January 24 Through February 4—TUCSON, ARIZONA: Annual show
Welcome to the GemologyOnline.com Forum
A non-profit Forum for the exchange of gemological ideas
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:58 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:42 pm 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:25 pm
Posts: 14
Has anyone tried cutting any of the gemstones in half to see if the color penetrates through out the stone? From looking at the ISG article when the stone was cut, the center was clear while the original surface of the stone shown on either side is green. The pictures that have been posted here are very interesting, but just wondering if anybody has tried cutting one and viewing it in the immersion? Hopefully, Dr. Rossman's test results will help put an end to this contraversy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:43 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 2646
Please forgive my amateurish comments, I'm not much of a chemist, but, we're dealing with a gemstone that isn't known for treatments prior to this.
With that in mind, it seems that we're trying to improvise our thinking by determining an unknown treatment with methods that have been shown to be indicative of diffusion treatments on another material (corundum.)

In order to do this, we have to assume that 2 totally different gemstones with different chemistries will react and accept some type of chemical additive into it's crystal structure in the same manner and configuration.

That is a very presumptive observation to make without knowing the elements diffused, how and if they will actually be accepted into the crystal structure of the material, at what temperature it would be necessary to diffuse the elements effectively without destroying the specimen.

Can we even assume a diffusion process because a few specimens show a suspect patterning. A pattern that is more indicative to diffusion process applied to an entirely different gemstone?

I don't see this as being Dixie Cup science. I'm not content to agree that what works for one gemstone will work for another.

Some of the theoretical assumptions on how this may be done seem far fetched and labor intensive enough to deem the treatment more costly than the gemstone itself.

Time will tell, once all of the studies are done, we hope. There's just not enough evidence of any kind right now to make any determinative assumptions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:55 pm 
Offline
Gemology Online Übergod
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 3528
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Agreed, JB. Too much of this is starting to sound like "soft" science. I'll wait until someone properly applies the scientific method to trust their results. There's nothing wrong with simple tests and idle speculation, that can be fun... but one thing that you CANNOT get that way is definitive evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:34 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:15 pm
Posts: 1795
Location: canada
Question: Does any one know how penicillin was discovered?

It was an orange mold growing on a piece of stale bread left by accident on a window ledge. (that is pretty soft science guys)

It is very presumptive to assume that bulk diffusion is different in all cases when it starts out:

Outside the material being diffused and must find its way inside the material being diffused.

Since teleportation is still very much in the realm of science fiction I think we can accept that it must work its way in through the matrix of the material.

The depth of penetration would be a factor of Heat/time. The patterns shown by corrundum vary slightly from stone to stone from all the pictures i have seen. A small test population is problematic and if not all samples have been treated then results will vary. To put it bluntly no one wants to cut their expensive stone in half to check for penetration.

If you do not do all of the tests then your results are not completely valid.

Any way, This whole thing has reached the point where one has to ask .. why haven't the labs with the hi-tech stuff tackled this? Could be that a loss of face involved with certificates already being issued proven wrong is part of the reason *shrug* don't know .. I don't have a dog in this fight .. never bought any of the stones in question ... to be honest and above board with you I like the schiller in the Oregon stuff makes for a more interesting stone ... the clear stones lack the penache that the schiller stones have Much like the horsetail inclusions in another well known gemstone

Just my 2c

_________________
A Chinese proverb says "Gold is valuable, Jade is Priceless."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:48 pm 
Offline
Gemology Online Übergod
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 3528
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
wolf wrote:
Question: Does any one know how penicillin was discovered?

It was an orange mold growing on a piece of stale bread left by accident on a window ledge. (that is pretty soft science guys)

It is very presumptive to assume that bulk diffusion is different in all cases when it starts out:

Outside the material being diffused and must find its way inside the material being diffused.

Since teleportation is still very much in the realm of science fiction I think we can accept that it must work its way in through the matrix of the material.

The depth of penetration would be a factor of Heat/time. The patterns shown by corrundum vary slightly from stone to stone from all the pictures i have seen. A small test population is problematic and if not all samples have been treated then results will vary. To put it bluntly no one wants to cut their expensive stone in half to check for penetration.

If you do not do all of the tests then your results are not completely valid.

Any way, This whole thing has reached the point where one has to ask .. why haven't the labs with the hi-tech stuff tackled this? Could be that a loss of face involved with certificates already being issued proven wrong is part of the reason *shrug* don't know .. I don't have a dog in this fight .. never bought any of the stones in question ... to be honest and above board with you I like the schiller in the Oregon stuff makes for a more interesting stone ... the clear stones lack the penache that the schiller stones have Much like the horsetail inclusions in another well known gemstone

Just my 2c


You have this totally backwards.

Check here for a history of the scientific experiments (using the scientific method, not just bread) that led to the ability to produce and use penicillin.

We are not presuming that diffusion is different, YOU are presuming it is the same. We are saying "show us how it's the same". That's very different. You are making the novel claim, the burden of proof is on you.

As for destructive testing, you claim that no one wants to destroy their expensive stones... people have claimed to have purchased andesine for $12/ct... doesn't sound all that expensive.

You have it right that if you don't apply rigorous testing that your results aren't necessarily valid... but we're the ones saying that the testing hasn't been done, and you seem to be saying, "hey, looks reasonable, let's call it diffused".

Skepticism is always a valid approach to science... it forces the scientists to prove their theories with evidence, not simple assertion. "Proof by assertion" really shouldn't convince anyone of anything... sadly it seems that is has far too often in human history... right up to the present day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:49 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 2646
Quote:
If you do not do all of the tests then your results are not completely valid.


In the case of plagioclase feldspar diffusion, what would be considered "all of the tests?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:55 pm 
Offline
Active Member

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:50 am
Posts: 54
Location: Western New York
Barbra,

I would have to say that making a 100% determination using ONLY the appearance of color concentrations along facet junctions would be foolhardy.

The question is “are we trying to make a positive determination or are we trying to eliminate a possibility?”

Now, I think there is a difference between uniform color concentrations on facet junctions, and the appearance of color concentrations due to zoning. While zoning may give an initial false impression of color concentrations (due to cutting, viewing angle, etc.), upon further examination of the stone from different angles, shouldn’t it become clear that the concentrations were not truly along each junction?

As far as I’m aware, only diffusion treatment and/or surface coatings would produce fairly consistent color concentrations on the facet junctions. (Correct?)

If that’s the case, then the absence of uniform color concentrations on the facet junctions would almost certainly rule out diffusion or surface coating (but not rule out the possibility of other treatment). However, the presence of such concentrations would almost certainly point to one of these treatments.

(Even if the stone were cut in a manner where the light deflected the color to the facet junctions [even uniformly], placing the stone in the immersion cell would hamper the dispersion of light, so that phenomena would not be seen. The color would TRULY have to be concentrated on the junctions to still be visible.)

Am I correct or is my thinking flawed?

==============================================

In response to some of those who appear bored with the “soft science” and speculation taking place on this forum. Isn’t that what the forum is for…discussion? (I’ve seen more than a couple posts lately where people are saying the same thing. It feels like there are some comments posted whose only purpose is to get people to stop discussing things “until the official reports come out”.) Personally, I’m just trying to learn what I can and I find that asking questions and throwing out ideas (and getting feedback) is a great way to learn (I’ve learned so much already). No, I’m not a professional gemologist. Not even close. Many on here are not. That’s why we’re here.

But I get the feeling that some are trying to squash discussion of ideas or the results of our own tests because they aren’t done by a trained professional with expensive and sophisticated equipment. If we are all content to just sit back and wait for the Major Labs to tell us what they’ve determined (and accept that as 100% gospel truth, without proof, method, or question), why should any of us bother to try to learn the science ourselves?

I’m not trying to be confrontational and I certainly hope nobody takes offense to this. I just hope that we can truly discuss our thoughts, ideas, and questions on here without being undermined.

_________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
~ High dispersion is my greatest weakness ~
-----------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:34 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 2646
Hi Gem Junkie,
I don't think anyone is trying to restrain people from offering their opinion. We are all in favor of new evidence. So far, out of a dozen or more specimens only one or two submitted by the same tester has shown what may be interpreted as surface diffusion. If anyone wants to break their gemstones open and report, then have at it.

If a qualified scientist wants to join in and explain how and what chemical element can be diffused into labradorite to give it it's variable colors of red, green or a combination of red/green, what temperatures would be necessary to accomplish this, what affect it would have on any typical inclusions or clarity characteristics, I'm all ears.

This would be new information and I invite it as I'm sure others would.
What else can the typical desktop Gemologist do to add to the determinative research on this?

We are not against testing and dialogue. We (me) are against determinative assumptions based on indicative testing. We are not prepared to hang anyone yet for crimes unproven.

This is new to all of us, we are somewhat restricted by our tools and knowledge of this specific application to make sweeping judgements of what may have occurred.

Keep testing and reporting I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 21602
Location: San Francisco
Gem Junkie are we not having a discussion?

This thread has gone on for 5 pages, 67 posts and 2,117 views....since yesterday. If there was only one view, I think this would be a lot shorter thread. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Research
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:05 pm 
Offline
Established Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:09 pm
Posts: 20
Here's some new research just in:

http://www.yourgemologist.com/ISGForums ... php?t=3424


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:27 pm 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:03 pm
Posts: 19
Location: North Carolina
I am not an expert but with any color stones that have been treated the best way to mess one up or ruin it would be to recut or try to polish one. As we all understand it the color is fused to the surface. Heck everyone says they can make a stone better by a recut-better cut. Anyone tryed to recut one? I would like to take one of the broken pieces they have and recut it even....??//?? 2cs Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:49 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: Maryland
Actually I recut 2 of these stone from JTV about 6 months ago. A local jeweler chipped them both trying to set them. He swore a lot, then called me to fix them. I don't do recuts, but since he is a friend, and does some free mounting for me, I helped him out.

At the time, I wasn't interested in this material at all. I thought the stones were pretty ugly. The recuts brought them to life. I didn't notice any drastic change in color, but then I wasn't really looking. If however, all the color did cut out, I certainly would have noticed that.

He ended up giving the stones back, and telling here he didn't want to mount them. She was happy because they looked 10 times better, even though they were smaller.

_________________
Precison Gem
www.precisiongem.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:59 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 2505
Location: Eastern Europe
There must be some room for 'soft science', in a bin somewhere... proper disclosure and all 8)

Here's a soft hypothesis for you:

...could this stuff be more then diffused or heated? How about reconstituted Andesine? Could it be done?

So far, the discussion seems to hint that the material is not entirely natural, and no easy treatment is done: simple heating no way, heating with additives terribly uncertain, etc.; the perfect market manipulation for an exhausted natural - not of this world... Besides, whatever treatment is there does not preserve even traces of naturalistic imperfections. A full blown synthetic sounds too high tech for some backyard operation. So what choices remain? :?

Silly, but irresistible! :twisted:


Over the water cooler, a colleague volunteered that K-feldspars are used as flux binders in industrial glazes, so melting them isn't a novelty. Anyone knows what he is talking about?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:57 am 
Offline
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:47 am
Posts: 1350
Location: Pacific Northwest
A common glaze constituent is called Custer Feldspar. I have no idea of it's chemical composition. It is becoming a vague memory from the days when I used to run a ceramics studio for a college.

_________________
I just dreamed that I was a butterfly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Glaze
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:00 am 
Offline
Established Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:09 pm
Posts: 20
Allen I have read about it being heated to liquid and using as a glaze.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Gemology Style ported to phpBB3 by Christian Bullock