Talk:Lazurite: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:26, 17 July 2023

Geology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Lazurite 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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals C‑class Mid‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Lazurite 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.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image

"It (lazulite) is often confused with lazurite, lapis lazuli or azurite". I exchanged the images. image:Lazuryt,_Niemcy.jpg looks like lapislazuli to me, a mix of minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the chemical formula?

Ummm ... The different references have contradictory chemical formulas. I trust the one from Mindat.org. (Na, Ca)8 (Al6 Si6 O24) (S, SO4, Cl2). Please, a geologist sort this out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.212.34 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 March 2011

One of the important things is that is contains the S3- ion to give it colour. That is not apparent in the formula, all we have is "s".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 March 2011

Can you cite an authoritative reference for that formula?

Heh. Theres also this formula: (Na,Ca)8 (Al6 Si6 O24)(S,SO4,Cl2). How can the same chemical have so many different formulas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.212.34 (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The formula in the article essentially follows the Hurbut and Klein reference, (the ref I used back in Jan. 06) the Handbook of Mineralogy ref only varies by adding hydroxide. Both of those are "authoritative refs". The Webmineral data site provides a shorter version and the Mindat website seems to be offline right now. Vsmith (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindat accessed now and they agree with formula given - the diffs are mainly sleight variations in order and paren locations. Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a purist approach that one chemical formula and one crystal cell is one mineral, but reality is less strict. There are liquid IMA/CNMNC valid minerals (mercury), amorphous IMA/CNMNC valid minerals (allophane), and mineraloid IMA/CNMNC valid names (opal). Many minerals have a chemical formula as a range, some minerals don't have a complete description, yet. Lapis lazuli is the most expensive blue color of the antiquity, and Lazurite's chemical formula is one that is given as a range Na₆Ca₂Al₆Si₆O₂₄[(SO₄), S, Cl, (OH)]₂. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you mix things up:

Reality is:

each mineral has an IDEAL formula, that is COMPLETELY INVARIABLE; if an ideal formula is variable then we have more than a single mineral
"one crystal cell is one mineral": this doesn't make sense at all

a crystal cell is a UNIT cell of a crystal; one crystal is a mineral, another one (e.g., a crystal of a virus; or any synthetic compound) is not - as simple as it is

mercury IS NOT A MINERAL........... it is a mineralloid; also, mercury ALWAYS has the formula "Hg"
allophane is not a mineral --- is is amorphous; however, it was known prior to IMA --> now it has the "grandfathered" status; it will soon be discredited
Lapis lazuli IS NOT A MINERAL - it is actually a rock...

Thus, again, a suggestion: first - become a mineralogist, accept the MINERALOGY rules (IMA), THEN comment Eudialytos (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of changes to lazurite

Lazurite is not what was thought to be some years ago. New Russian data clearly shows it to be very rare, currently exclusively known from the Malo-Bystrinskoe deposit (Russia). ALL the lapis lazuli material is LACKING LAZURITE. The blue colourant of the Afghan rock is haüyne. Also, the correct formula is: Na7Ca(Al6Si6O24)(SO4)(S3)·H2O.Eudialytos (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Refs.:[reply]

https://www.mindat.org/min-2357.html

https://mineralogy-ima.org/Minlist.htm

Sapozhnikov, A.N., Chukanov, N.V., Shendrik, R.Yu., Vigasina, M.F., Tauson, V.L., Lipko, S.V., Belakovskiy, D.I., Levitskii, V.I., Suvorova, L.F., Ivanova, L.A. (2021): Lazurite: validation as a mineral species and new data. Zapiski RMO: 150: 92-102.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :Mindat accessed now and they agree with formula given - the diffs are mainly sleight variations in order and paren locations. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith|talk]]) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 ::There is a purist approach that one chemical formula and one crystal cell is one mineral, but reality is less strict. There are liquid IMA/CNMNC valid minerals ([[mercury]]), amorphous IMA/CNMNC valid minerals ([[allophane]]), and mineraloid IMA/CNMNC valid names ([[opal]]). Many minerals have a chemical formula as a range, some minerals don't have a complete description, yet. [[Lapis lazuli]] is the most expensive blue color of the antiquity, and Lazurite's [http://www.handbookofmineralogy.com/pdfs/lazurite.pdf chemical formula] is one that is given as a range Na<sub>6</sub>Ca<sub>2</sub>Al<sub>6</sub>Si<sub>6</sub>O<sub>24</sub>[(SO<sub>4</sub>), S, Cl, (OH)]<sub>2</sub>. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
+:::Sorry, but you mix things up:
+:::Reality is:
+:::* each mineral has an IDEAL formula, that is COMPLETELY INVARIABLE; if an ideal formula is variable then we have more than a single mineral
+:::* "one crystal cell is one mineral": this doesn't make sense at all
+:::a crystal cell is a UNIT cell of a crystal; one crystal is a mineral, another one (e.g., a crystal of a virus; or any synthetic compound) is not - as simple as it is
+:::* mercury IS NOT A MINERAL........... it is a mineralloid; also, mercury ALWAYS has the formula "Hg"
+:::* allophane is not a mineral --- is is amorphous; however, it was known prior to IMA --> now it has the "grandfathered" status; it will soon be discredited
+:::* Lapis lazuli IS NOT A MINERAL - it is actually a rock...
+:::Thus, again, a suggestion: first - become a mineralogist, accept the MINERALOGY rules (IMA), THEN comment [[User:Eudialytos|Eudialytos]] ([[User talk:Eudialytos|talk]]) 22:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 =='''Lots of changes to lazurite'''==