NJ Find

[artyfacts]

This came out of the ground burying my pet back in 2005 or so. I thought it was a piece of concrete with iron in it until I turned it over and saw the holes and thought it was coral, almost threw it back in the hole. It sat on my back steps all these years. Not sure what it is. I purchased a 200x USB endoscope and found some very neat stuff that is not pictured. The pictures of what I presume is a crust are all very shiny or glassy, looking on an angle. There are many of these small patches on all sides ranging from black to rust, grey and clear, they look worn down by something. I'm not sure of the micro striations going through most of these glassy patches. The only thing I could find on these type of lines was twining but the spacing is irregular and it is only on the surface of these glassy sections. Another possibility is micro glacier striations, dont know. The striations all follow the same direction. The main mass is almost 6 inches long and tubular with a mass of rusty nodes with a bluish clump stuck to it. There are very bright metallic flakes and bright reflective metal that is oozing from the iron nodes. Most of the odd minerals have fracture lines going through them. If this gets any positive feedback I will upload more pics as there are some exciting minerals.

 

[artyfacts]

more

 

[artyfacts]

more

 

[artyfacts]

more

 

[CreekSide]

Slag?

 

[artyfacts]

Could be, thats why I posted it. Determining if the black glassy stuff is a crust makes its bed I hope. The pic with the multi color is in the 1000ths along with the red clear mineral.

 

[Red-Coat]

Vesicles like that don't occur in meteorites. I vote slag too.

 

[artyfacts]

The black to rust coating is a varnish not a crust. I found the same type of varnish with striations on NWA 2373 that was found in the desserts of Morocco. mindat.org/gm/50269 it would be the 4th picture. I didn't use the picture as its copyrighted, you have to look for yourself. This is a top notch of a read on varnishes, 17 years of work and study. https://www.public.asu.edu/~atrid/GeographyCompass_09.pdf I posted two pictures with a clear silica coating over the varnish on the specimen I found. If you don't have time to read the article, the blacker the varnish the more moisture, rustier the varnish more arid conditions. The thicker the varnish equals more layers and with every layer tens of thousands of years older.

 

[artyfacts]

Here is another good read describing testing at 9700 degrees kelvin and understanding meteoroid ablation including melting and vaporization. It is titled, ICARUS. It can be found at, www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus You have to pay for the PDF it is $25.00. The many who were involved through the years are far beyond my math skills and thinking, but a general understanding of all the variables will definitely have you thinking, and there are so many variables, trajectory, shape, mass, materials, water vapors, gases, heat and how quickly they are cooled and vaporized and the reactions to one another during these processes. From the author, "In the case of a large meteoroid at low altitudes, the heat fluxes (mostly due to radiative heating) will far exceed that simulated in the current work, and those cases, with such extreme heating, the melt layer would conceivably be vaporized before it could be removed by aerodynamic forces" How much melt layer depends on so many variables. These are my thoughts on this specimen. I live on a barrier island where this was found, there are no rocks to speak of, but I did find one. With the report on varnishes my conclusion is this is far from being modern, the island sand ablations on the varnish has opened up a window if you will showing possibly three layers with three distinct colors that are visible it could be up to 10,000 years old, (possibly). Even with the three visible varnish colors lets say the report is way off on this and we make it a 1000 years old. How did it get here? Was it found by travels from who knows where that once used the land and it became a lawn ornament as I did, it was on my steps for close to twenty years. The Indians lived here on this island. There was a large fresh water lake and a natural creek that at one time ran behind my property along with the entire seven mile back bay, or was it natural causes. Slag is the consensuses and that leaves volcanic or meteoric for the super heating. The ironish nodules look like they were shotgunned through this specimen and go from large to small diameter. There are also these bright solo metal flakes mixed throughout and also mixed along with the iron with no oxidization ( I did not say iron nickel). I guess there truly is a sucker born every minute I just have to get it tested, off it goes. Who is the best? Please let me know. Its a win win situation, I will get to know for sure and at the same time I get to support the hard working Americans in the lab. This has truly been a gift tripping over this sucker in the sand pile in my backyard, I almost face planted. I haven't stopped reading and learning and looking at this melted rock for many, many days. No matter the outcome I have a new appreciation for rocks from everywhere now. Its been a great read and a wonderful learning lesson.

 

[artyfacts]

10 inch rock saw with a new .030 blade cut the first larger slab. The slab has a bluish gray hue to it very interesting. The metal spheres and chrome looking stuff are throughout, together and separate along with other interesting minerals. Definitely has been metamorphosed but by what?

 

[artyfacts]

More pictures of the rock.

 

[artyfacts]

More.

 

[artyfacts]

Possible mineral ID match, "Ilmenite". I found a bunch of rectangular black coated minerals sparsely throughout all areas of the mass. The black coating can be seen at various stages of melt resulting in a bright silvery metallic looking melt. The black oxidization on the mineral seems to slide off into a melt or its skeletal shell is partially intact. Here are 3 pictures from the web and my pictures for comparison.

 

[artyfacts]

Although I have already received a whole rock analysis, a second sample is on the way. I unfortunately had to send the second sample because I did not follow the directions, making sure the sample represents the whole of the rock. I purchased a used ten inch rock saw and a new blade to cut slabs getting me closer to the meat of the rock and away from the calcite filled exterior and other possible terrestrial contamination. There is still calcite in the interior but it appears minimal compared to the exterior. I used an x-y axis vice, covered in plastic with cedar shakes on the bottom and sides of the iron jaws to lock the rock in place, avoiding damage. This worked beautifully for making even slices. "How thick would you like your rock sliced sir"... my very own rock deli. My sample was skewed in more ways than one. The sample was from only the exterior of the rock, where most of the terrestrial contamination would be the greatest. Under 200x magnification, the calcite spikes are prominent in the micro voids on the edge, this can be seen with the naked eye as a whole, slightly off colored (wash) around the edge. The calcite spikes grew post heating event, these are so small you can barely focus on them with 200x. Additionally, while cutting the first set of slabs with a glass band saw, the stress fractures that ran between the metallic spherules and other features, caused the slab edge to break, leaving me with large metallic spherules and a bunch of them at that. These were all added to the first sample that I had sent and not a very good representation for whole rock analysis. This definitely skewed a very important Fe2o3 number. Lab numbers were still very good but not a winner in the recipe for meteorites that have been tested. Three things noted by Randy: The CaO came in at 23.79%, this is high but can be attributed to the calcite filled micro voids, it should be 18% or lower. The SiO2 is low at 27.92% but there are a few other meteorites that are even lower, hopefully the new sample will come back with better numbers. The other obstacle was the nickel, my sample was very low at under 20 PPM, again, hopefully the center mass sample comes back with better numbers. The reason I'm writing this now, instead of waiting for center mass results is because I've had a wonderful breakthrough researching the many 1mm to 3mm tiny shiny patches on the exterior of my find. These little islands of glass are heavily micro striated in dark, clear and opaque colors. On an angle they are very reflective, like glass, little silver surfers found scattered on all sides. Using sunlight or a flashlight and tilting it on an angle can make them stand right out. I was trying to find any rocks from glacial to meteoric that had these striations. This is when I found a 3 to 4 gram meteorite from Mars on the internet that had almost identical very distinct micro striations. The meteorite is Northwest Africa 2373. The bulletin reads: "They are yellow brown with desert ablation/varnish surface only, no fusion crust"... okay, here we go. What does a meteorite from Mars found in Morocco have in common with a rock from New Jersey? Micro striations caused by dessert ablation on a rock varnish, so I thought. I found that the glaciers terminated here in South Jersey as well as in Morocco and ran with it. Studying and searching for the different ablation zones in glaciers and the types of ablation scars on the micro level was necessary to make a determination. I felt like if this was caused by sand particulates then this rock would have been carried in a slip towards the end of the glacier where the abrasion zone would be. A slip is the faster moving upper level of a glacier. No (micro) pictures of this type of ablation to be found, but plenty of large scale ablation on bedrock. I had purchased a 200x Opti-Tek scope to look at the interior of my find, I used it to get better pictures of my little striated silver surfers. My previous pictures were at 25x and that's when my breakthrough happened. The first picture was at 200x, a closeup of the striations on a 1mm x .5 mm area that was pitch black while looking right at it. I was all about the striations and looking at the grooves, trying to determine what caused them. I measured one of the lands, I'm comparing these striations to rifling in a muzzle (that's what the grooves reminded me of). Lands are the high point, grooves are the low point (definitely flow lines). Since my scope is taking pictures at the same resolution as that of my monitor, I measured a few lands and found that they were around 1/64 of an inch wide on the monitor. This divided by 200 = .000078125 (bushman measurement). At this point it had dawned on me, I had been firing, fusing, sandblasting and carving ornamental glass for over 40 years and even with a screened out 5 micron abrasive and a micro blaster this feet would be impossible to duplicate on a surface full of convex and concave undulations. You wouldn't have a nozzle small enough, resist used for sand blasting never mind a media for blasting. The glass lands were rolled together and perfectly rounded so this is definitely a melt. The glass is very reflective, if blasted, it would be at its best, dull. Sand ablation will and could not cause these micro striations. The sands in a dessert are dust particulates to a full grain, wind going in one direction (maybe) as the carrier would eventually pick up all sizes of abrasive and wear the surface smooth, not cut micro grooves. Sand is not the purveyor of these micro striations. I started taking more pictures of these striations and that's when I realized that all of the striations about 60 of them were all oriented pointing to one place (oriented they are). I went back to my original 200x picture and looked at the grooves. Some were straight and some had a slight radius and changed with the topography of the exterior and they varied from wide to small. I thought at this point these were definitely made by a high pressure airflow on a molten surface. My theory is that this one was moving faster or possibly had a longer hotter burn. I zoomed into the darker areas and that's when I stood up out of my chair cursing like a pirate. Behind the glass flow lines was glorious, beautiful, second stage melt and WOW... No varnish here whatsoever just melt. As far as the Northwest Africa 2373, I'm sure it had dessert ablation, having been found in the desert but the sand did not cause those micro lines. It could possibly be a crust with melt ablation and flow lines. I will be posting the analysis from both the first set of whole rock numbers I received and the second set of numbers when they arrive, together on graphs for comparison. Any questions feel free to ask. Any collectors out there with these types of a micro flow lines in your collection please post pictures.

 

[artyfacts]

Waiting on my center cut whole rock analysis from the lab. These pictures are from a 5 gram sample that was sent. The sample will be destroyed for the test so I took a few more pics before sending, these are the pics. The interior micro holes are not completely void of calcite but better than the exterior samples I previously sent. First I want to say the biggest hurtle besides the testing is the holes, vesicles, and bubbles etc. The meteorite world professes the same slogan that is repeated throughout the world, "If It Has Holes Or Bubbles It Is Just A Rock. Meteorites Do Not Have These" My problem is that some of these same have pictures of meteorites with exactly that, bubbles voids, vesicles, and holes. I do understand why this is said, if 2000 terrestrial samples were sent with bubbles and holes every year to me I think I would be making that same claim as well, stop sending them. The odds of finding a meteorite, never mind one with holes and vesicles is probably like hitting the lottery in every state on the same day, especially from New Jersey. Quote from Washington University Meteorite page, "If you have a vesicular rock that does not have a fusion crust, then it is not a meteorite". I have, fusion crust, flow lines that are oriented, shock veins, roll over lips, and regmaglypts. I have found a mother humper.

 

[Red-Coat]

Still looks like slag to me.

I think you’re overcomplicating this. Whatever your whole rock analyses determine, it will still take an expert to judge whether the results are consistent with a meteoritic origin.

It would be far simpler to check the nickel content as a first step. If you have metallic flecks in a sample which have a lower nickel content than 5% then the specimen is not a meteorite (although the reverse is not necessarily true).

I have provided this advice a number of times to other posters but, instead of faffing around with complex destructive tests from labs with no experience in meteoritics, which still won’t necessarily give you a conclusive answer, why don’t you take the even more simple route of sending a specimen to an expert lab that does have the required experience?

New England Meteoritical Services will provide a meteorite verification (or otherwise) at a subsidised price of $30 as part of an educational outreach programme. The testing is non-destructive, requires only a 10-20g sample and the specimen will be returned to you (return postage within the USA included in the price):

Meteorite Testing, Verification, Authentication, Appraisal

Note that although they will be able to tell you if it is meteoritic (and what class it falls into), they can’t necessarily give a definitive ID for non-meteoritic specimens but they will offer an opinion.

 

[artyfacts]

Still looks like slag to me.

I think you’re overcomplicating this. Whatever your whole rock analyses determine, it will still take an expert to judge whether the results are consistent with a meteoritic origin.

It would be far simpler to check the nickel content as a first step. If you have metallic flecks in a sample which have a lower nickel content than 5% then the specimen is not a meteorite (although the reverse is not necessarily true).

I have provided this advice a number of times to other posters but, instead of faffing around with complex destructive tests from labs with no experience in meteoritics, which still won’t necessarily give you a conclusive answer, why don’t you take the even more simple route of sending a specimen to an expert lab that does have the required experience?

New England Meteoritical Services will provide a meteorite verification (or otherwise) at a subsidised price of $30 as part of an educational outreach programme. The testing is non-destructive, requires only a 10-20g sample and the specimen will be returned to you (return postage within the USA included in the price):

Meteorite Testing, Verification, Authentication, Appraisal

Note that although they will be able to tell you if it is meteoritic (and what class it falls into), they can’t necessarily give a definitive ID for non-meteoritic specimens but they will offer an opinion.

Red_Coat, you are posting bad information. Please desist. I would still appreciate you not replying to my topic, thank you. FYI almost all but the iron meteorites (5% to 30% NI) are under 5% nickel (NI). Whole rock testing is the way to go. Seems like your in a race, typing to type. If you remove this reply I will do the same, good day.

 

[Red-Coat]

Red_Coat, you are posting bad information. Please desist. I would still appreciate you not replying to my topic, thank you. FYI almost all but the iron meteorites (5% to 30% NI) are under 5% nickel (NI). Whole rock testing is the way to go. Seems like your in a race, typing to type. If you remove this reply I will do the same, good day.

I will not desist since I am not posting bad information. Please carefully read again what I actually said, not what you think I said:

>>>If you have metallic flecks in a sample which have a lower nickel content than 5% then the specimen is not a meteorite<<<

That is, I was referring to the composition of the metallic flecks themselves (which can be isolated from the specimen for a simpler analysis and which will be an alloy of iron and nickel with the nickel content above 5%.)

If I had been referring to the bulk composition of the whole rock then I would have said: >>>If you have metallic flecks in a sample which has a lower nickel content than 5% then the specimen is not a meteorite<<< and, as you say, that would have been an incorrect statement. But I didn't say that... you misread, and jumped down my throat.

Whole rock testing is only the way to go if you are experienced enough to interpret the results. There are relatively few world experts who are competent to do so.

I have no moderation privileges to remove anything other than my own posts, but don't intend to do so. If you want to remove your own post, feel free, but since I have now quoted it you won't be able to delete the quote. Good day.

 

[artyfacts]

Randy says...

 

[Red-Coat]

Randy says...

You still don’t get it. Dr Korotev specifically says “bulk (whole rock) concentrations of nickel of 1.0-1.8%”

I don’t disagree with that, and your belief that I contradicted it is incorrect. Please read again (more carefully this time) what I originally said and how I responded to your incorrect interpretation of what I said.

In your opening post you said that you can see “bright metallic flakes and bright reflective metal”. If you can, then what I am trying to tell you is that those flakes of metal (not the bulk composition of the whole rock) will have a nickel concentration of at least 5% if the specimen is meteoritic.

It should be easy to isolate some of those flakes and it’s very straightforward for an analyst to test them for nickel content (only a few milligrams of material would be needed). As a first step, that would be a simple way of determining whether more extensive testing is warranted.

In any case, as I said, the simplest and quickest way of determining whether your rock is meteoritic would be to send a small sample to a laboratory specialising in meteoritics such as NEMS. No interpretation of results needed. They will give you a definitive answer in a way that the more complex bulk analyses you have commissioned will not, without interpretation from a true expert in meteoritics.