No CrossRef data available.
On the occurrence of Alstonite and Ullmannite (a species new to Britain) in a Barytes-Witherite vein at the New Brancepeth Colliery near Durham
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2018
Extract
The mining village of New Brancepeth, in the parish of Brandon and Byshottles, is situated in the Durham coalfield at a distance of four miles to the west of the city of Durham. One of the faults which intersect the sandstones, shales, and coal-seams (the Harvey, Busty, and Brockwell seams) of the Coal Measures at this place has, at its eastern end, an east to west direction with a downthrow of 120 feet and a hade of 20° to the south. Along this portion of its course the fault is of the nature of a fissure-vein, with a width varying from a few inches to 16 feet. The material filling the vein consists mainly of barytes. In places, especially where the walls of the vein are of sandstone, the pure white, massive barytes extends throughout from one sharply-defined cheek to the other.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 15 , Issue 71 , March 1910 , pp. 302 - 311
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1910
References
Page 302 note 1 The New Brancepeth Colliery is also known locally as the Sleetburn Colliery, being near to an old farm-house of that name.
Page 303 note 1 According to the official (Home Office) statistics, the amount was 10,297 tons in 1907, and 59.17 tons in 1908.
Page 303 note 2 Peel, R., ‘Notes upon an occurrence of barytes in a twenty-fathom fault, at New Brancepeth Colliery.’ The Colliery Manager and Journal of Mining Engineering (The Organ of the National Association of Colliery Managers), London, 1900, vol. xvi, pp. 56–58 Google Scholar.
Page 303 note 3 In 1907 I selected from the stock of a dealer in the north of England some small specimens of crystallized barytes with withorite, which were labelled ‘Rookhope, Weardale, Co. Durham’. Having previously visited Rookhope, I had reason to question this statement of locality, and on making inquiries I learnt that the specimens had come through a miner living at Rookhope, from whom I obtained news of the New Brancepeth occurrence.
Page 304 note 1 G. A. Lebour in the discussion of R. Peel's paper, loc. cit., p. 58.
Page 304 note 2 Louis, H., ‘Note on a mineral vein in the Wearmouth Colliery.’ Trans. Inst. Mining Engineers, 1903 (Session 1901-2), vol. xxii, pp. 127–129 Google Scholar.
Page 304 note 3 Clapham, R. C. and Daglish, J., ‘On minerals and salts found in coal pits.’ Trans. North of England Inst. Mining Engineers, 1864, vol. xiii, pp. 219–226 Google Scholar.
Page 304 note 4 Clowes, F., ‘Deposits of barium sulphate from mine-water.’ Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1889, vol. xliv, pp. 368–369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
Page 304 note 5 Clowes, F., Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1889, vol. xliv, p. 868 Google Scholar ; 1899, vol. lxiv, p. 874.
Page 304 note 6 This locality is incorrectly given in all the textbooks as ‘Bromley Hill’, having been given as such in the papers of J. F. W. Johnston and T. Thomson in 1835-7, though in one place (Thomson's description of ‘sulphate-carbonate of barytes’) it appears correctly as Brownley Hill mine. There is no hill of this name and it is simply the name of the mine. On the six-inch ordnance map it appears as ‘Brownleyhill Dressing floor’. Mr. Jacob Walton, of Alston, writes to me (August, 1909) respecting the history of alstenite : ‘This mineral was first obtained at Brownley Hill mine about 1835 [i. e. 1834], when my grandfather, Jacob Walton, was manager. As far as I can recollect, it was found in a small vein or branch leading from a larger vein, called the Jug vein, and was obtained in the Great Limestone. No specimen of the mineral has been found at either Brownley Hill or Fallowfield mines for over fifty years.’
The name ‘bromlite’ (T. Thomson, 1837) for this species is thus based on an error, and, in spite of its priority as urged by Dana, it seems better to give preference to the more expressive name alstonite (A. Breithaupt, 1841).
Page 305 note 1 Calcite I have not found in the New Brancepeth vein; but it was observed in very small amount on the joint-planes of the shales, which are raised from the pit and are ground for making bricks.
Page 306 note 1 The barium was precipitated with very dilute sulphurie acid (1 in 300) and weighed U sulphate, and the calcium was precipitated as oxalate and weighed as oxide.
Page 306 note 2 Corresponding with the formula BaCO3. CaCO3, the calculated values are BaO 61.56 and CaO 18.86 per cent.
Page 307 note 1 Barker, T. V., Mineralogical Magazine, 1907, vol. xiv, p. 285 Google Scholar ; 1908, vol. xv, p. 42.
Page 307 note 2 The mineral was decomposed with fuming nitric acid, the nickel passing into solution and the antimony remaining as SbO2, which was weighed as such (some, however, became reduced and was lost).
Page 308 note 1 Miers, H. A., Mineralogical Magazine, 1891, vol. ix, p. 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page 308 note 2 With the doubtful exception of Lobenstein in Thuringia, where the crystals of octahedral habit are possibly gersdorffite and not ullmannite.
Page 310 note 1 Des Cloizeaux's figure is copied in Dana's ‘System of Mineralogy,’ 6th edit., 1892, p. 284, fig. 6.
Page 310 note 2 In other instances where barytes and witherite are associated together, it has often been assumed that the barytee has been formed from the witherite by the action of waters containing sulphuric acid and ferrous sulphate, the latter having been produced by the weathering of iron-pyrites. This would undoubtedly account for any secondary barytes and for pseudomorphs of barytes after witherite, but probably not for the main mass of barytes in the vein.
- 12
- Cited by
