.77 ± 0.09 0.78
Waconda L6 S4 Find Vatican 1011 126.01 3.17 ± 0.03 3.61 ± 0.04 12.1% ± 1.2% 11.5% 4.81 ± 0.09 0.39
Waconda L6 S4 Find Vatican 1012 27.27 n.d. 3.79 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d. 4.89 ± 0.08† 1.71
Waconda L6 S4 Find Vatican 1010 156.4 3.33 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 7.0% 4.54 ± 0.09 n.d.
Waconda L6 S4 Find Average 3.24 3.60 9.9% 9.5% 4.75 -
Waldo L6 Find FMNH ME 2831 #1 84.21 3.38 ± 0.03 3.44 ± 0.01 1.6% ± 1.0% 5.5% 4.37 ± 0.10 2.73
Waltman L4 Find FMNH ME 3143 #1 38.17 3.27 ± 0.06 3.49 ± 0.02 6.4% ± 1.8% 8.8% 4.66 ± 0.12 1.28
267
Bulk Grain Model Magnetic Weathering
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Density Density Porosity Porosity Susceptibility Modulus
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Wardswell Draw L6 Find FMNH ME 2840 #1 27.24 3.36 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.02 4.3% ± 1.4% 6.2% 4.51 ± 0.10 1.85
Zulu Queen L3 S3 Find IOM C 291.1 66.34 3.47 ± 0.03 3.41 ± 0.01 -1.8% ± 0.9% 3.2% 4.63 ± 0.10 1.86
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
a
Breccia (Grady, 2000)
b
Veined (Grady, 2000)
268
Table 8: Data for LL Chondrite Falls.
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Alta'ameem LL5 Fall NMNH 5964 A 71.399 3.16 ± 0.06 3.51 ± 0.01 10.1% ± 1.7% 4.05 ± 0.09
b
Appley Bridge LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 614 18.147 3.21 ± 0.05 3.44 ± 0.03 6.8% ± 1.7% 3.58 ± 0.12
Bandong LL6 Fall AMNH 410 27.59 3.30 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.02 6.0% ± 1.5% 3.78 ± 0.09
Bandong LL6 Fall NMNH 966 48.666 3.23 ± 0.03 3.48 ± 0.01 7.2% ± 0.8% 3.76 ± 0.09
Bandong LL6 Fall Vatican 81 25.09 3.21 ± 0.03 3.62 ± 0.04 11.3% ± 1.3% 3.92 ± 0.09
Bandong LL6 Fall Average 3.24 3.52 7.9% 3.82
Benares (a) LL4 Fall NMNH 1538 72.388 2.97 ± 0.02 3.45 ± 0.01 14.0% ± 0.7% 3.61 ± 0.10
Bensour LL6 Fall LNHM BM2002,M9 32.54 3.17 ± 0.04 3.52 ± 0.02 10.0% ± 1.1% 3.71 ± 0.10
Bensour LL6 Fall PSF PSF02-006 66.86 3.23 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.01 9.1% ± 1.2% 3.70 ± 0.10
Bensour LL6 Fall Average 3.21 3.55 9.4% 3.70
Benton LL6 Fall NMNH 1493 B 14.344 3.13 ± 0.05 3.50 ± 0.03 10.6% ± 1.7% 3.72 ± 0.12
a
Bhola LL3-6 Fall NMNH 1806 87.613 3.17 ± 0.05 3.50 ± 0.01 9.5% ± 1.5% 4.26 ± 0.09
Chainpur LL3.4 S1 Fall NMNH 1251 96.106 2.80 ± 0.05 3.41 ± 0.01 17.8% ± 1.4% 4.51 ± 0.09
Cherokee Springs LL6 Fall NMNH 1319 A 12.298 3.06 ± 0.07 3.52 ± 0.04 13.0% ± 2.1% 4.40 ± 0.10
Cherokee Springs LL6 Fall Monnig M 638.1 53.72 3.03 ± 0.03 3.53 ± 0.01 14.1% ± 1.0% 4.44 ± 0.09
Cherokee Springs LL6 Fall Average 3.04 3.53 13.9% 4.42
Dhurmsala LL6 S3 W3 Fall NMNH 1015 56.152 3.33 ± 0.04 3.49 ± 0.01 4.4% ± 1.2% 4.28 ± 0.09
Dhurmsala LL6 S3 W3 Fall Vatican 267 85.99 3.32 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.04 7.1% ± 1.3% 4.29 ± 0.09
Dhurmsala LL6 S3 W3 Fall Vatican 268 82.134 3.35 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d. 4.26 ± 0.12
Dhurmsala LL6 S3 W3 Fall Vatican 269 29.28 3.30 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.04 6.5% ± 1.4% 4.28 ± 0.08
Dhurmsala LL6 S3 W3 Fall Average 3.33 3.54 5.8% 4.28
Ensisheima LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 5953 13.669 3.51 ± 0.07 3.50 ± 0.04 -0.1% ± 2.2% 4.15 ± 0.08
Ensisheim LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 297 33.56 3.46 ± 0.03 3.53 ± 0.04 2.1% ± 1.4% 4.14 ± 0.09
Ensisheim LL6 S2 Fall Average 3.47 3.52 1.4% 4.15
Hamlet LL4 S3 Fall NMNH 3455 65.641 3.22 ± 0.06 3.50 ± 0.01 8.0% ± 1.8% 4.43 ± 0.10
Hamlet LL4 S3 Fall Monnig M 708.2 44.52 3.28 ± 0.04 3.53 ± 0.02 7.1% ± 1.2% 4.46 ± 0.12
Hamlet LL4 S3 Fall Average 3.24 3.51 7.6% 4.45
Jelicaa LL6 S3 W1 Fall Vatican 457 130.07 3.12 ± 0.03 3.56 ± 0.04 12.3% ± 1.2% 3.54 ± 0.09
Jelica LL6 S3 W1 Fall Vatican 458 12.39 n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.72 ± 0.08†
Jelica LL6 S3 W1 Fall Average 3.12 3.56 12.3% 3.63
Karatu LL6 Fall Monnig M 965.1 29.22 3.22 ± 0.06 3.49 ± 0.03 7.6% ± 1.9% 3.84 ± 0.12
a
Kilabo LL6 Fall PSF PSF02-036 d 58.06 3.14 ± 0.03 3.51 ± 0.01 10.4% ± 0.8% 3.66 ± 0.09
Krymka LL3.2 S3 Fall NMNH 6457 25.534 3.23 ± 0.05 3.42 ± 0.02 5.6% ± 1.6% 4.38 ± 0.08
Manbhoom LL6 Fall LNHM BM1985,M137 26.1 3.09 ± 0.04 3.48 ± 0.02 11.1% ± 1.2% 3.46 ± 0.09
a
Mangwendi LL6 Fall Vatican 586 92.31 3.23 ± 0.03 3.63 ± 0.04 10.8% ± 1.3% 4.04 ± 0.10
a
Ngawi LL3.6 Fall NMNH 2483 82.92 3.11 ± 0.05 3.44 ± 0.01 9.4% ± 1.5% 4.19 ± 0.10
Olivenza LL5 S3 Fall NMNH 2978 51.075 3.11 ± 0.04 3.50 ± 0.01 11.2% ± 1.1% 3.76 ± 0.09
Olivenza LL5 S3 Fall Monnig M 170.1 102.43 3.05 ± 0.05 3.54 ± 0.01 13.8% ± 1.5% 3.90 ± 0.09
Olivenza LL5 S3 Fall Average 3.07 3.53 12.9% 3.83
Ottawaa LL6 Fall CMS 870 41.39 3.00 ± 0.03 3.49 ± 0.02 14.1% ± 0.9% 4.19 ± 0.09
Ottawa LL6 Fall LNHM BM1920,331 64.75 3.05 ± 0.03 3.54 ± 0.01 13.9% ± 0.8% 4.13 ± 0.09
Ottawa LL6 Fall Average 3.03 3.52 14.0% 4.16
Oued el Hedjar LL6 S2 W0/1 Fall Monnig M 890.1 22.86 3.23 ± 0.08 3.53 ± 0.02 8.5% ± 2.2% 4.12 ± 0.10
Paragould LL5 Fall Monnig M 293.2 36.98 3.41 ± 0.04 3.51 ± 0.01 2.8% ± 1.2% 4.63 ± 0.09
Parambu LL5 S3 Fall IOM C 143.2 77.82 3.15 ± 0.03 3.51 ± 0.01 10.1% ± 0.8% 3.95 ± 0.09
Parnallee LL3.6 Fall NMNH 1110 55.162 3.25 ± 0.07 3.46 ± 0.01 6.0% ± 2.0% 4.73 ± 0.09
Parnallee LL3.6 S2 Fall Vatican 733 89.12 3.20 ± 0.03 3.52 ± 0.04 9.1% ± 1.3% 4.45 ± 0.10
Parnallee LL3.6 S2 Fall Vatican 734 5.68 n.d. 3.56 ± 0.04 n.d. 4.49 ± 0.08†
Parnallee LL3.6 S2 Fall Vatican 735 3.93 n.d. 3.58 ± 0.04 n.d. 4.61 ± 0.08†
Parnallee LL3.6 S2 Fall Average 3.22 3.50 8.0% 4.57
Savtschenskoje LL4 Fall Vatican 854 14.94 3.36 ± 0.08 3.62 ± 0.04 7.2% ± 2.3% 4.32 ± 0.08†
Sienaa LL5 Fall CMS 554s 39.53 3.30 ± 0.03 3.46 ± 0.01 4.7% ± 1.0% 4.65 ± 0.09
a
Soko-Banja LL4 Fall NMNH 3078 48.395 3.02 ± 0.03 3.47 ± 0.01 12.8% ± 0.9% 4.38 ± 0.09
Soko-Banja LL4 Fall Vatican 888 9.77 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.22 ± 0.08†
Soko-Banja LL4 Fall Vatican 887 27.16 3.16 ± 0.03 3.58 ± 0.04 11.6% ± 1.3% 4.34 ± 0.08
Soko-Banja LL4 Fall Average 3.07 3.51 12.4% 4.31
St. Mesmina LL6 Fall Monnig M 259.1 24.52 3.29 ± 0.05 3.60 ± 0.02 8.6% ± 1.5% 5.15 ± 0.08
St. Mesmin LL6 Fall Vatican 901 52.34 3.10 ± 0.05 3.56 ± 0.04 12.9% ± 1.6% 4.26 ± 0.12
St. Mesmin LL6 Fall Average 3.16 3.57 11.6% 4.71
Tuxtuac LL5 S2 Fall NMNH 6197 14.076 3.11 ± 0.08 3.49 ± 0.03 11.0% ± 2.5% 4.16 ± 0.12
Uden LL7 Fall NMNH 5931 38.255 3.07 ± 0.03 3.41 ± 0.02 10.0% ± 1.1% 3.33 ± 0.09
269
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Vavilovka LL6 Fall Vatican 997 26.701 3.25 ± 0.05 3.54 ± 0.04 8.4% ± 1.6% 3.52 ± 0.09
Witsand Farm LL4 Fall LNHM BM1948,295 71.83 2.88 ± 0.02 3.57 ± 0.01 19.4% ± 0.7% 4.66 ± 0.09
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
a
Breccia (Grady, 2000)
b
Veined (Grady, 2000)
270
Table 9: Data for LL Chondrite Finds.
271
Table 10: Data for H/L and L/LL Chondrites.
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Bremervördea H/L3.9 S2 Fall NMNH 630 26.194 3.33 ± 0.03 3.57 ± 0.02 6.9% ± 1.1% 4.92 ± 0.08
Bremervörde H/L3.9 S2 Fall Vatican 139 16.6 3.12 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 5.11 ± 0.08
Bremervörde H/L3.9 S2 Fall Average 3.24 3.57 9.2% 5.02
Haxtun H/L4 W4 Find CMS 1409 43.94 3.08 ± 0.06 3.28 ± 0.01 6.1% ± 1.7% 4.35 ± 0.09
Tieschitz H/L3.6 W0 Fall NMNH 1157 12.292 2.99 ± 0.06 3.60 ± 0.04 16.8% ± 2.0% 4.91 ± 0.08
Albareto L/LL4 Fall LNHM BM55387 47.99 3.04 ± 0.03 3.51 ± 0.02 13.2% ± 0.9% 4.40 ± 0.10
Bjurböle L/LL4 S1 W2 Fall IOM C 7.6 47.36 2.80 ± 0.03 3.49 ± 0.02 19.8% ± 1.0% 4.49 ± 0.09
Bjurböle L/LL4 S1 W2 Fall Vatican 119 183.68 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.55 ± 0.08†
Bjurböle L/LL4 S1 W2 Fall Average 2.80 3.49 19.8% 4.52
Cynthiana L/LL4 S3 Fall NMNH 2651 86.331 3.15 ± 0.06 3.49 ± 0.01 9.7% ± 1.6% 4.68 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 442 A 38.224 3.23 ± 0.04 3.55 ± 0.01 9.1% ± 1.2% 4.71 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 442 B 22.827 3.23 ± 0.04 3.55 ± 0.02 9.0% ± 1.3% 4.74 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 2817 78.069 3.21 ± 0.03 3.56 ± 0.01 9.8% ± 0.9% 4.75 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 437 28.165 3.41 ± 0.04 3.53 ± 0.03 3.4% ± 1.5% 4.69 ± 0.12
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 A 64.564 3.13 ± 0.03 3.55 ± 0.01 11.8% ± 0.8% 4.75 ± 0.10
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 B 50.296 3.14 ± 0.03 3.56 ± 0.01 11.6% ± 0.9% 4.71 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 C 71.107 3.11 ± 0.02 3.54 ± 0.01 12.2% ± 0.7% 4.71 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 D 46.938 3.12 ± 0.03 3.53 ± 0.01 11.6% ± 0.8% 4.62 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 E 40.58 3.13 ± 0.04 3.53 ± 0.01 11.3% ± 1.1% 4.65 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 F 43.562 3.17 ± 0.03 3.49 ± 0.01 9.3% ± 0.9% 4.60 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 G 18.475 3.19 ± 0.04 3.55 ± 0.03 10.1% ± 1.4% 4.74 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall NMNH 569 H 84.403 3.18 ± 0.03 3.55 ± 0.01 10.4% ± 0.8% 4.88 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS H70 A 45.21 3.14 ± 0.06 3.39 ± 0.02 7.1% ± 1.9% 4.16 ± 0.12
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS H70 B 39.71 3.17 ± 0.06 3.37 ± 0.02 5.9% ± 1.8% 4.25 ± 0.10
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS H59 42.4 3.17 ± 0.03 3.42 ± 0.01 7.5% ± 1.0% 4.22 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS H72 30.66 3.10 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.02 11.7% ± 1.4% 4.63 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS H52 A 36.45 3.23 ± 0.05 3.42 ± 0.02 5.4% ± 1.7% 4.27 ± 0.12
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS H52 B 28.35 3.15 ± 0.03 3.40 ± 0.02 7.6% ± 1.1% 4.10 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS H52 C 20.74 3.17 ± 0.05 3.40 ± 0.02 6.8% ± 1.7% 4.25 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall CMS CMS57A 35.53 3.00 ± 0.03 3.47 ± 0.01 13.5% ± 1.0% 4.46 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 410 18.21 3.54 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.04 1.5% ± 1.4% 4.23 ± 0.08†
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 402 34.65 3.22 ± 0.02 3.52 ± 0.04 8.6% ± 1.1% 4.39 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 413 9.15 3.28 ± 0.09 3.69 ± 0.04 11.1% ± 2.5% 4.63 ± 0.08†
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 403 33.81 3.25 ± 0.04 3.64 ± 0.04 10.8% ± 1.3% 4.64 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 399 53.83 3.20 ± 0.01 3.78 ± 0.04 15.3% ± 0.9% 4.70 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 406 24.801 3.23 ± 0.03 3.64 ± 0.04 11.2% ± 1.2% 4.62 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 407 23.92 3.13 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.04 14.6% ± 1.2% 4.75 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 415 9.143 3.32 ± 0.08 3.67 ± 0.04 9.5% ± 2.3% 4.67 ± 0.08†
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 419 7.267 3.44 ± 0.08 3.65 ± 0.04 5.7% ± 2.4% 4.68 ± 0.08†
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 401 40.45 3.20 ± 0.02 3.61 ± 0.04 11.5% ± 1.0% 4.67 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 398 77.78 3.19 ± 0.01 3.63 ± 0.04 12.0% ± 1.0% 4.67 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 400 49.65 3.19 ± 0.02 3.64 ± 0.04 12.4% ± 1.0% 4.62 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 405 27.27 3.19 ± 0.03 3.72 ± 0.04 14.1% ± 1.2% 4.59 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 408 21.32 3.16 ± 0.04 3.72 ± 0.04 15.0% ± 1.3% 4.74 ± 0.08
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 416 8.301 3.28 ± 0.12 3.69 ± 0.04 11.0% ± 3.5% 4.78 ± 0.08†
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Vatican 397 148.02 3.17 ± 0.03 n.d. n.d. 4.70 ± 0.09
Holbrook L/LL6 S2 Fall Average 3.18 3.55 10.4% 4.58
Knyahinyaa L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall NMNH 2855 87.408 3.35 ± 0.06 3.45 ± 0.01 2.8% ± 1.9% 4.60 ± 0.09
Knyahinya L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall Vatican 510 45.78 3.35 ± 0.02 3.54 ± 0.04 5.3% ± 1.1% 4.80 ± 0.10
Knyahinya L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall Vatican 509 60.96 3.41 ± 0.03 3.53 ± 0.04 3.3% ± 1.4% 4.82 ± 0.10
Knyahinya L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall Vatican 511 27.19 3.35 ± 0.02 3.54 ± 0.04 5.4% ± 1.1% 4.69 ± 0.08
Knyahinya L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall Vatican 764 9.36 3.45 ± 0.07 3.51 ± 0.04 1.5% ± 2.1% 4.74 ± 0.08†
Knyahinya L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall Vatican 1126 9.42 3.62 ± 0.15 3.54 ± 0.04 -2.3% ± 4.5% 4.76 ± 0.08†
Knyahinya L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall Vatican 508 491.73 3.35 ± 0.07‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Knyahinya L/LL5 S3 W2-3 Fall Average 3.36 3.50 4.0% 4.73
Sultanpur L/LL6 Fall NMNH 1255 58.898 3.46 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.01 3.2% ± 1.1% 4.96 ± 0.09
Vera L/LL4 Find NMNH 2220 26.863 3.48 ± 0.13 3.46 ± 0.03 -0.4% ± 3.9% 4.91 ± 0.12
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
a
Breccia (Grady, 2000)
272
Table 11: Average Porosities of Brecciated and Non-Brecciated OC Falls.
273
Table 12: Data for K and R Chondrites.
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Kakangari K3 Fall LNHM BM69062 89.03 3.04 ± 0.05 3.45 ± 0.01 12.0% ± 1.5% 5.09 ± 0.10
NWA 5469 R5 S4 W0 Find CMS 1619-2 21.21 3.32 ± 0.08 3.57 ± 0.04 7.0% ± 2.6% 3.63 ± 0.12
NWA 753 R3.9 S2 W2 Find Monnig M1038.4 24.49 3.30 ± 0.05 3.41 ± 0.02 3.1% ± 1.6% 3.13 ± 0.10
NWA 753 R3.9 S2 W2 Find Vatican 1450 15.35 3.28 ± 0.04 3.63 ± 0.09 9.5% ± 2.4% 3.23 ± 0.09
NWA 753 R3.9 S2 W2 Find Average 3.30 3.49 5.6% 3.18
NWA 800 R Find Monnig M1042.1 45.96 3.04 ± 0.03 3.54 ± 0.02 14.1% ± 0.9% 2.87 ± 0.09
NWA 851 R4 W4 Find Monnig M1182.1 14.69 3.18 ± 0.06 3.51 ± 0.05 9.2% ± 2.2% 3.15 ± 0.12
NWA 978 R3.8 S3 W2 Find Monnig M1040.2 14.4 3.40 ± 0.10 3.61 ± 0.04 6.0% ± 2.9% 3.03 ± 0.10
NWA 978 R3.8 S3 W2 Find Monnig M1040.3 29.16 3.15 ± 0.03 3.58 ± 0.02 11.9% ± 1.1% 3.18 ± 0.09
NWA 978 R3.8 S3 W2 Find Average 3.23 3.59 10.0% 3.11
Ouzina R4 S2 W4 Find Monnig M 914.2 31.51 2.80 ± 0.03 3.44 ± 0.02 18.7% ± 0.9% 2.72 ± 0.09
Ouzina R4 S2 W4 Find LNHM BM2000,M28 27.59 2.78 ± 0.05 3.46 ± 0.02 19.7% ± 1.5% 2.72 ± 0.09
Ouzina R4 S2 W4 Find Average 2.79 3.45 19.2% 2.72
274
Table 13: Data for Carbonaceous Chondrites.
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Ningqiang C3 Fall AMNH 4893 A 71.18 2.80 ± 0.11 n.d. n.d. 4.67 ± 0.10
Ningqiang C3 Fall NMNH 6546 37.04 2.79 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.02 23.9% ± 0.9% 4.72 ± 0.09
Ningqiang C3 Fall Average 2.80 3.66 23.64% 4.69
Adelaide C2 Find LNHM BM1995,M4 23.15 3.26 ± 0.07 3.31 ± 0.02 1.8% ± 2.1% 4.88 ± 0.10
Adelaide C2 Find FMNH ME 2923 #1 14.75 3.04 ± 0.09 3.20 ± 0.04 5.0% ± 3.0% 4.79 ± 0.12
Adelaide C2 Find Average 3.17 3.27 3.07% 4.83
Coolidge C4 S2 Find Monnig M 633.1 22.19 3.55 ± 0.10 3.51 ± 0.02 -1.0% ± 3.1% 5.14 ± 0.12
Dar al Gani 430 C3 Find LNHM BM2000,M36 35.25 2.92 ± 0.03 3.61 ± 0.01 19.3% ± 0.9% 4.79 ± 0.12
Loongana 001 C4 Find Monnig M1259.1 50.48 3.10 ± 0.06 3.28 ± 0.01 5.2% ± 2.0% 4.32 ± 0.09
NWA 1152 C3 S2 W2/3 Find Monnig M 924.1 21.06 2.83 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.02 19.5% ± 1.5% 4.81 ± 0.08
NWA 1152 C3 S2 W2/3 Find LNHM BM2001,M26 9.53 2.86 ± 0.09 3.46 ± 0.05 17.5% ± 2.7% 4.82 ± 0.08
NWA 1152 C3 S2 W2/3 Find Average 2.84 3.49 18.88% 4.81
Bencubbin CBa Find AMNH 4206 182.66 4.90 ± 0.08 n.d. n.d. 5.79 ± 0.09
Bencubbin CBa Find Monnig M 888.1 58.03 5.55 ± 0.09 5.66 ± 0.03 2.0% ± 1.7% 5.56 ± 0.12
Bencubbin CBa Find Average 5.05 5.66 10.84% 5.68
HaH 237 CBb S3 W2 Find LNHM BM2000,M9 31.04 5.31 ± 0.10 5.63 ± 0.04 5.8% ± 1.9% 5.61 ± 0.12
HaH 237 CBb S3 W2 Find Vatican 1166 8.63 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.31 ± 0.08†
HaH 237 CBb S3 W2 Find Average 5.31 5.63 5.82% 5.46
Acfer 214 CH3 S2 W2 Find Monnig M1315.1 31.51 3.74 ± 0.09 3.66 ± 0.02 -2.3% ± 2.4% 5.22 ± 0.12
Acfer 214 CH3 S2 W2 Find LNHM BM1998,M28 11.26 3.84 ± 0.19 3.65 ± 0.05 -5.1% ± 5.3% 5.39 ± 0.08
Acfer 214 CH3 S2 W2 Find Average 3.77 3.65 -3.07% 5.30
Orgueil CI1 Fall Vatican 719 14.00 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.11 ± 0.08†
Orgueil CI1 Fall Vatican 718 47.20 1.57 ± 0.03‡ 2.42 ± 0.06‡ 34.9% ± 2.1% 4.86 ± 0.08†
Orgueil CI1 Fall Average 1.57 2.42 34.93% 4.49
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 A 28.10 2.94 ± 0.11 3.51 ± 0.04 16.4% ± 3.3% 4.69 ± 0.09
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 B 24.80 2.80 ± 0.11 3.61 ± 0.04 22.3% ± 3.1% 4.62 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 C 23.70 2.76 ± 0.11 3.59 ± 0.04 23.2% ± 3.1% 4.67 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 D 23.60 2.88 ± 0.11 3.60 ± 0.04 20.2% ± 3.2% 4.66 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 E 22.70 2.77 ± 0.11 3.60 ± 0.04 23.0% ± 3.1% 4.72 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 F 19.90 2.76 ± 0.11 3.60 ± 0.04 23.4% ± 3.1% 4.67 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 G 24.60 2.87 ± 0.11 3.65 ± 0.04 21.5% ± 3.1% 4.71 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 3970 H 18.60 2.83 ± 0.11 3.57 ± 0.04 20.7% ± 3.2% 4.72 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 4774 37.50 2.83 ± 0.11 n.d. n.d. 4.66 ± 0.09
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall AMNH 20.20 2.97 ± 0.11 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall NMNH 5281 35.57 2.87 ± 0.04 3.60 ± 0.01 20.4% ± 1.1% 4.68 ± 0.09
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall FMNH ME 2666 #1 20.15 2.90 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.03 19.9% ± 1.1% 4.59 ± 0.08
Karoonda CK4 S1 Fall Average 2.85 3.60 20.79% 4.67
Dar al Gani 275 CK4/5 S2 W4 Find Monnig M 602.1 19.52 3.28 ± 0.13 3.60 ± 0.03 8.8% ± 3.7% 4.65 ± 0.12
Dar al Gani 431 CK3 Find Monnig M 952.1 21.76 3.39 ± 0.06 3.37 ± 0.03 -0.6% ± 2.1% 4.60 ± 0.12
Maralinga CK4 S2 Find AMNH 4742 24.99 2.54 ± 0.05 n.d. n.d. 4.77 ± 0.12
Maralinga CK4 S2 Find LNHM BM1991,M23 12.40 2.94 ± 0.07 3.46 ± 0.04 15.0% ± 2.4% 4.68 ± 0.12
Maralinga CK4 S2 Find Average 2.66 3.46 23.25% 4.72
NWA 2388 CK6 Find Monnig M1274.1 14.32 3.13 ± 0.10 3.66 ± 0.06 14.3% ± 3.1% 4.62 ± 0.12
NWA 2867 CK4 S1 W0/1 Find Monnig M 376.1 48.83 2.98 ± 0.03 3.62 ± 0.01 17.6% ± 0.9% 4.70 ± 0.09
NWA 5515 CK4 Find Vatican 1490 431.58 2.70 ± 0.08 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Banten CM2 Fall NMNH 6017 24.99 2.40 ± 0.03 2.95 ± 0.01 18.8% ± 1.0% 4.10 ± 0.10
Banten CM2 Fall LNHM BM1984,M5 16.59 2.40 ± 0.05 2.95 ± 0.02 18.5% ± 1.9% 4.11 ± 0.08
Banten CM2 Fall Average 2.40 2.95 18.66% 4.11
Cold Bokkeveld CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 6332 18.12 2.42 ± 0.03 2.80 ± 0.02 13.7% ± 1.1% 3.74 ± 0.09
Cold Bokkeveld CM2 S1 Fall LNHM BM1985,M147 42.38 2.39 ± 0.02 2.77 ± 0.01 13.7% ± 0.9% 3.76 ± 0.09
Cold Bokkeveld CM2 S1 Fall FMNH ME 1736 #1 16.02 2.25 ± 0.03 2.80 ± 0.02 19.6% ± 1.1% 3.53 ± 0.09
Cold Bokkeveld CM2 S1 Fall Average 2.36 2.78 15.01% 3.68
Crescent CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 6927 14.99 2.03 ± 0.03 2.99 ± 0.02 32.0% ± 1.1% 4.40 ± 0.12
Crescent CM2 S1 Fall Monnig M 16.1 24.32 2.09 ± 0.03 3.01 ± 0.02 30.7% ± 0.9% 4.50 ± 0.10
Crescent CM2 S1 Fall Average 2.07 3.00 31.19% 4.45
Essebi CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 3200 46.07 n.d. 2.80 ± 0.01 n.d. 4.77 ± 0.09
Mighei CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 3483 27.07 1.93 ± 0.02 2.85 ± 0.01 32.2% ± 0.8% 3.41 ± 0.10
Mighei CM2 S1 Fall Vatican 616 1.88 n.d. 4.70 ± 1.18 n.d. 4.04 ± 0.08†
Mighei CM2 S1 Fall Average 1.93 2.93 33.96% 3.72
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall AMNH 4376 56.90 2.23 ± 0.09 2.96 ± 0.03 24.5% ± 3.0% n.d.
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall AMNH 4377 A 6.96 2.34 ± 0.06 3.05 ± 0.05 23.3% ± 2.3% 3.44 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall AMNH 4720 40.70 2.30 ± 0.02 3.04 ± 0.03 24.3% ± 1.1% n.d.
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall Britt 47.90 2.32 ± 0.01 3.03 ± 0.03 23.4% ± 0.9% n.d.
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5349 38.48 2.15 ± 0.02 2.87 ± 0.01 24.9% ± 0.6% 3.54 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5356 49.38 2.35 ± 0.02 2.97 ± 0.01 20.9% ± 0.7% 3.90 ± 0.09
275
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5366 27.42 2.34 ± 0.02 2.94 ± 0.01 20.4% ± 0.9% 3.72 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5369 26.92 2.40 ± 0.02 2.95 ± 0.01 18.7% ± 0.9% 3.73 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5370 27.46 2.40 ± 0.02 2.97 ± 0.01 19.2% ± 0.9% 3.85 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5373 36.55 2.35 ± 0.02 2.96 ± 0.01 20.7% ± 0.7% 3.84 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5375 24.34 2.27 ± 0.02 2.93 ± 0.01 22.7% ± 0.8% 3.72 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5381 46.81 2.39 ± 0.02 2.94 ± 0.01 18.8% ± 0.7% 3.74 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5384 33.63 2.24 ± 0.03 2.93 ± 0.01 23.7% ± 0.9% 3.74 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall NMNH 5398 20.66 2.34 ± 0.04 2.96 ± 0.02 20.9% ± 1.4% 3.79 ± 0.09
Murchison CM2 S1-2 Fall Average 2.31 2.96 22.10% 3.73
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 18 62.05 2.30 ± 0.02 2.90 ± 0.01 20.7% ± 0.7% 3.36 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 21 50.79 2.35 ± 0.02 2.88 ± 0.01 18.4% ± 0.8% 3.61 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 26 43.05 2.30 ± 0.02 2.91 ± 0.01 21.2% ± 0.7% 3.83 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 27 42.50 2.32 ± 0.02 2.88 ± 0.01 19.4% ± 0.8% 3.67 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 28 36.18 2.23 ± 0.02 2.89 ± 0.01 22.8% ± 0.7% 3.67 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 29 36.14 2.28 ± 0.02 2.93 ± 0.01 22.2% ± 0.8% 3.83 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 33 32.45 2.43 ± 0.03 2.94 ± 0.01 17.2% ± 1.1% 3.85 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 37 28.38 2.26 ± 0.02 2.89 ± 0.01 21.9% ± 0.8% 3.66 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 42 23.30 2.31 ± 0.03 2.89 ± 0.01 20.0% ± 1.0% 3.71 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall NMNH 1769 45 23.04 2.34 ± 0.03 2.91 ± 0.01 19.4% ± 1.1% 3.48 ± 0.10
Murray CM2 S1 Fall IOM Cr 1.10 56.77 2.26 ± 0.02 2.93 ± 0.01 23.0% ± 0.7% 3.53 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall FMNH ME 2612 #1 93.35 2.30 ± 0.04 2.92 ± 0.01 21.3% ± 1.2% 3.71 ± 0.09
Murray CM2 S1 Fall Average 2.30 2.91 20.82% 3.66
Nawapali CM2 Fall LNHM BM82968 18.47 2.17 ± 0.03 2.74 ± 0.02 20.9% ± 1.2% 3.30 ± 0.09
Nogoyá CM2 S1 Fall LNHM BM1985,M154 20.90 2.17 ± 0.04 2.78 ± 0.02 21.9% ± 1.5% 3.67 ± 0.09
Nogoyá CM2 S1 Fall FMNH ME 2670 #1 34.58 2.14 ± 0.02 2.79 ± 0.01 23.3% ± 0.8% 3.66 ± 0.09
Nogoyá CM2 S1 Fall Average 2.15 2.79 22.75% 3.66
Pollen CM2 S1 Fall LNHM BM1964,496 19.53 2.22 ± 0.03 2.82 ± 0.02 21.1% ± 1.2% 3.65 ± 0.10
Santa Cruz CM2 S1 Fall LNHM BM1959,782 10.80 1.88 ± 0.03 2.96 ± 0.03 36.7% ± 1.4% 3.61 ± 0.10
Cimarron CM2 Find AMNH 4861 A 6.94 2.14 ± 0.05 3.03 ± 0.03 29.3% ± 1.8% 4.48 ± 0.08
El-Quss Abu Said CM2 S1 W0 Find LNHM BM2002,M24 24.98 2.47 ± 0.04 3.26 ± 0.02 24.2% ± 1.2% 4.32 ± 0.09
Felix CO3.3 S3 Fall NMNH 235 10.72 3.00 ± 0.06 3.67 ± 0.05 18.1% ± 1.9% 4.56 ± 0.12
Felix CO3.3 S3 Fall Monnig M 734.1 25.66 2.83 ± 0.03 3.65 ± 0.03 22.5% ± 1.1% 4.60 ± 0.12
Felix CO3.3 S3 Fall FMNH ME 1330 #15 20.47 2.89 ± 0.04 3.67 ± 0.03 21.2% ± 1.3% 4.67 ± 0.08
Felix CO3.3 S3 Fall Average 2.88 3.66 21.25% 4.61
Kainsaz CO3.2 S1 Fall NMNH 2486 22.26 3.20 ± 0.04 3.70 ± 0.02 13.5% ± 1.2% 50 ± 0.08
Kainsaz CO3.2 S1 Fall Monnig M 528.2 126.39 3.22 ± 0.05 3.30 ± 0.01 2.6% ± 1.6% 4.58 ± 0.09
Kainsaz CO3.2 S1 Fall Monnig M 528.1 93.81 3.19 ± 0.06 3.56 ± 0.01 10.2% ± 1.6% 4.75 ± 0.12
Kainsaz CO3.2 S1 Fall FMNH ME 2755 #3 90.45 3.09 ± 0.05 3.70 ± 0.01 16.4% ± 1.4% 4.91 ± 0.10
Kainsaz CO3.2 S1 Fall Average 3.17 3.50 9.32% 4.81
Lancé CO4 S1 Fall NMNH 2874 35.01 3.30 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.01 6.9% ± 1.1% 4.45 ± 0.09
Lancé CO4 S1 Fall IOM Cr 2.1 27.22 3.18 ± 0.04 3.56 ± 0.02 10.5% ± 1.3% 4.52 ± 0.08
Lancé CO4 S1 Fall Vatican 540 7.63 3.48 ± 0.19 3.78 ± 0.04 7.8% ± 5.1% 4.35 ± 0.08†
Lancé CO4 S1 Fall FMNH ME 589 #1 48.72 3.18 ± 0.03 3.54 ± 0.01 10.2% ± 0.8% 4.41 ± 0.10
Lancé CO4 S1 Fall Average 3.23 3.56 9.17% 4.43
Moss CO3.6 S2 Fall Monnig M 175.2 19.30 3.04 ± 0.06 3.74 ± 0.03 18.6% ± 1.7% 4.79 ± 0.08
Ornans CO3.4 S1 Fall Monnig M 253.1 17.88 2.63 ± 0.04 3.66 ± 0.03 28.1% ± 1.2% 4.23 ± 0.12
Ornans CO3.4 S1 Fall IOM Cr 5.1 16.33 2.61 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.03 27.8% ± 1.4% 4.40 ± 0.08
Ornans CO3.4 S1 Fall Vatican 723 25.26 2.18 ± 0.05 3.71 ± 0.04 41.3% ± 1.5% 4.29 ± 0.08†
Ornans CO3.4 S1 Fall Average 2.42 3.67 34.23% 4.31
Warrenton CO3.7 S1 Fall AMNH 376 56.50 2.75 ± 0.10 3.75 ± 0.04 26.7% ± 2.9% 4.44 ± 0.09
Warrenton CO3.7 S1 Fall NMNH 1177 25.55 2.78 ± 0.03 3.67 ± 0.02 24.1% ± 1.0% 4.44 ± 0.08
Warrenton CO3.7 S1 Fall Vatican 1018 10.91 3.23 ± 0.10 n.d. n.d. 4.46 ± 0.08†
Warrenton CO3.7 S1 Fall FMNH ME 1720 #1 78.25 2.82 ± 0.04 3.67 ± 0.01 23.3% ± 1.2% 4.50 ± 0.09
Warrenton CO3.7 S1 Fall Average 2.81 3.70 23.96% 4.46
Colony CO3.0 S1 Find AMNH 4595 22.30 2.90 ± 0.11 3.33 ± 0.04 13.0% ± 3.5% 4.58 ± 0.08
Colony CO3.0 S1 Find NMNH 6264 28.24 3.03 ± 0.06 3.22 ± 0.02 5.9% ± 2.1% 4.52 ± 0.12
Colony CO3.0 S1 Find FMNH ME 3089 #1 25.91 2.71 ± 0.04 2.99 ± 0.02 9.4% ± 1.4% 4.47 ± 0.12
Colony CO3.0 S1 Find Average 2.87 3.17 9.22% 4.52
Dar al Gani 005 CO3 S2 W2 Find AMNH 4916 36.50 3.21 ± 0.12 3.35 ± 0.03 4.0% ± 3.8% 4.62 ± 0.09
Dar al Gani 023 CO3 S2 W2 Find AMNH 4931 24.40 3.24 ± 0.12 3.31 ± 0.04 2.1% ± 3.9% 4.63 ± 0.08
Dar al Gani 078 CO3 S2 W2 Find AMNH 4917 21.50 3.14 ± 0.12 3.34 ± 0.04 6.0% ± 3.8% 4.80 ± 0.08
Dar al Gani 078 CO3 S2 W2 Find IOM Cr 23.1 14.16 3.16 ± 0.08 3.32 ± 0.03 4.8% ± 2.6% 4.59 ± 0.12
Dar al Gani 078 CO3 S2 W2 Find Average 3.15 3.33 5.53% 4.70
Dar al Gani 749 CO3 W2 Find Monnig M 972.1 51.35 3.30 ± 0.03 3.38 ± 0.01 2.3% ± 0.9% 4.63 ± 0.09
Dar al Gani 749 CO3 W2 Find PSF PSF00-002 35.77 3.29 ± 0.04 3.38 ± 0.01 2.8% ± 1.4% 4.59 ± 0.09
Dar al Gani 749 CO3 W2 Find Average 3.30 3.38 2.51% 4.61
Isna CO4 Find NMNH 5890 A 91.32 3.07 ± 0.02 3.54 ± 0.01 13.3% ± 0.7% 3.91 ± 0.12
Isna CO4 Find Monnig M 733.1 22.47 3.08 ± 0.04 3.57 ± 0.02 13.7% ± 1.3% 3.96 ± 0.12
Isna CO4 Find FMNH ME 2799 #1 17.99 2.88 ± 0.05 3.66 ± 0.03 21.2% ± 1.4% 4.21 ± 0.12
276
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Isna CO4 Find Average 3.04 3.56 14.53% 4.03
NWA 062 CO3.4 S1 Find Monnig M1058.1 21.11 3.18 ± 0.06 3.55 ± 0.04 10.2% ± 1.9% 4.22 ± 0.12
Rainbow CO3.2 Find NMNH 6981 16.35 3.26 ± 0.07 3.19 ± 0.04 -2.1% ± 2.6% 3.96 ± 0.12
Al Rais CR2 S1 Fall LNHM BM1971,289 10.82 2.29 ± 0.04 3.06 ± 0.04 25.0% ± 1.6% 4.89 ± 0.12
Renazzo CR2 S1-3 Fall NMNH 2196 15.86 3.19 ± 0.06 3.31 ± 0.03 3.7% ± 2.0% 5.06 ± 0.10
Renazzo CR2 S1-3 Fall LNHM BM41105 10.94 3.06 ± 0.08 3.30 ± 0.04 7.3% ± 2.8% 5.17 ± 0.08
Renazzo CR2 S1-3 Fall Vatican 792 12.18 2.89 ± 0.08 3.54 ± 0.04 18.2% ± 2.3% 5.10 ± 0.08†
Renazzo CR2 S1-3 Fall Average 3.05 3.37 9.50% 5.11
Acfer 097 CR2 S2 W2 Find AMNH 4808 15.44 3.06 ± 0.12 3.54 ± 0.04 13.7% ± 3.5% 5.06 ± 0.08
Acfer 270 CR2 S2 W2 Find Monnig M 966.1 27.24 3.26 ± 0.07 3.46 ± 0.02 6.0% ± 2.2% 5.07 ± 0.10
Dhofar 1432 CR2 S2 W mod Find Monnig M1358.1 36.93 3.19 ± 0.06 3.37 ± 0.02 5.5% ± 1.9% 4.64 ± 0.12
El Djouf 001 CR2 S2 W2 Find Monnig M1316.1 23.77 3.09 ± 0.05 3.35 ± 0.02 7.7% ± 1.6% 4.89 ± 0.08
Tafassasset CR Find NMNH 7100 27.29 3.94 ± 0.05 3.88 ± 0.02 -1.5% ± 1.5% 5.34 ± 0.08
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4286 70.20 2.89 ± 0.05 3.68 ± 0.04 21.4% ± 1.6% 3.61 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4287 A 82.43 2.78 ± 0.05 3.69 ± 0.04 24.7% ± 1.6% 3.72 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4287 B 152.89 2.83 ± 0.05 n.d. n.d. 3.58 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4288 95.32 2.82 ± 0.05 3.65 ± 0.04 22.6% ± 1.6% 3.69 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4290 A 118.99 2.81 ± 0.05 n.d. n.d. 3.63 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4290 B 123.56 2.89 ± 0.05 3.65 ± 0.04 20.8% ± 1.6% 3.62 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4293 A 55.84 n.d. 3.65 ± 0.04 n.d. 3.59 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4293 B 46.04 2.88 ± 0.06 3.64 ± 0.04 21.1% ± 1.7% 3.63 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4297 A 25.41 2.98 ± 0.05 3.66 ± 0.04 18.6% ± 1.5% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4297 B 40.21 2.91 ± 0.03 3.69 ± 0.04 21.1% ± 1.2% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4297 C 35.40 2.87 ± 0.03 3.68 ± 0.04 22.1% ± 1.2% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4297 D 27.54 2.93 ± 0.05 3.73 ± 0.04 21.5% ± 1.5% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4298 111.42 2.88 ± 0.05 3.65 ± 0.04 21.0% ± 1.6% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4299 A 88.75 2.79 ± 0.06 3.66 ± 0.04 23.7% ± 1.7% 3.68 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4299 B 83.03 2.81 ± 0.06 3.64 ± 0.04 22.8% ± 1.8% 3.68 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4300 A 32.48 2.79 ± 0.05 3.67 ± 0.04 24.0% ± 1.7% 3.70 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4300 B 25.14 2.74 ± 0.07 3.80 ± 0.04 27.9% ± 2.0% 3.70 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4305 A 87.22 2.84 ± 0.05 3.69 ± 0.04 23.2% ± 1.6% 3.63 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4305 B 67.79 2.82 ± 0.01 3.71 ± 0.04 24.2% ± 0.9% 3.63 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4306 A 60.32 2.88 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.04 21.2% ± 1.2% 3.65 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4306 B 49.43 2.95 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.04 18.7% ± 1.3% 3.72 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4307 A 75.95 2.84 ± 0.01 3.66 ± 0.04 22.5% ± 0.9% 3.65 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4307 B 38.67 2.66 ± 0.12 3.66 ± 0.04 27.5% ± 3.4% 3.65 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4308 A 101.25 2.78 ± 0.05 3.65 ± 0.04 23.7% ± 1.5% 3.61 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4308 B 53.79 2.68 ± 0.06 3.63 ± 0.04 26.1% ± 1.8% 3.72 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4309 A 32.45 2.91 ± 0.05 3.65 ± 0.04 20.2% ± 1.7% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4309 B 43.90 3.00 ± 0.05 3.65 ± 0.04 17.6% ± 1.5% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4310 A 50.25 2.80 ± 0.11 3.86 ± 0.04 27.3% ± 2.9% 3.64 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4310 B 43.02 2.76 ± 0.11 3.66 ± 0.04 24.7% ± 3.0% 3.65 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4314 A 42.18 2.93 ± 0.04 3.66 ± 0.04 20.0% ± 1.4% 3.64 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4314 B 21.87 2.97 ± 0.08 3.64 ± 0.04 18.3% ± 2.4% 3.68 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4315 A 66.23 2.81 ± 0.02 3.64 ± 0.04 22.6% ± 0.9% 3.70 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4315 B 77.42 2.78 ± 0.02 3.66 ± 0.04 24.0% ± 1.0% 3.69 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4317 A 49.23 2.87 ± 0.04 3.65 ± 0.04 21.3% ± 1.4% 3.65 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4317 B 20.01 2.77 ± 0.08 3.61 ± 0.04 23.3% ± 2.4% 3.73 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4318 A 47.30 2.83 ± 0.04 3.61 ± 0.04 21.7% ± 1.4% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4318 B 44.90 2.85 ± 0.04 3.60 ± 0.04 20.8% ± 1.5% n.d.
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4324 A 60.18 2.79 ± 0.06 3.66 ± 0.04 23.7% ± 1.9% 3.73 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall AMNH 4324 B 49.77 2.89 ± 0.08 3.63 ± 0.04 20.5% ± 2.3% 3.74 ± 0.10
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5556 63.42 2.92 ± 0.02 3.60 ± 0.01 18.9% ± 0.7% 3.61 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5557 61.04 2.97 ± 0.03 3.60 ± 0.01 17.7% ± 0.8% 3.56 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5559 67.07 2.94 ± 0.02 3.59 ± 0.01 18.1% ± 0.7% 3.55 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5567 2 37.00 2.93 ± 0.04 3.62 ± 0.01 18.9% ± 1.2% 3.67 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5567 3 27.32 2.99 ± 0.03 3.60 ± 0.02 16.9% ± 1.0% 3.54 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5567 4 21.42 2.94 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.02 17.9% ± 1.2% 3.69 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5568 34.89 2.92 ± 0.03 3.60 ± 0.01 19.0% ± 0.8% 3.72 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5570 1 32.97 2.90 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.02 19.1% ± 0.9% 3.53 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5570 3 59.79 2.90 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.01 19.2% ± 0.7% 3.62 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5570 4 55.46 2.91 ± 0.03 3.60 ± 0.01 19.2% ± 0.9% 3.65 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5570 5 65.65 2.91 ± 0.03 3.59 ± 0.01 19.2% ± 0.8% 3.60 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall NMNH 5570 7 46.77 2.91 ± 0.03 3.61 ± 0.01 19.3% ± 0.9% 3.53 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall Vatican 28 168.74 2.93 ± 0.03 3.85 ± 0.08 23.8% ± 1.7% 3.69 ± 0.09
Allende CV3o S1 Fall Average 2.86 3.66 21.93% 3.65
Grosnaja CV3o S3 Fall Vatican 373 11.12 3.18 ± 0.11 n.d. n.d. 3.96 ± 0.08†
Mokoia CV3o S1 Fall LNHM BM1910,729 14.71 2.59 ± 0.04 3.58 ± 0.04 27.7% ± 1.3% 4.24 ± 0.08
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall AMNH 2226 B 10.62 3.41 ± 0.06 3.38 ± 0.04 -1.1% ± 2.3% 4.30 ± 0.12
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall NMNH 3137 9.02 3.15 ± 0.07 3.50 ± 0.05 10.0% ± 2.4% 4.49 ± 0.12
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall NMNH 477 150.94 3.16 ± 0.04 n.d. n.d. 4.49 ± 0.10
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall Vatican 1002 82.22 3.31 ± 0.10 3.53 ± 0.04 6.2% ± 3.0% 4.46 ± 0.12
277
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall Vatican 1496 10.38 n.d. n.d. n.d. 4.39 ± 0.08†
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall FMNH ME 782 #1.1 32.73 3.22 ± 0.03 3.49 ± 0.02 7.8% ± 1.0% 4.32 ± 0.10
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall FMNH ME 782 #1.2 23.77 3.22 ± 0.03 3.51 ± 0.02 8.2% ± 1.1% 4.43 ± 0.08
Vigarano CV3r S1-2 Fall Average 3.22 3.51 8.27% 4.41
Axtell CV3o Find IOM Cr 22.1 13.81 2.69 ± 0.10 3.51 ± 0.04 23.4% ± 3.0% 3.23 ± 0.12
Dar al Gani 1040 CV3 S low W mod Find Monnig M1296.1 21.64 2.93 ± 0.06 3.67 ± 0.03 20.2% ± 1.6% 4.84 ± 0.12
Efremovka CV3r S4 Find AMNH 4221 A 106.82 3.51 ± 0.05 3.50 ± 0.01 -0.3% ± 1.6% 4.89 ± 0.10
Efremovka CV3r S4 Find AMNH 4221 B 13.94 3.70 ± 0.08 3.49 ± 0.04 -6.2% ± 2.5% 4.89 ± 0.10
Efremovka CV3r S4 Find AMNH 4221 C 28.65 3.60 ± 0.02 3.54 ± 0.02 -1.8% ± 0.7% 4.93 ± 0.10
Efremovka CV3r S4 Find NMNH 6456 124.12 3.36 ± 0.04 3.44 ± 0.01 2.5% ± 1.1% 4.69 ± 0.09
Efremovka CV3r S4 Find NMNH 7029 15.67 3.35 ± 0.05 3.49 ± 0.03 4.0% ± 1.6% 4.83 ± 0.08
Efremovka CV3r S4 Find Monnig M1051.1 39.24 3.54 ± 0.04 3.50 ± 0.01 -1.1% ± 1.2% 4.91 ± 0.09
Efremovka CV3r S4 Find Average 3.46 3.48 0.55% 4.86
Leoville CV3r S3 Find AMNH 4337 9.30 2.94 ± 0.12 3.39 ± 0.05 13.1% ± 3.8% 4.73 ± 0.08
Leoville CV3r S3 Find NMNH 3535 36.69 3.57 ± 0.06 3.53 ± 0.02 -1.3% ± 1.8% 4.95 ± 0.12
Leoville CV3r S3 Find Average 3.42 3.50 2.09% 4.84
Nova 002 CV3o Find NMNH 6828 12.83 3.06 ± 0.04 3.25 ± 0.03 6.0% ± 1.5% 4.12 ± 0.12
NWA 2140 CV3 Find Monnig M 295.2 15.26 2.85 ± 0.06 3.68 ± 0.05 22.5% ± 2.0% 3.28 ± 0.12
NWA 3118 CV3 W low Find Monnig M1167.1 54.44 2.75 ± 0.05 3.57 ± 0.01 23.1% ± 1.5% 3.29 ± 0.12
Sahara 98044 CV3 S4 W4 Find Monnig M 893.1 25.68 3.37 ± 0.07 3.56 ± 0.03 5.2% ± 2.0% 4.29 ± 0.08
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
278
Table 14: Physical Properties of Carbonaceous Chondrite Falls by Petrographic Type.
Petrographic Type No. Meteorites Bulk Density (g cm-3) Grain Density (g cm-3) Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility (log χ)
max max max max
Average Average Average Average
min min min min
1 1 1.57 2.42 34.9% 4.49
3.05 3.37 36.7% 5.11
2 13 2.26 ± 0.09 2.93 ± 0.05 23.1% ± 2.2% 4.03 ± 0.16
1.88 2.74 9.5% 3.30
3.22 3.74 34.2% 4.81
3 10 2.90 ± 0.08 3.63 ± 0.03 21.0% ± 2.7% 4.39 ± 0.12
2.42 3.50 8.3% 3.65
3.23 3.60 20.8% 4.67
4 4 3.04 ± 0.19 3.58 ± 0.02 15.0% ± 5.8% 4.55 ± 0.12
2.85 3.56 9.2% 4.43
279
Table 15: Physical Properties of Carbonaceous Chondrites by Shock.
Shock Stage No. Meteorites Bulk Density (g cm-3) Grain Density (g cm-3) Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility (log χ)
max max max max
Average Average Average Average
min min min min
3.23 3.70 36.7% 4.89
S1 20 2.57 ± 0.10 3.25 ± 0.08 21.6% ± 2.0% 4.17 ± 0.11
1.88 2.78 9.2% 3.28
3.55 3.74 23.3% 5.14
S2 12 3.13 ± 0.07 3.46 ± 0.04 9.4% ± 2.2% 4.81 ± 0.05
2.66 3.31 -1.0% 4.62
3.42 3.66 21.2% 4.84
S3 3 3.16 ± 0.16 3.58 ± 0.08 11.7% ± 9.6% 4.47 ± 0.26
2.22 2.91 15.0% 3.66
3.46 3.56 5.2% 4.86
S4 2 3.42 ± 0.04 3.52 ± 0.04 2.9% ± 2.3% 4.57 ± 0.28
3.37 3.48 0.6% 4.29
280
Table 16: Data for Enstatite Chondrites.
281
Table 17: Mass-weighted Averages by Meteorite for Enstatite Chondrites.
Meteorite Type Fall Number of Stones Total Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Abee EH4 S2-5 Fall 4 314.33 3.52 3.62 2.96% 5.47
Adhi Kot EH4 Fall 2 72.96 3.60 3.75 3.98% 5.49
Indarch EH4 S4 Fall 5 210.81 3.58 3.65 1.90% 5.38
Saint-Sauveur EH5 Fall 1 31.17 3.63 3.66 0.67% 5.57
St. Mark's EH5 Fall 1 86.46 3.57 3.74 4.49% 5.45
Bethune EH4/5 Find 2 38.58 2.97 3.22 7.67% 4.49
Kota-Kota EH3 S4 Find 1 16.45 3.53 3.55 0.42% 5.25
Sahara 97096 EH3 S2 W1 Find 1 44.80 3.24 3.73 13.18% 5.72
Sahara 97158 EH3 Find 1 123.83 3.55 3.66 2.92% 5.64
Daniel's Kuil EL6 Fall 2 86.54 3.55 3.71 4.29% 5.51
Eagle EL6 S2 Fall 1 14.31 3.50 3.45 -1.60% 5.45
Hvittis EL6 S2 Fall 4 204.77 3.54 3.57 1.03% 5.48
Jajh deh Kot Lalu EL6 S2 Fall 3 60.62 3.37 3.54 4.69% 5.43
Khairpur EL6 S2 Fall 3 78.68 3.79 3.86 1.70% 5.53
Pillistfer EL6 S2 Fall 5 157.40 3.61 3.70 2.44% 5.55
Atlanta EL6 Find 2 58.04 3.42 3.57 4.23% 5.32
Blithfield EL6 S2 Find 2 149.06 3.67 3.70 0.80% 5.39
Happy Canyon EL6/7 S2 Find 1 10.59 3.12 3.32 6.07% 4.53
Ilafegh 009 EL7 S4 W0/1 Find 1 35.30 3.54 3.68 3.77% 5.69
North West Forrest EL6 Find 1 78.47 2.89 3.28 11.99% 4.16
NWA 2965 EL6/7 Find 1 40.98 3.08 3.33 7.70% 4.43
NWA 3132 EL3 S2 W4 Find 1 21.26 2.94 3.23 9.03% 4.74
Yilmia EL6 Find 1 72.21 3.14 3.31 4.97% 4.94
282
Table 18: Data for Lunar Meteorites, Apollo Samples, and SNC.
Magnetic
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Dhofar 081 Lun Find Vatican 1441 6.96 n.d. 2.64 ± 0.03‡ n.d. n.d.
NWA 482 Lun Find IOM A 49.1 9.87 2.82 ± 0.10 2.85 ± 0.03 1.1% ± 3.7% 2.62 ± 0.12
NWA 5000 Lun Find Monnig M1431.1 7.00 2.73 ± 0.07 2.80 ± 0.05 2.7% ± 3.1% 3.31 ± 0.12
NWA 773 Lun S2 W1 Find LNHM BM2001,M23 13.22 2.87 ± 0.06 3.24 ± 0.03 11.4% ± 2.1% 3.36 ± 0.12
Apollo 12051 Lun Field NASA 12051 19 12.19 3.27 ± 0.05 3.32 ± 0.02 1.8% ± 1.7% 2.79 ± 0.10
Apollo 14303 Lun Field NASA 14303 14 22.26 2.52 ± 0.03 3.05 ± 0.01 17.5% ± 1.0% 3.33 ± 0.10
Apollo 14321 Lun Field NASA 14321 220 10.01 2.36 ± 0.04 3.03 ± 0.03 22.1% ± 1.5% 3.14 ± 0.10
Apollo 15418 Lun Field NASA 15418 179 28.68 2.65 ± 0.02 3.12 ± 0.01 14.9% ± 0.7% 2.90 ± 0.10
Apollo 15555 Lun Field NASA 15555 62 32.98 3.11 ± 0.03 3.35 ± 0.01 7.1% ± 0.9% 2.87 ± 0.10
Dar al Gani 476 She Find Vatican 1168 18.1 3.18 ± 0.06‡ n.d. n.d. 2.90 ± 0.08†
Los Angeles She Find CMS 1418 24.54 2.83 ± 0.03 3.08 ± 0.02 8.1% ± 1.0% 3.52 ± 0.12
Sayh al Uhaymir 005 She Find Monnig M 944.1 23.94 3.12 ± 0.04 3.35 ± 0.04 6.8% ± 1.6% 2.92 ± 0.12
Sayh al Uhaymir 005 She Find LNHM BM2000,M40 19.04 3.07 ± 0.04 3.27 ± 0.02 6.2% ± 1.4% 2.88 ± 0.12
Sayh al Uhaymir 005 She Find Vatican 1169 19.28 3.13 ± 0.03 3.44 ± 0.03‡ 9.0% ± 1.2% 2.83 ± 0.12
Sayh al Uhaymir 005 She Find Average 3.11 3.35 7.3% 2.87
Shergotty She Fall LNHM BM41021 57.34 2.83 ± 0.02 3.27 ± 0.01 13.5% ± 0.8% 2.89 ± 0.09
Zagami She Fall IOM A 23.6a 9.45 3.13 ± 0.12 3.25 ± 0.05 3.5% ± 4.0% 2.79 ± 0.12
Zagami She Fall CMS 1306.2 23.78 2.92 ± 0.04 3.30 ± 0.03 11.4% ± 1.3% 2.83 ± 0.12
Zagami She Fall LNHM BM1966,54 32.32 2.91 ± 0.04 3.29 ± 0.01 11.4% ± 1.2% 2.79 ± 0.09
Zagami She Fall Average 2.95 3.28 10.3% 2.80
Governador Valadares Nak Find LNHM BM1999,M64 21.38 3.11 ± 0.04 3.43 ± 0.02 9.4% ± 1.4% 3.27 ± 0.12
Governador Valadares Nak Find FMNH ME 3216 #1 9.84 3.07 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.05 12.3% ± 2.0% 3.31 ± 0.12
Governador Valadares Nak Find Average 3.10 3.45 10.3% 3.29
Lafayette (stone) Nak Find CMS 167ax 16.01 3.21 ± 0.04 3.41 ± 0.03 5.8% ± 1.5% 3.49 ± 0.12
Lafayette (stone) Nak Find LNHM BM1959,755 26.65 3.16 ± 0.04 3.45 ± 0.03 8.3% ± 1.3% 3.50 ± 0.12
Lafayette (stone) Nak Find Average 3.18 3.43 7.4% 3.50
Nakhla Nak Fall Vatican 675 153.7 3.19 ± 0.03 3.29 ± 0.06‡ 3.0% ± 2.1% 3.17 ± 0.09
NWA 998 Nak Find Monnig M1063.1 17.66 2.88 ± 0.05 3.47 ± 0.03 16.9% ± 1.5% 3.68 ± 0.09
Chassigny Cha Fall Vatican 208 15.66 3.48 ± 0.08‡ 3.73 ± 0.04‡ 6.8% ± 2.3% 2.98 ± 0.08†
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
283
Table 19: Data for HEDs.
Dhofar 018 How Find Vatican 1444 2.84 2.61 ± 0.07‡ 2.96 ± 0.04‡ 12.0% ± 2.7% n.d.
Dhofar 485 How S4 W2 Find Monnig M1447.1 39.56 2.95 ± 0.06 3.21 ± 0.02 8.2% ± 1.9% 3.09 ± 0.12
Frankfort (stone) How Fall AMNH 351 10.51 2.90 ± 0.08 3.32 ± 0.02 12.7% ± 2.5% 3.36 ± 0.09
Frankfort (stone) How Fall Vatican 346 9.21 n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.49 ± 0.08†
Frankfort (stone) How Fall Average 2 stones 2.90 3.32 12.7% 3.43
Hughes 004 How Find AMNH 4845 14.62 30 ± 0.04 3.33 ± 0.03 9.7% ± 1.3% 3.09 ± 0.12
Jodzie How Fall FMNH ME 1371 #1 16.53 2.77 ± 0.03 3.24 ± 0.03 14.5% ± 1.3% 3.53 ± 0.10
Kapoeta How Fall AMNH 3924 A 18.92 2.94 ± 0.04 3.26 ± 0.02 9.9% ± 1.3% 3.67 ± 0.10
Kapoeta How Fall CMS 827 54.31 2.87 ± 0.03 3.30 ± 0.01 12.9% ± 1.0% 3.50 ± 0.09
Kapoeta How Fall FMNH ME 3129 #3 41.00 2.87 ± 0.03 3.35 ± 0.02 14.5% ± 1.0% 3.95 ± 0.10
Kapoeta How Fall Average 3 stones 2.88 3.31 13.0% 3.71
Le Teilleul How Fall NMNH 7209 21.996 2.77 ± 0.04 3.28 ± 0.02 15.5% ± 1.2% 3.46 ± 0.09
Luotolax How Fall AMNH 4932 14.41 2.77 ± 0.07 3.22 ± 0.03 13.9% ± 2.2% 3.21 ± 0.10
Muckera 001 How Find NMNH 6301 18.974 3.15 ± 0.05 3.21 ± 0.02 2.0% ± 1.7% 3.60 ± 0.10
Muckera 002 How Find CMS 1394.2 36.33 3.02 ± 0.04 3.17 ± 0.01 4.6% ± 1.2% 3.63 ± 0.10
NWA 1942 How Find Monnig M1113.1 36.61 2.96 ± 0.03 3.30 ± 0.02 10.3% ± 1.1% 3.07 ± 0.09
NWA 2696 How Find Monnig M1270.1 69.91 2.82 ± 0.02 3.20 ± 0.01 11.9% ± 0.8% 3.06 ± 0.09
Pavlovka How Fall LNHM BM55255 66.8 2.77 ± 0.02 3.33 ± 0.01 16.7% ± 0.8% 3.29 ± 0.10
Pavlovka How Fall Vatican 1470 8.14 n.d. 3.29 ± 0.03‡ n.d. 3.51 ± 0.08†
Pavlovka How Fall FMNH ME 1377 #1 41.31 2.84 ± 0.03 3.32 ± 0.01 14.6% ± 1.1% 3.55 ± 0.09
Pavlovka How Fall FMNH ME 1378 #1 93.36 2.79 ± 0.05 3.30 ± 0.01 15.3% ± 1.4% 3.29 ± 0.09
Pavlovka How Fall Average 4 stones 2.80 3.31 15.6% 3.41
Washougal How Fall LNHM BM1959,754 16.91 2.62 ± 0.04 3.26 ± 0.03 19.6% ± 1.4% 3.19 ± 0.10
Yurtuk How Fall NMNH 1422 29.669 2.83 ± 0.02 3.25 ± 0.01 13.0% ± 0.8% 2.90 ± 0.09
Yurtuk How Fall LNHM BM1956,321 21.57 2.84 ± 0.04 3.30 ± 0.02 14.0% ± 1.3% 2.81 ± 0.09
Yurtuk How Fall Average 2 stones 2.83 3.27 13.4% 2.85
Agoult Euc Find Monnig M1060.1 51.65 3.06 ± 0.03 3.19 ± 0.01 4.1% ± 1.0% 2.61 ± 0.12
Béréba Euc mmict Fall NMNH 6703 15.35 2.98 ± 0.05 3.17 ± 0.03 6.2% ± 1.8% 3.29 ± 0.10
Bialystok Euc pmict Fall NMNH 332 11.389 2.77 ± 0.04 3.20 ± 0.04 13.5% ± 1.6% 2.73 ± 0.09
Binda Euc Find AMNH 4008 7.95 2.94 ± 0.07 3.34 ± 0.06 11.8% ± 2.6% 3.03 ± 0.12
Binda Euc Find Monnig M 68.1 35.66 2.97 ± 0.03 3.32 ± 0.01 10.6% ± 0.9% 3.18 ± 0.10
Binda Euc Find Average 2 stones 2.96 3.32 10.8% 3.11
Bouvante Euc mmict Find AMNH 4550 29.95 2.80 ± 0.01 3.23 ± 0.01 13.3% ± 0.6% 3.11 ± 0.10
Bouvante Euc mmict Find CMS 1290.2 68.69 2.73 ± 0.05 3.21 ± 0.01 14.8% ± 1.4% 3.43 ± 0.09
Bouvante Euc mmict Find Average 2 stones 2.75 3.21 14.4% 3.27
Cachari Euc mmict Find NMNH 6708 24.249 2.92 ± 0.03 3.19 ± 0.02 8.5% ± 1.1% 2.57 ± 0.10
Cachari Euc mmict Find IOM A 14.1 19.01 2.78 ± 0.04 3.21 ± 0.02 13.6% ± 1.3% 2.80 ± 0.09
Cachari Euc mmict Find Average 2 stones 2.85 3.20 10.8% 2.69
Caldera Euc Find NMNH 6394 28.915 n.d. 3.14 ± 0.01 n.d. 2.64 ± 0.09
Camel Donga Euc mmict Find AMNH 4597 51.55 2.83 ± 0.01 3.20 ± 0.01 11.4% ± 0.4% 4.17 ± 0.10
Camel Donga Euc mmict Find NMNH 6430 54.253 2.82 ± 0.02 3.16 ± 0.01 10.8% ± 0.8% 4.28 ± 0.09
Camel Donga Euc mmict Find FMNH ME 3091 #1 44.65 2.83 ± 0.03 3.20 ± 0.01 11.4% ± 0.9% 4.44 ± 0.10
Camel Donga Euc mmict Find Average 3 stones 2.83 3.18 11.2% 4.30
Haraiya Euc mmict Fall AMNH 4062 49.5 2.63 ± 0.05 3.25 ± 0.03 19.0% ± 1.8% 2.86 ± 0.09
Ibitira Euc mmict Fall NMNH 6860 13.333 3.12 ± 0.07 3.18 ± 0.03 2.0% ± 2.4% 2.78 ± 0.12
Ibitira Euc mmict Fall IOM A 7.2 15.47 2.88 ± 0.06 3.17 ± 0.03 9.0% ± 2.1% 2.83 ± 0.09
284
Bulk Grain Magnetic
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Density Density Porosity Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Ibitira Euc mmict Fall Average 2 stones 2.98 3.17 5.9% 2.81
Jonzac Euc mmict Fall NMNH 7216 39.568 2.74 ± 0.03 3.20 ± 0.02 14.2% ± 0.9% 2.62 ± 0.09
Jonzac Euc mmict Fall Vatican 466 31.86 2.74 ± 0.02 3.26 ± 0.03 15.8% ± 1.0% 2.70 ± 0.09
Jonzac Euc mmict Fall Average 2 stones 2.74 3.22 14.9% 2.66
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall AMNH 466 18.14 2.82 ± 0.03 3.21 ± 0.02 12.2% ± 1.1% 3.08 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall NMNH 1051 19.089 2.86 ± 0.04 3.18 ± 0.02 9.9% ± 1.3% 2.88 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall Monnig M 202.2 14.39 2.86 ± 0.04 3.21 ± 0.03 11.1% ± 1.4% 2.71 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall Monnig M 200.1 75.35 2.96 ± 0.02 3.20 ± 0.01 7.5% ± 0.8% 3.34 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall Vatican 470 70.94 3.07 ± 0.01 3.22 ± 0.03 4.8% ± 1.0% 2.77 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall Vatican 469 212.66 3.07 ± 0.03 2.99 ± 0.03‡ -2.5% ± 1.4% 3.05 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall Vatican 473 16.49 3.00 ± 0.07 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall Vatican 471 31.36 2.73 ± 0.02 n.d. n.d. 2.58 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall FMNH ME 2649 #5 46.16 2.83 ± 0.03 3.22 ± 0.01 12.0% ± 1.0% 2.96 ± 0.09
Juvinas Euc mmict Fall Average 9 stones 2.98 3.10 4.0% 2.92
Kirbyville Euc mmict Fall NMNH 6924 22.691 2.93 ± 0.03 3.19 ± 0.02 8.0% ± 1.1% 2.66 ± 0.12
Lakangaon Euc mmict Fall LNHM BM1915,142 81.91 2.70 ± 0.04 3.24 ± 0.01 16.7% ± 1.4% 2.88 ± 0.09
Macibini Euc pmict Fall AMNH 4560 14.3 2.82 ± 0.06 3.16 ± 0.03 10.7% ± 1.9% 3.20 ± 0.10
Macibini Euc pmict Fall NMNH 1344 14.184 2.85 ± 0.06 3.13 ± 0.03 9.1% ± 2.2% 3.26 ± 0.09
Macibini Euc pmict Fall CMS 1578 29.44 2.73 ± 0.03 3.19 ± 0.02 14.5% ± 1.0% 3.41 ± 0.10
Macibini Euc pmict Fall Average 3 stones 2.78 3.17 12.3% 3.29
Millbillillie Euc mmict Fall AMNH 4698 64.57 2.74 ± 0.02 n.d. n.d. 2.66 ± 0.09
Millbillillie Euc mmict Fall AMNH 4699 142.99 2.84 ± 0.04 3.20 ± 0.00 11.3% ± 1.4% 2.59 ± 0.10
Millbillillie Euc mmict Fall NMNH 6452 46.306 2.88 ± 0.03 3.18 ± 0.01 9.5% ± 1.1% 2.69 ± 0.10
Millbillillie Euc mmict Fall IOM A 3.3 51.85 2.77 ± 0.03 3.20 ± 0.01 13.3% ± 1.0% 2.76 ± 0.10
Millbillillie Euc mmict Fall Average 4 stones 2.81 3.19 12.0% 2.67
Moama Euc cum Find LNHM BM1973,M11 1 66.94 2.78 ± 0.03 3.21 ± 0.01 13.5% ± 0.8% 2.59 ± 0.09
Moama Euc cum Find LNHM BM1973,M11 2 25.15 2.68 ± 0.04 3.03 ± 0.01 11.3% ± 1.3% 3.17 ± 0.09
Moama Euc cum Find Average 2 stones 2.75 3.16 12.9% 2.88
Moore County Euc cum Fall AMNH 4471 A 23.01 2.92 ± 0.03 3.10 ± 0.02 5.7% ± 1.1% 2.87 ± 0.09
Moore County Euc cum Fall AMNH 4471 B 13.91 3.03 ± 0.04 3.08 ± 0.03 1.5% ± 1.7% 3.06 ± 0.09
Moore County Euc cum Fall AMNH 4471 C 10.04 2.98 ± 0.05 3.07 ± 0.04 2.9% ± 2.0% 2.99 ± 0.09
Moore County Euc cum Fall Average 3 stones 2.97 3.09 3.9% 2.97
Nuevo Laredo Euc mmict Find NMNH 1783 84.329 2.76 ± 0.05 3.21 ± 0.01 14.1% ± 1.5% 2.83 ± 0.09
NWA 1109 Euc pmict Find Monnig M1064.1 42.35 2.76 ± 0.03 3.25 ± 0.01 15.1% ± 1.1% 3.22 ± 0.09
NWA 2690 Euc W2 Find Monnig M 375.2 36.88 2.71 ± 0.06 3.23 ± 0.02 16.0% ± 1.8% 3.30 ± 0.09
Padvarninkai Euc mmict Fall CMS 812.2 17.42 2.96 ± 0.06 3.15 ± 0.02 6.1% ± 2.1% 2.83 ± 0.09
Padvarninkai Euc mmict Fall LNHM BM1931,108 47.93 2.83 ± 0.03 3.16 ± 0.01 10.6% ± 1.0% 3.50 ± 0.09
Padvarninkai Euc mmict Fall Average 2 stones 2.86 3.16 9.4% 3.17
Palo Blanco Creek Euc mmict Find IOM A 6.2 46.63 2.95 ± 0.06 3.14 ± 0.01 6.1% ± 1.9% 3.01 ± 0.12
Palo Blanco Creek Euc mmict Find IOM A 6.5b 14.34 2.89 ± 0.04 3.14 ± 0.03 8.0% ± 1.6% 2.58 ± 0.12
Palo Blanco Creek Euc mmict Find Average 2 stones 2.93 3.14 6.6% 2.79
Pasamonte Euc pmict Fall NMNH 6318 63.288 2.66 ± 0.02 3.19 ± 0.01 16.6% ± 0.7% 3.40 ± 0.09
Pasamonte Euc pmict Fall Monnig M 10.1 52.7 2.61 ± 0.02 3.22 ± 0.01 18.9% ± 0.8% 3.08 ± 0.09
Pasamonte Euc pmict Fall FMNH ME 2623 #1 88.9 2.61 ± 0.04 3.21 ± 0.01 18.8% ± 1.3% 3.37 ± 0.10
Pasamonte Euc pmict Fall Average 3 stones 2.63 3.21 18.2% 3.28
Petersburg Euc pmict Fall AMNH 388 11.64 3.00 ± 0.06 3.19 ± 0.04 6.1% ± 2.0% 4.43 ± 0.08
Petersburg Euc pmict Fall NMNH 438 10.483 2.88 ± 0.06 3.13 ± 0.04 8.0% ± 2.2% 3.84 ± 0.09
Petersburg Euc pmict Fall Monnig M 498.1 24.58 2.97 ± 0.07 3.26 ± 0.02 9.0% ± 2.3% 4.19 ± 0.08
Petersburg Euc pmict Fall Average 3 stones 2.96 3.21 8.1% 4.16
Rancho Blanco Euc mmict Find CMS 1316 20.68 2.92 ± 0.07 3.17 ± 0.03 7.8% ± 2.4% 3.24 ± 0.12
Serra de Magé Euc Fall NMNH 839 21.938 3.08 ± 0.04 3.11 ± 0.02 0.9% ± 1.5% 2.56 ± 0.09
Sioux County Euc mmict Fall NMNH 836 10.331 2.73 ± 0.05 3.19 ± 0.04 14.4% ± 1.9% 3.69 ± 0.10
Sioux County Euc mmict Fall Monnig M 210.2 32.18 2.67 ± 0.02 3.20 ± 0.01 16.7% ± 0.8% 2.90 ± 0.09
Sioux County Euc mmict Fall DuPont JMD 658 20.96 2.62 ± 0.04 3.23 ± 0.02 18.8% ± 1.2% 3.31 ± 0.10
Sioux County Euc mmict Fall Average 3 stones 2.66 3.21 17.0% 3.30
285
Bulk Grain Magnetic
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Density Density Porosity Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Smara Euc pmict Find LNHM BM2001,M4 19.72 2.75 ± 0.15 3.19 ± 0.03 13.8% ± 4.9% 3.64 ± 0.12
Stannern Euc mmict Fall AMNH 4362 13.94 2.79 ± 0.06 3.21 ± 0.03 13.2% ± 2.1% 2.65 ± 0.09
Stannern Euc mmict Fall NMNH 141 30.47 2.85 ± 0.03 3.18 ± 0.01 10.5% ± 0.9% 2.57 ± 0.09
Stannern Euc mmict Fall Vatican 907 18.54 2.80 ± 0.02 3.33 ± 0.03 16.0% ± 1.1% 2.62 ± 0.10
Stannern Euc mmict Fall Vatican 908 14.98 n.d. n.d. n.d. 2.66 ± 0.08†
Stannern Euc mmict Fall Average 4 stones 2.82 3.23 12.8% 2.63
Dar al Gani 411 Euc pmict S2 W0 Find Vatican 1167 19.45 2.89 ± 0.03 3.32 ± 0.03 13.0% ± 1.3% 3.04 ± 0.12
Aïoun el Atrouss Dio pmict Fall AMNH 4466 76.68 2.93 ± 0.06 3.45 ± 0.03 15.2% ± 1.9% 2.68 ± 0.12
Aïoun el Atrouss Dio pmict Fall IOM A 12.1 30.47 3.04 ± 0.04 3.41 ± 0.02 10.8% ± 1.1% 2.66 ± 0.12
Aïoun el Atrouss Dio pmict Fall LNHM BM1977,M9 34.39 3.04 ± 0.04 3.41 ± 0.01 10.9% ± 1.1% 2.63 ± 0.12
Aïoun el Atrouss Dio pmict Fall Average 3 stones 2.98 3.43 13.2% 2.66
Bilanga Dio Fall Monnig M 915.2 110.1 3.10 ± 0.05 3.39 ± 0.01 8.5% ± 1.5% 2.79 ± 0.09
Bilanga Dio Fall Vatican 1398 14.58 2.95 ± 0.06 n.d. n.d. 2.87 ± 0.10
Bilanga Dio Fall Average 2 stones 3.09 3.39 9.1% 2.83
Dhofar 700 Dio Find Monnig M1169.1 94.54 3.37 ± 0.03 3.46 ± 0.01 2.5% ± 0.9% 2.83 ± 0.09
Garland Dio pmict Fall NMNH 2140 66.705 2.92 ± 0.02 3.36 ± 0.01 13.0% ± 0.8% 3.67 ± 0.10
Johnstown Dio Fall AMNH 2497 A 9.75 3.21 ± 0.10 3.41 ± 0.05 6.0% ± 3.2% 3.15 ± 0.12
Johnstown Dio Fall AMNH 2497 B 7.53 2.99 ± 0.05 3.43 ± 0.06 12.8% ± 2.1% 3.20 ± 0.12
Johnstown Dio Fall NMNH 6633 12.832 3.16 ± 0.08 3.38 ± 0.04 6.6% ± 2.6% 3.30 ± 0.09
Johnstown Dio Fall Monnig M 460.2 18.63 3.03 ± 0.03 3.42 ± 0.04 11.3% ± 1.4% 3.36 ± 0.12
Johnstown Dio Fall FMNH ME 2059 #1 64.24 3.10 ± 0.03 3.40 ± 0.01 8.9% ± 0.9% 3.22 ± 0.09
Johnstown Dio Fall Average 5 stones 3.10 3.41 9.1% 3.25
NWA 1877 Dio Find Monnig M1269.1 60.56 3.05 ± 0.03 3.48 ± 0.01 12.5% ± 0.9% 3.57 ± 0.09
NWA 2038 Dio Find Monnig M1164.1 32.64 3.08 ± 0.04 3.45 ± 0.01 10.9% ± 1.2% 3.05 ± 0.09
NWA 4664 Dio pmict Find Monnig M1363.2 37.11 3.32 ± 0.08 3.37 ± 0.02 1.4% ± 2.4% 3.35 ± 0.12
Roda Dio Fall Vatican 797 7.42 n.d. 3.50 ± 0.03‡ n.d. 3.00 ± 0.08†
Shalka Dio Fall NMNH 244 46.875 3.11 ± 0.03 3.42 ± 0.01 9.1% ± 0.9% 3.06 ± 0.09
Shalka Dio Fall LNHM BM33761 54.9 3.03 ± 0.03 3.45 ± 0.01 12.2% ± 0.9% 2.75 ± 0.09
Shalka Dio Fall Vatican 868 18.42 3.11 ± 0.06 3.51 ± 0.04 11.4% ± 1.9% 3.12 ± 0.09
Shalka Dio Fall Average 3 stones 3.07 3.45 10.9% 2.98
Tatahouine Dio Fall NMNH 6338 20.966 3.31 ± 0.06 3.36 ± 0.02 1.7% ± 1.8% 2.62 ± 0.09
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
†
Magnetic susceptibilities for some Vatican stones are those recorded by P. Rochette and J. Gattacceca.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
cum: cumulate
mmict: monomict breccia
pmict: polymict breccia
286
Table 20: Data for Aubrites, Angrites and Ureilites.
287
Table 21: Data for Primitive Achondrites.
288
Table 22: Summary of Physical Property Averages for All Meteorite Groups.
289
No. Magnetic Susceptibility
Type No. Stones Bulk Density (g cm-3) Grain Density (g cm-3) Porosity
Meteorites (log χ)
max max max max
Average Average Average Average
min min min min
3.55 3.73 13.2% 5.72
EH find 5* 4 3.27 ± 0.12 3.49 ± 0.10 6.1% ± 2.2% 5.12 ± 0.27
2.90 3.17 0.4% 4.49
3.55 3.73 13.2% 5.72
5 4* 3.32 ± 0.14 3.54 ± 0.11 6.0% ± 2.8% 5.27 ± 0.28
2.97 3.22 0.4% 4.49
4.11 4.17 11.7% 5.68
EL fall 18* 6 3.58 ± 0.05 3.66 ± 0.04 2.1% ± 1.0% 5.50 ± 0.03
3.15 3.45 -2.5% 5.30
3.79 3.86 4.7% 5.55
18 6* 3.56 ± 0.06 3.64 ± 0.06 2.1% ± 0.9% 5.49 ± 0.02
3.37 3.45 -1.6% 5.43
4.51 4.46 12.0% 5.69
EL find 10* 8 3.35 ± 0.15 3.52 ± 0.11 5.2% ± 1.2% 4.99 ± 0.16
2.89 3.23 -1.1% 4.16
3.67 3.70 12.0% 5.69
10 8* 3.22 ± 0.10 3.43 ± 0.07 6.1% ± 1.2% 4.90 ± 0.19
2.89 3.23 0.8% 4.16
3.27 3.35 22.1% 3.36
Lun 9* 9 2.79 ± 0.10 3.04 ± 0.08 9.8% ± 2.8% 3.04 ± 0.10
2.36 2.64 1.1% 2.62
3.18 3.44 13.5% 3.52
She 9* 5 3.01 ± 0.05 3.28 ± 0.04 8.7% ± 1.2% 2.93 ± 0.08
2.83 3.08 3.5% 2.79
3.21 3.51 16.9% 3.68
Nak 6* 4 3.1 ± 0.05 3.42 ± 0.03 9.3% ± 2.0% 3.40 ± 0.08
2.88 3.29 3.0% 3.17
Cha 1* 1 3.48 3.73 6.8% 2.98
3.15 3.36 19.6% 3.95
How 23* 16 2.85 ± 0.03 3.26 ± 0.02 12.5% ± 0.9% 3.34 ± 0.06
2.61 2.96 2.0% 2.81
3.12 3.34 19.0% 4.44
Euc 65* 31 2.84 ± 0.02 3.19 ± 0.01 10.9% ± 0.6% 3.07 ± 0.06
2.61 2.99 -2.5% 2.56
3.37 3.51 15.2% 3.67
Dio 20* 11 3.10 ± 0.03 3.43 ± 0.01 9.2% ± 1.0% 3.04 ± 0.07
2.92 3.36 1.4% 2.62
3.15 3.44 21.4% 4.72
Aub 19* 9 2.90 ± 0.05 3.21 ± 0.02 8.7% ± 1.4% 3.58 ± 0.10
2.53 3.11 1.7% 2.94
3.24 3.48 6.8% 3.15
Ang 2* 2 3.21 ± 0.03 3.42 ± 0.05 6.2% ± 0.6% 2.96 ± 0.19
3.18 3.37 5.7% 2.77
3.36 3.53 12.3% 5.28
Ure 20* 11 3.22 ± 0.02 3.36 ± 0.02 4.0% ± 0.9% 4.60 ± 0.08
3.04 3.25 -1.7% 3.93
3.59 3.88 12.4% 5.51
Aca 6* 4 3.46 ± 0.04 3.69 ± 0.05 6.2% ± 1.5% 5.20 ± 0.09
3.33 3.55 2.0% 4.99
3.82 4.16 9.1% 5.68
Lod 4* 3 3.53 ± 0.13 3.74 ± 0.21 5.4% ± 2.0% 5.24 ± 0.24
3.24 3.38 0.2% 4.74
3.90 3.65 15.1% 4.29
Bra 8* 4 3.48 ± 0.09 3.55 ± 0.02 1.5% ± 3.3% 4.06 ± 0.07
3.10 3.47 -10.7% 3.79
3.47 3.79 13.0% 5.55
Win 6* 3 3.24 ± 0.08 3.60 ± 0.13 7.9% ± 2.2% 4.90 ± 0.16
2.96 3.24 4.2% 4.44
* Denotes whether the row is averaged over stones or whole meteorite values.
―±‖ values are uncertainties in the averages, based on the standard deviation of the mean.
290
Table 23: Data for Mesosiderites, Pallasites and Iron Meteorites.
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Arispe Iron ICD Find Vatican 40 12.84 6.94 ± 0.26‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Arispe Iron ICD Find Vatican 39 87.16 7.65 ± 0.08‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Arispe Iron ICD Find Vatican 38 162.85 7.32 ± 0.02‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Arispe Iron ICD Find Average 7.40 -
Augustinovka Iron IIIAB Find Vatican 44 1199.13 6.99 ± 0.17‡ 7.13 ± 0.07‡ 1.9% ± 2.5% n.d.
‡
Canyon Diablo Iron IAB Find Vatican 174 212.26 7.84 ± 0.18 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Canyon Diablo Iron IAB Find Vatican 172 737.81 7.21 ± 0.16‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Canyon Diablo Iron IAB Find Average 7.34 -
Chisenga Iron IIIAB Fall LNHM BM1993,M4 91.11 7.64 ± 0.09 7.85 ± 0.04 2.7% ± 1.2% 5.38 ± 0.09
‡ ‡
Indian Valley Iron IIAB Find Vatican 453 576.98 7.17 ± 0.17 7.71 ± 0.21 6.9% ± 3.3% n.d.
Kayakent Iron IIIAB Fall LNHM BM1969,9 99.6 7.33 ± 0.24 7.77 ± 0.04 5.7% ± 3.1% 5.38 ± 0.09
Mount Morris (Wisconsin) Iron IAB Find CMS 389.1x 29.4 3.06 ± 0.04 3.28 ± 0.01 6.8% ± 1.3% 4.42 ± 0.08
Muzaffarpur Iron IAB Fall LNHM BM1983,M12 30.45 7.50 ± 0.20 7.81 ± 0.08 4.0% ± 2.8% 5.37 ± 0.08
N'goureyma Iron Fall IOM I 27.10 36.45 7.88 ± 0.29 7.67 ± 0.06 -2.8% ± 3.9% 5.35 ± 0.12
N'Kandhla Iron IID Fall Monnig M 826.1 86.2 7.82 ± 0.13 7.86 ± 0.03 0.5% ± 1.6% 5.04 ± 0.12
Nyaung Iron IIIAB Fall LNHM BM1983,M13 11.29 6.24 ± 0.42 7.69 ± 0.21 18.9% ± 5.9% 5.20 ± 0.12
‡
Odessa (iron) Iron IAB Find Vatican 712 91.101 7.90 ± 0.20 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Odessa (iron) Iron IAB Find Vatican 711 480.501 7.01 ± 0.14‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Odessa (iron) Iron IAB Find Average 7.14 -
Santa Catharina Iron IAB Find Vatican 836 50.15 5.00 ± 0.12‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Santa Catharina Iron IAB Find Vatican 833 102.1 4.03 ± 0.08‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Santa Catharina Iron IAB Find Vatican 834 83.23 3.10 ± 0.08‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Santa Catharina Iron IAB Find Vatican 832 118.08 4.35 ± 0.09‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Santa Catharina Iron IAB Find Vatican 830 183.43 6.36 ± 0.13‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Santa Catharina Iron IAB Find Vatican 831 132.45 2.73 ± 0.06‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Santa Catharina Iron IAB Find Average 4.02 -
Scottsville Iron IIAB Find Vatican 859 489.72 7.52 ± 0.16‡ 7.77 ± 0.36‡ 3.3% ± 4.9% n.d.
Sikhote-Alin Iron IIAB Fall Monnig M 350.11 66.4 7.61 ± 0.10 7.84 ± 0.04 3.0% ± 1.4% 5.32 ± 0.08
Sikhote-Alin Iron IIAB Fall Monnig M 350.8 45.31 7.44 ± 0.12 7.87 ± 0.05 5.5% ± 1.7% 5.42 ± 0.08
Sikhote-Alin Iron IIAB Fall Monnig M 350.9 84.47 7.97 ± 0.20 7.73 ± 0.04 -3.2% ± 2.6% 5.18 ± 0.09
Sikhote-Alin Iron IIAB Fall Monnig M 350.10 76.68 7.66 ± 0.14 7.76 ± 0.03 1.2% ± 1.8% 5.33 ± 0.09
Sikhote-Alin Iron IIAB Fall Average 7.70 7.79 1.1% 5.31
Steinbach Iron IVA Find AMNH 315 73.38 4.55 ± 0.02 5.78 ± 0.03 21.3% ± 0.5% 5.51 ± 0.10
Steinbach Iron IVA Find Vatican 913 40.16 4.19 ± 0.10‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Steinbach Iron IVA Find Average 4.42 5.78 23.6% 5.51
Tamentit Iron IIIAB Find Vatican 922 577.01 7.55 ± 0.15‡ 7.32 ± 0.13‡ -3.2% ± 2.8% n.d.
Acfer 063 Mes Find AMNH 4759 58.43 4.53 ± 0.08 4.38 ± 0.02 -3.5% ± 1.9% 5.87 ± 0.12
Bondoc Mes B4 Find AMNH 4616 85.81 7.17 ± 0.13 6.81 ± 0.04 -5.3% ± 2.0% 5.55 ± 0.12
Clover Springs Mes A2 Find AMNH 4391 11.9 4.20 ± 0.10 4.12 ± 0.06 -2.0% ± 2.9% 5.61 ± 0.12
‡
Crab Orchard Mes Find Vatican 248 178.18 4.37 ± 0.11 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Crab Orchard Mes Find Vatican 247 246.57 4.40 ± 0.09‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Crab Orchard Mes Find Vatican 246 544.26 4.09 ± 0.09‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Crab Orchard Mes Find Average 4.21 -
Emery Mes A3 Find AMNH 4367 A 30.25 4.58 ± 0.04 4.42 ± 0.04 -3.7% ± 1.3% 5.78 ± 0.12
Emery Mes A3 Find AMNH 4367 B 24.19 4.65 ± 0.06 4.48 ± 0.05 -3.7% ± 1.8% 5.71 ± 0.12
Emery Mes A3 Find Average 4.61 4.45 -3.7% 5.74
Estherville Mes A3/4 Fall Monnig M 223.8 46.45 5.40 ± 0.05 5.45 ± 0.03 0.9% ± 1.1% 5.49 ± 0.08
Ilafegh 002 Mes Find AMNH 4760 A 62.28 4.05 ± 0.01 4.08 ± 0.02 0.9% ± 0.5% 5.40 ± 0.10
Ilafegh 002 Mes Find AMNH 4760 B 26.57 4.37 ± 0.25 4.24 ± 0.03 -3.1% ± 6.0% 5.54 ± 0.10
Ilafegh 002 Mes Find Average 4.14 4.13 -0.3% 5.47
Łowicz Mes A3 Fall Monnig M 885.1 58.98 5.15 ± 0.06 5.17 ± 0.02 0.3% ± 1.3% 5.53 ± 0.10
‡ ‡
Mincy Mes S1 Find Vatican 623 74.61 4.31 ± 0.09 4.62 ± 0.05 6.6% ± 2.2% n.d.
Mincy Mes S1 Find Vatican 622 410.32 4.19 ± 0.10‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Mincy Mes S1 Find Average 4.21 4.62 9.0% -
Morristown Mes Find AMNH 305 C 47.59 4.36 ± 0.02 4.27 ± 0.02 -2.0% ± 0.7% 5.63 ± 0.10
Morristown Mes S1-2 Find Vatican 655 190.18 4.36 ± 0.11‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Morristown Mes S1-2 Find Vatican 654 235.8 4.51 ± 0.11‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Morristown Mes S1-2 Find Vatican 653 893.87 4.04 ± 0.09‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Morristown Mes S1-2 Find Average 4.17 4.27 2.5% 5.63
Vaca Muerta Mes A1 Find IOM A 34.1 63.3 3.14 ± 0.03 3.17 ± 0.01 1.0% ± 1.0% 3.59 ± 0.10
Vaca Muerta Mes A1 Find IOM A 34.2 63.3 3.08 ± 0.03 3.12 ± 0.01 1.5% ± 1.1% 3.52 ± 0.09
Vaca Muerta Mes A1 Find Average 3.11 3.14 1.2% 3.55
291
Meteorite Type Fall Collection Catalog Mass Bulk Density Grain Density Porosity Magnetic Susceptibility
(g) (g cm-3) (g cm-3) (log χ)
Ahumada Pal Find Vatican 9 62.96 4.88 ± 0.26‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Australia Pal Find AMNH 439 21.04 2.53 ± 0.03 3.17 ± 0.02 20.2% ± 1.2% 4.86 ± 0.08
‡
Brenham Pal Find Vatican 145 101.66 4.88 ± 0.13 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Brenham Pal Find Vatican 144 132.72 4.72 ± 0.24‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Brenham Pal Find Vatican 143 246.87 4.66 ± 0.16‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Brenham Pal Find Average 4.73 -
Eagle Station Pal Find Vatican 279 69.41 4.41 ± 0.11‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
‡ ‡
Finmarken Pal Find Vatican 331 321.65 4.78 ± 0.14 5.07 ± 0.18 5.9% ± 4.3% n.d.
‡
Glorieta Mountain Pal Find Vatican 367 25.51 6.56 ± 0.30 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Glorieta Mountain Pal Find Vatican 366 51.99 7.22 ± 0.27‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Glorieta Mountain Pal Find Vatican 365 53.77 7.03 ± 0.23‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Glorieta Mountain Pal Find Vatican 364 111.5 7.46 ± 0.21‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Glorieta Mountain Pal Find Vatican 363 203.62 7.75 ± 0.17‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Glorieta Mountain Pal Find Vatican 362 558.14 7.71 ± 0.16‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Glorieta Mountain Pal Find Average 7.59 -
Imilac Pal Find Vatican 282 29.66 5.19 ± 0.18‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Imilac Pal Find Vatican 280 67.7 4.97 ± 0.12‡ n.d. n.d. n.d.
Imilac Pal Find Average 5.03 -
Marjalahti Pal Fall IOM P 4.1 17.87 6.61 ± 0.33 7.26 ± 0.12 9.0% ± 4.7% 5.66 ± 0.08
Mount Vernon Pal Find Monnig M 447.1 28.35 4.06 ± 0.14 4.24 ± 0.04 4.1% ± 3.5% 5.59 ± 0.12
The symbol ―n.d.‖ indicates no data available for that particular stone.
‡
Some bulk or grain density data for Vatican stones were provided by G. Consolmagno and predate R. Macke’s involvement in the study.
292
Table 24: Porosity Averages by Shock Stage for All Chondrite Falls.
293
Table 25: Porosity Averages by Petrographic Type for Chondrite Falls.
294
APPENDIX C: COPYRIGHT PERMISSIONS
295
Permission for use of: R. J. Macke, D. T. Britt and G. J. Consolmagno (2010) Analysis of
systematic error in ―bead method‖ measurements of meteorite bulk volume and density.
The journal Planetary and Space Science is published by Elsevier Press, who permit
authors to use their own content in a dissertation. The permission is expressed on the following
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/copyright#whatrights.
This page states, ―… These rights are retained and permitted without the need to obtain specific
permission from Elsevier. These include… the right to use the journal article, in full or in part,
in a thesis or dissertation.‖
296
297
298
LIST OF REFERENCES
Al-Kathiri, A., Hofmann, B. A., Jull, A. J., & Gnos, E. (2005). Weathering of meteorites from
Oman: Correlation of chemical/mineralogical weathering proxies with 14C terrestrial ages
and the influence of soil chemistry. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 40, 1215-1239.
Allègre, C. J., Manhès, G., & Gopel, C. (1995). The age of the Earth. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 59, 1445-1456.
Anders, E. (1964). Origin, age and composition of meteorites. Space Science Review, 3, 583-714.
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. (1989). Abundances of the elements - Meteoritic and solar.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197-214.
Ashworth, J. R., & Barber, D. J. (1976). Lithification of gas-rich meteorites. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 30, 222-233.
Benedix, G. K., McCoy, T. J., Keil, K., & Love, S. G. (2000). A petrologic study of the IAB iron
meteorites: Constraints on the formation of the IAB-Winonaite parent body. Meteoritics
& Planetary Science, 35, 1127-1141.
Bevan, A. W., & Grady, M. M. (1988). Mount Morris (Wisconsin): A fragment of the IAB iron
Pine River? Meteoritics, 23, 349-352.
Bhandari, N., Shah, V. B., & Wasson, J. T. (1980). The Parsa enstatite chondrite. Meteoritics,
15, 225-233.
Bischoff, A., Rubin, A. E., Keil, K., & Stöffler, D. (1983). Lithification of gas-rich chondrite
regolith breccias by grain boundary and localized shock melting. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 66, 1-10.
Bischoff, A., Scott, E. R., Metzler, K., & Goodrich, C. A. (2006). Nature and Origins of
Meteoritic Breccias. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites and the
Early Solar System II (pp. 679-712). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Bischoff, A., Horstmann, M., Laubenstein, M., & Haberer, S. (2010). Asteroid 2008 TC3 -
Almahata Sitta: Not only a ureilitic meteorite, but a breccia containing many different
achondritic and chondritic lithologies (abstract #1763). 41st Lunar and Planetary Science
Conference.
299
Bland, P. A., Berry, F. J., Smith, T. B., Skinner, S. J., & Pillinger, C. T. (1996). The flux of
meteorites to the Earth and weathering in hot desert ordinary chondrite finds. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta, 60, 2053-2059.
Bland, P. A., Berry, F. J., & Pillinger, C. T. (1998a). Rapid weatering in Holbrook: An iron-57
Mössbauer spectroscopy study. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 33, 127-129.
Bland, P. A., Sexton, A. S., Jull, A. J., Bevan, A. W., Berry, F. J., Thornley, D. M., et al.
(1998b). Climate and rock weathering: A study of terrestrial age dated ordinary
chondritic meteorites from hot desert regions. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 62,
3168-3184.
Bland, P. A., Zolensky, M. E., Benedix, G. K., & Sephton, M. A. (2006). Weathering of
Chondritic Meteorites. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites and the
Early Solar System II (pp. 853-867). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Bogard, D. D., & Johnson, P. (1983). Martian gases in an Antarctic meteorite. Science, 221, 651-
654.
Bogard, D. D., Nyquist, L. E., & Johnson, P. (1984). Noble gas contents of shergottites and
implications for the martian origin of SNC meteorites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta, 48, 1723-1739.
Boss, A. P., & Goswami, J. N. (2006). Presolar Cloud Collapse and the Formation and Early
Evolution of the Solar Nebula. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites
and the Early Solar System II (pp. 171-186). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Bottke, W. F., Cellino, A., Paolicchi, P., & Binzel, R. P. (2002). An Overview of the Asteroids:
The Asteroids III Perspective. In W. Bottke, A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, & R. Binzel (Eds.),
Asteroids III (pp. 3-15). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Brearley, A. J., & Jones, R. H. (1998). Chondritic Meteorites. In J. J. Papike (Ed.), Planetary
Materials (pp. 3-1 - 3-398). Washington, D.C.: Mineralogical Society of America.
Britt, D. T., & Consolmagno, G. J. (2003). Stony meteorite porosities and densities: A review of
the data through 2001. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 38, 1161-1180.
Britt, D. T., Yeomans, D., Housen, K., & Consolmagno, G. (2002). Asteroid density, porosity
and structure. In W. Bottke, A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, & R. Binzel (Eds.), Asteroids III
(pp. 485-500). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Brownlee, D., Tsou, P., Aléon, J., Alexander, C. M., Araki, T., Bajt, S., et al. (2006). Comet
81P/Wild2 under a microscope. Science, 314, 1711-1716.
300
Burbine, T. H., McCoy, T. J., Meibom, A., Gladman, B., & Keil, K. (2002). Meteoritic Parent
Bodies: Their Number and Identification. In W. Bottke, A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, & R.
Binzel (Eds.), Asteroids III (pp. 653-667). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Buseck, P. R., & Holdsworth, E. F. (1972). Mineralogy and petrology of the Yilmia enstatite
chondrite. Meteoritics, 7, 429-447.
Cadenhead, D. A., & Stetter, J. R. (1975). Specific gravities of lunar materials using helium
pycnometry. Proceedings of the 6th Lunar Science Conference (pp. 3199-3206). New
York: Pergamon Press, Inc.
Cadenhead, D. A., Wagner, N. J., Jones, B. R., & Stetter, J. R. (1972). Some surface
characteristics and gas interactions of Apollo 14 fines and rock fragments. Proceedings of
the Third Lunar Science Conference (pp. 2243-2257). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Chapman, C. R., Morrison, D., & Zellner, B. (1975). Surface properties of asteroids: A synthesis
of polarimetry, radiometry and spectrometry. Icarus, 25, 104-130.
Clark, B. E., Fanale, F. P., & Salisbury, J. W. (1992). Meteorite-asteroid spectral comparison:
The effects of comminution, melting and recrystallization. Icarus, 97, 288-297.
Clayton, R. N., & Mayeda, T. K. (1983). Oxygen isotopes in eucrites, shergottites, nakhlites, and
chassignites. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 62, 1-6.
Clayton, R. N., Mayeda, T. K., Onuma, N., & Shearer, J. (1976). Oxygen-isotopic composition
of minerals in the Kenna ureilite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 40, 1475-1476.
Connolly, H. C., Desch, S. J., Ash, R. D., & Jones, R. H. (2006). Transient Heating Events in the
Protoplanetary Nebula. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites and the
Early Solar System II (pp. 383-398). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Consolmagno, G. J., & Britt, D. T. (1998). The density and porosity of meteorites from the
Vatican collection. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 33, 1231-1241.
Consolmagno, G. J., & Britt, D. T. (2008). Asteroids and the stratigraphic sequence of the solar
nebula (abstract #8180). Asteroids, Comets and Meteors 2008, LPI Contribution No.
1405.
Consolmagno, G. J., & Drake, M. J. (1977). Composition and evolution of the eucrite parent
body: Evidence from rare earth elements. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 41, 1271-
1282.
301
Consolmagno, G. J., Britt, D. T., & Stoll, C. P. (1998). The porosities of ordinary chondrites:
Models and interpretation. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 33, 1221-1229.
Consolmango, G. J., Macke, R. J., & Britt, D. T. (2004). How homogeneous are stones from
ordinary chondrite showers (abstract #5048). Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 67
Supplement.
Consolmagno, G. J., Macke, R. J., Rochette, P., Britt, D. T., & Gattacceca, J. (2006). Density,
magnetic susceptibility, and the characterization of ordinary chondrite falls and showers.
Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 41, 331-342.
Consolmagno, G. J., Britt, D. T., & Macke, R. J. (2008). The significance of meteorite density
and porosity. Chemie der Erde - Geochemistry, 68, 1-29.
Corrigan, C. M., Zolensky, M. E., Dahl, J., Long, M., Weir, J., Sapp, C., et al. (1997). The
porosity and permeability of chondritic meteorites and interplanetary dust particles.
Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 32, 509-515.
Coulson, I. M., Beech, M., & Nie, W. (2007). Physical properties of Martian meteorites: Porosity
and density measurements. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 42, 2043-2054.
Cuzzi, J. N., & Weidenschilling, S. J. (2006). Particle-Gas Dynamics and Primary Accretion. In
D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites and the Early Solar System II (pp.
353-382). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Dawson, K. R., Maxwell, J. A., & Parsons, D. E. (1960). A description of the meteorite which
fell near Abee, Alberta, Canada. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 21, 127-144.
Faeth, P. A., & Willingham, C. B. (1955). The assembly, calibration and operation of a gas
adsorption apparatus for the measurement of surface area, pore volume distribution, and
density of finely divided solids. In Technical Bulletin of Physical Chemistry. Pittsburgh:
Carnegie Mellon Institute of Research.
Flynn, G. J., & Klock, K. (1998). Densities and porosities of meteorites: Implications for the
porosities of asteroids (abstract #1112). Lunar and Planetary Science Conference XXIX.
Flynn, G. J., Moore, L. B., & Klock, W. (1999). Density and porosity of stone meteorites:
Implications for the density, porosity, cratering, and collisional disruption of asteroids.
Icarus, 142, 92-105.
302
Folco, L., Rochette, P., Gattacceca, J., & Perchiazzi, N. (2006). In situ identification, pairing, and
classification of meteorites from Antarctica through magnetic susceptibility
measurements. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 41, 343-353.
Fujii, N., Miyamoto, M., Kobayashi, Y., & Ito, K. (1981). Differences of relative strength among
chondrites measured by the vibrational fracturing rate. Memoirs of the National Institiute
of Polar Research, 20, 362-371.
Gaffey, M. J., Burbine, T. H., & Binzel, R. P. (1993). Asteroid spectroscopy: Progress and
perspectives. Meteoritics, 28, 161-187.
Gattacceca, J., Eisenlohr, P., & Rochette, P. (2004). Calibration of in situ magnetic susceptibility
measurements. Geophysical Journal International, 158, 42-49.
Goodrich, C. A. (2002). Olivine-phyric martian basalts: A new type of shergottite. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science, 37 Supplement, B31-B34.
Gounelle, M., & Zolensky, M. E. (2001). A terrestrial origin for sulfate veins in CI1 chondrites.
Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 36, 1321-1329.
Greenwood, R. C., & Franchi, I. A. (2004). Alteration and metamorphism of CO3 chondrites:
Evidence from oxygen and carbon isotopes. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 39, 1823-
1838.
Grossman, J. (Ed.). (2009). Meteoritical Bulletin Database. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php
Herd, R., Spray, J., Samson, C., Miller, S., & Christie, I. (2003). 3D imaging and modelling with
a space-qualified laser camera system: Development of terrestrial applications and
potential for planetary exploration (abstract #1718). 34th Lunar and Planetary Science
Conference.
Herndon, J. M., Rowe, M. W., Larson, E. E., & Watson, D. E. (1972). Magnetism of meteorites:
A review of Russian studies. Meteoritics, 7, 263-284.
Hildebrand, A. R., McCausland, P. J., Brown, P. G., Longstaffe, F. J., Russell, S. D., Tagliaferri,
E., et al. (2006). The fall and recovery of the Tagish Lake meteorite. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science, 41, 407-431.
Horstmann, M., & Bischoff, A. (2010). Characterization of spectacular lithologies from the
Almahata Sitta breccia (abstract #1784). 41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference.
303
Hutchison, R. (2004). Meteorites: A Petrologic, Chemical and Isotopic Synthesis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jenniskens, P., Shaddad, M. H., Numan, D., Elsir, S., Kudoda, A. M., Zolensky, M. E., et al.
(2009). The impact and recovery of asteroid 2008 TC3. Nature, 458, 485-488.
Jull, A. J., Wlotzka, F., & Donohue, D. J. (1991). Terrestrial ages and petrologic description of
Roosevelt County meteorites (abstract). Lunar and Planetary Science XXIV, 667-668.
Kallemeyn, G. W., & Wasson, J. T. (1982). The compositional classification of chondrites: III.
Ungrouped carbonaceous chondrites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 46, 2217-2228.
Kallemeyn, G. W., & Wasson, J. T. (1986). Compositions of enstatite (EH3, EH4,5 and EL6)
chondrites: Implications regarding their formation. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
50, 2153-2164.
Kallemeyn, G. W., Rubin, A. E., Wang, D., & Wasson, J. T. (1989). Ordinary chondrites: Bulk
compositions, classification, lithophile element fractionations, and composition-
petrographic type relationships. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 2747-2767.
Kallemeyn, G. W., Rubin, A. E., & Wasson, J. T. (1991). The compositional classification of
chondrites: V. The Karoonda (CK) group of carbonaceous chondrites. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 55, 881-892.
Kallemeyn, G. W., Rubin, A. E., & Wasson, J. T. (1996). The compositional classification of
chondrites VII: The R chondrite group. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60, 2243-
2256.
Keil, K. (1968). Mineralogical and chemical relationships among enstatite chondrites. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 73, 6945-6976.
Keil, K. (1989). Enstatite meteorites and their parent bodies. Meteoritics, 24, 195-208.
King, E. A., Schonfeld, E., Richardson, K. A., & Eldridge, J. S. (1969). Meteorite fall at Pueblito
de Allende, Chihuahua Mexico: Preliminary information. Science, 163, 928-929.
Kini, K. A., & Stacey, W. O. (1963). The adsorption of Helium by carbonaceous solids. Carbon,
1, 17-24.
304
Kohout, T., Elbra, T., Pesonen, L. J., Schnabl, P., & Slechta, S. (2006). Study of the physical
properties of meteorites using mobile laboratory facility (abstract #1607). Lunar and
Planetary Science Conference XXXVII.
Kohout, T., Kiuru, R., Montonen, M., Sheirich, P., Britt, D., Macke, R., et al. (Forthcoming).
2008 TC3 asteroid internal structure and physical properties inferred from study of the
Almahata Sitta meteorite. Icarus.
Krot, A. N., Scott, E. R., & Zolensky, M. E. (1995). Mineralogical and chemical modification of
components in CV3 chondrites: Nebular or asteroidal processing? Meteoritics, 30, 748-
775.
Krot, A. N., Meibom, A., Weisberg, M. K., & Keil, K. (2002). The CR chondrite clan:
Implications for early solar system processes. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 37, 1451-
1490.
Kuoppamäki, K., Kivekäs, L., Timonen, J., Hartikainen, J., Hartikainen, K., & Pesonen, L. J.
(1996). Determination of porosity of meteorites--Comparison of two methods.
Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 31 suppl., A75.
Macke, R., Britt, D., & Consolmagno, G. (2008). Density and porosity of shower meteorites as
indicators of meter-scale asteroid homogeneity (abstract #33.02). Bulletin of the
American Astronomical Society, 40, 455.
Macke, R. J., Britt, D. T., & Consolmagno, G. J. (2010a). Analysis of systematic error in "bead
method" measurements of meteorite bulk volume and density. Planetary and Space
Science, 58, 421-426.
Macke, R. J., Britt, D. T., & Consolmagno, G. J. (2010b). Using grain density and magnetic
susceptibility to quantify weathering in chondrite finds (abstract #5155). Meteoritics &
Planetary Science, 45 Supplement, A124.
Macke, R. J., Consolmagno, G. J., Britt, D. T., & Hutson, M. L. (2010c). Enstatite chondrite
density, magnetic susceptibility and porosity. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 45, In
press.
Macke, R. J., Britt, D. T., & Consolmagno, G. J. (2010d). Density, porosity and magnetic
susceptibility of achondritic meteorites. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 45, In press.
Mason, B. (1962). Meteorites. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
305
Mason, B. (1966). The enstatite chondrites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 30, 23-26.
Matsui, T., Hamano, Y., & Honda, M. (1980). Porosity and compressional-wave velocity
measurement of Antarctic meteorites. Memoirs of the National Institute of Polar Resarch
(special issue), 17, 268-275.
McCausland, P. J., & Flemming, R. L. (2006). Preliminary bulk and grain density measurements
of Martian, HED and other achondrites (abstract #1574). 37th Lunar and Planetary
Science Conference.
McCausland, P. J., Samson, C., & DesLauriers, A. (2007). Bulk densities of meteorites via
visible light 3D laser imaging. Meteoritics & Planetary Science Supplement, 42, 5066.
McSween, H. Y., Stolper, E. M., Taylor, L. A., Muntean, R. A., O'Kelley, G. D., Eldridge, J. S.,
et al. (1979). Petrogenetic relationship between Allan Hills 77005 and other achondrites.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 45, 275-284.
Meyer, C. (2005). 12051: Ilmenite basalt. Retrieved March 2010, from Lunar Sample
Compendium: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm
Meyer, C. (2008). 15418: Heavily-shocked and brecciated granulite. Retrieved March 2010,
from Lunar Sample Compendium: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm
Meyer, C. (2009a). 14303: Crystalline matrix breccia. Retrieved March 2010, from Lunar
Sample Compendium: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm
Meyer, C. (2009b). 14321: Clast-rich, Crystalline matrix breccia. Retrieved March 2010, from
Lunar Sample Compendium: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm
Meyer, C. (2009c). 15555: Olivine-normative basalt. Retrieved March 2010, from Lunar Sample
Compendium: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm
Mittlefehldt, D. W., McCoy, T. J., Goodrich, C. A., & Kracher, A. (1998). Non-chondritic
Meteorites from Asteroidal Bodies. In J. J. Papike (Ed.), Planetary Materials (pp. 4-1 - 4-
195). Washington, D.C.: Mineralogical Society of America.
Nehru, C. E., Pring, M., Weisberg, M. K., Ebihara, M. E., Clayton, R. N., & Mayeda, T. K.
(1996). A new brachinite and petrogenesis of the group. Lunar and Planetary Science,
27, 943-944.
306
Pesonen, L., Terho, M., & Kukkonnen, I. T. (1993). Physical properties of 368 meteorites:
Implications for meteorite magnetism and planetary geophysics. Proceedings of the NIPR
Symposium of Antarctic Meteorites. 6, pp. 401-416. Tokyo: National Institute of Polar
Resarch.
Pesonen, L. J., Kuoppamäki, K., Timonen, J., Hartikainen, J., Terho, M., & Hartikainen, K.
(1997). On the porosity of L and H chondrites (abstract #1684). 28th Lunar and
Planetary Science Conference.
Prinz, M., Nehru, C. E., Weisberg, M. K., & Delaney, J. S. (1984). Type 3 enstatite chondrites: A
newly recognized group of unequilibrated enstatite chondrites (uec's) (abstract #1331).
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference XV, 653-654.
Przylibski, T. A., Zagożdżon, P. P., Kryza, R., & Pilski, A. S. (2005). The Zaklodzie enstatite
meteorite: Mineralogy, petrology, origin, and classification. Meteoritics & Planetary
Science, 40 suppl., 185-200.
Righter, K., Drake, M. J., & Scott, E. (2006). Compositional Relationships Between Meteorites
and Terrestrial Planets. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites and the
Early Solar System II (pp. 803-828). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Rochette, P., Lorand, J.-P., Fillion, G., & Sautter, V. (2001). Pyrrhotite and the remanent
magnetization of SNC meteorites: A changing perspective on Martian magnetism. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, 190, 1-12.
Rochette, P., Sagnotti, L., Bourot-Denise, M., Consolmagno, G., Folco, L., Gattacceca, J., et al.
(2003). Magnetic classification of stony meteorites: 1. Ordinary chondrites. Meteoritics
& Planetary Science, 38, 251-268.
Rochette, P., Gattacceca, J., Chevrier, V., Hoffmann, V., Lorand, J.-P., Funaki, M., et al. (2005).
Matching Martian crustal magnetization and magnetic properties of Martian meteorites.
Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 40, 529-540.
Rochette, P., Gattacceca, J., Bonal, L., Bourot-Denise, M., Chevrier, M., Clerc, J.-P., et al.
(2008). Magnetic classification of stony meteorites: 2. Non-ordinary chondrites.
Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 43, 959-980.
Rochette, P., Gattacceca, J., Bourot-Denise, M., Consolmagno, G., Folco, L., Kohout, T., et al.
(2009). Magnetic classification of stony meteorites: 3. Achondrites. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science, 44, 405-427.
307
Rochette, P., Gattacceca, J., Ivanov, A. V., Nazarov, M. A., & Bezaeva, N. S. (2010). Magnetic
properties of lunar materials: Meteorites, Luna and Apollo returned samples. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 292, 383-391.
Rubin, A. E. (1983a). The Adhi Kot breccia and implications for the origin of chondrules and
silica-rich clasts in enstatite chondrites. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 64, 201-
212.
Rubin, A. E. (1983b). The Atlanta enstatite chondrite breccia. Meteoritics, 18, 113-121.
Rubin, A. E. (1983c). Impact melt-rock clasts in the Hvittis enstatite chondrite breccia:
Implications for a genetic relationship between EL chondrites and Aubrites. (Proceedings
of the 14th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference). Journal of Geophysical Research,
88 Supplement, B293-B300.
Rubin, A. E. (1984). The Blithfield meteorite and the origin of sulfide-rich, metal-poor clasts and
inclusions in brecciated enstatite chondrites. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 67,
273-283.
Rubin, A. E., & Keil, K. (1983). Mineralogy and petrology of the Abee enstatite chondrite
breccia and its dark inclusions. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 62, 118-131.
Rubin, A. E., Wang, D., Kallemeyn, G. W., & Wasson, J. T. (1988). The Ningqiang meteorite:
Classification and petrology of an anomalous CV chondrite. Meteoritics, 23, 13-23.
Rubin, A. E., Scott, E. R., & Keil, K. (1997). Shock metamorphism of enstatite chondrites.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61, 847-858.
Rubin, A. E., Warren, P. H., Greenwood, J. P., Verish, R. S., Leshin, L. A., Hervig, R. L., et al.
(2000). Los Angeles: The most differentiated basaltic Martian meteorite. Geology, 28,
1011.
Russell, S. S., Zipfel, J., Grossman, J. N., & Grady, M. M. (2002). The Meteoritical Bulletin, No.
86. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 37 Supplement, A157-A184.
Russell, S. S., Hartmann, L., Cuzzi, J., Krot, A. N., Gounelle, M., & Weidenschilling, S. (2006).
Timescales of the Solar Protoplanetary Disk. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.),
Meteorites and the Early Solar System II (pp. 233-251). Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
Ruzicka, A., Snyder, G. A., & Taylor, L. A. (1997). Vesta as the howardite, eucrite and diogenite
parent body: Implications for the size of a core and for large-scale differentiation.
Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 32, 825-840.
308
Schneider, D. M., Akridge, D. G., & Sears, D. W. (1988). Size distribution of metal grains and
chondrules in enstatite chondrites (abstract). Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 36
Supplement, A136-A137.
Sears, D. W., Kallemeyn, G. W., & Wasson, J. T. (1982). The compositional classification of
chondrites: II The enstatite chondrite groups. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 46,
597-608.
Sears, D. W., Weeks, K. S., & Rubin, A. E. (1984). First known EL5 chondrite: Evidence for
dual genetic sequence for enstatite chondrites. Nature, 308, 257-259.
Smith, D. L., Samson, C., Herd, R., DesLauriers, A., Sink, J.-E., Christie, I., et al. (2006).
Measuring the bulk density of meteorites nondestructively using three-dimensional laser
imaging. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, E10002.
Steele, W. A., & Halsey, G. D. (1954). The interaction of rare gas atoms with surfaces. Journal
of Chemical Physics, 22, 979-984.
Stepniewski, M., Borucki, J., Durakiewicz, T., Giro, L., & Sharp, Z. D. (2000). Preliminary
study of a new enstatite meteorite from Zaklodzie (southeast Poland). Meteoritics &
Planetary Science, 35 suppl., A152.
Stöffler, D., Bischoff, A., Buchwald, V. F., & Rubin, A. E. (1988). Shock effects in meteorites.
In J. F. Kerridge, & M. S. Matthews (Eds.), Meteorites and the Early Solar System (pp.
165-202). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Stöffler, D., Keil, K., & Scott, E. R. (1991). Shock metamorphism of ordinary chondrites.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 55, 3845-3867.
Strait, M. M., & Consolmagno, G. J. (2002). The nature and origin of meteorite porosity:
Evidence from thin section analysis (abstract). Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 37
Supplement, A137.
Strait, M. M., & Consolmagno, G. J. (2010). Visualizing porosity in meteorites (abstract #1533).
41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference.
Terho, M., Pesonen, L. J., & Kukkonen, I. T. (1991). The petrophysical classification of
meteorites: New results. Geological Survey of Finland Report Q29, 1/91/1.
Terho, M., Pesonen, L. J., Kukkonen, I. T., & Bukovanská, M. (1993). The petrophysical
classification of meteorites. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 37, 65-82.
Terraplus USA, Inc. (2003). Magnetic Susceptibility Meter SM-30 User’s Manual. Littleton, CO.
309
Torquato, S., Truskett, T. M., & Benedetti, P. G. (2000). Is random close packing of spheres well
defined? Physical Review Letters, 84, 2065-2067.
van Schmus, W. R., & Wood, J. A. (1967). A chemical-petrologic classification for the
chondritic meteorites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 31, 747-765.
Wasson, J. T., & Wetherill, G. W. (1979). Dynamical, chemical and isotopic evidence regarding
the formation locations of asteroids and meteorites. In T. Gehrels (Ed.), Asteroids (pp.
926-974). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Watters, T. R., & Prinz, M. (1979). Aubrites: Their origin and relationship to enstatite
chondrites. Proceedings of the 10th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (pp. 1073-
1093). New York: Pergamon Press, Inc.
Weidenschilling, S. J., & Cuzzi, J. N. (2006). Accretion Dynamics and Timescales: Relation to
Chondrites. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites and the Early Solar
System II (pp. 473-486). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Weisberg, M. K., Prinz, M., & Nehru, C. E. (1988). Petrology of ALH 85085: A chondrite with
unique characteristics. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 91, 19-32.
Weisberg, M. K., Prinz, M., Clayton, R. N., & Mayeda, T. K. (1993). The CR (Renazzo-type)
carbonaceous chondrite group and its implications. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
57, 1567-1586.
Weisberg, M. K., Prinz, M., Clayton, R. N., Mayeda, T. K., Grady, M. M., & Pillinger, C. T.
(1995). The CR chondrite clan. Proceedings of the NIPR Symposium on Antarctic
Meteorites, 8, 11-32.
Weisberg, M. K., Prinz, M., Clayton, R. N., Mayeda, T. K., Grady, M. M., Franchi, I., et al.
(1996). The K (Kakangari) chondrite grouplet. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60,
4253-4263.
Weisberg, M. K., Prinz, M., Clayton, R. N., & Mayeda, T. K. (1997). The CV3 chondrites: Three
subgroups, not two (abstract). Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 32 Supplement, A138-
A139.
Weisberg, M. K., Prinz, M., Clayton, R. N., Mayeda, T. K., Sugiura, N., Zashu, S., et al. (2001).
A new metal-rich chondrite grouplet. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 36, 401-418.
Weisberg, M. K., McCoy, T. J., & Krot, A. N. (2006). Systematics and Evaluation of Meteorite
Classification. In D. S. Lauretta, & H. Y. McSween (Eds.), Meteorites and the Early
Solar System II (pp. 19-52). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
310
Wilkison, S. L., & Robinson, M. S. (2000). Bulk density of ordinary chondrite meteorites and
implications for asteroidal internal structure. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 35, 1203-
1213.
Wlotzka, F. (1993). A weathering scale for the ordinary chondrites (abstract). Meteoritics, 28,
460.
Yomogida, K., & Matsui, T. (1981). Physical properties of some Antarctic meteorites. Memoirs
of the National Institute of Polar Research, 20, 284-294.
Yomogida, K., & Matsui, T. (1982). Physical properties of some unequilibrated Antarctic
ordinary chondrites. Memoirs of the National Institute of Polar Research (special issue),
25, 308-318.
Yomogida, K., & Matsui, T. (1983). Physical properties of ordinary chondrites. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 88, 9513-9533.
Yoshikawa, M., Kawaguchi, J., & Yano, H. (2010). Asteroid sample return mission Hayabusa.
its engineering challenges and scientific results (abstract #2746). 41st Lunar and
Planetary Science Conference.
Zhang, Y., Benoit, P. H., & Sears, D. W. (1993). LEW 88180, LEW 87119, and ALH 85119:
New EH6, EL7, and EL4 enstatite chondrites. Meteoritics, 28, 468.
311