To: Dave R. Webb who wrote (848 ) 1/29/1999 12:16:00 PM From: VAUGHN Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1030
Hello Dave I appreciate what you are saying regarding quality of data, but for all intents and purposes I think it was George who said essentially the same thing in his Geoscience presentation here two or three years ago. "We got trains w G-10's that are immediately down ice from discrete cone shaped lakes exhibiting mag lows and high EM's." Either he was stretching the truth then or this is recycled news. -------- Those pyropes plot in a very distinct group at 0% Cr and a few % Ca yet are still G-10's. Are they the J-1's you referred too? There are of course a shot gun burst of G-10's plotting up into the high Cr high Ca range which I must presume are the J-10". But that small group of what appears to be a substantive number of pyrope grains was so compact and distinctly isolated, I could not help but wonder exactly what that represented? I am also still scratching my head on the issue of high Cr+Ca peridotitic pyropes being the ideal and the fact that Cr falls off with depth (in that eclogitic G-10's have little). In fact, how can a low Cr high Ca eclogitic garnet be a G-10 if it takes high Cr to achieve that categorization? Is there a separate categorization method or system for eclogitic garnets high in Mg,Fe+Ca? On a related note, if your previous references to J-10's only referred to peridotitic garnet pyrope grains, where do your eclogitic garnets plot on the Mg/Ca/Fe scale? What about the Chromites, what is their Mg %? Thanks and Regards P.S. Any more progress on posting those maps (orientation and sampling), J-10 plots, photos on an updated the web-site? All your site information is from early 1998 or before. If you are going to insist on continuing to publish NR on some discreet and unknown wire, at least get the NR on the web site at the same time.