We use cookies to show content based on your preferences. If you continue to browse you accept their use and installation. More information. >

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


Spanish message board






Newest topics and users posts
27 Mar-19:47:08 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Pete Richards)
27 Mar-16:15:44 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-15:18:59 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Alfredo)
27 Mar-14:39:29 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-05:21:48 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Mim Museum)
27 Mar-05:03:26 Re: trying to find information on rose/pink quartz and tourmaline associations. (Ning)
27 Mar-02:39:50 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Tobi)
27 Mar-00:23:28 Re: collection of volkmar stingl (Volkmar Stingl)
26 Mar-00:53:41 Re: collection of volkmar stingl (Volkmar Stingl)
25 Mar-13:32:10 Re: collection of michael shaw (Michael Shaw)
25 Mar-00:25:58 The mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
23 Mar-13:35:22 Re: collection of firmo espinar (Firmo Espinar)
22 Mar-08:32:28 Re: collection of michael shaw (Michael Shaw)
22 Mar-04:20:41 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Mim Museum)
21 Mar-22:49:19 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-22:47:40 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-22:45:25 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-15:34:23 Re: the mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
21 Mar-14:35:08 Re: jim’s mineral collection (Jim Wilkinson)
21 Mar-14:15:36 The 4th phoenix heritage mineral show (phms) hosted by mineralogical society of arizona (m (Chris Whitney-smith)
21 Mar-04:36:10 Re: the mizunaka collection (Tobi)
21 Mar-04:11:47 Re: jim’s mineral collection (James Catmur)
20 Mar-23:34:15 The mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
20 Mar-18:13:16 Re: jim’s mineral collection (Jim Wilkinson)
20 Mar-14:06:43 Re: dry gill mine, caldbeck fells, cumbria, uk (Forrestblyth)

For lists of newest topics and postings click here


RSS RSS

View unanswered posts

Why and how to register

Index Index
 FAQFAQ RegisterRegister  Log inLog in
 {Forgotten your password?}Forgotten your password?  

Like
111799


The time now is Mar 28, 2024 04:26

Search for a textSearch for a text   

A general guide for using the Forum with some rules and tips
The information provided within this Forum about localities is only given to allow reference to them. Any visit to any of the localities requires you to obtain full permission and relevant information prior to your visit. FMF is strictly against any illicit activities related to collecting minerals.
Mass on mineral labels?
  
  Index -> Off-Topic and Introductions
Like
5


View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Bob Harman




Joined: 06 Nov 2015
Posts: 765


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Apr 03, 2018 15:46    Post subject: Mass on mineral labels?  

KAKOV, I notice that in your latest 2 photos (Baryte, Uzbekistan) besides giving the example's measurements, you give its weight. Small mineral specimens (thumbnails) are lighter in weight than large cabinet size mineral specimens and some minerals certainly are heavier, or lighter, than others, but the "weight" of the specimen seems not to be a necessary part of a photo or label. Novice collectors asking for a mineral's id often give their example's weight which I thought was an unnecessary parameter. Or maybe I am missing something here? BOB
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
1
   

Peter Lemkin




Joined: 18 Nov 2016
Posts: 398
Location: Prague

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Apr 04, 2018 01:25    Post subject: Re: Mass on mineral labels?  

On every one of my mineral labels I put the weight of the specimen, along with the other usual parameters and noted features, location, chemical formula, interesting notes, unusual habit, former collection [if famous only], etc. I've been doing that since I started collecting age six and have continued. I find it helpful to understand the S.G., especially when it is not a pure crystal or specimen, but is on matrix or in combination with other minerals. It also allows me to put it into my database and know the total weight of my mineral collection - perhaps my own personal obsession/oddity. As I love very dense minerals, this might have something to do with it too.... Just a personal observation. What one puts or doesn't put on a label is very personal and only a few things are absolutely essential - the rest can be measured as needed - but once you forget or loose the location it is a problem; or loose the mineral species [although I often find as I learn more about a mineral and location, I can sometimes refine the species or its variety - or correct a mistake from when it was purchased, traded or collected]
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
1
   

Carles Millan
Site Admin



Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 1463
Location: Catalonia


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Apr 04, 2018 03:20    Post subject: Re: Mass on mineral labels?  

Bob Harman wrote:
KAKOV, I notice that in your latest 2 photos, besides giving the example's measurements, you give its weight. Small mineral specimens (thumbnails) are lighter in weight than large cabinet size mineral specimens and some minerals certainly are heavier, or lighter, than others, but the "weight" of the specimen seems not to be a necessary part of a photo or label. Novice collectors asking for a mineral's id often give their example's weight which I thought was an unnecessary parameter. Or maybe I am missing something here? BOB

Please notice that Mindat encourages adding the mass (colloquially known as weight) of the specimens published in such site.

It may be very useful, along with a photo, when trying to identify a specimen which either computer record or label has been accidentally lost. I keep it for each piece in my collection.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
1
   

kakov




Joined: 24 Jul 2013
Posts: 39
Location: Madrid


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Apr 04, 2018 05:50    Post subject: Mass on mineral labels  

Bob, Peter, Carles, thanks a lot for commenting around this interesting topic.
Normally I do not put the mass. Recently I have been looking on meteorites (where weight is more important than size), hence I had my electronic weighing machine at hand. So I added this parameter to show the small additional pleasure (as Peter, I also like dense minerals:) Inspired by this discussion I think I will do it consequently from now on.

As for what we put on labels:
On our own labels at home: strictly speaking there is only one essential info, the exact locality, all other info is “luxury”, but pleasant for our contact with our collection.
On Internet: It is a question of conventions. Nevertheless, there are very good arguments in favor of including the mass. Apart from those already mentioned above I would like to add one more: The idea is that the info we supply with the photo should help the viewers to relate to the piece. I.e. facilitate our mental re-creation in real space of what we see in virtual space. With this in mind, the weight is a very useful additional clue.

Another question is that most of us (including myself) are not used to “think in weight”. We all immediately feel the difference between 2cm and 4cm, or if not we use our fingers. But the same does not occur with same ease between 20 grams and 40 grams. Maybe we should train ourselves a bit. (for instance, by weighting some of our favorite pieces, hereby establishing “personal benchmarking”)

summary: The electronic weighing machine is not a standard tool for the “classic” mineral collection but it is not a bad idea to have one. They are cheap.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
1
   

Peter Lemkin




Joined: 18 Nov 2016
Posts: 398
Location: Prague

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Apr 04, 2018 23:48    Post subject: Re: Mass on mineral labels?  

As was mentioned by someone above, should a disaster happen to your collection [I had one that was partly flooded], though I still had 98% of the labels - they were not with the minerals any longer and having the size AND the weight made it a LOT easier to put the labels with the specimens (and make new ones). But wind, a child or an earthquake and many other mishaps could cause a similar event. Personally, I have a label card with several lines of information and an A-4 sheet on computer with LOTS of fields where I can enter more information on each specimen. I think (personally) Species name, size, weight, location, and [for me] a coded price I purchased/traded it for (on the back), with ! meaning I collected myself it are essential - although I often put more on my labels, including chemical formula, S.G. and hardness, as well as other interesting brief remarks. On the longer computer form I can put just about everything one can imagine about a mineral specimen and only the more interesting, favorite or special specimens have full or nearly full such pages. The others have the basics, so I can ask the computer how many of X I have, their total weight, total price, average price/gm - or other questions that might interest me. Of course only species name and location are essential - and each decides for themselves what else to put on a label or stored elsewhere.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
1
   

Carles Millan
Site Admin



Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 1463
Location: Catalonia


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Apr 05, 2018 02:54    Post subject: Re: Mass on mineral labels?  

Peter Lemkin wrote:
As was mentioned by someone above, should a disaster happen to your collection [I had one that was partly flooded], though I still had 98% of the labels - they were not with the minerals any longer and having the size AND the weight made it a LOT easier to put the labels with the specimens (and make new ones).

And with just several clicks you can quickly know how much mass (weight) supports every shelf in your showcase. Not very important, it seems, but useful when you have glass shelves rather thin and a lot of pieces on them. To prevent a disaster.

Maybe this topic would have to be moved to another thread.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

kakov




Joined: 24 Jul 2013
Posts: 39
Location: Madrid


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Apr 05, 2018 04:07    Post subject: Re: Mass on mineral labels?  

Carles Millan wrote:
(...)
Maybe this topic would have to be moved to another thread.


hi Carles, I am fine. We could move all the inputs starting from Bob Harman - Apr 03, 2018 21:46

We could for example call the new string "Mass on mineral labels" - or whatever you wish. Thank you.
____________________________________________________

Done
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

kakov




Joined: 24 Jul 2013
Posts: 39
Location: Madrid


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: May 11, 2018 14:35    Post subject: Fulgurite, sea foam and further off-topics in a ‘weight-landscape’  

I am fond of the gorgeously unscientific concept of “look and feel”. Apart from colour and shape, it is a combination of fractures, textures, luster, transparency, volume and mass and “consistency” of our minerals. All together. These are the basic physical properties we can directly and easily relate to while interacting with a stone in the physical world. Most of them can somehow be represented on a photo except the mass*. That adds an important dimension though! Not just for technical but also due to “experience” reasons.

We tend to make an intuitive correlation with increased economic value for minerals with higher specific gravity (and harder hardness) but this does need to be always true.

Also the visual aspect of a piece often predetermine the expected mass. (e.g. metallic or sulfide like minerals are expected heavy; dark minerals are expected heavier than bright ones) Again, it does not need to be so, and contradiction between expected and experienced mass can create a curious effect.
To play a bit around these (and other related) ideas, I took 11 minerals (some on the edge of mineralogy) in similar size range but with very different weights.
They are on the first picture. Then I weighted all of them, showed on second picture.

This is the list:
1 Tschermigite, Mogyorósbánya, Hungary (19g)
2. Corundum (var Ruby), Madagascar (41g)
3. Sepiolie, Turkey (14g)
4. Mellite, Csordakút Hungary (10g)
5. Quartz (var. lemon Q.) Brazil (43g)
6. Galena, Bulgaria (84g)
7. Spinel, Sri Lanka (54g)
8. Tourmaline (71g)
9. Native Arsenic (with silver), Germany (217g)
10. Amber (Baltic) (66g)
11. 'Fulgurite' (tube of vitrified sand) (Morrocco) (30g)

Comments:
Mellite (Nbr 4 and separate picture) is a cool organic mineral. This 3,5 x 2,5 x 1,5 cm crystal cluster is OK of its kind. I put it as example that something very light and without spectacular colours can have a certain economic value. Definitely they are much more valuable than the ruby I show (nbr 2) that have a nice colour but is completely opaque, hence practically without any economic value.

Sepiolite (Nbr 3 and separate picture) is known from several localities, but as far as I know only the Turkish one is suitable for carving smoking pipes and other objects. Export in rough state is banned since the 1970ies. It is extremely light, and as the German name meerschaum (=’sea foam’) indicates it floats on water (I have tried).
On the next picture I contrast it with a tourmaline crystal of similar size, obviously much heavier. (14g vs 71g). Also as an allusion to the stories that sailors used to pull the ashes from their pipes (of meerschaum?) with tourmaline crystals (due to the piezoelectricity).

The visual esthetics of the chunk of gray Native Arsenic (Nbr 9) (Gruba Pöhla, Erzgebirge, Saxony, Germany) is only slightly improved by having small native silver crystals on it. Nevertheless, I think it is a gorgeous piece. Watching this type of gray appearance, you do not expect it weights so much. Also I like the idea of being an older historical piece.

Amber (10) is not a mineral, but still it is also a marvelous material with fantastic history, also culturally. We must remember the impact it had before plastic was invented… There are amber localities several places in the world, but the Baltic amber is still by far the best. It also floats. After the strong winter storms, it is picked up on the beaches of for instance Denmark.

The fulgurite (11) is sand vitrified by lightening. This one is from the Sahara. This glass is not a mineral either, actually we could talk about “de-mineralization” of the quartz in the sand grains. (as mineral definition is linked to crystal lattice, that is destroyed by vitrification.) But still the “look and feel” I would classify clearly as that of some kind of stone. When you lift it up it is surprisingly light though, as it is hollow inside.

(*Note “Specific gravity” is already a level of certain abstraction that we create combining mass and volume)
PD: Even if it is strictly speaking not correct, I am using here “mass” and “weight” as synonyms, of literary reasons.



1.all.jpg
 Mineral: (see above in text)
 Description:
Locality: (see above in text)
Dimensions: (see ruler)
1 Tschermigite, Mogyorósbánya, Hungary (19g)
2. Korindon (var Ruby), Madagascar (41g)
3. Sepiolie, Turkey (14g)
4. Mellite, Csordakút Hungary (10g)
5. Quartz (var. lemon Q.) Brazil (43g)
6. Galena, Bulgaria (84g)
7. Spinel, Sri Lanka (54g)
8. Tourmaline (71g)
9. Native Arsenic (with silver), Germany (217g)
10. Amber (Baltic) (66g)
11. 'Fulgurite' (tube of vitrified sand) (Morrocco) (30g)
 Viewed:  9515 Time(s)

1.all.jpg



2.masses.jpg
 Mineral: (see above in text)
 Description:
Locality: several
Dimensions: (see ruler)
 Viewed:  9511 Time(s)

2.masses.jpg



3.Mellite.jpg
 Mineral: Mellite
 Locality:
Csordakúti Mine, Bicske-Csordakút, Bicske-Zsámbéki Basin, Fejér, Hungary
 Dimensions: 3,5 x 2,5 x 1,5 cm (10 g)
 Description:
commented in text
 Viewed:  9572 Time(s)

3.Mellite.jpg



4.Tourmaline, sepiolite.jpg
 Mineral: Sepiolite (and Tourmaline)
 Dimensions: (see ruler) (71g and 14g).
 Description:
commented in text
 Viewed:  9563 Time(s)

4.Tourmaline, sepiolite.jpg



5.Fulgurite.jpg
 Mineral: 'Fulgurite' (tube of vitrified sand)
 Dimensions: FoV: 3 x 3 cm (total piece 30g)
 Description:
commented above in text
 Viewed:  9591 Time(s)

5.Fulgurite.jpg


Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> Off-Topic and Introductions   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 2006-2024


Powered by FMF