|Granite has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, airplane), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
- Which one? There are two images of gravestones. Wizard191 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
the section under natural radiation claims that a study (cited as source 14) says that 18 of 39 slabs of granite failed the European emmission standards of radiation. however, when clicking the link to the source cited after the statement (study done by Environmental Health & Engineering), the study ACTUALLY says that 0 of the 39 samples tested had levels that failed the standards. I don't know where the bad info came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I removed those quoted sections because they weren't supported by the cited source. Wizard191 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Age of origin
Aren't most granite beds considered to have been formed in the Precambrian age? The ones in Sweden, Finland, European Russia and Canada certainly are precambrian, and so they are primitive rock. Strausszek (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The oldest granites are Archaean more than 2500 million years old, but the youngest are Miocene less than 20 million years old, such as Mount Kinabalu in Sabah, and there are granites of all ages in between, including ones that are crystallising right now, that will be uplifted and exposed within the next few million years. Mikenorton (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Granite is currently known only on Earth????
While this phrase may be technically be correct... Is it even relevant? At this point we've only explored a small fraction of our solar system, not to mention anything actually beyond our solar system. This article seems to indicate that there is some Granite on Mars. Perhaps more research will reveal more. Or, perhaps the majority of it will be found subsurface.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050706_mars_diverse.html --Keelec (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I see this redirects to this article. It likely should not because the term granitoid includes igneous rocks that are not granite. I do not really have the interest to create an article from a redirect right now so if someone wants to create an article for it that would be great. Volcanoguy 18:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added it to my 'to-do' list, but don't hold your breath. Mikenorton (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
My 1970 studies on salt diapirs in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia, suggested that mobility of the salt-breccia masses was key to emplacement. The intruding material could be of greater density than the host. Emplacement was by dyke wedging into zones of extension (the S2-S3 planes, normal to compressive S1 stresses, thus requiring very little upward force; ie 'permitted intrusions'. This mechanism should also apply to many types of igneous intrusion, including some/many? granites.
The Bathurst Granite in NSW, Australia, is such an example. The 'batholith' can be viewed as a massive dyke, 100x30km, set in S1-S2 planes parallel to the principal palaeo stress direction(normal to S3, under thick overburden (S2).
Pre-existing and developing fracture systems in the host rocks appear to have controlled the dyke geometry. Opposing dyke margins can be roughly matched 'continental drift style' across such megadykes.
Assimilation (minor? and block stoping may have modified the basic dyke form.
- Do you have a reference for the Bathurst granite? See Nick Petford, Ross C. Kerr and John R. Lister, Dike transport of granitoid magmas, Geology; September 1993; v. 21; no. 9; p. 845-848 - maybe should work this into the article. Vsmith (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well mayhaps I should look first :) the Ascent and emplacement section already discusses fracture propagation by self-propagating dykes ... Vsmith (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Not aware of any papers on the form of the Bathurst Granite . . . I have used published 250,000 map sheets to compare plan views of the outcrop with Flinders Ranges diapirs. I fully acknowledge prior work on dyke mechanisms for granites etc, but my purpose was to emphasise(some)granite emplacement as permitted intrusions in planes parallel to principal stress directions, under thick overburden, so pull-apart is normal to S1, and to emphasise that the host rocks were brittle (or semi-plastic). These are complex fat dykes, not like Gulf Coast salt domes.220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There is presently an image of a quartz monzonite quarry on this page - the QM page refers to the potential for confusion between the two rocks. If they are two different things then why have this image on the granite page at all? cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
differentiation between granite and Gneiss
- I'm not clear which image you think looks like gneiss. There are also plenty of buildings that use granite in their construction, it's a very common dimension stone. Mikenorton (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
gemstone with similar name?
Isn't there a gemstone with a similar sounding name? Apparently not similar enough because not mentioned in the header. Like "not to be confused with name here" or something. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)Are you thinking of garnet? In many other languages this mineral is called "granat" or something similar, but there shouldn't be any confusion in English, where the words are distinct. Mikenorton (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to enlarge or adjust the "mineral assemblage for igneous rocks" diagram so that it can fill in some of the surrounding negative space on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a minor problem with that: the minerals add up to 100 % already with TiO2, so that the total is 100.17 %. If the source has them like that, then there should be an explanation for that. And my local library does not have any publications for those authors, so that I'd check it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The article says "Granite has poor primary permeability but strong secondary permeability." But neither this article nor the linked-to article on permeability explains the diff between primary and secondary permeability. Mcswell (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Primary permeability is the inherent permeability of the rock itself at the grain level (through grain boundaries), which is very low in granite due to the tight interlocking of the crystals. Secondary permeablity is talking about the rock mass as a whole, including the effects of discontinuities such as joints and weathering, both later effects and therefore secondary. See here. Mikenorton (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)