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

GeneralAdding synthetic materials

26th May 2016 19:57 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Dear friends.

The Mindat database has quite a number of synthetic compounds. I've also added some. I was wondering what is your opinion on the presence of such species in the database.

My personal opinion is that, unless to some extent, the database gains (not looses) with having such compounds, as soon as it is clearly said that the compound is synthetic (here is my idea: maybe the "Mineral/Compound" option in the "Entry Type" on Mineral Edit Page might be split into "Mineral" and "Synthetic Compound"?). I think the positive aspect of having such compounds in the database is that they often resemble the particular minerals, are analogous to them or are produced in conditions similar to those in which the particular mineral form. Some species, like the Na-Ca carbonates, may be found as future minerals; on the other hand, some of these synthetic compounds would likely never be found as minerals, as we (at least for now) can't reach environments like the Earth's mantle.

26th May 2016 20:10 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Lukasz,

I don't think it is a bad idea at all. I have synthetic titanium crystals and synthetic diamonds and never had a place to put them except "other" and they are things that are interesting and there are folks who would probably like to see them.

I will follow this thread to see what else gets posted.

I have not looked to see what other synthetics are on mindat now.

Rolf

26th May 2016 20:25 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Thought I add a couple of photos so people can see the synthetic titanium crystals. They are quite nice and I bought the piece because of how nice it looked. They were made in Poland.

26th May 2016 20:28 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Thanks for your opinion, Rolf. I've seen some papers on the synthetic materials, but had some doubts in adding new species, just not to make a mess. But I also thinks its a good idea of adding, as the minerals species are listed in bold, and are thus rather recognizable.

26th May 2016 20:42 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

I think that the "other" category is too vague for the inclusion of synthetics. I would agree to a separate "synthetic" category.

For example:

is quartz, a mineral, but man-made. Bit it can get lost in the "other" category with just about anything.

26th May 2016 21:08 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

I'm not sure if separate pages for synthetic equivalents of the known minerals should exist. I'm afraid this could make the whole website a bit messy. I was thinking about a totally new phases; of course, some of such phases may be found in future, but in this case the particular mineral pages may be uptaded, IMA status changed or included, etc.

Regarding the Japan law twinned quartz - there is a quite recent paper on it: http://eurjmin.geoscienceworld.org/content/27/1/71

27th May 2016 00:15 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Rolf - thanks for uploading these lovely titanium pics! I'm curious who makes these here in Poland. I've only heard we're "famous" of bismuth (?) and synthetic niahite ;-)

27th May 2016 01:08 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Lukasz,

All I can tell you about the titanium is we purchased it from the Arizona Sonoran Desert Museum pre sale one year from the Helm collection # 2301 and all it said was Poland. Wish I knew more.

Added the photo of the synthetic diamonds from the General Electric lab in 1961 I got from a friend.

27th May 2016 02:40 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Nice diamonds, they look quite clear :-) I will try to get interested in this titanium production, btw.

27th May 2016 02:54 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi

My two cents worth is that if we have synthetic materials then they should have their own category so that it is clear that they are not naturally occurring.

The same should be in Gemdat (if that every gets going properly) with such "gems" as cubic zirconia and goldstone.

And those man made elements (113 to 117 for example) - they could go in the synthetic bin too !!

Cheers

Keith

27th May 2016 14:48 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

I am a synthetic organic chemist whose has synthesized thousands of compounds -- many of them new to science -- in my career. So it's ok if I add all of these? And what about the other ten million or so compounds that have been characterized over the years? (Number from Chemical Abstracts Services.)

27th May 2016 15:02 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Gentlemen & Ladies,

The issue of synthetic compounds has come up in management discussions. The system of categorizing such substances may be changed in Mindat in the future - too early to tell at the moment. Please be patient!

Chet Lemanski

27th May 2016 15:18 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

"Thousands of compounds" sounds a bit "horrifying", but - in my opinion - only in terms of the amount of work that would have to be done to add them to the database. Personally, I'm a rare compound freak ;-) especially in terms of the elements like fermium, dubnium, hahnium and other fleroviums (-; Nevertheless, I wouldn't see any problem with these compounds listed by Mindat if only there is this clear division between minerals and synthetics. So I agree with the idea of category given by Keith. I think we wouldn't like the visiting people to think that Earth is covered in cadmium polonates etc. :-D;-) As a burning dump mineralogist I might here be taken as "double-tongued", but I think the systematics of coal-fire compounds is a separate matter.

27th May 2016 20:52 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

I should have clarified my earlier statement to restrict synthetics to those compounds that are related to minerals.

27th May 2016 21:08 UTCDoug Schonewald

I have access to samples of polycrystalline silicon and single-crystal silicon that is synthetic. Is there Mindat interest in photos of those synthetics?

27th May 2016 21:33 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

I'm sure there is. As soon as it is silicon crystallographically corresponding to the native silicon, then I don't seea problem with posting some pictures with the description saying that this is a synthetic manager. But I'm not the Mindat's master here ;-) - just my personal opinion.

27th May 2016 22:41 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

"I should have clarified my earlier statement to restrict synthetics to those compounds that are related to minerals."

In what sense? In a broad sense, minerals are chemical compounds of defined composition but so are the majority I've things I've made in the lab. How is man-grown titanium crystals any different from Steve-grown Indynaprost crystals? They are both synthetic materials, made from the same basic substances as minerals (i.e., the chemical elements). Does a substance have to be discovered in nature before its lab-made version can be entered into Mindat? That restriction would be a dis-service to minerals not yet discovered, but reasonably anticipated in nature, and already studies in the lab.

On the other hand, hard-core mineralogists and synthetic chemists who are likely to deal with this issue of lab-grown/anticipated-but-not-yet-found-in-nature materials probably have easy access to the research literature.

Therefore I suggest that as for synthetic materials, Mindat allows entries **only** for materials that are chemical formula duplicates of existing/characterized mineral substances. So an entry for lab-grown silver crystals would be appropriate, but not an entry for my Indynaprost (an arene-fused prostaglandin mimic, if you must know) because there is no natural Indynaprost version.

27th May 2016 22:53 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

"I have access to samples of polycrystalline silicon and single-crystal silicon that is synthetic. Is there Mindat interest in photos of those synthetics?"

I believe that anything that might reasonably be mistake for a mineral, or might be sold (fraudulently) as a mineral has a place (subject to the same criteria as in my previous post). So I vote: yes; your silicon crystal pics should be posted.

27th May 2016 23:02 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Perhaps we need a separate website: syndat.org can join it's older sisters mindat.org and gemdat.org.

27th May 2016 23:04 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

As a hard-core mineralogist :-D I've put phases like K₂Fe(CO₃)₂ because, e.g., they were formed from siderite and might possibly be once found in an UHP rock or sth; and possibly also due to the original publication being published in the Eur. J. of Mineralogy. But, indeed, I didn't think about things like Indynaprost ;-)

27th May 2016 23:31 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

"Perhaps we need a separate website: syndat.org "

It already exists...it's called the primary research literature.

27th May 2016 23:38 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Irrelevant. Just try posting photos of your specimens to the "primary research literature".

27th May 2016 23:46 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Just got remembered huge (10 cms?) crystals of an organic compound... a lactate or urate or sth... in a mineral shop in Kutna Hora, Czech Rep. Anyway, I kinda like the idea of syndat ;-) But I think Steve correctly suggests that there should be a limit in digging out and inluding some compounds. Now must limit myself! :-D

28th May 2016 02:18 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

Alfredo I understand that Mindat is intended to accessible to the amateur. But what is the balance between practical/realistic needs of the amateur vs. the limits of what can be posted here?

28th May 2016 06:23 UTCDoug Daniels

What about all the engineered compounds? "Chalcopyrite" made for LEDs. "Perovskite" for solar panels. And so on. Actually compounds with structures like the named mineral. And, what about those we can think up (which I think has been brought up before, either on Mindat or in the Mineralogical Record). As far as those which have been synthesized and are used in the gem trade, sure, we should provide info on them (Ytrtrium Aluminum Garnet [YAG], strontium titanate, Cubic Zirconia [CZ], to name 3); might be helpful to the newbies. Of course such info should also be on Gemdat.

28th May 2016 20:07 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Chemical compounds in general should have there own database somewhere? The chemists of the world must have some kind of reference(s) for their constructions? Mindat does not need to replicate what is already available for the chemist. The goal of Mindat is to provide information on minerals and mineral related compounds.

:-D Now there is the rub! What is the definition of mineral related compounds! I leave that I leave that as an exercise for the reader.. :-D

29th May 2016 01:51 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

"The chemists of the world must have some kind of reference(s) for their constructions?"

Yes, it's called the primary research literature. As to its inaccessability to the average mineral collector...the average mineral collector doesn't usually need it. Professional mineral people might, but this group generally has access.

So once again I repeat my opinion on this topic: Synthetic materials should be posted to Mindat only when a collector is likely to encounter said material as a fraud/mistake/etc. Materials not likely to be encountered (engineered chalcpyrite, Indynaprost) should be excluded.

29th May 2016 14:42 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Don't worry, Steve, we won't find Indynaprost or crystallized gadoteridol here in Mindat. Although, the formula of the latter, C17H29GdN4O7, looks nice ;-)

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 07:22:00

Go to top of page