magnetic mars meteorites?

[rockpassion]

Hello, i have a question about mars meteorites. Are all mars meteorites non magnetic or are there exeptions and if so which one with what name and number?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red-Coat]

The reason that most meteorites are attracted to a magnet is that they usually contain significant amounts of ferromagnetic native metal in the form of iron alloyed with nickel. The geology of Mars (at least with respect to its crustal rocks) is such that native metals are not present and whatever iron was once present has long been hydrothermally oxidised to various minerals. That’s one of the key pieces of evidence that Mars once had liquid water.

However, some of those alteration products are also strongly attracted to a magnet (notably magnetite, titanomagnetite and maghemite) but generally present at rather low levels in (or absent from) Martian rocks/meteorites such that they aren't attracted to a magnet.

Within the overall Martian category, those in the SNC group (Shergottites, Nakhlites, and Chassignites) usually contain the most, at up to 2% magnetite/titanomagnetite. Even so, that’s not enough for all of them in that group to readily pass the ‘magnet test’, even if using a powerful rare-earth magnet.

There are occasional anomalous examples outside the SNC group with higher levels, exhibiting stronger attraction to a magnet. For example, NWA 7034 (a polymict breccia with clasts of various lithologies) contains about 15% magnetite by weight, with various degrees of substitution and maghemitization up to pure maghemite. Also ALH 84001 (classified as OPX: orthopyroxene-rich) contains around 7.7% hematite with at least some magnetite.

 

[metrotec]

There is or was a professor at the University of Tennessee/Knoxville that will tell you all about your meteorite, My son mailed him one, insured, and received quiet a bit of info on his that was found in N AZ desert while horseback riding.
Contact the UT department as found on line.
good luck,
,,,,,,,,

 

[rockpassion]

There is or was a professor at the University of Tennessee/Knoxville that will tell you all about your meteorite, My son mailed him one, insured, and received quiet a bit of info on his that was found in N AZ desert while horseback riding.
Contact the UT department as found on line.
good luck,
,,,,,,,,

oke tanks.

 

[rockpassion]

The reason that most meteorites are attracted to a magnet is that they usually contain significant amounts of ferromagnetic native metal in the form of iron alloyed with nickel. The geology of Mars (at least with respect to its crustal rocks) is such that native metals are not present and whatever iron was once present has long been hydrothermally oxidised to various minerals. That’s one of the key pieces of evidence that Mars once had liquid water.

However, some of those alteration products are also strongly attracted to a magnet (notably magnetite, titanomagnetite and maghemite) but generally present at rather low levels in (or absent from) Martian rocks/meteorites such that they aren't attracted to a magnet.

Within the overall Martian category, those in the SNC group (Shergottites, Nakhlites, and Chassignites) usually contain the most, at up to 2% magnetite/titanomagnetite. Even so, that’s not enough for all of them in that group to readily pass the ‘magnet test’, even if using a powerful rare-earth magnet.

There are occasional anomalous examples outside the SNC group with higher levels, exhibiting stronger attraction to a magnet. For example, NWA 7034 (a polymict breccia with clasts of various lithologies) contains about 15% magnetite by weight, with various degrees of substitution and maghemitization up to pure maghemite. Also ALH 84001 (classified as OPX: orthopyroxene-rich) contains around 7.7% hematite with at least some magnetite.

What your opinion about the sample on the photo's?

 

[Red-Coat]

What your opinion about the sample on the photo's?

It's a rock, whose origin cannot be determined from those pictures.

If it's another of your 'random' finds, the statistical probability of it being a meteorite from Mars are between slim and none. Slim left town.

 

[rockpassion]

It's a rock, whose origin cannot be determined from those pictures.

View attachment 2201274

If it's another of your 'random' finds, the statistical probability of it being a meteorite from Mars are between slim and none. Slim left town.

i don't want to be rude, but what good are all those blury photo's of mars meteorites then that are sold online from dealers. I have not seen i single sharp photo of a genuine mars meteorite being sold.

 

[Gene Mean]

i don't want to be rude, but what good are all those blury photo's of mars meteorites then that are sold online from dealers. I have not seen i single sharp photo of a genuine mars meteorite being sold.

Kind of like Bigfoot photos

 

[Red-Coat]

The photographs themselves have little or no value at all in determining a Mars origin. In most cases, the geology of Mars rocks is sufficiently similar to that of Earth rocks such that they can’t be distinguished from one another without detailed petrology and other sophisticated tests such as oxygen isotope ratios.

The prospect of confirming that a rock is a meteorite from Mars by comparison to pictures found on the internet is almost zero. Here’s a typical example from an eBay seller:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/364990352633

The photographs tell you nothing apart from the size, shape and display value of the specimen. The authenticity of the specimen rests on the seller saying he is an IMCA member (and quoting his membership number) together with backing by a CoA that rests on its MetSoc classification, official name and traceability to the fall. Almost 35 Kg of Amgala 001 was recovered and much of that has reached the collector market as small pieces from a number of dealers who purchased much of what was found.

The classification as a Martian Shergottite and acceptance to the MetSoc database came from the work of Tony Irving and Paul Carpenter of the University of Washington in St. Louis, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.

For those reasons, I personally wouldn’t purchase a meteorite specimen from a non-member of IMCA or anyone who could not provide other appropriate linkage/traceability to a named fall, or analytical results from a reputable laboratory with appropriate accreditation.

 

[rockpassion]

The photographs themselves have little or no value at all in determining a Mars origin. In most cases, the geology of Mars rocks is sufficiently similar to that of Earth rocks such that they can’t be distinguished from one another without detailed petrology and other sophisticated tests such as oxygen isotope ratios.

The prospect of confirming that a rock is a meteorite from Mars by comparison to pictures found on the internet is almost zero. Here’s a typical example from an eBay seller:

View attachment 2201295
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/364990352633

The photographs tell you nothing apart from the size, shape and display value of the specimen. The authenticity of the specimen rests on the seller saying he is an IMCA member (and quoting his membership number) together with backing by a CoA that rests on its MetSoc classification, official name and traceability to the fall. Almost 35 Kg of Amala 001 was recovered and much of that has reached the collector market as small pieces from a number of dealers who purchased much of what was found.

The classification as a Martian Shergottite and acceptance to the MetSoc database came from the work of Tony Irving and Paul Carpenter of the University of Washington in St. Louis, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.

For those reasons, I personally wouldn’t purchase a meteorite specimen from a non-member of IMCA or anyone who could not provide other appropriate linkage/traceability to a named fall, or analytical results from a reputable laboratory with appropriate accreditation.

oke that's clear. i just had a grazy theory. Because the photo's are from an ancient temple figure from india and i know that when a meteorite falls in india they see it as a gift from the gods an venerate them or carve something out of it. The rock has the same look as NWA 1950 with the yellow white inclusions in a darker matrix. And the stone is very glassy and hard with a high ping tone. Maybe because it has melted? See photo of statue and nwa 1950. But i think it's a long shot in the dark.

 

[Red-Coat]

oke that's clear. i just had a grazy theory. Because the photo's are from an ancient temple figure from india and i know that when a meteorite falls in india they see it as a gift from the gods an venerate them or carve something out of it. The rock has the same look as NWA 1950 with the yellow white inclusions in a darker matrix. And the stone is very glassy and hard with a high ping tone. Maybe because it has melted? See photo of statue and nwa 1950. But i think it's a long shot in the dark.

Meteorites have certainly been curated and venerated by a number of cultures and, in some cases, stony meteorites have been carved into birds and other works of art, and nickel-iron meteorites fashioned into implements such as knives and blades. There is only one known example of a meteorite being fashioned into a human figure and it’s made of meteoritic iron, not stone.

An assessment of its composition (principally iron with around 16% nickel, 0.6% cobalt, and trace amounts of Chromium, Gallium and Germanium together with the internal ratios of the trace amounts of Platinum Group Elements exhibit a meteoritic signature which closely matches the Ungrouped Iron (Ataxite) Meteorite Chinga, believed to have broken up over Asia around 15,000 years ago. The strewnfield on the border of Eastern Siberia and Mongolia was unknown to modern science until 1913, although pieces of the meteorite may well have been found long before that.

It's known as the “Iron Man” and has a back story that it was made by the Bon culture in the 11th Century as a depiction of Vaisravana, the Tibetan god of the North, also revered as the god of wealth, and acquired during a Nazi SS expedition to Tibet in 1938-1939. The expedition was backed by SS chief Heinrich Himmler and led by the zoologist Ernst Schäfer who hoped to find evidence for the roots of Aryanism in Tibet. The large swastika carved into the figure’s chest may have fostered that belief, although it served as an important symbol for many eastern religions long before it was adopted as a Nazi symbol.

[Picture by Elmar Buchner]

The statue was said to have disappeared into a private collection in Germany during the war and resurfaced in 2007 when it was auctioned in Vienna, Austria. It’s now believed to still be in private hands and inaccessible for further study. Buchner et al. reported on this in ‘Meteoritics & Planetary Science 47, Nr. 9’ (2012) but admitted that the backstory has no evidence to support it and the attribution to the Bon culture is purely speculative.

While declining to comment on the mineralogy from analysis as outside her expertise, in 2017 the German historian and Tibetologist Isrun Engelhardt comprehensively debunked the statue as being 11th Century Tibetan art. Englehart believes it to be modern fantasy designed and made for the eccentric Russian orientalist, spiritualist, occult mystic and painter Nicholas Roerich (1874–1947). Roerich’s painting "The Order of Rigden Jyepo", which depicts the mythological Shambhala King (who, according to prophecies, will engulf the world in an apocalyptic war) may have served as a template for the sculpture. Roerich claimed to be the incarnation of Rigden Jyepo, sometimes swanned around in magnificent traditional robes and planned to enter Tibet as “Rigden Jyepo, the 25th King of Shambhala.” Summarising her extensive research, Engelhardt concluded: "One can assume from these arguments that the meteorite statue portrays Nicholas Roerich as Rigden Jyepo or Reta Rigden, and thus the main mystery appears to have been solved."

The meteoritic origin could not have been confirmed from visual observations. It required analysis, and the same would be true for your pictured statue (compounded by the greater difficulty in assessing the petrology of rocks rather than the compositional signatures of meteoritic metals.)

 

[rockpassion]

it turned out to be a new sculpture and the change it was made of a meteorite is 0%