Talk:Cubic zirconia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Cubic zirconia is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Innovations

Contains "See Russian Star." which seems a reference to a comercial product [Russian StarTM]. 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)

[edit] 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)