Microscopic examination has shown that there is no mundane explanation for the H-glaze. Although various suggestions have been put forward during this investigation, none of them has provided a convincing and complete explanation for the evidence.

To summarize this evidence:

• After exhaustive enquiry, there is no mundane explanation for the H-glaze.

• Although the samples were recognizably H-glaze at the microscopic scale, there were significant and revealing differences in appearance and structure.

• The first sample had small quantities of chalk and silica fused to the top of it which could not have happened if it were simply corrosion product.

• The particles of iron did not exhibit crystalline structure (which would have suggested chemical deposition or corrosion) but were rounded.  Even where they were interspersed between the other constituents, they had a shiny spherical appearance as if they had solidified from a melt in a reducing atmosphere.  Because of their microscopic size, their bead like shape could have resulted from surface tension when in the molten state.

• The only credible explanation for the cohesion of the H-glaze and its adhesion to the substrate was that it had been sintered - a process requiring great heat.

• The silica glass that was found coating parts of the iron oxide could only have been created by heat.  Moreover, it was only found in close proximity to the iron and its oxides, whereas the silica remote from the iron was unaffected indicating that the iron and its oxides were the source of the heat.

• An examination of the cross section of the first sample showed that the chalk substrate had not been recrystallized and therefore had not been significantly heated.  This indicated that the heat that melted the iron was confined to that element and its oxides and dissipated rapidly.  Although the heating must have been very intense, it would have been of very short duration - say a few milliseconds.

• Both the appearance of the iron and its heating were probably coincident. It seems most probable that the iron was heated by whatever process created it.

• The first two samples contained elemental iron.  In particular, deposited iron in the second sample appeared untarnished. If the oxides of iron had been formed from the corrosion of deposited iron, any remaining iron would have been coated in corrosion product and unidentifiably.

Conclusions
There can be little doubt that the discovery of the H-glaze was a major event in the history of crop circle research. For those who seek to prove that these artistic creations are the work of some preternatural influence, this deposit represents the most important piece of material evidence to have fallen into our hands.

We can only conjecture as to how it came to be there. My own theory is that something went wrong. From Peter Sørensen's drawing of the formation - the only information we have of the site layout - the design appears fragmentary and incomplete. Perhaps something struck the ground and there was a blow-back of energy. This hypothesis has some merit as there is an equivalent in linear dynamics. When the flow of energy is terminated correctly, little or none of that energy is reflected. When there is a mismatch, energy is reflected back to the source. A familiar example of this is the kitchen microwave. Running these cookers empty can damage the magnetron power source because the microwave energy it generates is reflected back instead of being absorbed in the food. Whether some advanced technology encountered a similar problem we cannot say. Without the material evidence, this is just conjecture and, of course, as a scientist, I could not possibly endorse such idle speculation.

R. Ashby
Last updated: 3^rd August, 2001