Technical Aspects
Cubic zirconia is crystallographically isometric, an important attribute of a would-be diamond simulant. During synthesis zirconium oxide would naturally form monoclinic crystals, its stable form under normal atmospheric conditions. A stabilizer is required for cubic crystals to form, and remain stable at ordinary temperatures; this may be typically either yttrium or calcium oxide, the amount of stabilizer used depending on the many recipes of individual manufacturers. Therefore the physical and optical properties of synthesized CZ vary, all values being ranges.
It is a dense substance, with a specific gravity between 5.6 and 6.0 — at least 1.6 times that of diamond. Cubic zirconia is relatively hard, 8-8.5 on the Mohs scale— slightly harder than most semi-precious natural gems. Its refractive index is high at 2.15–2.18 (compared to 2.42 for diamonds) and its luster is adamantine. Its dispersion is very high at 0.058–0.066, exceeding that of diamond (0.044). Cubic zirconia has no cleavage and exhibits a conchoidal fracture. Because of its high hardness, it is generally considered brittle.
Under shortwave UV cubic zirconia typically fluoresces a yellow, greenish yellow or "beige". Under longwave UV the effect is greatly diminished, with a whitish glow sometimes being seen. Colored stones may show a strong, complex rare earth absorption spectrum.
Read more about this topic: Cubic Zirconia
Famous quotes containing the words technical and/or aspects:
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.”
—J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904–1967)
“Grammar is a tricky, inconsistent thing. Being the backbone of speech and writing, it should, we think, be eminently logical, make perfect sense, like the human skeleton. But, of course, the skeleton is arbitrary, too. Why twelve pairs of ribs rather than eleven or thirteen? Why thirty-two teeth? It has something to do with evolution and functionalism—but only sometimes, not always. So there are aspects of grammar that make good, logical sense, and others that do not.”
—John Simon (b. 1925)