Sir John,
Hi M'Lady Lynn. Always well met!Date: 11/19/2009 7:54:46 PM
Author: Lynn B
Sir John,
So nice to see you! Always a pleasure to meet up with you in a thread!
So... OK... but I don't understand what you mean!If a diamond still sparkles and performs when it's caked with MUD, but pretty much goes DEAD with a film over the pavilion... how can that be?
And what *IS* it, then, if it is 'in effect no longer a diamond'? More like a piece of window glass, do you mean? And if so, why not when it's caked with mud?!
(Obviously I am obsessing over Todd's MUD story!!!)But I am genuinely perplexed!
THANK YOU!
How interesting, John! As always, many thanks!Date: 11/19/2009 9:33:59 PM
Author: John Pollard
Hi M''Lady Lynn. Always well met!
I''m sure you know diamonds attract grease. In fact ''grease belts'' were used for years to separate diamonds from other minerals...the crushed ore would be run over a greasy belt and the diamond rough would stick to it while other ore did not.
The problem for diamond-lovers is that a greasy diamond perfoms differently. When a film of grease is on the surface the dynamic of light passing through changes; in effect the RI differences increase the critical angle and allow more light to escape at every surface interaction. A greasy crown or greasy pavilion makes light transit from diamond''s RI of 2.417 to an RI of 1.400-1.520 (most oils) instead of an RI of 1.000 (air). The problem is obvious coming through a greasy crown - and even on the pavilion the critical angle is changed so light that would have previously reflected back to later exit the crown toward the observer now has a higher chance of escaping through the pavilion facets.
As for Todd''s mud demonstration I can''t say. Maybe Todd lives near clean, non-greasy mud?
Is it a chlorhexidine / Hibitane soap you use Lynn? The pink scrub?Date: 11/20/2009 9:00:01 PM
Author: Lynn B
Hmmm? Do you have any other ideas of what that film could have been? Besides the hospital soap, I don''t think I get into anything that anyone else doesn''t get into!!!
Lorelei,Date: 11/21/2009 5:47:37 AM
Author: Lorelei
Is it a chlorhexidine / Hibitane soap you use Lynn? The pink scrub?Date: 11/20/2009 9:00:01 PM
Author: Lynn B
Hmmm? Do you have any other ideas of what that film could have been? Besides the hospital soap, I don''t think I get into anything that anyone else doesn''t get into!!!
i''m a little confused by this. if light enters the crown and there is a film, i can see how the refractive index is changed and everything goes askew. but if the crown is clean, light enters the crown, how does a film on the pavilion affect the refractive index of the diamond since light inside the diamond is bouncing back into it (vs. light which escapes needs to go through the pavilion film)? or does the film actually change the level of refraction even of light reflecting in the diamond?Date: 11/19/2009 9:33:59 PM
Author: John Pollard
Hi M''Lady Lynn. Always well met!
I''m sure you know diamonds attract grease. In fact ''grease belts'' were used for years to separate diamonds from other minerals...the crushed ore would be run over a greasy belt and the diamond rough would stick to it while other ore did not.
The problem for diamond-lovers is that a greasy diamond perfoms differently. When a film of grease is on the surface the dynamic of light passing through changes; in effect the RI differences increase the critical angle and allow more light to escape at every surface interaction. A greasy crown or greasy pavilion makes light transit from diamond''s RI of 2.417 to an RI of 1.400-1.520 (most oils) instead of an RI of 1.000 (air). The problem is obvious coming through a greasy crown - and even on the pavilion the critical angle is changed so light that would have previously reflected back to later exit the crown toward the observer now has a higher chance of escaping through the pavilion facets.
As for Todd''s mud demonstration I can''t say. Maybe Todd lives near clean, non-greasy mud?
Exactly. The critical angle depends on the RI values of the various surfaces through which light rays are passing. Whether air-grease-diamond or diamond-grease-air the critical angle is changed so more light escapes at every surface interaction than if it was air-diamond or diamond-air.Date: 11/23/2009 8:19:01 PM
Author: rockabee
i''m a little confused by this. if light enters the crown and there is a film, i can see how the refractive index is changed and everything goes askew. but if the crown is clean, light enters the crown, how does a film on the pavilion affect the refractive index of the diamond since light inside the diamond is bouncing back into it (vs. light which escapes needs to go through the pavilion film)? or does the film actually change the level of refraction even of light reflecting in the diamond?Date: 11/19/2009 9:33:59 PM
Author: John Pollard
Hi M''Lady Lynn. Always well met!
I''m sure you know diamonds attract grease. In fact ''grease belts'' were used for years to separate diamonds from other minerals...the crushed ore would be run over a greasy belt and the diamond rough would stick to it while other ore did not.
The problem for diamond-lovers is that a greasy diamond perfoms differently. When a film of grease is on the surface the dynamic of light passing through changes; in effect the RI differences increase the critical angle and allow more light to escape at every surface interaction. A greasy crown or greasy pavilion makes light transit from diamond''s RI of 2.417 to an RI of 1.400-1.520 (most oils) instead of an RI of 1.000 (air). The problem is obvious coming through a greasy crown - and even on the pavilion the critical angle is changed so light that would have previously reflected back to later exit the crown toward the observer now has a higher chance of escaping through the pavilion facets.
As for Todd''s mud demonstration I can''t say. Maybe Todd lives near clean, non-greasy mud?
Predictable answer my lady. But I care about your moth-wings and am trying to help you stay un-burned, even though the flame is sooo pretty.Date: 11/24/2009 8:00:33 PM
Author: Lynn B
... But (as you know!) I can hardly stand the thoughts of NOT wearing my diamond -- I just ENJOY it so much! And taking it on and off all day would really be a challenge because I am almost ALWAYS 'in the trenches'! ...
Not to Mr. Moh 10 diamond, no. Rock the US. But the setting needs to be considered. Even a WG setting could have the rhodium worn down by obsessive ultrasonic use. For a solid platinum setting without micropave or other tiny diamonds you should be fine.
Thanks for the good advice, my friend. I appreciate your having my wings... er, I mean my BACK!Date: 11/24/2009 8:23:03 PM
Author: John Pollard
Predictable answer my lady. But I care about your moth-wings and am trying to help you stay un-burned, even though the flame is sooo pretty.
Seriously though, you know I''m a drummer I think, and my wedding ring is the first success I''ve had with hand-and-wrist jewelry. I can''t tell you how many rings and watches (none heirlooms, thankfully) were lost over the span of my younger practice and performance years. I can''t drum with jewelry on, so it would come off and be set on the music stand, guitar amp, trap-table, studio carpet, glove box of car etc. I finally gave up.
In married life I make a practice of ONLY setting my ring in one of two places if I take it off. One is the ringbox on my dresser at home. The other is in my billfold when away. So far it''s a solid system. If you ever do have to go to a ''take it off'' strategy I suggest ONLY one place to do so. Knowing you, that may never happen of course
Not to Mr. Moh 10 diamond, no. Rock the US. But the setting needs to be considered. Even a WG setting could have the rhodium worn down by obsessive ultrasonic use. For a solid platinum setting without micropave or other tiny diamonds you should be fine.
Come to think of it, I could US my setting and diamond far more than I do. Sounds like a job for the Mrs.
300x240.png)
