Emeralds as hard as diamonds?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

is this smoke and mirros?
http://www.serenitytechnology.com/emerald-diamond-enhanced-web.jpg the photo is clearly in focus on the "treated" stone, and out on the "before".

There is little info here too http://www.serenitytechnology.com/diamondcoating.htm
Maybe it is the same process that is used on CZ?
The problem still seems to be the underlying softness of the underlying gem.

Sounds like a lot of "underlying" 2 me.

 

[strmrdr]

yea same dlc coating.
Which is actually fraud in my book calling it diamond coating.
The molecular bond is not the same and the hardness is only in the 9 range.

Same problem doesnt do anything to protect it from chipping.

 

[strmrdr]

asha has a patent on using it on any gemstone so expect them to be sued real quick.

 

[valeria101]

That's strange...

On metal the coating improves scratch resistance 10-20% and reduces friction (that's one use I am aware of). It definitely makes metal surface more reflective and I have heard of this being used on Ti jewelry. Never seen that yet.

Any other properties of the underlying material (hardness etc) are not affected: the coating is definitely not strong by itself - like a protective pod - they'd wish, and for more important applications than marketing commercial quality emerald.

Since lustre is what is mostly improved, they could use nail varnish just as well.

But it would need to be colored varnish. 'Seen what their IP bit says:


"Intellectual Property
Serenity's unique gem enhancement technology is the subject of a pending patent in the area of abrasion resistant coatings with color component for gemstones and such. "


For what that matters. From what the examples on the website look like, disclosing color treatments would never be a problem.

 

[WinkHPD]

Maybe it''s just me, but that emerald, both treated and untreated is real UGLY! Who cares if UGLY is harder after it is treated or not? IT IS STILL UGLY!

In my opinion we are in the MAKE IT SPARKLE AND BE BEAUTIFUL business, not the make it harder and they will come business.

YUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wink who is tired and cranky and thinks those emeralds stink department...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/5/2006 7:36:21 PM
Author: Wink
Maybe it''s just me, but that emerald, both treated and untreated is real UGLY! Who cares if UGLY is harder after it is treated or not? IT IS STILL UGLY!


In my opinion we are in the MAKE IT SPARKLE AND BE BEAUTIFUL business, not the make it harder and they will come business.


YUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wink who is tired and cranky and thinks those emeralds stink department...

hehehe
tell us how you really feel Wink
in all seriousness I hope you get some zzzzzzzzzssss and that tomorrow is a better day.

 

[Richard M.]

Date: 1/4/2006 11:00:11 PM

The problem still seems to be the underlying softness of the underlying gem.

Sounds like a lot of ''underlying'' 2 me.

Or maybe ''overlying,'' LOL. The treatment probably only serves to seal in the cedarwood oil originally used to hide the cracks. Sounds like just another pointless gimmick to me. The color of the ''in-focus'' cut stone reminds me of the old-time dyed green chalcedony substitute for chrysoprase.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/5/2006 7:44:26 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/5/2006 7:36:21 PM

Author: Wink

Maybe it''s just me, but that emerald, both treated and untreated is real UGLY! Who cares if UGLY is harder after it is treated or not? IT IS STILL UGLY!



In my opinion we are in the MAKE IT SPARKLE AND BE BEAUTIFUL business, not the make it harder and they will come business.



YUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wink who is tired and cranky and thinks those emeralds stink department...

hehehe

tell us how you really feel Wink

in all seriousness I hope you get some zzzzzzzzzssss and that tomorrow is a better day.

Me to, this being sick business reaks! Today was a great day, really, but seeing that UGLY garbage being praised because it had a diamond coating when it still looked like garbage just twisted my knickers...

Wink

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/5/2006 7:36:21 PM
Author: Wink

YUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wink who is tired and cranky and thinks those emeralds stink department...

(still rhetoric Q, of course)

Second that. Why does every sort and quality have to be put to the same use? What''s the point to facet those ... just to emphasize that the material is not facet grade? Sad... and a waste of otherwise attractive material - which to me sounds worse.

Is it soooooo unacceptable to appreciate these stones for what they instead of pushing odd-shaped pegs into the same round hole?

 

[Michael_E]

I think that you folks may be looking at this in a way that was not intended by the company that produced that website. I don''t think that they are selling the stones, which are not ugly , but just "beauty impaired".

They are selling the machine that makes the coating. This is the same or a very similar coating to that which is used with "Asha" CZ''s...all chemical vapor deposition diamond coatings are pretty much the same. They are used in a wide range of applications from making mahine tool cutters more abrasion resistant to protecting and modifying the properties of optical components. It''s a really neat technology and really does add to the optical luster and scratch resistance of a wide range of materials. On the other hand it will not turn a sows ear into a silk purse, nor can you coat a marshmallow and expect the coating to do anything to protect it. This is one reason that it seems kind of funny that they would include gems like apatite on their list of coatable stones. (Apatite being the marshmallow of the gem world).

A few years ago Lawrence Liver National Laboratory developed and received patents on a method of producing very clear diamond coatings using laser energy to create a carbon vapor plasma that gives very high build rates and high diamond percentages. I think that most of the patents being used to make these coatings are the property of Lawrence Livermore which then provides licences to various parties.

I think that one of the problems with selling this technology for gemstone use is in the pitch that it will make the stones harder and protect them from scratching. It will do that to some extent...on the flat surfaces of each facet. BUT, in my experience the main problem that most gems face is in the chipping of facet junctions from impacts with other hard objects. In these situations the underlying material in what is still providing 99.9 percent of the strength of the gem and no thin coating in the world will protect it from chipping. Basically the coatings really do work as an appearance enhancer, but are limited in their ability to protect a gem from chipping damage. You still have to be careful !

Did you check out the machine they''re selling ? I''d like to have one in my garage...just to impress the neighbors. I just love machines that have flashing lights and BIG names!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I discussed this issue with Less from Better than diamonds.
He agrees with the general sentiment of others and and Michael''s comments.
We experianced jewellers know that a sapphire or ruby engagement ring needs 1 or 2 repolishes in a lifetime - not because of surface scratches - but because of facet junction chipping / abrasion.

But I wonder about emarald tarnish? Emeralds pavilions need repolishing after 20 or so years as they tarnish - would the treatment stop this?
I doubt it - but any opinions?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

also Less said the thicker the coating, the more rounded the facet junctions become

 

[Michael_E]

Gary,
That''s a tough question. The coatings actually have the consistency of a "sputtered" coating at microscopic levels. They are composed of multiple micro crystals and not one homogeneous sheet of diamond. Because of this I would think that they would have some micro-porosity and so either allow some of the fracture filling material to "leak out" and oxidize forming a tarnish, or allow oxygen through to the fracture filling material and cause it to darken over time. Either effect would degrade the stone and so be a detriment to a nice emerald. In a poor quality emerald the effect would most likely not matter much.

The funny thing about that site is that they had one section where they were attempting to sell this coating for diamonds, in order to "fill in" micro-scratches and increase luster. This must be aimed at small, moderate quality stones since I just can''t see anyone tampering with a larger diamond of good quality this way.

 

[dimonbob]

It’s been possible to grow a diamond coating (or similar) on the outside of a gemstone to make it less scratchable, for some time now. It’s not a big deal. This example is ugly, but the idea can be appealing for some. Take a soft gemstone like benitoite. It has a hardness of 6. This diamond coating can be grown on it to give it a hardness of 9. Now it doesn’t scratch or crumble and winds up more durable. That’s the selling point. Of course, if they put it on a junk emerald like in that photo it’s still junk and it still looks like junk. You can put a diamond coating on your garbage can but it’s still your garbage can.

 

[belle]

would this coating be economical for something like kornerupine? it would be great if it could be coated then cut into a wearable piece of jewelry. is that possible, or is it a ridiculous waste of time and money (even though i love it so!)?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/8/2006 11:36:25 PM
Author: belle
would this coating be economical for something like kornerupine? it would be great if it could be coated then cut into a wearable piece of jewelry. is that possible, or is it a ridiculous waste of time and money (even though i love it so!)?

You would need to cut it first, then cut it. The coating is very thin and would come off during the cutting process.

Wink

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/8/2006 9:00:06 PM
Author: dimonbob

Take a soft gemstone like benitoite. It has a hardness of 6. This diamond coating can be grown on it to give it a hardness of 9. Now it doesn’t scratch or crumble and winds up more durable.

Hm... about the selling point: it is nice how the durability issue is almost always confused with the Moh rating... so if the tag line mentions the alleged hardness of the coating as that of the coated piece it would probably work. Why bother?

However, I doubt that the layer of disjoint micro crystals affect durability on all front as such advertisement would imply: perhaps resistance to abrasion is improved, but resistance to indentation (what Moh''s scale measures) and fracture may not be affect at all or only very marginally one way or another. Considering that scratching from contact with harder materials (during storage next to other jewelry perhaps?) may not be much danger to jewelry stones compared to chips and dents from wear, I wonder how much improvement is there.

Perhaps polish is what does get the most improvement. Wonder why that is not the object of the sales pitch? Maybe the yucky finish of the substrate nulls that effect? Anyway, perhaps it wasn''t some technicality after all but semantics - writing that the treatment affects surface lustre may make it sound less sophisticated: i.e. everyone understands what varnish is all about, while a high tech treatment that makes whatever crud share in the fame of diamonds-the-magnificent... that''s almost beautiful in its own. Phew!