Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:09:31.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative electron-diffraction study of sillimanite and some natural and artificial mullites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

D. G. W. Smith  and
J. D. C. McConnell
D. G. W. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Mineralogy and Petrology, Downing Place, Cambridge
J. D. C. McConnell
Affiliation:
Department of Mineralogy and Petrology, Downing Place, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Electron-diffraction photographs of some natural and synthetic mullites and a typical sillimanite have been obtained and are interpreted using diffraction data due to Agrell and Smith. The position and diffuseness of mullite reflections (h0l) with l = ½ have been re-studied. In such reciprocal lattice sections maxima are symmetrically disposed in pairs about the positions of sillimanite reflections with l odd. They lie on a* rows and show different separations in the specimens studied. These diffraction conditions are closely analogous to those observed in the intermediate plagioclases (paired ‘e’ maxima) and in nepheline, and a similar explanation is envisaged in terms of antiphase domain structure. Intimate association of a mullite-type phase and sillimanite is shown to result from the breakdown of muscovite in a thermal metamorphic aureole, and a chemical analysis of a natural Fe,Ti-bearing mullite from a spinel-mullite buchite in the same aureole, is presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 35 , Issue 274 , June 1966 , pp. 810 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1966

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

Agrell, (S. O.) and Smith, (J. V.), 1960. Journ. Amer. Ceram. Sot., vol. 43, p. 69 Google Scholar
Alderman, (A. R.), 1942. Trans. Roy. Soc. South Australia, vol. 66, p. 3.Google Scholar
Aramaki, (S.), 1961. Amer. Min., vol. 46, p. 1154.Google Scholar
Bárta, (R.) and Bárta, (Ch.), 1956. (Journ. praet, chem.) vol. 29, p. 341], abstr. Ceram. Abstr., 1959, Feb., p. 67c.Google Scholar
Bown, (M. G.) and Gay, (P.), 1958. Zeitschr. Krist., vol. 111, p. 1.Google Scholar
Mcconnell, (J. D. C.), 1962. Min. Mag., vol. 33, p. 114.Google Scholar
Majumdar, (A. J.) and Welch, (J. H.), 1963. Trans. Brit. Ceram. Soe., vol. 62, p. 603.Google Scholar
Shears, (E. C.) and Archibald, (W. A.), 1954. Iron and Steel (London), vol. 27, p. 26 and p. 61.Google Scholar
Taylor, (W. H.), 1928. Zeitschr. Krist., vol. 68, p. 503.Google Scholar