Talk:Cubic zirconia

Notes

Might have the title wrong. Cubic zirconium or cubic zirconium oxide might be the correct title. user:Fredbauder

No, all 3 are correct. Fred Bauder

---

molten zirconia contained within itself - what? I don't quite grasp this, and am reluctant to reword it until I'm certain what it means. DS 14:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Being that the molten zirconia is too hot for any known container, the molten zirconia is contained as a pool of liquid in the middle of a slightly cooler mass of unmelted zirconia. Visualize a large diameter wax candle in a container made of ice. If the candle is lit, a pool of molten wax can be maintained in the middle of the candle without melting the ice (as long as the ice is kept chilled from the outside). This is because the surrounding unmelted wax insulates the molten wax from the ice. The same principle is used for the zirconia. The article mentions that the "skin" of unmelted zirconia is only 1mm thick. This provides enough insulation because zirconia is a very good thermal insulator. I hope this helps. Dwane Anderson

Gaudy?

The word "gaudy" used to describe the CZ compared to the diamond in the CZ vs. diamond section seems subjective, and is not helpful or descriptive. Might someone who has adequate knowlege on this subject be more accurately descriptive? Thomas French

Hope that fixes it. 'Rainbow-coloured' might be more evocative though. Since CZs are gaudy.

Well, they are no more gaudy than are diamonds. Of course, many people select large CZs because they are cheap. A 5-carat diamond is no less gaudy than a 5-carat diamond, but you don't see many 5-carat CZ. Many people look down on CZs because they let people give the appearance that they are more affluent and/or more profligate with their spending.--RLent 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

other?

In 2001 a cubic zirconia was made by extracting carbon from source like peanet butter or stubbiness high in carbon

Cubic Zirconia does not use or contain carbon. I think you are referring to synthetic diamond, which has been created using various carbon sources as you are referencing.--CarbonElemental 05:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

CZ versus Diamond

On March 13, 2006, User:206.195.19.43 deleted a number of comparisons between cubic zirconium and diamond. Some of the "corrections" resulted in incorrect or misleading statements. Should I just revert the changes? -- Jasper 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Move for deletion?

My wife found out that her ring was cubic zirconia. I told her that that meant it was extra rare and valuable. I propose we delete this article, or I am in some serious shit. She is a big wikipedia user and she might see this page, but I don't want to vandalize... Please :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreo man (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm afraid you're doomed. Tuck your head down and kiss the boys goodbye, is all the advice I can offer! --Grey Knight ⊖ 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't have a special right to request an article's deletion just because you screwed up. But you have to say, cubic zirconia is shiny, and we all know people can't resist shiny objects. :D The First Doll 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're screwed. But I do agree that cubic zirconium is shiny. --science4sail ^talkcon 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

hahaha your dead when your wife finds this page--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 08:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Or 'Talk page highlights'... 203.11.71.124 (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Innovations

Contains "See Russian Star." which seems a reference to a comercial product [Russian Star^TM]. A WikiPedia search for "Russian Star" yields nothing interesting. Should "See Russian Star." remain in this article? —ConradPino (talk • contribs) 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

• Sorry I missed this - It is a definite NO, as it is a definite spamlink (albeit without the link). It was removed.SauliH 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Other CZ makers

It is interesting, I saw an add for "DiamondAura" and suspected that it was CZ by the description, and sure enough, a search on wiki for "diamondaura" directs here, but I see no mention of it anywhere on the page. Similarly, the above title refers to the "russian star", another CZ that fails to mention it on the site. Since many CZ manufacturers try to cover the fact that they are CZ by not mentioning what the stone is, and by making comparison (e.g., "the fire is actually superior to that of a diamond") people are no doubt searching for answers about these stones. Is there a rule about referencing them in the CZ article? I don't have a particularly anti-CZ bias (they're fine for what they are), but I do object to purposeful obfuscation. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. CZs are often marketed without direct reference to their composition, or disguised using a trade name ("DiamondAura" being a common one). This is useful information, and ought to be included in the article. 24.215.188.55 (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

"Cubic zirconia is so optically close to diamond that only a trained eye can easily differentiate the two."
vs.
"With a dispersive power greater than diamond (0.060 vs. 0.044) the more prismatic fire of cubic zirconia can be seen by even an untrained eye."

Which is true? --Mwongozi (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I had read that the "girdle" or circumference of the round edge of a round-cut CZ has a noticeable double-edged band instead of a single sharp edge, enabling even a small amount of magnification to show the difference between CZ and diamond. Is that verifiable?

Also: I would like someone to disclose the details of the cutting process of CZ stones -- I am wondering who does the cutting, how much they are paid, is it a fair trade issue like diamonds? different? Automated? If anyone can contribute I would appreciate it, since I have favored CZ over diamonds for that reason alone, and I may be mistaken in assuming that there's much difference between the two in terms of who cuts them and how much they are paid for it. --Xibee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xibee (talk • contribs) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article overstates the visual similarity of CZ to diamond. When I began engagement ring shopping, the first jewelry store I went to, before being told which bank of rings were the CZs, I noticed a difference (though I didn't know what it was until I asked the clerk). The difference between the CZs vs. diamonds was apparent to me w/ the rings behind the glass counter and certainly without use of a loupe. I didn't frequent jewelry stores prior to this, so at least to me the difference was w/o really any prior experience looking at the stuff. IMO it's like saying the difference between lossless audio compression and 128kbps MP3s are not audible - it might be true to the novice, but with a little practice and/or perceptual skills it's pretty trivial to tell the difference. I know my anecdote is OR so don't bother saying it - that's why I put it on talk. Ripe (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Does 'Prismic fire' have anything to do with vision? 203.11.71.124 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What is a DOCZ?

I have a ring that I thought had cubic zirconia but the stones have turned milky. Inside the ring it says "14KDOCZ". What does that mean? Poagers (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

cut glass

I've always heard that a diamond will "cut glass". Is it true & if so will a CZ "cut glass" also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.212.41 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes. See Mohs scale. --Synaptophysin (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Home shopping channels?

Do you think it's a good idea to add a sentence about the fact that home shopping channels (Home Shopping Club/Network, QVC) made Cubic zirconia mainstream popular in the 1980's? Just a thought. Macshill (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea if you could find a WP:RS, so it's not perceived as WP:OR. Plastikspork (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean ?

"at least 1.6 times more dense than diamond". If understood according to the usual meanings of words this means that if the density of diamond is taken to be 1, that of CZ is greater than 2.6 (i.e. 1.6 more than 1, or 1 + 1.6). Is this what is intended ? Perhaps "more than 1.6 times as dense as diamond" is what the author has in mind.

Andrew Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.50.77 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"more than 1.6 times as dense as diamond" means diamond density x1.6 (which is correct for CZ). Strange, I never thought about another definition .. Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

About DiamondAura

After checking the Trademark for the product, it's for the line of jewelry, not a creation process. Even though DiamondAura is a popular brand, I don't think it should be in the article, if the other CZ brands aren't listed also. --Funandtrvl

(talk) 19:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is an inherent problem with WikiPedia itself. If you type in DiamondAura, which is a trademarked name, in the search box, the CZ page is where it forwards you. As long as that happens, then DiamondAura needs to be placed on this page. As well, one of the other CZ brands is listed, Diamonique.Str1Rck (talk)

Removed as unsourced and a self-link. Commercial promotion doesn't belong in lead section. Vsmith (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)