Need help with this specimen

[Petr]

Hello! I had to learn more about this stone in my free time. He was found in the forest at a depth of 15 to 30 cm with the help of a deep metal detector, the find is accidental, not targeted. There are no stones in this area, forest soil. Parts of the stone were in one place, there was soil between them, when they are extracted from the ground, large parts of the stone can be collected together into one stone. You can define the inside and outside. On its outer part there are areas of melting, it does not have sharp corners. In the inner part of the stone there are numerous areas of shock metomorphism, shock melts and shock veins. The stone is very fine-grained, like dust, a large magnification is required for its detailed examination. There is no quartz in this sample, the presence of earthly elements that cast doubt on its cosmic origin is also absent. A blue grain was found on the outside of the stone, its size is about 0.1 mm. 
I did not find any reason to throw it away. What can you tell about this stone? 
Thank you!

[Morlock]

3 hours ago, Petr said:

 What can you tell about this stone? 
Thank you!

Absolutely nothing....

[Petr]

41 минуту назад Морлок сказал:

Совершенно ничего ....

I realized this is beyond your capabilities.

[Morlock]

17 minutes ago, Petr said:

I realized this is beyond your capabilities.

And yours as well.

But it's not a meteorite regardless.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Morlock

[Petr]

10 минут назад Морлок сказал:

И твоя тоже.

Но все равно это не метеорит.

Yes, it is not for sale!

[Mikestang]

Have pictures not zoomed in all the way?  

[Petr]

What's wrong with the photo?

[Bedrock Bob]

38 minutes ago, Petr said:

What's wrong with the photo?

You can't see the stone. There is no way to tell scale. You can't see the shape of the stone nor how features change.

The overall look of the stone is as important as close up shots of the surface. 

The photos are good enough to tell it is not a meteorite. But they are not what is needed to say that it is.

It's not.

[Mikestang]

1 hour ago, Petr said:

What's wrong with the photo?

It's like asking who this person is.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Mikestang

[Bedrock Bob]

55 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

It's like asking who this person is.

We know it's not Beyonce. And that is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.

[Petr]

And these are specialists? Who do I communicate with? Take the attentiveness test? All the best!

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Petr said:

And these are specialists? Who do I communicate with? Take the attentiveness test? All the best!

How about a better pics,a streak test,  a polished window and an acid etch.?

Pics dont cut it. Petr.

 

[Petr]

Here is a window, there is no point in doing a strip test, acid will not show anything here either.

[Bedrock Bob]

If you found it with a detector then there must be iron in the stone. But I see no metallic iron. Only earthly elements that cast doubt on its origin. 

It seems your specimen does have quartz. It looks like a large percentage of the granules it is comprised of are quartz. It is hard to tell from the photos but I would say this stone is at least 25% silica. It looks exactly like a hematite rich sedimentary rock to me. 

Meteorites contain metallic iron. You seem to have mineral iron indicating a terrestrial stone. Not a meteorite.

I am assuming your stone is magnetic. Is it?

A streak test is the basic test for mineral iron. When you created the window you produced cuttings. What color were the cuttings? 

Without the basic observations like streak, specific gravity and magnetism all we have to go by is the photos. Based on your photos and the very little pertinent info you have provided I would say it is an terrestrial rock.

The very first thing that I do is check for magnetism and determine what state the iron is in if a stone is magnetic.  If the iron is free metallic iron it is a possible meteorite. If the iron is mineral it is not. This is accomplished with a streak test and observation of the window.

I don't see any free metallic iron at all. And since there is "no point in a streak test" we can't really determine what state the iron is in if there is any. We can only assume it is mineral iron. That assumption leads me to believe the stone is not a meteorite.

The surface looks like mineral iron. The shape of the stone (from what we can see) looks like sedimentary stone and not a meteorite. And the lack of metallic iron, chondrules or fusion crust pretty much rules out a meteorite.

Im no expert. Just a meteorite hunter. But that is my opinion and why I think it is terrestrial.

If you still believe you have a meteorite you need to do the basic tests like streak, magnetism, specific gravity. You need to find some features that are common with meteorites such as fusion crust, free metallic iron, and chondrules. If your stone has these features then it may be of further interest 

[Petr]

There is one peculiarity, this stone is possibly achondrite, which is very difficult, because you exclude this possibility.

[Bedrock Bob]

20 minutes ago, Petr said:

There is one peculiarity, this stone is possibly achondrite, which is very difficult, because you exclude this possibility.

The fact that it contains mineral iron pretty much excludes that possibility. 

That and the fact it has no characteristics of an achondrite.

At least none that I recognize.

 

[Petr]

Its specific gravity is 3.0. It is weakly magnetized and can be found in the Fe / Mn ratio in pyroxene and in the oxygen isotopic composition. The presence of shock metomorphism.

[Petr]

This sample still has a smell, when the stone lies in the bag for a long time, then when you open it you can catch the smell of an extinguished furnace, used gunpowder, such smells are described by astronauts of the lunar mission.

[Bedrock Bob]

Such smells are not indicative of meteorites. 

If your specimen is weakly magnetic and you don't see free metallic iron you have an earthly mineral.

Sorry. Keep looking!

[Petr]

I'm not looking for meteorites, but this stone is very interesting. Look for chondrites, and I will study this stone! Thank you!

[Petr]

SNC meteorites represent only a small portion of the different types of meteorites that could originate from Mars (Ashley and Delaney, 1999). Ashley and Delaney (1999) emphasized that the fusion crust of meteorites is a marker of their extraterrestrial origin, stating that ‘if a consolidated siliciclastic sediment were ejected from Mars, the fusion crust formed during its deceleration and descent to Earth could be quite unlike anything that previous meteoritic experience defines as true fusion crust’.

[Mikestang]

Yes, that is true, but doesn't apply to your rock as there is no fusion crust evident.

[Regmaglitch]

Petr, Mikestang and Bob are telling you the honest truth.  It is obvious from your photos, that your stone has a “rind”, and not fusion crust.  Sorry, but it is not a meteorite.  

[Bedrock Bob]

13 hours ago, Petr said:

SNC meteorites represent only a small portion of the different types of meteorites that could originate from Mars (Ashley and Delaney, 1999). Ashley and Delaney (1999) emphasized that the fusion crust of meteorites is a marker of their extraterrestrial origin, stating that ‘if a consolidated siliciclastic sediment were ejected from Mars, the fusion crust formed during its deceleration and descent to Earth could be quite unlike anything that previous meteoritic experience defines as true fusion crust’.

From what I understand from the little I know about it this causes a glassy fusion crust from the silica. 

I'm not seeing anything that resembles fusion crust in the photos. Nor do I see anything that would resemble fused silica.

The close ups show a granular matrix held together with hematite. A very common material. There is nothing that would indicate that it is anything but that.

You say you found it with a metal detector. Im not sure what type of detector you are using. But I am familiar with metal detectors. And most detectors when ground balanced properly overlook stones like this. If they make a signal it is much different than a positive signal. 

A weakly magnetic rock with no visible metal is what we call a "hot rock". And it is my opinion based on my experience that is exactly what you have.

[Petr]

9 hours ago, Bedrock Bob said:

From what I understand from the little I know about it this causes a glassy fusion crust from the silica. 

I'm not seeing anything that resembles fusion crust in the photos. Nor do I see anything that would resemble fused silica.

The close ups show a granular matrix held together with hematite. A very common material. There is nothing that would indicate that it is anything but that.

You say you found it with a metal detector. Im not sure what type of detector you are using. But I am familiar with metal detectors. And most detectors when ground balanced properly overlook stones like this. If they make a signal it is much different than a positive signal. 

A weakly magnetic rock with no visible metal is what we call a "hot rock". And it is my opinion based on my experience that is exactly what you have.

Be careful, this theme is a continuation of the theme "Mars". There is no quartz here, there is a photo of a thin section, no fantasies are needed, there is a photo on which you can see everything.

The metal detector they found is in the photo.