Mars under a microscope

[Hat]

This is a 3mm fragment of Martian meteorite 4468. I used a Carson Microbrite pocket microscope to image it with my cheap cell phone. It's a basltic meteorite, so no fossils. Hehe....

[Ludwigia]

Interesting, but you would need to make much higher resolution photos in order to see the details. All I can see here is a colorful blurr.

[Hat]

2 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

Interesting, but you would need to make much higher resolution photos in order to see the details. All I can see here is a colorful blurr.

The problem is that the meteorite is round, not flat. Also the cell camera has a fairly wide angle lens, so I have to zoom in to avoid vignetting. My hands are wobbling, and there's nothing securing the microscope to the camera; however, if you can't see anything but a colorful blur you may need to adjust your computer screen. There is definite crystalline structure, and most of it comes through as being white under the LED light. 

 

I do agree that higher resolution would be nice. The total cost of this experiment was $32. 

[Ludwigia]

8 hours ago, Hat said:

The problem is that the meteorite is round, not flat. Also the cell camera has a fairly wide angle lens, so I have to zoom in to avoid vignetting. My hands are wobbling, and there's nothing securing the microscope to the camera; however, if you can't see anything but a colorful blur you may need to adjust your computer screen. There is definite crystalline structure, and most of it comes through as being white under the LED light. 

 

I do agree that higher resolution would be nice. The total cost of this experiment was $32. 

 

I can well understand your difficulty, but the problem definitely has nothing to do with my computor screen.

[Kane]

It may be an idea to invest in an affordable digital microscope that comes with a USB connection, and can plug into any laptop or desktop. The software usually will come with the device. After that, there is additional stacking software (ranging from free to expensive, with different respective features) that resolves what appear to be depth of field issues in your photos. This should lead to much clearer images without the fuzzy halo. We have a number of microfossil experts and enthusiasts here who might chime in on how they manage the issues associated with micro-photography.

[Wrangellian]

I know the pics could be better with better equipment, but I can see a loose, grainy texture, such that if you touched the piece some of it might come off on your finger (though you wouldn't be able to tell without also microscoping your finger..). Are we looking at some sort of deposit or precipitation that has built up since the item was isolated here on Earth?

[Hat]

35 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

I know the pics could be better with better equipment, but I can see a loose, grainy texture, such that if you touched the piece some of it might come off on your finger (though you wouldn't be able to tell without also microscoping your finger..). Are we looking at some sort of deposit or precipitation that has built up since the item was isolated here on Earth?

It shouldn't be earthly material. This was originally a 675 gram meteorite that was chipped into thousands of pieces for sale. I have no idea which part of the meteorite this fragment came from, but if it was inside the meteorite before it was broken up, it probably never touched anything earthly excepy for plastic holders like the one it's in now. 

 

It looks almost like iron sulfide to the naked eye - metallic. It's being blasted by the blue led light from the microscope, and that makes it look whiter.

 

Here's a close up o it without the microscope. I'm not sure, but I don't think any of it will rub off so easily.

 

 

[Wrangellian]

Maybe we need better micro-pics to be sure, but yours seem to show what looks like loosely-consolidated sand, or maybe precipitated crystals of something like calcite or salt or who-knows-what. I have no idea how to tell if it's been like that since Mars or if it has been altered to that effect at some point after arriving on Earth, but would be interesting to find out. Who knows how long it's been on Earth, and what all could have happened to it during that time? If it's been altered (eg. precipitates, etc) then I would think you'd have to remove that to get a look at the original, true nature of the specimen.

You might need more light to get better pics that that last one.

[Hat]

I'll try to get a brighter pic tomorrow. Most of these pics are at the 60x setting on the microscope. I think the strong blue led light is why is looks white as opposed to the color you see on the non-micro images. I wish I could let people see through the microscope. My cell camera is terrible.