Gem-Stones and Their Distinctive CharactersSmith, George Frederick Herbert
Science
Gem-Stones and Their Distinctive Characters
Smith, George Frederick Herbert
Precious stones
Suppose that a plate of tourmaline cut parallel to its crystallographic
axis is fastened to the cap and the latter rotated. We should notice,
on looking through the instrument, that in the course of a complete
revolution there are two positions, orientated at right angles to
one another, in which the tints of the two images are identical, the
positions of greatest contrast of tint being midway between. If we
examine a uniaxial stone in a direction at right angles to its optic
axis we obtain the colours corresponding to the ordinary and the
extraordinary rays. In any direction less inclined to the axis we
still have the colour for the ordinary ray, but the other colour is
intermediate in tint between it and that for the extraordinary ray.
The phenomenon presented by a biaxial stone is more complex. There
are three principal colours which are visible in differing pairs in
the three principal optical directions; in other directions the tints
seen are intermediate between the principal colours. Since biaxial
stones have three principal colours, they are sometimes said to be
trichroic or pleochroic, but in any single direction they have two
twin colours and show dichroism. No difference at all will be shown in
directions in which a stone is singly refractive, and it is therefore
always advisable to examine a stone in more than one direction lest
the first happens to be one of single refraction. For determinative
purposes it is not necessary to note the exact shades of tint of the
twin colours, because they vary with the inherent colour of the stone,
and are therefore not constant for the same species; we need only
observe, when the stone is tested with the dichroscope, whether there
is any variation of colour, and, if so, its strength. Dichroism is a
result of double refraction, and cannot exist in a singly refractive
stone. The converse, however, is not true and it by no means follows
that, because no dichroism can be detected in a stone, it is singly
refractive. A colourless stone, for instance, cannot possibly be
dichroic, and many coloured, doubly refractive stones—for example,
zircon—exhibit no dichroism, or so little that it is imperceptible.
The character is always the better displayed, the deeper the inherent
colour of the stone. The deep-green alexandrite, for instance, is far
more dichroic than the lighter coloured varieties of chrysoberyl.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account