New Data on Welshite, e.g. Ca2Mg3.8Mn0.62+Fe0.12+Sb1.55+O2 [Si2.8Be1.7Fe0.653+Al0.7As0.17O18], an Aenigmatite-Group Mineral

Electron and ion microprobe data on two samples of welshite from the type locality of Langban, Sweden, gave analytical totals of 99.38-99.57 wt.% and BeO contents of 4.82-5.11 wt.%, corresponding to 1.692-1.773 Be/20 O. Mossbauer and optical spectra of one of these samples gave Fe-[iv](3+)/Sigma Fe = 0.91, Fe-[iv](2+)/Sigma Fe = 0.09, and no evidence of Mn3+. The resulting formula for this sample is Ca2Mg3.8Mn0.62+Fe0.12+Sb1.55+O2[Si2.8Be1.7Fe0.653+Al0.7As0.17O18], and that for the second sample, Ca2Mg3.8Mn0.12+Fe0.12+F0.83+Sb1.25+O2[Si2.8Be1.8F0.653+Al0.25As0.25O18], is related by the substitution involving tetrahedral and octahedral sites: 0.59([vi,iv])(Fe,Al)(3+) approximate to 0.42([vi])(Mg,Mn,Fe)(2+) + 0.21(Sb-[vi],As-[iv])(5+), i.e. 3([vi,iv]) M3+ = 2([vi])M(2+) + M-[vi,iv](5+). WelShite is distinctive among aenigmatite-group minerals in the high proportion of Fe 3+ in tetrahedral coordination and is unique in its Be content, substantially exceeding 1Be per formula unit. Given the cation distributions in other minerals related to aenigmatite, we think it is reasonable to assume that at least one tetrahedral site is >50% occupied by Be and that one octahedral site is >50% occupied by Sb, so that welshite should be retained as a distinct species with its own name in the aenigmatite group.

Recommended Nomenclature for the Sapphirine and Surinamite Groups (Sapphirine Supergroup)

Minerals isostructural with sapphirine-1A, sapphirine-2M, and surinamite are closely related chain silicates that pose nomenclature problems because of the large number of sites and potential constituents, including several (Be, B, As, Sb) that are rare or absent in other chain silicates. Our recommended nomenclature for the sapphirine group (formerly-aenigmatite group) makes extensive use of precedent, but applies the rules to all known natural compositions, with flexibility to allow for yet undiscovered compositions such as those reported in synthetic materials. These minerals are part of a polysomatic series composed of pyroxene or pyroxene-like and spinel modules, and thus we recommend that the sapphirine supergroup should encompass the polysomatic series. The first level in the classification is based on polysome, i.e. each group within the supergroup Corresponds to a single polysome. At the second level, the sapphirine group is divided into subgroups according to the occupancy of the two largest M sites, namely, sapphirine (Mg), aenigmatite (Na), and rhonite (Ca). Classification at the third level is based on the occupancy of the smallest M site with most shared edges, M7, at which the dominant cation is most often Ti (aenigmatite, rhonite, makarochkinite), Fe(3+) (wilkinsonite, dorrite, hogtuvaite) or Al (sapphirine, khmaralite); much less common is Cr (krinovite) and Sb (welshite). At the fourth level, the two most polymerized T sites are considered together, e.g. ordering of Be at these sites distinguishes hogtuvaite, makarochkinite and khmaralite. Classification at the fifth level is based on X(Mg) = Mg/(Mg + Fe(2+)) at the M sites (excluding the two largest and M7). In principle, this criterion could be expanded to include other divalent cations at these sites, e.g. Mn. To date, most minerals have been found to be either Mg-dominant (X(mg) > 0.5), or Fe(2+)-dominant (X(Mg) < 0.5), at these M sites. However, X(mg) ranges from 1.00 to 0.03 in material described as rhonite, i.e. there are two species present, one Mg-dominant, the other Fe(2+)-dominant. Three other potentially new species are a Mg-dominant analogue of wilkinsonite, rhonite in the Allende meteorite, which is distinguished front rhonite and dorrite in that Mg rather than Ti or FC(3+) is dominant at M7, and an Al-dominant analogue of sapphirine, in which Al > Si at the two most polymerized T sites vs. Al < Si in sapphirine. Further splitting of the supergroup based on occupancies other than those specified above is not recommended.

Socialising across channels : group multichannel communication

People increasingly communicate over multiple channels, such as SMS, email and IM. Choosing the channel for interaction is typically a considered action and shapes the message itself. In order to explore how people make sense of communication mediums and more generally, social group behaviour, we developed a multichannel communication prototype. Preliminary results indicate that multichannel communication was considered very useful in the group context even considering the increased quantity of messages while it was little used for person-to-person interaction.

Leveraging mundane technologies for group mobile social communication

This paper outlines results from the long-term deployment of a system for mobile group socialization which utilizes a variety of mundane technologies to support cross-media notifications and messaging. We focus here on the results as they pertain to usage of mundane technologies, particularly the use of such technologies within the context of a cross-media system. We introduce “Rhub”, our prototype, which was designed to support coordination, communication and sharing amongst informal social groups. We also describe and discuss the usage of the “console,” a text-based syntax to enable consistent use across text messaging, instant messaging, email and the web. The prototype has been in active use for over 18 months by over 170 participants, who have used it on an everyday basis for their own socializing requirements.