NJ Find

[artyfacts]

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.

Oh I get it alright. It is easy for me to say that you are the only one complicating anything here on my thread, your nonsensical at best. Your bad advice wasn't asked for, but its evident you cannot help yourself. What a bunch of horse hockey you just fed me. Technicalities are not your strong point I see. The more you type the more transparent your red coat becomes, you are far from being an expert in this field. I suggest that you research more before typing to type. Not sure if your a troll or a baiter, I would think the later and a master at it. I'm sure your going to be throwing stones from your little glass room, good luck to you as your red coat becomes more transparent. When giving advice stay with your prescribed script of where to send, skip the technicalities at all costs. Have a cookie...

 

[Red-Coat]

Oh I get it alright. It is easy for me to say that you are the only one complicating anything here on my thread, your nonsensical at best. Your bad advice wasn't asked for, but its evident you cannot help yourself. What a bunch of horse hockey you just fed me. Technicalities are not your strong point I see. The more you type the more transparent your red coat becomes, you are far from being an expert in this field. I suggest that you research more before typing to type. Not sure if your a troll or a baiter, I would think the later and a master at. I'm sure your going to be throwing stones from your little glass room, good luck to you as your red coat becomes more transparent. When giving advice stay with your prescribed script of where to send, skip the technicalities at all costs. Have a cookie...

Wow. That's uncalled for just because you don't like being corrected. I have studied and collected meteorites for around 40 years and have a very large collection.

All you have is a foul temper and an aggressive nature that resorts to insults as a defence. It's pretty obvious who is showing their true colours here.

 

[artyfacts]

Wow. That's uncalled for just because you don't like being corrected. I have studied and collected meteorites for around 40 years and have a very large collection.

All you have is a foul temper and an aggressive nature that resorts to insults as a defence. It's pretty obvious who is showing their true colours here.

You have not corrected a single thing, period. Next

 

[Red-Coat]

You have not corrected a single thing, period. Next

I think you'll find I did. I corrected your misinterpretation of what I actually said about the nickel content of the metallic portions within meteorites (rather than what you thought I said) and therefore your false conclusion that I was providing incorrect information.

Period. Next.

[Disappointed that you couldn't muster up any more personal insults to throw at me. I find them rather amusing.]

 

[artyfacts]

I think you'll find I did. I corrected your misinterpretation of what I actually said about the nickel content of the metallic portions within meteorites (rather than what you thought I said) and therefore your false conclusion that I was providing incorrect information.

Period. Next.

[Disappointed that you couldn't muster up any more personal insults to throw at me. I find them rather amusing.]

 

[artyfacts]

Some meteorites have vesicles, plain as looking on the internet, and they are named. I believe you stated they don't exist. Very sorry about your gotcha, but you sir, corrected yourself. As far as being nonsensical, your proposition of removing what I perceived as metal and having it sent to a lab, would be a nonstarter, could be any element even pure iron. My results will be read by the best.

 

[Red-Coat]

Some meteorites have vesicles, plain as looking on the internet, and they are named. I believe you stated they don't exist. Very sorry about your gotcha, but you sir, corrected yourself. As far as being nonsensical, your proposition of removing what I perceived as metal and having it sent to a lab, would be a nonstarter, could be any element even pure iron. My results will be read by the best.

Nice try sunshine.

See what I previously said in more detail on another post about vesicles in meteorites (post #15):

Post in thread 'Is it real?'

Feb 20, 2024

I vote slag as well. The vesicles (small holes) throughout the surface is an excellent indication that you are almost certainly not looking at a meteorite. There are exceptions to almost every rule in identifying meteorites, but this rule holds in most all cases (I can't think of an exception off the top of my head).

I'm still with slag/clinker too.

As you say, almost every rule has an exception. For reference only, surface vesicles have very occasionally been seen in glassy fusion crusts on achondrites. Interior vesicles are sometimes seen (fewer than 1 in 1,000 specimens) but...

• Red-Coat

• 

Note also that when I have commented on other threads about vesicles as a contra-indicator for meteorites, it has been in the context of the nature of the vesicles shown in the posters' supplied pictures (and sometimes also other visible features or indicated properties), not simply the presence of vesicles.

No, I didn't correct myself. I corrected you since you misconstrued and misrepresented what I actually said. Comprehension clearly isn't your strong point, so you will continue to misinterpret however many times you read it.

Removing flecks of metal from a meteorite for analysis in isolation isn't a non-starter at all. It's routinely done during analysis of many meteorites since the proportions of iron and nickel in the metallic portions (plus levels of other minor metals if the testing is more detailed) give useful information about classification, pairing with other falls, formation mechanisms, and possible parent bodies. No, these flecks won't be pure iron in a meteoritic specimen as you completely wrongly suggest. Metallic iron in meteorites is always combined with nickel as I have already said. Iron with no nickel (or a very low nickel proportion) would indicate a terrestrial or man-made origin.

Sorry to correct you again.

 

[artyfacts]

Nice try sunshine.

See what I previously said in more detail on another post about vesicles in meteorites (post #15):

Post in thread 'Is it real?'

Feb 20, 2024

I vote slag as well. The vesicles (small holes) throughout the surface is an excellent indication that you are almost certainly not looking at a meteorite. There are exceptions to almost every rule in identifying meteorites, but this rule holds in most all cases (I can't think of an exception off the top of my head).

I'm still with slag/clinker too.

As you say, almost every rule has an exception. For reference only, surface vesicles have very occasionally been seen in glassy fusion crusts on achondrites. Interior vesicles are sometimes seen (fewer than 1 in 1,000 specimens) but...

• Red-Coat

• 

Note also that when I have commented on other threads about vesicles as a contra-indicator for meteorites, it has been in the context of the nature of the vesicles shown in the posters' supplied pictures (and sometimes also other visible features or indicated properties), not simply the presence of vesicles.

No, I didn't correct myself. I corrected you since you misconstrued and misrepresented what I actually said. Comprehension clearly isn't your strong point, so you will continue to misinterpret however many times you read it.

Removing flecks of metal from a meteorite for analysis in isolation isn't a non-starter at all. It's routinely done during analysis of many meteorites since the proportions of iron and nickel in the metallic portions (plus levels of other minor metals if the testing is more detailed) give useful information about classification, pairing with other falls, formation mechanisms, and possible parent bodies. No, these flecks won't be pure iron in a meteoritic specimen as you completely wrongly suggest. Metallic iron in meteorites is always combined with nickel as I have already said. Iron with no nickel (or a very low nickel proportion) would indicate a terrestrial or man-made origin.

Sorry to correct you again.

 

[artyfacts]

My mother called me sunshine. How nice of you.

 

[Red-Coat]

My mother called me sunshine. How nice of you.

You're welcome.

Thank you for confirming that I am correct about vesicles with that picture. As the caption says, “the voids are all less than a millimeter in size.”

With respect to “pure iron” in meteorites, yes it does exist but not in sizes or forms that can be readily isolated from the overall matrix. The unattributed quote you provided refers to “droplets” of it in plagioclase microlites but without specifying how big they are. Usually they’re sub-micron in size and you couldn’t see them without high-power magnification. I was referring to flecks of metal that can be seen with the naked eye (as for the specimen originally posted) that can readily be isolated for analysis.

 

[artyfacts]

You're welcome.

Thank you for confirming that I am correct about vesicles with that picture. As the caption says, “the voids are all less than a millimeter in size.”

With respect to “pure iron” in meteorites, yes it does exist but not in sizes or forms that can be readily isolated from the overall matrix. The unattributed quote you provided refers to “droplets” of it in plagioclase microlites but without specifying how big they are. Usually they’re sub-micron in size and you couldn’t see them without high-power magnification. I was referring to flecks of metal that can be seen with the naked eye (as for the specimen originally posted) that can readily be isolated for analysis.

Another.

 

[Red-Coat]

Another.

Yes, that specimen has vesicles. It’s ‘Jikharra 001’ and an estimated 1% of the 2.5 tons recovered is vesicular. Generally, the vesicles are tiny and only limited portions of what has been recovered have vesicles as large as those shown in that picture. Given that the slice is said to be 100 x 70mm, I would estimate the largest vesicles shown are around 3mm in diameter.

 

[DizzyDigger]

What a bunch of horse hockey you just fed me. Technicalities are not your strong point I see. The more you type the more transparent your red coat becomes, you are far from being an expert in this field. I suggest that you research more before typing to type. Not sure if your a troll or a baiter, I would think the later and a master at it. I'm sure your going to be throwing stones from your little glass room, good luck to you as your red coat becomes more transparent. When giving advice stay with your prescribed script of where to send, skip the technicalities at all costs. Have a cookie...

Artsy...Just because you don't like someone's reply, there's no need to be an ass about it. The man knows his poop, and is trying to help you. Play nice.

Just FYI, if Treasurenet was a country, Red-Coat would be considered as a national treasure. Also, he's not about to waste his time sharing info with you that is inaccurate.

FWIW, I too am interested in hearing the results you get back.