Could you make a ring out of diamond?

[Leo_Bloom]

No, this not another Superman question.

Can a wedding ring, say, be created out of nothing but the material itself?

Or is this impossible by the very properties and definition of a crystal?
It would be a nice gift, though.

[al27052]

I don’t see why you couldn’t slowly grind a larger diamond into a ring shape.

[engineer_comp_geek]

Sure it is possible, but it would be very fragile.

People often confuse hardness and toughness. Diamonds are up at the top of the hardness scale. Scratch a diamond against pretty much anything else and the other thing gets scratched and the diamond doesn’t. But diamonds aren’t tough. Jewelers warned women who buy diamond rings that the diamond can be shattered just from whacking it against a shopping cart. Diamonds chip easily.

I would expect a ring shaped diamond to crack in half very easily. The wearer would have to be extremely careful with it.

[Dewey_Finn]

Got $70 million lying around? It’s been done. Here is the jeweler’s website and here is an article about it from the Huffington Post.

[Jophiel]

Looks like a bitch to get that sized.

I guess you could always wrap yarn around the bottom, “my boyfriend’s high school class ring” style.

[zoid]

@Dewey_Finn

Got $70 million lying around? It’s been done. Here is the jeweler’s website and here is an article about it from the Huffington Post.

Anyone know if that’s cz or whatever they’re calling man-made diamond these days? I’m betting it’s not naturally occurring diamond for a couple reasons; natural diamond is harder, cz is much more uniform and the occlusions in natural diamond make much less predictable, and who in the hell is gonna take a naturally occurring diamond that big and say “hey, ya know what would be cool to try?”

I’d love to be wrong though because that’s the definition of balls.

[Telperion]

@zoid

Anyone know if that’s cz or whatever they’re calling man-made diamond these days? I’m betting it’s not naturally occurring diamond for a couple reasons; natural diamond is harder, cz is much more uniform and the occlusions in natural diamond make much less predictable, and who in the hell is gonna take a naturally occurring diamond that big and say “hey, ya know what would be cool to try?”

It’s larger than the Hope diamond so it would be a pretty rare find, but it is possible they had a stone with a flaw in the middle and just went with it. Apparently it was cut with a laser so the hardness shouldn’t make much difference.

[GIGObuster]

I think that new technology will dispose of the idea that items like a ring made out of diamond have to be so expensive also:

jewelinfo4u

Diamonds generated by man instead of nature are becoming every house name. Surely, in time to come if the cost of the gems gains precedence over the origin of the gem then diamond industry worth billions rather trillions would swap the genuine diamonds by the synthetic diamonds. “A Diamond Is Forever” as launched by De Beers, the South African firm certainly remains close to people in love no matter whether it is mined from natural mines or man-made mines that is laboratory.

And this point has to be remarked upon: There is really nothing artificial about them, cubic Zirconia is zirconium dioxide, these man made ones are pure carbon just as the natural ones. IMHO it is tradition and propaganda that makes most people to think that prices like the ring in the OP are reasonable.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@GIGObuster

And this point has to be remarked upon: There is really nothing artificial about them, cubic Zirconia is zirconium dioxide, these man made ones are pure carbon just as the natural ones. IMHO it is tradition and propaganda that makes most people to think that prices like the ring in the OP are reasonable.

*Artificial *is correct, since the diamonds are manmade. *Synthetic *would also be correct. Simulated would be wrong though, since as you say they are made from the same stuff as natural diamonds (aside from contaminants and the like). CZ, Moissanite, etc. are simulants.

[GIGObuster]

@Dr.Strangelove

*Artificial *is correct, since the diamonds are manmade. *Synthetic *would also be correct. Simulated would be wrong though, since as you say they are made from the same stuff as natural diamonds (aside from contaminants and the like). CZ, Moissanite, etc. are simulants.

It was actually a reply to zoid when he referred to Cubic Zirconia as a man made Diamond, and there are issues with the Synthetic and Artificial terms applied to the man made ones:

Synthetic diamond

Although often referred to as synthetic, this term has been considered somewhat problematic. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission has indicated that the alternative terms laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, and [manufacturer-name]-created “would more clearly communicate the nature of the stone”, as consumers associate the term synthetic with imitation products – whereas man-made diamonds are actual diamond material.[1]

[Leo_Bloom]

Youl’d think that with a $70 million ring up for sale they could find a competent translator (from what?):

…After a year of hard work by a dedicated knowledgeable team of specialists, the laser technology mechanism was created specifically to cut miscellaneously into the 150 brut carat diamond.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@GIGObuster

It was actually a reply to zoid when he referred to Cubic Zirconia as a man made Diamond, and there are issues with the Synthetic and Artificial terms applied to the man made ones:

Synthetic diamond - Wikipedia

Understood; I was just pointing out that “artificial” is correct when talking about crystalline carbon produced in a lab. Maybe there’s some confusion among the general populace, especially given past marketing efforts, but the term is nevertheless correct.

At any rate, you’re right that CZ should not be called man-made diamond, since it’s not diamond at all. Simulated diamond is probably the most reasonable term.

[APB]

Not diamond, but sapphires. There are two known examples of medieval rings carved from single sapphires - the one in the Kunstkammer in Vienna (illustrated half way down this page) and the one now at the top of the Sapphire Cup in the Schatzkammer in Munich.

[Mijin]

@Dr.Strangelove

Understood; I was just pointing out that “artificial” is correct when talking about crystalline carbon produced in a lab. Maybe there’s some confusion among the general populace, especially given past marketing efforts, but the term is nevertheless correct.

<hijack>
When I was talking to a friend about synthetic diamonds she immediately said she would be disappointed if her boyfriend proposed with a synthetic diamond ring.

For them to become desirable you’d need to get a name like pure diamond (because they often have less impurities / flaws than natural diamonds) or bespoke diamond, say.

[aruvqan]

@Mijin

<hijack>
When I was talking to a friend about synthetic diamonds she immediately said she would be disappointed if her boyfriend proposed with a synthetic diamond ring.

For them to become desirable you’d need to get a name like pure diamond (because they often have less impurities / flaws than natural diamonds) or bespoke diamond, say.

No, you need an advertising firm to come up with some way of emphasizing that it is not a torture diamond or whatever they are calling diamonds mined under bad conditions and funding wars in Africa. Make them all marked with serial numbers and really push the PCness of them and make an additional advertising push decrying natural african diamonds as benefitting apartheid, slavery, female circumcision and all the evil you can manage to load in.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Mijin

<hijack>
When I was talking to a friend about synthetic diamonds she immediately said she would be disappointed if her boyfriend proposed with a synthetic diamond ring.

For them to become desirable you’d need to get a name like pure diamond (because they often have less impurities / flaws than natural diamonds) or bespoke diamond, say.

I recall reading that cultured pearls–which are in a sense manufactured pearls–was a marketing success along those lines. It’s hard to say whether it’s because they’re more perfect or some other reason, but they’re more desirable than natural pearls.

I noticed that it’s possible to create isotropically pure diamond (either pure C12 or C13). It would be visually indistinguishable from an ordinary diamond (though it has some nice technical properties), but of course that’s not the point of jewelry (otherwise, people wouldn’t care about synthetic vs. natural diamond). What makes it desirable is its exclusivity; the fact that you can’t get it in nature, no matter how much you spend. And it’s something that the riffraff will never be able to afford, either.

So I predict a small market on the ultra-high end for isotropically pure gemstones. Maybe I should patent this idea :).

[Mijin]

@aruvqan

No, you need an advertising firm to come up with some way of emphasizing that it is not a torture diamond or whatever they are calling diamonds mined under bad conditions and funding wars in Africa. Make them all marked with serial numbers and really push the PCness of them and make an additional advertising push decrying natural african diamonds as benefitting apartheid, slavery, female circumcision and all the evil you can manage to load in.

Of course. But that’s not mutually exclusive to pushing the bespoke and purity angles.

The conflict diamonds thing alone may not be enough to turn the consumer away from natural diamonds. After all, it has not been sufficient to turn consumers to other gemstones that can be sourced more easily or in less dodgy parts of the world.

[Chronos]

I’ve seen gem-quality synthetic diamonds larger than that before, and without any real security, so they can’t be all that expensive. We had a colloquium speaker last year who was doing experiments that required them, and halfway through the talk she reached into her pocket and took out one of the diamonds she uses to show us.

[aruvqan]

@Dr.Strangelove

I recall reading that cultured pearls–which are in a sense manufactured pearls–was a marketing success along those lines. It’s hard to say whether it’s because they’re more perfect or some other reason, but they’re more desirable than natural pearls.

So I predict a small market on the ultra-high end for isotropically pure gemstones. Maybe I should patent this idea :).

Have you seen some of the cultured earls? Holy crap, they have some that are tiny budhas :eek: [I have a gem pusher, I do medieval and rennaisance clothing which means I can go through several ounces of pearls in a garment … up until I finished the last gonelle I made, I had a tupperwear sandwich container that was full to the brim of white seed pearls, probably the equivalent to several hundred 16 inch strands of 3-4 mm seed pearls. I will confess without torture that one of my absolute favorite gemstones is pearl. I love the soft glow. They have some amazing colors naturally, and then you add the dyed ones squeeee]

@Mijin

Of course. But that’s not mutually exclusive to pushing the bespoke and purity angles.

The conflict diamonds thing alone may not be enough to turn the consumer away from natural diamonds. After all, it has not been sufficient to turn consumers to other gemstones that can be sourced more easily or in less dodgy parts of the world.

I would be perfectly happy to go with entirely synthetic gems. I have been toying with the idea of getting Rob some of the synthetic rubies and sapphires to cut for me for clothing making He would enjoy it, but I can source frex these synthetic rubies at dirt cheap/

[beowulff]

@Dr.Strangelove

I recall reading that cultured pearls–which are in a sense manufactured pearls–was a marketing success along those lines. It’s hard to say whether it’s because they’re more perfect or some other reason, but they’re more desirable than natural pearls.

I noticed that it’s possible to create isotropically pure diamond (either pure C12 or C13). It would be visually indistinguishable from an ordinary diamond (though it has some nice technical properties), but of course that’s not the point of jewelry (otherwise, people wouldn’t care about synthetic vs. natural diamond). What makes it desirable is its exclusivity; the fact that you can’t get it in nature, no matter how much you spend. And it’s something that the riffraff will never be able to afford, either.

So I predict a small market on the ultra-high end for isotropically pure gemstones. Maybe I should patent this idea :).

I think you mean isotopically, right?