|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 23, 2013 15:56:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 23, 2013 17:43:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 23, 2013 17:50:17 GMT
For testing purposes, the intended "victim", should have no knowledge of the test being performed, or that they are even part of a test.
The real question is, would the compartment of such a ring, actually contain a lethal dose of poison. (In the historical sense of poisons)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 23, 2013 18:13:54 GMT
The real question is, would the compartment of such a ring, actually contain a lethal dose of poison. (In the historical sense of poisons) Historically the most common type of poison would be arsenic, which is fatal at 70-200mg doses. It would be quite easy to use such a ring. Walk over to fill the glass with your back to your victim, so your hand is out of sight. Use the thumb to twist the ring so the compartment is facing downwards, then flick it open with your nail as you pour the wine. Flick the compartment closed and twist it back and no one will be any the wiser. This is, naturally, a lot easier to pull off if everyone in the room is distracted by something else - be that a full stomach or just talking. It also helps if you have a habit of twisting the rings on your fingers too, so if anyone does notice they will not think twice about it. And of course practice helps. I'm guessing that I'll never have to buy a round of drinks again.... |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 23, 2013 18:36:02 GMT
It also helps if you have a habit of twisting the rings on your fingers too, so if anyone does notice they will not think twice about it. Just remember not to lick your fingers before washing them. I doubt they did much in rubber O-ring seals back then  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 23, 2013 18:40:01 GMT
The amount of arsenic you'd get from licking your fingers would be well below the lethal dose - in fact arsenic was used in medicine for centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 23, 2013 19:44:22 GMT
How much "room" (volume) does a 70-200mg dose of Arsenic take up? Will a compartment in a ring contain a lethal dose?
Bear in mind that mg are a measure of weight, not volume, ml are a measure of volume, but the two do not convert. (Not easily anyway)
You also have to consider that milling/refining processes were not that great back in the "historical times"*, so getting pure Arsenic back then would be nearly impossible. Meaning a larger dose would probably be required.
* poor refining abilities are why many folks got Arsenic poisoning, when being treated with other compounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 24, 2013 11:51:29 GMT
All the conversion tables I can find online seem to have mg/mm3.
The rings you linked to on Amazon seem to have an internal space of some 600mm3 - so they would be more than large enough to hold a lethal amount of arsenic even when accounting for an impure type.
Arsenic trioxide (white arsenic) is a by product of processing some metal ores - including copper.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Aug 24, 2013 12:44:09 GMT
Arsenic in its metalic form has a density of 5.27 g/cm^3. very roughly 70mg works out at just over a cubic inch (13.3 cm^3) if I have the maths right.
|
|
|
|
Post by craighudson on Aug 24, 2013 14:23:41 GMT
Divide by 1,000 to get the right answer. It is 70mg you need, not 70g.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Aug 24, 2013 14:30:09 GMT
Divide by 1,000 to get the right answer. It is 70mg you need, not 70g. ooops your right of course, thanks for that |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 24, 2013 14:37:18 GMT
Either way, and even with my erratic maths, clearly the rings would be more than capable of holding enough arsenic to prove fatal. Even if the arsenic was fairly impure.
Aside - I seem to recall that another favoured 'poison' was crushed diamond. Even though this does nothing but prove that your would be murderer really did have more money than sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 24, 2013 15:09:34 GMT
Either way, and even with my erratic maths, clearly the rings would be more than capable of holding enough arsenic to prove fatal. Even if the arsenic was fairly impure. Aside - I seem to recall that another favoured 'poison' was crushed diamond. Even though this does nothing but prove that your would be murderer really did have more money than sense. Actually, diamond (like gold) is another one of those things to where its value is based more on it being a portable shiny object than anything else. Because diamond is a type of crystallized carbon, it is far more common than the average person realizes; in fact, I understand that it is far more common than cubic zirconium. In that sense, it's possible that back then, someone could have potentially snagged some "cheap" diamonds. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 24, 2013 19:48:17 GMT
Very well, then. It seems to be no issue of size of the compartment and size of dose. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 3, 2013 12:34:10 GMT
For testing purposes, the intended "victim", should have no knowledge of the test being performed, or that they are even part of a test. It would be misleading, since we don't usually have to worry about a relative inviting us over for drinks with the intention of poisoning us - unless they like really cheap wine. As such we are not socially primed to keep on eye on people trying to spike our drinks* In fact even when this was done most people didn't have to worry about it, as they had nothing worth killing over. (*Smarter women who frequent bars and clubs do keep an eye on guys trying to spike their drinks, or at least should.) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 3, 2013 17:48:33 GMT
Either way, and even with my erratic maths, clearly the rings would be more than capable of holding enough arsenic to prove fatal. Even if the arsenic was fairly impure. Aside - I seem to recall that another favoured 'poison' was crushed diamond. Even though this does nothing but prove that your would be murderer really did have more money than sense. Actually, diamond (like gold) is another one of those things to where its value is based more on it being a portable shiny object than anything else. Because diamond is a type of crystallized carbon, it is far more common than the average person realizes; in fact, I understand that it is far more common than cubic zirconium. In that sense, it's possible that back then, someone could have potentially snagged some "cheap" diamonds. I wonder how coarsely they were crushed. I would think if they were coarse enough they might have enough sharp edges to cause problems. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2013 8:02:50 GMT
Cubic Zirconium, from what I know, is the type of diamond used on "Diamond tipped" tools.... Correct me if I am wrong, but, to that extent, its man-made.....? isnt it?. Its relatively easy to make, compared to the price of natural diamond dust, so its cost effective, but it IS human created, therefore, not as common as natural minerals?... BTW, With this tread, I am starting to adopt the attitude take your rings off if you are making me a drink?... You are all gettin' me paranoid?....   |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 27, 2013 8:42:16 GMT
Cubic Zirconium, from what I know, is the type of diamond used on "Diamond tipped" tools.... Correct me if I am wrong, but, to that extent, its man-made.....? isnt it?. Its relatively easy to make, compared to the price of natural diamond dust, so its cost effective, but it IS human created, therefore, not as common as natural minerals?... BTW, With this tread, I am starting to adopt the attitude take your rings off if you are making me a drink?... You are all gettin' me paranoid?.... Diamond tipped tools tend to use man-made diamonds, while Cubic zirconium seems to be used purely for jewelry, lasers and apparently some headphones. This is probably because Diamond is tougher and retains a sharper edge than CZ, which makes it a much better cutting material. CZ is naturally occuring, but very rare so any you find in products will be man made. Don't worry I have no reason to poison you. *Coughs* not that I'd poison anyone anyway...it was just coincidence that three of the last five people I made tea for ended up in the ER with unexplained stomach pains. Nothing was ever proved.... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 29, 2013 12:41:18 GMT
Erm... ok, that makes sense, so, lets get this right, Cubic Zirconium is Natural, but its man made, so, ids that man made natural or natural man made?...
I kinda get a mental image of a load of naturalist tree-huggers sitting round a camp fire toasting Charcoal until it starts to sparkle............
So in conclusion, its BOTH Natural, which is rare, AND Man-Made......?... am I about right on that now?....
(I thought previously that is was soooo rare it was 99.9% man made....)
As for the stomach pains, I can blame them on the ruby I had last night.
To all non Brits, Rhyming slang, Ruby = Ruby Murry = Curry.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 29, 2013 12:53:22 GMT
Yes.
I'm not entirely sure how rare CZ is, but it is clearly more practical to make it than mine it. This is probably a mixture of cost, the size of the crystals and the purity. From what I can tell you can make large flawless CZ crystals in a day - which of course is ideal for laser focusing elements. You can also add additional minerals to alter the colour of the crystal during the process, allowing you to create exactly the colour of stone you (or the customer) wants.
|
|
