We will display one of the 6 finalists in the mineral category every day at 12:00 noon, Central Daylight Time, for 6 days, beginning Monday, August 10.
But I have added an explicit statement to the pictures.
Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2009
Is that a typo in the name of the person who submitted the picture (should it be Virginia instead of Virginai)?
Quidam · 10 August 2009
I thought it probably was, but you do post pretty pictures quite regularly so I thought I'd ask :)
I have found this petrified lightning in some badlands in Wyoming. Usually atop a ridge and usually in a layer with a high ration of sand to the ubiquitous red clay and gray loess.
It is quite amusing to pick up what looks like a small piece of an unfamiliar conglomerate and find it has roots. Like pulling brambles.
The ones I found were rather fragile. Handling them was enough to simulate decades of erosion. No specimens were retrieved intact.
The cool part was to trace the length and extent of the branchings and bifurcations. I recall one that seemed to occupy a circular area of at least fifteen feet. Because of the steepness of the terrain I never found it all.
I did come home with some nice fossil snails, though.
Crudely Wrott · 10 August 2009
Gee, Matt. I didn't mean to intrude. Or are you my long lost co-joined twin?
*never saw two consecutive comments in the same color field.*
Crudely Wrott · 10 August 2009
Ignore that last. Maybe my browser didn't render the page correctly. When my comment was accepted it was within a blue rectangle that contains Matt's comment above. It struck me as odd.
Once I posted my apology the three comments were all snug in their own color coded keeps.
All's well. I guess. I notice that someone has been playing with the code.
Frank J · 11 August 2009
Mike Elzinga said:
What a pretty example of opportunistic branching, also known as percolation, in physics.
Evolution does the same thing.
And if you look closely it spells "Hitler."
Don't laugh, that might be the DI's next strategy.
Mike Elzinga · 11 August 2009
Frank J said:
And if you look closely it spells "Hitler."
Don't laugh, that might be the DI's next strategy.
Ah, yes; of course!
Lightning = Blitz = Blitzkrieg = Nazi Germany = Hitler.
fnxtr · 11 August 2009
Crudely Wrott said:
The ones I found were rather fragile. Handling them was enough to simulate decades of erosion. No specimens were retrieved intact.
There must be a way to preserve them for transport. Shellac? Plaster? Bondfast?
Mike Elzinga · 11 August 2009
fnxtr said:
Crudely Wrott said:
The ones I found were rather fragile. Handling them was enough to simulate decades of erosion. No specimens were retrieved intact.
There must be a way to preserve them for transport. Shellac? Plaster? Bondfast?
If they are that delicate, they may be porous enough to get a thin, slow-drying bonding material to percolate through it.
Crudely Wrott · 12 August 2009
fnxtr said:There must be a way to preserve them for transport. Shellac? Plaster? Bondfast?
Aha! Thank you, fnxtr! You started a train of thought that has just now pulled into the station.
MinWax makes a product called Wood Restorer which I have used for its intended use of strengthening wood that has been wet and has begun to rot. It is a fairly strong resin in a rapidly drying solvent that is brushed on, penetrates and sets in a couple hours.
You can find this stuff at the big box stores. Tall, yellow can.
Sheesh. I should have thought of that myself. Well, the insight is no less valuable because it took your help. Thanks.
fnxtr · 12 August 2009
In Canada we say "You're welcome"; in the U.S. this translates roughly as "Uh-huh". :-)
Altair IV · 14 August 2009
Like in the stromatolite photo above (where I just posted a similar comment), there's little in this photo to help you understand the scale. Just how big is the "small granitic pebble" supposed to be?
Is this an in-situ photo? Is the light grey stone on the right part of the matrix surrounding the fulgurite?
The photographer says that the entire fulgurite is about 10 cm in diameter, but this photograph is only a detail. She describes the pebble as "small." I will try to get a more quantitative answer, but I think you may assume that the field of view is at most a few centimeters wide.
MattP · 14 August 2009
Hi- the pebble is about 2 cm from top to bottom. This fulgurite was formed in a dry river bed.
The unheated soil associated with the fulgurite is a tan, sandy silt. During the lightning strike, the soil heated up to the gray color shown in this photo, forming the exterior of the fulgurite, and individual grains are cemented together with a small amount of glass.
Altair IV · 15 August 2009
Thank you. Now that's the interesting stuff! So the lightning traces on the pebble are even smaller than I first thought. It makes this photo even more amazing. I think it's just jumped to the top of my list. :D
Was this section naturally exposed, or did you have to clear away some the matrix first?
19 Comments
Quidam · 10 August 2009
Is this one of the photo contest pics?
Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2009
What a pretty example of opportunistic branching, also known as percolation, in physics.
Evolution does the same thing.
Matt Young · 10 August 2009
Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2009
Is that a typo in the name of the person who submitted the picture (should it be Virginia instead of Virginai)?
Quidam · 10 August 2009
I thought it probably was, but you do post pretty pictures quite regularly so I thought I'd ask :)
Matt Young · 10 August 2009
Crudely Wrott · 10 August 2009
I have found this petrified lightning in some badlands in Wyoming. Usually atop a ridge and usually in a layer with a high ration of sand to the ubiquitous red clay and gray loess.
It is quite amusing to pick up what looks like a small piece of an unfamiliar conglomerate and find it has roots. Like pulling brambles.
The ones I found were rather fragile. Handling them was enough to simulate decades of erosion. No specimens were retrieved intact.
The cool part was to trace the length and extent of the branchings and bifurcations. I recall one that seemed to occupy a circular area of at least fifteen feet. Because of the steepness of the terrain I never found it all.
I did come home with some nice fossil snails, though.
Crudely Wrott · 10 August 2009
Gee, Matt. I didn't mean to intrude. Or are you my long lost co-joined twin?
*never saw two consecutive comments in the same color field.*
Crudely Wrott · 10 August 2009
Ignore that last. Maybe my browser didn't render the page correctly. When my comment was accepted it was within a blue rectangle that contains Matt's comment above. It struck me as odd.
Once I posted my apology the three comments were all snug in their own color coded keeps.
All's well. I guess. I notice that someone has been playing with the code.
Frank J · 11 August 2009
Mike Elzinga · 11 August 2009
fnxtr · 11 August 2009
Mike Elzinga · 11 August 2009
Crudely Wrott · 12 August 2009
fnxtr · 12 August 2009
In Canada we say "You're welcome"; in the U.S. this translates roughly as "Uh-huh". :-)
Altair IV · 14 August 2009
Like in the stromatolite photo above (where I just posted a similar comment), there's little in this photo to help you understand the scale. Just how big is the "small granitic pebble" supposed to be?
Is this an in-situ photo? Is the light grey stone on the right part of the matrix surrounding the fulgurite?
Matt Young · 14 August 2009
The photographer says that the entire fulgurite is about 10 cm in diameter, but this photograph is only a detail. She describes the pebble as "small." I will try to get a more quantitative answer, but I think you may assume that the field of view is at most a few centimeters wide.
MattP · 14 August 2009
Hi- the pebble is about 2 cm from top to bottom. This fulgurite was formed in a dry river bed.
The unheated soil associated with the fulgurite is a tan, sandy silt. During the lightning strike, the soil heated up to the gray color shown in this photo, forming the exterior of the fulgurite, and individual grains are cemented together with a small amount of glass.
Altair IV · 15 August 2009
Thank you. Now that's the interesting stuff! So the lightning traces on the pebble are even smaller than I first thought. It makes this photo even more amazing. I think it's just jumped to the top of my list. :D
Was this section naturally exposed, or did you have to clear away some the matrix first?