Talk:Pyrite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Pyrite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rocks and minerals (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Pyrite is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Arsenopyrite and chalcopyrite are not varieties of pyrite. Removed that and created arsenopyrite article.--Vsmith 23:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Melting Point[edit]

The melting point has been added to the data table. I'm not sure of the significance here and it probably needs to be qualified as it seems likely that, unless it is in a reducing environment, pyrite would oxidize and break down below that temperature if oxygen is present. Vsmith 01:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article correctly states that pyrite comes from greek "pyr" meaning fire. It is interesting that the element Silica (Si) in greek is actually translated Pyrite. I was looking today at the chemical composition of Pyrite and i was searching in vain for silica!.--User:Chris 3:02, 31 Aug 2005

Hi Chris, Silica (compound chemical formula SiO2), is distinct from the element Silicon, one of its primary constituents.
I'd also like to point out that the modern Greek word for pyrite is πυρίτης, the same as the word from which pyrite is derived from. Silica is πυρίτιο, I'm not sure what the etymology of that term is. Fumed silica formed by burning an un-oxidized silicon mineral and is added to a variety of industrial liquids to alter their viscous properties, but it's only one small use of many for the compound. Fun fact! -96.245.223.207 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Delisted GA[edit]

In a 3 to 0 vote, this article has been delisted in a Good Article review. While there are now two inline citations as opposed to none, the lead is still way too long, (Check WP:LEAD) and the article overall may still not have enough content for its subject. Review archived at Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 14. Homestarmy 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed edit[edit]

[1] True or false? Crystal whacker (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See Cat's-whisker detector. The added bit needs a bit of a cleanup tho'. Vsmith (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


I love this page. --Pyritie (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Semiconductor???[edit]

As of June 6th, 2009, A few lines in this article reference a news article at UC Berkeley proposing Pyrite as an alternative material for photovoltaic cells.

Article: [2]

Is Pyrite a semiconductor?

Can anyone explain further how pyrite is used for PV cells when it is described earlier in the article that pyrite weathers away over time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.150.8 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointless statement[edit]

"Auriferous pyrite is a valuable ore of gold." I removed this from intro. It literally says, "gold bearing pyrite is mined for gold." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.62.211 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I read it differently - it says that this specific compound is a valuable source of gold, which it might or might not be (there could be dozens of reasons why it might not). The only reason I haven't reverted you is lack of reference. Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The immediately preceding Carlin ref discusses arsenian pyrite stating: arsenian pyrite contains up to 0.37 wt% Au which would indeed be auriferous, but it is likely a bit redundant. Vsmith (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Taphonomy?[edit]

I reverted the section on taphonomy because the Alaska fossil preserved in--among other things--pyrite crystals is interesting but not notable. While a case may certainly be made for giving the Hadrosaur its own page, to include it here would seem to mean it would have to be included in the pages on Sand, Mud and Ocean Water. It's not like it was found encased in a solid-pyrite geode-like structure, at least not the way I read the cited text. Anyone have any thoughts? — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the fact that pyrite could be formed from waste left by sulfur-eating bacteria as they consumed a dinosaur carcass may be interesting to readers interested in consulting the article on pyrite for interesting ways that pyrite could form. But, maybe it's best that we deprive them of this information, just in case. Can't have people interested in pyrite learning about the unusual ways it could form. Who knows what they might do with that knowledge? Abyssal (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I was hoping for a response other than sarcasm. But if that's your best argument for inclusion... — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought I did make a good argument; people who read the article on pyrite are probably interested how it forms. The halo of pyrite crystals embedded in the mudstone surrounding a dinosaur skeleton resulting from bacterial participation in the decomposition of the carcass is a particularly colorful example of such. The inclusion of a section on taphonomy documents the significance pyrite has for an entire field of science not previously mentioned in the article. I fail to see how there is any grounds for removing that information. Abyssal (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No, actually you made no argument at all, other than waiting five hours before sticking the text back in. Here are some questions which, if addressed in the text, might make the subject notable for inclusion:
  • Why is this mentioned here? Is it an unusual occurrence?
  • If so, wouldn't a generic sentence "fossils have been found with pyrite crystals" better accomplish the task of informing the reader?
  • Wouldn't a (See Also) pointing to the Taphonomy article be more understandable and better meet the needs of our readers? If not, why not?
  • Why is there a second-level heading? Do you anticipate adding other entries? Why not wait until they're added?
  • Last but not least, what the heck is Taphonomy and why do I (the reader of a pyrite article) care?
In short, the addition sounds like a quote from an archeology textbook. In an article about pyrite, the sentences--especially the first--should be about pyrite and tell the reader why he/she is reading it. Instead, it says: "The Talkeetna Mountains Hadrosaur was a hadrosaurid of indeterminate classification whose remains represented the first associated skeleton of an individual dinosaur found in Alaska." Interesting, but so what?
Since this is an article on pyrite, we should write to that end. What's a "hadrosaurid"? Where are the Talkeetna Mountains? What is an "associated skeleton"? Why should I, the reader, care?
More importantly, why is this important to an article on pyrite? Should we include a section on the creation of iron in stellar cores? (Yeah, that is a bit much but maybe it illustrates my point.) The real issue is that "article creep"--sticking everything in--can make an otherwise good article nearly unreadable. It's certainly not "encyclopedic". — UncleBubba T @ C ) 12:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with UncleBubba here, the section as written doesn't belong. The information would better fit in the fossilization or taphonomy articles in a section on sulfur and pyrite formation. I could see a mention and link here to such development elsewhere within a perhaps needed section on pyrite development in sediments, but not as a stand alone section (undue wt.). Vsmith (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I yield. Abyssal (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Formation[edit]

Am I crazy, or is there no place to read or talk about the formation of pyrite? Um, like how it can only be formed in oxygen free environments and tends to be a framboid on other rocks? Does the formation section really not exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KreebleFlarg (talkcontribs) 06:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right (not 'bout the crazy bit), the article is lacking info on environments of formation. So just jump right in and add the missing section ... or wait for me to do it (monstrous to do list). Also thanks for the mention of framboid - didn't know we had that article (which also needs improving ...). Vsmith (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Structural description[edit]

Although one may well start out with CaF2 as a decription and then move the sulfur atoms away from ideal fluorite positions, this is hardly a helpful way of arriving at structural understanding because the shift has be rather large, resulting in a distance between the sulfur atoms clearly that becomes a bonding distance. In the fluorite there is no F-F bonding distance. Failing to point that out creates an odd contradiction-by-omission with the previous topic.

Another important point that is not made in the story is that the iron atom is not only a Fe(II) species but that it is in a low spin state Fe(II) species, giving the material a diamagnetic character. This can be understood from the (distorted) octahedral coordination of the iron by the disulfide (persulfide if you wish) moeities a strong ligands, not if you keep thinking in terms of loose sulfur atoms. Neither the octahedral coordination nor the spin state are mentioned and the structural description is rather garbled therefore. Jcwf (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Salt[edit]

The page for chemical salts links to this page, reffering to it as a type of salt.

Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Pyrite in building structures[edit]

I have added a section "Pyrite in building structures" to this article. I understand that this new section is not about geology or minerals and that the article is directed toward the chemical aspect of Pyrite. However some users may be searching for information about structural defects caused by pyrite when reading this article but such information were not included. I believe that the new section is a complement on this particular subject which is not covered by any other article on Wikipedia.--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Amastamozing"?[edit]

I'm having trouble finding this word as spelled especially in the citation that follows it. Mispelling? Kortoso (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

'Twas a spelling error - see Anastomosis. Fixed, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)