#Your ROCKDB data
3 messages in this thread
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….
Hi, Jerry–
Actually I tend to cheat on the Dana group entries in the database; often I
simply look at the formula and choose a group. Many times this can be done
with confidence, when there is only one anion, but my choices may prove
whimsical when one mineral contains phosphate, carbonate, sulfate, and
fluoride, for example.
You did not alter the formulae from the books? I thought the appearance of PO4
at the start of the formulae reflected your own prejudices.
If you typed in parentheses with the superscripted charges, it did not come
through to me in the .WK1 you sent. It seems Lotus has a few tricks for the
unwary regarding mixing of superscripts, subscripts, and conversion to old
format. Where I expected Fe4+2 (where the 4 would be subscripted and the 2
superscripted), for example, I received only Fe+2, so consistently I figured
Lotus must have done it.
–Doug
Hi Doug-
Well, your cheats on the Dana group entries are OK with me. To be perfectly
honest with you, I don't understand them (and me a crystallographer, chemist,
and rockhound!), so I ignore them. Heck, your choices will probably break
ground if we finally get our full database together. I might be adding more in
the future. (Heh, heh…. I have a bit of time on my hands…)
>I thought the appearance of PO4 at the start
>of the formulae reflected your own prejudices.
No sirree! I really didn't alter them from the books, I copied directly. I'm a
scientist, so I followed science and did what was taught in the books.
Moreover, I'm a chemist. You will never ever not no way not nohow catch a
chemist starting a formula with PO4. We start formulas with the cations. (Na,
K, Ca, Fe+2, whatever…) Just following their conventions. *I* would never
personally write a formula that way. PO4 is a peon, the cation comes first! (as
for the order of anions, and the *real* way you're supposed to write out all of
the various silicate subgroups, IUPAC has a nomenclature. My personal feeling
is that very few will search on formula, so whatever works….. as long as it
conveys an accurate idea….. Silicates can be really complex, as you know….)
Ummm, no idea about the sub/superscripts. And it has nothing to do with Lotus.
See, I do it in Lotus (the most appropriate thing I can beg/borrow/steal). I
export it to a flat ASCII file, and hand-edit it into CSV. That's why it takes
me so long. I can't print out a Lotus file neatly, and compare to a CSV to see
if I got it right. My desktop publishing is limited to PrintShop. (I don't
normally do DTP. Guess I might change in the near future, huh? (G)) So what you
get is an import of "X"," ","Fe4(+2)…" It does sound like some one of our
protocols is blowing it though.
My sub/superscripting abilities are limited to printing them (and rarely!) If I
really had to, I'd put in code specific to my printer. (for example, (esc)
)20.1Sh,20DJP,1,3,51f). (Example only! Needless to say, I don't practice this
kind of barbarism unless I really need to!) (Welllll, OK, I, um, used to have
to do masterpieces on a mainframe. But I don't practice this at home….)
Your point about conventions is well taken. We have enough to worry about
already without worrying about "TRG" vs "TRI", or "ORN" vs "ORG" vs…… Heck,
I'm a spec person. We decide what's convenient and get on with life. We live
with what we decided, or lobby for change. But as you point out, time and
again, we gotta stick with conventions and standards. We have to nitpick our
fellows (but in such a manner as to keep them coming back, an art if ever there
was one!) to get it perfect.
We write the specs. Quality is conformance to the specs. OK, I'm getting
carried away. You'll know why if you read your e-mail…… I got nothing
better to do at the moment but hang out in the forum……..
Conventions, specs, whatever. Of course, I'll be willing to polish up any of
the data bases I've seen offered here so far. But we *have* to follow
conventions. I dunno, I'm really up for a specs/conventions CO or seminar.
Like, I got something *else* to do? Come to think of it, maybe I can start a
SPEC/CONVENTION course? (OK, being wishful thinking…..) See ya later, it's
late as usual…..JD