Jump to content

Talk:Granite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.243.106.82 (talk) at 20:09, 10 January 2021 (→gravestone image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:WP1.0

Quartz is not ONE thing - it has different forms

Quartz exists in two forms, the normal α-quartz and the high-temperature β-quartz, both of which are chiral. No mention of which kind is found in granite - the α-quartz is the more common.


gravestone image

Unfortunately, The gravestone depicted is composed of slate, not granite. Perhaps it should be redirected to the slate article WaynaQhapaq (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? There are two images of gravestones. Wizard191 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hingham, Massachusetts gravestone is slate. The polished tombstone with the masonic square and compasses is indeed red granite. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. Wizard191 (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

radiation

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 68.225.160.10 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those quoted sections because they weren't supported by the cited source. Wizard191 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced corrected version, seems it was vandalized over a year ago and didn't get caught until now. Thanks to the anon and Wizard191 for catching & removing it. Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Granitoid

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)[reply]

I've added it to my 'to-do' list, but don't hold your breath. Mikenorton (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already created an article for it. Volcanoguy 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, updated my 'to-do' list to expand that. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granite emplacement

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.


203.3.232.28 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.203.3.232.28 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vsmith" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.232.28 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong image?

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)[reply]

I removed the image. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

differentiation between granite and Gneiss

Uhh... you don't build with granite, you build with gneiss. Please fix appropriately. Also the image seems to be of gneiss, not granite. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is garnet is english, not that similar. In finnish they are graniitti (rock) and granaatti (gemstone), quite similar. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

size adjustments

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)[reply]

Chemical composition

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. 212.50.203.198 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

permeability

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

massive

"Granite is nearly always massive (lacking any internal structure)" Shouldn't it be "Granite is nearly always very dense" ? The next sentence goes on to describe its density. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.32.10 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive here is in reference to the fabric or texture of the rock constituents. Massive: no noticeable orientation or arrangement of platey or elongated constituent minerals. No relation to density which is simply mass per unit volume. Granite is not "very dense" compared to the more iron rich basaltic rocks. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification 108.65.32.10 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

This probably should be in article: some of modern granite (from India) is mined by slaves: [1], [2] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikepedians and Piotr, As an architect who works extensively with granite in India I have to insist that contents of this article should stick to the topic at hand which is scientifically verifiable information about the stone. Neither are there child labourers in the granite quarries nor are there slaves anywhere in India. People do take their children to work, which is far healthier than leaving them in day care. And there may be people who have taken loans on unrepayable terms which forces them to work for the money lender in order to repay their loans. Though a bad situation, this cannot be termed slavery any more than the millions of credit card defaulters in the world can be called slaves (to the system). As more children have gone to school and more people have come under the ambit of the formal economy both so called child labour and bonded labour can only be found in movies from the 1960s. I hope this line on slavery can be taken off from the page on Granite, they are unrelated topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnit (talk • contribs) 09:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Granite. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Granite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How human attribute to destruction of granitic landforms

Blasting

.leveling the ground to build buildings

.creating roads- cut through mountains, dig under mountains 

Johan mazanhi (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Granite&oldid=999557523"