Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 8:33 PM
348 online now:
14174dm, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, Meddle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,572 Year: 10,178/21,208 Month: 3,265/2,674 Week: 681/961 Day: 143/151 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Author Topic:   Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 196 of 260 (432963)
11-09-2007 10:45 AM


Bump for Antioch's Fire
Start at Message 1 sir.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 197 of 260 (434691)
11-16-2007 9:51 PM


What is the layer above the Dox formation?
Sure would like for one of our biologists Geologists to help us carry this forward. What is the next layer above the Dox formation?

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-21-2007 9:02 AM jar has responded

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 198 of 260 (435502)
11-21-2007 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by jar
11-16-2007 9:51 PM


Re: What is the layer above the Dox formation?
Above the Dox formation is the Cardenas Basalts. Volcanic rock, i.e. lava flows. Much of what you get from google on it conisists of demented creationist honking about how the dating for this series is inaccurate or whatnot.

Here's a quick description I managed to dig up:

"The Cardenas Lava is the name given to a series of basalt and basaltic andesite flows and sandstone interbeds that are above the Dox Formation, but below the Nankoweap Formation. The Cardenas Lava is only exposed in the eastern part of the canyon, where it ranges from 785 feet to 985 feet in thickness. The contact between the Cardenas Lava and the Nankoweap Formation is an unconformity. An unknown amount of the Cardenas Lava was removed before the deposition of the Nankoweap."

Sandstone and basalt, hmmm. Periodic coastal volcanic eruptions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 9:51 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by jar, posted 11-22-2007 1:17 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 199 of 260 (435700)
11-22-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by IrishRockhound
11-21-2007 9:02 AM


Re: What is the layer above the Dox formation?
Just a few questions if you please.

You say "a series of basalt and basaltic andesite flows and sandstone interbeds."

For the benefit of this OLD mind, does that mean the Cardenas layer is actually a whole series of layers? What does "Andesite flows" mean?

Just for those following along we are approaching 200 posts and here is where we are.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-21-2007 9:02 AM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by The Matt, posted 11-22-2007 1:52 PM jar has responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 2925 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 200 of 260 (435705)
11-22-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by jar
11-22-2007 1:17 PM


Re: What is the layer above the Dox formation?
Andesite is a different type of lava. It has a different mineral composition to basalt (less silica, most significantly), and is generally a good deal thicker, leading to steeper volcanoes and more explosive eruptions.

Andesite
Basalt
Also see here

{Note from Adminnemooseus - Re: "(less silica, most significantly)." - The Matt is ambiguous about which volcanic type this refers to. It would refer to basalt. Andesite has more silica that basalt.}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See note above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by jar, posted 11-22-2007 1:17 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 11-22-2007 1:54 PM The Matt has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 201 of 260 (435706)
11-22-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by The Matt
11-22-2007 1:52 PM


Re: What is the layer above the Dox formation?
Okay, got that it is a different type of lava.

Need some more help.

Can one event produce both types of flows?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by The Matt, posted 11-22-2007 1:52 PM The Matt has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 202 of 260 (435714)
11-22-2007 2:31 PM


More questions on the Cardenas Lava flows.
It seems that the Cardenas Lava flows are between 685 and 985 feet thick.

The lower Dox formation we covered earlier is mostly shale (mud) and sandstone with indications of being made during a series growing and receding seas. It has areas that show ripple marks and also area of mud cracks.

While the Cardenas Lava flows are between 785 and 985 feet thick, the Dox formation is up to 3000 plus feet thick.

As we look at each of these layer we seem to find signs that each layer really was at one time at the surface; for example we found ripple marks, rain drop impressions and mud cracks in parts of the Hakatai Shale (about 400 to 100 feet thick), then the Shinumo Quartzite layers (1000 to 1300 feet thick) then the Dox formation that is a totally different set of compositions and, as stated about, ranging up to 3000 feet thick.

Is that a reasonable summary so far?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-23-2007 8:47 AM jar has responded

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 203 of 260 (435826)
11-23-2007 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by jar
11-22-2007 2:31 PM


Re: More questions on the Cardenas Lava flows.
That's about right, jar.

For reference, when we talk about a formation such as the Cardenas Basalt, we're not speaking of a single type of rock. We're actually talking of a whole series of layers of rock, representing a particular depositional environment, in this case sandstone being deposited in between volcanic eruptions. In general terms, formations are divided based on the change in depositional environment, and within the formation you will have several members or types of rock which define that environment. The Cardenas Basalt has several members such as a red sandstone layer and a basalt layer.

Formations are the basic units, I guess, of how you look at the rocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jar, posted 11-22-2007 2:31 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by jar, posted 11-23-2007 10:12 AM IrishRockhound has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 204 of 260 (435834)
11-23-2007 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by edge
03-19-2006 5:50 PM


Re: still on clay
This from Wikipedia:
...Clays are distinguished from other small particles present in soils such as silt by their small size, flake or layered shape, affinity for water and high plasticity index."

I thought clays were also characterized by ionic polarity (like water, thus the affinity for water), while silt was not. Both, being very small particle size, settle slowly in water, and thus take a lot longer to accumulate than larger granular sediment (like sand (or shells)) when they have to settle out of the water column.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay

quote:
Clay deposits are mostly composed of clay minerals (phyllosilicate minerals), minerals which impart plasticity and harden when fired or dried, and variable amounts of water trapped in the mineral structure by polar attraction.

Or am I mixing definitions:

quote:
The distinction between silt and clay varies by discipline. Geologists and soil scientists usually consider the separation to occur at a particle size of 2 µm (clays being finer, silts being coarser), sedimentologists often use 4-5 μm, and colloid chemists use 1 μm.[1] Geotechnical engineers distinguish between silts and clays based on the plasticity properties of the soil, as measured by the soils' Atterberg Limits.

clay –noun 1.a. A fine-grained, firm earthy material that is plastic when wet and hardens when heated, consisting primarily of hydrated silicates of aluminum and widely used in making bricks, tiles, and pottery.
- b. A hardening or nonhardening material having a consistency similar to clay and used for modeling.
2. Geology A sedimentary material with grains smaller than 0.002 millimeters in diameter.
3. Moist sticky earth; mud.
4. The human body as opposed to the spirit.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

Defining it by size alone seems a little arbitrary to me, especially when you can have particles above and below that limit that exhibit plasticity and particles above and below that limit that don't exhibit plasticity (or should we have 'plastic clays' and 'non-plastic clays'?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silt

quote:
In the Udden-Wentworth scale (due to Krumbein), silt particles range between 1⁄256 and 1⁄16 mm (3.9 to 62.5 μm), larger than clay but smaller than a sand. In actuality, silt is chemically distinct from clay, and unlike clay, grains of silt are approximately the same size in all dimensions; furthermore, their size ranges overlap. According to the USDA Soil Texture Classification system, the sand-silt distinction is made at the 0.05 mm particle size.[7]

Another thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay

quote:
Clay minerals are typically formed over long periods of time by the gradual chemical weathering of rocks (usually silicate-bearing) by low concentrations of carbonic acid and other diluted solvents. These solvents (usually acidic) migrate through the weathering rock after leaching through upper weathered layers. In addition to the weathering process, some clay minerals are formed by hydrothermal activity.

This implies that all clays take a long time to make, but I also thought that clays were formed by (mixing water with) volcanic ash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_ash

quote:
Volcanic ash consists of very fine rock and mineral particles less than 2 mm in diameter that are ejected from a volcanic vent. Ash is created when solid rock shatters and magma separates into minute particles during explosive volcanic activity. The usually violent nature of an eruption involving steam (phreatic eruption) results in the magma and perhaps solid rock surrounding the vent, being torn into particles of clay to sand size.

Which would be a fairly rapid process for making clay (mixed with larger particles) layers, and the different size particles could be separated by erosion and different settling rates ...

{abe} from Message 117 by roxrcool:

The chemistry of ash is very diagnostic and can be chemically characterized by looking at grain sizes, mineralogic compositions, and trace-element compositions. Each volcanic eruption, even if it's from the same volcano, will be slightly different, and so by studying these differences and mapping out the extents of the ash layers themselves, we can often trace them back to their source.

When deposited on land, these ash layers can remain relatively fresh retaining their primary mineralogy, though glass will devitrify (to clay) over time in the presence of water. When the ash falls on water, however, like the ocean or an inland sea, and is subsequently deposited in a subaqueous settings, the glass shards quickly devitrify into clay particles. (Note: devitrification means that the amorphous glass structure, which is unstable at surface conditions and free of water, will change into a more stable, orderly, and water-bearing form, and so in the case of volcanic glass, the glass converts to clay - typically bentonite.)

Some of the larger ash particles become clay in water?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : roxrcool quote


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by edge, posted 03-19-2006 5:50 PM edge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 205 of 260 (435835)
11-23-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by IrishRockhound
11-23-2007 8:47 AM


Read it and Nankoweap
The Nankoweap Formation is a 370-foot (113-meter) thick cryptic unit that comprises sandstone and lesser amounts of siltstone, shale (rare black shales), and mudstone (Elston and Scott, 1976). This formation has been informally subdivided into an upper and lower member. This is based both on variations in grain size (the lower member is finer than the upper member), but more importantly by an angular unconformity that separates the two members and signifies tectonic activity during Nankoweap time (Elston and Scott, 1976).

From this source.

Above the Cardenas formation we find the Nankoweap. Once again we see a change in the types of rock

From what little I have learned so far, several thing jump out at me. First, it mentions that the lower part of the formation has a finer grain composition than the upper. That seems to indicate that the lower layers were deposited in a less active environment than the upper. I understood that when material is transported by both water and air, the larger particles get deposited first and the finer material is held in suspension longer. If the Nankoweap had been a single event I would have expected the larger coarser material to be lower with the finer sediment towards the top.

Is that reasonable?

Second, they mention an angular unconformity. (see Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities.)
Now please correct me if I am wrong.

If I remember correctly from earlier parts of this thread, sandstone, siltstone, shale and mudstone each form under different conditions and have different compositions.

Can you or another of our geologists give me a short description of each of those just as a reminder?

Pictures would also help.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-23-2007 8:47 AM IrishRockhound has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-26-2007 3:36 AM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 206 of 260 (435894)
11-23-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by bdfoster
05-15-2007 4:19 PM


Precambrian from their stratigraphic position and complete lack of fossils. That makes them some of the oldest sedimentary rocks in the world. It's unusual to find supracrustal rocks (rocks that are deposited on the earth's surface like sediments or lava flows) this old that havn't been metamorphosed (deeply burried and altered mineralogically).

Do we have a sedimentary layer without (recognizable) signs of life near the bottom of the canyon, and a layer above that ...

Message 143 (Jar): Now for the big question. It seems that this last layer is the first to actually show signs of live, but only of cyanobacteria. Is this correct?

Message 144 (Rox): I believe the first signs of life in the Grand Canyon are visible in the Bass Limestone. I recall reading about stromatolites in the Bass.

I thought the Bass (3a?) was above the Vishnu Schist (1a) and the schist was metamorphic, and that only leaves group 2 below (did I miss something between the Vishnu and the Bass? (and is this where the layer(s) got "pinched"?)


Click to enlarge

The Houtata Conglomerate from Message 115


Click to enlarge

Or are these two sedimentary layers, one without life one with, both in the Bass?

I was not aware of any non-metamorphic sedimentary rock that did not show life.

Thanks


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by bdfoster, posted 05-15-2007 4:19 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 11-23-2007 5:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 207 of 260 (435895)
11-23-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by RAZD
11-23-2007 5:21 PM


On Bass
Can we hold this for just a short while. See Message 199.

The reason is that the Bass formation will return in just a little while after we cover the last few groups and at that time it will become very pertinent.

Edited by jar, : fix link


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2007 5:21 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 208 of 260 (436357)
11-25-2007 9:24 AM


Help! Nankoweap help needed.
Are there any geologists that can help me with some issues on the Nankoweap formation?

See Message 205.

I'd really like to at least work through the Super Group before we need to close this thread and even after we cover these last few formations, I have some really big questions to ask about what happened.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 209 of 260 (436507)
11-26-2007 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by jar
11-23-2007 10:12 AM


Re: Read it and Nankoweap
quote:
From what little I have learned so far, several thing jump out at me. First, it mentions that the lower part of the formation has a finer grain composition than the upper. That seems to indicate that the lower layers were deposited in a less active environment than the upper. I understood that when material is transported by both water and air, the larger particles get deposited first and the finer material is held in suspension longer. If the Nankoweap had been a single event I would have expected the larger coarser material to be lower with the finer sediment towards the top.

Is that reasonable?


More or less, yes. I couldn't say 100% because I haven't actually examined the rock in detail.

quote:
If I remember correctly from earlier parts of this thread, sandstone, siltstone, shale and mudstone each form under different conditions and have different compositions.

Can you or another of our geologists give me a short description of each of those just as a reminder?


Wikipedia has a very concise description on shales and sandstones:

Shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock whose original constituents were clays or muds. It is characterized by thin laminae breaking with an irregular curving fracture, often splintery and usually parallel to the often-indistinguishable bedding plane. This property is called fissility. Non-fissile rocks of similar composition but made of particles smaller than 1/16 mm are described as mudstones. Rocks with similar particle sizes but with less clay and therefore grittier are siltstones.

Just to explain: fissility is the way that shales break into thin sheets rather than into blocks like other rocks.

Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed mainly of sand-size mineral or rock grains. Most sandstone is composed of quartz and/or feldspar because these are the most common minerals in the Earth's crust. Like sand, sandstone may be any color, but the most common colors are tan, brown, yellow, red, gray and white.

So overall, the visual difference between sandstone, siltstone, and shale/mudstone is how 'gritty' or coarse they are. And mudstone and shale differ only in that shale is fissile and mudstone is not.

Edited by IrishRockhound, : fixed quote box


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by jar, posted 11-23-2007 10:12 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 11-26-2007 10:56 AM IrishRockhound has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 210 of 260 (436529)
11-26-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by IrishRockhound
11-26-2007 3:36 AM


Re: Read it and Nankoweap
Thanks. That helped a lot in differentiating them.

But is there any chance I could get you to elaborate a little on how they are made?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-26-2007 3:36 AM IrishRockhound has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-27-2007 1:55 PM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017