Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:10:25.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of pressure on reversible solid-solid transitions in nepheline and carnegieite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

Lewis H. Cohen  and
William Klement Jr.
Lewis H. Cohen
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside 92502
William Klement Jr.
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles 90024. Now on leave at National Physical Research Laboratory, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Differential thermal analysis of a rapidly reversible transition in carnegieite to 7 kbar shows the transition temperature increases from ⪝ 707°C (on heating) at I bar with initial slope ≈ 8·0 deg kbar−1 and anomalous curvature (d2T/dp2 > o), with hysteresis between heating and cooling signals that decreases with pressure. DTA of rapidly reversible transitions in nepheline shows the very subtle transition near 185°C (on heating) at 1 bar decreases with pressure to ≈ 170°C near 2-3 kbar and hardly varies in temperature up to 6 kbar; and the higher temperature transition increases from ≈ 872°C (on heating) at 1 bar with slope ≈ 25 deg kbar−1, to 5 kbar, with the hysteretic interval remaining essentially unchanged in the investigated range.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 40 , Issue 313 , March 1976 , pp. 487 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1976

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

Barth, (T. F. W.) and Posnjak, (E.), 1932. Zeits. Krist. 81, 135.Google Scholar
Bowen, (N. L.) and Greig, (J. W.), 1925. Amer. Journ. Sci. 210, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conen, (L. H.) and Klement, (W.), 1973. Amer. Min. 58, 796.Google Scholar
Conen, (L. H.) and Klement, (W.), 1974. Journ. Chem. Eng. Data, 19, 210.Google Scholar
Conen, (L. H.) and Klement, (W.), 1975. Journ. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 58, 206.Google Scholar
Conen, (L. H.) and Klement, (W.) and Adams, (H. G.), 1974. Amer. Min. 59, 1099.Google Scholar
Donnav, (G.), Schairer, (J. F.), and Donnay, (J. D. H.), 1959. Min. Mag. 32, 93.Google Scholar
Kelley, (K. K.), Todd, (S. S.), Orr, (R. L.), King, (E. G.), and Bonnickson, (K. R.), 1953. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report 4955, 21 pp.Google Scholar
Klement, (W.) and Cohen, (L. H.), 1975. Ber. Bunsenges. physikal Chem. 79, 327-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, (D. M.) and Roy, (R.), 1971. Indian Min. 10, 16.Google Scholar
Tuttle, (O. F.) and Smith, (J. V.), 1958. Amer. Journ. Sci. 256, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar