Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I would need help with two questions grom geophysics. Can you help me?

 

Could you tell me, please....

 

The question reads as follows:
 
1) Magnetic methods: According magnetic values
     matic susceptibility minerals can be classified into three
     basic groups that have their names. Bring
     designation of these groups and their most basic
     characteristic. Do that holding (s) groups fall Mi-
     Neral containing iron? corroborate concretely
 
2) Gravimetry. The density of rocks and soil depends on the density of minerals, which constitute them further
porosity, and, finally, the proportion of pores filled with air and aqueous solutions. reports fol-
ing rocks in a series from lowest to highest density:
 
sandstone - basalt - quartz sand - Granite - amphibolite with 30% magnetite - Clay
 
 
Please, help me...
Link to post
Share on other sites

1:

I would read up on neodymium aswell , but I have not read up much on mineral iron ore...maybe the question has something todo with Fe - I, II, III ?

 

2: ? Read Archimedes and density

my GUESS?

It's a trick question, and you have to make sure you understand that they are asking that you include the air. (eg. DRY! Clay) - I think?

 

I would go, QuartzSand, Clay, Sandstone, as one trick group (They are same/similar materials)

Granite or Basalt - look it up... I personally don't know, but if your studying the subject you should know. (PS: the Earth is made up of mostly these two rocks)

Amphibolite? - I have no idea what that is... as a GUESS the question throws in magnetite (magnetic, therefore Fe/iron - without the O/Oxygen - rust is not magnetic) So as a pure GUESS this is the denser of all. Amphibolite maybe something that locks away nearby O2 so it maybe a lightweight material?

 

 

After looking up the wikipedia article for amphibolite, I am happy with my guess. (With the exception of clay - unsure if they mean as is in the ground with the water, or as is once its dry)

 

ie. Clay bed (as found on earth)

then Sandstone Floats

but Granite and Basalt? sink

 

++ Clay bed is a colloid, so you should state that in the answer that you are trying to trick me.

 

ie. Earthquake with Clay bed, and Sandstone ontop - then sandstone sink, and Granite Float.

 

Form memory I would look up Basalt - sounds lightweight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicco, this sounds very much like homework. If so, would you at least post what you think the answers may be and what your reasoning is.

 

The first question, on magnetism, should have been very easily answered by you merely using google. Erly Risa is heading in the wrong direction with his answer.

 

Early Risa also has some misleading and erroneous statements relating to the densities of different rocks.

 

Quartz sand, sandstone and clay while related (as clastic rocks, or the components of clastic rocks) likely differ in density. (By the way, the question is very badly phrased, so my interepretation of it may differ from what the questioner intended.)

 

Quartz sand is loose, else it would be described as sandstone, so it is the density of the mineral that counts. You can readily check the density of quartz online. Sandstone may, and often does, consist largely of quartz, but it can also contain other minerals, most of which are less dense. It is also typically cemented, with the cement often being of a lower density than quartz. Further, porosity can vary from atound 40% to less than 5%. Clay is a term that refers both to a wide range of sheet minerals, but also to the size of the particles. It is entirely possible to have a clay that is composed of more than 50% quartz. ER is correct that the density of the clay minerals will depend upon how hydrated it is.

 

Granite, basalt and amphhibolite, as igneous rocks have effectively zero porosity.

 

Now, provide some of your thoughts and findings and I'll be happy to guide you further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicco, this sounds very much like homework. If so, would you at least post what you think the answers may be and what your reasoning is.

 

The first question, on magnetism, should have been very easily answered by you merely using google. Erly Risa is heading in the wrong direction with his answer.

 

Early Risa also has some misleading and erroneous statements relating to the densities of different rocks.

 

Quartz sand, sandstone and clay while related (as clastic rocks, or the components of clastic rocks) likely differ in density. (By the way, the question is very badly phrased, so my interepretation of it may differ from what the questioner intended.)

 

Quartz sand is loose, else it would be described as sandstone, so it is the density of the mineral that counts. You can readily check the density of quartz online. Sandstone may, and often does, consist largely of quartz, but it can also contain other minerals, most of which are less dense. It is also typically cemented, with the cement often being of a lower density than quartz. Further, porosity can vary from atound 40% to less than 5%. Clay is a term that refers both to a wide range of sheet minerals, but also to the size of the particles. It is entirely possible to have a clay that is composed of more than 50% quartz. ER is correct that the density of the clay minerals will depend upon how hydrated it is.

 

Granite, basalt and amphhibolite, as igneous rocks have effectively zero porosity.

 

Now, provide some of your thoughts and findings and I'll be happy to guide you further.

 

 

Are you sure!!!? :zip:

 

igneous rock? - does that mean from volcanoe?

 

Magnetical rocks grouped - apparently there are 3 types? - are these the Northern hemisphere rocks? How about the south? Would they not have different names, eg. Southern 4 degree magnetic north rock, or north Asian south pointer poorus crystal? :sherlock:

 

I love wikipedia, but its getting too easy. I does all my book smartin veeeha the Discovery Channels, I watch while I visit me grandpappie.

 

Colloids is a great topic (everything is in reverse, and goes against first hand logic, much like the Pisa and Galleos feather vs. Bowloing Ball)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure!!!? :zip:

 

igneous rock? - does that mean from volcanoe?

I have been loose in my terms, imagining I am speaking to a fellow geologist. Careless of me, but I just woke up. Amphibolites are metamamorphic rocks, but are very often the product of metamorphosis of basic igneous rocks. So if I see an amphibolite in a sequence I am pondering its possible origin as igneous. 

 

Igneous rocks are any rock formed by the crystallisation, or solidification of magma. These may be volcanic, or plutonic, forming at the surface, or below the ground. Some granites are metamorphic - the Granite Controvery raged over half a century ago - but are generally thought of as igneous and certainly display the expected characteristics of an igneous rock. If we wanted to explore the topic fully we would have to get into metasomatism and anatexis and the like, far beyond what is required here.

 

Look, I'm not going to give the magnetic answer, since this still looks like someone's homework, but the three fold division is pretty obvious if you did any secondary school science at all. And if not, as I suggested, just google magnetism and the answer jumps out at you. (Assuming the question is at it appears - the English is abominable.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been loose in my terms, imagining I am speaking to a fellow geologist. Careless of me, but I just woke up. Amphibolites are metamamorphic rocks, but are very often the product of metamorphosis of basic igneous rocks. So if I see an amphibolite in a sequence I am pondering its possible origin as igneous. 

 

Igneous rocks are any rock formed by the crystallisation, or solidification of magma. These may be volcanic, or plutonic, forming at the surface, or below the ground. Some granites are metamorphic - the Granite Controvery raged over half a century ago - but are generally thought of as igneous and certainly display the expected characteristics of an igneous rock. If we wanted to explore the topic fully we would have to get into metasomatism and anatexis and the like, far beyond what is required here.

 

Look, I'm not going to give the magnetic answer, since this still looks like someone's homework, but the three fold division is pretty obvious if you did any secondary school science at all. And if not, as I suggested, just google magnetism and the answer jumps out at you. (Assuming the question is at it appears - the English is abominable.)

 

The most I know about geology/minerolgy/geophysics is what I learnt in the movie 'Escape From LA'

 

I'm not testing.

 

...but I did introduce a new keyword.

 

In the country I was raised we didn't learn anything about magnetism that deep. They just gave us a horse-shoe magnet and made us magnetise a pin and string with some thread. (and of course now I know why all of us in the class failed - the twine was stronger than the magnetic feild) It took ten years of a person awake :beer-fresh: and somewhat interested in the topic too see a survival movie/doco in which you place the needle into a clean bowl of water...

 

, which then got me pondering - how about the tea leaves! and how my name is mud and Brown and both at the same time.

 

...and today I learnt a new concept: metamorphic rock. Hmmm, I didn't know that.

 

About density again: If the rock is from magma, and some of it pools out and cools in a different manner, is it not now porous?

Link to post
Share on other sites

About density again: If the rock is from magma, and some of it pools out and cools in a different manner, is it not now porous?

I don't know what you mean  by "pools out". And what sort of different manner do you envisage? During the solidification process crystals grow, interfere with each other, sink, or float in the magma, until we are left with a mush of crystals and some interstitial fluid that also crystalises. Apart from tiny spaces that might be created by differential contraction on cooling, or larger, but still microscopic fractures, there is essentially zero porosity.

 

Porosity is found in sedimentary rocks because they form either from fragments and so space is left between grains, or by precipitation from solution. In th latter case permeability of salt, anhydrite, etc will also have zero porosity, but carbonates (limestones and dolomites) may experience dissolving of part of the fabric, leaving porosity. (The foregoing is naturally a gross simplification. Even in a rudimentary form it takes me a couple of hours to cover this at an introductory level with graduate engineers.)

 

Discovery documentaries are interesting to watch, but also over-simplified. I have yet to see one on a topic on which I was knowlegeable that did not contain at least one error.

 

One exception to the "no porosity" in igneous rocks can occur in lavas, where trapped gases can leave small holes, or vesicles. These are often later infilled with low temperature minerals. Pumice stone is an extreme example of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

crystalises

 

(The foregoing is naturally a gross simplification. Even in a rudimentary form it takes me a couple of hours to cover this at an introductory level with graduate engineers.)

 

Discovery documentaries are interesting to watch, but also over-simplified. I have yet to see one on a topic on which I was knowlegeable that did not contain at least one error.

 

 

 "pools out"....

 

....One exception to the "no porosity" in igneous rocks can occur in lavas, where trapped gases can leave small holes, or vesicles. These are often later infilled with low temperature minerals. Pumice stone is an extreme example of that.

 

Pools out - thought so... so let's say we are on a planet with a stronger gravity and a very thick atmosphere, then lava flows would be more like a chocolate cake with too much baking soda. A shocked solidification would entrap the CO2 (baking soda). How the CO2 escaped over time and leaves the ambient atmosphere as porosity is a side discussion.

 

-Discovery documentaries ALWAYS slip in a wrong statement so that the versed in a room of viewers have something too discuss, and so that the un-versed become attracted too the versed that make the statement...hence romance in the room. (Advanced psychology degree dude...keep it to yourself) ((maybe clearing ut your inbox would help in private discussions.))

 

--Graduate Engineer !!! - yeah right.

 

I actually passed materials engineering in 1st year!!! ...shame Communications Engineering's building was unknown to me at the time. I had no idea where it was. Literally it took me 6 weeks to find that building, idiots removed the sign,,, knew I was coming!!!, by then it was too late - who in the hell is Kirchoff!!!, what is this shite!!! Transistor - we already on that!!! OH OH. Schottky...I can't even spell that, who shot what then, what keys. KurChoof more like it...I'm going to smoke another bong. 10yrs later I dabbled with 6months of a Physics degree ... now they want homework via the internet!? -->uhh I'm going to the pub. , are there any nice 18yr old girls that want todo physics with me ....cause I just had a discussion with some-one repeating a 1st yr subject while he's a 3rd yr, I don't want to be stuck here forever. F'it, I'll write the papers meself in me own time, and hand it in when I am done.

 

Want to proof read a diatribe of me concept?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You still have not explained what is meant by pools out.

 

2. Your chaotic, stream-of-consciouness, faux arty-farty, pseudo-hippy writing style is out of place on a science forum. (It's arguably out of place on the planet, but since you say you plan to leave, that will be less of a problem.)

 

3. You give no impression of what you think chocolate cake with baking soda would be like, so I cannot tell if your comparison is valid. I can say this: with a greater atmospheric pressure, expansion of the carbon dioxide would be less, so vesicles would tend to be smaller and explosive eruptions less violent. I have no idea what you mean by "shocked solidification".

 

4. A planet with stronger gravity would not have volcanoes as large as on the Earth, or Mars. There is a limit to the weight that can be supported by the crust/mantle that limits the height of the volcano.

 

5. You said "Discovery documentaries ALWAYS slip in a wrong statement so that the versed in a room of viewers have something too discuss." No, the errors I see are egregious errors.

 

6. You said "Want to proof read a diatribe of me concept?" Please see point 2 above and figure out my response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You still have not explained what is meant by pools out.

 

2. Your chaotic, stream-of-consciouness, faux arty-farty, pseudo-hippy writing style is out of place on a science forum. (It's arguably out of place on the planet, but since you say you plan to leave, that will be less of a problem.)

 

3. You give no impression of what you think chocolate cake with baking soda would be like, so I cannot tell if your comparison is valid. I can say this: with a greater atmospheric pressure, expansion of the carbon dioxide would be less, so vesicles would tend to be smaller and explosive eruptions less violent. I have no idea what you mean by "shocked solidification".

 

4. A planet with stronger gravity would not have volcanoes as large as on the Earth, or Mars. There is a limit to the weight that can be supported by the crust/mantle that limits the height of the volcano.

 

5. You said "Discovery documentaries ALWAYS slip in a wrong statement so that the versed in a room of viewers have something too discuss." No, the errors I see are egregious errors.

 

6. You said "Want to proof read a diatribe of me concept?" Please see point 2 above and figure out my response.

 

1. Maybe i'm spelling it wrong: pouls ? poules? ...pools out, is common vernacular in my country of origin: It is sad me ALL have to learn the Americano to get by.

 

2. LOL - FAKE!!! , I know, It would easir if I were arty-farty...pseudo-hippy, I like that too! I could write a paper on that.

 2b.. Science forum?

 2c.. Planet, yep, just got figure out how to make nano-tubes in me backyard and I'm halfway there. (Gone, seeyas, goodbye, goodriddance)

 

3. So I guess the wife does all the baking (Your presumption of the logic in 4. is right though, hence answering 3.)

  3.b. Quenched.

  3.c. "Aero-ification" - debatable, would have to model and do math myself before I take word. I understand that equilibrium cancels certain events: but I would want to run the numbers myself before ruling out the possibility.

 

4. Who cares: There are still flows that poule out (of the mantle/crust). I am sure there is a nice latin phrase to replace my coal miners slang.

 

5. Ergegrious, hmm thats a new word for the day, thankyou -: Wonder if it stems from gregarious?

 

6. Hey!!!! I used spell check.

  6b.. I wouldn't discount the effort of some of the peasants, especially when it comes to scientific endevour: b/c in less than 50yrs most sciences will be dead leaving only 2 disciplines to toy with. ....2b or not 2b with computing power all will be answered.

Edited by ErlyRisa
Link to post
Share on other sites

You still have not told me what pools out means.

 

4 does not answer 3.3 is a concise, yet comprehensive and accurate assessment of the issue. Thicker atmosphere = greater atmospheric pressure = less expansion of gases.

 

"science forum?" Yes, this is a science forum. Don't judge it on the basis of your own contributions.

 

I am certain you are capable of writing fluent, readable sentences, rather than the annoying, infantile style you affect. Here's a hint: you are being rude to the other members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure pools out is the right spelling.

 

Pool of mud , ie. it has a meniscus.

Pools Out - must be coming from a source, and yet looks like it may become a Pool of 'aaaaa'.

Magma (inside) pools out into Lava(outside) flow. In this case the meniscus isn't a meniscus, but I think you get it now.

 

Whipped out the google translate... stagnum de , or in english latin, destagnum. ,, hey can I take credit for it? Cite Hnr. ErlyRisa

 

Destagnum

VERB
1.
a body of liquid expelling from an unkown.
2.
a contained pool of liquid or conglomerate body that comes out.
NOUN usage.
The destagnum was quick and abrupt.
VERV usage.
To destagnum mud from the quarry.
 
 
4/3.3/3.c
Too add: Have you heard of Heabel Block? It was a concrete with air bubbles in it, and can be sawn by hand (with dust mask).
Too add: (A Contra too equilibrium) With accounting for a thicker atmosphere that is close to a heat source weather could be quite strong and turbulent. Is it possible, that with modeling, a situation arises that a mudflow(CH4 and other possibles included), lava flow(Sonic Destagnum included) ;conglomerate liquid gases could snap freeze into an aerated(Local Atmosphere) solid.
 
Does that look science-ee now?
 
Hint: Hmmm, thanks for the heads up...
...what scientist isn't rude?
 
 
 
ambulantes stagnum ... sounds better (Walking Pool)
ambulantes calidus stagnum or ACS is also known as lava.
 
 
Just to correct some grammar....
 
I am certain you are capable of writing, fluent readable sentences, rather than the annoying infantile style you affect. Here is a hint: you are being rude to the other members.
 
Here's, is not a word, and your commas are in the wrong spot. --> I was an A+++ english graduate, and I would not argue with me on that.
 
My style is a mixture of normal writing while trying too affect phrasing, as is somewhat deemed necessary when in the environment of a forum. Those that have read too much, from typical mediums WILL need pills while trying too read forum style. I personally never took on the SMS style or understood much of the next generation's ASCII art (I was busy being serious), but the style developed via. lengthy forum banter works for many people, there is no over use of capitalisation, nor is their overuse of cheap yet straightforward symbology (eg. _____----- >>>> //// 78 86it, etc). I will admit I over use the enter key - but there is a point to that.
 
 
...and
 
Like anyone else, I doo type slower than I think.
x2, I doo do affect the writing into speach.
 
...and Thanks to twitter: many people are trying to find ways to compress speach to save on characters.
 
Oh: Sorry about the z/s problem, the rest of the engiish speaking world didn't take on the z evolution...PS the world thanks you guys for the SMS speak - makes us go nuts.
Edited by ErlyRisa
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's, is not a word, and your commas are in the wrong spot. --> I was an A+++ english graduate, and I would not argue with me on that.

I shall most assuredly argue with you on this for you are wrong.

 

"Here's" is a perfectly acceptable contraction, in all but formal writing, of the phrase "here is". Is it a word? It can properly be called either a word, or a word contraction. Either is good English.

 

My commas are in the correct place. If you think differently then specify which ones are misplaced and justify your claim.

 

I really don't think you will get too far trying to convince me of your English language skills, at least until you start displaying some in your posts.

 

 

...and Thanks to twitter: many people are trying to find ways to compress speach to save on characters.

I never thank Twitter for anything. Do you think after they have learned to compress speach, many of these people may attempt to compress speech? I wouldn't normally point out a minor spelling error, especially in a non-native English speaker, but as an A+++ English graduate I am sure you would want to be alerted to the problem.

 

 

Your interpretation of the meaning of "pools out" is simply wrong. There is no such phrase and any phrase approaching it in structure or vocabulary does not mean what you would like it to mean. You might as well say parrots are nest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What extravagant destagnum!

 

Yeah, They are :: They're was frowned upon for a long time, even aren't is making it into common speech. --> Only took 30yrs now it's accepted even in the highest of diatribe.

 

I have noticed magazines are starting too use the extended character set available on the computer, love hearts and smiley faces. It would be interesting too find out what happens to writing in the next 30yrs.

 

I'm not copying and pasting for the sake of this argument (comma), your   a versed individual, it was a simple mistake., my correction to your mistake is already in the previous post.

 

The mind sometimes re-arranges objects midstream, and in the case of typing too quickly objects get rearranged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my original post.

 I am certain you are capable of writing fluent, readable sentences, rather than the annoying, infantile style you affect. Here's a hint: you are being rude to the other members. 

 

This is what you claim as a correction, in relation to placement of commas.

 

I am certain you are capable of writing, fluent readable sentences, rather than the annoying infantile style you affect. Here is a hint: you are being rude to the other members.

 

 

You are completely wrong.

 

If you wrote the sentence "You are completely capable of writing sentences", you would not place a comma after writing. Just because you have added adjectives does not change that. However, since two adjectives have been added, a comma is required between the first and the second. This rule also requires a comma after annoying, a rule I followed, but you ignored.

 

I also notice you say this:

 

I'm not copying and pasting for the sake of this argument (comma), your   a versed individual, it was a simple mistake., my correction to your mistake is already in the previous post.

Where to begin?

1. After the word (comma) you should have ended the sentence. You might have got away with a semi-colon, but as written the sentence structure is simply wrong.

2. "your" should have been "You are", or "You're".

3. Normal usage would be to describe someone as a "well versed individual", not as a "versed individual". Truman Capote might get away with it. You can't.

4. The three clauses following (comma) would have been better as discrete sentences. If you wish to include them in one sentence you need to make structural changes.

5. You've made a typographical error, concatenanting ',' and ','.

 

Erly Risa, I don't normally correct non-native speakers for poor English. I'm making an exception in your case because you claim your were an A+++ student, yet your posts are replete with errors and your attempt to correct my allegedly faulty English was laughable. I think it would be helpful if you reflected on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certain you are capable of writing.

I am certain that you are capable of writing.

You are capable of writing, in my (what I perceived to be) opinion.

 

COMMA

 

Readable sentences.

fluent readable sentences.

fluent sentences.

fluent effective sentences

fluent effective, readable, well versed sentences.

fluent effective, readable, versed and truthful thought.

diatribe.

 

Do you see the mistake: You weren't writing a list.

 

If you had have only used one descriptor, then you are correct.

 

I am certain that you are capable of writing fluent, sentences. , but this is wrong too.

I am certain that you are capable of fluent readable, legitimate writing.

 

the mistake is, is that writing is also a noun.

 

If you were to include the fact that I am an object in the sentence:

 

I am certain that you're A capable swimmer, jogger, mountain climber and linguist.

 

'of writing' is the end of the sentence. Where you r'e too continue a sentence without starting a new one you use a comma. You were n't writing a list.

 

You could have also done.

 

I am certain you are capable, of writing; etc

 

__________________________________________________________

 

Well versed?, whats wrong with dropping well?

 

There is a difference in conotation

 

Well versed individual = Some one that has read alot of GOOD material.

Versed individual = is just someone that reads alot.

 

I don't know the person on the other side of this computer, to me you may have read alot, and I can take the punt at guessing your linguistic abilities. I can also guess at what you may have read.

 

maybe ++versed individual is better? Double good individual? Maybe it could be trademarked? A plus one individual? A +1 individual?

How about fav individual? Thumbs up/down individual? Individual with likes.

 

F america - bookmarking was one thing, it made sence, but LIKES !, defreind ! Yas turned the world into a hoar house.

 

PS:

The rule for the sound ' idg | vowel ' includes a d. Americans dropped it because they can't spell.

bee the ball, na na na na nah.

 

PPS:

I know my writing is effluent too everyone on this forum. - (could use a comma) ,but me aince too  negatory to me fellow man?

Please let me stay!!! Forums are the only place where there is somesort of diatribe...facebook is just tripe.

 

+++Scriptum: Iam sorry about the enter key, and the miss use of their there they are and the so forth. To this day I still get the i and the i the wrong way around.

 

ewwwgh

came up with a new one

 

Excess Scriptum (XS, XXS)

 

I will admit that the recent effort too drop the 's for ownership clears up writing...but it does sometimes get to ya.

eg. Virgils grapes. Virgills grapes. VergeIlls Grapes. Verge ills grapes. Verge has ill grapes.

Vergil's grapes are very sweet.

Edited by ErlyRisa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...