wishing I could help, but I cant.
I used very well characterized olivines and kyanite and wollastonite as standards,
and that seemed to help.
but really I wanted to say that I am also FINALLY retiring from IU, and moving east to Conn.
Maybe we can cross paths in either Conn or Maine some time?
Robert P. Wintsch
Dept. of Geological Sciences
1005 E. 10th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405
Tele. off: 812-855-4018; Tele. dept: 812-855-5582
[log in to unmask]
From: Metamorphic Studies Group <[log in to unmask]
> on behalf of day <[log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [geo-metamorphism] What is a good garnet analysis?
Some thirty years ago, when we acquired a new microprobe, I spent a frustrating year attempting to produce good analyses of garnet. Although we had some successes, we were unable to produce good analyses in a systematic way. Every suite seemed to be a new
problem. Then, I became chair of department and that effort came to a halt. Now, I am back to the problem again in the context of eclogite petrology, and it occurs to me first to ask “What is a good garnet analysis?”
Because the quality of analyses in the literature is quite variable, I ask for your thoughts on the criteria by which we should judge the quality of routine garnet analyses as sufficient to be published. Obviously, the criteria may differ depending on the proposed
application of the data, but is there a consensus on what constitutes a good routine analysis?
Howard W. Day, Professor Emeritus
The Dept. Formerly Known as Geology
University of California Davis
One Shields Ave.
Davis CA 95616