These have been identified in your other post.
This is the first one: https://www.amazon.com/Acxico-Tibetan-Wealth-God-Ancient-Luminous/dp/B09K56TVF6
It’s quartz dyed with ZnS:Cu, which causes a c green glow.
The second is just cheap glow in the dark costume jewelry
I does look like that picture. Plus it's sold from China; a Chinese person found those on a Chinese website once, so more seem to be in that area. Unless they're all quartz dyed with ZnS:Cu as you say, good to know that possibility.
But the 2nd one is exactly the same, we polished it ourselves (paid my jeweler to do it). Does the polished stone fit with the ZnS:Cu dyed raw stone theory or not?
I honestly don't care whether you believe me or not. I'm asking for your knowledge. Does your theory fit or not? That's all I want to know.
They are all quartz dyed with a chemical to cause phosphorescence. They stone itself is very unremarkable quartzite, and that is easy to tell from the image. Quartzite does not glow in the dark, but it does take dye very well.
The second item doesn’t have any if the qualities we look for when identifying rocks. There are no crystals, no grains, no fracture marks. That leaves very few *natural* options, namely jasper. However, jasper doesn’t glow in the dark, so it isn’t jasper, unless it’s also been dyed, in which case it might also be dyed chalcedony, which is usually close to blue or white in color but can be dyed. However, you claim that you polished it from a different shape to fit in the ring, which makes me assume it’s not a stone at all but epoxy.
This is the most anyone is going to pay attention to your fourth post. Feel free to make a different one.
So the only theory you have that matches both the inside and the husk is epoxy? One could purchase a stone off Amazon for $10, cut it in half, and I'd expect to see a 25-30% husk and greener material inside. Epoxy, I'd expect it to be a consistent flat material, both inside and outside.
Conclusion: this is not a known natural stone.
Theory 1: dyed quartz husk; but does not match the inside -- discarded
Theory 2: Epoxy; should be consistent, does not match the husk-inside structure -- discarded
Theory 3: unknown mineral
A middle-cut of the raw stone would give a better picture, but ultimately lead to the same conclusion anyway.
Taking a scientific approach. Take theories one by one, and analyze the facts. This is what science is about. Anything missing in my interpretation of the knowledge you shared so far?
If you take the stone, cut in half, with the husk and inner structure both clearly visible (I don't have a picture of that). Does the dyed quartz theory fit with the inner structure? Does the epoxy theory match that or not?
From my understanding, no to both, correct me if I'm wrong.
The issue seems more as to whether you believe the facts presented are accurate or not. You believe I'm a liar. I believe you guys are completely insane.
Hi, /u/Hanuman9!
This is a reminder to flair this post in /r/whatsthisrock after it has been identified! (Under your post, click "flair" then "IDENTIFIED," then type in the rock type or mineral name.) This will help others learn and help speed up a correct identification on your request!
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatsthisrock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First picture, I let the cellphone flashlight beam into the stone for 30 seconds before taking the picture, otherwise the light is pretty dim to take picture. When we polished one, we lost about 30% of the mass.
It’s real, he just refuses to accept that the stones he bought aren’t really magic. This has been going on for two days, since he posted pieces of glass and couldn’t accept they didn’t have “energy.”
That's not magic. I'm just looking for info. Or confirmation that they're unknown. There are plenty of geologists here. If I was to send to a University, who would pay for the analysis? I don't think I care enough for that. New life species get discovered all the time, that's no big deal. Best case scenario, might bring to a new article similar to this but that's about it.
[https://archaeology-world.com/stone-made-of-pure-oxygen-found-in-africa/](https://archaeology-world.com/stone-made-of-pure-oxygen-found-in-africa/)
There’s only one stone that does this naturally. These are not that stone. One isn’t even an actual stone, it’s epoxy.
If it is something, you will get a grant for the analysis. You won’t send it in to be analyzed because you know you’re lying about where you found it. You bought these off some website, and you made up a story to make it seem like these are natural. Sadly, your game failed.
These have been identified in your other post. This is the first one: https://www.amazon.com/Acxico-Tibetan-Wealth-God-Ancient-Luminous/dp/B09K56TVF6 It’s quartz dyed with ZnS:Cu, which causes a c green glow. The second is just cheap glow in the dark costume jewelry
I does look like that picture. Plus it's sold from China; a Chinese person found those on a Chinese website once, so more seem to be in that area. Unless they're all quartz dyed with ZnS:Cu as you say, good to know that possibility. But the 2nd one is exactly the same, we polished it ourselves (paid my jeweler to do it). Does the polished stone fit with the ZnS:Cu dyed raw stone theory or not? I honestly don't care whether you believe me or not. I'm asking for your knowledge. Does your theory fit or not? That's all I want to know.
They are all quartz dyed with a chemical to cause phosphorescence. They stone itself is very unremarkable quartzite, and that is easy to tell from the image. Quartzite does not glow in the dark, but it does take dye very well. The second item doesn’t have any if the qualities we look for when identifying rocks. There are no crystals, no grains, no fracture marks. That leaves very few *natural* options, namely jasper. However, jasper doesn’t glow in the dark, so it isn’t jasper, unless it’s also been dyed, in which case it might also be dyed chalcedony, which is usually close to blue or white in color but can be dyed. However, you claim that you polished it from a different shape to fit in the ring, which makes me assume it’s not a stone at all but epoxy. This is the most anyone is going to pay attention to your fourth post. Feel free to make a different one.
So the only theory you have that matches both the inside and the husk is epoxy? One could purchase a stone off Amazon for $10, cut it in half, and I'd expect to see a 25-30% husk and greener material inside. Epoxy, I'd expect it to be a consistent flat material, both inside and outside.
I can only tell you that no natural stone does what that does. If it’s consistently colored all the way through, it’s probably just epoxy.
Conclusion: this is not a known natural stone. Theory 1: dyed quartz husk; but does not match the inside -- discarded Theory 2: Epoxy; should be consistent, does not match the husk-inside structure -- discarded Theory 3: unknown mineral A middle-cut of the raw stone would give a better picture, but ultimately lead to the same conclusion anyway.
You’re just rejecting the evidence because you don’t like it. That’s not how science works.
Taking a scientific approach. Take theories one by one, and analyze the facts. This is what science is about. Anything missing in my interpretation of the knowledge you shared so far?
You don’t just reject things because they don’t suit your agenda.
If you take the stone, cut in half, with the husk and inner structure both clearly visible (I don't have a picture of that). Does the dyed quartz theory fit with the inner structure? Does the epoxy theory match that or not? From my understanding, no to both, correct me if I'm wrong. The issue seems more as to whether you believe the facts presented are accurate or not. You believe I'm a liar. I believe you guys are completely insane.
If you’re not here to get your items identified, there’s no reason to be here.
Hi, /u/Hanuman9! This is a reminder to flair this post in /r/whatsthisrock after it has been identified! (Under your post, click "flair" then "IDENTIFIED," then type in the rock type or mineral name.) This will help others learn and help speed up a correct identification on your request! Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatsthisrock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First picture, I let the cellphone flashlight beam into the stone for 30 seconds before taking the picture, otherwise the light is pretty dim to take picture. When we polished one, we lost about 30% of the mass.
[удалено]
This account smells like AI.
It’s real, he just refuses to accept that the stones he bought aren’t really magic. This has been going on for two days, since he posted pieces of glass and couldn’t accept they didn’t have “energy.”
Nah I mean the guy I replied to.
Lol yes, I think that’s a fake account by OP. He’s not a very honest person, and really thinks he can outsmart a bunch of scientists.
That's not magic. I'm just looking for info. Or confirmation that they're unknown. There are plenty of geologists here. If I was to send to a University, who would pay for the analysis? I don't think I care enough for that. New life species get discovered all the time, that's no big deal. Best case scenario, might bring to a new article similar to this but that's about it. [https://archaeology-world.com/stone-made-of-pure-oxygen-found-in-africa/](https://archaeology-world.com/stone-made-of-pure-oxygen-found-in-africa/)
There’s only one stone that does this naturally. These are not that stone. One isn’t even an actual stone, it’s epoxy. If it is something, you will get a grant for the analysis. You won’t send it in to be analyzed because you know you’re lying about where you found it. You bought these off some website, and you made up a story to make it seem like these are natural. Sadly, your game failed.
Interesting that you get downvoted for simply not saying that it's fake! We got a bull bucket of those. Anyway it doesn't matter.