#Your ROCKDB data
Hi Doug—
Yes, starting a formula with PO4 *did* come from a phosphate-oriented book. (As
usual, I'm late answering, and have lost the train of thought. Any day now
(actually, next week…) I'll be more free with my time.) Starting a formula
with PO4 is totally alien to me as a chemist. The anion goes last! ARGH! But
whatever…….
I looked through my books for a quickie refresher on IUPAC silicate standards.
No joy, I must have left them behind. I once considered joining IUPAC, but
they're really expensive, so I never did. Perhaps if one of us asked in the
chemistry section, we might get enlightened. I'll post the question later.
IUPAC tends towards the REAL name of things. No holds barred, length isn't a
requirement. And none of this "butyl" stuff, it's 1,1,1 trimethyl methane.
(IUPAC is a formal convention for naming things. You don't want to hear about
proteins! (G)) IUPAC isn't intended to dispel confusion, and they don't.
What I had in mind for the upcoming CO was a discussion about mineral database
specs. Like, conventions for naming things. Or their colors, etc…. I of
course personally think we should stick with the ones we're already using. But
whatever it takes, we need more minerals in the database. I dunno, *I'm*
willing to edit data to fit our requirements. And maybe I have extra time. I
think a mass effort, like the Stoneware people who did FRACTINT, might get us a
really nice result. At the moment, I'd be willing to spearhead such a
group…… It would be nice if we could do it as shareware, but that's of
course open to discussion…..JD