mystery rock

[dgm1]

Steve, you seriously need to read up on some stuff before trying to sound so intelligent.<br /> First. Very early she reported her scratch tests and had reiterated the results several times in the course of discussion. <br /> Secondly you need to read up on amber before making statements about it. It is not "too soft" to be amber. It could be "too soft" to be mineral but amber is not a mineral. Amber can be clear. Read the links I posted. And as a bonus, amber does not feel cool to touch like a mineral, it feels more like room temperature. Kellygirl has stated that it is not cool like glass.<br /> Perhaps instead of thrusting your guess on everyone without reading what is offered you should take some time to read the entire thread and try researching on the web just a bit. Your refusal to do so belie your stated ....intelligence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kellygirl29]

Ok, Let me ask you a question. It may be a very silly question, but here it goes...Can water float in space? If so, since there is no gravity, do water particles magnatize to each other sord of and make like a big blob of water? You know that silly space movie where the bottle of ketchup gets squirted and the blob of ketchup just floats around? Does water in space do like that?...... OK , no Laughing...

 

[kellygirl29]

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Can water float in space? If so, since there is no gravity, do water particles magnatize to each other sord of and make like a big blob of water?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, water's not magnetic normally, so they'd don't stick by magnetism. But they do stick nevertheless. It's a process called surface tension, and it affects all liquids, but to different degrees. You can see surface tension yourself on Earth; fill a glass all the way to the top, and then a little bit more. You can actually get the water to rise just a tiny little bit (about a millimeter) above the top of the glass! This is because water tends to adhere to itself.<br /><br />In space, with no apparent gravity, if you squirt water into the cabin, it will adhere to itself and form a blob. You can get a fairly big blob; since gravity isn't breaking it up, the only thing that'll break it up is if it hits something, or if the wind currents get too strong. Astronauts and cosmonauts do like to play with water sometimes, and occasionally you can run across videos of the results. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[dgm1]

Good answer calli. I was hoping you would offer up some info. <br /> I would add that if kellygirl is asking about water floating free in open space...it would freeze solid. <br /> I was thinking that she was asking in relation to her found rock since she considered space origins as a possiblility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kellygirl29]

Okay, Ive been doing alot of research about my rock online and found some kimberlite diamonds and alluvial diamonds that look very similar to my rock. Of course diamonds was the last thing I thought when it came to my rock but take a look at this picture of kimberlite diamonds and a map of places where they have been found.

 

[kellygirl29]

Picture of kimberlite diamonds. A couple of the diamonds look just like mine except for the fluid inclusion. If you can save the picture so you can zoom in on it. Also, I read an article that they have a plasticy feel and loose ones have been found in streams and riverbeds and plowed up ground. Now, look at the map of found locations. Im in the very southeast corner of tennessee, right where a green triangle is on the map indicating that alluvial diamonds have been found.... Ok, so tell me what you think, please

 

[kellygirl29]

Dang it! sorry, I was so excited I did it again...Forgot the picture....ok, one more time

 

[kellygirl29]

Valuation parcels from each of the four mines have been classified according to the scheme devised by Harris et al. (1975, 1979) With the first set of parcels, crystal habit, colour, UV fluorescence and plastic deformation levels were determined for at least 1500 stones, or the total number of diamonds, in each of ten sieve size classes covering all but the smallest diamonds In addition the relative abundances of syngenetic inclusions within the diamonds in the smallest sieve size class (-6+5 maximum diamond diameter 1.83mm) were determined.<br /><br /> With the second set of valuation parcels, the classification procedure only included variations of crystal habit and colour with diamond size, but this allowed comparisons to be made with the first set. However, in addition, a detailed shape breakdown of the irregular diamonds from this set was completed. This work determined the primary shape characteristics of the diamonds from Kimberley (see Harris et al. 1975) and from a comparison of these and other characteristics, allowed some conclusions to be drawn as to whether the diamonds at Kimberley could have a common upper mantle source."<br /><br /> "The results from the six studies completed on the diamonds from De Beers Pool mines fall into two groups. Inclusion abundances, primary crystal shapes, colours and UV variations provide information pertinent to the original growth environments of the Kimberley diamonds. The levels of plastic deformation and diamond shape characteristics, where irregular diamonds are a major category, provide insights into events which have affected the diamonds after their formation. If diamonds from Kimberley are derived from a common source, results for the first group of studies should show close similarity. Excluding colour from further consideration because of the problems of reproducibility, the results from the three remaining studies all indicate a strong uniformity in characteristic between mines. The growth environment is o

 

[jatslo]

You should get diamond out of your head, because your rock is not a diamond, sorry to say.

 

[dgm1]

I have to say no to the diamond idea. It does not possess enough of the qualities of diamond (from your descriptions) other than a vagues similarity in appearance. <br /> I thought you had sent the specimen off to be identified. Is that not the case? And if it is why not patiently await the results rather than getting your hopes up based on some guesses? No offence but it seems you were first convinced it was from space and now are latching onto the diamond ID just as readily. You readily dismiss any idea that the rock is mundane yet vigorously pursue any idea that it has value. <br /> How long before you expect to hear from the place you sent it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kellygirl29]

Steve, I am certain that it is not glass. I should be hearing something any day now about my rock. Its taking a little longer then excpected due to the holidays, plus my mother was the one to ship it UPS for me and she sent it a couple of days later then she was suppose to due to the holiday delima. But I assure you, as soon as I have proof that its not glass, Im gonna rub it in your face and horse laugh you so hard that you sir may be picking kimberlite diamonds out of yourself due to your anal comments, your anal thoughts, and most of all your analness period.

 

[jatslo]

kellygirl29 - The following PIC is the world's largest uncut diamond, and I want you to pay special attention to the diamond shape; know that your specimen is not a diamond:

 

[JonClarke]

Those comments are quite uncalled for Kellygirl. <br /><br /> So far you have supplied no evidence that your sample is diamond and all the evidence so far given is against it - the large fluid inclusion for one. Diamonds form at great depth in the mantle, where pressures are too great for large open spaces.<br /><br />Just because it is not a diamond does not mean it is uninteresting and even unimportant.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

A very good point indeed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Diamond tipped point? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

"In like Flint." <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kellygirl29]

omg Steve, I so much dislike you. Do you think that those big words you use show your intelligence? Trust me they dont. Infact your comments obviously stem from your miserable nerdy childhood. Is this your way of feeling like a somebody? By making abrasive, rude, smart elic comments? I mean come on Steve, its obvious that your not here for the topic of discussion. Your mindless close minded comments prove that. Makes me think the only reason you join these forums is so you can hide behind your computer and bully people with your big words. Evidentally this makes you feel superior. You have started forum war with me. See you soon on your threads!

 

[yevaud]

He doesn't do so to piss you off, Kelly. Steve is our policeman of scientific exactitude, and we need him here. Many people get pissy with him, but one closer reflection, it's because their science is weak, shoddy, or nonexistant. In short, they don't like him telling them "boy, this is just plain guesswork. Try again."<br /><br />That's the exact truth.<br /><br />Now take this topic and reflect on what's transpired here. So far, this glassy or quartzlike object has been proclaimed to possibly be from outer space, or Kimberlite, or rare forms of Quartz with liquid inclusions. Yet at the same time, no real analysis has been done, except for a few posted images with red circles, arrows, and captions.<br /><br />We're all just speculating here, and that's more than fine. It's when absolute proclamations in the absence of evidence are made that Steve will nail you to the wall. As it should be.<br /><br />As the Mafia would say, "it's not personal...it's only business."<br /><br />(Btw, if you think *this* is unpleasant, try to use these same arguments in a science class. Care to be mocked publically by the professor? I used to see it happen all of the time) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kellygirl29]

And by the way.....I didnt say my rock was a diamond. I am new to the whole mineral thing and did some researching online and ran across the kimberlite idea because I thought there was a resemblence to my rock, and I saw a map of alluvial diamond locations where some have been found and there was a symbol right on my city and state of findings. After all, I am in a valley with the Hiwassee River, The tennessee River, Ocoee River, and several creeks and am surrounded by once active volcanos. I was just asking if Alluvial diamonds could be a possibility. Im not some forum junkie trying to get attention. I am honestly, heart and soul just trying to figure out what could have made my rock. I am honestly almost regreting even joing this forum.

 

[yevaud]

Ahh, don't regret it. Like anything in life, there will be good threads and bad threads. This one just got off on the wrong foot is all.<br /><br />Besides, superficial resemblance to something isn't really a good test. But I hope you receive the results shortly, so we can get a solid answer and put this to rest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kellygirl29]

What more do you people want? I did the scrtatch test, I looked at it under a microscope, and reported the results the best way I know how. I sent it off to be tested. I thought it could have been a number of different things because it is odd looking and Im new to rocks period. Give me a break.

 

[yevaud]

Frankly, that's fine with me, and I'm more than willing to await the test results.<br /><br />But the thread continues while we wait, and some of the speculation has gotten out of bounds (not saying you, just in general. It happens here all of the time). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Hello again Kelly,<br /><br />I had another idea for you to think about, and tell us your observations.<br /><br />Diamond has one of the highest thermal conductivities known. Thermal conductivity is a constant that relates to a material's ability to absorb heat. Diamond has a thermal conductivity 3 to 4 times bigger than copper metal.<br /><br />This means that if you held a large diamond (at room temperature), the heat from your fingers would easily warm the diamond up to your body temperature - making your fingers feel coolness as heat is lost from your fingertips (This is why holding metal feels 'cool'. I would imagine a large diamond might feel perhaps similar to holding a piece of copper metal).<br /><br />I have never held a large enough diamond before to notice how it feels in 'coolness' (the largest diamond I have held is 2 carats). But I would imagine a large diamond should feel much different than a piece of quartz or glass or plastic in 'coolness feel'.<br /><br />Could you tell us how it felt in 'apparent cooling ability' on your fingertips?<br /><br />A nice table of thermal conductivity comparing different materials and minerals can be found here:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity <br /><br />p.s. If you don't like Steve, just let it go. Doing so will only make you look nicer. Take wisdom from Sun Tzu, who said: “Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.” <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">What more do you people want? I did the scrtatch test, I looked at it under a microscope, and reported the results the best way I know how. I sent it off to be tested. I thought it could have been a number of different things because it is odd looking and Im new to rocks period. Give me a break.</font><br /><br />you're holding up pretty well in your SDC hazing trial by fire. one axiom here is ridicule at anything different. so you are becoming a novice and deserve acknowledgement for that. i've noticed you've started to adopt some geologic terminology and that is commendable in the short time you've been flamed here. i think some of the flaming is simply due to frustration. and some see you as being hesitant or sloth in your methods. <br /><br />congratulations, and hope to see you on other threads.