Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Mineralogical ClassificationInaccessible "minerals"

4th Dec 2006 09:39 UTCHugh Heron

Just an idle thought, perhaps?

Has any thought been given to compounds known to exist but which, possibly because they are currently inaccessible in their natural state (but accessible under artificial laboratory conditions), are not named/under consideration as possible mineral species?

Examples include carbon dioxide ice (Mars) and organic compounds such as the "tholins" found on Titan, Triton, and many of the trans-Neptunian objects.

4th Dec 2006 13:58 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

But to be a true "mineral", you need to deposit the type specimen at a museum. The definition of mineral was tightened up to eliminate these kinds of situations.

4th Dec 2006 14:27 UTCjacques jedwab

Yes, but no terrestrial mineralogy museum has ever considered keeping a type sample of terrestrial water ice. There is thus at least one exception to Dave's statement.

Apart from such a funny example, I have the feeling that we are progressively entering the nano-field, where important phenomena occur, and where one detects definite compounds, which could not match the actual nomination rules. It's just a matter of developing affordable instruments.

4th Dec 2006 17:11 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

The IMA-CNMNC is less rigid than you seem to think, the 1998 procedures and guidelines on mineral nomenclature have two paragraphs on "The matter of size" and "Stability under ambient conditions" which elaborate on the problems and possibilities of such 'inaccessible' minerals. In both categories there are recent examples of approved minerals.

5th Dec 2006 00:44 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Hugh, In order to properly describe a new mineral, you have to have a sample in your laboratory. NASA can make the assumption that such and such a mineral exists on another planet, based on infrared spectra or whatever, and you could then study the synthetic phase on Earth, but without having the extraterrestrial sample in your hand you will not be 100% sure it is the same material, so why bother to invent a new mineral name?

5th Dec 2006 04:57 UTCHugh Heron

Thanks for all the responses.

Of course, this is just idle speculation and, yes, unless a sample is to hand, we cannot be certain of what we are examining.

It is just that there are so many new, potential, minerals out there! Some will probably never be properly described until we can get equipment to regions where they are stable (or find ways of preserving then to bring them back), e.g. nitrogen ice. Maybe one of the cometary probes will return with some of the more stable "tholins" in the not too distant future.

Naming them is another matter, with its own attendant problems.

6th Dec 2006 09:31 UTCalfredo

Hugh, We still havent gotten around to describing and naming some of the things that exist in huge quantities on Earth - like the "clathrates"/"methane hydrate", etc. Give the poor overworked materials scientists time for that before you start on ET`s rocks! :~))

7th Dec 2006 01:51 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

How about the unnamed confirmed species such as the "TiO2 II" that is clearly a reality but not formally named (it has 2 informal names), since noone has bothered to write it up and propose a formal name. There are several others that fall into this category not conjecture - reality, but alas, not offically described and unnamed. We have started calling some of the high temperature polymorphs by number now (e.g., Calcite 2 or 3). Since they are reality and their stability parameters have been ascertained and documented, should they not be "officially" named, even if it is Calcite 2 or 3, or whatever? We are sliding into a science that has an ever increasing number of unnamed realities for the lack of compliance with the set of rules. Unfortunately, unless a scientist voluntarily chooses to study and define a substance as a mineral species, it can go on indefinately as a unnamed reality. Too bad that the science doesn't have a mechanism for tasking studies of these orphan minerals to further complete the pantheon of species in accordance with the state of the art in the science of mineralogy.

7th Dec 2006 01:52 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

By the way, TiO2 II is the fourth polymorph of TiO2, not the second!!!!!!!

7th Dec 2006 10:29 UTCE.A.J. Burke

A formal proposal for a fourth TiO2 polymorph has recently been submitted to the IMAS-CNMNC for approval.

7th Dec 2006 10:33 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Thanks Dr. Burke.

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: May 7, 2024 16:30:52

Go to top of page