Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:26:19.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cell dimensions of olivine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

S. J. Louisnathan  and
J. V. Smith
S. J. Louisnathan
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago 60637, Illinois
J. V. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago 60637, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Cell dimensions obtained from X-ray powder photographs of twenty-four natural olivines and one synthetic forsterite have been related to the cation contents by a new statistical procedure developed by M. H. Hey. Unlike conventional statistical analysis, which assumes error only in one parameter, this procedure simultaneously considers the estimated errors in all variables.

Linear terms in Ca, Mn, Mg (or Fe(≡ 1-Mg-Ca-Mn)) satisfactorily account for the cell dimensions, and there was no need to invoke a term in Mg2. Since there are three cell dimensions and three chemical unknowns, it is theoretically possible to estimate the major cations in olivine just from the cell dimensions. However, the coefficients for Mn and Fe are so similar and the ranges of Ca and Mn are so small that the technique would be impractical.

Data for ideal (Mg,Fe) olivines were estimated by adjusting the cell dimensions by linear extrapolation from the cell dimensions of tephroite and monticellite. A simple chemical term was sufficient to account for each cell dimension. The linear relation between cell volume and Mg is consistent with the complete disorder of Mg and Fe revealed by parallel single-crystal X-ray studies.

The cell dimensions of a synthetic fayalite deviate significantly from those of natural fayalites after correction for the effects of Ca and Mn substitution in the latter: some structural or chemical difference, probably involving ferric iron, is indicated.

No superstructure lines have been found, in contradiction to Eliséev's data.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 36 , Issue 284 , December 1968 , pp. 1123 - 1134
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agterberg, (F. P.), 1964. Min. Mag., vol. 33, p. 742 [M.A. 16-565].Google Scholar
Birle, (J. D.), Gibbs, (G. V.), Moore, (P. B.), and Smith, (J. V.), 1968. Amer. Min. vol. 53, p. 807.Google Scholar
Bloss, (F. D.), 1952. Amer. Min., vol. 37, p. 966 [M.A. 12-317].Google Scholar
Bradley, (R. S.), Engel, (P.), and Munro, (D. C.), 1966. Min. Mag., vol. 35, p. 742 [M.A. 17-577].Google Scholar
Burnham, (C. W.), 1962. Ann. Rept. Dir. Geophys. Lab., Year Book 61, p. 132.Google Scholar
Chudoba, (K. F.) and Frechen, (J.), 1943. Neues Jahrb. Min., Monats., Abt. A, p. 91 [M.A. 9-153].Google Scholar
Duke, (D. A.) and Stephens, (J. D.), 1964. Amer. Min., vol. 49, p. 1388.Google Scholar
[Eliséev, (E. N.)] 1958. vol. 3, p. 167; transl, as Soviet Physics (Crystallography), vol. 3, p. 163.Google Scholar
Fisher, (G. W.), 1967. Ann. Rept. Dir. Geophys. Lab., Year Book 65, p. 209.Google Scholar
Guose, (S.), 1962. Amer. Min., vol. 47, p. 388.Google Scholar
Gibbs, (G. V.), Moore, (P. B.), and Smith, (J. V.), 1964. Geol. Soc. Amer., spec. paper no. 76, p. 66.Google Scholar
Henriques, (A), 1957. Arkiv Min. Geol., vol. 2, p. 305.Google Scholar
Hey, (M. H.), 1956. Min. Mag., vol. 31, p. 69.Google Scholar
Jackson, (E. D.), 1960. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof Paper 400B, p. B432 [M.A. 15-219].Google Scholar
Jambor, (J. L.) and Smith, (C. H.), 1964. Min. Mug., vol. 33, p. 730.Google Scholar
Lehmann, (H.), Dutz, (H.), and Koltermann, (M.), 1961. Ber. deutsch, keram. Gesell., vol. 38, p. 512.Google Scholar
Nafziger, (R. H.) and Muan, (A.), 1967. Amer. Min., vol. 52, p. 1364.[M.A. le)-ll0].Google Scholar
Onken, (H.), 1965. Tschermaks Min. Petr. Mitt., ser. 3, vol. 10, p. 33 [M.A. 17-560].Google Scholar
Sahama, (TH. G.) nd Hytönen, (K.), 1957. Min. Mag., vol. 31, p. 698.Google Scholar
Sahama, (TH. G.) and Torgeson, (D. R.), 194. Rept. Invest. U.S. Bur. Mines, no. 4408 [M.A. 11-145].Google Scholar
Santoro, (R. P.), Newnham, (R. E.), and Nomura, (S.), 1966. Journ. Phys. Chem. Solids, vol. 27, p. 655.Google Scholar
Smith, (J. V.), 1956. Min. Mag., vol. 31, p. 47.Google Scholar
Smith, (J. V.), 1966. Journ. Geol., vol. 74, p. 1 [M.A. 18-190].Google Scholar
Smith, (J. V.) and Stenstrom, (R. C.), 1965. Min. Mag., vol. 34, p. 436.Google Scholar
Wyderko, (M.) and Mazanek, (E.), 1968. Ibid., vol. 36, p. 955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoder, (H. S., JR.) and Sahama, (TH G.), 1957. Amer. Min., vol. 42, p. 475 [M.A. 14-146].Google Scholar