Fabre Minerals
FABRE MINERALS
High quality mineral specimens
Bringing you selected collectible minerals since 1971
Fabre Minerals

 

FMF - Minerals Forum, discussion and message board
The place to share your mineralogical experiences
Spanish message board


FMF English Forum is moderated by John S. White and Peter Megaw
Last postings
06 Sep-17:55:33 Re: ojuela mine (Javmex2)
06 Sep-15:41:54 Re: val's mineral collection (Peter Megaw)
06 Sep-15:21:00 Re: val's mineral collection (Montanpark)
06 Sep-15:16:19 Re: unusual fluorite (James)
06 Sep-15:11:46 Re: val's mineral collection (Carles Millan)
06 Sep-14:59:14 Val's mineral collection (Val)
06 Sep-14:32:43 Re: ojuela mine (Javmex2)


Newest topics and users posts

View unanswered posts

 

Why and how to register


Index Index
 FAQFAQ RegisterRegister  ProfileProfile Log inLog in


The time now is Sep 06, 2010 20:14




Search
Search

mineral bonding

    
  Index -> Minerals and Mineralogy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Jim Prentiss




Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 57
Location: Ohio

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Jun 06, 2010 08:19    Post subject: mineral bonding  

Hello Everyone,

I have been doing some reading on bonding, and I am wondering if there is any hard and fast rule to detemine the type of bond each mineral has? How can you tell whether one is either ionic, covalent or combination?( I am fairly confident I can determine metallic). Or is there some refernece that mentions what they are in the discriptions?

Thanks All,

Jim Prentiss
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote

Pete Richards




Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 86
Location: Northeast Ohio

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Jun 06, 2010 08:52    Post subject: Re: mineral bonding  

I can't give a complete answer, but minerals don't necessarily only have one kind of bonding. In micas, for example, the sheets parallel to the cleavage are composed of inter-linked silicate tetrahedra (four oxygens surrounding a silicon atom) and other metal (e.g. aluminum, iron, magnesium) octahedra (six oxygens surrounding the metal) which have strong bonds, whereas the layers are connected via large cations such as potassium via very weak bonds. This accounts for the ability of mica to be split into very thin sheets.

There's a lot of simplification in this reply - look up the mica group in any modern mineralogy text for a more complete treatment.

Dennen's Principles of Mineralogy indicates that in general elements that are located toward the left and right edges of the periodic table tend toward ionic bonding, while those nearer the middle tend toward covalent bonding. Bonding may be intermediate between covalent and ionic. Halite has ionic bonding, diamond has covalent bonding. Bonding in corundum is more ionic than covalent, but not completely ionic; bonding in sphalerite is more covalent than ionic. Many silicates are intermediate between covalent and ionic.

_________________
Collecting and studying crystals with intersting habits, twinning, and epitaxy
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote

Carles Millan




Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 639

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Jun 06, 2010 09:02    Post subject: Re: mineral bonding  

It depends on the difference between the electronegativity of the two atoms that form the bond. Halite bonds are mainly ionic. Quartz's are rather covalent. Diamond is completely covalent. However, in many sulfides, like galena and pyrite, there is a metallic bond, which means that the electrons are arranged in a kind of large cloud and explains why such minerals are never transparent. Native gold is, of course, completely metallic.

For more info about electronegativy values just google "electronegativity table", or search the Wikipedia.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote

Jim Prentiss




Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 57
Location: Ohio

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Jun 08, 2010 13:57    Post subject: Re: mineral bonding  

Thanks Gentlemen,

I am going to take a look at the periodic table.

Would it be safe to assume that the majority of ionic bonds are simple compounds?

Thanks again,

Jim Prentiss
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> Minerals and Mineralogy   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1
    

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


All pictures, text, design © Forum FMF 1996-2010