Shirokovsky..Answer

Paul H bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 18 14:02:05 EDT 2005

on July 18, 2005, Marcin quoted from previous post:

>

>>I think a few (including myself) may have

>>believed a man-made origin after seeing

>>that pic. Whether it was deliberately

>>manufactured or a by-product of an

>>industrial process..... well..... I guess we

>>will probably never know.


Marcin wrote:


>Jeff, list...

>After this photos I think none can have any

>doubts if this is natural or man-made product.

> Http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/shiro1.jpg

> Http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/shiro2.jpg

> Http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/shiro3.jpg

> Http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/shiro4.jpg

> Http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/close-up.jpg

>

>Grey surface is iron that become mat after

>etching in normal 10% solution. No any

>visible etching pattern. White squares is as I

>believe not dissolved nickel pieces that fall

>down to bottom and not have time to

>dissolve in iron-olivine solution.


After I forwarded pictures of non-etched
slices of Shirokovsky and compositional data
concerning the lithic fragments found in its
iron-nickel matrix to a metallurgist friend,
who prefers to remain nameless, I received
this comment:

"Based on the information given I would
concur that this is a man-made material,
probably derived from a furnace and quite
possibly part of a furnace lining, i.e. a
refractory brick that has been strongly
altered by reaction with the molten contents
of the furnace. This is supported by the
very iron-rich composition of the olivine
and the presence of magnesiowustite and
magnesioferrite. This conclusion is also
supported by the reported "eutectic" nature
of the metal-oxide intergrowth."

Best Regards,

Paul
Baton Rouge, LA