It is quite an interesting question as it involves a philosophical tinge to it.
All minerals are naturally occurring solid, inorganic substances with a definite range of chemical composition and physical properties. Now this is a more or less water tight definition for minerals. In this water, mineral fuels, amber, corals etc. do not fit in.
Similarly, all rocks are aggregates of minerals, it could be mono-minerallic like Rock Salt or poly- minerallic like a Granite etc. Now in this definition coal do not fit, reasons being it is organic in nature so would be the case for some of the limestone beds.
Similarly, quartz is a mineral, but a rock comprising mostly of quartz is not called quartz but is known as quartzite.
I feel, when we are concerned with a single grain of any size, we restrict our usage to mineral like a crystal of rock salt, quartz, mica, amphibole, diamond, pyrite, galena etc. But, when we are concerned with an aggregate comprising of a mineral or a group of minerals, we restrict our usage as rock.
For organic rocks, we take liberty by extending the definition of minerals to include it into rocks as the aggregate behaves as other rocks and form part of rocks as much as pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, sphalerite, diamond to which we called mineralised rocks or mineral deposits, if of economic viability.
So is the case of water and liquid hydrocarbons, they are also considered as minerals by extending the definition of minerals through the use of liberty.
I appreciate your inquisitiveness for knowing the fine distinctions where the individual definitions merge and opens up the realm of philosophy to extend our understanding of what we know of a subject.
2007-02-13 14:03:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by mandira_nk 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
A chunk of a pure mineral could, indeed, be considered a rock, and it would be a "monomineralic" rock in that instance. Some examples of monomineralic rocks are metaquartzite (a metamorphosed sandstone consisting only of the mineral quartz), marble (a metamorphosed limestone consisting calcite or, in some cases, dolomite (as in dolomitic marble)), dunite (an igneous rock composed of the silicate mineral olivene), and limestone (a sedimentary rock composed of grains and crystals of the carbonate mineral calcite). Most of these normally have impurities, but not necessarily.
An ordinary rock may be composed of a number of minerals, along with many organic substances (carbonaceous material such as lignite and coal are common). So, any old rock will not do as a mineral specimen.
There is no official definition of a rock. I would think that a piece of mineral (or a chunk consisting of many minerals) would be considered a rock if it is the size of a pebble, or larger (that would be 4mm or more, on the Wentworth-Udden grade scale), assuming it is composed predominantly of minerals or natural organic material and not something constructed by man). A bolt, although perhaps the right size, would not be considered a mineral, although a piece of iron the same size, dug from the earth, would be.
2007-02-13 13:59:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by David A 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
we have two part of roke 1.they made up of one kind of mineral 2.they made up of more than one mineral
so a mineral is a rock
and a rock is a mineral but not ever
2007-02-13 18:17:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by ramin007e 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A rock is an assemblage of minerals
2007-02-13 13:55:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by TheBodyElectric 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
L&W bits sells the quick change nylon headstalls with buckles or snaps for around $12 in many colors. I looked at those and think I'm going to purchase one to try when my regular salt blocks run out. I'm usually willing to give things a try.
2016-03-29 05:36:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋