Recent content by malcolmh

Most helpful - I shall go away and ponder.

I should state that the bulk density was measured by displacement of the item in water. I hasten to add, alas I'm not a physicist but I think I got that test correct.

Thank you for your kind reply. I am referring to bulk density. experimental magnetite powder particle sizes range from 0.01 to 0.045 mm, the real density of magnetite powder is about 5000 kg/m 3 and the bulk density is about 2400 kg/m 3 .

Many thanks for the kind reply. (i) For an object to be slag, it is a necessary condition that its bulk density will be in the range of 1050 to 1375 kg/m3. If it falls above or below, it's simply something else. (ii) We also know that it simply cannot be a terrestrial rock based on its bulk...

Indeed it would (and many thanks for the kind reply). My question remains however is that industrial slag does not have the same bulk density nor does it account for gold flecks on this 'rock' which would surely have melted off in the furnace? Any thoughts?

I doubt whether it would have left earth with that weight.

Hi, many thanks for the reply. The bulk destiny is as given. It's 0.0045000000000000005gm/cm3 or 4.5kg/m3 There is a difference between density & bulk destiny. Bulk density is determined by the its displacement in water.

Hi there - perversely enough in a nearby field. Lat 53.841965 Long -0.435093 There have been a very very few meteorites in this part of the world and am far from suggesting it is however the bulk density does puzzle me. Way too high for slag / magnetite / haematite. Quite bizarre...

(i) A bulk density test gave an approximate value of 4.5kg/m3. (ii) The rock is ferromagnetic. It measures 16cm x 14cm at widest points and weighs 4.5kg. The bulk density would appear to rule out either slag. (iii) It would appear to have a fusion crack which stretches across one face and...