Does anyone know about these diamonds and where to get them.
Are they real diamonds?
Depends on what you mean, exactly. True synthetic diamonds are real diamonds, formed from elemental carbon in the same way as natural diamonds, only under controlled, artificial conditions of heat and pressure. It is difficult, time-consuming and expensive to make gem-quality synthetic stones, so most synthetics are manufactured for industrial applications, such as cutting wheels. It is almost impossible to differentiate natural from synthetic stones.
On the other hand, there are several types of stones which are frequently, and mistakenly called “synthetic diamonds”, most notably, the cubic zirconia. These are considerably less expensive than either natural or true synthetic diamonds, and at least in the case of the CZ stones, are difficult to tell from the real thing. They’re commonly available at jewelry stores.
So what is Gemesis and Apollo doing in The US. They are making Synthetic diamonds of Gem quality. Any information on the Technology?
They’re real. A list of places you can buy them can be found here:
http://www.gemesis.com/where.htm
A good background story on the things can be found here:
In addition to synthetic diamonds and CZ, there’s also Moissanite gems which are made from silicon carbide. They’re about a third the cost of regular diamonds and can only be distinguished from natural diamonds by a thermal conductivity test.
One difference in the synthetic stones and natural diamonds is that the synthetic stones are flawless.
And the moisannite is also a heck of a lot harder than CZ and never turns yellow as I have been told CZ is prone to do.
Regards
Testy
Not only that, moissanite has a bit more “fire” than even natural diamonds do. And they’re flawless. Or at least you can only see the flaws with an electron microscope.
If you’re wondering if I own stock in the company that produces Moissanite material, why, yes I do 
Wasn’t there another material for imitation diamonds? I’ve read about it somewhere. Anyway, the material had a much higher index of refraction than diamond, I believe 6 X was mentioned.
Regards
Testy
Not true. CZ’s can be distinguished from a diamond by a thermal conductivity test. Moissanite cannot be distinguished by a thermal conductivity tester.
Moissanite can be easily distinguished by using a tester which works on light refraction. Moissanite is also doubly refractive, and can be spotted by looking through the crown angles of the stone. Any good diamond buyer should be able to spot this.
Zoe said
There are, of course, flawless diamonds. There are diamonds that are very free of inclusions, to the point that using this as a test of whether a stone is a synthetic or a natural, is not useful.
Testy said
CZ’s can turn color over a long period, but they’re pretty stable in my experience. Most of the Moisannite that has been produced so far has a yellow tint. I don’t mean YELLOW, but not screaming white. Slightly tinted.
I personally don’t think Moissanite has more “fire” than well-cut real diamonds. YMMV>
So what is Gemesis and Apollo doing in The US. They are making Synthetic diamonds of Gem quality. Any information on the Technology?
In September of 03, Wired magazine had a cover article on man made diamonds that discusses the technology. You can find it here.
The details are, of course, tightly guarded trade secrets.
It was my understanding that “fire”, in regards to gemstones, is a technical, objective term referring to the index of refraction. Is this not the case?
True, I misspoke on that regard.
Actually the moissanite tester sold by its major manufacturer works by measuring absorption of UV light
[/quote]
It is easily spotted with a loupe, true enough, if you know what double refraction looks like. Most diamond buyers do not know at this point because they have never had to know.
There isn’t much room for mileage variance here. “Fire” or dispersion is caused by refractive index. Moissanite has a RI of 2.65, diamond’s is 2.42. Here’s a demonstration that highlights the visual differences between the two.
I remember reading a New Scientist article recently that reported on a demonstration of an improved technique to manufacture artificial diamonds which conveniently produces them in sizes up to around 5 mm.
I believe that the biggest market for artificial diamonds at the moment is for abrasion tools, which use very small (sub-millimetre) diamonds, rather than gemstones.
I saw an ad for these jewels called DiamondAura in the “Space X” edition of Discover magazine. It seems to say an awful lot for such a small price. Are they true diamonds? Apparently they have a higher atomic weight.
To that end, does it really matter? If it is a diamond, sparkles like a diamond, cuts glass like a diamond (does it have the same hardness?), is made of carbon at high pressures and tempuratures, isn’t in a diamond?
The fire or brilliance (two different things) in gemstones is partly based on the index of refraction of the stone but is based more on the cut of the stone. The cut certainly takes the index of refraction into account but then the stone is cut so as to provide “ideal” angles for light bouncing about in the stone to come back out in a preferred manner.
This is why the Brilliant Round cut diamond is so popular. It is considered the ideal cut to maximize the diamonds beauty and is not an accident but a mathematical construct devised by Marcel Tolkowsky in the early 1900’s.
Presumably different stones with different indexes of refraction would need to be cut differently to maximize their beauty.
Tsk-tsk! Don’t expect DeBeers to be offering you a marketing job anytime soon.
It will be fun to watch those bastitches twist in the breeze as the “fakes” start taking over. I’ve already seen (and bought) CZs that are only distinguishable to the casual observer because they are better stones than any diamond I could afford.
Yesterday I heard a commecial for some sort of jewelry shop, wherein they touted the “age” of natural diamonds. Diamonds were formed billions of years ago, they said, so therefore they symbolize love much better than anything else.
They didn’t specifically mention the artifical diamonds, but that sure seemed to be what they were hinting about- that since the artificial diamonds are man-made, they aren’t as old, or as “symbolic” as the nature-made ones.
'Cause, you know, when they make the man-made diamonds they also make the carbon, right then and there. :rolleyes:
I can’t wait to see DeBeers get steamrolled by technology.
Don’t be too sure. De Beers is a mighty powerful cartel. They are way ahead of you in trying to stompt these guys out. Personally I agree it’s good to see De Beers squirm and I would love to see their cartel fractured or broken but it’ll be one helluva battle for whoever tries it.
From the link Desmostylus provided:
It won’t be. Artificial diadmonds (let alone zirconium) have been around for a long time, but for some reason people would rather buy less beautiful stones for a higher price. I think they’ll go on…(especially since jewellers doesn’t seem to be very interested in selling artificial stones).
It just doesn’t make sense to me. If the stone is equally beautiful when you look at it with your naked eye, why would you spend even one cent more for a natural stone (except if you’re a mineralogist).