Talk:Fluoride phosphate

Law_of_definite_proportions

Just to be sure, the chemicals discussed here, for the most part, satisfy the Law_of_definite_proportions? Gah4 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In minerals the situation is more complex as there may be some substitution going on. When I get around to adding artificial substances, that will be clear. 2×(number of carbonates)+(number of fluorides) = sum of charge on cations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

Magniotriplite is no longer a (separate) mineral species. It has been shown to be just a variety, of wagnerite.https://www.mindat.org/min-2540.html Eudialytos (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the unit cell parameters are wildly different. Do you have references that explains the discrepancy? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discrepancy .and it doesn't matter here: the IMA commission has voted to discredit this species, and it is no longer treated as a separate mineral. I've given the references above: https://www.mindat.org/min-2540.html:

"A variety of Wagnerite

A discredited iron- and magnesium-rich structural variety (polytype) of wagnerite.

Originally described from Karasu granite pegmatite, Turkestan Range, Osh Oblast, Kyrgyzstan and Kyrk-Bulak granite pegmatite, Turkestan Range, Osh Oblast, Kyrgyzstan."

Ref.:

Ren, L., Grew, E.S., Xiong, M. & Ma, Z. (2003): Wagnerite-Ma5bc, a new polytype of Mg2(PO4)(F,OH), from granulite-facies paragneiss, Larsemann Hills, Prydz Bay, East Antarctica. Canadian Mineralogist 41, 393-411

Eudialytos (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discreditation of a mineral species is conducted via a proposal file, that is filled-in and sent to the IMA so that they vote & decide. Then goes a paper.

Mindat is the most comprehensive an on-time source of "compacted" mineralogical knowledge that is based on the work of mineralogy scientists (including me), who update the site frequently. Any new data introduced to Mindat must have a reference added. And this is why I always use Mindat (www) reference here.Eudialytos (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the mindat reference was there, but I have removed the line from the table, as the whole lot of data may be dubious. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eudialytos (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorophosphate

Since this is different from, but similar name to Fluorophosphate, should it be mentioned here? Also, Iron-Doped Sodium–Vanadium Fluorophosphate, if I understand, is not a Fluorophosphate, but maybe the O can move around, such that it is. Gah4 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have add mention of Fluorophosphate as you suggest. That "Iron-Doped Sodium–Vanadium Fluorophosphate" is what the reference called it, even if it is not correct! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]