New Teaching - Free Starbucks to the 1st 20 who get it.

[drk]

I think I''m with rainbow on all counts.

For the math geek in me, I think it would help me to see the angles you''re talking about labeled with the little angle marker so I can really see where they are, like in the attached diagram.
Interesting article though!

Kate

 

[DoubleB]

LG 2 has shifted west. I believe it is west because the black “triangles” that are between the arrows are all still sharp and defined. If I understood your tutorial, an eastern shift would make those less discernible.

'');" alt="Insert smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/34.gif" align="absMiddle border=0">

I am a little less sure as to why I think LG2, and not LG1. I am sort of guessing, but looking back at the examples you gave, when there was a western shift of the facet located at 12:00, the black area was more prominent in the facet which had shifted. So, since the black area is more prominent in the LG2 position, that’s my answer.

I am so full of bs, I can hardly stand myself.

'');" height=15 alt="Insert smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif" width="15 border=0">

 

[MissAva]

After looking at the screen over and over I have decided I need to go and find my glasses.

I''ll be back to see things clearly in a bit....

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I have read this, re-read it, and I think that we should cool our enthousiasm for now.

Jon, I really respect your enthousiasm, and the way it helps you in describing your observations and what you deduct from them. However, I regularly think that your enthousiasm leads you to deducting theories from incomplete observations.

First, I do not think that Helium can actually measure azimuth-shift exactly. I must say that I only saw the machine once last year, but I see no theoretical way of it measuring a well-hidden yawed facet. In your first example, you are showing it on an almost perfectly cut stone, and there Helium will definitely (change that to probably) be correct. I seriously doubt its absolute correctness however on a less-than-perfect stone.

Second, when I told Sergey last spring that I was using Diamcalc to experiment with princess-designs, he was surprised. Diamcalc was never intended for that use, and the software has its limitations. I have always known that, of course, but I know which information I can use from it, and where I need to be more careful.

Lately, I see a lot of posters here working with Diamcalc-files, where I fear that they are exaggerating. It seems a bit like the Formula1-racing games on a PlayStation. The professional racing drivers are indeed using these games, since it helps them in the preparation to the different racing courses. But I wonder which PlayStation-geek would want to start in a real Formula1-race, after he has instructed the exact engine settings to the engineers, based solely upon his knowledge of the game.

I think it is high time for all of us to step back a little. These last weeks, I found the threads on Pricescope on average boring and not informative to most consumers. In my point of view, we are exaggerating in too many details, which at the same time are mostly incorrectly described, measured and shown.

Remember Icarus.

 

[strmrdr]

Paul...

 

[strmrdr]

Azimuths deviation from ideal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pavilion, ° 0.00 -0.21 -0.28 -0.60 -0.74 -0.69 -0.40 -0.06

Same diamond as I posted above.

 

[strmrdr]

No yaw

Pavilion azimuth deviation from ideal ° 0.00 -0.03 -0.06 -0.01 0.14 0.20 0.07

these images is how I proved for myself that helium was seeing yaw so I thought id share :}

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Storm,

Have you ever thought that the machine might be measuring an incorrect joint of the lower girdle halves?

In that case, as a result, it might also measure the main pavilion angle incorrectly.

The fact is, I do not know, but I sincerely doubt that it can measure azimuth shift correctly, without making assumptions, which might be correct.

Maybe, indeed, in this case, the assumptions made are correct.

My point is that you are taking things into way too high a detail, where no Helium or Diamcalc is accurate enough to consistently show these differences. What is more, all this is quite neat in round brilliants, but when you start talking about any fancy-shape, then you really get to know the limitations of these tools.

Live long,

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/7/2005 9:23:26 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Storm,

Have you ever thought that the machine might be measuring an incorrect joint of the lower girdle halves?

In that case, as a result, it might also measure the main pavilion angle incorrectly.

The fact is, I do not know, but I sincerely doubt that it can measure azimuth shift correctly, without making assumptions, which might be correct.

Maybe, indeed, in this case, the assumptions made are correct.

My point is that you are taking things into way too high a detail, where no Helium or Diamcalc is accurate enough to consistently show these differences. What is more, all this is quite neat in round brilliants, but when you start talking about any fancy-shape, then you really get to know the limitations of these tools.

Live long,

Helium do not use any assumptions which you are supposing.
If round diamond has asymmetry, model will have same asymmetry
If round diamond is symmetrical model will symmetrical too.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/7/2005 9:23:26 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Storm,


Have you ever thought that the machine might be measuring an incorrect joint of the lower girdle halves?

yep thats why i compared them to the actual images. Also 2 different heart viewers will show them differently when we are getting to this level. So its pretty amazing to me


In that case, as a result, it might also measure the main pavilion angle incorrectly.

possible I suppose but would the images match?

The fact is, I do not know, but I sincerely doubt that it can measure azimuth shift correctly, without making assumptions, which might be correct.

I go back to the images

Maybe, indeed, in this case, the assumptions made are correct.

ok

My point is that you are taking things into way too high a detail, where no Helium or Diamcalc is accurate enough to consistently show these differences. What is more, all this is quite neat in round brilliants, but when you start talking about any fancy-shape, then you really get to know the limitations of these tools.

I hear ya, when are we getting to the point of splitting frog hairs? DC and helium both I think do a much better job on rounds its where the most research has been done because it is where the most interest has been until the AGS0 princess research came about.
I really dont think we can answer the question of at what point and how does yaw affect the appearance of a diamond by looking at heart images and saying wow thats yaw.
Is the study of it face up at a very young stage yep and it will be a bumpy ride before all the questions are answered.
But to dismiss it is wrong.



Live long,

 

[laney]

Ok.. here''s my try...

LG2 East

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/7/2005 1:29:09 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 9/6/2005 11:51:38 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/6/2005 7:06:33 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 9/6/2005 6:42:13 PM
Author: Rhino
The challenge: Both questions must be answered correctly.

1. Identify which facet deviates most obviously from its ideal azimuth angle.
2. Is it skewed in the east or west orientation?

Let the games begin!

After I get ample answers to this I''ll post the exact azimuth angles on this diamond for verification and confirmation.

Rhino
from this photo....i think one of the heart will look smaller compare to teh others.

Why do you think this DF? I''m not saying right or wrong just curious why you do.

Jon
i don''t know

but, it seems like if all teh other hot spots are the same size then you have two that are much bigger spots,usually there is one heart that is smaller in size. don''t know diddly.

You''re good man. You''ve been taking note of things that alter the optical signature from the front through the back DF.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/7/2005 1:07:18 AM
Author: kaleigh
Before things changed, my guess was that it was the facet between 12 and 1 o''clock and it has a west deviation. That is my final answer.

LOL... I''ll let you stick with that.

Believe me ... there''s a lot more to the teaching that meets the eye but I tried to make the answer obvious.

If we were examining the signature from the opposite side of the stone (left instead of right), rules change.

I''m catching up on this thread from last night but I''ll answer, any and all questions. This is only the first week I''m working with Helium and being able to correllate the data so I''m learning along with ya''ll too. This diamond (the one in question) just happened to be a good learning stone that demonstrated the teaching.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/7/2005 1:33:30 AM
Author: drk
I think I''m with rainbow on all counts.

For the math geek in me, I think it would help me to see the angles you''re talking about labeled with the little angle marker so I can really see where they are, like in the attached diagram.
Interesting article though!

Kate

Hi drk!

Ok... if you agree with rainbow then you''re saying that a shift in the east orientation would result in a more pronounced black reflection under the table? Recheck my summary graphic.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/7/2005 7:02:17 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I have read this, re-read it, and I think that we should cool our enthousiasm for now.

Jon, I really respect your enthousiasm, and the way it helps you in describing your observations and what you deduct from them. However, I regularly think that your enthousiasm leads you to deducting theories from incomplete observations.

First, I do not think that Helium can actually measure azimuth-shift exactly. I must say that I only saw the machine once last year, but I see no theoretical way of it measuring a well-hidden yawed facet. In your first example, you are showing it on an almost perfectly cut stone, and there Helium will definitely (change that to probably) be correct. I seriously doubt its absolute correctness however on a less-than-perfect stone.

Second, when I told Sergey last spring that I was using Diamcalc to experiment with princess-designs, he was surprised. Diamcalc was never intended for that use, and the software has its limitations. I have always known that, of course, but I know which information I can use from it, and where I need to be more careful.

Lately, I see a lot of posters here working with Diamcalc-files, where I fear that they are exaggerating. It seems a bit like the Formula1-racing games on a PlayStation. The professional racing drivers are indeed using these games, since it helps them in the preparation to the different racing courses. But I wonder which PlayStation-geek would want to start in a real Formula1-race, after he has instructed the exact engine settings to the engineers, based solely upon his knowledge of the game.

I think it is high time for all of us to step back a little. These last weeks, I found the threads on Pricescope on average boring and not informative to most consumers. In my point of view, we are exaggerating in too many details, which at the same time are mostly incorrectly described, measured and shown.

Remember Icarus.

Greetings Paul,

I''m sorry but I have to disagree. You are underestimating Helium my friend. Paul ... if I thought along the lines you are suggesting I would never grow in my understanding of the subject. Remember Edison ... how many times did he have to bang his head against the wall before he finally got it right? I have had my hands tied for years, not being able to understand all the factors that alter the optical design of a diamiond. I have studied to death how the minor facets alter it and have published an article on that subject. Now I finally have the means to put more pieces of the puzzle together and I''m not about to step back and slow down. I LOVE LEARNING and diamonds are my passion Paul. I am learning this in baby steps and just thought I would share this research with the PS community, as young as this research is. Yes, these details are things people may never see with their eyes but the study of optical design is a pet passion of mine. I personally am curious to know the factors that alter the optical design and the quality of craftsmanship in cut for a round brilliant diamond. Helium is showing me these answers and I am excited about it. Yes ... this is very geeky stuff but you know as well as I that certain people in this industry do not believe I can assess azimuth shift through the crown and I was challenged. Not only am I confident in my ability to observe and photograph it but I am equally confident that an educated layman can do the same. Hence this experiment. I am making every effort to keep it as simple as possible which is why I ask the questions I do ... if there''s an easier way for me to communicate I am open to suggestions my friend.

Respectfully,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/7/2005 9:55:37 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 9/7/2005 9:23:26 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Storm,

Have you ever thought that the machine might be measuring an incorrect joint of the lower girdle halves?

In that case, as a result, it might also measure the main pavilion angle incorrectly.

The fact is, I do not know, but I sincerely doubt that it can measure azimuth shift correctly, without making assumptions, which might be correct.

Maybe, indeed, in this case, the assumptions made are correct.

My point is that you are taking things into way too high a detail, where no Helium or Diamcalc is accurate enough to consistently show these differences. What is more, all this is quite neat in round brilliants, but when you start talking about any fancy-shape, then you really get to know the limitations of these tools.

Live long,

Helium do not use any assumptions which you are supposing.
If round diamond has asymmetry, model will have same asymmetry
If round diamond is symmetrical model will symmetrical too.

Thank you for clarifying Serg. When I was at the Isee2 symposium last weekend I had the opportunity of spending some quality time with Mike Cowing and he was explaining that a scan done with Helium not only did not make assumptions but that the model is created in a virtual space ... meaning that if there were any deviations in table slant Helium picks that up too. He ended by saying you got alot more there in that scanner than you realize.

 

[Rhino]

Any final takers before we bring closure to this thread?

 

[perry]

Rhino:

First, I am quite comfortable that I could follow all the details and figure it out. Technical geek that I am (engineer, who also used to design and build optical systems as a kid).

However, I decided long ago not to get to pulled into all the technical ins and outs of the optics and angles because I could get pulled way in, which would waste much valuable time (I could write the math portions of the programs behind diamond calc and others should I put enough time into it). I got into this for simple ways to find great looking diamonds - and to help other people with similar simple methods.

Thus, I respectfully decline to dig up the answers for you.



I also do not drink coffee. However, should I ever get out that way - or should we ever meet elsewhere: I''ll think of something else I can consume that you can buy me, and even invent a reason for you to buy it for me if needed ....

Perry