[HN Gopher] Kyawthuite is so rare it's only ever been found once
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Kyawthuite is so rare it's only ever been found once
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 187 points
       Date   : 2024-12-01 13:49 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sciencealert.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencealert.com)
        
       | ginko wrote:
       | >There, mineralogists were able to relate the stone to synthetic
       | BiSbO4 - bismuth antimonate - though with the formula Bi3+Sb5+O4,
       | an arrangement never before found in nature.
       | 
       | How do they know it's not a synthetic stone to begin with?
        
         | loa_in_ wrote:
         | They assume that as there seem to be no production for this
         | kind of material happening within the sphere of man made
         | industry, anything found must be natural.
        
           | bartread wrote:
           | No, that's not correct: there are tubular inclusions in the
           | gem that are a sign of shear stress, which indicates toward
           | natural formation.
        
             | gus_massa wrote:
             | Is anyone producing it artificialy? It's a strange
             | combination of oxides. You probably have to mix them, heat
             | them a lot and use a lot of pressure, just to get pitty
             | tiny cristals if you are lucky. In Wikipedia, I don't see
             | any industrial application that can pay for tweaking the
             | procces for years to get nice gems.
        
           | v3ss0n wrote:
           | I am from Myanmar and I am sure we didn't have technology to
           | do that. We only have like 3 hrs a day of power and 24/7 full
           | on war festival in WJ40k style factions waging war against
           | the Chaos lord Min Aung Hlaing. We don't have infrastructure
           | or technology, our technology now falling back to WW1 era
        
           | onlypassingthru wrote:
           | Unless it's the byproduct of some other valuable process, why
           | would anyone go to the expense and trouble of figuring out
           | how to make it?
        
         | iamhamm wrote:
         | "It also has hollow, tube-shaped inclusions called en echelon
         | veins that are caused by shear stress - evidence of its natural
         | formation."
        
           | crazygringo wrote:
           | Thanks. They put that sentence in a weird place, I had missed
           | it too and had the same question.
        
       | echelon wrote:
       | Are there predictive models or novel techniques such as
       | interferometry that allow us to make better guesses where
       | minerals and other natural resources might be located?
       | 
       | I've been hearing about startups driving around trying to detect
       | gravitational distortions, or using satellite data. Are we
       | getting better at this? Is there a lot of opportunity in the
       | space for new methods and approaches?
        
         | ReptileMan wrote:
         | I guess LLM will be amazing with proper training from scratch
         | since they are amazing with paterns and discovering paterns
        
           | lukan wrote:
           | A variant of stable diffusion maybe. Not large language
           | models.
        
             | Duckyroad wrote:
             | Aren't LLMs and stable diffusion both generators? The are
             | designed to generate a complex response to a simple prompt.
             | 
             | If you want to identify potential natural resource
             | deposits, that's good old data science with some machine
             | learning. You feed them a bunch of data and out comes a
             | simple map with probabilities.
             | 
             | I suspect the relevant mining companies already have
             | analysts who are doing everything they can to find
             | deposits. No need for revolutionary startups.
        
       | indigodaddy wrote:
       | Who actually owns the stone currently? Did Kyaw Thu give it to
       | National History Museum of Los Angeles County, or is it only
       | housed there whilst Kyaw Thu still the owner?
        
         | mjlee wrote:
         | Kyaw Thu is the given name. Burmese names don't use
         | surnames/family names.
        
           | indigodaddy wrote:
           | Ah, interesting thank you.
        
           | dhosek wrote:
           | I wonder if this is the last country to not use family names.
           | Thailand's use of family names began in the 20th century, if
           | I recall correctly.
        
             | kseistrup wrote:
             | Many Ugandans have two given names and no family name. And
             | I know at least two Indonesians who only have a single
             | name.
        
             | Deukhoofd wrote:
             | Iceland comes to mind, where patronyms and matronyms are
             | still the standard.
        
               | samatman wrote:
               | I would consider all of surnames, patronyms, and
               | matronyms, to be "family names" in the broad sense.
               | They're based on who your family is, after all.
        
               | withinboredom wrote:
               | Wow. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-
               | programmers-...
               | 
               | That isn't how names work.
        
               | adwn wrote:
               | Can you be more specific, please?
               | 
               | Also, I hate these kinds of lists. Are we just supposed
               | to take the author by his word? He says:
               | 
               | > _If you need examples of real names which disprove any
               | of the above commonly held misconceptions, I will happily
               | introduce you to several._
               | 
               | Then why doesn't he? I'm really curious about that last
               | one: "People have names."
        
               | Symbiote wrote:
               | A newborn baby doesn't have a name, and depending on the
               | culture and country there could be days, months or even
               | years before they get one.
        
               | JadeNB wrote:
               | > > If you need examples of real names which disprove any
               | of the above commonly held misconceptions, I will happily
               | introduce you to several.
               | 
               | > Then why doesn't he? I'm really curious about that last
               | one: "People have names."
               | 
               | Indeed, I dare to suggest that, while there are people
               | who don't have names, there is definitionally no real
               | name that can disprove the misconception.
        
               | PeterisP wrote:
               | Your IT system may need to handle entries linked to
               | people who don't have names, for example, recording that
               | some treatment was given to a baby who died soon after
               | birth before being given a name.
        
               | BurningFrog wrote:
               | The Icelandic surnames are not constant through
               | generations. You can have 10 grandkids, all with
               | different surnames.
               | 
               | Erik's son Leif is Leif Eriksson, Leifs kids Bjorn and
               | Gudrun are Bjorn Leifsson and Gudrun Leifsdottir.
        
             | jerkstate wrote:
             | Bali also doesn't use family names. They have a birth order
             | name and a given name.
        
               | kyawzazaw wrote:
               | we don't do that for burmese names but you can guess the
               | day of the birthdate from the names most of the time
        
         | analog31 wrote:
         | It's nobody's Bismuth.
        
           | Invictus0 wrote:
           | Well done
        
       | barrettondricka wrote:
       | Ranking minerals by "most rare" is stupid. They simply don't have
       | enough data.
       | 
       | > you might mistaken it for amber or topaz
       | 
       | I suspect that there are dozens of other extremely rare minerals
       | out there that have not yet been found or mistaken for different
       | ones. Correctly estimating their relative abundance is impossible
       | and pointless as the rarest will be single cases. In fact, the
       | rarest mineral ever has likely not been discovered yet. I bet
       | there is some famous math/statistics problem about this kind of
       | situation.
       | 
       | And I wonder if any rare minerals have been classified by
       | governments (or individuals) for whatever reasons. (Probably yes)
        
         | andrewflnr wrote:
         | As with most pronouncements like this, you just have to
         | mentally append "(known so far)" to the end and it will make
         | sense. That's the implicit context for almost all of them. We
         | can only say what we know, so far. For the reasons you stated,
         | I don't think anyone actually thinks they know the absolute
         | rarest mineral on earth.
        
       | HankB99 wrote:
       | > currently housed safely at the National History Museum of Los
       | Angeles County.
       | 
       | I see that as a lead in to a heist movie.
       | 
       | Aside from that... I wonder if there are other samples of this
       | material yet to be found. Also, is it the only one known because
       | it's the only one that's been properly identified?
        
       | mrandish wrote:
       | I'm no mineral expert but there's enough info in the TFA to
       | suspect it's rare because no one is mining it or even looking for
       | it. Apparently, it's very difficult to recognize in its natural
       | form and easy to mistake for other less valuable minerals without
       | lab testing.
       | 
       | It's just hard for me to imagine the natural processes that
       | formed this grain of it didn't form a lot more of it in the
       | region where it was found.
        
         | ocdtrekkie wrote:
         | I would have to imagine if they find it particularly
         | interesting it will be justified to go look for more, so it
         | probably will not be the rarest gem for long.
        
           | Rastonbury wrote:
           | The place where it was found was also where the find most of
           | the now 2nd rarest gem Painite, supposed there are only 300
           | specimens found. So I'm sure miners and scientists are
           | hunting there, especially since these gems goes for prices
           | similar that of diamonds
        
         | facialwipe wrote:
         | According to Warren Buffet, all of the world's mined gold would
         | only form a 67 sq ft cube.
        
           | rich_sasha wrote:
           | I think not quite; below link says a cube 22x22x22 m, which
           | is about 67ft. But thats length side. Actual volume is just
           | over 300k cubic feet, or in real units, 10,000 cubic meters.
           | 
           | https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/how-much-gold
        
             | amelius wrote:
             | Or about 4.26 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
        
               | nosrepa wrote:
               | Finally a unit I can understand!
        
           | aurizon wrote:
           | Ah, a true answer to gold theft - esp snatch/grab, but there
           | would be filers galore...
        
         | jnurmine wrote:
         | Also not a mineral expert -- I didn't really understand
         | anything from Wikipedia's description, "monoclinic with space
         | group I2/c, and is isostructural with...".
         | 
         | But since it's naturally occuring, perhaps even existing
         | bismuth mines elsewhere have more of these rare grains, if one
         | knows how to look for them.
        
       | yapyap wrote:
       | The rarest mineral is so rare it hasn't been found yet
        
         | jbverschoor wrote:
         | As Dick Dastardly said: I'm so sneaky, I can't even trust
         | myself!
        
       | ada1981 wrote:
       | >>The world's only known piece of kyawthuite is currently housed
       | safely at the National History Museum of Los Angeles County.<<
       | 
       | A shame that it's not housed in a museum of its native origin.
        
         | throwaway2562 wrote:
         | Why is it a shame exactly?
        
           | ada1981 wrote:
           | Have you been to LA?
        
         | rad_gruchalski wrote:
         | Do you know any good museums in Myanmar worth visiting?
        
           | kyawzazaw wrote:
           | none
        
             | ada1981 wrote:
             | I thought this was a thread specific throw away account due
             | to the "kyaw".
        
           | JadeNB wrote:
           | This kind of reasoning is self-perpetuating, though: there
           | are no good museums here, so interesting things need to be
           | shipped abroad to be exhibited properly, so there are no good
           | museums here because there's nothing interesting to put in
           | them ....
           | 
           | (I don't necessarily blame any individual for this--I think
           | most of us are sometimes, or always, part of one system or
           | another that everyone hates but that is the result of
           | constant rational decisions.)
        
             | rad_gruchalski wrote:
             | Could it be that the current political situation in Myanmar
             | isn't the most stable?
        
         | aithrowawaycomm wrote:
         | This is really only a salient concern when foreigners abscond
         | with things, but this was discovered by a Burmese geologist and
         | it seems that it was his decision to house the mineral in the
         | US. I would add that there is a big difference between natural
         | science objects versus cultural artifacts.
        
         | v3ss0n wrote:
         | It's lucky that the founder decided to host it at LA. It could
         | have been gone at war if it's today, we are at full scale war
         | now. Or the junta Chief would had traded to get some more MIGs.
        
           | ada1981 wrote:
           | As I said, it's a shame.
        
             | throwaway2562 wrote:
             | Despite all evidence to the contrary.
        
               | ada1981 wrote:
               | You are pleased with the current situation in Myanmar? Do
               | tell.
        
       | whatio wrote:
       | "Rare" is being used in the same sense as "rare earth elements,"
       | not in the typical, common usage of rare. The "rare" part comes
       | from:
       | 
       | 1. They rarely form concentrated ore deposits, instead being
       | widely dispersed throughout rock formations
       | 
       | 2. The elements are very chemically similar to each other, making
       | them difficult and expensive to separate and purify for
       | industrial use
        
         | creddit wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
           | MiguelX413 wrote:
           | Or the headline
        
           | dang wrote:
           | Please make your substantive points without breaking the site
           | guidelines.
           | 
           | Your comment would be fine with just the second sentence.
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        
       | deadbabe wrote:
       | Probably because it's just a useless rock?
        
       | abeppu wrote:
       | I'm a little surprised there isn't a giant k-way tie for minerals
       | that have only been found once. Like, I get that minerals arise
       | from natural processes, and it's a big planet, so maybe every
       | process should have a potential to occur more than once and
       | perhaps in more than one place -- but many kinds of natural
       | processes create a long-tail distribution where there's a huge
       | number of very rare things.
        
       | dang wrote:
       | See also
       | https://web.archive.org/web/20160712224355/http://www.mmtime...
       | (linked from the article)
        
       | EGreg wrote:
       | How about Cummingtonite?
       | 
       | They say it's commonly found, but it was named after Cummington
       | 
       | (I found out about it by watching
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya_D9IwB3-s)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-12-01 23:00 UTC)