Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#11

Post by matheweis »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #6

Submarine advertising? http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html "Swarovski, who celebrates its 120-year anniversary this year, is a steward of a centuries-old Bohemian tradition, making use of natural resources in the Czech Republic and Austria. It’s a phenomenally innovative design studio and an impressively creative chemical laboratory, all in one. And, of course, it’s the beneficiary of absolutely genius marketing…

Yea, this piece reeks of it...

"What makes Swarovski’s crystals better than its competitors? It’s all about brilliance."

"well-cut diamond is always going to have more fire and more brilliance than a glass crystal,” says Walker. But that, really, is debatable, and also flexible: there’s only so much you can do to a diamond, but a synthetic material like Swarovski crystal has no limits."

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#12

Post by Reedx »

knodi123 wrote: post #9
shellac wrote: post #7

> glass is a particular type of liquid ... No, it's not a liquid. > ... so its internal structure is all a jumble That's true. But it doesn't flow, which is a rather significant part of being liquid.

Went on a double date with another guy who was a PhD chemist. He made an offhanded remark about glass being a liquid, and trotted out that saw about ancient cathedral windows being thicker at the bottom. I explained that that was actually untrue, and explained the crown glass method, and that a small percentage of those panes are thicker at the top . He just gave me this scornful glance and said "I've got a doctorate…

I remember being taught that glass was a liquid in high school (early 90s) and they referenced antique glass being thicker at the bottom as an example. So I was fascinated by that and thought it was true for the longest time. :/

Some interesting reading regarding that urban myth and the actual science:

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.ualberta.ca/...

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#14

Post by [deleted] »

knodi123 wrote: post #9
shellac wrote: post #7

> glass is a particular type of liquid ... No, it's not a liquid. > ... so its internal structure is all a jumble That's true. But it doesn't flow, which is a rather significant part of being liquid.

Went on a double date with another guy who was a PhD chemist. He made an offhanded remark about glass being a liquid, and trotted out that saw about ancient cathedral windows being thicker at the bottom. I explained that that was actually untrue, and explained the crown glass method, and that a small percentage of those panes are thicker at the top . He just gave me this scornful glance and said "I've got a doctorate…

[deleted]

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#15

Post by stared »

When looking at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Swarovski) I got some (possibly) conflicting information - that he was Jewish and an avowed Nazi party member. Especially given that some of the last edits looks unencyclopedic - could anyone more knowlegeble look at it and fix it? (I have tried to look at German Wikipedia and there was reference to Nazi party but not to Jewish roots, so the former looks more plausible.)

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#16

Post by nulltype »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #6

Submarine advertising? http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html "Swarovski, who celebrates its 120-year anniversary this year, is a steward of a centuries-old Bohemian tradition, making use of natural resources in the Czech Republic and Austria. It’s a phenomenally innovative design studio and an impressively creative chemical laboratory, all in one. And, of course, it’s the beneficiary of absolutely genius marketing…

This one is so blatant maybe it would be supermarine advertising.

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#17

Post by nulltype »

shellac wrote: post #7

> glass is a particular type of liquid ... No, it's not a liquid. > ... so its internal structure is all a jumble That's true. But it doesn't flow, which is a rather significant part of being liquid.

I interpreted that as they meant "amorphous solid" because they said it was not crystalline. But calling it a liquid if that's what they meant is a bit...wrong.

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#19

Post by MoOmer »

stephengillie wrote: post #5

So I'm assuming this is a slightly different glass than Soda-lime glass[1]. Maybe something closer to borosilicate glass[2]? Indeed there are many materials that can make glass. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda-lime_glass [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex#Composition When I was a kid, a neighbor down the street had a house full of these, they had lived in Germany while working for the US Army.

Apparently Pyrex is no longer borosilicate.

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#20

Post by theophrastus »

nulltype wrote: post #17
shellac wrote: post #7

> glass is a particular type of liquid ... No, it's not a liquid. > ... so its internal structure is all a jumble That's true. But it doesn't flow, which is a rather significant part of being liquid.

I interpreted that as they meant "amorphous solid" because they said it was not crystalline. But calling it a liquid if that's what they meant is a bit...wrong.

there is physics and there is language (and sometimes the twain shall meet). does normal glass flow at room temperature and typical earth gravity? nah. do glasses flow at some temperatures? who would deny it? so glasses are possessed of liquid properties. your non-crystalline statement is the properly important one (in my humble opinion), and it essentially defines what a glass is. and as a sibling commenter here states the thicker glass in panes in old buildings is probably a statistical phenomenon, or just possibly represents a glazer's choice, rather than anything to do with chemistry or physics or holders of phds, (by the bye, from experience, if a phd requires you to add a "Dr" to their name, that's a pretty good test of jerkhood (jerkship?))
Post reply on HN