Yep. I am currently going thought list of mineral names for a different reason, but hard not to notice few unpleasant facts about Western science behind mineral names...

Playing angel's advocate:

1. Maybe SC and powder were measured at different temperatures and the structure is anisotropic.
2. Strong preferred orientation in powder.
3. SQUEEZE was used in SC.

Even so it is up to authors to explain such difference.

Realistically - two difference phases.

And one more mineral that may be intersting for you - Paqueite - in honour of Julie M. Paque (1958 - ), cosmochemist at the California Institute of Technology, USA.

www.mindat.org/min-43931.html

That it is how Mercury displays it _now_, some time ago Mercury was showing it as single fragment. Seems that default bond limits settings were changed.

The authors claimed that it is the discrete polyiodide anion, that consist from these fragments.

Now, when you asked, I am not so sure how well ConQuest handles infinite chains… So, I am not saying it :)

I think that model is correct: there was Cl-I molecule in the reaction, distance are ok, etc. Chlorines are big because that picture from pre-experiment data (triclinic with low completeness). I2 also not good for charge balance.

Cambridge Structural Database www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk - the database of organic(-ish) crystal structures, more that 1.5 million structures up to now.

your preferred way - transmission in capillary.

For how long, in what range? - to reach decent statistics; where it is still diffracting.

Is there anything specific you do? - Checking calibration and alignment of capillary :)

Software: Fox, TOPAS, Fullprof, EXPO, etc.

How does it happened? I have a collection of dead turbo pumps, but mostly electronics fault and nothing spectacular.

Yeah, it looks similar, but very different for geological point of view.

And these are real fossils that were kept at the discover site (the are covered by glass).

Also had a look on famous animals of Provence in nature - manatees.