Talk:Magnetite

message: I'm completely baffled by what the 'chemical formula" section here means, despite my PhD in chemistry.  I'm not a geologist, so maybe the terminology makes sense, but can someone check up on this?  As far as I understand, the IUPAC name for magnetite should be iron(II,III) oxide (note, there is no space between iron and the parenthesis), and the formula should be written as Fe3O4, or at least FeO.Fe2O3.  I have never seen Fe2O2 before!  Can someone fix this?  I hesitate to do this, in case there is some convention in geology that I'm unaware of.
Thanks, Walkerma 14:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Where did that come from? No geo convention that I know of. Vsmith 16:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Formula 

message: Animal Magnetism
 
In the 1960s, Caltech paleoecologist Heinz Lowenstam startled biologists and geologists alike with the discovery that many animals do what conventional science had considered impossible: they manufacture substances such as the iron-containing mineral magnetite within their bodies. Out of Lowenstam's work came the more recent finding that many migratory animals, including birds, bees, and whales, generate magnetite within their bodies and may owe their uncanny homing instincts to the presence of this "internal compass" that allows them to navigate by means of Earth's magnetic field.
Source: http://admissions.caltech.edu/about/milestones/
I though that this might be a nice add to "Biological Occurrences" section, but it is a direct quote from Caltech's website, and may require permission, citation, or both.
HS.1099 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic info in that quote is already there, but added mention of Lowenstam's work and references for the section. Vsmith 10:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  c.1960, Heinz Lowenstam, Paleoecologist 

message: I've never seen this compound called by any other name. Magnetite is a geological name, and Fe(II,III) oxide is stock nomenclature. But when anyone names the compound, they say ferrous-ferric oxide (a mixture of ferus and feric oxide). This includes all textbooks I've seen, all students I've talked to, and all teachers who have taught me. One of these teachers is a prefessional research chemist specialising on inorganic reaction mechanism, and he calls it ferrous-ferric oxide. As it is the most common name for the compound, it should be included in the intro. Loom91 14:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it back in now that you've corrected the spelling :-) Anyway, the article is about the mineral, chemical discussions would go under an article on the specific chemical. Also note the older -ous, -ic names though still commonly used are not sanctioned by IUPAC. Vsmith 15:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The chemical (a mixture rather than a true compound) does not have a separate article. This article is about the chemical as well as its natural occuring form. Loom91 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just read about a (political/financial) dispute over mining, including magnetite, in Western Australia. What caught my eye was that the magnetite mined is prohibited from export unless heavily processed and a security controller is in the port there. I just wanted to get a feel why (bulk is not normally the reason) and an article about Ferrous-ferric oxide would have baffled me even further. So please keep the names which the layperson comes across in the main-stream media, maybe declare it the popular name. I wanted to look deeper than just thinking it's probably got something to do with magnetism. 121.209.56.11 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrous-ferric oxide 

message: Ferro -- pure parallel coupling of spins + coupling energy beyond critical value + particle not too small --» pure ferromagnet in which DOMAINS, not spins independently, respond to applied fields; spontaneous magnetization at zero applied field; hysteresis, coercive force exist
Super-Paramagnetic -- a would-be ferro, but coupling constant too small (or temperature too high) or particle too small (sub-domain)
Ferri -- two mechanisms, but the the most common is two lattices, one with parallel coupling (ferro) and one with antiparallel coupling (antiferro);  magnetite Fe3O4 is a case where Fe3+ ions are in octahedral and tetrahedral sites -- and they couple antiferromagnetically; but Fe2+ ions are in half the octahedral sites too and these Fe2+ couple ferromagnetically; a ferrimagnet is just usually a weaker form of ferromagnet -- all the same phenomenology exists in ferrimagnets that exist in ferromagnets.
(Magnetic materials technologists refer to "hard" and "soft" magnetics; but these are just relative magnitudes with no difference in the kind of phenomenology that exists.)
----
PLEASE E-MAIL ME and I can send you "all" of magnetism explained in two tables:  (1) the observed phenomenology for each kind of magnetism  and  (2) the microscopic mechanism giving rise to each
My e-mail is this:   Mark.Weiss@bep.treas.gov     
----
Incidentally, in magnetism -- properties of materials-wise -- it is even insufficient to know the chemical and crystal structure.  Real magnetite (synthetic black iron oxide) grades can differ gigantically in terms of magnetic performance.  Coercivity could be as little as 40 Oersted for a home-brew to 88 Oersted to 350 Oerseted for commercial syntheses.  Squareness, remanence, saturation -- these all vary all over the place, even in commercial grades (purposely even!).  So you guys fussing over what to call magnetite don't even realize that there is no "the" identity -- not when it comes to real magnetic properties of real materials.  And, by the way, most scientists dealing with magnetism call the stuff magnetite.  For that matter, in printing ink, we would call it black iron oxide -- 'cause it's black.  It's more important to realize that magnetism is exquisitely sensitive to details at all levels of magnification, than it is to make a debate about what to call "the" chemical.  That whole notion of "the" chemical is misguided insofar as magnetism is concerned.  I know that this is a kind of cognitive dissonance for most folks -- used to "once I know the compound I know all its chemistry".  But magnetochemistry of materials is highly idiosyncratic and the usual chemistry notion of "the" does not apply.  Any journal article on magnetic properties of materials will back me up; some even make my statement explicitly.  See for instance the journal IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.    199.196.144.11 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferro- Ferri- and Magnetite;  Plus Misguided notion: "the" chemical 

message: Following on the points made above, I have changed several instances of "Iron(III) oxide" to "magnetite" when referring to the material on magnetic tape, and "ferromagnetic" to "ferrimagnetic".  Both difference are already well explained in the introduction to the article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrected terms used to describe magnetite as used on magnetic tapes, disks, etc.

message: Section on anti-tumor applications is way too technical with no translation to everyday English. Wikipedia requires that highly technical language be accompanied by everyday English explanations wherever possible.  70.166.85.174 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The text in question was copied and pasted from here. That's a copyright violation, so I removed it and the tag. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged Article Section on Anti-Tumor Uses As Having Overly Technical Language

message: Magnetite and its partner Haematite are big players in Boiler fouling, but there is no mention here.  Can we recruit an expert?
--Graham Proud (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application in Boiler Chemistry 

message: The chemical Iron(II,III) oxide is the name of the substance. Magnetite is the naturally occurring mineral. The synthetic material or the finely ground powder is the substance (chemical) used in the industrial catalysis, magnetic recording, chemical sorbent ... and other industrial/commercial uses. The use or application of magnetite is as an ore of iron. Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Vsmith, this distinction strikes me as pedantic. I have seen hundreds, maybe even thousands, of references to magnetite in the scientific literature, including dozens of articles on the synthesis of magnetite, and I don't recall anyone ever saying that it's not magnetite if it didn't occur naturally. One of the sources that you removed has "magnetite" in the title. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, restored for now. Pedantic agh! :) Seems that magnetic storage as in the first use listed has little to do with magnetite and the supporting ref (abstract) would appear unrelated. Vsmith (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: True. The material in this section needs work. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced the magnetic storage bit with historic content actually relevant to magnetite. Vsmith (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see if what naturally occurring stuff is used for aside from being an ore.  My guess - its only that - is that recording media and catalysts are synthetic.  If that is the case, we probably want to guide readers to  Iron(II,III) oxide, where we would encourage editors to invest their time in refining the prose.  --Smokefoot (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron(II,III) oxide is the chem "substance" 

message: As per information that has been underrepresented, I believe that the section regarding the distribution of deposits is lacking in information. The only deposit(s) mentioned in this section are banded iron formation and sand dunes. Instead of sticking to sand dunes, why not continue talking about the banded iron formation and how for example in the Bushveld Complex magnetite is mined for its vanadium content. There is also mention of localities but no information on the type of deposits found. There are also links to those localities but no where do they mention magnetite. Magnetite can be found in Iron-Oxide-Copper-Gold (IOCG) deposits, porphyry, Fe-Ti deposits; they can be found in minor to trace amounts in deposits such as, Zn-Pb SEDEX deposits, Ni-Cu-PGE massive sulphides and so on. The last sentence in this section talks about how a cubic magnetite can be found in one locality; should this not be in the crystal habit section since this is not a deposit and merely an interesting fact. Hopefully this helps in making the Magnetite page better. Lukaszquinn (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of deposits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magnetite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119180010/http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/minerals/overview/overview?searchterm=ironsand to http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/minerals/overview/overview?searchterm=ironsand
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Magnetite contains both ferrous and ferric iron, requiring environments containing intermediate levels of oxygen availability to form. MCarrier18 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on magnetite formation added 

message: Why are there separate entries for these two materials when they are the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Work (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how systematic this is, but it seems to be the normal practice to have a separate article for the official chemical name and for the mineral (which is the same composition but must be found in nature). See, for example, hematite, cuprite and rutile. In general, the articles have very different emphases, so maybe it is the best approach. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetite vs. Iron (II,III) oxide