(via The Canadian Gemmologist, Vol.III, No.3, Spring, 1982) I am green in color and considered idiochromatic. I contain iron as an important part of my chemical composition. I am comparatively soft and belong to the orthorhombic system. I have a distinctive cleavage parallel to my vertical axis, a lowest R.I of 1.654 and a birefringence of 0.036. My absorption spectrum shows a broad band at 435nm and bands at 492 and 473nm. What am I?
Answer: Peridot
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The Google Legacy
Good Books: (via Emergic) Stephen E. Arnold's e-book entitled The Google Legacy: How Google's Internet Search is Transforming Application Software provides insights + future virtual applications via modified technological applications. I think the new simplied technology will open more surprises and opportunities for everyone in the coming years. Try it and see.
Here is an excerpt from the introduction on Arnold's site:
What kind of company is Google? The world mostly knows this high-flying, publicly traded West Coast company as the upstart that revolutionized search.
Wrong, says Stephen Arnold in this new ebook: Google is much more. New, radical and overlooked, Google is this era's transformational computing platform and could be about to unseat Microsoft from its throne.
Google is not just about search: search is merely one application you can load on its processor. Although Google has been releasing a series of separate application programs, the company is starting to assemble the mosaic pieces into a bigger picture. Its future will be about leveraging its innovative hardware/software infrastructure. In so doing, just as Microsoft replaced IBM, Google promises to replace Microsoft as Network Computing comes of age.
Written for business readers, especially senior executives of mid to large-sized, knowledge-based corporations, The Google Legacy places Google under a microscope, dissects Google's technology, evaluates its potential and determines that Google's future lies beyond search. Three appendices provide lists of Google patents, publishers who have indicated some type of relationship with Google, and universities working with Google-information that, according to the author, Google has sought to keep under wraps.
Information Week wrote recently:
Dig deeper into Google, dig into its software and engineering patents and you’ll find a roadmap for its future, says an author and online systems specialist, who believes the patents also spell bad news for Microsoft if the tech world moves to a new Google-dominated network paradigm.
Google really doesn’t hide things, said Stephen E. Arnold, who has written a book on his one-year odyssey studying the search firm. Bill Gates is basically in the same spot he had IBM in. IBM was challenged by Microsoft and IBM didn’t understand Microsoft’s business model. It’s history repeating itself.
Arnold, author of The Google Legacy, said in an interview, that it appears that Microsoft doesn’t understand Google in much the same way that IBM didn’t understand Microsoft 20 years ago. It will be the Googleplex from 2004 to 2020 a network paradigm, said Arnold. It will be enabled by Google’s approach to innovation....These patents suggest that Google is looking beyond search, possibly targeting such companies as Microsoft, as Google tries to become the leading info tech company of the 21st Century, he said.
Here is an excerpt from the introduction on Arnold's site:
What kind of company is Google? The world mostly knows this high-flying, publicly traded West Coast company as the upstart that revolutionized search.
Wrong, says Stephen Arnold in this new ebook: Google is much more. New, radical and overlooked, Google is this era's transformational computing platform and could be about to unseat Microsoft from its throne.
Google is not just about search: search is merely one application you can load on its processor. Although Google has been releasing a series of separate application programs, the company is starting to assemble the mosaic pieces into a bigger picture. Its future will be about leveraging its innovative hardware/software infrastructure. In so doing, just as Microsoft replaced IBM, Google promises to replace Microsoft as Network Computing comes of age.
Written for business readers, especially senior executives of mid to large-sized, knowledge-based corporations, The Google Legacy places Google under a microscope, dissects Google's technology, evaluates its potential and determines that Google's future lies beyond search. Three appendices provide lists of Google patents, publishers who have indicated some type of relationship with Google, and universities working with Google-information that, according to the author, Google has sought to keep under wraps.
Information Week wrote recently:
Dig deeper into Google, dig into its software and engineering patents and you’ll find a roadmap for its future, says an author and online systems specialist, who believes the patents also spell bad news for Microsoft if the tech world moves to a new Google-dominated network paradigm.
Google really doesn’t hide things, said Stephen E. Arnold, who has written a book on his one-year odyssey studying the search firm. Bill Gates is basically in the same spot he had IBM in. IBM was challenged by Microsoft and IBM didn’t understand Microsoft’s business model. It’s history repeating itself.
Arnold, author of The Google Legacy, said in an interview, that it appears that Microsoft doesn’t understand Google in much the same way that IBM didn’t understand Microsoft 20 years ago. It will be the Googleplex from 2004 to 2020 a network paradigm, said Arnold. It will be enabled by Google’s approach to innovation....These patents suggest that Google is looking beyond search, possibly targeting such companies as Microsoft, as Google tries to become the leading info tech company of the 21st Century, he said.
Ordinary People
Peter Schjeldahl writes about Edward Hopper + his greatest hits + his unique way (s) of connecting with his world @ http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/artworld/2007/05/21/070521craw_artworld_schjeldahl
For Immediate Sale: Exclusive Purchasing Rights Of Attractive Diamond Production
Chaim Even-Zohar writes about the most important event in the world for exploration – bringing together global participants to learn and share new technologies and exploration methods, business trends, investment issues, geology, international opportunities and exploration successes + other viewpoints @ http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?TextSearch=&KeyMatch=0&id=25365
The Determination Of The Weight Of A Set Stone By Hydrostatic Weighing
2007: I tried it; it works.
(via The Australian Gemmologist, Vol.18, No.5, February 1993) R K Mitchell writes:
Another gemological tip arising from our earlier discussion of hydrostatic weighing is the fact that it is by no means a waste of time to do a hydrostatic on a stone in a mount. How often are we called upon to estimate the weight of set stone for insurance purposes or with a view to buying it in over the counter? Various methods have been advocated from plain guesswork, to gauges of greater or lesser efficiency, to comparison with stones of a known weight, to weighing another mount to get somewhere near the weight of the one in question, or even to measuring the stone in all its dimensions and working out a weight using complicated mathematical formulae to obtain an approximation. Some of these might work, but there is a risk of getting hopelessly wrong answers to what should be simple enough question even when we cannot get permission to unset and weigh the stone separately.
In the past I have been offered a peridot ring with the remark that it ‘must weigh over 12 carats’ and have found myself in possession of a nice stone of over 26 carats. A star sapphire offered at ‘about 15 carats’ estimated weight, turned out to be around 35 carats when I took it out of its setting. Such inexact guesses are quite unnecessary and are very dangerous to the jeweler if he is valuing the stone. The answer lies in doing an ordinary hydrostatic weighing, a matter of a few minutes only.
Simply weigh the whole item in air and then weigh it again in water. Subtract the second weight from the first to find the total loss of weight.
Then, if we already know what the stone is (from its RI) and the nature and quality of the metal (hallmark), it is very easy to arrive at a weight for either the stone or for the mount by simple calculation. First assume that the whole ring is composed of stone and multiply the stone’s SG by the loss of weight. Deduct this figure from the total weight of the piece and that will give us the extra weight due to the greater density of the metal used. Divide this figure by the known SG of the metal less the SG of the stone.
Specific gravity of precious metals
Yellow gold
9 ct=11.2
14 ct= 14.1
18 ct= 15.5
White gold
9 ct= 12.0
14 ct= 12.9
18 ct = 16.1
Platinum = 21.4
Silver = 10.3
Victorian gold mounts with silver settings are usually 15 ct gold, so an SG figure of 12 would be a fair approximation, but the method is a little less accurate with such mounts.
This gives us the loss of weight due to the mount alone. Subtract this from the total loss of weight to find the loss due to the stone only, and multiply the result by the SG of the stone. This sounds complicated, but it is nothing of the kind. Try it and see. The longest part is the weighing and even that should not take more than a few minutes.
To give you an actual example:
An aquamarine (SG=2.70) and 18ct gold (SG=15.5) ring weighs 35.32 cts.
In water it weighs 28.75 carats
Loss of weight = 6.57 carats
If all aquamarine then weight would be 6.57 x 2.70 = 17.74
Extra weight due to gold = 35.52 – 17.74 = 17.58.
So loss of weight of mount is 17.58 divided by 15.5 – 2.7 = 1.37.
So loss of weight due to the stone is 6.57 – 1.37 = 5.20.
Weight of the stone is then 5.20 x 2.70 = 14.04 carats.
There are very minor differences in the SG of a gem species from stone to stone, and rather greater differences in the SG of gold of a given caratage (bullion dealers for this reason usually quote only to one place of decimals). But this method can usually be relied upon to give an answer well within 10% of the true weight of a stone. Where there are a few small diamonds included in the design one obviously needs to take these into account at the end of the main calculation by deducting say half a carat from the estimated weight of the main stone. Most jewelers are expert at estimating the weight of small diamonds by sight and should have little difficulty in making a reasonable correction for this situation. The method only really comes to grief when a mass of large stones of mixed species are found in one mount, and even then some guidance can be obtained from the exercise if it is used intelligently.
(via The Australian Gemmologist, Vol.18, No.5, February 1993) R K Mitchell writes:
Another gemological tip arising from our earlier discussion of hydrostatic weighing is the fact that it is by no means a waste of time to do a hydrostatic on a stone in a mount. How often are we called upon to estimate the weight of set stone for insurance purposes or with a view to buying it in over the counter? Various methods have been advocated from plain guesswork, to gauges of greater or lesser efficiency, to comparison with stones of a known weight, to weighing another mount to get somewhere near the weight of the one in question, or even to measuring the stone in all its dimensions and working out a weight using complicated mathematical formulae to obtain an approximation. Some of these might work, but there is a risk of getting hopelessly wrong answers to what should be simple enough question even when we cannot get permission to unset and weigh the stone separately.
In the past I have been offered a peridot ring with the remark that it ‘must weigh over 12 carats’ and have found myself in possession of a nice stone of over 26 carats. A star sapphire offered at ‘about 15 carats’ estimated weight, turned out to be around 35 carats when I took it out of its setting. Such inexact guesses are quite unnecessary and are very dangerous to the jeweler if he is valuing the stone. The answer lies in doing an ordinary hydrostatic weighing, a matter of a few minutes only.
Simply weigh the whole item in air and then weigh it again in water. Subtract the second weight from the first to find the total loss of weight.
Then, if we already know what the stone is (from its RI) and the nature and quality of the metal (hallmark), it is very easy to arrive at a weight for either the stone or for the mount by simple calculation. First assume that the whole ring is composed of stone and multiply the stone’s SG by the loss of weight. Deduct this figure from the total weight of the piece and that will give us the extra weight due to the greater density of the metal used. Divide this figure by the known SG of the metal less the SG of the stone.
Specific gravity of precious metals
Yellow gold
9 ct=11.2
14 ct= 14.1
18 ct= 15.5
White gold
9 ct= 12.0
14 ct= 12.9
18 ct = 16.1
Platinum = 21.4
Silver = 10.3
Victorian gold mounts with silver settings are usually 15 ct gold, so an SG figure of 12 would be a fair approximation, but the method is a little less accurate with such mounts.
This gives us the loss of weight due to the mount alone. Subtract this from the total loss of weight to find the loss due to the stone only, and multiply the result by the SG of the stone. This sounds complicated, but it is nothing of the kind. Try it and see. The longest part is the weighing and even that should not take more than a few minutes.
To give you an actual example:
An aquamarine (SG=2.70) and 18ct gold (SG=15.5) ring weighs 35.32 cts.
In water it weighs 28.75 carats
Loss of weight = 6.57 carats
If all aquamarine then weight would be 6.57 x 2.70 = 17.74
Extra weight due to gold = 35.52 – 17.74 = 17.58.
So loss of weight of mount is 17.58 divided by 15.5 – 2.7 = 1.37.
So loss of weight due to the stone is 6.57 – 1.37 = 5.20.
Weight of the stone is then 5.20 x 2.70 = 14.04 carats.
There are very minor differences in the SG of a gem species from stone to stone, and rather greater differences in the SG of gold of a given caratage (bullion dealers for this reason usually quote only to one place of decimals). But this method can usually be relied upon to give an answer well within 10% of the true weight of a stone. Where there are a few small diamonds included in the design one obviously needs to take these into account at the end of the main calculation by deducting say half a carat from the estimated weight of the main stone. Most jewelers are expert at estimating the weight of small diamonds by sight and should have little difficulty in making a reasonable correction for this situation. The method only really comes to grief when a mass of large stones of mixed species are found in one mount, and even then some guidance can be obtained from the exercise if it is used intelligently.
Taaffeite
Chemistry: Beryllium magnesium aluminate.
Crystal system: Hexagonal; trapezohedral.
Color: Transparent; red, pink, blue, mauve, green.
Hardness: 8
Cleavage: -
Specific gravity: 3.613
Refractive index: 1.718 – 1.723; Uniaxial negative; 0.004
Luster: Vitreous
Dispersion: -
Dichroism: -
Occurrence: Sri Lanka, China, Tanzania.
Notes
First discovered in 1945 by Count Taaffe; rare collector’s stone; appearance and values close to spinel but distinguished by birefringence; fluorescence: green in UV; faceted.
Crystal system: Hexagonal; trapezohedral.
Color: Transparent; red, pink, blue, mauve, green.
Hardness: 8
Cleavage: -
Specific gravity: 3.613
Refractive index: 1.718 – 1.723; Uniaxial negative; 0.004
Luster: Vitreous
Dispersion: -
Dichroism: -
Occurrence: Sri Lanka, China, Tanzania.
Notes
First discovered in 1945 by Count Taaffe; rare collector’s stone; appearance and values close to spinel but distinguished by birefringence; fluorescence: green in UV; faceted.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The Emperor's New Clothes
Memorable quote (s) from the movie:
The Emperor (Sid Caesar): How do you spin a thread out of a solid diamond?
Henry Dispenser (Robert Morse): Ah! That is a family secret!
The Emperor (Sid Caesar): How do you spin a thread out of a solid diamond?
Henry Dispenser (Robert Morse): Ah! That is a family secret!
Can You Identify This Stone?
(via The Canadian Gemmologist, Vol.III, No.3, Spring, 1982) . I come in a variety of colors, almost any color in fact, though most people think of me as a green stone which is relatively inexpensive. I frequently show strong dichroism. In rough crystals, I am quite strongly striated parallel to the c-axis. They call me a hemimorphic crystal. What am I?
Answer: Tourmaline
Answer: Tourmaline
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)