Tektites?

[Naukoveckiy]

1)I would risk assuming that the first two stones in your photo are the same stones as in my first post and these are the same as the long stones. The ones that are light inside, the ones that I called silt. And they do not look like this stone of mine, which I compare with your photo of indochinite.
It's very interesting to see what's inside those first two stones from your last photo.

2)and the stone that I compare with the photo from the wiki about Darwin glass - to me it is sooooo similar.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Naukoveckiy]

the bottom stone in this group of photos has a similarity in shape to your first two stones from the last photo. and my stones are all the same. and this is the group of the first post and the long ones.
but on my face these pits are less pronounced and smoother..

 

[Naukoveckiy]

maybe this is not correct BUT IT IS REALLY USEFUL, it seems to me, for understanding tektites... specifically about tunnels and about the sizes of pits and about triangular tunnels...


oh. the shapes here are interesting too..

 

[Naukoveckiy]

Red-Coat,​

and here is also a straw - an oval stone, with holes from bubbles, convex on all sides, except for one side - as for me - the front one. and there is a dent there.

I didn't say it explicitly - both "stones" can stand in those areas, as for me, the mass is balanced (shape) and the dent allows them to stand.

 

[Naukoveckiy]

hi, oh I noticed another straw again:
here in the video (screenshot from video) it talks about different diameters of holes on different sides of the "stone". then there are graphs, etc.
While I was looking through my stash I found this :
"stone" № foto № 11-14
11 - inside the bowl
12 - on top
13,14 - on the sides
form - flat\concave, with the center of mass shifted to one side

"stone" № 21-23 pear shape with a clear dent when hot

"stone" № 24-29 from different sides. holes from small bubbles on one side, and holes from large bubbles on the other side.

"stone" № 30 Almost all stones repeat this pattern: on one side smaller bubbles, on the other larger ones.
! I do not consider all the "stones" in photo 30 to be correct... I think some are just flint, and flint in a shell.

I have just black glasses BUT without bubbles and with a smooth shell.. more like regular flint or absidian. there are transparent ones, there are opaque ones, and there are some like this with bubbles, different shapes, and with a warped shell from the bubbles.

"stone" № 27 and it's far-fetched - but in the fracture I see layers. alternation of black and yellow areas. this video also describes such formation and reasons foto № 31 from video. Well, what I have is very similar to what is there, as for me.

"stone" № 41-44.
It's hard to convey the shape in a photo, but if you need to, I'll shoot a video.
form - convexe\flat

p.s.: oh and while I was writing all this I noticed something else - in photo 42 it's the lower part, convex, and according to the video the lower part has a larger diameter hole. photo 44 the stone is on the upper side, the holes are smaller in diameter and the surface is smoother... It seems to match the description in the video

 

[Naukoveckiy]

hi. today I took several measurements.
my stone is OK, OK according to visual parameters,
according to weight 2.36-2.53... I took several measurements. once with a dry stone, once with an already wet one

weight of stone 2.48 dry and 2.6 wet g.:
1) weight of water without stone - 44.75 g
weight of water with stones - 45.73
volume of stone 0.98
2.48/0.98 = 2.53

2) weight of water without stone - 44.50 g
weight of water with stones - 45.6
volume of stone 1.1
2.6/1.1 = 2.36

The stone in the water did not touch the bottom, and was completely sunk under the surface of the water. The result was expected within a few seconds.

 

[Naukoveckiy]

https://www.treasurenet.com/attachments/29-jpg.2188176/

"stone" foto № 24-29 from different sides. holes from small bubbles on one side, and holes from large bubbles on the other side.
weight of stone = 13.51
weight of water without stone - 44.05
weight of water with stones - 49.39
volume of stone 5,34
13,51/5,34 = 2.5299

 

[Naukoveckiy]

weight of stone = 19.40
weight of water without stone - 42.74
weight of water with stones -50.6
volume of stone 7,86
19,40/7,86 = 2.468

 

[Red-Coat]

hi. today I took several measurements.
my stone is OK, OK according to visual parameters,
according to weight 2.36-2.53... I took several measurements. once with a dry stone, once with an already wet one

weight of stone 2.48 dry and 2.6 wet g.:
1) weight of water without stone - 44.75 g
weight of water with stones - 45.73
volume of stone 0.98
2.48/0.98 = 2.53

2) weight of water without stone - 44.50 g
weight of water with stones - 45.6
volume of stone 1.1
2.6/1.1 = 2.36

The stone in the water did not touch the bottom, and was completely sunk under the surface of the water. The result was expected within a few seconds.

Oh dear! What a misleading video.

He says that his specimens were bought from a dealer in Vietnam. That’s certainly within the strewnfield for Australasian tektites. There are only four known strewnfields for tektites:

[The distribution of tektite strewn fields (grey shading) and associated or probable source craters (black dot). Modified from Montanari and Koeberl (2000).]

Note that Ukraine is not within any of those strewnfields. As I said in an earlier post, very occasional Moldavite examples have been found in western Ukraine, but they are distinctly green in colour and represent the furthest known locations from their source crater in southern Germany. Yours are clearly not Moldavites. There are also examples of items that appear from magnetic characterisation to be impact glass from western Siberia known as Urengoites, but they are extremely rare. As far as I know there are only three such specimens, none of which were found in Ukraine. The source crater has not been identified.

He then says that the authenticity of (his) specimens can be checked by three characteristics:

Colour. Black but can appear greenish in thin sections.
So can obsidian (which can also be fully green in some locations, although not in Ukraine.)

Form. He mentions a number of different splash forms and also layered types.
Obsidian and related volcanic ejecta can also have most of these forms, with the possible exception of ‘dumbbells.’ Obsidian is typically not ballistically ejected and, when it is, usually at lower velocities than tektites. Teardrop shapes are consequently less common for obsidian ejecta and rotational shapes such as dumbbells would be unlikely. One key diagnostic which he does not mention, is that ablation of the anterior surface from high-velocity atmospheric re-entry is not seen on obsidian-related volcanic ejecta (and neither is spallation on the anterior surface due to rapid cooling in the cold upper atmosphere – at least not in an orderly or repeatable manner.)

Specific Gravity. He quotes a range from 2.4-2.5.
Obsidian has a Specific Gravity between 2.35-2.60 (as well as outside that range for obsidian-related specimens, depending on how vesicular they might be), so it can fall within the same range as tektites.

Obsidian-related ejecta with remarkable resemblance to tektites can be found all over the world in areas that have seen volcanic activity. In a number of areas these pseudo-tektites have been given geological names related to their locality such as Columbianite, Cali Glass, Agni Manitite, Saffordite, Cintamani stones, and various other names. Those names are also being borrowed for specimens from other localities where geologically similar specimens are found but which don’t have specific names. Notably similar specimens are found in the vicinity of the Carpathian Mountains running through Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Czechia and Serbia but they aren’t tektites. They’re volcanic in origin.

I would refer you to my ‘fire engine’ post here:

Looks like breccia and chondritis?

I have an eyewitness to the fall of the meteor in 2005. Now trying to find the wreckage. These are two (total six) fragments found nearby. They were found approximately at a distance of a kilometer from my first find. Do these look like fragments of a meteorite? I would be grateful for any opinion.

www.treasurenet.com