[meteorite-list] Response to the minerally challenged or wasted band with

From: David Freeman <dfreeman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:42 2004
Message-ID: <3C3925AC.7070102_at_fascination.com>

Dear M Yousef;

By the questions that you select to ask, and the method that you ask
them, it shows that you are NOT familiar with mineralogy as you should
be to be disputing others negative opinions of your "rocks".
Question # 1 silica deposition during reducing environments (desiccation
of silica suspended solution with deposit) will result in nice
crystals if they have the time and space to grow and will certainly grow
on the outside of a rock. Our mineralologic term of "vug" is for the
pockets where crystals grow on the outside of rocks inside of the
pocket. You should have known that. You have quartz crystals that
formed in pockets, they have to attach to something unless they are free
floaters like the herkimer New York "diamonds" which are a pretty name
for nice free floating quartz crystals found in gray matrix....basalt if
I am correct.

Question # 2
In the Eocene basin of which I am located, fossil wood, fishes, insects,
crocodilian, turtle fossils abound. Numerous localities where there is
a pocket...space...vug...and solution silica...aka...quartz in hydrous
suspension, and with a little time...wha-la, crystals will grow on
fossils. Not an uncommon thing for one in the field to see. I have
some nice dinosaur vertebrae with quartz crystals, even a triceratopcian
front leg bone portion with crystals attached. Oooh, Ahhh, Ohhh.
Question #3 and 4
Your "white stone" should be tested with an acid to see if it is
calcite, dolomite, diorite, limestone or what. By the questions you
ask, you show your lack of understanding of common specimen testing
procedures. Hardness is nice but you obviously don't understand
hardness testing or you would abandon glass immediately as a standard
for testing your specimens with. A good file is hardness of 6 or 6.5,
try that, then a KNOWN quartz crystal. Glass is soft in the mineral
world, get a good set of standards that reflect the Mohs hardness scale,
then tell us in real terms what hardness your specimens are. Your
fingernail is hardness 1, it is like telling us your specimen can
scratch your fingernail. Not real bright. Your hardness for quartz is
7, and , that is harder than glass hardness 5 by not two times but by
ten times squared. The difference between corundum hardness 9 and
diamond hardness 10 is not 1 but TEN TIMES HARDER. Believe it, there are
some rare diamonds that are harder than 10, They are still diamonds but
are harder by virtue of the heat and pressure they endured during
formation and yet did not burn up or disintegrate.
You show your ignorance of the hardness subject by the questions you ask.
Question #5
Depending on the hardness of your specimen, and what it is, it could
have "thumbprints" from acid etching, weathering, mechanical weathering
(which I suspect happened as the cobble was rolled around with other
like rock). The crystal structure of many minerals help define
weathering characteristics and the occurrence of "thumbprints". Basalts
are not very hard rocks compared to granites, or even quartz family
rocks. Basalts are often even softer and weatherable than feldspars. I
deal in Nephrite jade which has a tough and fibrous cell structure and
it will at times have nice thumbprints, but is is not a very hard rock,
only 6 on the Mohs scale, still ten times harder than glass but soft for
gemstones and softer than 90 percent of the rocks out there.

At this point, I feel you need to get a geologist/mineralologist to
tutor you for a while, and then come back and tell us what you have
learned before you make any assumption of having a meteorite.
I suspect that other than quartz, you may have some olivine basalts or
more common basalt. Besides the quartz, they do look igneous, but are
cooled at depth and thus are not volcanic ejecta. Mother nature will
selectively move them around by weight and density as you say they are
arranged. Basaltic rocks will get a brown patina which is not unlike a
fusion crust, it is caused by the iron in the basalt, and by the
manganese in the rock as well. Basalts with minute elemental iron will
be attracted to a magnet and will set off a metal detector...aka "hot
rocks". You will find visible iron flakes in many iron rich olivine
basalts.

I strongly recommend that you get a copy of National Audubon Society
Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals and study it from front to back.
 Especially the back starting page 597, part two, A Guide to Rock
Identification. You are dealing with an area of plutonic and
sedimentary rock interfaces and probably may find some contact
metamorphic rocks there scattered around as well. I hope you will
pursue the Audobon Field Guide, it has a huge collection of mineral
pictures, and has pages and pages of mineral formation and rock
formation which you obviously do not completely understand as evidenced
by the questions that you do not ask...and the questions that you do.
Sincerely, geologically provoked,
Dave Freeman
Located in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, USA
Rock on Dudes...

M Yousef wrote:

> Dear Rob, and All;
> I really thank you very much for your time in replying to my posts. I
> really apreciate it.
> Maybe you left me no choice to discuss and explain my points why I am
> claiming it is a meteorite, but before I back off I will give it
> another final try. The reason is that I am now more sure and certian
> it is, than you are sure and certian it is not. Please bear with me
> and read this maybe long and boring email, and I promise will not
> bother you after that.
>
> For me, with my little expertise, it is very simple: those rocks are
> igneous and they are NOT volcanic so they must be meteorites. By the
> first visit to the region anyone can easily judge that there is no
> "fresh" volcano there, and even if you want to consider the other old
> and weathered volcanic mountains in the region you would certainly
> decide those rocks do not belong to them at all. The rocks that I
> found, are all placed at the surface of what was a sea or a river
> before. You can see the rock from as far as 100m because it is so
> different from the surroundings. There is no volcano that throws a few
> rocks and retire.
> The rocks are distributed in an almost half circle of a few km's
> diameter.
>
>> From the beginning I could anticipate where to find more rocks. This
>> circle
>
> is distinct by a rim of mountains of more than a 100m high. The rocks
> of those montains all point to the centre of the circle. Some BIG
> stones have been thrown away of the rim in a way not even those who
> built the piramids would be able to move them. The distribution of the
> stones and rocks off the rim all clearly suggest how they have been
> carried away by a huge explosion. You can even calculate the shock
> energy with good precision by measuring the average mass of stones in
> relation to their distances from the rim. There are lots of other
> physical, chemical and geological evidences of a big crater. If this
> was my field of study or interest I would not take so long to decide
> that I have got a huge meteorite crater.
> For me this is really enough, but surely I am trying to do all
> possible tests to confirm that.
>
> Now, I may agree with you; no quartz have been found in meteorites
> before (this is not correct by the way, see reference bellow), no
> fossils could come down with a meteor, no white meteorites, meteorites
> do not stick and melt into local rocks,,,, but with all these NOs I
> have got a meteorite!!! So it must be something new, and very
> interesting.
>
> But now I will tell you why I was amazed how so many of you quickly
> gave me a negative reply. Sorry Rob, you did not misread me, and I did
> not mean to praise you for your skill in identifying meteorites. But
> it seems that all those who replied may have only "practical"
> experience with meteorites, or they did not take what I said or what I
> put in the site seriously; if they read it at all. I dont blame
> though, but can anyone tell me:
> * How could quartz crystals form on virtually all sides of a stone,
> and only at the surface?
> * How could quartz crystals form on a fossil, from all sides too?
> * How did those thumprints appear on all sides of this white stone in
> the gallery?
> * How this white stone (must be calcium something) could be so compact
> and hard that it almost scratches glass?
> * Did you see the last two pictures (the inside and outside of one
> sample) and how the signs of a BIG shock clearly present that a child
> could tell?
> * You would not believe me if I say that even my little boy (three
> years old, AbdulAllah, who brought me the first rock when we were on a
> picnic) when he saw the iron rock that is stuck to the local rock he
> literally asked me: why those two rocks are attached together?
> * Did you see the fusion crust in some samples?
> * I told you that most of the rocks are magnetic and very compact.
> SO WHAT ON EARTH YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT TO AT LEAST CALSSIFY THESE AS
> METEOWRONGS to give them little attention and study?
>
> If anything of what I said above appeals to you, I would welcome any
> help and would be happy to provide samples for serious scientists and
> researchers in order to identify this METEORITE and to solve the
> fossil(s) riddle.
>
> Finally, please forgive me if I got little angry, but I got some bad
> replies that I do not deserve. However I repeat my thanks and
> appreciation to those who spent time to write good, though negative,
> replies.
>
> Regards
>
> Mohamed
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Detection of quartz in chondrites
> Authors: Semenenko, V. P.; Melnikov, V. S.
> Affiliation: AB(Akademiia Nauk Ukrainskoi SSR, Institut Geokhimii i
> Fiziki Mineralov, Kiev, Ukrainian SSR)
> Journal: In: Space environment and the earth. (A78-38378 16-91) Kiev,
> Izdatel'stvo Naukova Dumka, 1977, p. 96-100. In Russian.
> =========================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> In Reply TO:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> As I said:
>
>> > It could not be anything terrestrial.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matson, Robert" <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_saic.com>
> To: <diamondmeteor_at_hotmail.com>; <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:10 AM
> Subject: Catching up on Met-Central
>
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Been slurping my Sunday coffee and catching up on weekend
>> email -- mostly posts to Meteorite Central. I wish to respond
>> to several posts, but I want to start with the most bizarre
>> one first.
>>
>> I enjoy obscure humor as much as the next guy/gal, but I have
>> to admit that Michael Casper's latest post about his eBay
>> auction has me completely stumped. Either it is a very
>> private inside joke (which I'm supposing is lost on most
>> everyone here), or perhaps Michael just enjoys being
>> eccentric and taunting us mortals. In either case, I do
>> look forward to his 4-sigma posts -- their apparent randomness
>> (both in content and in timing) suggests extreme intelligence,
>> and I'm hoping that with perseverance I'll eventually "get it."
>>
>> Moving on to Mohamed Yousef's posts:
>>
>> > I was amazed how so many of you quickley gave me a negative
>> > reply.
>>
>> Don't forget the likelihood of a language barrier here, folks.
>> Perhaps we're misreading the tone of this statement. It could
>> simply be high praise for our skill in so quickly identifying
>> a non-meteorite! ;-) (I hesitate to call it a "meteorwrong",
>> a term I prefer to reserve for rocks which at least superficially
>> resemble meteorites in one or more features.) But in all
>> seriousness, I would like to offer a more constructive reply.
>>
>> > ... maybe I concentrated on the crystals and left out whole
>> > samples which looks more like what is avaialable in meteorite
>> > sites.
>>
>> Agreed. First word of advice, Mohamed: go through all your
>> various samples, identify any with quartz crystals, and set
>> them aside. Quartz (such as what appears in the majority of
>> your on-line images) is a show-stopper.
>>
>> > With all the negative replies I got so far, I STILL INSIST it
>> > is a meteorite.
>>
>> Because?
>>
>> > It could not be anything terrestrial.
>>
>> Because?
>>
>> > Although I am not an expert in the field ...
>>
>> Since you freely admit this, why are you loathe to accept
>> the opinions of multiple independent people who are?
>>
>> > ... but I am a physicist, PhD student in Cosmology ...
>>
>> All well and good, but it sounds like geology and meteoritics
>> are not your fields of expertise. Just as there are probably
>> few geologists who know much about Feynman diagrams or the
>> Chandrasekhar limit, a physicist or cosmologist probably has
>> little need for understanding mineralogy or petrology.
>>
>> > ... during the last few months I visited almost all sites
>> > about meteorites and read a few books.
>>
>> We applaud your curiosity in a subject outside your primary
>> field(s) of interest. The more you read on the subject, the
>> more you will learn.
>>
>> > I tried all pre-tests on these rocks and they passed.
>>
>> I see a reference to magnetism on your pages, so that's
>> certainly an example of a good test (but mind you, not a
>> requirement for being a real meteorite). However, you haven't
>> enumerated all your tests, and clearly they are incomplete
>> if quartz-containing rocks are "passing".
>>
>> > Please also try to solve with me the fossil riddle; I know
>> > it is not possible to have such fossils in a meteorite but
>> > this is what I found.
>>
>> Your question is asked and answered in the same sentence.
>> You "know it is not possible to have such fossils in a
>> meteorite". It's as simple as that -- any rocks with
>> terrestrial fossils have been on the earth for a very
>> long time indeed. Few meteorites last longer than a
>> few tens of thousands of years in the harsh earth
>> environment.
>>
>> Try not to be discouraged that your first candidate meteorites
>> are in fact terrestrial. As you learn more, you will refine
>> your identification criteria, and fewer and fewer candidates
>> will meet those criteria. With enough time, knowledge and
>> patience, you will find your first meteorite, and you will
>> probably recognize it the instant you see it.
>>
>> Moving on to Robert Beauford's post, asking for help on some
>> questions related to fall rates:
>>
>> > What proportion of visible meteors, or shooting stars, results
>> > in a meteorite being left on the ground? Would it be accurate
>> > to say far less than 1 in 10000(??)
>>
>> I think that's in the ballpark. Certainly less than 1 in 2000.
>> Thanks to meteor showers like the Leonids, Perseids, Geminids
>> and so forth, most visible meteors are associated with cometary
>> dust and debris smaller than the size of a pea. There must be
>> some active meteor observers on this list -- just ask them what
>> fraction of their observations produced meteors brighter than
>> magnitude -9 (probably a reasonable lower-limit for a meteorite-
>> producing event). I've seen perhaps 4 in my life (one of which
>> back on August 31, 1984, definitely produced multiple meteorites),
>> versus more than 10,000 regular meteors.
>>
>> > 1 object over 10 grams falls per (how many square miles) per
>> > year.
>>
>> My best estimate, based on recoveries in California and Nevada
>> is around 5000 square miles. This assumes you count meteorites
>> from the same fall only ONCE (even though most falls produce many
>> individuals, each over 10 grams.) Even so, 5000 square miles is
>> probably an upper limit. It could quite easily be half this.
>>
>> > An object over 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) might fall in a given 1 square
>> > mile piece of land only once in every (how many) years?
>>
>> Here, there are some theoretical, exponential scaling laws you
>> can use to estimate comparative fall rates between stones above
>> 10 grams and stones above 1000 grams. I'm sure it's at least
>> a 20:1 ratio (i.e. at least 100,000 square miles). Hopefully
>> someone on the list can provide more definitive data.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Sun 06 Jan 2002 11:35:56 PM PST