bdevey Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Horse gallstone or kidneystone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batty Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Horse gallstone or kidneystone? Ouch. But too round I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 We're spinning our wheels speculating on what it looks like; it would be very useful to determine what it is made of. Streak test, hardness, specific gravity... "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) We're spinning our wheels speculating on what it looks like; it would be very useful to determine what it is made of. Streak test, hardness, specific gravity... Thanks Chas… the voice of reason as always. I think it’s completely pointless to just suggest everything one can think of that’s “round” in the hope of providing a correct identification. It’s the (as yet undisclosed) properties coupled with a bit of logic that are gonna identify it. Some things we can rule out straight away. It’s not a Minié ball, or any other kind of muzzle-loaded rifle shot. Way too big... it’s over an inch in diameter. Even a “Brown Bess” doesn’t have shot of that calibre. It could conceivably be “grapeshot” or “canister shot” from a cannon, but that would be lead or lead alloy. The density would tell us if it’s within range. It’s definitely not a tektite. Apart from the fact that South Dakota is a very long way from either of the two known American strewnfields, tektites (which can be spherical) are glassy in texture (with a density close to that of man-made glass) and have numerous surface vesicles. And before anyone makes the suggestion… it’s not a meteorite! It could well be a milling ball, but those are most usually almost perfectly spherical… which that one isn’t. But it’s not magnetic and an iron or steel milling ball would be. If it were a more modern item from a high tech hard alloy (tungsten would be most likely), it would be extremely heavy; or if from a high tech ceramic, less so, but still perfectly spherical. I don’t see anything egg-like about it and have some difficulty persuading myself that a large fossil pearl was just laying around in some sod in South Dakota without associated shelly or other marine fossil debris. The most helpful starter would be its density. Since it’s approximately spherical, its density could be easily calculated from a more precise weight than “about the same as an AA battery”. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 x 3.14 x the cube of the radius. A streak test would give us some information about the mineral content – if it is a mineral. I’m leaning towards it being a hematite/goethite concretion of the type known as “Moqui marbles” when found in Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. But they occur anywhere there is iron-rich sandstone. They’re not normally magnetic (some exceptions) and most usually have a pitted surface (some exceptions again) but they are frequently spherical and may have a dimple or what looks like a “bite” taken out of them. Like these: I also don’t see any reason why it has to be anything other than a spherical nodule out of say flint or chert. It’s not unusual to find spherical ones, like this: Over here in the UK they’re colloquially known as “Viking balls” although they have nothing whatsoever to do with Vikings but there is some evidence of them being collected (possibly for use as slingshot stones) in ancient times. Edited July 18, 2013 by painshill 3 Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Edit: just tried the pearl/ vinegar experiment and got bubbles, it would take a while but it would work. Please don't try with fossilized pearls or your wives. I don't often play Grammar Police here but this made me laugh out loud. I will certainly not try to dunk any of my wives in vinegar. Neither will I do it with my wife's pearls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickiver Posted July 20, 2013 Author Share Posted July 20, 2013 I will make every effort to work out the specific gravity next week. By chance does anyone know the specific gravity of a fossil pearl? Or their wife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 ...By chance does anyone know the specific gravity of a fossil pearl? Or their wife? Variable, but one carries substantially more gravitas that the other... "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Variable, but one carries substantially more gravitas that the other... Voice of experience ?? Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Voice of experience ?? Let's just say that I am at least aware of how little I know about fossil pearls... "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batty Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Doh!! She a bit vinegary that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckmerlin Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Moqui marbles--type of concretion hmm not sure , graphite spheres these can occur naturally but are usually quite small sorry not much help "A man who stares at a rock must have a lot on his mind... or nothing at all' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Wondering who mickiver could take this specimen to locally who would be able to ID it ?? Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcox Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Just a wild guess but could these be a product of volcanic activity? Where the lava fell into water and small amounts formed irregular spheres? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickiver Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 Weight = 32.6 grams I'll determine the specific gravity later this week once my graduated cylinder arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Weight = 32.6 grams I'll determine the specific gravity later this week once my graduated cylinder arrives. Your initial pics show it to have an approximate diameter of 3.2cm so (treating it as a perfect sphere) the density is gonna be in the region of 1.9g/cc. That's too low for a milling ball or anything likely to be man-made, I think (and way too low for anything metallic). So, mineral nodule/concretion looks most likely and that doesn't rule out fossil/cast of something. It's also way too low for concretions in the hematite/goethite territory unless it's hollow (which they frequently are). The streak colour would be the next most helpful information. Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Weight = 32.6 grams I'll determine the specific gravity later this week once my graduated cylinder arrives. I'm no expert, but it does look manmade, and metallic. There are some metals that aren't easily cut with a knife. And there are some metals that magnets don't attract. Edited July 24, 2013 by Roadrunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) I'm no expert, but it does look manmade, and metallic. There are some metals that aren't easily cut with a knife. And there are some metals that magnets don't attract. Check back to previous post. The density appears to be in the region of 1.9g/cc. The only metal (excluding the highly reactive and unstable alkali metals) with a density below or approaching 2g/cc is magnesium at around 1.6g/cc. It for sure isn't a glob of magnesium or magnesium rich alloy. Edited July 24, 2013 by painshill Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 The 'metallic' appearance seems to be because of its somewhat shiny surface. One of the original images, when enlarged, dispels the idea that it is metallic at all (note the chips and flakes): It is also not nearly a perfect sphere, as some of the photos suggest. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 The tell-tale flaking at the chips (in positions that are 90 degrees from one another suggests (maybe) something of a layered composition...I cannot for this reason completely reject the possibility that it is a gigantic fossil pearl. The low density would also fit. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Well if it's a gigantic pearl ... I can see the National Geographic headline now GIANT Fossil Pearl found in Back Yard Edited July 24, 2013 by Indy Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 The tell-tale flaking at the chips (in positions that are 90 degrees from one another suggests (maybe) something of a layered composition...I cannot for this reason completely reject the possibility that it is a gigantic fossil pearl. The low density would also fit. Yes... it's the layered structure that suggest concretion to me. I guess we have no non-destructive way of telling if it's hollow apart from an x-ray. 1 Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 If that were mine it would have been opened a long time ago.. Good thing I didn't find it.. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Yes... it's the layered structure that suggest concretion to me... The 'flakes' appear to be thin and translucent, as if made of material of a more crystalline nature than I usually associate with the average concretion. I know I'm really reaching for clues and inspiration; my eyes are sore from squinting! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 It might be helpful to take additional photos in outdoor light without the flash. I wouldn't rule out a curiously round pebble.... The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't rule out a curiously round pebble.... I would. Density! Edited July 24, 2013 by painshill Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now