-1

[![enter image description here][1]][1] I have a 99.99% pure iron meteorite. It is 4,902 grams.

bryen macintyre
  • 25
  • 2
  • 4
    Possible duplicate of I've found a pure 99.99% iron meteorite, who should I contact? – Brian Mar 27 '19 at 16:15
  • 1
    It can't be a duplicate of a closed question.... – James Jenkins Mar 27 '19 at 16:39
  • 2
    @JamesJenkins it's a duplicate of a closed question, word-for-word. – Magic Octopus Urn Mar 27 '19 at 16:56
  • 4
    @bryen - when a post is closed, please don't post the exact same thing again, as it will be closed again, and you may hit a question autoban! – Rory Alsop Mar 27 '19 at 17:35
  • What sort of assistance are you seeking? Have you contacted the astronomy department of your nearest university that has an astronomy department? – Russell Borogove Mar 27 '19 at 17:46
  • https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/30142/could-pure-iron-from-a-star-make-it-to-earth – Muze Mar 27 '19 at 18:00
  • 2
    An answer to https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/can-we-expect-to-find-pure-iron-or-only-nickel-iron-alloys-in-asteroids included a claim of a meteorite with 99% iron. I don't know what tests would show definitively whether something is of terrestrial or extraterrestrial origin, but those would need to be done; no-one here will be able to make a determination. An exceptional claim needs compelling, documented evidence. – Ken Fabian Mar 28 '19 at 06:14
  • -1 OP has deleted their previous post to get around the hold and copy/pasted hit here. Edits should be made in place. Also, "What is this rock that I found?" questions are off topic here and are instead welcome in Earth Science SE. http://meteorite-identification.com/images/black-slag.html – uhoh Mar 28 '19 at 08:49
  • Meteorite, or meteor-wrong? – uhoh Mar 28 '19 at 08:55
  • @JamesJenkins Yes, it is perfectly valid to close a question as a duplicate of a closed question. – called2voyage Mar 28 '19 at 12:19
  • 99.99 % iron and 0.06 % Mn at the same time is impossible. – Uwe Mar 28 '19 at 14:21
  • I apologize for the listing errors. I had listed the question on the Space Exploration page. I removed it to post it to the Earth Science page. I'm new to this site but appreciate all of the comments and will answer all questions the best I can. – bryen macintyre Mar 29 '19 at 14:29
  • You should not trust everything displayed on a measurment device. Read the manual carefully about the specification for precision. When was the device last calibration and when should it be calibrated for full precision? Test the device with some pieces of steel and stainless steel. Take a piece of copper of an electrical cable, this should be 99.999 % pure. – Uwe Mar 31 '19 at 21:51
  • The Thermo Scientific Niton gun used belongs to a Precious Metal Refiner. Precious metal refiners work on very small percentages of profit and can lose large amounts of money on small or incorrect evaluations of karat and purity amounts. The equipment they use must be calibrated to exacting standards at all times. ****NOTE Copper wire scrap ranges from 99.68% up to 99.9% – bryen macintyre Mar 31 '19 at 22:58

1 Answers1

6

I'm highly skeptical that a 99.99% pure iron meteorite would be a fragment of a natural solar system object. It's more likely you have a shard, maybe part of a bolt or some such (hmm, I just thought, even a bolt would be steel, not pure iron—maybe a part of a magnetic device?), from some re-entering satellite.

Natural metal meteorites are never pure iron, even the ones often called "iron meteorites". True, iron can be the major component, but there is always a significant fraction of nickel (4-30%), as described in this Washington University of St. Louis tutorial, and usually a few tenths of a percent of cobalt as well. This conflicts with "99.99% pure iron" (how reliable is the measurement?).

If you have access to chemical analysis facilities, check the nickel and cobalt content. If there's some there, it's probably a natural meteorite. If indeed it's pure iron, then it's probably a satellite remnant.

Tom Spilker
  • 18,306
  • 1
  • 66
  • 83
  • Technical iron used for a bolt is not 99.99% pure iron anyway. Iron of that purity is much too weak to be used for spacecrafts. – Uwe Mar 27 '19 at 16:39
  • 2
    I can't imagine why any spacecraft would have a solid chunk of iron of that size and general proportions in it (ca. 8cm on a side). A flat plate of iron, maybe, a compact block of lead or other dense material for ballast, maybe, but not a block of iron. – Russell Borogove Mar 27 '19 at 17:43
  • A measurement with the result 99.99% pure iron is not reliable in my opinion. There should be a ±σ specification. See this brochure page 5. – Uwe Mar 27 '19 at 18:31
  • Because all the metallic meteorites identified and analysed to date were nickel-iron doesn't mean they all must be, so I'm not sure the absence of nickel should define what isn't a meteorite. But convincing evidence that it is in fact a meteorite is required. Mineral structure, inclusions, trace elements, isotope signatures? – Ken Fabian Mar 28 '19 at 06:26
  • @bryenmacintyre http://meteorite-identification.com/images/black-slag.html – uhoh Mar 28 '19 at 08:52
  • Meteorite, or meteor-wrong? – uhoh Mar 28 '19 at 08:55
  • 1
    Also don't forget XKCD's flowchart - much simpler and provides a link to WUSTL's – Punintended Mar 28 '19 at 17:35