meteorite in situ??

[rockpassion]

Could this be a meteorite in situ? it is all rounded and no sharp edges some losses in the "crust". Don't want to do the magnet test because i want to keep the magnetic orientation if it has any in tact.

 

[Red-Coat]

It has zero features which suggest it to be a meteorite. If by 'in situ' you mean that you believe that's where it fell and is undisturbed then: it would have to have been recent, in which case a fusion crust would be very evident; and it would have made a more substantial 'crater' than your pictures show.

 

[rockpassion]

It has zero features which suggest it to be a meteorite. If by 'in situ' you mean that you believe that's where it fell and is undisturbed then: it would have to have been recent, in which case a fusion crust would be very evident; and it would have made a more substantial 'crater' than your pictures show.

Has anyone else a different opinon? because it is alway no in your case. And it was found near water so the crater could have been reduced by water erosion. And i must amit i picked it up te see what it was before the photo. I have not been there for couple of months so who knows how long is has laid there.

 

[Red-Coat]

Has anyone else a different opinon? because it is alway no in your case.

And, in your case, every unidentified rock you find is always a possible meteorite, whether it has features consistent with that or not.

 

[rockpassion]

And, in your case, every unidentified rock you find is always a possible meteorite, whether it has features consistent with that or not.

touche

 

[Red-Coat]

Fusion crust: NO
Ablation face: NO
Shock features: NO
Metallic flecks: NO
Rusting: NO
Regmaglypts: NO
Melt features: NO
Evidence of flight orientation: NO
Chondritic features: NO
Magnetic attraction: UNKNOWN

 

[rockpassion]

Fusion crust: NO
Ablation face: NO
Shock features: NO
Metallic flecks: NO
Rusting: NO
Regmaglypts: NO
Melt features: NO
Evidence of flight orientation: NO
Chondritic features: NO
Magnetic attraction: UNKNOWN

for all of the above you must have it in your hands and look with a 10x loupe. i see allot of the above but that is not obvious in the photo's likely. But in your case there is ZERO % change of finding a meteorite and if i did find one you would not say it because then you prove yourself wrong.

 

[galenrog]

for all of the above you must have it in your hands and look with a 10x loupe. i see allot of the above but that is not obvious in the photo's likely. But in your case there is ZERO % change of finding a meteorite and if i did find one you would not say it because then you prove yourself wrong.

Your reply to Red-Coat is 100% incorrect. A loupe is not required to identify rocks that deserve further consideration. None of the characteristics listed by Red-Coat require anything more than normal vision, except magnetic characteristics, which you have not divulged.

Time for more coffee.

 

[Red-Coat]

for all of the above you must have it in your hands and look with a 10x loupe. i see allot of the above but that is not obvious in the photo's likely. But in your case there is ZERO % change of finding a meteorite and if i did find one you would not say it because then you prove yourself wrong.

Utter nonsense!

You don't need a 10X loupe to see fusion crust, an ablation face, shock features (except at a crystalline level), metallic flecks (in high metal chondrites), rusting, regmaglypts, melt features, evidence of flight orientation or chondritic features (if appropriate).

The chance of finding a meteorite is not zero, and I never said that. What I said is that your rock exhibits zero features to suggest it might be a meteorite.

On the rare occasions when people have posted specimens which look to be meteorites, or which exhibit features which are promising to the extent that professional testing would be a worthwhile next step, I have readily said so.

That's the bad news. The good news is that I have no inclination to waste any more of my time responding to your highly speculative posts, so you can carry on imagining you have found meteorites (including rare ones) without any judgement on my part. Good luck.

 

[rockpassion]

here are clearly round inclusions visible

 

[rockpassion]

Your reply to Red-Coat is 100% incorrect. A loupe is not required to identify rocks that deserve further consideration. None of the characteristics listed by Red-Coat require anything more than normal vision, except magnetic characteristics, which you have not divulged.

Time for more coffee.

well that is very strange then, because if you watch the youtube video's of known meteorite hunters, most of them use loups as do geologists.

 

[rockpassion]

enjoy, chondrules gallore seen with my 10x loup. this one could be a cutter. but dare to ruin my first find

 

[rockpassion]

well here is another meteorwrong or is it?

 

[ToddsPoint]

This is a fine grained igneous rock showing typical exfoliation. It looks like diabase to me.

 

[rockpassion]

This is a fine grained igneous rock showing typical exfoliation. It looks like diabase to me.View attachment 2225381

what about the spherules? by the way i was curious so did the magnet test with these magnets and no atraction what so ever.

 

[Dejure]

My buddy has about 17 claims on the Yukon. The bug also took him down the meteorite road.

Since magnets are a huge part of that world (I'm told you need one to test finds), I built this. I call it the Poor Man's Metal Detector.

In the picture of it on my table saw, it is holding itself up by the magnet (around 100# pull).

SIDE NOTE: You can find hundreds of meteorites. Just check your gutters. Not all that debris is from your shingles.

 

[Randyd]

Could this be a meteorite in situ? it is all rounded and no sharp edges some losses in the "crust". Don't want to do the magnet test because i want to keep the magnetic orientation if it has any in tact.

Quick field tests:
1- Does a "super magnet" barely stick to it.
2- Window it. (File or sand a small flat spot on it.)
Is there small shiny metal particles? (See the photo attached.)
Is there small round (spherical) spots in it? (Chondrules) I don't see any in the photo, but very often there are chondrules.

3- Look at the meteorites on Impactika (Has good pictures on the first page), MeteoriteLab, MHMeteorites, etc.
4- Buy and read... books. I first learned from lots of books, then meeting people online, buying samples like Gold Basin, etc, and at events like Tuscon.

Good Hunting!

 

[beepbleep]

It looks like water worn magnetite. The tests are easy to ID it. Common in many places.
http://nevada-outback-gems.com/mineral_information/magnetite_mineral_info.htm

 

[rockpassion]

Quick field tests:
1- Does a "super magnet" barely stick to it.
2- Window it. (File or sand a small flat spot on it.)
Is there small shiny metal particles? (See the photo attached.)
Is there small round (spherical) spots in it? (Chondrules) I don't see any in the photo, but very often there are chondrules.

3- Look at the meteorites on Impactika (Has good pictures on the first page), MeteoriteLab, MHMeteorites, etc.
4- Buy and read... books. I first learned from lots of books, then meeting people online, buying samples like Gold Basin, etc, and at events like Tuscon.

Good Hunting!

thank you for the explenation, but i see unbelieveble cool stuff in this stone and defently spherical structures . I would be very cool to cutt this one but it's my only and first find ever in 40 years of searching. I wll show it at my local natural history museum depot and we will take a look under the microscope. but it is for sure not an ordinary stone.

 

[Charl]

thank you for the explenation, but i see unbelieveble cool stuff in this stone and defently spherical structures . I would be very cool to cutt this one but it's my only and first find ever in 40 years of searching. I wll show it at my local natural history museum depot and we will take a look under the microscope. but it is for sure not an ordinary stone.

Red-Coat has collected and curated meteorites for decades. As have I. Your “local natural history museum depot” is highly unlikely to produce a more experienced opinion than the one offered by Red-Coat. I know that, because I know Red-Coat and the level of knowledge he brings to the subject of meteorites. Your very best bet, the winning bet, was to accept what the man told you. Your likes or dislikes of an opinion, has nothing to do with an ID, since you cannot ID meteorites yourself. The presence of the spherical inclusions is absolutely not proof they are chondrules, so why ID them as such? You know you are not an expert in meteoritics or planetary science, so why not admit that is the case and learn from highly experienced individuals?

Just my two cents. There is a great deal of Dunning-Kruger Effects going on in internet venues.