Gems and Ink

Posted by Danny on Friday, November 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm

There’s an increasingly rare type of fountain pen ink that was discontinued in 2001 called Parker Penman.  The problem seems to have been that the ink was unusually saturated and included a suspension of metallic particles, achieving vibrant colours and fun reflective effects (as Diamine Majestic Blue is known to, today) but also clogging the pens used with a greater frequency than Parker wanted to be liable for.  Naturally, these inks have become sought after for their now unique properties and historic cache by aficionados who are prepared to maintain their pens more fastidiously, so the price and mythos of the ink have grown.  Penman sapphire is the most expensive ink I know of, selling often for more than $50 a bottle (current in-production inks tend to peak at $30 and most can be had for less than $12); Penman Ruby and Penman Emerald follow closely behind.  Gemstone names are fairly common in inks and there are huge differences between the “ruby” of one brand and another.  However, because of the enduring allure of the Penman inks, new inks that share their names are often decried for being the “wrong” colour—“that’s not sapphire, it’s too light, etc.”

What’s the best way to resolve disputes around emotionally-charged, contending aesthetics and nostalgia-induced disappointment?  Science.  The tremendous success of the Periodic Table of Videos (direct link here, or go here to read my ancient post) has encouraged further chemistry-based videos with the ever-beloved Dr. Martyn Poliakoff, including a recent one on the chemistry of gemstones.  If you’re interested, you’ll get to learn about diamonds, sapphires, and rubies; more importantly, you’ll see Martyn’s wedding photos.

Elementary Education

Posted by Danny on Thursday, April 23, 2009 at 6:03 pm

As I’m now on the other side of my final paper for Recurring Issues in Higher Education, I’m hoping to get back into a regular posting schedule. My goal is one substantial post per week, starting now with one of the culprits for my slow scholastic progress: the eminently dilatory Periodic Table of Videos. Leave now if you’ve work to do and poor impulse control.

Chemistry was my weakest science in high school, and after grade eleven I really only bothered with it when I had to slog through the rudimentary organic chemistry unit in OAC Biology. I was reacquainted with it much more gently and palatably during Astronomy in First Year when we studied fusion in stellar cores and supernovae, and I think I took to it more readily then because the reactions seemed simpler (at least, the expectations were lower—this was Astronomy for Arts Students, alas) and more exciting, and we really just had to collect the lore of the knowledge, with no pesky calculations. Moles die in outer-space, obviously.

I haven’t really had occasion to think deeply about chemistry since then, so when Geoff dumped the Period Table of Videos on me, my resistance to dilettantism here was at low ebb. The project is an on-going production of videos, produced by a team from the University of Nottingham chemistry faculty, with discussion of each element in turn. As an Open Educational Resource, these are pretty Web 1.0 (with ultimate production being in the hands of the provider institution), but updated videos frequently have the team referring to comments and emailed suggestions, so there’s definitely some give and take.

Here is why 118 shortish videos are worth your time:

Read more »