The Explorers ...

Here's a picture of the Burgess' from their MojaveUnderground website. What a cute couple. And her name is Crystal! How perfect is that!

Anyway, this was a great presentation of interest to our spouses as well as us hard-core mineral lovers. Thanks to Chuck Adan and to Dave Richerson for setting this up.

P.S. Note that it's still possible to give a fine talk without PowerPoint!

MinDat Articles: Tourmaline Tales

There's some really interesting stuff on MinDat. Tourmaline and other pegmatite minerals are our "Mineral(s) of the Month". The following is brief and informative.

http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1095/Tourmaline+Tales

MinDat is a uniquely valuable resource for mineral amateurs and professionals alike, and it keeps getting better all the time. Check it out.

Tuscon Report by John Veevaert

John Veevaert of Trinity Minerals, Weaverville, California, publishes on the net a series of reports from the annual Tucson show. If you can't be there yourself, this is the next best thing. http://www.mineralshows.com/tucson2011/

I found these comments from the last installment of his 2011 series interesting (good for dealers but bad for the rest of us):

"The mineral market seems to have been sparked back to life after a couple years of many people holding on to their disposable cash during what has now been termed the Great Recession. We're still a long way from the boom times of the mid 2000s but the market is expanding again."

"As I have mentioned in the past there are two general collector types - folks who know about various aspects of mineralogy and those who collect natural art. The natural art collectors are driving prices into the next dimension and in doing so the dealers who cater to them are presenting nice but common minerals with 5, 6 and 7 digits. And I am not including the cents columns either! This makes it difficult for 99% of the rest of the collector community to feel like they can have access to some great minerals."

How come no takers?

The MCU discussion group is about as busy as the bar in downtown Panguitch.

C'mon guys. Sign up for a Google account (free) if you don't have one already, and put in your 2-cents worth.

Your humble webmaster.

August 8 Field Trip

I got the following email from our President (Bruce, not Barack) ...

"Our field trip to the calcite location and Riley’s Canyon was a big success. We found some huge banded calcites that must be worth $300 apiece. We found the red horn coral pits that are well hidden in the trees … it took us a while and at least 6 miles of hiking to find them, so the price of red horn coral just went up! Too bad only Pat and I went on the trip. You couldn't ask for a better day."

Feldspar Follow-Up

Gerry Austin's excellent discussion of the feldspars at our July meeting provoked the question, "Why isn't there a series between pure potassium and pure calcium?" Is it the nature of the lattice, or something else? I asked Bill Wray, mineralogist extraordinaire, and got the following response (published with permission):

" … The answer has to do with differing ionic radii and ionic charge (and related thereto, Si to Al ratio within the minerals). Na(1+) and Ca(2+) have nearly the same ionic radii, 1.00 Angstroms for Ca(2+) and 1.02 Angstroms for Na(1+). Calcium has a higher atomic number (20) than sodium (11), but the divalent ionic state of calcium causes the ionic radius to be smaller [more 'drawn in'] thus compensating for what ordinarily would be a larger radius. Likewise, Si(4+) has an ionic radius of 0.40 Angstroms, smaller but fairly close to the 0.54 Angstroms of Al(3+). Thus, with relatively little crystal lattice distortion, plagioclase can form a complete solid solution series between the Na (albite) and Ca (anorthite) end members. Also, plagioclase, as an anhydrous Na-Ca-Si-Al mineral, crystallizes generally at relatively high temperatures which thermodynamically permits a greater distortion of the crystal lattice on formation, which lattice can (and does) persist down to 'room temperature'.

" In contrast, K(1+) is significantly larger an ion than either Na(1+) or Ca(2+), and has an ionic radius of 1.38 Angstroms. For this reason, even at high temperatures K-feldspar and plagioclase do not form a solid solution series. With any amount of Ca beyond only a small amount, the necessary Al substitution for Si (to maintain charge balance) would so further distort the crystal lattice that the mineral simply will not form, even at high temperatures (and pressures) which would otherwise favor formation. However, at high temperatures of formation a mixed (Na,K) feldspar can form, e.g. disordered monoclinic high-temperature sanidine or high-temperature plutonic alkali feldspar. These feldspars have little or no Ca, and so the further and probably fatal distortion of the crystal lattice due to the Al for Si substitution is avoided.

" But, these mixed (Na,K) feldspars are not true solid-solution minerals at lower temperatures, and are metastable (or unstable) at 'room temperature'. Ordinarily, given slow cooling conditions, the original (Na,K) feldspar mineral will partition through ionic diffusion into coexisting K-feldspar and Na-feldspar phases. K-feldspar crystals (microcline, orthoclase or sanidine) with exsolution blebs or lamellae of Na-feldspar (albite) are termed perthite, or microperthite if the perthitic structure is visible only under magnification. Na-feldspar crystals (albite) with blebs or lamellae of K-feldspar (microcline or orthoclase) are termed antiperthite, or microantiperthite."

The short answer is it's the size and charge of the atoms and how they fit (or don't) into the lattice, that determines whether or not species exist in a potential potassium-calcium series.

Retrograde metamorphosis in diamonds ?

Hey, where are all you MCU bloggers?  Let's get some discussions going!

Last evening's talk by Scott Ramsay was terrific, IMHO.  It got me to thinking.  I'd read someplace that diamonds can revert to their polymorph, graphite.  

"Retrograde metamorphism is what makes diamonds so rare. Diamonds are made at great depths, and normal geologic processes that might bring diamonds to the surface are so slow that diamonds retrograde to graphite. Only the rapid eruptions that create kimberlites allow diamond to reach us without degrading."  

It sounds bizarre, but:  A snap-back in the diamond crystal lattice to graphite could extinguish any trace of diamonds, and thus, explain the missing alluvial diamonds in the eroded ore body.   If so, those claims in the ocean will come up empty.

OK, a second consequence; If the transformation were partial, the graphite would color the partly transformed diamonds and they would turn brown, or sherry, topaz, champagne or whatever.  

Third, the differences between the conditions of formation of lamproites and kimberlites could explain the differences in abundance, character and grade of the diamonds found therein, based at least in part on retrograde metamorphism. 

There was no academic attribution for the quote above, but if there is evidence for it, then any of my hypotheses could be valid.

What do y'all think?