User talk:Jasper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Contents

[edit] Diamond cut

Jasper, I'd like to invite you to add the diagrams (Figures 1 and 2) from your website http://www.folds.net/diamond/index.html to the diamond cut article. I think they would add alot; it is hard to visualize the many facets of a round brilliant cut diamond, especially when one has never seen one before. Bantman 18:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper, looks great! Bantman 17:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond cleanliness

Hi Jasper,

This is super minor, but why do you want to move "Cleanliness" to its own paragraph? It is not one of the generally accepted "C"s of diamonds, so I thought it belonged in the paragraph that starts "Other characteristics not described by the four Cs can and do influence the value or appearance of a gem diamond." That paragraph has plenty of room in it for the cleanliness discussion, and I think breaking it out into its own paragraph over-emphasizes the point.

- Bryan is Bantman 02:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

In practice, cleanliness is more important than any of the four C's. I think the only reason it is not one of the 4 C's is that it is free. DeBeers cannot market it as a reason to pay more for a stone. Anyone can have a clean diamond, without paying extra for it.
This experiment shows the importance of cleanliness: Take an excellently cut, nearly colorless, eye-clean diamond ring. Let it be worn for a week. Observe the diamond's fire and brilliance. Clean the ring using a simple brush and sudsy-ammonia kit. Dry off the diamond. Observe the diamond's fire and brilliance in similar lighting conditions. The difference is dramatic. For even more dramatic results, rub the pavillion of the diamond with your fingers before doing the "dirty" viewing. -- Jasper 03:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All right Jasper, this is becoming more of an issue now. Cleanliness is not equivalent in importance to the 4 Cs in any way, and there should not be a section on it at the same level as carat, clarity, color, and cut. I have not seen a single source in my research which claims that it should be considered of equal importance to the 4 Cs. It is not less important because it is free; it is less important because it is not an intrinsic feature of a gem diamond. Change any of the "4 Cs", you have a different gemstone. Change cleanliness, it's stil the same gem. (To make a parallel argument, the jewelry setting is also important in a diamond's appearance -- it wouldn't sparkle much if it was mounted pavilion-up -- but it is irrelevant to a discussion of diamonds because the stone is physically the same however it is mounted.) I am not disputing cleanliness' effect on the appearance of a diamond, which is why I do not object to mentioning it. However, if the paragraph break I objected to before was over-emphasizing the point, which I believe it was, the new section you've created is much worse. I'll wait a bit to hear back from you on this point, but I plan on mostly reverting it to its previous form unless you provide a) a better argument why it should be sectioned as it is now, and b) references that say that cleanliness is a fundamental characteristic of a gemstone just as the 4 Cs are (which I suspect do not exist). - Bryan is Bantman 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Bryan,
I agree that cleanliness is not an intrinsic property. I also agree that cleanliness does not belong in a section titled "Gemological characteristics". Perhaps we should add a Maintenance section? Ironically, this would increase the emphasis on cleanliness -- perhaps to more than it deserves.
We could rename the "Gemological characteristics" section to "Materials and workmanship". In U.S. Military Specifications, that covers size and shape (carat and cut), crystal defects (clarity), color, and cleanliness. Unfortunately, I do not know where to find the MilSpec for "Materials and Workmanship of Ceramics" on-line. -- Jasper 15:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cleanliness is temporary and not intrinsic. Gem labs cannot grade it, because they only grade permanent features, and because they try to clean all the diamonds they grade equally well. Cleanliness' temporariness and renewability is why it does not affect the price.
Many references testify to the importance of cleanliness. These references include the GIA, David Atlas, Marty Haske, Diamond Cutters International (citing R.W. Ditchburn's book on Light), and anyone who has looked at a diamond before-and-after cleaning. Unfortunately, I was not able to link to them yesterday, because DiamondTalk was down yesterday.
By the way, your analogy of upside down brilliants could be addressed in the cut section or article. (I do not plan on addressing it in the article-space.) Turning a brilliant upside down is similar to changing the cut from a brilliant cut to a rose cut. Ironically, Tolkowsky's recommendations for the rose cut are very similar to what he might have come up with had he tried to optimize the brilliant's pavillion angle for a zero-degree crown angle. (The irony is that he did not attempt this calculation, but if he had, it would have cross-checked his work.) Garry Holloway's company has designed jewelry that used upside-down brilliants. The jewelry won prizes.
-- Jasper 02:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence that cleanliness is as important as the 4 C's

  • Color
    • Blue dyes on the culet can change the perceived body color of a diamond. [1] I would like to find a better source than this, partly because this source is older than the GIA color grading system.
    • Pencil smudges on bruted girdles can change the color grade by as much as two grades. In the past, some jewelers used these smudged diamonds to grade other diamonds. (Unfortunately, I only have a personal communication about this; I have not sought out written sources.)
  • Cut
    • Diamond Cutters International (citing R.W. Ditchburn's book on Light) points out that if the diamonds are "dirty" enough, an excellently cut diamond and a poorly cut diamond will have similarly bad optical performance. This amount of "dirtiness" can occur in ordinary use.
  • Color, clarity, and carat
    • A difference of 2 color grades is (a little more than barely) noticeable. Adamas Gem Labs cited a book with a chart showing how much color difference is needed for various fractions of people to distinguish the colors. The Adamas Gem Labs article plotted the standard diamond color grades on this chart. Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference now.
    • For eye-clean stones, the naked eye is hard pressed to tell the difference between VS2 and SI1, let alone between FL and VS1.
    • A difference of a tenth of a carat is (a little more than barely) noticeable in 1 carat diamonds.
    • As mentioned above, the difference between a diamond ring when it is dirty from ordinary use, and the same ring after cleaning is quite obvious. Anyone can perform this experiment. Indeed, jewellers make a point of cleaning their customers' rings to show how pretty they can be (and to do a favor for the customers).

-- Jasper 03:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jasper,
Thanks for not becoming offended by my note; I may have been a little short in my tone! :) I think we mostly agree; let's try to find a solution we're both happy with. My take on this is that the section is on diamonds only, not diamond jewelry. Thus, I prefer that it focus on the intrinsic properties of diamond, and only touch on the other aspects of diamond's appearance and value, i.e. cleanliness, setting in jewelry, grading lab, etc. I rather like the section titles as they stand; I would like to keep them. I think that the fact that the cleanliness discussion doesn't fit under any of them is another indication that it's not really in fitting with the rest of the article. Really I think cleanliness belongs in a discussion of diamond jewelry, which we don't have right now. Perhaps we should -- maybe about 3-4 paragraphs discussing diamond use in jewelry, with a link to a main article (we could probably re-name the symbolism section to "Jewelry and symbolism" and then have a /jewelry subsection and a /symbolism subsection). Or, perhaps not. What do you think? - Bryan is Bantman 16:40, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Bryan,
Thank you for your kind words.
Thank you for suggesting that the diamond article emphasize material properties, instead of the workmanship of individual diamonds. In that vein, here is another way of looking at it:
Although cleanliness is not a permanent feature of an individual diamond, the need for cleanliness is a gemological characteristic of diamond as a gem material. Because of its transparency and high refractive index, the beauty of diamond greatly benefits from excellent cutting, and from being clean. Because it is made of carbon, diamond is hard to keep clean -- oils and grease stick to diamonds.
Seen in that light, I can live with the "Gemological characteristics" title. In terms of the article flow, I think that "Cleanliness" belongs roughly where it is, with roughly the emphasis it currently has. It probably needs some minor rewriting. The jewelry cleaning article can soak up extra details on the subject.
-- Jasper 04:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Diamond science

Hello can you say where you obtained the information for the diamond enhancement article which reads: " Diamonds enveloped in radium salt slowly turned a dark green; this color was found to be localized in blotchy patches, and it did not penetrate past the surface of the stone. The emission of alpha particles by the radium was responsible. Unfortunately radium treatment also left the diamond strongly radioactive, to the point of being unwearable. A diamond octahedron so treated was donated by Crookes to the British Museum in 1914, where it remains today: it has not lost its color nor its radioactivity."

I am curious because it does not seem entirely scientifically correct to me. Why would a diamond exposed to alphas from Ra remain radioactive AFTER the Ra was removed? And certinaly the diamond itself could not remain radioactive even today to any great extent. Doesn't make sense unless the diamond was contaminated with the radium salt and the contamination was never removed.--Deglr6328 02:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not add the information you quote to the wikipedia. -- Jasper 04:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
hmm. ok.--Deglr6328 16:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UC Merced

Hey Jasper, if you don't mind me asking, but how did you know I was Afghan? Was it because of the post of 0.24% Afghan population at UCM? I thought that might give it away. What do you do at UCM? Rayana fazli 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I guessed based on the 0.24% Afghan population post, and your name.

Actually, I am not at UC Merced. I grew up in Livingston, and have tried to keep up with local events, such as the founding of UC Merced. I now live in Seattle. -- Jasper 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, how is my name a giveaway that I am Afghan? It's just that there are very few people that are able to figure that out with my name alone. Rayana fazli 05:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't figure it out based on your name alone. But it was consistent. First (and I hope you are not offended by my saying so), your spelling, grammar, and word choices suggest that you are not a native speaker of English. The spelling of your name (with many "a"s, and the "zl") is consistent with an Indo-Iranian language. To my eye, your name looks closer to Farsi than to Punjabi. (I grew up in Livingston, which has many Punjabis.) As you know, Afghanistan lies between Iran and the Indian subcontinent; it shares cultures and history with both regions. So all of these details seemed consistent with you (or your parents) being from Afghanistan. -- Jasper 10:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the problem with my spelling and grammar is that when I am typing online, I tend to mess up a lot, especially when I am not thinking fully about what I am writing. I was born and raised in America but English is my second language so that might have something to do with it as well. I speak Farsi which I hear has some close similarities with the Punjabi language. I have been working on my grammar and spelling though, oh public school, how they have let me down. But I shouldn't blame public school for stopping grammar lessons at verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Rayana fazli 20:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it cool if I move this discussion to the discussion page? Rayana fazli 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. -- Jasper 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Central Valley

Hey Jasper, you said that you "grew up in Livingston, and have tried to keep up with local events" and I am working on a Portal: The Central Valley, with a few other people and I wondering of you'd like to contribute to the portal? We just started the portal so we'd appreciate the help. Also if you know anyone who is willing to help, we'd also really appreciate it. Rayana fazli 05:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

My name is also Jasper (really!) so I wanted to say hi. Gilliamjf 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/s/User_talk%7EJasper_58d5.html"