CompuServe Messages

Kamron I've had a chance to look at the samples under various powers of Optical Light Microscopy (OLM), but I probably won't get to look at them under SEM. (I don't happen to have one in my lab, but maybe we'll run one or two later in the semester if we have other samples going in). I've also discussed this with a graduate student here, Sho, who is doing his thesis on polish. All but one of the stones you sent is almost certainly quartz. The other is a piece of granite or gneiss (too small to tell by just looking at it) but the piece is mainly quartzy stuff within a granitic matrix. The surfaces all show some degree of gloss. Some of them, possibly all if inspected closely enough, show carbonate encrustations, the result of being embedded in a matrix with the appropriate materials. The sheen, or gloss, which is visible on all the samples but to varying degrees, is as I understand it the main point you are making. This kind of gloss projects under most conditions as a shiny surface, except under the greatest magnification. There are scratches on some of the surfaces as well. The orange peel effect you mention is clearly visible on one of the surfaces. It is interesting to note that the gloss is stronger on the outside aspects of this surface than in the pits. Also, where a stone or two has a facet that is less exposed, you see reduced gloss there as well. This is all typical of what we see as resulting from erosional experiments, where we put freshly broken material in a tumbler, or in use wear experiments where we use a freshly made stone tool to, say, butcher up a deer and process the hide, etc., or to process plants. The gloss is most commonly formed, by the way, in processing plants with a lot of silica. And in fact, in streams, etc., it is mainly the silica in the substrate that results in the polish formation. The polish is identified as erosional because it is more common on outermost facing surfaces, at the semi-micro level in the orange peel pits, and at the larger level around the facts, where they occur. It is also distinguished from melting because in some cases the quartz crystal structure is clearly visible. If the stone had actually vitrified, this structure would be obliterated or would remain only vaguely and probably show distortion (I'm assuming that you are suggesting that the glossy nature as a result of melting also accounts partly or largely for the globular shape of the stones). In the experiments we've done in our labs here, and experiments done elsewhere, the striations that result in gloss on silica material (like quartz, chert, etc.) are in the sub 1 micron range, accompanied by a small number of larger striations which may be nearly 1 micron wide and up to tens of microns long. The latter are visible on the samples you sent me, the former not visible with the equipment I have available to me in my own lab (but I will cart them along next time I go to the labs with the big mean machines in them). I don't see anythin consistant with melting as causing the surface characteristics of the stones you sent. The additional characteristics you describe seem to be the result of calcrete formation (carbonates) on the surface of the stones from the matrix. You are right in that this would probably wash off at least partly, although this stuff can be pretty hard to get off some times. Hope this helps. More later if I can take closer obervations. Cheers, GTL – Greg Laden, Written 13-Sep-1994 @ 21:08:34 Using: Windows NavCIS PRO 1.25