Mysterious inclusion in stony meteorite NWA 788
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Mysterious inclusion in stony meteorite NWA 788
Hi folks,
What I know:
This is an 11.2g end slice of a stony meteorite from the Casablanca region in Morocco. It was first recorded in March 2001, however the actual date of fall is not known. It has been classified by UCLA as a type L6 Chondrite. Metallic iron content is between 5% and 10% (you can see metalic flecks in photo). The total known (ie, collected) weight of this meteorite fall is ~13Kgs.
The image is of the unpolished, cut surface of the meteorite. It includes a small area of approximately 6.5mm x 5mm. The meteorite has quite a varied surface to explore under the scope, however what I found particularly interesting is the mysterious lozenge shaped object shown in the enlarged insert. I have no idea what it is - it's the wrong shape for a chondrule - so my best guess is a crystal of some mineral or other?
This image was a pig to get under the 200Kb limit as there is just so much edge-to-edge detail. The original 800x600 file out of photoshop was 343Kb.
Bruce
What I know:
This is an 11.2g end slice of a stony meteorite from the Casablanca region in Morocco. It was first recorded in March 2001, however the actual date of fall is not known. It has been classified by UCLA as a type L6 Chondrite. Metallic iron content is between 5% and 10% (you can see metalic flecks in photo). The total known (ie, collected) weight of this meteorite fall is ~13Kgs.
The image is of the unpolished, cut surface of the meteorite. It includes a small area of approximately 6.5mm x 5mm. The meteorite has quite a varied surface to explore under the scope, however what I found particularly interesting is the mysterious lozenge shaped object shown in the enlarged insert. I have no idea what it is - it's the wrong shape for a chondrule - so my best guess is a crystal of some mineral or other?
This image was a pig to get under the 200Kb limit as there is just so much edge-to-edge detail. The original 800x600 file out of photoshop was 343Kb.
Bruce
Very interesting Bruce.
Extraterrestrial fossil? Or how about artificial?
Extraterrestrial fossil? Or how about artificial?
Last edited by MacroLuv on Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The meaning of beauty is in sharing with others.
P.S.
Noticing of my "a" and "the" and other grammar
errors are welcome.
P.S.
Noticing of my "a" and "the" and other grammar
errors are welcome.
That "what ever it is," makes for an interesting and puzzling photographe there Bruce Would it not be a "feather in ones cap" to have come across a metorite with a fossil embedded within While we are poking around with "rovers" on Mars hoping to find a bit of water and maybe a microorganism or two, it just so happens that a bit of evidence of extraterrestrial life just happens to fall out of space right into our laps As I said a very interesting and puzzling image there Bruce, thanks
- Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Thanks for your comments guys. Yes it's fun to speculate on exotic possibilities isn't it. I took this close-up this afternoon at the Meiji maximum 45X magnification to see if I could weedle out a bit more detail. I tried differnt lighting too but have to say not with a great deal of success, however here it is anyway (egg shape is ~1mm long):
Try squinting at the image , it might help
Rik - tried your suggested approach - thanks.
Bruce
Try squinting at the image , it might help
Rik - tried your suggested approach - thanks.
Bruce
Last edited by Bruce Williams on Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
- Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
- Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Yes, I agree Ken ...and not inconsistent with Nikola's last comment either
Please check out Graham's posting at:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 1148#11148
Bruce
Please check out Graham's posting at:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 1148#11148
Bruce