GEMEX Accurate Science or Smoke & Mirrors

[JohnQuixote]

FIGHT NIGHT! BS versus EIGHTSTAR... SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!
12 DOLLARS WILL GET YOU A SEAT BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDDDDDDGE!!!

Jonathan (Rhino): "Funny you should ask this John. In case you don't know I was a distributor of Eightstar diamonds. The biggest question that festered me was "Why didn't an Eightstar peg the meters on everything?" This led to a very deep study of mine which was not quenched until around a year after I began the study. While the answer would require a short book, the simple answer to this question lies in what I would term "the positioning of mirrors".

As briefly as I know how ...

A diamonds facets will function in one of two roles. They will either function as mirrors or windows. Mirrors obviously reflect back what is being transmitted into them while windows let light pass through. I will go on record as saying that Eightstar has *perfected* getting a diamonds facets to function as mirrors. The original FireScope(tm) did (and does) an excellent job of showing a laymen/gemologist light return/leakage within a diamond. So, while most red reflectors do a fine job of showing whether the facets are functioning as mirrors or windows, none of them show me (at least to the detail that I enjoy) *what position those mirrors are directing light through the crown and at what intensity*.

Say you are sitting across from me and you point the beam of light from a flashlight at me. Now lets say I'm holding a mirror in my hands. I can, with my mirror redirect your beam of light wherever I want to. If I direct that beam of light right back in your face (the most intense flash of light back to the eyes) OR if I rediret that beam of light a little to the left and to the right of your eyes, we know that the flashes of light that get noticed across the room are those beams that get reflected back at the high angles. If the facets are functioning as mirrors but the light is being directed at angles that are further away from the viewers field of view, these are the least effective mirrors while those that are directing a majority of light into or near the viewers face, THESE account for the most attractive diamonds on the market."

I love your enthusiasm, Jonathan, but I believe you use the statement "the most attractive diamonds on the market" a bit perilously. As stated, EightStars do not perform as well, and many would take issue with the claim that they do not stand up with "the most attractive diamonds on the market."

Jonathan (Rhino):"So you see...a solid red/black IS image, while nice, is not ultimately what I'm looking for. I want to know what position those mirrors are directing the light. If there are *too many* mirrors pointing in the same direction this decreases contrast. On the flip side if the facets are not functioning as mirrors at all then we have too much leakage. Therein lies the happy balance.

It might interest you to know that I have personally made recommendations to certain companies to help them increase the amount of light that is being directed at those high angles, thus making for a more brilliant, more scintillating diamond. Most factories don't want to listen as they are set in their ways. However there are some companies who are heeding the call. We are about to introduce such a stone in the upcoming month. It has no light leakage and has been tweaked to the extent that it also maximizes all light return within the stone to cause the majority of light to exit at the high angles. The result?

I'll have to get permission before I post em"

Call me stubborn, but this all reinforces loudly to me that it should not be used to split hairs: The consumer should be able to compare the visual beauty of what he/she is buying on his/her own terms. Who is to know which consumer would prefer the well cut High/VH diamond that performs like an EightStar to the triple VH which does not?

The new diamond sounds intriguing. I will be anxious to check those out - but more anxious to see pavilion specs, IS readings, physical symmetry and live performance than BS readings (though secretly I do enjoy looking at them!).

Additionally Jonathan, as relates to the above, I would be interested in delving into a sub-topic with you having to do with actual construction of lower girdle halves and a new twist on pavilion variances. No time tonight, but I think we could have some fun cussin' and discussin'.

 

[JohnQuixote]

----------------
One does wonder why it's not a more exact science. Ever looked at a cert and Sarin and seen different numbers? I have, more often than not. So one would think since an angle is a specific measurement, that it would be extremely rare that the cert and Sarin give differing numbers......but they often do. go figure, we can discover new planets billions of miles away but not accurately measure an angle.
----------------

Blue Knight

Here is the difference to me (with respect to strmrdr's purism):

Sarin/Ogi are measuring something so infinitesimal we have no other chance of determining it on our own. Brilliancescope tries to measure or at least correlate what the human eye can already see.

The margin of error Sarin has, while present, is imperceptible to us, unlike a 5% visual error which I believe to be observable.

Jonathan (Rhino): "2 diamonds can have the same results (even within the same shape) and be 2 completely different looking diamonds. The difference is how the light is displayed back to the viewer and not necessarily the scientific results. Here is where human perception plays a role that is more prominent than science can report."

Rhino and I are in complete harmony of thought here at least: No machine can perceive diamond beauty as well as the human eye.

Considering that, there is a further issue of relevancy, as BS measures divided what the eyes see together. It also measures with a monoscopic lens, while the eyes see in stereo. It also discriminates against some cuts which are considered extremely beautiful in the eyes of many beholders. Beyond all of the above there is that confounding 5% error hindering both precision & repeatability.

 

[JohnQuixote]

After much BS, I still maintain that the most decisive action would be for GemEx to enlist independent assistance with credibility...

Garry (Cut Nut): "My lonely voice in the wilderness has been repeatedly calling for Gemex to submit to industry peer review. I have even offered to assist in editing etc. it would sort out a lot of issues"

Gary (DiamondExpert): "I agree, peer review is of utmost importance. However, I can see how proprietary/financial issues might get in the way, but hopefully, not be insurmountable."

Johan (mdx): "Garry's kind offer to assist with editing would be just the beginning of the assistance they could get from the industry if they only asked. If the industry trusts the technology so will the public."

John (JohnQuixote): "It would be illuminating (forgive the pun) for GemEx to submit Brilliancescope to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (www.nist.gov)...Either way, an official verdict on credibility would make these threads a lot shorter!"

THUSLY: Well, Good Sir Rhino, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident, and 4 out of 4 Garry/Gary/Johan/Johns

recommend peer review. Now for peer pressure: Add your voice and we'll have a FULL HOUSE! (Js over Gs).

Time for bed, but first, a little song to commemorate the Gary/Jon thing...

(sing with tongue firmly in cheek)

You say tomato, I say toMAHto.
You spell is Jon, I spell it JoHn.
Tomato, ToMAHto,
Jon, JoHn,
Let's say we're 5% off!

(giggle)

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I mostly avoid these Brilliancescope-discussions, but this one was so open, that I would like to add my two cents.

Technically, I do not really have a problem with the machine, even with an error-margin of 5%. However, I think it is very important for everyone involved to know what this machine measures. The same is true for the Isee-2, for that matter.

I am especially interested in which way this machine takes the size(closeness) and the position of the observer into account.

Remember how we have cracked down on GIA's cut-studies, because they forgot about the observer. However, even with GIA's results being incorrect, they are somewhat in line with other studies. Is it possible that the Brilliancescope encounters the same problem?

Also, Rhino, I like the way in which you defend the Brilliancescope and its results, and I respect you for that. However, I sometimes wonder whether you are not carried away by your own enthousiasm. Let me explain with a small example.

In my young days, and on a rainy afternoon, I developed a kind of card game, that I could use to predict the future. And after some trials, I started using it on friends of mine, and also on a lot of people that I did not know. I was amazed to see how almost all my subjects would confirm what I had told about them. They really believed that I had psychic powers. In reality, I was only a good listener and interpreter of signs, and the cards on the table only served as a necessary tool to induce basic data.

In the same way, I see you interpreting results from the Brilliancescope, your lightscope, and other tools, and comparing these results with your own observations. With all your experience, I am sure that you are a great interpreter of all these results, but this does not necessarily mean that the tool used is working well or correctly.

Remember, you can open an oyster with so many tools, but only an oyster-knife is designed for that purpose.

I hope that this did not sound too fuzzy.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

This thread proves my point on why I find the lax accuracy of the current equipment very bad for consumers.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/holloway-cut-advisor-giving-inconsistent-scores-of-1-5-3-9-for-same-stone-comments-on-this-cut-gre.19802/

 

[wonka27]

----------------
On 10/2/2004 12:22:51 PM strmrdr wrote:

This thread proves my point on why I find the lax accuracy of the current equipment very bad for consumers.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/holloway-cut-advisor-giving-inconsistent-scores-of-1-5-3-9-for-same-stone-comments-on-this-cut-gre.19802/----------------

Not sure how that proves anything?

Let's face it, for all the doubters out there of current technology. These things are tools. The help build an idea of what you are getting. In many areas, tools need to be dead on accurate. In diamonds, until they become that accurate, we can survive with them. They can help weed out poor performers. They help determine the best performers. I support BScope and other tools used in the trade. But sitting here going on and on about who is right and who is wrong is foolish, because any person who purchases a diamond and doesn't use their eyes as a final test is frankly a moron! Sure, online purchase must be done unseen, but if your smart you make sure your protected by an adequate return policy. Let the tools narrow the field and come up with what appears to be best for you, but let your eyes be the judge and jury...

 

[Rhino]

THE DON!!!

Wazzup dawg! Ok... you know the routine.

Since you bolded yours I'll italicize mine for easy reading.

---------------
On 10/1/2004 2:06:24 AM JohnQuixote wrote:











FIGHT NIGHT! BS versus EIGHTSTAR... SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!
12 DOLLARS WILL GET YOU A SEAT BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDDDDDDGE!!!

Ah... you're bordering on instigating trouble between me and 8* folk. I'm not looking for that bro. I happen to like 8*'s.

I love your enthusiasm, Jonathan, but I believe you use the statement 'the most attractive diamonds on the market' a bit perilously. As stated, EightStars do not perform as well, and many would take issue with the claim that they do not stand up with 'the most attractive diamonds on the market.'

LOL... perhaps I did use that a bit perilously. Let me clarify a bit. First of all Eightstar diamonds do not do bad or poorly on the BrillianceScope. I never said this and matter of fact I've said quite the opposite. Eightstars do excellently on the B'scope. One pattern that I've found (and this is not directed at Eightstar diamonds in particular) in super ideal cut round brilliants, that are cut to shorter lower girdle/star lengths is that there is less light directed at the high angles. Less light directed at high angles results in 2 phenomena. A decrease in fire and a decrease in scintillation. The B'scope accurately reports this decrease particularly in way of scintillation. Since beauty is subjective there are some who prefer a less scintillating diamond and prefer fewer but stronger flashes of light from within the diamond while there are others who prefer strong flashes of color mixed with what could best be described as tinsel on a Christmas tree. *My personal preference* is for the latter which is obtained in super ideal cuts cut with *longer lower girdle/star lengths*. My own independent studies (whose conclusions were obtained with the B'scope among my other tools) correlate perfectly with GIA's own study on the subect and the tools used by them were, for the most part different than what I use (although I also examine the results with ray trace software & human eye observation as well). A synopsis of GIA's study of DCLR (dispersed colored light return) can be read about here, in short the results of their study regarding the minor facets state ...

[*][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]DCLR is highest for a 34.5; crown angle combined with a star facet length of 64%-65%.[/FONT]


[*][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]DCLR showed dramatic increases as lower girdle facets increased in length 45%-85%. [/FONT]

Call me stubborn, but this all reinforces loudly to me that it should not be used to split hairs: The consumer should be able to compare the visual beauty of what he/she is buying on his/her own terms. Who is to know which consumer would prefer the well cut High/VH diamond that performs like an EightStar to the triple VH which does not?

The simple answer to this question is to view both and purchase what you like best.

When clients come to our store we show them both and then some. Personally John... GIVE ME THE MOST INTENSE LIGHT RETURN POSSIBLE AND AS MUCH OF IT AS I CAN GET!!!

Hehe... you were waiting for me to say that weren't you?

The new diamond sounds intriguing. I will be anxious to check those out - but more anxious to see pavilion specs, IS readings, physical symmetry and live performance than BS readings (though secretly I do enjoy looking at them!).

Hehe... even the sharpest critics are interested in it's results. You're not the only closet B'scope lover in the trade. At one of our GIA Alumni meetings the speaker (one of the heads of their research dept) stated to us that if there weren't any strings attached to the imgages they'd be using it in their research!!!

Additionally Jonathan, as relates to the above, I would be interested in delving into a sub-topic with you having to do with actual construction of lower girdle halves and a new twist on pavilion variances. No time tonight, but I think we could have some fun cussin' and discussin'.
----------------

I don't think so John... I know so.

You're a pleasure to talk with sir John.

Best regards,

 

[Rhino]

Scroll on down knight!

On a side note ... I was going to get a license plate that says DarkKnight ... I'm a big Batman fan.

I drive a triple black TA/wRamAir and my steering wheel cover has the Bat signal on it. Vrrrrrrrrrroooooooooom!

Just wanted to comment on something you wrote here...

----------------
On 10/1/2004 2:17:44 AM JohnQuixote wrote:












Here is the difference to me (with respect to strmrdr's purism):

Sarin/Ogi are measuring something so infinitesimal we have no other chance of determining it on our own. Brilliancescope tries to measure or at least correlate what the human eye can already see.

I'd refine this statement John. The B'scope, at it's core is a photospectrometer. Photospectrometers are monoscopic while most of us are stereoscopic. I don't think I'd say the B'scope is attempting to mimic what we see with our eyes as much as it is determing actual light return within gem material. NOW ... it is true that our eyes can see and differentiate between diamonds that have greater/more intense light return but I don't think I would make a definitive statement that the B'scope's purpose is to predict what you're going to observe (and especially your reaction to what you're observing) as it is a light measuring device.

I sincerely believe this is what SuperIdealists biggest problem with the device was. He thought the device was attempting to tell him what he personally thought was the more beautiful diamond. To use that expression involves personal preference and the B'scope cannot report something that is as subjective as personal preference. However if a person has viewed diamonds and they know where their preference lies then the B'scope becomes an invaluable tool for picking out the features they desire most in a diamond.

The margin of error Sarin has, while present, is imperceptible to us, unlike a 5% visual error which I believe to be observable.

This is the statement I wanted to expound upon but let me ask you a simple question sir John.

At present you believe this 5% is going to be something that you can observe. My question ... what if you couldn't?

Jonathan (Rhino): '2 diamonds can have the same results (even within the same shape) and be 2 completely different looking diamonds. The difference is how the light is displayed back to the viewer and not necessarily the scientific results. Here is where human perception plays a role that is more prominent than science can report.'

Rhino and I are in complete harmony of thought here at least: No machine can perceive diamond beauty as well as the human eye.

This is correct but also keep in mind that the 2 rounds (both triple VH's) have completely different facet structures.

Considering that, there is a further issue of relevancy, as BS measures divided what the eyes see together. It also measures with a monoscopic lens, while the eyes see in stereo. It also discriminates against some cuts which are considered extremely beautiful in the eyes of many beholders. Beyond all of the above there is that confounding 5% error hindering both precision & repeatability.
----------------

... one correction. The B'scope does not discriminate against some cuts even if they are considered extremely beautiful in the eyes of beholders. Ie... let's take those stones of the shorter lower girdle/star type. According to our own independent studies which also happen to correlate with GIA's (last post), stones of the shorter lower girdle/star type have less DCLR. Now ... while some people may prefer these types of H&A and think they are more beautiful it does not dismiss the fact that they are less scintillating.

This gets back to my statement ... beauty is subjective ... light return and the intensity of it is not. There is a difference between personal preference and the facts. Personal preference is something that no technology, no matter how scientifically accurate it is can ever predict, even if the tolerances were .00000000001%. That is why, in the minds of folk like SuperIdealist the B'scope will NEVER be a tool that he likes unless he truly understands what it is that the B'scope is reporting. It is not attempting to report what you, me or SI would prefer. It is simply reporting what it is reading, nothing more, nothing less (however I do have issue with some of it's scintillation results on diamonds under .70ct which I address in our tutorial on the subject).

Hope this helps clarify sir John.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 10/1/2004 2:29:34 AM JohnQuixote wrote:











THUSLY: Well, Good Sir Rhino, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident, and 4 out of 4 Garry/Gary/Johan/Johns

recommend peer review. Now for peer pressure: Add your voice and we'll have a FULL HOUSE! (Js over Gs).

Peer review? What do I look like? Chopped liver?

Hehe... I hear ya and sure I am not opposed to some society looking at it etc. I don't think they'd tell me anything I don't already know about it but of course I'd be sure to hear what they had to say.

 

[Rhino]

Sir Paul!!!

Excuse but Sir John has me on this "Knights of the Ideal Table" thingy. hehe...

----------------
On 10/1/2004 3:23:59 PM Paul-Antwerp wrote:











Technically, I do not really have a problem with the machine, even with an error-margin of 5%. However, I think it is very important for everyone involved to know what this machine measures. The same is true for the Isee-2, for that matter.

I cover in pretty great detail the answers to these questions in our tutorials on the subject. In a nutshell. The B'scope for direct light conditions, the Isee2 for diffuse. I can't begin to tell you what I've learned about diamond cut having both technologies at my disposal.

I am especially interested in which way this machine takes the size(closeness) and the position of the observer into account.

Remember how we have cracked down on GIA's cut-studies, because they forgot about the observer. However, even with GIA's results being incorrect, they are somewhat in line with other studies. Is it possible that the Brilliancescope encounters the same problem?

I would say to some degree yes and some degree no. The issue lies in head obstruction and light return off the pavilion mains. The pavilion mains within the super ideal cuts we are most familiar with will function in one of 2 ways. They will either reflect back the shadow of of the observer (which is important in diffuse light conditions as points of contrast) but a slight tilt and they become a strong source of fire in direct light conditions. This boils down to differences Gary and I have concerning the interpretation of blacks in LS/IS/FS images. I maintain that a proper balance of blacks is necessary to produce intense fire within a diamond ... more smaller blacks (which I refer to as hot spots) between the arrows are indicative of other mirrors reflecting back light at the high angles. More of those result in more scintillation. This was further confirmed and proven to be by analyis of the Eighternity diamond which has an insane amount of hot spots coupled with the black arrows. The result is one of the most scintillating diamonds I've ever seen in my life. Here's an LS image of one as compared to an H&A with less scintillation. Note the difference in hot spots. If you were able to see these 2 diamonds side by side you would see a serious difference between the 2. We'll be filming these visual differences in our upcoming video tutorials.

Also, Rhino, I like the way in which you defend the Brilliancescope and its results, and I respect you for that. However, I sometimes wonder whether you are not carried away by your own enthousiasm. Let me explain with a small example.

In my young days, and on a rainy afternoon, I developed a kind of card game, that I could use to predict the future. And after some trials, I started using it on friends of mine, and also on a lot of people that I did not know. I was amazed to see how almost all my subjects would confirm what I had told about them. They really believed that I had psychic powers. In reality, I was only a good listener and interpreter of signs, and the cards on the table only served as a necessary tool to induce basic data.

In the same way, I see you interpreting results from the Brilliancescope, your lightscope, and other tools, and comparing these results with your own observations. With all your experience, I am sure that you are a great interpreter of all these results, but this does not necessarily mean that the tool used is working well or correctly.

Remember, you can open an oyster with so many tools, but only an oyster-knife is designed for that purpose.

I hope that this did not sound too fuzzy.

Live long,

----------------

I understand what you're saying my friend. However ... what are the chances of B'scope agreeing with red reflectors and human eye correlation?

 

[Superidealist]

I would again remind the reader that when Jonathan uses phrases such as decrease in fire and scintillation, less scintillating, THE MOST INTENSE LIGHT RETURN POSSIBLE, and greater/more intense light return that these assessments are no more than his opinions and not statements of fact. In order to establish such statements as fact, he would need to be able to back them up with measurements. Jon is accepting that the BrillianceScope performs as advertised and so he accepts its results as such proof. People such as Garry, JohnQuixote, and I are less trusting.

 

[mdx]

For those following this rather interesting thread.
Spectroradiometry is the calibrated analysis of light from radiant sources and Photometry involves measurement of radiation visible to the human eye.

Johan

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/2/2004 7:14:30 PM Superidealist wrote:



I would again remind the reader that (Jonathan's) assessments are no more than his opinions and not statements of fact.

Jon is accepting that the BrillianceScope performs as advertised and so he accepts its results as such proof.

----------------

Ok. I am a GOG fan

So I am going to question the questions once more:

Don't we know already just how precise is the "as advertised" ? C'mon, these 'scopes are not the ultimate in light metrics and were not meant to be. How about "customer's remote vision" ? Wouldn't that be the goal of these tools? To make one see diamonds via a computer screen? Surely Jonathan knows this and we know it, and he knows we knows it and, well, you get the point: I hope you know that Jon knows we know it, so his observations do not appear as unfounded advertising

Assuming there is no way as yet to actually convey a visually precise image of a diamond via monitor, you've got some charts (Isee2, Bscope) and odd looking graphics (that's the H&A viewer and Iscope).

It is great fun to learn about them, how they are made and used. If anyone may take some 'scope for the ultimate arbiter of diamond aesthetics from here to eternity, well, that cannot be Jonathan. Or you Superidealist. Or I. It's great to have these around of course. So much better than nothing at all. Hope you agree this far.

Either 'scope fan or 'scope foe would need some organized empirical research done using the tool and a sensible assessment of results. That's just the start. Jonathan obliged. Perfect!

Now that some starting point is at hand free of charge, anyone can start questioning and redefining facts. Until some ultimate truth is recognized by this gathering, what "facts" are is one fascinating debate.

 

[Superidealist]

Jon isn't pushing the BrillianceScope as "remote vision" for the consumer. He's citing it as proof that certain diamonds are more brilliant, firey, and scintillating than certain others.

 

[perry]

The question of this post was if the Brilliant Scope (BS) was accurate science or not.

As an Engineer I declare it to be scientific. Please do not confuse degree of accuracy from being scientifically accurate.

I will give you some other real world examples that I deal with on a routine bases in my job; and the problems with accuracy and errors introduced by people.

A simple 1" micrometer, or caliper, with 1/1000 inch graduation is by definition accurate to +/- .0001" or 0.1%

Yet put into the hands of people who are not properely trained in its use and you will commonly get readings that vary by as much as 0.005" on the same gauage block.

People often cause much more inacuracy than gauges and machines are capable.

This can get much worse...

I can hand over a much better accuracy 1" micrometer (and a lot more expensive). With accuracy to 1/10000" (0.00001"), and people who do not know how to use it will still produce readings that vary by 0.005", or 50 times the accuracy of the micrometer.

My experience is that only about 15 to 20% of people can really be trained in how to use a 0.001" accurate micrometer. Only a few % of people can really be trained to properely use a 0.0001" accurate micrometer (one of the reasons we use machines to commonly measure into the ten-thousands range.

Of course, there are those who are saying that the BS is 5% accurate - way to much inaccurate to be considered scientific.

Please let me introduce you to ultrasonic flowmeters, very commonly used in industrial processing and power plants (and generally considered to be more accurate than the other "reasonable" cost alternatives).

Your typical untrasonic flowmeter comes with a claim of 2% or 3% accuracy from the manufacturer. However, that is only under "ideal" situations. UT flowmeters work by bouncing a beam of sound through the flowing liquid, and measuring the reflection from tiny air, or other gas, bubbles in the fluid stream. By spacing two transducers in different locations fluid velocity can be measured.

The theory is highly scientifically accurate, and UT flowmeters are used in testing to prove performane of components to manufactures, customers, and regulatory agencis (like the NRC for Nuclear Power Plants).

However, real life plant situations are not so simple, which can massively distort the calibration accuracy of the UT flowmeter.

Real pipes are not idealy round, nor of uniform pipe wall thickness. Flow is not straight and uniform in actual piping systems.

When all that is considered, UT flowmeters are almost considered inherintly inaccurate... unless you do a lot of work to make them accurate.

Real life example, from memory, of a test to prove performance of a component for the NRC. Starting with a UT Flowmeter calibrated to 1% accuracy in a calibration lab (using ideal pipes), resulted in a total flowmeter accuracy of about 8% once pipe tolerences, UT transducer spacing tolerences, and flow induced variations were taken into account (rotation checks of flow at the differnt rotated angle arround the pipe - and final tranducer position set at the average of the flows).

Here is a case where the best technology that could be thrown at a situation, installed well within manufactures recomendations resulted in a 8% tolerence.

That is actually fairly good. Most common UT flowmeter measurements are 10% to 20% tolerence when all factors are considered.

I was personlly involved with one situation where the UT flowmeter tolerence was about 50% (that test was aborted).

Highly scientific, and considered accurate - or more properly stated - more accurate than the reasonable alternatives (major modifications of systems would have to be done to gain much - if any - improvement in total measurment accuracy).

The BS tolerence of 5% does not sound that bad when you understand that many industrial measurement processes work in similar ranges. However, perhaps its accuracy is also affected by how people use it, and perhaps it needs to be used by people who really know how to use it within its advertised accurate range.

The next question is - is it accurate enough? Good question.

There are some who have posted that they think that people can see the 5% accuracy range of the BS. Perhaps that is true, perhaps it is only true of a few (afterall, only some of the population can see SI1 defects with their naked eye, and a trained person with good eyesight can see VS2). Yet, most people cannot see that.

The analagy that I see is best descibed by the introduction of a stereo system in about 1978 (I guess I am dating myself).

Heathkit introduced the "Modulus" stereo with an amazing feature. The background noise, and common distortion, was so faint that most people could not hear it. The very first system ever that did not have "pop's" and a constant "hiss"
behind all music, and in all the dead times.

This was big news to the entier industry (and even bigger news to the stereophiles who knew that you could build a Heathkit system and get something better than any reasonable amount of money could buy fully assembled. Alas... Heathkit folded in the late 80's, but I built my share of them).

Today, if anyone were to look at the audio performance numbers of the Modulus system (in fact by the mid 80's), you would call it junk. The "numbers" were horible... just horible. The fact that only laboratory equipent can measure the difference is considered totally meaningless to audiophiles. Afterall, we must have the "best". Of course, we humans cannot destinguesh between the current "best" and the 1978 Modulus system (dispite its bad numbers). So what are we buying.... Isn't it nice that marketing has convinced us that we need laboratory quality sound systems.

Likewise marketing has convinced many that we neen "perfect" diamonds - even if we cannot see the difference.

As bad as the BS 5% may seem to some, it just might be good enough that people will never need anything much better.

I am sure that there will someday be a more accurate system out there. The big question, will it matter to most people looking at the diamonds, or will it just be a claim that the numbers are better.

I would love to be able to measure flow in my power plant to 5% accuracy. It would make life so much simpler.

p.s Plant temperature and pressure measurements have simmilar problems. yes, there are very good sensors (accurate to fractions of a percent). But when you consider the accuracy of the entire system to the readout or to the computer input - all the inaccuracies add up. Total measurement uncertainty error is a very big issue in power plants, and other industial plants where efficiency or performance counts (chemical, petrochemical, etc). Many industries would love to get to 5% accuracy in many of their processes.

So my advice, stop complaining about the 5% BS accuracy unless you can really show that it affects what people see. Stop comparing it to the theoreticall concept that everything has to be accurate to the smallest fraction of a percent.

True science accounts for whatever accuracy you actually have. It is obvious that the BS is in fact scientifically accurate in concept.

Keep in mind that the US built the atom and hydrogen bomb, sent men to the moon, and built many enginering marvels using slide rules which are typically only accurate to one significant diget (typically 5% to 10% accurate). Computers and calculators did not exist.

I should mention that several have mentioned the idea that the BS should be submitted to an independent lab for testing to verify its accuracy, and precission. That is a good idea, and a basic feature of scientific development.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This discussion is interesting, but has not changed anyones opinion.

What this digital camera counts or measures and what we see may have some correlation, but so too we are told does the ISee2, but they do not always 'see' the same results. We need both for a variety of lighting etc etc.

And Jonathon no-one has answered the original question that it is possible for a diamond to be bright at non measured / illuminated positions and not bright at measured / illuminated positions.

If you could change the position of your light - so that instead of being at say 40cm, 35cm, 30cm, 25cm, 20cm and 15cm - it is set at 37.5 to 12.5cm (these are not actuals - just examples.)
I have long suspected that certain cutters would produce diamonds that "light up" in those positions - or buyers are unwittingly selecting diamonds that light up at those positions.

What if the diamond was positioned off center to one side, and then tested again off to the other side. These 2 assessments could be combined to make a binocular assessment.

There are loads of issues that could be explored.

 

[strmrdr]

ot ut flowmeters.
They aren’t used when it really matters exactly what the flow is.
For example aircraft fuel system calibration cannot use them there are times when you need accuracy and times you don’t.
Also they will use laser mics on parts for them in the final spec and qc testing.
The contract will specify how and with what they are measured and it isnt Joe with a hand held mic.
The scenarios you talk about are not scientific research they are production specs in a system designed to work with those specs and somewhat loose tolerences.

You do raise a good point that often times human interpretation will be 50 times worse than the capability of the tools.
hmmmmmm 5% x 50 == %250

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/2/2004 8:48:12 PM Superidealist wrote:

Jon isn't pushing the BrillianceScope as 'remote vision' for the consumer. He's citing it as proof that certain diamonds are more brilliant, firey, and scintillating than certain others.----------------

It could be that I do not get the point, of course.

However, "brilliant", "firey" and "scintillating" are all visual terms. And in this particular context are meant to convey a visual impression. Is this so?

I can definitely understand their technical meaning, but these measurements are not to be used in further technical applications. They are meant to be looked at and used for a judgment of value if anything.

Once we know that this tool is no better or worse than other (that 5% margin), what are the chances to tell how appropriate it is for it's usage ? I could not agree easily that some kind of meter can be proficient at making value judgments, but it can help. The question is "how exactly ?" - as far as I understand this far.


For example, the one thing I liked allot about the Bscope's interface is that the designer did not provide a single metric (like the Isee2 score ). With a handful of pictures and three separate metrics, the reader is left to establish his own tradeoffs and tolerance for each.

This is a nice start. Obviously there must be some limitations of the tool.
These are not very obvious from my other side of the screen because only a limited range of cuts ever come with tests and stats attached, and these are the very pieces that are made to score well across the board. Some examples of outliers to this pack would help

There is allot of information on this thread, and a good list of 'things' that the Bscope does not tell about a diamond.

Cam we make up a list of what is missing from a Bscope report and hopefully other methods of evaluation (Iscope, measurements or the good old "take a look") can add ?

Starting with Garry's point here

 

[Superidealist]

valeria101 wrote:
However, 'brilliant', 'firey' and 'scintillating' are all visual terms. And in this particular context are meant to convey a visual impression.

If Jonathan left it at that, I would have no problem with his position. Look back at my postings on this and you will see that I have repeatedly said that the BrillianceScope may be of use to consumers. If a consumer knows what scores correspond to his personal preference, the device may be helpful.

Where I have a problem with Jon is when he claims, as he did in an above post that the machine is accurately measuring physical quantities not yet sufficiently well enough defined to allow measurement.

Rhino wrote:
I don't think I'd say the B'scope is attempting to mimic what we see with our eyes as much as it is determing actual light return within gem material.

Jon isn't only saying that the BrillianceScope may convey visual information to the Internet customer who has no chance to view the diamond in person. He's saying that certain diamonds he stocks, prefers, and recommends are more brilliant , firey, and scintillating than certain others... and if your perception differs from his, that just means that you like diamonds that are less brilliant, firey, and scintillating. I have no problem with his saying this, but I will point out that it is a statement of opinion rather than fact and that it will remain so until some proven method of measuring these quantities exists.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/3/2004 7:35:30 PM Superidealist wrote:

He's saying that [..] if your perception differs from his, that just means that you like diamonds that are less brilliant, firey, and scintillating.

----------------

This could be the case, right ?

Besides, each diamond on GoodOldGold comes with three or four different light retrun diagnostics (Bscope, Iscope, Isee2, GemAdviser...). Most of the times all scores are tops accross the board although these methods do not agree by design.

Anyway, I was just hoping to get a certain conclusion of this thread, regardless of GOG. Obviously as long as a measuring device like this is used commercially, the results and interpretation need a grain of salt. And they do not come with straight instructions on how to read their results - only use resounding words to qualify their metrics into good end evil (yes or no to brilliance, or whatever else word everyone uses to describe diamonds).

So, it should be useful to line put up a Bscope reder's guide. There is a brief presentation on GOG. What would you add?

 

[Rhino]

SI... you seem to be confusing personal preference with fact. What I am stating is matter of fact ... not personal opinion.




Let's discount for a moment

• The BrillianceScope.
  
• My studies with red reflector technologies and how they correlate with B'scope results & human eye observation.
  
• The fact that I've been buying and selling diamonds for roughly 20 years.
  
• The fact that I use on a daily basis multiple optical technologies including, B'scope, LightScope, I-Scope, Isee2, Ray trace software, etc. most of which I've been using every work day for the past 3-4 years.
  
• Basically ... let's throw my professional opinion out of the window for a moment and pretend I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and that I'm just some person who's only seen a few diamonds in my lifetime without having access to any technologies PLUS let's say that I'm farsighted and when observing diamonds admittedly do not wear my glasses.

GIA has stated rather emphatically SI ... ideal diamonds cut with longer lower girdles/stars have greater, better, more intense ... use whatever adjective you like... dispersed colored light return (dclr). So if I have 2 ideal cut diamonds and one has a minor facet combination of 75% lower girdles and 50% stars, GIA has stated as a matter of fact, that this kind of diamond has less dclr than another diamond with the same proportions but is cut with longer lower girdle/star combos. This is not the wild opinion of one person at GIA research SI. GIA has stated this as matter of fact. Discounting all my research & experience ... are you saying that GIA is wrong too after showing thousands of observers the same thing I've been showing and saying?

 

[Superidealist]

Rhino wrote:
SI... you seem to be confusing personal preference with fact.

I would say the same of you.

Rhino wrote:
What I am stating is matter of fact ... not personal opinion.

Then please provide proof that will satisfy the critics of the BrillianceScope on this thread that the BrillianceScope accurately measures, say, scintillation.

Rhino wrote:
Let's discount for a moment

• The BrillianceScope.
  
• My studies with red reflector technologies and how they correlate with B'scope results & human eye observation.
  
• The fact that I've been buying and selling diamonds for roughly 20 years.
  
• The fact that I use on a daily basis multiple optical technologies including, B'scope, LightScope, I-Scope, Isee2, Ray trace software, etc. most of which I've been using every work day for the past 3-4 years.
  
• Basically ... let's throw my professional opinion out of the window for a moment and pretend I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and that I'm just some person who's only seen a few diamonds in my lifetime without having access to any technologies PLUS let's say that I'm farsighted and when observing diamonds admittedly do not wear my glasses.

I'm willing to allow you your opinion. It is you who do not allow the opinions of others. You are no scientist, Jon. You merely pay lip service to skepticism while arguing tooth and nail with real skeptics. Like Paul above, I think you see what you want to see. As I've said before, getting a diamond education from your website is very much like getting the news from The McLaughlin Group.

Rhino wrote:
GIA has stated rather emphatically SI ... ideal diamonds cut with longer lower girdles/stars have greater, better, more intense ... use whatever adjective you like... dispersed colored light return (dclr).

They may indeed have said this but it does not excuse your above misrepresentation of opinion as fact. By the way, where exactly do they say this so emphatically? From what I've seen, they say that it is complicated and not easily understood. And the graphic below, I think, illustrates that the situation is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

 

[Superidealist]

valeria101 wrote:
So, it should be useful to line put up a Bscope reder's guide. There is a brief presentation on GOG. What would you add?

Nothing I haven't already said elsewhere.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sergey has shown mathematically that those DCLR charts would have the same results for a material with zero dispersion as they would for diamond or even higher dispersion materials.

I am afraid they do not mean much at all

But they look especially scientific

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/4/2004 1:57:11 AM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:

[those charts] I am afraid they do not mean much at all.
But they look especially scientific

----------------

What is so illusive about this dispersion ? One note on your tutorial says that the fire-scope does not measure fire... and a bit back Jonathan said that the colored light return is the most precious of Bscope output but then you say this is (cited above).

Those GIA charts look just great for a Ms class of data mining.

Why is this soooo darn obscure ?

Diamonds are simple. This is the greatest thing about them. Right

 

[strmrdr]

When it comes to light nothing is simple.
It is not well understood and new things are found out about it very often that disrupts common beliefs.
Not the least of which is that just the word "light" covers a huge range of wavelenths. And each wavelenth reacts differently when passing thru any given object.

 

[niceice]

Okay, here it comes

We don't think that it is necessarily a matter of accuracy / whether the machines are or are not accurate, but rather it is a matter of the ability to provide consumers with as much information as possible by which to make a decision on-line or in a jewelry store. While the bar graph scoring structure of the Bscope results may or may not be accurate, consumers seem to find the images themselves helpful regardless of how they choose to interpret them. Understand, we're not saying that the machine is accurate and we're not saying that it isn't. Just that many consumes seem to be interested in the results and seem to appreciate having yet one more way to evaluate the diamonds listed on all of the various web sites which is why we added the machine to our arsenal of toys about six weeks ago - no, we're not going to get in the middle of this discussion because we're in the process of making our own conclusions about the technology. And yes, we've already been called "hypocrites" by some of our friends because of everything we've said about the machine in the past, in truth, we didn't bring in the machine because we believe in the technology, but rather because we got tired of spending 45 minutes on the telephone / three times a day answering the questions pertaining to why we were not providing those results when other dealers who share our passion for well cut stones and who provide their clients with similar levels of disclosure... So we brought in the machine and that is the explanation for that. So once again, accurate / inaccurate / that is one of those debates that has been going on since the machine was introduced to the market and it will probably continue to be a point of valid debate for many years. And soon we'll have the issue of GIA's and AGS's own light return analysis to chat about and compare to the results of the Bscope and that will give us all the more to debate over in the friendly halls here on PS. The important thing to realize is that consumers are being provided with more methods of comparison with each passing day in the diamond industry thanks to the wonders of technology and each can choose to decide which methods and devices are important as their own personal preferences require and that is a pretty wonderful thing considering that less than ten years ago, most of the diamonds being sold in this country were sold along the pretense of "isn't this the most beautiful diamond that you have ever seen?" and there was nothing, not even a lab report, to back that statement up... The industry has come a long way in just a few short years, some people say that is good and some people say that is bad... Hmmm, sounds just like this thread. We LOVE to watch you folks think and we "really" mean that - no sarcasm here

 

[niceice]

By request, we're going to address this question which was sent to us privately via email here on PS:

Question: "As you become comfortable using the machine please let us know if you still see this technology as easily manipulated by the operator and believe in your criticisms of vendor and results manipulation which you implied and painted all Bscope vendors with the lone exception of your buddy in Massapequa."

Answer: We knew that we were going to find ourselves on the center line between the two camps on this one... It is no secret that we have had our differences with Gem Ex regarding their equipment in the past. There are a lot of people who were certain that we would never allow a Bscope to be installed in our store and a lot of people who never thought that Gem Ex would allow us to have one.

Does anybody recall our saying that the Bscope was an interesting "work in progress"? When a work in progress develops to the point where we find it to be interesting and worthy of consideration, it should be expected that we will add that technology to our evaluation process don't you think? We have been in fairly regular contact with Gem Ex over the past few years and have had some pretty in-depth conversations with various members of their development team. Long story short, all of our previous concerns have been addressed by Gem Ex and subsequently resolved and we are now in the process of evaluating their machine for use in our evaluation process.

Perhaps the fact that Gem Ex chose to install the very first Generation III Brilliance Scope in our store a few weeks ago says it all, the line so deeply drawn in the sand over the past few years has been washed over by wave upon wave of open discussion and a common ground of understanding has been established. The new version of the machine uses a new imaging system, an improved calibration system, and an improved compilation system. Gem Ex implimented specific consumer protections to monitor the scans being registered with Gem Ex and to prevent over calibration of their machine long ago, in fact, we think that was eventually addressed on the thread referenced by the email message above shortly after we expressed our initial concerns...

By the way, in answer to your next question... We are not the only dealer to have the new Generation III unit, many others are now in possession of the machine or will be very soon as the Generation II units are replaced. As technology continues to improve, we expect that the Generation III machine will be replaced by a Generation IV machine and so on... This is no different than the development of the HCA, everybody knows that we had some pretty major issues with that tool when it was first introduced and how the system was fine tuned by Garry over the course of time... Is any technology perfect? Hardly, but with dedication and hard work, it tends to improve and become of more interest to us and our customers.

No doubt that everybody is waiting for us to say something "brilliant" about the new Bscope and as much as we'd love to tell you all about the new technology, the reality is that we and every other Gem Ex customer is prohibited from doing so by contract - No, it's not a gag order... It's a standard non-disclosure agreement intended to protect the intellectual property of Gem Ex. We're also not going to discuss the accuracy of the machine and we're not going to compare the new machine to the old machine for the same reason, but you can bet that we won't keep it if we feel that it is inaccurate and in some ways that says it all

 

[Blueman33]

----------------
On 10/5/2004 1:41:38 AM niceice wrote:

By request, we're going to address this question which was sent to us privately via email here on PS:


QUESTION: Who requested your input? Not anyone I see posted on this thread.

No doubt that everybody is waiting for us to say something 'brilliant' about the new Bscope and as much as we'd love to tell you all about the new technology,

COMMENT: TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY DOUBT IT. everyone is NOT waiting for you to say squat. I doubt ANYONE is waiting for you.

How arrogant is that? "NO DOUBT EVERYONE IS WAITING FOR US..."

excuse me while i vomit. and buy a stone from someone less full of themselves.

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 10/5/2004 2:18:57 AM Blueman33 wrote:

----------------

On 10/5/2004 1:41:38 AM niceice wrote:


By request, we're going to address this question which was sent to us privately via email here on PS:



QUESTION: Who requested your input? Not anyone I see posted on this thread.


No doubt that everybody is waiting for us to say something 'brilliant' about the new Bscope and as much as we'd love to tell you all about the new technology,


COMMENT: TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY DOUBT IT. everyone is NOT waiting for you to say squat. I doubt ANYONE is waiting for you.


How arrogant is that? 'NO DOUBT EVERYONE IS WAITING FOR US...'


excuse me while i vomit. and buy a stone from someone less full of themselves.----------------

Who requested their imput?
I have on many occasions.

Who was waiting for their reply:
ME but I do say it was more fun when they were in the B-scope isnt good for much camp.

Go ahead and look past niceice you will be missing one of the top 5 vendors.
..........
Actualy their thinking on it isnt that far from my own even now that they have one.
My position always has been that it isnt the best thing since sliced bread or the final say on a diamonds quality but If Rhino is willing to put his reputation on the line that it seperates the poor performers from the great then I will listen.

I would rather have the info than not have it but its just one peice of many to be considered and has to be looked at in the proper light (pun intended)