All AGS 000 and GIA "Excellent" are not created equal

[Serg]

re:For whatever reason, Sergey jumped on that using a PRINCESS cut example, which is totally off the point. The diameter of a round diamond is quite a different animal than measuring the sides of a princess cut.


Dave,

I am disagree. The possible such error for round cut is much more less( then for princess) . Such error depends from length straight girdle part. You found extreme example. Real round cut has not such problem at all. For princess cuts, Emerald, … such task is present( But solved by OctoNus at least)

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/18/2006 2:11:47 PM
Author: oldminer


Finally, the best and last part of the answer. It is rather humorous. The automatic consistency calculator is doing its job just as it should. It is the users who don''t understand the point of the calculator. You can enter any nonsense you wish on the left. The crucial results are either the word YES or NO on the far right column. NOTE: the far right column on one example says ''YES'' meaning this situation is REALISTIC and POSSIBLE. The other example says ''NO'' meaning the situation is NOT CONSISTENT with reality and is an IMPOSSIBLE set of values.

Dave.. Sergey pointed out that the Calculated CROWN angles are WRONG .. you have put in table, crown height, and crown angle on the input box on the left, in the initial example, which are consistent, and SHOULD give a crown angle of 34.5.. HOWEVER your software CALCULATES 33.38, and ONLY when You eliminate girdle thickness as Sergey did, does the software give the CORRECT approximate 34.5 crown angle, consistent with the crown height and table size. SOMETHING IS SCREWED UP BIGTIME IN IMAGEM LAND.

Yes, you said the depth doesn''t compute, but what about the rest of the screen!!!!
If you can''t do that simple crown angle calculation correctly, what are you doing elsewhere??? OR do you have a new trade secret definition of crown angle with respect to table, diameter and crown height from the classic one, where the girdle thickness is measured at the mains for the purposes of determining total depth.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/18/2006 2:11:47 PM
Author: oldminer

I hope everyone reading and participating here feels my responses were properly directed and to the points that have been raised. There is no agenda to hide anything other than trade secrets and intellectual property. Come on Dave, it makes me laugh, no agenda! I can understand trade secrets, but until SOMETHING is disclosed, how can anyone accept or reject a technology. Because it gives "me" the numbers I want to see?

These won''t have an ill effect on how well a device works. It is up to the trade to adopt or not adopt a technology. The trade needs more information, period.

I know some of the responses may seem like a personal attack on me, but I choose to view them as business and not personal.Dave, you know they are not personal, I feel sorry for you having to defend the Imagem PR screwups. I hope that others consider their words before hitting ''SUBMIT'' as much as I generally do. Occasional failings aside, I generally make a good effort at being fair to those who take the time to read what I have posted.

 

[adamasgem]

Getting back to the original topic of the thread, we KNOW that AGS00''s and GIA EX''s are not created equal. Based on previous threads and what I have posted on the overlays of the simplistic two crown/table/paviliion, it is probably about 8 times more likely that a stone would get a GIA EX than an AGS 000, due in part to the polish requirement differences. About 5 times is due to the crown/pavilion range paradigms.

What we haven''t seen, is the Imagem paradigm, to compare wiith published GIA and AGS grading ranges.

 

[RockDoc]

Trade Secrets

Have Imagem''s protection of trade secrets been included in their patent filings? If a trade secret is worth protecting, I would think details of what it is would be included in the patent(s). That way they are protected should someone else infringe using them.

Of course if this is not in the patent filings, as many times they are not, there really isn''t much protection afforded to the patent owner. In my opinion this is risky, as sooner or later someone figures it out, and copies it with no recourse to the patent owner.

Those of us who have commented, here are not interested in duplicating the IMAGEM, but rather are concerned and interested in knowing what it does - so we can assess just how it does it, and how much credibility to give it.

Recently, Marty was at a show where he wanted to learn about the technology of the ISEE2. They refused to discuss it with him. As a result, those of us who wanted to know just what it does, see if as VOODOO technology for JEWELERS. I.E. a black box with a mysterious and questionable methodolgy of how it operates.

AGS, Gemex, Adamas, Sarin, and Octanus, have been very open and sharing about what their machines and software do and how it does it. Accuracy details are disclosed, and so are methodologies, so one knows it isn''t just a mysterious, magical black box.

IMAGEM hasn''t done this. Rather the answers written to questions, either go unanswered, or replied to in a way that doesn''t say much of anything pertinent to the questions addressed.

From the sample reports displayed on your site, and the IMAGEM newsletter, several of us have pointed out very serious mistakes that have been posted. In that consumers may not pick this up, those making criticisms, are very justly concerned, as IMAGEM claims that you''ve written seem to imply that it does "everything", and does it better or equal to anyone else''s equipment.

Consistently, without any explanation of what the rating on IMAGEM''s light return "numbers" mean in depth, or actual numbers that are supported as to quantity of the sampling tests you''ve made in depth and detail, there are repeated inferences that IMAGEM has equaled what GEMEX has done.

In the Gemex database there are results for over 1 million scans, which someone (dealers or consumers) has paid for.

You''ve also asserted that IMAGEM can do what Gemprint does. While Gemprint has it "problems" currently with the purchase of the company, it is also a long established gemstone identity matching instrument. You''ve asserted that Imagem can match stones based on measurement and other standards, but in the sample reports the measurements appear to be highly inaccurate, such as a 10 x 10 marquise, which anyone can see is patently incorrect and inaccurate, in a very obvious way. So how accurate are the things we can''t see so easily?

I''ve written to IMAGEM, and written here, being independent that I''d love to run IMAGEM neck and neck in comparison to the other equipment I have. In that I have no ownership or allegance to anyone but my CONSUMER clients, I feel I can do this from a uniquely independent postition. However, my requests have been ignored, by both you and IMAGEM.

My interest is to provide consumers who are my customers with the most complete information possible, so having equipment that would provide my reports with the highest level of informative testing results are of primary interest to me.

I certainly understand the limitations and concern that someone with proprietary equipment, testing and research has. But I think many of the criticisms and questions posed on this thread, need more direct answers than just meaningless comments which direct answers are skirted hiding behind - I can''t say that cause it''s a secret.

Rockdoc

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/19/2006 1:59:13 PM
Author: RockDoc


I certainly understand the limitations and concern that someone with proprietary equipment, testing and research has. But I think many of the criticisms and questions posed on this thread, need more direct answers than just meaningless comments which direct answers are skirted hiding behind - I can''t say that cause it''s a secret.

Rockdoc

Well said
I do have to give Dave/imagem credit for being more open than they were but there are a lot of unanswered questions still out there.

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 8/18/2006 3:29:56 PM
Author: adamasgem
Getting back to the original topic of the thread, we KNOW that AGS00''s and GIA EX''s are not created equal. Based on previous threads and what I have posted on the overlays of the simplistic two crown/table/paviliion, it is probably about 8 times more likely that a stone would get a GIA EX than an AGS 000, due in part to the polish requirement differences. About 5 times is due to the crown/pavilion range paradigms.

What we haven''t seen, is the Imagem paradigm, to compare wiith published GIA and AGS grading ranges.

This would be interesting to see, a scatter plot to see where 50 or so Imagem graded diamonds fall in relation to GIA/AGS. And it would illustrate the point that Ideals and Excellents are not equal in the eyes of Imagem

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/18/2006 2:11:47 PM
Author: oldminer

The table that was copied previously shows the difference in a ROUND diamond using a side view versus a top view showing the exact and entire girdle image.

Average girdle diameter 3.62mm side view 3.5mm top view
Minimum girdle diameter 3.5mm side view 3.3mm top view
Maximum girdle diameter 3.5mm side view 3.MM top view

Dave Don''t get flustered, but you ought to correct your post, which is inconsistent with the Imagem newsletter, as the highlighted data makes no sense at all..
As to Imagems representations of a direct view giving better max and mins than a profile view, I would note that a direct view alone has problems if the table and girdle plane are not parallel, as the minimum diameter will be off in the ''direct view" and the direct view also is effected if the girdle facets are not perpendicular to the table.

There may be a subltle difference where the max mins are defined, like at the mid-height position of a girdle facet, or where the girdle midplane is defined. Lots of reasons for differences, although in the Imagem example shown with such a large flat spot, I can''t see a profiler missing that (what was the system was the example based on?).
It would also be interesting to know whether or not the Imagem example was a faceted or bruted girdle, as profilers typically convert and infer the girdle as being a series of flat planes. The direct view shown certainly doesn''t look like a faceted girdle.

Profilers can be highly accurate if the user takes enough data, as typical resolver positioning capability is well below the 0.45 degree level implied.

 

[oldminer]

Marty:

I meant to copy the exact chart you have posted. The chart you posted from the newsletter makes sense. Mine does not make sense and was incorrect.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/19/2006 6:32:06 PM
Author: oldminer
Marty:

I meant to copy the exact chart you have posted. The chart you posted from the newsletter makes sense. Mine does not make sense and was incorrect.

I fugured you didn't cut and paste...

Oh Well..

I'm assuming that the face "up" view is done with the stone lying on its table..
Can you see the mathematical problem with getting true max and mins if the table/girdle plane are not parallel.. A 1 degree table/girdle plae misalignment can give you a 15 micron error in the diameter of a 6.5 mm stone by my back of the envelope calculation. (for a zero thickess girdle projection; it gets worse as the girdle thickness increases or if the girdle is wavy)

Depending on the non paralleliism, then you will not necessarily get the true max mins... close, but not necessarily any "better".

Both methodologies have problems, both have to probably use a non linear calibration of the camera/lens system, usiually a bicubic for the best accuracy.

Then you have to ask the question, how much accuracy is necessary. How much does the basic light return measue quantization relate to in terms of equvilent modelig errors...

If you listen to GIA (which I don't ) you can cut the stone with a chisel and it will still rate as an EX.

I'd still like to see an Imagem crown/pavilion/table mapping for their hghest grade. Is that going to be forthcoming???

 

[Serg]

re:As to Imagems representations of a direct view giving better max and mins than a profile view, I would note that a direct view alone has problems if the table and girdle plane are not parallel, as the minimum diameter will be off in the ''direct view" and the direct view also is effected if the girdle facets are not perpendicular to the table.

Marty,

Firstly, What is Imagem definition of Diameter? Is it minimum distance between two parallel planes or length of segment?

See :

http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/parameter02.phtml

Secondly, Scale for each lens depends from focusing plane position. do Imagem change scale factor after refocusing from table to girdle during "direct" measurement. Or Imagem do not do refocusing ? Or do refocusing without correction scale?

Dave mentioned what Imagem scanner had been tested by third party. Such Tests confirmed very hight lebel Imagem accuracy.

Dave,
Why did imagem do not publish this report yet? It is trade secret too?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/20/2006 6:37:16 AM
Author: Serg


re:As to Imagems representations of a direct view giving better max and mins than a profile view, I would note that a direct view alone has problems if the table and girdle plane are not parallel, as the minimum diameter will be off in the 'direct view' and the direct view also is effected if the girdle facets are not perpendicular to the table.

Marty,

Firstly, What is Imagem definition of Diameter? Is it minimum distance between two parallel planes or length of segment?

See :

http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/parameter02.phtml

I take it from your example, that the two parallel planes in the Octonus ar perpendicular to the table similar to the way you would do it with a Leverage guage.

Is this measurement now made with respect to a "over defined defined" "average girdle plane" where ALL points of the max to min diameters lie in the same plane, or is it made looking at the max to min projections (function of girdle thicknesses(s) ) that would make contact with the theoretically vertical planes of a Leverage guage, which would not necessarily lie in the same real plane.

Or is it that Imagem is using a Sarin or OGI example, both of whom may do the problem differently theoretically (and with different accuracy as we know) than Helium.

While some might cliaim that we are getting too deep into this, the differences in definitions and/or technique, are all within the differences claimed by Imagem and rightly or wrongly, also claimed as "errors" with Imagem claimed to be the benchmark.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/20/2006 6:37:16 AM
Author: Serg

Secondly, Scale for each lens depends from focusing plane position. do Imagem change scale factor after refocusing from table to girdle during ''direct'' measurement. Or Imagem do not do refocusing ? Or do refocusing without correction scale?

Ah.. focus, and recalibration rears its ugly head. Combined with pixilization, detection thresholds on a pixel, and non parallel wavefronts, table/girdle plane non parallelism, what number do you want to accept as being "right"

Dave mentioned what Imagem scanner had been tested by third party. Such Tests confirmed very hight lebel Imagem accuracy.

Dave,
Why did imagem do not publish this report yet? It is trade secret too?

GOOD Question for the chestbeaters...

 

[adamasgem]

If Imagem is doing the diameters from a face up view, then what they would "see"( "ideally", with no parallax or calibration errors), would be the shadow edge from the top(bottom) of one girdle facet to the bottom(top depending on the relative orientation of the normals of each girdle facet) of the diametrically opposite girdle facet.

As a side note, you don't really usually get diametrically opposite measurements with a contact device like a Leveridge guage because you can't guarantee that the "measurement" goes through the same "center" of the stone each time.

As a side note, Sergey, have you done an analysis on the Becke effect on non contact device measurements. I wonder how much "error" that introduces on all camera type edge detect devices. Dummy me (5 minutes later answering my own stupid question

), it is not an "error" the Becke effect allows you to "see" the edges of the stone where the index of refraction of the diamond is greater than the surrounding medium, but only if the rays are parallel to the edge. There might be an effect after all .

 

[RockDoc]

Dave

Why doesn''t Dr. Aggarwal come on and answer the questions ?

Inquiring minds want to know........


Rockdoc

 

[oldminer]

RockDoc, I am the interface with ImaGem. Dr. Aggarwal has many responsibilities and is checking out the answers to be made for this thread. Thankfully, the company is busy so the responses are not immediate. He is not the one going to spend time here as I do. His time is more valuable in other arenas. Some of the complaints or questions seem without merit and others are worthy of being addressed. I hope for a few decent responses that directly answer some of the remaining questions to be ready shortly.

I thank everyone for their patience.

 

[oldminer]

RESPONSE FROM Dr. Lalit Aggarwal
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

One of the questions raised on Pricescope is about the efficacy of using the girdle image for gauging girdle diameter when table and girdle planes are not parallel. We were aware if this issue and studied this about three years ago by having you (David Atlas) recut a CZ to make table and girdle planes non-parallel to each other. Our finding: given the properties of a telecentric lens and the morphology of a diamond, girdle view will give more accurate assessment of the girdle diameter than a profile view as long as the tilt is what one would expect in most realistic situations. If lack of parallelism were really bad, visual inspection, brilliancy image and symmetry measure will indicate a serious problem and the stone should not be processed by a machine. Some readers of Pricescope might be interested in pursuing a research project which looks at other gauging issues when table and girdle are non-parallel and a system uses average values to calculate derived characteristics of a diamond (angles and percentages). They will be surprised by the findings.

Non-orthogonality is an issue in the profile view also. If table and girdle are not parallel, a stone will tilt away from the vertical axis and will add errors to the gauging results. But even more serious effects are associated with the inexact placement of a stone on the rotational platform while capturing a profile image. If a stone is not centered (placement of a stone does not coincide with the rotational axis), it will affect the accuracy and repeatability of gauging derived from the profile view significantly. When capturing the girdle image the relationship between the surface on which a stone is placed and the optical system are unaffected, especially in ImaGem’s system which has a highly accurate system for placement of the stone at the center of the rotational axis. This will improve both accuracy and repeatability. It would be easy to test the accuracy and repeatability of measurements obtained by processing the girdle image or the profile image. Given various sources of errors and conditions, in practice a girdle image will give a more accurate assessment of a girdle diameter than a profile view when a girdle has an indented spot, rotational resolution not with standing. If a stone is perfectly round, the accuracy of the two systems should be close provided a stone is placed at the rotational axis of the stage. However, a girdle view gives distinct advantages over profile view in gauging the shape and symmetry of fancy shapes. Labs or manufacturers involved with round, fancy or branded shapes need to evaluate the benefits of profile view only technology versus a technology that gives them gauging data derived from profile, table and top images.

One of the readers noted that the consistency calculator at ImGem’s website is wrong. The calculator is OK. Crown angle entry column shows a value of 34.5 degrees; whereas the calculated crown angle is 33.38 degrees. The value of 34.5 degrees was purposely placed in the calculator to illustrate how the calculator works. Note that crown and pavilion angles are derived from linear measurements. If the linear measurements were internally consistent, the calculated angles from the calculator will be close to the angles entered in the left column otherwise the calculator would indicate an inconsistency with the entered angle values. To make sure that total depth equals reported crown height, girdle thickness and pavilion height, ImaGem adds a fraction of the reported girdle thickness to both the pavilion and crown heights. This fractional adjustment is removed from the crown height at the time of calculating the crown angle. This was explained at length in the June newsletter and again in our responses on Pricescope. After running the calculator, the correct inference should have been that since the linear measurements are correct and internally consistent than the crown angle entry of 34.5 degrees is off rather than inferring that the calculator is wrong. We were aware that some of the systems in the market place were either internally inconsistent or incomplete with respect to how total depth was reported or were dummying down the data or using some other unexplained approach to achieve internal consistency for total depth on one hand while tampering with the crown angle calculation. The responses to our newsletter may have identified at least one such case for the record.

On another thread on Pricescope (https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/differences-in-sarin-and-ags.49345/) there is extensive discussion on dummying down data and its effects on crown angle calculations. We are pleased that our efforts to be open and educate the members of the gem and jewelry industry have started to receive attention from serious and well meaning individuals. We would hope that citations from ImaGem’s research will carry proper attribution to ImaGem. ImaGem will continue to bring to the members of the gem and jewelry industry latest news in technology: attributes of hardware and software so they can make an informed decision. ImaGem welcomes comments and news to the editor of ImaGem’s newsletter and will do its best to publish them.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I believe this response answers the requests.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/22/2006 12:45:03 PM
Author: oldminer

RESPONSE FROM Dr. Lalit Aggarwal
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

...

One of the readers noted that the consistency calculator at ImGem’s website is wrong. The calculator is OK. Crown angle entry column shows a value of 34.5 degrees; whereas the calculated crown angle is 33.38 degrees. The value of 34.5 degrees was purposely placed in the calculator to illustrate how the calculator works. Note that crown and pavilion angles are derived from linear measurements. If the linear measurements were internally consistent, the calculated angles from the calculator will be close to the angles entered in the left column otherwise the calculator would indicate an inconsistency with the entered angle values. To make sure that total depth equals reported crown height, girdle thickness and pavilion height, ImaGem adds a fraction of the reported girdle thickness to both the pavilion and crown heights. This fractional adjustment is removed from the crown height at the time of calculating the crown angle. This was explained at length in the June newsletter and again in our responses on Pricescope. After running the calculator, the correct inference should have been that since the linear measurements are correct and internally consistent than the crown angle entry of 34.5 degrees is off rather than inferring that the calculator is wrong. We were aware that some of the systems in the market place were either internally inconsistent or incomplete with respect to how total depth was reported or were dummying down the data or using some other unexplained approach to achieve internal consistency for total depth on one hand while tampering with the crown angle calculation. The responses to our newsletter may have identified at least one such case for the record.

....



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I bwliwvw this response answers the requests.

"It is the example of BUG in Imagem calculation becuase due 58.908=43.108+1.2+14.6 Girdle 1.2 has not common part with Crown height. "

Also see Pavilion height and Pavilion angle. For pavilion angle such problem is absent. It is mean Imagem spesific makeweight for Pavilion is zero.

Also for Crown angle 33.38 Table 57.5 Pavilion angle 40.77 and total height 58.9 . Girdle thikness in valley points should be 0.1%.

Dave, You have Diamcalc and can easy check it.
Could you compare Diamcalc and Imagem reasult without Dr. Lalit Aggarwal?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/22/2006 12:45:03 PM
Author: oldminer

RESPONSE FROM Dr. Lalit Aggarwal
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

One of the readers noted that the consistency calculator at ImGem’s website is wrong. The calculator is OK. Crown angle entry column shows a value of 34.5 degrees; whereas the calculated crown angle is 33.38 degrees. The value of 34.5 degrees was purposely placed in the calculator to illustrate how the calculator works. Note that crown and pavilion angles are derived from linear measurements. If the linear measurements were internally consistent, the calculated angles from the calculator will be close to the angles entered in the left column otherwise the calculator would indicate an inconsistency with the entered angle values. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I believe this response answers the requests.

I think we have a failure to communicate or else someone doesn''t realize that the crown angle computation is INDEPENDENT of the girdle thickness. In the example below, just like Sergey posted before, the dimensions are the SAME, except that in the bottom example the girdle thickness is zeroed out..

In BOTH cases, the diameter is 6.5, the crown height is 0.949 and the table size is 3.738, yet the calculator gives two different calculated crown angles...

The crown angle = arctan(crown height/(0.5*(Diameter-Table))

The crown angle = arctan(0.949/(0.5*(6.5-3.73)

The crown angle = arctan(0.949/(0.5*(2.762))

The crown angle = arctan(0.949/(1.381))

The crown angle = arctan(0.6871832)=34.49619


SOMEONE DOESN''T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and it ain''t me.. Contrary to your opinion, the calculator is NOT OK. Sergey and I will send you consulting bills..

 

[oldminer]

In response to Sergey

The inference regarding pavilion height and pavilion angle is incorrect. Because of the size differences between pavilion and crown heights, crown angle is more sensitive to crown height accuracy than pavilion angle is to pavilion height accuracy, other things being equal. ImaGem’s calculator is designed to do what is called “Sensitivity Analysis,” in operations research. Should readers of Pricescope be interested in the topic, I will provide references to how sensitivity analysis is done.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Marty Haske's post shows the calculator is working, by responding "NO". The results are inconsistent with reality.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It is a failure of communication.

There is no bug in ImaGem’s calculator program. We have explained at length how ImaGem is reporting various measurements. Our reporting is internally consistent and accurate. The example in my earlier response and the question raised now suggests that there may be a language issue. I don’t know what else to say. Lalit

 

[whatmeworry]

To make sure that total depth equals reported crown height, girdle thickness and pavilion height, ImaGem adds a fraction of the reported girdle thickness to both the pavilion and crown heights. This fractional adjustment is removed from the crown height at the time of calculating the crown angle.

Dave,
I think what Sergey is saying is that a fractional adjustment should also be removed when calculating the pavillion angle, but the calculator doesn''t do that. It does make the adjustment when it calculates the crown angle but no adjustment for the pavillion angle. So the calculator results don''t jive with the statment in italics.

 

[whatmeworry]

Dave,
Not piling on, just helpng. What''s the point of having ca and pa as inputs on the left when you can put it any number you want and still get a thumbs up on consistency? Certainly the example below is not realistic or possible

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/22/2006 2:28:50 PM
Author: oldminer

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Marty Haske''s post shows the calculator is working, by responding ''NO''. The results are inconsistent with reality.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It is a failure of communication.

There is no bug in ImaGem’s calculator program. We have explained at length how ImaGem is reporting various measurements. Our reporting is internally consistent and accurate. The example in my earlier response and the question raised now suggests that there may be a language issue. I don’t know what else to say. Lalit

Then how do You explain 2 DIFFERENT CALCULATED CROWN ANGLES !!!!!!!!!

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/22/2006 7:51:02 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/22/2006 2:28:50 PM
Author: oldminer


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Marty Haske''s post shows the calculator is working, by responding ''NO''. The results are inconsistent with reality.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It is a failure of communication.

There is no bug in ImaGem’s calculator program. We have explained at length how ImaGem is reporting various measurements. Our reporting is internally consistent and accurate. The example in my earlier response and the question raised now suggests that there may be a language issue. I don’t know what else to say. Lalit

Then how do You explain 2 DIFFERENT CALCULATED CROWN ANGLES !!!!!!!!!

Imagem crown height is normal crown height + some part girdle height( Btw. It is strange way at least. Such method can not solved "problem" with total Height. "Problem" with total height can be solved easily by much more transparence way) If you changing girdle height for fix Imagem crown height , your changing normal crown height ( and crown angle of course)
It is not my explanation( I just translated Imagem explanation)
In my example (demonstration error in Imagem calculator) I accounted such explanation . Imagem did not understand my example at all.( Or did not show it)

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/22/2006 6:34:07 PM
Author: whatmeworry
Dave,
Not piling on, just helpng. What''s the point of having ca and pa as inputs on the left when you can put it any number you want and still get a thumbs up on consistency? Certainly the example below is not realistic or possible

Good example Whatmeworry.. Must be a proprietary algorithm they are using.. trade secret.. I''m feeling more and more sorry for Dave every day..

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/23/2006 6:59:38 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/22/2006 7:51:02 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/22/2006 2:28:50 PM
Author: oldminer



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Marty Haske''s post shows the calculator is working, by responding ''NO''. The results are inconsistent with reality.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It is a failure of communication.

There is no bug in ImaGem’s calculator program. We have explained at length how ImaGem is reporting various measurements. Our reporting is internally consistent and accurate. The example in my earlier response and the question raised now suggests that there may be a language issue. I don’t know what else to say. Lalit

Then how do You explain 2 DIFFERENT CALCULATED CROWN ANGLES !!!!!!!!!

Imagem crown height is normal crown height + some part girdle height( Btw. It is strange way at least. Such method can not solved ''problem'' with total Height. ''Problem'' with total height can be solved easily by much more transparence way) If you changing girdle height for fix Imagem crown height , your changing normal crown height ( and crown angle of course)
It is not my explanation( I just translated Imagem explanation)

In my example (demonstration error in Imagem calculator) I accounted such explanation . Imagem did not understand my example at all.( Or did not show it)

Sergey.. The magic number in their trade secret algorithm appears to be one half. If you subtract one half the girdle thickness from the crown height you get their 33.XX crown angle... Geeeeeze, maybe they have patented it

Logic like this reminds me of the accronym for Phd.. Piled, High And Deep

 

[RockDoc]

RE: Piled high and deep.


Seems like IMAGEM is piled so high and deep there even be a toll both at the entrance!


This is accuracy??????? HUH??????


Rockdoc

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/23/2006 11:49:32 AM
Author: RockDoc
RE: Piled high and deep.


Seems like IMAGEM is piled so high and deep there even be a toll both at the entrance!


This is accuracy??????? HUH??????


Rockdoc

Me thinks that few would want to pay the toll if they knew what kind of road they would be travelling on. Almost as good as the FarceWare(TM) fiasco. But at least the depths are consistent. Makes me wonder why they have been dissing 3D modeling. With arithmatic and sanity checks like this like this, they could never get any correlations with their trade secret illumination scheme measurements, if they tried to do a ray trace.. Back to the drawing boards..

 

[oldminer]

Well we have an answer:

"Our newsletter and calculator clearly explains that consistency is checked for total depth only. If total depth equals pavilion height, girdle thickness and crown height, the calculator will display “yes” otherwise “no”. Crown and pavilion angles on the left are entered from a system so they can be compared visually to the calculated values"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So, the tempest is in a teapot.



Friends, the thread has gone a long way off topic. How about someone else start another thread which others will find interesting. This one has deteriorated in focus.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/23/2006 1:41:18 PM
Author: oldminer
Well we have an answer:

''Our newsletter and calculator clearly explains that consistency is checked for total depth only. If total depth equals pavilion height, girdle thickness and crown height, the calculator will display “yes” otherwise “no”. Crown and pavilion angles on the left are entered from a system so they can be compared visually to the calculated values''

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So, the tempest is in a teapot.



Friends, the thread has gone a long way off topic. How about someone else start another thread which others will find interesting. This one has deteriorated in focus.

We had an original musical comedy back in the 60''s entitled Tempest in a Teapot.

This reminds me of that..

So In summary, let''s see if I get this right from above. You enter all the numbers from a system, and then bother to calculate something incorrectly so that you can compare the incorrect numbers to a visual estimate..

STRANGE REASONING/EXPLANATION

But I''ll agree that the "depth" consistency, by adding three numbers together, is a step in the right direction.