[Rockhounds] Fw: SOFTWARE FOR INDENTIFYING MINERALS

Sat Dec 15 02:53:03 PST 2007

Hi guys,

I have another 2 cents to spend:

Being an amateur myself, I've been helping a friend determining his finds a
few years ago.
We had FIVE different field guides plus two mineral encyclopedias on the
table.
Can you guess my worst frustration?
No matter what I said, the guy kept looking at the photos in the field
guides and comparing them to his specimens. He did not apply vinegar or
hydrochloric acid... He did not crush one of his crystals to get a streak
color, he did not try to get an idea of the hardness or brittleness... Just
the luster, he did look at that but judging luster is reserved for the
trained eyes of the experienced amateur or higher. Especially with very
small specimens it can be hard to do under the microscope. In fact, it is
probably a futile exercise for very small XX.
I tried to demonstrate that looking at pictures is the best way to
misidentify a mineral. To no avail. The problem is that these kind of
hobbyists seek support with each other and tend to cluster together. They
also tend to support each other's mistakes and lend some kind of reciprocal
confirmation and trust. To the outside world they look as a convincing and
solid group of knowledgeable semi-profs just because of their air of
unwavering confidence in their abilities. You'd buy from them with more
trust than is warranted by reality.
There are serious an trustworthy professionals among mineral dealers. In
fact they more than probably represent the majority. But I doubt that many
of the "A-class" dealers consult field guides to identify their goods.

A second problem that I have with field guides (although I own plenty of
those) is this: If you know say 50 or maybe 80 of the most occurring
minerals you don't need them. If you cannot identify a calcite or a quartz
or staurolite or pyrite on sight then you 'll be no better of using a field
guide ;-)))
If something that you found fall outside those 50 or 80 most common minerals
I doubt that the guides are going to be of any help (unless it's a real dead
give-away)

Field guides should be printed without photos (or with a full set of photos
of every possible habit of every listed mineral, like the Goldschmidt atlas
of crystal forms) and people who use them should at least have an idea of
the mineral "inventory" of the localities that they visit. That would
encourage people to look at the properties instead of the photos. Once you
have the properties nailed then go ahead and look at some pictures of
minerals that correspond to them.
Or commit your findings to the MDI minerals database ;-)))

Cheers

Axel

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com 
> [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] Namens Kreigh 
> Tomaszewski
> Verzonden: zaterdag 15 december 2007 5:03
> Aan: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem 
> collectors
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rockhounds] Fw: SOFTWARE FOR INDENTIFYING MINERALS
> 
> There are a number of 'expert systems' that cover (roughly) 
> the most common minerals (10-20% of all minerals). They are 
> called 'Field Guides'.
> 
> Each Field Guide is written by a different author, and each 
> takes a different approach to identifying minerals. Most 
> Rockhounds use more than one Field Guide. They work most of 
> the time -- unusual minerals really are rare.
> 
> I'm looking for an Expert System that knows about all the 
> common minerals from many sources, and has at least a 
> knowledgable awareness of the uncommon minerals; I want an 
> expert digital advisor that can teach me shortcuts to mineral 
> identification.
> 
> Kreigh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> john dach wrote:
> > 
> > And for "new Comers" or generally involved folks, verses 
> Experts, this 
> > sort of assistance could get them more involved.  If some 
> of the more 
> > unusual specimens are just too difficult to get identified, 
> maybe that 
> > might ok, as long as the vast majority of of specimen 
> identification 
> > works.  I know  a good number of folks that would be interested in 
> > such a "system".
> > 
> > John Dach
> > 
> > >Pete,
> > >
> > >Expert systems require the raw facts about the subject matter, and 
> > >their relationships, but the key is capturing the 
> experience of many 
> > >experts in how apply those factoids, and turning it into 
> many more rules.
> > >
> > >You can hold an on-topic conversation with a good expert 
> system. The 
> > >key is having an interviewer available to capture 
> knowledge from any 
> > >living expert whenever they detect a discrepancy, and add 
> it to the 
> > >rulebase as more factoids. The raw data is just the fodder 
> that lets 
> > >you capture the knowledge and insight of many subject experts. 
> > >Capturing the experiences of many experts is the key.
> > >
> > >I've met almost a handful of real expert systems. It is 
> like going to 
> > >a world class symposia and asking a question at a 
> Birds-Of-A-Feather 
> > >session. You either get a direct answer, or a dialogue 
> that reaches 
> > >concensus after several questions. A real expert system is smarter 
> > >than any one of us if you stay on topic.
> > >
> > >I think most rockhounds would benefit from having an expert system 
> > >available to them.
> > >
> > >Kreigh
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Pmodreski at aol.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  I hate to be a wet blanket, but I really think the 
> ideas for this 
> > >> kind of  software are doomed to failure, or at any 
> event, would be of minimal use.
> > >>
> > >>  There are just too many minerals with very similar 
> properties; too 
> > >>few  tests
> > >>  one can readily make, too many distinguishing features that 
> > >>require  advanced
> > >>  equipment to determine, and too many cases that will yield 
> > >>ambiguous  results
> > >>  or have a such large overlapping ranges of characteristics 
> > >>(variable  color,
> > >>  crystal shape, and so on).
> > >>
> > >>  One could have a chance at doing this if you limited 
> the mineral 
> > >> base to a  relatively small number of common minerals 
> (100 or so?), 
> > >> but nature doesn't  confine itself to those few minerals; or 
> > >> included the kind of sophisticated  tests that an 
> amateur could not 
> > >> normally do (optical properties; chemical  composition; 
> X-ray diffraction).
> > >>
> > >>  It's fine to talk about this, but in practice, I think 
> it wouldn't 
> > >>have  much
> > >>  utility.  I don't think it would ever be a replacement for the  
> > >>individual
> > >>  person learning about the properties and nature of 
> minerals, and  
> > >>using his
> > >>  educated experience to guide him to the most likely candidates, 
> > >>and  then refer to
> > >>  books or databases to narrow down the choices.  And then of  
> > >>course, in many
> > >>  cases it will never be possible to make a positive i.d. 
> without  
> > >>using those
> > >>  advanced methods like XRD.  There are just too many, 
> for  example, 
> > >>hard,
> > >>  refractory silicate minerals that aren't ammenable to 
> any  simple 
> > >>tests for chemical
> > >>  composition; or, similar-appearing black metallic  sulfide and 
> > >>sulfosalt
> > >>  minerals.
> > >>
> > >>  But it's a still good intellectual exercise to plan out how one 
> > >>would  devise
> > >>  these databases and identification keys!  Or to dream 
> about how  
> > >>simple life
> > >>  would be, if they really worked to identify very many of those  
> > >>"mystery
> > >>  minerals".
> > >>
> > >>  Just "IMHO"...   Pete
> > >>
> > >
> 
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
> 