Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Anybody collect gemstones?

Glue it to a driver chip and it's perfect! :crackup:

I was kidding of course, obviously you'd get way more worth from it if you sold it or something. Is it synthetic or real? I wonder if the synthetic diamonds have equally as much thermal conductivity?
Real, It's from a Zales engagement ring wedding band set.....

They should as much thermal conductivity......

I'm not much of a gems kind of guy, What i really like is the look, the feel, the weight, the value of GOLD ! I like everything about it !
 
Last edited:





Glue it to a driver chip and it's perfect! :crackup:

I was kidding of course, obviously you'd get way more worth from it if you sold it or something. Is it synthetic or real? I wonder if the synthetic diamonds have equally as much thermal conductivity?

I can answer that question. Synthetic diamonds have greater thermal conductivity than natural ones because synthetic diamond have less C14 and other isotopes, where synthetic ones are mostly all C12. So, natural diamonds have ~2400 Wm/K while synths may have 2800 Wm/K. Synthetic diamonds made for jewelry have had a fluorescent ion embedded in them to identify them as synthetic, but this may no longer be the case. They are cheaper per carat for the same quality of natural diamonds.
 
Last edited:
I can answer that question. Synthetic diamonds have greater thermal conductivity than natural ones because synthetic diamond have less C14 and other isotopes, where synthetic ones are mostly all C12. So, natural diamonds have ~2400 Wm/K while synths may have 2800 Wm/K. Synthetic diamonds made for jewelry have a fluorescent ion embedded in them to identify them as synthetic. They are cheaper per carat for the same quality of natural diamonds.
I disagree with just about all of that but i don't feel like arguing about it.....

"fluorescent ion embedded" lolol Who told you that DeBeers ?

"quality of natural diamonds" That sound like something DeBeers would have you believe !
 
And you have your extensive knowledge in diamonds from your trip to Zales? :crackup: Go look it up. It's common knowledge.
 
And you have your extensive knowledge in diamonds from your trip to Zales? :crackup: Go look it up. It's common knowledge.
LOLOL sure, And diamonds are rare and valuable ? Right ? lolol

Someones been drinking the DeBeers cool aid.......
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info Paul, good to know...

@Accutronitis, is there anything to prove Paul wrong? As for quality, I've seen both synthetic and real, and haven't seen a difference in quality. Visual quality, that is.
 
Sure this one very informative source.....


NOVA S27E11 Diamond Deception

It's funny if anyone thinks they could tell the dif when it took DeBeers quite a large effort to be able to tell the dif.......

And people should realize that synthetic Diamonds are real Diamonds and natural Diamonds are anything but rare ! Rare and valuable is a mind set that DeBeers has created and cultivated from the beginning !

What exactly is a "fluorescent ion" suppose to be ? lol And how do they compare to non-fluorescent ions ? And why would any gem quality synthetic Diamond "maker" add anything to their Diamonds ??? DeBeers had to start laser etching the edge of their Diamonds for ident theirs from synthetic !
 
Last edited:
Some producers of synthetic diamonds actually put a marking on them, labeling them as synthetic.

This does not prevent someone else to remove this marking though, just cutting the gem slightly smaller removing any superficial markings in the process, and selling it on as a natural stone.

As for the isotope ratios: that is a little more difficult, but could also be overcome when making artificial diamonds since you can get the proper isotope mixture using source materials enriched or depleted in specific isotopes to the point where it matches mined diamonds.

Diamonds are all about the percieved value, not about the actual cost of manufacture or mining, and hence the whole price of the things is not sustainable.

Compare this to other things once rare: Back in the 17th century or so aluminium metal was considered more valuable than gold, because it was very rare. You can google for stories about this and find many.

Aluminium as an atom is very common on earth, but before electricity it was very hard to produce it has a metal from ores like bauxite. Nowadays it's considered so cheap it's ideal for single use trays, foils and what not.

Diamond could easily go the same route as synthetic production improves. Most synthetic diamond nowadays is not made for gem stones but for industrial use in drills and such, but the techology keeps improving. I would not be surprised if really big (say 100 carat+) synthetic diamonds became available in a couple of decades.

Guess you'd have to find something more rare for your wedding bands, but at least we'd have an extra really hard material for useful applications.
 
Some producers of synthetic diamonds actually put a marking on them, labeling them as synthetic.

This does not prevent someone else to remove this marking though, just cutting the gem slightly smaller removing any superficial markings in the process, and selling it on as a natural stone.

As for the isotope ratios: that is a little more difficult, but could also be overcome when making artificial diamonds since you can get the proper isotope mixture using source materials enriched or depleted in specific isotopes to the point where it matches mined diamonds.

Diamonds are all about the percieved value, not about the actual cost of manufacture or mining, and hence the whole price of the things is not sustainable.

Compare this to other things once rare: Back in the 17th century or so aluminium metal was considered more valuable than gold, because it was very rare. You can google for stories about this and find many.

Aluminium as an atom is very common on earth, but before electricity it was very hard to produce it has a metal from ores like bauxite. Nowadays it's considered so cheap it's ideal for single use trays, foils and what not.

Diamond could easily go the same route as synthetic production improves. Most synthetic diamond nowadays is not made for gem stones but for industrial use in drills and such, but the techology keeps improving. I would not be surprised if really big (say 100 carat+) synthetic diamonds became available in a couple of decades.

Guess you'd have to find something more rare for your wedding bands, but at least we'd have an extra really hard material for useful applications.

I don't disagree with any of that......

Did you know that you can set a Diamond on fire and it will burn until completely gone ? All you need is a little liquid oxygen, I didn't need to go all the way to Zales to learn that one...... Diamonds are far from "forever" !
 
Last edited:
You don't even need the liquid oxygen to do that.

Diamonds can be destoyed in fairly ordinary house fires if not kept in fireproof boxes and such. If you for some reason left a gold ring with a diamond set in it on your table and your house burned down, chances are the diamond could not be recovered but the gold could be (if you coud find it).

The whole 'diamonds are forever' idea was a marketing ploy by deBeers, which remains quite succesful.

While diamonds are very hard in the sense of moh's scale, they certainly are not indestructible. Mechanically it may prove difficult, but chemically it's just an allotrope of carbon that caan burn or be chemically reacted with.
 
Yes, this is all old news. Back in the 1800s there was an experiment where a diamond was burned in a hermetically sealed glass ampule in O2 to prove that the weight of the diamond wasn't lost to CO2. The fact that synthetics are low in radioactive isotopes wasn't to show a way to tell the difference, but to show that they have a higher thermal conductivity than natural ones. I have bought synthetic diamond in 100s of carats to use as an additive to heat sink compound. That was several years ago. And of course I know that diamonds aren't rare. The industry works hard to try to make people believe otherwise. I suppose that some manufacturers of synthetic diamonds could keep them from being detected, but last I heard it wasn't done by reputable people and the ability to make them isn't so easy that anyone could do it.
 
Last edited:
To put this garbage where it belongs, I found a link to to the fluorescence and phosphorescence of lab grown vs natural diamonds. It seems the lab grown diamonds tend to fluoresce orange and have a phosphorescence after glow that natural diamonds do not. There are also striations that can be seen in lab grown diamonds because of the seeding process that are not seen with natural diamonds. These devices can tell the difference between the two in seconds to a couple of minutes.

How to Tell If A Diamond Was Grown In A Lab | Popular Science :na:
 
Last edited:
You don't even need the liquid oxygen to do that.

Diamonds can be destoyed in fairly ordinary house fires if not kept in fireproof boxes and such. If you for some reason left a gold ring with a diamond set in it on your table and your house burned down, chances are the diamond could not be recovered but the gold could be (if you coud find it).

The whole 'diamonds are forever' idea was a marketing ploy by deBeers, which remains quite succesful.

While diamonds are very hard in the sense of moh's scale, they certainly are not indestructible. Mechanically it may prove difficult, but chemically it's just an allotrope of carbon that caan burn or be chemically reacted with.
deBeers was also behind the whole "you should spend at least half a months salary when buying an engagement ring" and that was very successful as well.....

PS DiamondView machine is deBeers answer to the synthetic problem and have nothing to do with the so called "fluorescent ion"....
 
Last edited:
Is everything to do with diamond jewelry a conspiracy by De Beers? I don't see the GIA or the world gemologic society as being a De Beers conspiracy. Yeah, De Beers set up a monopoly back in the days of Cecil Rhodes and since the UK has no laws against monopolies, they continue to this day. But, they have far less power than they once had.
 
Is everything to do with diamond jewelry a conspiracy by De Beers? I don't see the GIA or the world gemologic society as being a De Beers conspiracy. Yeah, De Beers set up a monopoly back in the days of Cecil Rhodes and since the UK has no laws against monopolies, they continue to this day. But, they have far less power than they once had.
Do you really believe that ? If your a buyer and seller of diamonds anywhere and you displease De Beers that's a end of your ever receiving anything but 2nd hand diamonds......

Nothing has changed with deBears hold of the world wide diamond market except they've bought out more diamond mines and such.....
 
Last edited:
I can answer that question. Synthetic diamonds have greater thermal conductivity than natural ones because synthetic diamond have less C14 and other isotopes, where synthetic ones are mostly all C12. So, natural diamonds have ~2400 Wm/K while synths may have 2800 Wm/K. Synthetic diamonds made for jewelry have had a fluorescent ion embedded in them to identify them as synthetic, but this may no longer be the case. They are cheaper per carat for the same quality of natural diamonds.




No mention of "isotopes" but more about the atomic structure between the two ? (the way the atoms of carbon are arraigned as the only real dif).....

Please explain to me exactly what a "fluorescent ion" is and how it's gives you confidence enough to say "extensive knowledge in diamonds from your trip to Zales" as if was a "drop mic" moment ??? Which clearly it was not......

Your information seems more like some guys opinion then real facts ??? Possibly deBears propaganda to confuse the general public.....
 
Last edited:


Back
Top