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

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#21

Post by eonw »

MoOmer wrote: post #19
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.

aren't pyrex and swarovski just patented 'recipes' for making glass?

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#22

Post by throw7 »

Reedx wrote: post #12
knodi123 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

That's interesting. I was also taught glass is a liquid.

We should correct people when they say it's a liquid OR a solid, because neither is correct; but I think we should not be so critical/furious if someone calls glass a supercooled liquid, etc. (ref: Tamman "frozen super-cooled liquid", the article: "a particular type of liquid").

Calling it an "amorphous solid" is obviously the currently accepted formal physicist category of course.

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#24

Post by mikeash »

matheweis wrote: post #11
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."

Wow, no limits! They should stop making pretty baubles and use their limitless technology to build the containment for a cheap fusion reactor or something.

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#25

Post by greglindahl »

MoOmer wrote: post #19
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.

In the US, apparently, there's a new and cheaper Pyrex that's ordinary tempered glass. Elsewhere, it still the good stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#26

Post by kps »

greglindahl wrote: post #25
MoOmer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently Pyrex is no longer borosilicate.

In the US, apparently, there's a new and cheaper Pyrex that's ordinary tempered glass. Elsewhere, it still the good stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex

The article also mentions soda-lime Pyrex® products from the '30s. ‘Pyrex’ has been nothing more than a brand name for a long, long time.

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#27

Post by smsm42 »

stared wrote: post #15

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 loo…

There were people of Jewish descent that served in Wehrmacht, including in pretty high positions[1]. The service also protected from some of the anti-Jewish abuse initially, and some people of Jewish descent both felt much more connection to German service (even after Nazis took over it) than their Jewish roots, and were too useful, so Goering was noted to say "I am deciding who is Jewish and who is not". Also there's the case of Werner Goldberg[2], a son of Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, who was lauded by Nazi press as the "Ideal German Soldier". Ironically, Goldberg's looks proved to be so irresistible that recently he was featured on the monument to the "Defenders of the Motherland" in Russia. [3]

So, in principle, there's nothing impossible for a person to be both of Jewish descent and a Nazi sympathizer. Stranger things have happened.

[1] http://www.jewishmag.com/158mag/hitler_jewish_soldiers/hitle...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Goldberg

[3] http://znak.com/tumen/news/2015-06-26/1041938.html

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#28

Post by sliverstorm »

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…

That's really a no-win argument. There's really nothing to gain, and you run the risk of looking like a jerk who has to correct everyone and can't accept being wrong in front of your date. Letting it go is the best answer, IMO.

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#29

Post by bmmayer1 »

stared wrote: post #15

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 loo…

This looks fairly inaccurate. Right now on this page:

"The Swarovskis ran their crystal business, generation after generation, doing moderately well until WWII. How they have weathered WWII when almost all the other Austrian Jews were handed over, well, no information on that either. Some reckon that it’s most likely because optical lenses were important for the war effort, and Swarovski made the best."

Re: Dark Crystal: The Secrets of Swarovski

#30

Post by exarch »

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…

The (scientist approved) test for determining basic matter phases is very rudimentary. Put the object/quantity in question in a can. Does it fill the whole space of the can, no matter what size can you use? Then it's a gas. Does it fill just the bottom of the can? Then it's a liquid. Does it instead retain its shape? Then it's a solid.
Post reply on HN