Are there any geologists in here? I need help identifying this

>>8634069
ancient stone age bullet

File: ggqYsnm.jpg (201KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1600x1200px

>>8634082
What I find strange is how it looks like it's melted in some places.

File: 200BC-Ancient-Roman-PHALLUS-Talisman-PENDANT-Phallic-Amulet.jpg (19KB, 400x237px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x237px

>>8634134
it looks like an artifact/fossil of some sort, if youre sure its a stone hit it with a hammer and take a picture of that.

>>8634134
Where exactly did you find it?

Did you find it in a stream/on a beach/near other rounded pebbles?

I know nothing about rocks, all i can say is that it look purposeful.

thought about this the minute i saw you post:
video @0:10-0:17
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JONVeJHKzc0

looks like chert to me.
t. paleofag

also thank you for using plenty of pixels. usually when someone wants a rock identified they photograph it using a potato.

>>8634734
>Where exactly did you find it?

South-west part of Norway

>>8634743
>Did you find it in a stream/on a beach/near other rounded pebbles?

No, it was lying on the ground. Because of the peculiar shape, it caught my eye.

>>8634780
>looks like chert to me.

Thanks for the feedback. I looked it up, and it turns out there is chert in the area where it was found.

Is there any method I can use to "key" it further? I have a couple microscopes (including polarizing) and I'm willing to break it. Could I scratch it with something to determine the hardness? I can take some high res DSLR shots of it as well, and I can calculate the specific gravity of it and it's surface area with relative accuracy if that can be used?

File: lV7Mb1t.jpg (171KB, 1600x1068px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1600x1068px

>>8635560

Are the stripes in the brownish part of the rock foliation? If so, then it's a metamorphic rock, right?

Where are all the geologists hiding? Help. Help! Is there a geologist in the room?

I think the paleofag is right. Could be part of a radioralite formation. The black part is chert, the brownish stuff in between silt- or sandstone? Dont think its metamorphic.

>>8635910
>Could be part of a radioralite formation.

How would you explain the shape? Almost looks like someone dipped some sandstone into liquid chert.

>>8634069
It's not "pretty" and not an artifact/fossil - so hit it with a hammer if you want a real answer.

>>8636056
How would that help?

If it is radioralite, the brown part is probably the "precursor" sedimentary rock that is was formed from, right? (Forgive my naive questions, geology is not my field).

If that is so, would it be feasible to detect remains of the radiolarians with a microscope? Or would the pressure and heat have homogenized everything? How would a geologist identify this rock?

In biology, we can key organisms based on morphology and other characteristics, isn't it possible to do the same with rocks?

>>8636066
Radiolarite is a marine sediment, the sandstone and chert layers have their origin in changing sedimentation conditions, so the sandstone is not the precursor. The piece you have is kinda rounded, i would say its has been transported by a river after diagenesis. Just guessing tho, although i study geology im more into geophysics.

>>8636797
I see. So how would you explain the clear boundary between the black chert and the sandstone? If the black parts are chert, wouldn't the entire rock be chert? After all, one must assume the entire rock was exposed to similar pressures and temperature, it's only 10 cm in size.

File: Radiolarite_Elba.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>8636823

The clear boundary between Radiolarite and Sandstone is due to a sudden change in the sedimentation process. The Radiolarite part of the stone comes from the "background sedimentation" that always happens in the area it was sedimentated. If there is a storm or slumping underwater it leads to the sandstone, which is usually sedimented in higher areas than the radiolarite, to be transported further into the sea and it will sedimentate on top of the radiolarite. After this process has happened, the background sedimentation will continue which leads to alternating layers of sandstone and radiolarite. This could be how it happend, pic related is a similar case from one of my excursions to Elba, Italy.

>>8637426
Very interesting!

Could the roundness of the rock be due to grinding from the ocean, a river, or perhaps a glacier? If say a vertical fragment was washed out to sea for instance, ad then somehow ended up back on land?

Also, what is the hardness of chert? Is there any tests I could do at home that would strengthen the current hypothesis that it's sandstone and chert?

>>8637766
Chert is quartz so hardness is around seven.

>>8637766
Yes, the roundness could be from the transport in the river/ocean etc..

I would look for literature that desribes the geology of the place you found the stone. This could rule out/confirm the radiolarite guess. Its really hard to identify a stone this small just from a picture.

>>8638828
I checked the literature, and in my country there are three known places where chert is found, and where this rock was found is one of them. It was also found not far from the coast.

So am I correct in my understanding that chert can be composed of many different microscopic fossils, but Radiolarite is mainly composed of the microscopic remains of radiolarians?

If that is the case, how do geologists differentiate between them? Let's say I find a chert layer in the same place as this rock was found, how could I determine if it was radiolarite or not? I've seen some examples on line where the radiolarian fossils are visible. Is this usually the case?

It's been a very interesting thread, and thanks for all the information so far.

BTW, is there something like biological identification keys, but for geology? Surely by testing for hardness, ph, morphology, color, magnetism, microscopical clues, etc. one would be able to exclude possibilities and get closer to an identification of a rock sample?

>>8634731
lmao they put a fuckin handle on it holy shit

File: basickey.gif (53KB, 628x827px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 628x827px

>>8638983
Turns out there are keys for rocks!

I'm gonna try to hammer off a piece of the black part and see if I get a conchoidal fracture. Then I'm gonna try to scratch some glass with it.

>>8634069
Throw it in an XRD then tell us the composition

>>8639032
I'm still waiting for the price and size of X-ray Crystallography Machines to drop..

$200 shoebox-sized when?

I'm taking physical geology. If anyone wants to do my mineral lab for me, feel free to do so.

>>8639032
>>8639068
This

>>8634731

maximum keks

>>8634069

I'm a geologist.

where did you find it?

>>8639089

did that last quarter. Now im doing structural.

Why is there so many geofags all the sudden?

>>8638527

Chert is not quartz dummy. Chert is silica and a by product of biomineralization.

File: geolol.png (819KB, 521x768px)

819KB, 521x768px

>>8639315
let me explain

Chert is fossilized sediment from microorganisms called radiolaria in the oceans.

Chert is SiO2

And quartz is actually made plutonic and mid crustal conditions. It is SiO4, a continuous framework silicate.

Quartz and Chert do contain silica and oxygen, but they different structures all together and are formed from two completely different conditions.

BOO YAH, rockfag saves the day again..

>>8634069
that is an ASSAULT BULLET probably lost by some ancient SERIAL MASS MURDERER

>>8634069
Petrified Jew tail

>>8639329
But quartz is SiO2

Chert has the same chemical composition but with mild hydration and is formed via secondary crystallization of silicious minerals.

t. Chemist

>>8639417

Its basic building block is the SiO4 group, in which four oxygen atoms surround a central silicon atom to form a tetrahedron. Since each oxygen is member of two SiO4 groups, the formula of quartz is SiO2.

The SiO4 tetrahedra form a three-dimensional network and many mineralogy textbooks classify quartz as a network silicate or tectosilicate.

>>8634069
Eat it
Eat it
Eat it

File: Geologist's weapon of choice.png (508KB, 1020x875px)

508KB, 1020x875px

>>8639329
>>8639417
chert is a form of microcrystalline quartz.
it's crystallographically different from other forms of silica, such as cristobalite or tridymite or stishovite or silica glass, but it's physically different from macrocrystalline quartz which makes those beautiful six-sided (but symmetrically trifold) crystals we know and love.
it's like the difference between calcite and micrite, which are themselves crystallographically different from aragonite.

t. that paleofag again

>>8639625

You could've just said chert is amorphous and we would understand.

>Geology thread on /sci/
>its not flooded with /pol/ bullshit somehow

I love you geologists.

>>8639698
where's the fun in simple explanations?

>>8635560

I would. Could be fossils inside.

>>8634731
The romans were fucking awesome

>>8639975

Spotted the Jew.

File: mighty spooky.jpg (27KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 720x480px

>>8639698
>amorphous
>microcrystalline
pick one

to explain, since this is a /seriousdiscussion/ board, microcrystalline means that there are crystals, just that they're tiny and jumbled, so to the naked eye you can't see any. amorphous means that there is no crystal structure on any scale.
the difference between macrocrystalline, microcrystalline, and amorphous is more or less the difference between granite, rhyolite, and obsidian.

>>8640265
oy vey

>>8639308
>where did you find it?

Western coast of Norway.

Didn't see this topic. I actually though physical geology was going to be a cakewalk and it's not my focus but I have a question? If a mineral can be scratched by your finger nail, is it necessarily softer than your fingernail? Can it fall into harder than a penny but softer than glass category instead? I know it can it can be equal to the fingernail hardness. What would you choose considering I just had a question where a mineral was true that it could be scratched by a fingernail. I feel like it's a trap question.

>>8640281

Thanks for clearing that up.

question though,
What do you classify Opal to be?

I'm judging your answer btw.

>>8641717
they're amorphous but semi-ordered. there's some structure, but it doesn't repeat the way a true crystal does.

>>8638983
the only process of identifying microfossils is to have a good eye for them. Typically if you see and estimate a certain percentage of similar fossils across multiple samples from the same outcrop you can crudely attribute a further sedimentary name, like Radiolarite, to the rock instead of simply a chert. You just need a really good eye and alot of patience to be a sedimentologist. Geology identifiers are more interesting and more i suppose "relevant" for igneous or metamorphic rocks and minerals. Sediments can tell alot from basic induration, roundness, grain size etc as they're typically quartz and feldspar 90% of the time just in differing ratios. I would also like to guess very basically that your rock is from partially uplifted land thats been either eroded or cut by glacier and gained its smooth shape by travelling through a long glacial fluvial/fluvial track.

>>8639089
minerals is easy dude

>>8641739

You pass my mineral bro ;^)

>>8634069
It's a Skeksis claw.

>>8639563

Lmao

The building block is the SiO4 tetrahedra but the oxygen ends up getting shared by the silicon. The chemical formula for quartz is SiO2. did you even pass minerology

>>8639698
>>8639417
>>8639329
They're just called 'polymorphs'

>>8634069
>I need help identifying this weird rock.

It's a pyroclast, except that this is "man-made". It's waste product from processing whatever is being mined.

It's glass like appearance is due to vulcanisation whereby hot liquid rock such as ejecta from vulcanoes gets cooled very rapidly by landing in a river, lake etc. It's apearance is said to be vitrious and it's fracture is conchoidal. Should feel quite light for it's size.

>>8634069
Thats a claw

File: fig05.jpg (116KB, 839x650px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 839x650px

>>8643629

I know what the chemical formula is dip shit.

I'm talking about how it GEOMETRICALLY crystallizes. you dumb cuck.

>>8643768
No.

Chert is not a polymorph, reread polymorphism in your geochem book slacker.


So many dumb geologists on this site.

I really hope the geofags on here don't expect to
land an actual geology job.

Because, i'm not going to give you dumbfucks shit.

>>8646111

This.

and trips checked.

geology is for brainlets.