High pressure generation using scaled-up Kawai-cell

Oligomerization and carbonization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at high pressure and temperature

“…The pressure calibration at high temperature was performed using known phase transitions in SiO 2 (quartz-coesite) [52] and CaGeO 3 [53] at 1100°C. The detailed pressure calibration procedures are described in [9,54].…”

Melting phase relations of the Udachnaya-East Group-I kimberlite at 3.0–6.5 GPa: Experimental evidence for alkali-carbonatite composition of primary kimberlite melts and implications for mantle plumes

“…This mechanism of melt migration is not viable beneath the lithosphere, and melt can reach the base of the lithosphere only by the ascent of the melting front (Ghods and Arkani-Hamed, 2002). In the sublithospheric mantle dissolutionprecipitation should be the dominant mechanism of melt migration, which implies continuous reequilibration between melt and surrounding mantle (Hammouda and Laporte, 2000;Shatskiy et al, 2013a).…”

“…Experimental and numerical modeling demonstrate that the migration rate of a melt within plume is significantly faster than the ascent rate of the solid-state plume (0.2-20 m/year vs a few centimeters per year) and this implies that melt would be accumulated in the top of the mantle plume (Hammouda and Laporte, 2000;Ghods and Arkani-Hamed, 2002;Shatskiy et al, 2013a).…”

“…Dobretsov and Shatskiy, 2012). A number of scientists have suggested that this is possible because of the high ascent rate of plumes via the liquid-phase enhanced creep (an order of magnitude faster than the solid-state creep) promoted by the presence of partial melt (Ghods, 1999;Ghods and Arkani-Hamed, 2002;Dobretsov and Shatskiy, 2012;Kirdyashkin and Kirdyashkin, 2013;Shatskiy et al, 2013a). The migration properties of a partial melt (e.g.…”

Deformation T-Cup: A new multi-anvil apparatus for controlled strain-rate deformation experiments at pressures above 18 GPa

“…Le Godec et al 25 used T-Cup tooling in a V7 Paris-Edinburgh load frame to calibrate their 7/2 assembly (✩, Figure 7), which is very close in pressure generating capabilities to the 7/3 used in this study. Theoretically, a 7/2 assembly should be more pressure efficient than a 7/3 assembly for the same load 39 but the volume of gasketing present has a significant effect on the pressure generation. Here, we have used much less gasketing than was used in the studies mentioned above.…”