My Iron from the Earth: A Childhood Memory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the identification of a piece of iron found by a participant during childhood. The participant provides details about its physical characteristics and composition, seeking insights into its origin, whether it is natural or man-made, and potential connections to meteorites or industrial processes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • The participant describes the iron's appearance, noting it has a thin layer of rust and resembles a stone, measuring about 26mm long.
  • A composition analysis reveals high iron content (96.873%) with trace amounts of other elements, leading the participant to question its original nature.
  • One participant suggests testing for Widmanstätten figures, which could indicate a meteorite origin.
  • Another participant argues that the absence of nickel, typically found in iron meteorites, suggests it may not be a meteorite.
  • Some participants propose that the object could be man-made, possibly a remnant from industrial processes, citing similarities to slag from ironworks.
  • One participant mentions the hardness of the iron, indicating it is harder than common steel, which may provide clues to its origin.
  • The participant expresses uncertainty about the exact location where the object was found, complicating the identification process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the object's origin. There are competing views regarding whether it is a natural meteorite or a man-made artifact, with various hypotheses presented without resolution.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes uncertainties about the object's history, the significance of its composition, and the implications of its physical properties. There are also limitations in the analysis methods mentioned, such as the inability to detect non-metallic elements.

qumf
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
When I was a child, I picked a iron from the earth. It looks a iron, it has a thin layer rust outside. but the shape looks like a stone. it is about 26mm long.
I erase a little rust by knife. then the position will not get rusty afterwards in the room even many years.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
until to recent days, I get a spectrum ways to test its composition.
It is strange. I do not know what it is originally.
Sn 0.048%; Mo 0.089%; Zr 0.014%; W 0.089%; Zn 0.062%; Cu 0.195%; Fe 96.873%; Mn 0.844%; Ti O.085%; LEC 0.655%(light element such as Si, C, the machine can not tell the nonmetallic element)
who can tell me what it is originally?
 

Attachments

  • 2013-02-03_22-41-55_705.jpg
    2013-02-03_22-41-55_705.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 534
  • 2013-02-03_22-42-11_169.jpg
    2013-02-03_22-42-11_169.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 521
  • 2013-02-03_22-42-19_168.jpg
    2013-02-03_22-42-19_168.jpg
    11.2 KB · Views: 496
more photos, I hope somebody can tell me what it is.
 

Attachments

  • 2013-02-03_22-42-40_296.jpg
    2013-02-03_22-42-40_296.jpg
    6.6 KB · Views: 532
  • 2013-02-03_22-42-48_569.jpg
    2013-02-03_22-42-48_569.jpg
    5.4 KB · Views: 499
My guess is that it was man-made. "Iron meteorites" usually contain a lot of nickel (5% to 25%). Your analysis doesn't mention nickel at all.

Also, a meteorite would have a lot of surface damage from the heat generated as it fell through the atmosphere. Your object does not.
 
Yes, lack of nickel is not suggesting a sideral iron but IUPAC reports even less 1% of Ni in some meteorites.
May be an x-ray shot can tell about homogenity.
 
Are there any old iron foundries near where you found it?

I have seen similar looking "stones" near Meramec Spring Missouri, USA, which was the site of an early ironworks. A geologist friend told me they were slag from the open hearth furnaces. They were smooth and black like yours but flatter.

BUt don't take me as any sort of informed source.
 
basically I think it is man-made.

I never hear there is a foundry there though my friends already remind me. I think it is from a mechanical part, It droped to the earth, possible in river, then after wear and tear by sand, then it becomes to the shape. i pick it on the ground , maybe hill. I can not remember clearly becasue many years. it must not be near river.

the iron is rather hard, must harder than common steel. I used the very sharp point of the saw to scratch its surface. , it only can be remain mark, it can not make obvious pits on it.

I test the compositions at several positions, they do not change much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K