Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Identity HelpHambergite or Some thing Else ?

24th Jan 2012 19:43 UTCSajjad Shakir

Is it Hambergite or Some thing Else... this specimen is from Shungas Valley of Skardu Pakstan...

{ Attachment 36331 Unavailable! phorum_files/3/363/36331/ }

24th Jan 2012 20:16 UTCRonald John Gyllenhammer Expert

Hi Sajjad,

I think you have it right, it looks like Hambergite.

Ron

25th Jan 2012 00:00 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Hola Sajjad!

For color and lustre could be also pollucite but shape looks more rhombic than cubic. Finally, as Ron and you, I also bet for hambergite.

Wassalam,

Jose

25th Jan 2012 00:17 UTCCraig Mercer

Also reminds me of Adularia lustre, but most likely Hambergite.

25th Jan 2012 03:26 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

I guess adularia or some other feldspar. A hambergite of this size is pretty much unheard of.

25th Jan 2012 12:44 UTCSajjad Shakir

yes but i think its not adularia what you think that feldspar comes in this shape ...?

26th Jan 2012 00:34 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Sajjad, will be helpful if you can post some more pictures, view from every side, not only top and down faces, so that we can see the entire shape, then we can speak more properly.

26th Jan 2012 04:13 UTCJim Bean 🌟

Judging by the second picture, the sides in the first picture are crystal faces and not cleavage planes? Whopper of a hambergite if that's what it is!

A picture from each side as Jose suggests, would be helpful.

26th Jan 2012 15:01 UTCSajjad Shakir

These are some other pictures..

26th Jan 2012 15:54 UTCSajjad Shakir

youtube video

26th Jan 2012 15:57 UTCPeter Andresen Expert

Sajjad Shakir, wasn't you going to get this analysed?

After all it's second time you ask about this sample:
http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,11,225826,225829#msg-225829

And it created some fuzz when you tried to sell the same sample on mindat auctions based on the opinions from this forum... is this a second try to do the same?

26th Jan 2012 16:20 UTCSajjad Shakir

YES BUT SOME BODY TOLD ME THAT ITS NOT HAMBERGITE ... I ALSO CANCELED THAT ON THAT TIME.. I SOLD THAT ONE HERE IN PAKISTAN BUT I GOT THIS SPECIMEN AGAIN ... NOW I WANT TO CONFIRM MY SELF. SIR AS YOU KNOW THERE IS NO LAB FOR MINERALS IN PAKISTAN. MINERALS IDENTIFICATION IS VERY HARD FOR US..

26th Jan 2012 17:03 UTCPeter Andresen Expert

It's not so difficult; it looks like it's easy to get a fragment of the back of this sample without altering the overall beauty or value, vrap the fragment and send it to a foreign lab - there are several anounsing on mindat directory, and it wil cost you 50 US$ + postage. Then if it's hambergite, you can with documentation sell it for big bucks, making the 50$ a small amount, and making both you and your customer happy.

26th Jan 2012 17:16 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Sajjad, please, don't use capital letters all the time, it hurts my ears! Relating your specimen, it really looks hambergite to me. Relating analysis, here they do XRD for USD 40:

http://attminerals.com/mineral_identification.htm

Peter, is very likely but is not same sample. Anyway, I think is not forbidden to ask two times the same thing. Please relax, nobody has committed a crime!

26th Jan 2012 17:44 UTCSajjad Shakir

thanks jose... i will do a test jose you noticed that in Pakistan there is no such lab .. we are just looking at mindat for help ... peter is so helpful coz he help me in many occasions.. jose i will try to send you a sample ...

26th Jan 2012 18:14 UTCJohannes Swarts

Hi,

Couldn't some simpler tests be run?

What about looking at hardness, density?

What about chemical tests for Be and B?

Seems a bit simpler than sending something out for XRD. My college profs used to call this the black box approach.

Just a thought,

Best Regards,

Hans

26th Jan 2012 19:37 UTCRonald John Gyllenhammer Expert

Hi Sajjad,

There are tests that can be performed in lieu of more accurate up to date and available methods. I will give you one. If it means alot to you, you can attempt it if you wish. It will not be completely definitive but will bring you closer to an id.

The specific gravity range of values (as measured) for Hambergite are 2.347-2.372, since your specimen is one large crystal, this value should be measurable for your sample. You probably neither have a jolly balance nor one large enough for your specimen so you need to improvise. Methods for determining specific gravity have been presented here many times by long time helpful Mindat members such as Donald Peck. I propose a method below from another source. If you find it easy, try it. If not, perhaps someone else can help with an easier method. In addition, you need invest some time of your own to perform other basic tests, just to get closer to an id. You should test and determine hardness, streak, feel (is it greasy, etc.). Here are basic instructions for determining specific gravity, good luck with it.

How to test using specific gravity

"Testing a mineral for a specific gravity value is a complicated procedure. For the layman, it is done by water displacement and requires a beaker and a scale. The weight of the beaker is taken and written down, as well as the weight of the specimen. The beaker is partially filled up with water, and the level of the water is noted. The mineral is put into the beaker with water, and the water level rises. The difference in the amount of water before the specimen was put in and after it was put in is noted. The mineral is taken out, and the water is spilled out. Then the beaker is filled with the amount of water that the specimen displaced and measured. The difference in weight of the beaker when it was empty and the current measurement (the beaker with the displaced water) is the weight of the displaced water. The weight of the displaced water has the same volume as the specimen, but a different mass. The weight of the specimen is divided by the weight of the displaced water, and that number attained is the specific gravity of that specimen. This test cannot be conducted for an embedded mineral, but only for a single crystal or mass, for obvious reasons."

Source: http://www.minerals.net/resource/property/SpecificGravity.aspx

Sajjad, this method is neither precise nor accurate and can be inaccurate but it should give you a fair estimate.

All the best,

Ron

26th Jan 2012 19:55 UTCSajjad Shakir

Wooow Thats new thing for me. Thanks i will try that its so nice.. Thanks you so so much..Ronald John Gyllenhammer.

26th Jan 2012 20:04 UTCRonald John Gyllenhammer Expert

Hi Sajjad,

As I have never used this specific gravity testing method, I cannot attest to it's accuracy. So please report back to us if you can with the results of your testing and your thoughts on it. Thanks.

Ron

26th Jan 2012 21:44 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Often heard of this method to calculate density but had not tested. Now I just tested with a home volumetric meter with marks only every 50 cm3 but with good eye you can "read" easely every 10 cm3. This will not work with small specimens. I tried with a large pollucite specimen and the result was 2,8 g/cm3, very close to 2,9 official pollucite density and enough accurate to remove many doubts. Really efficient, easy and cheap. Thanks for the trick Ron.

26th Jan 2012 22:22 UTCCraig Mercer

That simplified explaination of the SG testing method should be pinned somewhere.

Thanks Ron.

27th Jan 2012 02:03 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

There is an easier way. You first weigh the sample. Then you put a large enough container half full of water on a scale and note the weight, then you lower the sample tied to a thin piece of string into the water until it is completely submerged below the water ( if water spills over you need a larger container) and note the new reading on the scale ( the weight of the container of water with the specimen suspended in it). The difference between the two weights is the volume of the specimen. Divide the dry weight of the specimen by the volume and you have the specific gravity ( assuming you use distilled water, there are no air bubbles trapped under the specimen, and the specimen was not touching the sides of the container). Alternatively you can tare the container with water to zero and then the weight you get with the specimen suspended in the water is the volume ( saves you the trouble of taking two readings and subtracting.)

27th Jan 2012 05:59 UTCSajjad Shakir

hahaha Jose thats why i like Mindat and also your comments with picture.. jose i will buy some apparatus today and will try .. i think its so important in living in pakistan.

27th Jan 2012 10:40 UTCSajjad Shakir

Thanks Reiner ...

27th Jan 2012 12:12 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Archimedes principle has the advantage that you don't need a scaled volume container and also errors due to balance calibration are minimised because both measurements you take are divided between them.

27th Jan 2012 13:13 UTCFranz Bernhard Expert

Sure enough, Reiners method is the most elegant method of density determination when dealing with samples that can be hung on a string. Just try it, its nearly magic, but not realy, just plain physics ;-)

Franz Bernhard

27th Jan 2012 16:17 UTCKelly Nash 🌟 Expert

I have used Reiner's method many times, and even with regular "drinking-quality" water the results are accurate enough to rule out other minerals that are not in the same density range. Others here have disputed this, but I think as long as the water is clear, not salty, and fairly close to 20 degrees C, the density error from impurities is insignificant.

27th Jan 2012 21:32 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Here the Archimedes / Reiner method to determine density:

1- Place the beaker half-full of water on the scale and press the button "tare" to put the score to zero.

2- Introduce the specimen hanging from a string without touching the bottom or sides. The display will indicate the weight of water volume displaced by the specimen. As density of water is 1, the display will indicate the specimen volume in cubic centimetres.

3- You divide the specimen weight in grams for its volume in cubic centimetres and you will have the density.

The result, as you can see, is very accurate, 2,87 to 2,9.

Fast, easy, accurate, cheap and home made. Very thanks Reiner!

27th Jan 2012 22:20 UTCPeter Andresen Expert

Sajjad,

I'm happy you didn't feel offended with my post. I have collected several hambergites during the last years, and have no idea how to explain why they are hambergites, so this string do realy tickle my interest too! I would love to have a good wet-chemistry, or some other way to identify the hambergite in an easy way, and I'm sure it's out there... I got plenty of small shards to do tests on if anyone have suggestions!

The way I can identyfy the hambergites I find is only based on paragenesis, and "intuition" about luster and morphology how it occure in the nepheline syenite pegmatites I collect in, which are totaly different from granite pegmatites. And with the new nomenclature for tourmalines based on OH/F, it should be interesting to check all hambergites if there could be a "hambergite-(F)" out there!

I'm looking forward to se more ways how to identify hambergite, and hope those huge crystals you have prove to be hambergites, Sajjad!

Regards

Peter

28th Jan 2012 00:13 UTCCraig Mercer

I purchased this specimen a few years ago labelled Adularia, but after watching this thread for a while I'm now wondering if it maybe Hambergite.

Any thoughts ?

28th Jan 2012 02:12 UTCRonald John Gyllenhammer Expert

Hi Peter,

>" I'm looking forward to se more ways how to identify hambergite..."

Have you ever tried any of the old flame or blowpipe type tests for id? I have experimented with them and have had some success. I have an old book; "Identification and Qualitative Chemical Analysis of Minerals" (Orsino Smith, 1953) that details the procedure for id of borates using HSO₄ to decompose the borate sample and alcohol for flame test, amongst many other tests. I'll post the details verbatim for determination of a borate if you feel that you would actually try it. Just let me know. Also, this book can be had from Amazon for 10 or 12 bucks.

Ron

EDIT: Here's another proposed method from; "SIMPLE FIELD TEST FOR DISTINGUISHING MINERALS BY ABRASION pH*, Rollin E. Stevens and Maxwell K Carron. Hambergite listed on page 42. I have never tried this but it sounds interesting. http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM33/AM33_31.pdf

29th Jan 2012 05:34 UTCSajjad Shakir

thanks Peter.. and all such as jose and many who help us in mindat...

29th Jan 2012 08:54 UTCSajjad Shakir

Hi All i just checked container weight test to my crystal its shows some density which is 2.32 . and also i scetch a diagram of specimen crystal structure . As in front scetch my crystal is same to same like in diagram and by side as you can see my crystal is etched from one side but as per my thought it should me like the diagram i draw.. i hope that jose and peter and also my all special friend will tell me what is this.. i think it will help all and me too..

Best Regards

29th Jan 2012 15:08 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Sajjad, how you calculate weight "in water cont."? If you calculate with a table scale subtracting the specimen net weight from total container plus water plus specimen hanging into water weight, as Reiner explains, it's OK. If you calculated with a hanging scale just immersing the specimen into water, then the result is the subtraction of specimen weight less the weight of the water volumen that displaces (specimen volume). In this last case, you have to sustract this result from specimen weight to have specimen volume, that's 130 - 56 = 74; density should be: 130 : 74 = 1,75 (very low).

If you did like first case, your result (2,32) is very closely to hambergite density (2,36).

29th Jan 2012 15:25 UTCSajjad Shakir

Yes jose i did that proceedure in which container filled with water is zerod on scale and then i hanged crystal in water.. three times i did that proceedure..

i did following steps..

1.. first got weight of crystal which was 130 grams..

2. . Then i placed Container filled with water on scale and make zero.. like you do in picture ...

3.. i wrap a wire over the crystal and hanged it in water ... it gave me one time 56 and second time 55 grams....

then i devide 130 grams of crystal weight on 56 and then on 55... one time it gives 2.32 and one time it gives me 2.36 ...

best Regards

29th Jan 2012 17:26 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

Sajjad, then is correct. Sorry I didn't understand your first explanation. Then density is like hambergite.

Relating your draw, it looks rhombic system. To be sure, you can check if corner angles in first draw are exactly 90º. If they are, for sure is orthorhombic (as hambergite).

What about hardness? Did you try to scratch a quartz? Hambergite is 7,5, only little bit more hard than Q, is not easy to see the small scratch it can do on Q, but you can try to see with lens.

29th Jan 2012 17:41 UTCSajjad Shakir

yes i see a little scratch on quartz but slight its hard then quartz... so do you think its hambergite ?

29th Jan 2012 18:35 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

After all we spoke here, yes I believe is hambergite but without analysis can not be assured at 100%.

29th Jan 2012 19:18 UTCSajjad Shakir

yes sir you r right ..

1st Feb 2012 13:25 UTCSajjad Shakir

Hi All result came from Islamabad Gems Lab : this specimen have hardness of Garnet and Aquamarine , Shape crystal system : Orthorhombic - ,, Density is 2.35 to 2.37 ,,,,Radioactivity : Nill

thay are some test they do on a certificate and its shows that its 100 percent hambergite...

1st Feb 2012 14:40 UTCRonald John Gyllenhammer Expert

Good work Sajjad.

1st Feb 2012 17:18 UTCSajjad Shakir

thanks Ronald .. Ronald i tried because of your special Experiment and jose Practicle .. i gave this to my friend here in Pakistan he told me that i will check for you.. now result is in my hands.. they only charged me 35 USD for many many tests.. some of the test i dont know what are they but in the bottom they wrote that this specimen is 100 Percent Hambergite..

You know that i sold these specimen by the name of orthoclase about 25 specimen but now i realized that its very expensive.. thanks ronald once again

1st Feb 2012 17:41 UTCRonald John Gyllenhammer Expert

Good luck going forward Sajjad.

1st Feb 2012 19:34 UTCPeter Andresen Expert

Great news, Sajjad, congratulations having such exceptional hambergites! :-)

2nd Feb 2012 06:28 UTCSajjad Shakir

thanks Peter.. Peter You know that i have about 16 Hambergites .. and all are in big sizes..

2nd Feb 2012 07:10 UTCCraig Mercer

Sajjad, very pleasing to know that all buyers will now recieve official confirmation with there purchase.

Goodluck with the sales my friend,

Craig.

2nd Feb 2012 19:25 UTCSajjad Shakir

yeap .. you right.. Craig

16th Feb 2012 07:27 UTCRock Currier Expert

Sajjad,

If you have the money you might consider buying a contact refractometer and a light source, preferably one that is rich in "sodium". You may be able to find one on the internet for $500 or less. A used instrument will be OK. The heart of this relatively simple instrument is a lead rich glass hemicylinder that in time "oxidizes" and the readings you get from them become hard to read. You can correct this by polishing the surface of the hemicylinder with a little tin oxide on a moist cloth and by rubbing it vigorously with your finger. With this instrument you will be able to check the refractive index of gems and specimens, provided you have a flat polished surface ground somewhere on the specimen or a piece of a specimen. There are a lot of gem cutters in Pakistan and having a small flat polished surface should be easy and cheap. This can yield fairly definitive results and is a powerful but relatively simple identification tool. It will enable you to identify many gemstones and minerals with a fair degree of accuracy. The GIA (Gemological Institute of America sells these and trains all their students on their use. There are other instruments out there besides theirs. The contact refractometer, like all analytical instruments has its limitations and it is not good for minerals/gems with a high refractive indixes but it would certainly identify hamburgite. It is not as powerful an analytical tool as a petrographic microscope but is much easier to learn to use. This is one of the chief tools used in all gemological laboratories. You would have to learn a little bit about mineral optics, but once you do, it would certainly give you a step up on the competition.

21st Feb 2012 09:56 UTCSajjad Shakir

yes thanks.. i have buy one on ebay ... thanks.. and its cheap too.. about 280 digital one.. thanks ...

13th Mar 2012 09:59 UTCGWK

Greetings,

I wanted to pass on a refinement of this specific gravity measurement procedure which is more accurate by perhaps a factor of 5 as long as the weight measurement scale is accurate and linear over a large range of weights. The method is based on simple physics principles of buoyancy. The idea is similar; find the weight of a pure specimen or crystal, determine its volume by the buoyancy principle and divide weight by volume to get a very accurate measure of specific gravity or density.

The volume of the specimen is obtained by water displacement, but by weight and not reading the volume from a graduated cylinder. The method starts by tying a fine thread around the specimen , enough to support its weight in air. Fill a beaker 2/3 full of room temperature tap water. Weigh the beaker plus water to the nearest 0.1 grams. Immerse the specimen in the water by suspending it on a fine thread. Make absolutely sure that the specimen is not touching the sides or bottom of the beaker, yet is fully submerged. Weigh the beaker + water + suspended specimen. The weight difference between (beaker + water + specimen) - (beaker + water ) = weight of the volume of displaced water. Since water at room temperature has a density of 1.0 gm/cc, the weight of the displaced water is also equal to the volume of the specimen. This is the fine point that makes this method more accurate. Divide the specimen weight by this better estimate of specimen volume to get a density accurate to better than two decimal places (X . XX) if the specimen volume is about 100ccs or larger.

The other advantage is that you don't need a high accuracy graduated cylinder to get volume, just a good scale.

I hope this sheds some light on this discussion. I would like to see that this hambergite is the real deal. if this still doesn't settle the issue, I have an SEM with XRD and EDS x-ray spectroscopy systems at my place of employment. If you can send me a sample, I can have one of the techs check it for beryllium and boron. We can also check for silicon, aluminum, potassium to rule out the other minerals suggested here. Thanks, GWK

13th Mar 2012 12:14 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

BTW Because this may be among the world's finest hambergites, the specimen requires great care not to diminish its value.

Kaygeedee minerals in Canada will do an EDS for $10. Because of the composition of hambergite, the scan should show that it is composed of nothing - that is, the specimen contains undetectable elements.

13th Mar 2012 16:00 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

With regard to GWK's instructions for density measurements, some small refinements: Water's density is actually a bit less than 1 at room temperature, so better accuracy is achieved by using water at a temperature of about 4 C (~39 F), at which point it really has a density of 1. (There are correction tables available for other temperatures.)

A common source of errors is impurities in crystals (including even clouds of microscopic bubbles - If your crystal isn't gemmy, it's probably not pure); and tiny air bubbles attached to the surface of the crystal being tested, so make sure the specimen is completely wetted, without bubbles. I use a tiny drop of strong detergent in the water to improve wettability, although professional mineralogists will probably cringe at the extra errors being introduced. Professionals use disgusting stinky organic solvents instead of water for extremely accurate density determinations, with the attendant mathematical calculations to take care of the difference in fluid density, but water is adequate for ordinary ID tests.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 25, 2024 02:04:07

Go to top of page