-1
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
14
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of I've found a pure 99.99% iron meteorite, who should I contact? $\endgroup$ – Brian Mar 27 '19 at 16:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It can't be a duplicate of a closed question.... $\endgroup$ – James Jenkins Mar 27 '19 at 16:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JamesJenkins it's a duplicate of a closed question, word-for-word. $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Mar 27 '19 at 16:56
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @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! $\endgroup$ – Rory Alsop Mar 27 '19 at 17:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An answer to space.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/… 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. $\endgroup$ – Ken Fabian Mar 28 '19 at 6:14
6
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Uwe Mar 27 '19 at 16:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Russell Borogove Mar 27 '19 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Uwe Mar 27 '19 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – Ken Fabian Mar 28 '19 at 6:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also don't forget XKCD's flowchart - much simpler and provides a link to WUSTL's $\endgroup$ – Punintended Mar 28 '19 at 17:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.