CompuServe Messages

Hi Doug– As you gathered from my e-mail, my schedule is somewhat uncertain at the moment. Heck, I'm all in favor of consisteny, as you know. It makes life a lot simpler to searh on "TRG', rather than "TGL", "TRI", and "TGN"….. My formulae were copied directly from the books, which also have no consistency. (ARGH!) An add-on to ROCKDB.ARC is cool. Just as long as we get the data there….. I'm entirely uncertain of what's going on with sub/superscripts. The version I have allows ony plain-text. It has no coding for any sub/super scripts. So I typed in (for example) Fe(+2), or Fe(+3). And just as a nitpick, these should be SUPERscripted, not SUBscripted (G). Personally, as a chemist, I follow IUPAC nomenclature. Your formulations are correct as I see them. (I accept anything that gets the molecular structure across!) And yes, pinite is a metamorphic thing. Having looked it up a couple of hors ago, I completely forget. A decay product of a feldspar/clay/semiprecious. (Sorry about the terminology, it's really late. You get the idea. Pinite isn't real, per se. A mineraloid. Dana goups *much* welcomed, I don't have access to the data.. Not to worry about who gets credit. Our objective (and yes I'm following the thread) is to get a complete mineral database. We're all collaborators….JD PS— If you're into fractals, look at the success FRACTINT has had. Collaborators, dammit. Our database will ultimately dominate. Now, all we have to do is include everyone else's…… (ARGH! We *need* conventions!) ….JD Bailing out without proofreading. It's late….