Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Morlock said:

Isn't there a local university or college that has a geology dept that you can contact or even take the specimen to for examination? It's hard to indentify some specimens online and yours is one of them. I think that's your best option.

If you do, let us know know what it is. I'm sure a few of us are intrigued.

I'll be sure to let you know when i find out, thank you for all the help. My guess so far is silicone, possibly silicone carbide or moissanite, but you can never know.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Popac, Most people who find an unusual rock they think is a meteorite typically think it is from Mars or the Moon and worth tens of millions of dollars. There is always a fall story, usually embe

Hey I found gold nuggets upwards of 3 ounces each on the edge of a new subdivision in a friends back yard in people's valley, Az.  It happens. but it wasn't in a pre-dug hole. (Model creek place

I have to digress a little. I've always found it ludicrous that scientists have been able to determine a lunar meteorite with a slight degree of certainty on earth, never mind a Martian.  The onl

Posted Images

50 minutes ago, Morlock said:

Isn't there a local university or college that has a geology dept that you can contact or even take the specimen to for examination? It's hard to indentify some specimens online and yours is one of them. I think that's your best option.

If you do, let us know know what it is. I'm sure a few of us are intrigued.

I don't know if I would trust anyone at a University. Aren't they part of the bunch that is just speculating about the Martian meteorites? How do we know they are going to do "good science" and give an honest answer about a mineral?

The "experts" are mostly idiots anyway. They can't recognize "stony iron fall rocks", they pretend to be able to identify meteorites from planets we haven't even been to just to get headlines, and they are allowed to present their conclusions even if their science is not good.

I bet every person that has the expertise to professionally evaluate that rock recognizes climate change as fact and will agree that the human component in that calculation is substantial. We can PROVE that is junk science because it was snowing just a few weeks ago!

Let's face it. They are all a bunch of clowns.

I think we should soak it in vinegar and then rub it on the toilet tank lid some more. :25r30wi:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Popac said:

I already rubbed it clean, also when i rub it with my fingernail it gets stuck in the scratch, so it is a scratch and i didn't even push hard. I can make it deeper and a video if you would like, it is not in my interest to make things up, when i write something i checked it dozens of times prior.

I would love to see that Popac. Because the photo you posted is obviously a streak and not a scratch. 

No one is accusing you of making anything up. It is not personal nor should you get emotional. We must keep telling ourselves "it is just a rock".

Science is all about doing tests and then questioning the results. I am questioning your results because what you presented does not look like scratches to me. The photo is good and the zoom is sufficient to see the dark marks across the tool and the bright scratches below them. Please show us how you performed your hardness test. At least show us some scratches on tool steel.

Other observations you could make...

If your material was SiCa it would not be soluble in most acids. A sulphide would be very soluble in sulphuric acid and good old distilled water would turn acidic easily. You could easily do a solubility test and come to some conclusions that way. Or you could do a simple Ph test. 

The cuttings that you filed off of the specimen could be heated to release the Sulphur. Or they could be used to grind a spot on a polished knife blade to determine hardness. They could be tossed into vinegar to see if some copper might go into solution. They could be wetted and the Ph observed. 

You said you had a dark steak. SiCa does not streak. We need to figure that one out too huh?

The material looks pretty homogenous to me in that window. And it looks fairly soft and easy to grind away. The face of your window has deep scratches. I am seeing a material a heck of a lot softer than SiCa. You ground that window with SiCa abrasives did you not?  Did you loose a lot of stone grinding it? What color were he cuttings?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

I don't know if I would trust anyone at a University. Aren't they part of the bunch that is just speculating about the Martian meteorites? How do we know they are going to do "good science" and give an honest answer about a mineral?

The "experts" are mostly idiots anyway. They can't recognize "stony iron fall rocks", they pretend to be able to identify meteorites from planets we haven't even been to just to get headlines, and they are allowed to present their conclusions even if their science is not good.

I bet every person that has the expertise to professionally evaluate that rock recognizes climate change as fact and will agree that the human component in that calculation is substantial. We can PROVE that is junk science because it was snowing just a few weeks ago!

Let's face it. They are all a bunch of clowns.

I think we should soak it in vinegar and then rub it on the toilet tank lid some more. :25r30wi:

 

Bob We have probes on Mars that are sampling the soil and we have a pretty good idea of what Martian soil consists of and its very low in graphite.

AzNuggetBob

Edited by AzNuggetBob
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

I would love to see that Popac. Because the photo you posted is obviously a streak and not a scratch. 

No one is accusing you of making anything up. It is not personal nor should you get emotional. We must keep telling ourselves "it is just a rock".

Science is all about doing tests and then questioning the results. I am questioning your results because what you presented does not look like scratches to me. The photo is good and the zoom is sufficient to see the dark marks across the tool and the bright scratches below them. Please show us how you performed your hardness test.

If your material was SiCa it would not be soluble in most acids. A sulphide would be soluble in sulphuric acid. You could easily do a solubility test and come to some conclusions that way.

This is how i did the first scratching, i did not push hard at all, should i push harder to make a deeper scratch?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Popac said:

This is how i did the first scratching, i did not push hard at all, should i push harder to make a deeper scratch?

Those are not scratches. You can plainly see the actual scratches UNDER the marks that you are making. The material is crushing against the steel. You are making a streak and not a scratch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AzNuggetBob said:

Bob We have probes on Mars that are sampling the soil and we have a pretty good idea of what Martian soil consists of and its very low in graphite.

AzNuggetBob

It is evidently rich in copper sulphides though. :25r30wi:

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Those are not scratches. You can plainly see the actual scratches UNDER the marks that you are making. The material is crushing against the steel. You are making a streak and not a scratch.

 

Ok, in the new video it is clearly seen, better light. Also all the other scratches that can be seen are done right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 It looks like scratches in the video to me. So that puts it above a 5 of the Moh's scale depending on how hard that wrench is. Still a long way from SiCa but a buttload harder than graphite.

So now show us how it reacts against a SiCa grinding stone! You did use SiCa to cut that window didn't you? How about that file that Morlock suggested? That would prove that the piece is harder than a 7 or so.

Polish that window up with a piece of SiCa paper. If that material is SiCa then you are going to get a very good idea of how hard it really is.

Meanwhile drop a flake in a shotglass of warm white vinegar. Let us know if it changes color or gets cloudy. Because that is a good quick and dirty solubility test. Leave it overnight and keep it warm to give the weak acid a chance to react with anything in the material. If you have access to stronger acids you can also test for solubility with these. If your material is soluble in any of them you can rule out SiCa. Depending on the acid and the color of the solution it may be possible to make some assumptions on what is in the rock as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

 It looks like scratches in the video to me. So that puts it above a 5 of the Moh's scale depending on how hard that wrench is. Still a long way from SiCa but a buttload harder than graphite.

So now scratch glass with it (5.5) and show us how it reacts against a SiCa grinding stone! You did use SiCa to cut that window didn't you? How about that file that Morlock suggested? That would prove that the piece is harder than a 7 or so.

Polish that window up with a piece of SiCa paper. If that material is SiCa then you are going to get a very good idea of how hard it really is.

Meanwhile drop a flake in a shotglass of warm white vinegar. Let us know if it changes color or gets cloudy. Because that is a good quick and dirty solubility test. Leave it overnight and keep it warm to give the weak acid a chance to react with anything in the material. 

I used a diamond cutting blade. It scratches glass, tried that before the steel because i thought it would be harder to scratch steel. I have a file but how can i know what material it is made from? I have homemade winegar i just put a piece of the rock inside the glass?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bedrock Bob said:

I don't know if I would trust anyone at a University. Aren't they part of the bunch that is just speculating about the Martian meteorites? How do we know they are going to do "good science" and give an honest answer about a mineral?

The "experts" are mostly idiots anyway. They can't recognize "stony iron fall rocks", they pretend to be able to identify meteorites from planets we haven't even been to just to get headlines, and they are allowed to present their conclusions even if their science is not good.

I bet every person that has the expertise to professionally evaluate that rock recognizes climate change as fact and will agree that the human component in that calculation is substantial. We can PROVE that is junk science because it was snowing just a few weeks ago!

Let's face it. They are all a bunch of clowns.

I think we should soak it in vinegar and then rub it on the toilet tank lid some more. :25r30wi:

 

Bob, you absolutely correct that I'm in the dark as to how they come to the conclusions of these Meteorites origins.  
They have classified items as Lunar, Martian and other way long before any of the Lander found way to mars or the moon.
All based on conjecture and Assumptions ?
I just find it stupefyingly that people of the Science Community would have the arrogance to do so.   JUNK SCIENCE .   
We do in fact have some hands on ( Robot Hands ) information these days.  Based on that information I can see items being believed to have originated from a KNOWN Planet or Body in space.   Believed being the Operative word.   Not as a Absolute determination some would lead people to assume. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Popac said:

I used a diamond cutting blade. It scratches glass, tried that before the steel because i thought it would be harder to scratch steel. I have a file but how can i know what material it is made from? I have homemade winegar i just put a piece of the rock inside the glass?

The file is hard steel. You don't really know exactly how hard but you can make some broad assumptions. That would be about a 7 or higher. 

Silicon Carbide abrasives are very common. If that is what you think it is then you should compare the hardness against a piece known to be SiCa.

Yes on the homemade winegar please. Just throw a small piece of rock or powder in a little plastic or glass container and cover it with warm vinegar. Leave it overnight. It won't tell you what it is but it may tell you what it isn't if the mild acid dissolves any material.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

The file is hard steel. You don't really know exactly how hard but you can make some broad assumptions. That would be about a 7 or higher. 

Silicon Carbide abrasives are very common. If that is what you think it is then you should compare the hardness against a piece known to be SiCa.

Yes on the homemade winegar please. Just throw a small piece of rock or powder in a little plastic or glass container and cover it with warm vinegar. Leave it overnight. It won't tell you what it is but it may tell you what it isn't if the mild acid dissolves any material.

 

This is the file i have, are these scratches it made?l I think i have stronger acids, will any acid do the job? Edit i put it in HCl acid, its been there for 10min nothing is happening, what acid do i need?

20190331_194810.jpg

20190331_194852.jpg

Edited by Popac
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, homefire said:

Bob, you absolutely correct that I'm in the dark as to how they come to the conclusions of these Meteorites origins.  
They have classified items as Lunar, Martian and other way long before any of the Lander found way to mars or the moon.
All based on conjecture and Assumptions ?
I just find it stupefyingly that people of the Science Community would have the arrogance to do so.   JUNK SCIENCE .   
We do in fact have some hands on ( Robot Hands ) information these days.  Based on that information I can see items being believed to have originated from a KNOWN Planet or Body in space.   Believed being the Operative word.   Not as a Absolute determination some would lead people to assume. 

Actually it is not conjecture and assumptions. Nor is it junk science. It is peer reviewed scientific process that you simply do not understand. The only conjecture and assumptions are yours (the conjecture and assumption that they could not possibly identify Martian or Lunar material without first going there).

From my perspective it is stupefyingly arrogant that a fellow who knows nothing about the process could stand in judgement of the conclusions made by men who do. Especially on a forum where there are literally hundreds of guys who know and understand the science behind classifying these meteorites. I could not imagine anything more arrogant than believing that one's ignorance is equal to another's knowledge. Unless it is presenting even more ignorance as proof of it.

Why don't you learn a bit about how they identify these meteorites and present an intelligent argument on how their conclusions are flawed? 

 

  • well done 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2019 at 9:12 AM, Bedrock Bob said:

It is evidently rich in copper sulphides though. :25r30wi:

Nope sorry Bedrock Bob, no measurable copper or copper sulfides.but I get your joke.I think you got mine.But it is loaded with olivine, pyroxene and feldspar.the soil is very toxic and (corrosive)from chlorine gas. 
with wind storms exceeding 300 MPH I have no idea why we would ever consider colonizing it and has been My argument for years. I really think our moon is a much better short term option for space 
exploration and very survivable in case of another catastrophic earth impact. especially if we are on the (so called)dark side of the moon. in case you don't know, that's the real reason we are looking at Mars.
AzNuggetBob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AzNuggetBob said:

Nope sorry Bedrock Bob, no measurable copper or copper sulfides.but I get your joke.I think you got mine.But it is loaded with olivine, pyroxene and feldspar.the soil is very toxic and (corrosive)from chlorine gas. 
with wind storms exceeding 300 MPH I have no idea why we would ever consider colonizing it and has been My argument for years. I really think our moon is a much better short term option for space 
exploration and very survivable in case of another catastrophic earth impact. especially if we are on the (so called)dark side of the moon. in case you don't know, that's the real reason we are looking at Mars.
AzNuggetBob.

Who have you been arguing with about the colonization of Mars? Is someone actually planning on colonizing it or do they just want to argue about it?

I agree that the moon is a short term option for some fellows. I think a few guys on this forum are already broadcasting from there.

My plan is just staying put here on earth in case you didn't know.

Cheers,

Bob

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 11:11 AM, Bedrock Bob said:

Actually it is not conjecture and assumptions. Nor is it junk science. It is peer reviewed scientific process .......,

 

What is this peer reviewed paper?  I'd be interested in reading the source.  Might either relieve or reinforce my skepticism on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, chrisski said:

What is this peer reviewed paper?  I'd be interested in reading the source.  Might either relieve or reinforce my skepticism on the subject.

 

 

Peer reviewed scientific process is not a paper Chris. It is a methodology. There are "papers" generated at each point in that methodology. Evidence that supports and leads to conclusions. In order to refute a scientific conclusion you need to find fault in the process that leads to these conclusions. The process is well documented and you are free to do any reading that you like.

Your skepticism is based on not knowing the process or the science. You have chosen to "believe" or not based on something other than objective fact. If you want to learn how they determine a Martian meteorite then by all means do that! And then you can form an opinion based on a layman's knowledge of the processes involved rather than whatever you are basing your opinions on now.

Pick any meteorite that you feel has been wrongly classified. Read about the process by which it was classified and the tests they did to make their determination. Then express your doubts about the process or findings and why you doubt them. 

 

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Science does not require that you believe.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bedrock Bob said:

 

 

Peer reviewed scientific process is not a paper Chris. It is a methodology. There are "papers" generated at each point in that methodology. Evidence that supports and leads to conclusions. In order to refute a scientific conclusion you need to find fault in the process that leads to these conclusions. The process is well documented and you are free to do any reading that you like.

Your skepticism is based on not knowing the process or the science. You have chosen to "believe" or not based on something other than objective fact. If you want to learn how they determine a Martian meteorite then by all means do that! And then you can form an opinion based on a layman's knowledge of the processes involved rather than whatever you are basing your opinions on now.

Pick any meteorite that you feel has been wrongly classified. Read about the process by which it was classified and the tests they did to make their determination. Then express your doubts about the process or findings and why you doubt them.  

 

I am looking for something to read on Martian or Lunar meteorites, that is considered a source document.  I can't find it.  I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction.  For example the paper that says Martian soil is low in graphite, and whatever it is about Copper Sulfides.  I can admit I'm wrong. 

I'm a bit biased because I worked as an elementary educator for a few years and the "peer" reviewed publications were not what I called a scientific methodology, but tried to make scientific conclusions.  I'm hoping this has not bled over to the "hard" sciences like geology, but I have my doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisski said:

I am looking for something to read on Martian or Lunar meteorites, that is considered a source document.  I can't find it.  I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction.  For example the paper that says Martian soil is low in graphite, and whatever it is about Copper Sulfides.  I can admit I'm wrong. 

I'm a bit biased because I worked as an elementary educator for a few years and the "peer" reviewed publications were not what I called a scientific methodology, but tried to make scientific conclusions.  I'm hoping this has not bled over to the "hard" sciences like geology, but I have my doubts.

I simply googled the term "Martian Meteorite" and clicked on the very first link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite

From the very first paragraph...

"In 2000, an article by Treiman, Gleason and Bogard gave a survey of all the arguments used to conclude the SNC meteorites (of which 14 had been found at the time) were from Mars."

Wouldn't you agree that this paper covers EXACTLY the subject material you are looking for? I suggest you read it!

At the end of the linked page is a list of reference material for the Wiki article. At the end of the paper by Treiman, Gleason and Bogard there is also a reference. At the end of any paper there is reference to the supporting science. That is how you always reference further reading. 

You have asked me to go fetch the simplest information for you and I have obliged. I have also explained to you how a bibliography and reference section works and how to find supporting material when learning about any subject. This will come in handy when seeking knowledge in the future.

Now I ask you to write a few words on your arduous search for the truth about how Martian meteorites are classified. Tell us of the hours you have spent trying to educate yourself on this subject and what studies you have read. Then give us your opinions about the science involved and what knowledge you have gained.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the abstract of Treiman, et.al

"The 14 SNC meteorites are all igneous rocks, either basalts or basaltic cumulates. They are inferred to be from Mars, based on direct comparison with Martian materials and on consistency with inferences about Mars. Most telling is that the SNC meteorites contain traces of gas which is very similar in elemental and isotopic compositions to the modern Martian atmosphere as measured by Viking landers on Mars and spectroscopy from Earth. The Martian atmosphere appears to have a unique composition in the solar system, so its presence in the SNCs is accepted as strong direct evidence that they formed on Mars. Independent of this link, the SNC meteorites must be from a planet with a significant atmosphere because they contain several abundant gas components, one of which carries large isotopic fractionations characteristic of atmospheric processing. Further, the elemental compositions and oxidation state of the SNC meteorites are consistent with data from in situ analyses of Martian soils and rocks, and are quite distinct from compositions of other meteorites, rocks from the Earth, and rocks from the Moon. The range of formation ages for the SNC meteorites, 4.5- 0.18 Ga, is consistent with the varied ages of the Martian surface (based on its cratering record) and inconsistent with surface ages on any other solar system body. The extreme chemical fractionations in the SNC meteorites suggest complex internal processes on a large planet, which is inconsistent with an asteroidal origin. Some SNCs were altered by aqueous solutions at <0.7 Ga, consistent with the recent presence of liquid groundwater in Mars inferred independently from the geology of its surface. There seems little likelihood that the SNCs are not from Mars. If they were from another planetary body, it would have to be substantially identical to Mars as it now is understood."

Edited by Bedrock Bob
In case clicking the links in the references poses an obstacle.
  • Thanks 1
  • well done 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Bedrock Bob said:

 

Good to see you've decided to venture out there. BB

AzNuggetBob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...