Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Igor Kryvoshlyk.
Toronto, Canada. Phone: (416) 248-8514. E-mail: ikryvoa481@rogers.com
1 cm
Fig. 1. Massive M-kimberlite. Slab. [26]. Fig. 1a. Massive M-kimberlite. Thin
Snap Lake. section. [27]. 25x. PPL.
1
1 cm 1 cm
2
Fig.3. Fragment of carbonatite as a kernel of Fig.4. Layered piece of kimberlite is a
autolith. Victor pipe, Canada. Thin section kernel of this autolith. Concentric
30x. PPL texture of autolithic selvages is quite
clear. There is a gradual transit of
autolith into surrounding kimberlite.
1.5x. Maliutka pipe. Yakutia. Slab.
.
3
7. Elongated particles of the autolithic zones, as a rule, have clear sub-
tangential orientation (Fig. 6) around the kernel.
8. Sometimes the small portions of the kimberlite “tuff” were found
inside autoliths, and also within the autolithic zones (Fig. 7, 8).
Fig.7. Autolith with the small portion of Fig.8. Broken autolith is identical to the
the “tuff” inside (t) which is identical to the autolith from Fig.7. Its shell (a) is absent
“tuff” which has surrounded the autolith. at the left-bottom side of autolith. White
Pipe Zarnitsa, Yakutia. Slab. 3x arrow shows a movement direction of the
“tuff” portion after autolith was broken.
Zarnitsa pipe, Yakutia. Slab. 3x.
4
serpophit dominates within matrix at the deep horizons of the pipes.
Sanidine was found in the matrix of autolithic kimberlite of
Yakutskaya pipe, Daldyn field, Yakutia [7]. Apatite is the common
mineral of the matrix as well. The distribution of phlogopite as well as
a distribution of all other minerals of the matrix is quite irregular.
High local concentration of phlogopite can create “lamproite-like”
rocks (Fig. 8) within kimberlite pipes.
12.Autolithic kimberlites = kimberlite “tuffs” are igneous (not a
pyroclastic) rocks [1, 8].
13.The coalescence of drops of picritic melt produced the autoliths and
blocks of massive kimberlites. Small fragments of carbonatitic
material within such blocks look like xenoliths of limestones (even if
no limestones among the wall-rocks) or like veins of postmagmatic
carbonates. [1, 6].
14. Kimberlite pipes were filled up by just one sole eruption of
kimberlite magma. Consequent differentiation of the both melts
produced all possible kimberlite rocks varieties.
15. The cavity of diatremes was created by magma itself. The
phenomenon of water hammer had occurs periodically in the head of
ascending magma. Solidificated autoliths along with xenoliths
gathered into cumulates, which plugged recurrently the originally
elongated dyke-like channel of eruption. Water hammers transformed
it into more and more isometric at the higher horizons. When magma
met the plug, water hammer struck in all possible directions making
a lot of specific grooves or striae not just vertical, but also inclined
and even horizontal (A. Du Toit, 1906) [12].
16. In some cases, weakened water hammers produced “blind” diatremes,
which never had an exit to the earth’s surface.
17. Deep inner overcooling of magma followed the moment of liquid
immiscibility. This idea has its confirmation in number of
experimental publications [14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. Therefore, it
is easy to see, why thermal effect on xenoliths and wall rocks was so
low.
5
18. Sharp overcooling crushed hot mantle xeno- and phenocrysts (in
approximately equal proportion, independently of their own
hardness). If any outer mechanical force would crush such a super-
hard mineral as diamond is, so this force must to grind to powder all
other much softer kimberlitic minerals, however, they are survived.
19. Serpophit/lizardite is a volcanic glass of kimberlite rocks [3, 4, 5].
20. Kimberlites are rich for titanium, potassium, phosphorus, hydrogen,
boron, fluorine, etc. that are catalysts of liquid immiscibility in
experimental systems.
21. The word “Kimberlite” has to be used as an economic (not
petrographical) term for diamondiferous variety of the wide range of
ultrabasic subalkaline hypabyssal rocks rich for olivine and also for
carbonate, mica, clinopyroxene, melilite, monticellite, potassium
feldspar, etc. Petrologically it has to be a rock - mixture of
carbonatites and group of ultrabasic silicate rocks [2].
22. At least some of diamonds could be generated by kimberlite magma
itself during eruption. A long, well known list of undoubtedly crustal
minerals among inclusions in diamonds (staurolite, quartz,
hornblende, feldspar, plagioclase, etc) cannot be explained on the
traditional basis. In addition, this can explain the numerous
discoveries of diamonds in crustal xenoliths and wall rocks [24].
Below is a one of logical explanations. Using classic hydrodynamic
formula (9, p.377):
C = (2 * X * Y) / (X + Y)
B = A / Dm
6
where: A – viscosity, Pa / sec; if A = 1 (just for water-rich carbonatitic
liquid, which was a transporting agent for kimberlite magma), so B = 4 *
10 ^ (-4) sq. m / sec.
V = 5.1 m / sec.
The loss of the quantity of movement [dK] during single water hammer
is:
dK = Mk * dV
If the duration of the loss of speed (dT) was 5 min, so the power of single
water hammer was:
F = dK / dT = 5.17 * 10 ^ 9 N
During water hammers in the front of the magmatic column, the pressure
40 kbar (necessary for diamond growth) could be reached in the sphere
with the surface of:
7
Each water hammer could create a cavity:
U = F / (g * Dr)
If to accept that the duration of single water hammer was 1 hour (5 min
to loose the speed and 55 min to regain it back), time about ten days will
be enough to create average kimberlite pipe. Statistically [25], 1,200 out
from 3,211 known for the year of 1994 eruptions lasted 10 – 100 days,
and 400 eruptions lasted 1 – 10 days.
23. There is the fact, that each diamond mine contains huge number of
different morphological varieties of diamonds (Premier Mine – about
1,000 [23]). It is hard to imagine the existence in upper mantle a
thousands different diamondiferous rocks, which provided their
diamonds for each separated kimberlite pipe.
REFERENCES:
8
3. Kryvoshlyk I.N. To the Question of Studying of Autoliths in
Kimberlite Rocks. 1978. Deposited Manuscript # 2115-78. Moscow,
(in Russian).
4. Kryvoshlyk I.N. To the Question of Possibility of Liquid
Immiscibility in Kimberlite Pipes. 1979. Deposited Manuscript #
2440-79. Moscow, (in Russian).
5. Kryvoshlyk I.N. Autoliths and Some Conclusions of the Hypothesis
of Liquid Immiscibility. 1980. Transactions of the Academy of
Science of the USSR. V. 252, # 1. Moscow, (in Russian).
6. Kryvoshlyk I.N. The Globules of Immiscible Carbonatites in
Kimberlite Rocks. 1981. Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of
the USSR. V. 260, # 4. Moscow, (in Russian).
7. Kryvoshlyk I.N. Optically Positive Anorthoclase of Carbonatitic
Matrix of Autolithic Kimberlite of Yakutskaya Pipe. Dep. # 1107-
Ukraine.90: 7 pp. 1990, (in Russian).
8. Kryvoshlyk I.N. Brief Review of the Theory of Liquid Immiscibility
of Kimberlite Magma. 1998. 7th International Kimberlite Conference.
Cape Town. Extended Abstracts, pp. 473-474.
Also:
9. Povh I.L. Hydrodynamics. 1964, (in Russian).
10.Kovalsky V.V. Kimberlite Rocks of Yakutia. Academy of Sciences of
the USSR. Moscow. 1963, (in Russian).
11.Loytsyansky L.G. Fluid and Gas Mechanics. Nauka (Science)
Publication. Moscow. 1970, (in Russian).
12.Clement C.R., Harris J.W., Robinson D.N., and Hawthorne J.B. The
De Beers Kimberlite Pipe – A Historic South African Diamond Mine.
Mineral Deposits of Southern Africa. 1986, pp. 2193-2214.
13.Milashev V.A. Pipes of Explosion. Nedra. 1984, (in Russian).
14.Todd P. Silverstein. The Real Reason Why Oil and Water Don’t Mix.
Journal of Chemical Education. Vol. 75, No. 1, January 1998.
15.Grande T. On the Thermodynamics of Glass Forming AgI- and
Ag2S’- Based Melts. Proceedings from The International Harald A.
Oye Symposium, Trondheim, Norway, Feb. 2-3, 1995, 349-356.
16.Frantsesson E.V. The Petrology of Kimberlites. Moscow. 1967.
17.Karapetiants M.H. Chemical Thermodynamics. Goshimizdat.
Moskow-Leningrad, 1953.
18.Semenchenko V.K. The Surface Phenomenons in Metals and Alloys.
Gos. Izdat Technical-Theoretical Literature. Moscow, 1957.
19.Semenchenko V.K. Selected Chapters of Theoretical Physics.
“Education”, Moscow, 1966.
9
20.Kitaigorodsky I.N., Khodakovskaya R.Ya. Pre-crystalline Period in
Glass and its Significance. “Glass-like Condition”, part 1, “Catalyzed
Crystallization of Glass”, Academy of Science of the USSR, Moscow-
Leningrad, 1963.
21.Storonkin A.V. Thermodynamics of Heterogeneous Systems. Part 1.
Leningrad University Publication. Leningrad. 1967.
22.Anikin I.N. Main Peculiarities of Crystallization of Mica (Phlogopite)
from Melt. “The Growth of Crystals”, # 12, 1977.
23.Trofimov V.S. Geology of Deposits of Natural Diamonds. Moscow,
“Nedra”, 1980.
24.Botkunov A.A. Some Regularities of Distribution of Diamonds in
“Mir” Pipe. “Transactions of All-Union Mineralogical Society”, part
4, 1964.
25.Simkin T., Siebert L. Volcanoes of the World. Geoscience Press,
Tuscon, Arizona, 1994.
26. www.meteorlab.com/Frame01/mantle.htm
27. www.rasny.org/mineral/Kimberlite/index.htm
28.Hetman, C.M., et al, Lithos, 76, 2004, 51-74.
29.Kryvoshlyk, I. 1983. PhD Thesis. Moscow University.
IMPORTANT NOTE.
This theory was ignored for many years. At the present time it became a
classic point of view. The impressive list of publications and even PhD
dissertations by those “scientists” who used to use somebody else’s ideas
confirms a justice of my theory. Should I be thankful to these plagiarists?
Should I attach their list?
10