Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:42:39.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Merwinite as an artificial mineral1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

James Phemister ,
R. W. Nurse  and
F. A. Bannister
James Phemister
Affiliation:
Geological Survey and Museum, London
R. W. Nurse
Affiliation:
Building Research Station, Watford, Herts
F. A. Bannister
Affiliation:
Mineral Department, British Museum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the investigation of the system CaO–MgO–SiO2 by Ferguson and Merwin the orthositicate 3CaO.MgO.2SiO2 was not observed, and the existence of this compound was first proved in 1921 by Larsen and Foshag who detected it in a contact-altered limestone at Crestmore, California, and gave to it the name merwinite. Since then this compound has been found in contact-altered limestones at Scawt Hill, Antrim, near Neihart in the Little Belt Mts. of Montana, and at Velardeña, Mexico. The history of the recognition of merwinite as an artificial mineral is less easy to trace, but it seems that research workers on refractory bricks were the first to recognize its existence. Thus U.S.A. Patents applied for in the years 1934 and 1935 and British Patents applied for on 11.10.1935 and 19.5.1936 by Non-Metallic Minerals Inc. specify merwinite and periclase as the essential constituents of a refractory brick produced by firing mixtures of dolomite and serpentine, dolomite and sand, or impure magnesite and dolomite at temperatures varying between 2700° and 2900° F.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 26 , Issue 177 , June 1942 , pp. 225 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1942

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.)

Footnotes

1

Communicated by permission of the Director, Geological Survey and Museum.

References

page 225 note 2 Ferguson, J. B. and Merwin, H. E., Amer. Journ. Sci., 1919, ser. 4, vol. 48, p. 81. [M.A. 1–321.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 225 note 3 Larsen, E. S. and Foshag, W. F., Amer. Min., 1921, vol. 6, p. 143. [M.A. 1–254.]Google Scholar

page 225 note 4 Tilley, C. E., Min. Mag., 1929, vol. 22, p. 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 225 note 5 Taylor, J. H., Amer. Min., 1935, vol. 20, p. 124. [M.A. 6–125.]Google Scholar

page 225 note 6 Tilley, C. E., Geol. Mag. 1928, vol. 65, p. 372. [M.A. 4–84.]Google Scholar

page 225 note 7 Reinhart, , Tonindustrie Zeitung, 1939, vol. 63, p. 29.Google Scholar

page 226 note 1 zur Strassen, H., Zement, 1936, vol. 25, p. 218 Google Scholar ; Schwiete, H. and zur Strassen, H., Zement, 1936, vol. 25, pp. 849, 870.Google Scholar

page 226 note 2 Phemister, J., Summ. Progr. Geol. Surv. Great Britain, 1938, for 1937, p. 87.Google Scholar

page 226 note 3 Belyankin, D. S. and Korchemkin, L. I., Tray. Inst. Pétrogr. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S., 1938, no. 12, p. 203. [M.A. 7–286.]Google Scholar

page 230 note 1 Communicated by permission of the Director, Building Research Station.