|
This update is intended to help satisfy the natural curiosity humans
have
for the world and universe about us. I believe this may help bolster
the
public's natural curiosity about our surroundings. After reading
hundreds
of papers or perhaps thousands of pages of meteorite research and
focusing
on identification principles and methodologies, we come to several
conclusions
to help the public in it's own efforts of discovery and in applying
necessary
skills. Some of this new information is also for those of you who
have
emailed us encountering problems in having found a possible meteorite
are
being given the "run around" by those scientists soliciting meteorite
samples
over the internet and then disappearing from the radar screen. Over many decades the overriding principle of intellectual curiosity by your scientists on meteorites and their driving force appears to be a "highly unusual emphasis" on finding microbial life forms and water or water bearing mineralogy in meteorites. The abundant literature and research, if it is to be taken as truthful or close to factual, indicates that the aforementioned are lacking in the samples studied over many decades. In addition to the first round of elimination or inclusion pertaining to geophysical characteristics used by many organizations and individuals, finding no fossil form of microbial life and no water or water bearing mineralogy in the sample may be an indicator the sample could be extra terrestrial, although there are many minerals both amorphous and crystalline containing neither. This means every sample lacking microbial life or water bearing mineralogy is not necessarily a meteorite. If the sample in your hand happens to meet the geophysical conditions of a meteorite, it just means the terrestrial sample formed in highly reducing conditions of pressure and temperature. Forming oxides of transitional metals, pure metals, or oxides of semi-metals in crystalline silicate form as opposed to an amorphous form. The breaking down of semi-metal oxides and later forming concretions of a variety of materials such as sandstone or metamorphic granitic material contain the water or microbial life we seek in meteorites. But these late stage terrestrial samples containing abundant fossilized microbial plant and animal life and water bearing mineralogy are not difficult to separate from stony meteorites found anywhere. This especially applies to stony meteorites which are at first more difficult to isolate from their terrestrial equivalents. In her paper "Pigeonholing Planetary Meteorites", Lindstrom makes a good case that scientists misidentify meteorites because they pigeonhole them into known categories. This complaint is well founded and enigmatic behavior by the scientific community, and we think we found the root cause of it or at least one of the roots. Scientific misconduct manifesting itself in different ways for a variety of reasons appears to be a staple of the educational arena, at least in our experience. We have experienced and witnessed this first hand. If a scientist wants to exclude your sample from the pool of known meteorites for motives having nothing to do with science then they begin to pigeonhole (describe) it in a specific way in order to artificially create a failure through non- fit. This behavior has cost society dearly in time, money, and education and it is very difficult to cleanse a criminal mind sprinkled with scientific misconduct as a safe harbor mentality. Lindstrom may not make much of an impact with this very important paper because a dismantling of an entrenched elite culture rooted in racial bias and bigotry is necessary. Lets take a look at how a mechanism of isotopic analysis can be used in certain circles to pigeonhole and lead to misidentifying samples, because this is very widespread in planetary science to maintain gate keeper status and elitist ownership of science. In lunar meteorites for example there is the persistent but bizarre claim that oxygen isotopic ratios and other elements must fall within a certain range or on a certain line. The definition of ratio is: the relationship in quantity, amount, or size, between two or more things. In the literature, the word ratio is stretched and used very loosely because ratio implies an accurate counting. Since we are talking about atoms here it means someone has completely disaggregated an Apollo sample or a lunar meteorite and counted each atom of oxygen or other element to get an accurate (stable to isotopic ratio) count. It is easier to count oxygen because it is not an inert element. The problem with these bizarre claims by this small group of scientists is that it leaves them no wiggle room when new samples and new methods of analysis are found or employed. The current suite of sample populations is so small and from a narrow compositional range resulting in closing the door with exact ratio claims would mean that the Moon formed in a literally closed system. Not affected by internal heating and magma diffusion to the surface, and meteorite impact both of which tend to change oxygen content over time, and favorable to equilibrium of the local system. So if a scientist tells you an element of anything or some other isotope of an element from a meteorite must fall within a certain range or line, ask them to show you the data plots for the entire surface and subsurface of the planetary body or satellite in question. If they cannot fulfill this request then they cannot be taken seriously and they are wasting your time and everyone else's time. (The USGS has a nice handout on Isotopes). It would be much more believable and reliable if the following has occurred in lunar sample analysis. If the isotopic counting was tested on a one mile grid (or less) of a cubic centimeter of the lunar surface, and then the same process was repeated taking a sample(s) from 25 meters beneath the surface at the same grid and once more at 100 meters beneath the surface. It's very unlikely that the isotopic ratio and counting for oxygen for instance, will fall on a straight line and the differences would be more indicative of the rock type coupled with the local geochemical process in conjunction with lunar evolutionary history. It's highly unlikely that oxygen isotope and isotopic counting in a high px breccia from 100 meters beneath the lunar surface is going to match the lunar regolith and or a differentiated surface maria basalt or anorthosite in isotopic content unit for unit. An exact match in oxygen isotopic ratio from these three differently formed provenances would be such an incredible coincidence, because that would mean that absolutely no internal or external disturbance ever occurred in and on the moon for billions of years after it formed, and that it formed under perfect conditions in an absolute vacuum. A mismatch from area to area would be more consistent with the data obtained from the Clementine data mission that indeed the Moon is much more varied in composition than previously realized. This variation in composition (craters and central peaks to surface locally and regionally) has to extend from the macroscopic level to the atomic level. This conceptual notion of variation applies to any other planet in any other solar system in any other universe. A randomness principle for local planetary evolution and composition would revert ownership back to the planetary body. That is to say, let the planetary body tell you what it is rather than the scientist forcing the planets and moons to be what he/she says. This behavior by our scientists, "it is what I say it is", is nothing more than injecting arrogance to fulfill some human need of superiority. (see Angel Speck, "let the planetary body tell you what it is"). One way to start getting back on track with M. M. Lindstrom is to stop creating cutesy bizarre little names, hence whole branching out sub-classes of rock types just because a single stone or breccia contains an inclusion or crystal of say hematite (for instance). Some meteorite rock types we have seen have been given entire subclass or sub-subclass branching direction names for a single crystal which is rather a bizarre notion because as we see it, the scientific community is entangling itself in unnecessary branches of rock types and classes. This bizarre naming of an entire subclass for a single inclusion means there is an infinite possibility of rock types for one planetary body and See, "Proceedings of the Conference on the Lunar Highlands Crust" , Houston, TX, Nov. 14-16, 1979 page 51. Here are some uses of common isotopes. Bone recovered from archaeological sites can be analyzed isotopically for information regarding diet and migration. Carbon and nitrogen isotopic signatures are used to reconstruct diet, and oxygen isotopes are used to determine geographic location. (Not to pigeonhole meteorites nor classify entire planets and satellites and artificially include or eliminate new samples). In planetary science, isotopic composition should be more closely tied to rock - region type. So if you have two different rock types from the same body, the likelihood that they are going to contain the exact same quantity (count ratio) of 16O , 17O and 18O is far fetched. If a scientist wants to claim a fixed ratio for an entire planet or satellite then he or she must be advancing the notion that it only contains one rock type and formed and evolved in a closed system since the beginning of time. (Remember you have to convince your audience the public). On the other hand, if they want the public to recognize many rock types from a single planet or satellite, then that scientist needs to be prepared for chemical ratio-variation at the atomic level hence nuclear isotopic level from region to region, central core to surface in all directions.
delving deeper We have always had the gnawing feeling that something was amiss in the theory that the Moon is a remnant product of the collision between a mars size planet and the Earth. The reason for this is that if indeed this occurred there should be some fossilized microbial animal or plant life found in the Apollo samples. Several days ago, an announcement was made that microbial fossil life had been found in a rock from Earth three billion years old. The Earth is a much more active geological body than the Moon therefore these microbial life forms should be very easily found in lunar samples. None has been found that we know of, so this impact theory is just so far out there it never happened. Second, certain scientists have often indicated that once a theory is bought into by the community at large, the scientific work and research is geared and formulated to patch up the theory and make it sustainable. It appears that much of the research we have read on lunar sample analysis does just exactly that. It goes without saying that we receive requests for assistance in identifying meteorites where the one making the request feels the "scientific community" tried to swindle them, or incorrecrtly assessed their sample. We elimnate many samples from the discussion but provide information on three requestors to show how valid science works as compared to bias and scientific misconduct, and how bad intentional bias can creep into the work resulting in agenda driven science. Fraud and scientific misconduct by falsification and fabrication. 1). In this request the owner of the Frass sample asked us to re-examine his sample and we found it not to be a meteorite. 2) In the next request, Steve Shoner who has deep roots and ties to the scientific community repeatedly requested we look at his Takysie Lake sample which was analyzed in the 1960's and Nininger felt was a lunar sample. By superimposing the XRD patterns with BCC9601 which is lunar highlands crust, we were able to establish a genetic relationship between the samples. In fact, the Takysie Lake sample more closely matches the Apollo sample composition. 3) In the next example and several years ago, we were approached by Andrew Ferguson from the state of Maine to identify a "stony meteorite". Mr. Ferguson was the point source for perpetuating a hoax and a fraud, carefully coordinated by numerous scientists including but not limited to, Dr. Arthur Ehlmann of the TCU Monnig Collection and Dr. Tim McCoy of the Smithsonian Institution. This group of frauds sought to discredit BCC Meteorites capabilities by sending a fake sample with photographs of a real meteorite (a Chondrite) so that we would issue an incorrect assessment. For several years we said nothing about discovering the scheme. In issuing our assessment, the response from Mr. Ferguson was swift and angry when I informed him by email and regular mail; "The sample you sent is not meteoritic and in fact I was very disappointed to find the sample contained no silica either amorphous nor crystalline. If the sample is meteoritic, it cannot have come from the sample shown in the photograph." I issued instructions to Mr. Ferguson on what to do for further analysis, but he refused. He later sent "analytical data" from a dubious source which indicated the sample sent was ~98% managanese, (not a stony meteorite). Upon making an inquiry to Michael Zolensky of the Johnson Space Center, we later confirmed our assessment our initial assessment. Were Mr. Ferguson correct, plantetary science would have been turned on its head because it would mean we should be finding "meteorites" composed entirely of almost every element on the periodic chart. This would present a formidable challenge to the well established accretionary theory of the production of all solid matter, (planets). |
This web site deals primarily with the samples found in Boggy Creek in Central Texas. To our knowledge, the two classes of Meteorites known as Irons and Stony irons have not been found in that body of water and that locale. Therefore we deal only with Stony and Anomalous samples found by us. We would like to comment on "Iron Meteorites", (below), because there is the misconception that Iron Meteorites exist in greater numbers on the surface of the Earth. In fact, the inability of many in the scientific community to distinguish stony meteorites from terrestrial material in a temperate climate makes it difficult to find and identify new samples and broaden our knowledge based on new samples. Many rare and unusual samples are being overlooked. Stony Meteorites are much more durable and plentiful than Fe-Ni samples but again, because of their appearance, less easily recognizable. The Achondrite class have a remarkable appearance to ordinary terrestrial basalts and from the literature, many lunar samples appear brecciated containing clastic features. (gray with white, gray white clasts). Heavily weathered stony meteorites tend to resemble terrestrial rocks as in the BC Collection. Regmaglypts (thumb print indentations) will not be found on the surface of weathered stony meteorites because they do not generally have enough metal to induce a melting and pitting on the surface. Silicate samples will generally have a more compact ground mass than [equivalent] terrestrial samples, be slightly to highly magnetic, may or may not contain a fusion crust, unless broken will generally be flight oriented, (elongated and or pyramidal shaped), with rounded corners, and may or may not contain microscopic inclusions of metals and/or silicate crystals and anomalous inclusions, (depending on its evolved state and origin). An interesting note here is Robert Bauval (a Belgian scientist) theorized the Egyptians patterned the pyramid structural shape after meteorites because they noticed that the stones raining from the sky and found on the desert floor were generally 3-4 sided having a base and reasoned that this must be the proper shape most durable in high desert winds.
1) First of all there is no such thing as purely-Iron Meteorites because pure Iron does not exist in nature. "Iron Meteorites", are composed of a small percentage of Fe mixed with a large percentage of Ni and thus are composed predominately of the element Ni with varying amount of Fe
2) Stony Meteorites are composed of a solution of Si and O and contain a definite proportion of Alkali, Alkali Earth, and Transitional metals within the crystal structure at the cell level. Trace elements, isotopes, halogens, and inert elements are also found in meteorites.
3) In "An
Introduction to Meteorites", linked at the bottom of this page, Dr.
Angela Speck writes, "A more useful categorization, rather than
one dependent on appearance or bulk composition of the meteorites, is
based on their history or that of their parent bodies (the asteroids
and/or comets of which the meteorites are fragments)." We could not
agree more and this is what we are aiming for in identification of our
samples. But this is very difficult for us not having the proper
facilitates and instrumentation on site. See Lindstrom
et al. on Misidentification of Planetary Meteorites. Lindstrom is
mentioned here because misidentification is more than likely a very
common problem, sometimes accidental but sometimes intentional. We have
evidence of intentional misidentification of samples by Geologists so
this is nothing new to us.
However, if the reader just wants to identify a
sample as terrestrial or non-terrestrial then bulk composition and
inclusion analysis is sufficient with inclusion analysis not being
absolutely necessary. Unusually close matches to "reliable existing
data", can be a good clue as to the sample authenticity.
Identification can be accomplished by several mechanisms including
conducting XRD in a laboratory, because one can obtain the major and
minor phases present in the sample. For instance, XRD analysis of
BCC9601 (Lunar), indicates a bulk composition of a)
(Na,Ca)Al(Si,Al)3O8 "calcian-ordered" and b) Na(AlSi3O8) Albite low,
and c) MgSiO3 Protoenstatite, and d) Quartz alpha, SiO2 e)
"synthetic".
|
|
|
|
| BCC9601, Lunar highlands surface
crust. See man made lunar regolith or pure
lunar dust made from crushing a piece of this sample. |
|||
Interpretation of the
XRD data and results is very important and is as follows. Note
that, preliminary and final analysis provided by AMIA consists
of bulk phase composition. Several sections and one fragment were
used for three XRDs to determine extent of homogeneity across the
sample.
a) The first part indicates the sample is a complete solid solution of plagioclase feldspar. The "[calcian ordered]" is long hand for anorthite/anorthosite. Anorthite from the Moon is very different from that found on Earth. The reason it is indicated as "calcian ordered" is because pure Anorthosite is so rare it is not in the XRD database where the sample was analyzed, even though the data base contains some 80,000 formulas. Calcian ordered also satisfies Paulings Rules for atomic size, combined with charge balancing for the crystallographic makeup and complete solid solution of the sample. This tells us this sample is a high temperature melt.
b) The second part indicates that the solid solution continued up until cooling and crystallization and the substitution continued with [NaSi] replacing [CaAl] making the sample more Sodic. [Almost equal Na-Ca with high K, Al, and SiO2 at differentiation, with low Ti and Fe], indicating a surface crustal floatation magma.
c) In part 3 the MgSiO3 is a stellar grain of Enstatite we intentionally bombarded with X-Rays and picked up by the Diffractometer detector. BCC9601 has many stellar grains of various composition.
d) The SiO2 indicates the sample has an overabundance of silica in solution, and some of it is out of solution uniformly distributed through out the ground mass as a quartz material. If the sample is surface crustal material it should contain approximately 1/3 more SiO weight percent than subcrustal (non- floatation) material. The alpha quartz indicates the sample tested was undergoing a reconstructive transformation from Cristobalite-Tridymite to stable quartz, but this occurred for approximately ~1, 1-1/2 cm inwards from the outside of the sample. This transformation at the out side edge of the sample is distinctly noticeable from the inner material.
e) The "synthetic" wording: PDF match. (low level impurities yields crystallographic data refined from Syn, Pdf single crystal-peak and constants match), indicates that the SiO2 bond lengths and angles are highly distorted, produced in a high T (>1600c), P (>10 atm vac P) environment. Hence the "synthetic" designation is analogous to "laboratory like" conditions. and Everything taken together including an anhydrous sample, having a very specific ratio of TiO2-FeO [~1 : 10], and ~10% Al2O3, by EDS analysis, points to a differentiated Lunar Highlands surface crustal origin for the sample. It should be mentioned here that this sample cannot be produced nor reproduced in a laboratory!
The final major-minor phase separation was completed and the sample is consistent with a differentiated lunar surface crust.
CORROSION:
CORROSION BY SOLUTION. The following generalizations may be made about chemical solution :
(1) Small molecules and ions dissolve most readily. The simplest corrosion is by chemical solution. The components of asphalt, will dissolve more readily than the components of a highly polymerized plastic. Apparent exceptions are polymers which are easily depolymerized, but here the material goes into solution as small molecules. Similarly, alkali and halide ions have greater solubility than more complex silicate ions.
(2) Solution occurs more readily when the solvent and solute are structurally similar. Organic materials are most soluble in organic solvents, metals in other metal liquids, and ceramic materials in other ceramic melts. Even within these general categories, a similarity of solvent and solute structures produces greater solubility. For example, polyethylene is more soluble in liquid hydrocarbons than in liquid phenol, and copper is more soluble in liquid zinc than in liquid lead.
(3) The presence of two solutes may produce greater solubility than the presence of only one. As an example, the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) of limestone is nearly insoluble in pure water. However, the addition of CO2 to form carbonic acid in the water markedly increases the CaCO3 solubility. Limestone caverns are the result of the dissolution of CaCO3 by water containing organic material. The time required for solution in this case is exceedingly long, of course, but the same effect occurs when limestones, or calcium carbonate bonded sandstones, are used for construction materials in an industrial atmosphere containing such gases as SO3. The solution of SO3 in atmospheric moisture produces a dilute sulfuric acid solvent which will react directly with CaCO3.
(4) The rate of solution increases with temperature. Solution involves diffusion, and since diffusion occurs more rapidly with the greater thermal vibrations at higher temperatures, solution corrosion will also occur more rapidly with a rise in temperature.
OXIDATION: "Iron Meteorites, and Fe in silicate meteorites"
(5) Corrosion by
Oxidation. Direct oxidation that results in the formation of an oxide
scale occurs more readily at high temperatures. However, strictly
speaking, oxidation is the removal of electrons from an atom, and
therefore it may involve the formation of numerous types of reaction
products. For example,[ Fe---->Fe++ plus 2e-], is the expression for
the oxidation of iron into ferrous ions, and [Fe++---->Fe+++ plus
e-] is the expression for the oxidation of ferrous ions into ferric
ions. These reactions are most common in rust formation. Rust is ferric
hydroxide, and is formed according to the reaction,
4Fe+3O2+6H2O---->4Fe(OH)3.
For iron to rust, both oxygen and moisture must be
present. Iron will not rust if it is submerged in oxygen free water,
nor will it rust in an atmosphere containing only oxygen. However, in
practice the amount of moisture required to produce the above reaction
may be surprisingly small. For example, the moisture content of the air
can quickly produce rust on hand tools in a basement.
Different metals have different oxidation
potentials, inasmuch as the energy required to remove an electron
varies from metal to metal. Electrons are more readily removed in
some environments than others. For example, electrons are removed from
iron when oxygen and water are both present, and they are more easily
removed from aluminum atoms when chloride ions are present. The
oxidation on the surface of "iron" and stony meteorites is readily
apparent however, and more importantly, the extent of the oxidation is
proportional to the opportunity presented by the geophysical and
chemical characteristics present in the sample. Usually the rate will
be very slow and cease at a certain point on the sample unless there is
a drastic change in the environmental conditions, such as a noticeable
upward change in the ambient temperature conditions.
In short, if left undisturbed in ambient conditions,
any meteorite should be expected to alter slowly and survive for
millions of years.
Additional Resources For Meteorite Identification We Highly Recommend.
The Dutch Meteor Society has an excellent detailed primer on Meteorite Identification, and Dr. Angela Speck has been nice to loan us her Meteorite Introduction Page. (Dr. Speck has devoted much of her web pages to her research and educational materials and anyone interested in astromineralogy will be dazzled by her and her colleague's work, please visit her site). See also the following page for meteorite appearance by answering meteorite dealers question.