Image number one is too far to decide and image number two is too grainy/unclear to assess anything.
Anyway they seem totally different from the two certified ones to me.
Meteorite Discussion
- Thread starter DarkspARCS
- Start date
Help Support Gold Refining Forum:
Anyway they seem totally different from the two certified ones to me.
One final question for you Kurt.
If the letter from NEMS themselves clearly states that I should get a second opinion (which it does), then what does that tell you?
In the big wonderful world of fully understanding what they are telling me at this point... Is that they are admitting to dropping the ball on me in so many words... Because in the professional world, you want to be known as a professional with enough skill and ability as a facilitator that you wouldn't have to recommend second opinions...
I mean, am I wrong in making that analysis?..
If the letter from NEMS themselves clearly states that I should get a second opinion (which it does), then what does that tell you?
In the big wonderful world of fully understanding what they are telling me at this point... Is that they are admitting to dropping the ball on me in so many words... Because in the professional world, you want to be known as a professional with enough skill and ability as a facilitator that you wouldn't have to recommend second opinions...
I mean, am I wrong in making that analysis?..
Have you posted the letter?
OMG you're right Kurt! I posted it on Facebook and other forums I belong to but missed posting it here.... I apologize!! Here it is....
Well this letter say quite clearly what it is and what it is not.
It is clearly magnetite and hematite of terrestrial origin, they have inclusions and if you want the inclusions tested they even suggest a lab for that testing.
Kurt... It's great that they said all that while munching down a bag of potato chips, but really... I've never observed hematite that's attracted to a magnet. But even more importantly, it was a visual test, which clearly isn't a test, but an opinion.
Chemical analysis, and possibly spectrometry, is the only way to determine a mineral...
Chemical analysis, and possibly spectrometry, is the only way to determine a mineral...
Microscopy can say volumes on the structure of a mineral, and if they use electron microscopy it even have a built in spectrography.
Here are images of another specimen I sent in, which clearly shows some amazing, but spot on meteoritic identifiers such as well defined conical shape, regmaglypts, inverse curverature indicative of a stable atmospheric flight, well defined melt flow lines, as well as a surface indicative of exposure to high heat... 
Well that's all good for electron microscopy but it doesn't say electron microscopy now does it? No, it doesn't.
I have a university performing these tests now... I'll post the results ASAP.
How much iridium needs to be located in a rock to be a meteorite again?
I hope your coffee was good.
None.
Ir content has nothing directly with meteorites to do, mineralization and origin has.
Just certain classes of meteorites and it is not the Ir content that classifies them as Meteorites,
when that is said you have finally come up with something that looks like a Meteorite.
What kind of tests has been done on it?
Still XRF in addition to what?
The notation Meteorite is the name you used as customer name, is it not?
kurtak
Well-known member
Spot on Yggdrasil - I look forward to DarkspARCS reply
What we do know - is that DarkspARCS sent samples (8 samples) off to NEMS & the results of those samples clearly said NOT meteorites
Kurt
Sorry it might have been me, I moved it out of the original thread to not muddle it up more.
I’ll look into it.
There is something strange.
Two identically named threads with different content.
I’ll see what I can do
It is supposed to be ok now.
Fixed
@galenrog, I hope you're enjoying a good cup of European-brewed coffee. Once you've tasted Italian coffee, it's hard to go back. I just finished mine and was amused but also taken aback by the tone of this discussion. Let's all be kind to one another, folks.
Back to topic:
I find the rock intriguing, even if it's not a meteorite, and I'm not an expert on meteoroids. However, I'd like to contribute an additional theory to the discussion.
The fact that the rock contains not only 97% iron but also precious metals is noteworthy because precious metals aren't typically associated with iron. The quartz present in the rock is confusing because it takes a long time to form naturally. Typically, quartz crystals are generated when calcium-pregnant water rinses over a surface and leaves the crystals behind, such as in a cave or a riverbed. It would take thousands of years to form these crystals under normal conditions, although it could be achieved much faster in a controlled environment.
With all that said, it's possible that the rock is not natural but rather human-made. The combination of iron and gold in such a large proportion (around 0.4% is significant; gold-plated pins from electronics have a similar ratio) suggests that this could be the remains of an event like the testing of a large bomb in the desert or something similar. Copper is a strange addition to the mix, and there are many different metals present, which could indicate that the origin is not natural. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
However, the quartz present in the rock presents a problem. There is no evidence of water in the area, and quartz can only form in the presence of water. It's possible that the area was once a riverbed, but that doesn't explain the presence of quartz.
My working theory is that this place may have served as an early smithy or a place where iron was smelted by the population of the area at the time. If they used any ore they could find, it would explain the wild mix of iron, precious metals, and other base metals. The iron proportion is still very high, which would make the material useful for making swords or other objects. Iridium is present worldwide and is believed to be the result of a large meteoroid impact around 60 million years ago that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. This layer, known as the K-T barrier, can be found throughout the world and is visible in many areas in the Americas. So, if one starts digging, they'll eventually reach the K-T barrier. It's not deep below the surface in many US states. Ancient inhabitants may have mixed the iridium in with the iron ore without knowing it.
I'm proposing this theory because there used to be many smelters in the area where I live, going back thousands of years. Behind my house, there is farmland where you can still find the remains of that smelting (slag, etc.) lying around. Even the Celts did this 2,500 years ago, and their waste is still visible on the surface today.
So that's my theory. The presence of quartz crystals remains a mystery unless these pieces are older than, say, 10,000 years or so and there was once water in the area before it dried out.
All in all, I find it possible that those objects are man-made.
Back to topic:
I find the rock intriguing, even if it's not a meteorite, and I'm not an expert on meteoroids. However, I'd like to contribute an additional theory to the discussion.
The fact that the rock contains not only 97% iron but also precious metals is noteworthy because precious metals aren't typically associated with iron. The quartz present in the rock is confusing because it takes a long time to form naturally. Typically, quartz crystals are generated when calcium-pregnant water rinses over a surface and leaves the crystals behind, such as in a cave or a riverbed. It would take thousands of years to form these crystals under normal conditions, although it could be achieved much faster in a controlled environment.
With all that said, it's possible that the rock is not natural but rather human-made. The combination of iron and gold in such a large proportion (around 0.4% is significant; gold-plated pins from electronics have a similar ratio) suggests that this could be the remains of an event like the testing of a large bomb in the desert or something similar. Copper is a strange addition to the mix, and there are many different metals present, which could indicate that the origin is not natural. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
However, the quartz present in the rock presents a problem. There is no evidence of water in the area, and quartz can only form in the presence of water. It's possible that the area was once a riverbed, but that doesn't explain the presence of quartz.
My working theory is that this place may have served as an early smithy or a place where iron was smelted by the population of the area at the time. If they used any ore they could find, it would explain the wild mix of iron, precious metals, and other base metals. The iron proportion is still very high, which would make the material useful for making swords or other objects. Iridium is present worldwide and is believed to be the result of a large meteoroid impact around 60 million years ago that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. This layer, known as the K-T barrier, can be found throughout the world and is visible in many areas in the Americas. So, if one starts digging, they'll eventually reach the K-T barrier. It's not deep below the surface in many US states. Ancient inhabitants may have mixed the iridium in with the iron ore without knowing it.
I'm proposing this theory because there used to be many smelters in the area where I live, going back thousands of years. Behind my house, there is farmland where you can still find the remains of that smelting (slag, etc.) lying around. Even the Celts did this 2,500 years ago, and their waste is still visible on the surface today.
So that's my theory. The presence of quartz crystals remains a mystery unless these pieces are older than, say, 10,000 years or so and there was once water in the area before it dried out.
All in all, I find it possible that those objects are man-made.
