Diamond Nexus Labs

I'm not sure if I am posting in the right section as DNL lists exactly what their stones are made of, but I'm just curious what you guys think of the stones and their properties, etc...

This is the breakdown according to DNL:

"The diamond-simulant gemstones Diamond Nexus Labs sells are a polycrystalline compound. The elements in Diamond Nexus Labs' gem material in order of atomic weights are: C (6), O (8), S (16), Fe (26), Co (27), Ni (28), Y (39), Zr (40), and Hf (72)" taken directly from the FAQ section at:

www.diamondnexuslabs.com

I saw a post about Briolite, which was almost all negative and I understand why since they release no details about what their stones actually consist of, but DNL lists the makeup of their stones and I was wondering if anyone had any experience testing these stones to see if all their claims are true. I know the stones are polycrystalline but aren't there many different grades of quality when it comes to polycrystalline? Also, does anyone have any experience with other lab created diamond simulants that they view as actually really good??? I'm a complete novice when it comes to minerals and stones, so I found this board and was hoping to get some responses from professionals.

Also, just for the record, this post is in no way shape or form an attempt at spamming.

Thanks in advance for any responses given.

Also wanted to include the claims made by DNL and ask if this is truley possible? They make some very strong claims on their site.

The top line under each catagory is the Diamond Nexus Stone and the botttom Line is a mined diamond.

Property

Diamond Nexus

Mined Diamond

HARDNESS

Cuts Glass (9.1)

Cuts Glass (10)

INTERNAL FLAWS

Never

Almost Always Has Birthmarks

CLARITY

Flawless

VS2+

FIRE/DISPERSION

Superlative (0.046)

Excellent (0.044)

REFRACTION
Excellent (7.40)
Excellent (7.40)

COLOR

Perfect Colorless (D)

Tinges of Yellow or Brown (Various Grades)

HEARTS AND ARROWS EFFECT

Yes

Maybe

ONE CARAT SIZE

One Carat

One Carat

TOUGHNESS

Excellent

Very Good to Excellent

POROSITY

.097

.096

BRILLIANCE

Superlative (2.20)

Superlative (2.40)

CUT

Always Perfect

Sporadic (Excellent to Poor)

FINAL POLISH

By Diamond Powder

By Diamond Powder

LIFETIME PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE

Yes

No

LIFETIME LOSS GUARANTEE

Yes

No

PRICE PER CARAT

$79-$125

$13,500

I sort of have a problem with their scientific proficiency when they don't realize the difference between atomic weight and atomic number. In general when you go with a polycrystalline material it means that you aren't good enough to grow large crystals of the material.

Please elaborate. As I said, I am a novice, what is the difference between atomic weight and atomic number? and What exactly is polycristalline material?

Thanks

There are people who could probably do a better job of this than I can, but here it goes. The atomic weight of an atom is a weighted average of all of the naturally-occurring isotopes of a particular element. Atomic number refers to the number of protons that are in a particular element (this will not vary in isotopes of a particular element). Polycrystalline means many crystals, so probably small crystals are fused together.

Thanks for that response!!

This may seem like a stupid question, but they are using small crystals of what? They make it very clear that they do not use Moissonite or CZ for their stones so what exactly is it?

Independent laboratory testing via XPS shows the Diamond Nexus product is ordinary cubic zirconia.

A full test was done by Anderson Materials Evalation, using XPS (xray photoelectron spectroscopy) - I guess we can't post links but search on Diamond Nexus XPS and it should find it.

I am trying to attach the report for you. [edit: but it failed...too big]

"I know the stones are polycrystalline but aren't there many different grades of quality when it comes to polycrystalline? "

Actually, you don't "know" its polycrystalline...you just read their claim and believed it. Anyway, its not and the lab report points it out. Polycrystalline material rarely allows any light to shine through due to the random arrangement of the crystals, and so polycrystalline cz is used as insulating bricks, not gemstones. Polycrystalline diamond (PCD) is used for abrasives work and has little in the way of desirable optical properties.

Regarding good diamond simulant, you can go to BetterThanDiamond.com's message boards and ask there as lots of customers posting about diamond simulants they have tried out.

Hi,

I just would like to know if Diamond Nexus Labs use HPHT or CVD.
On wikipedia it's told that CVD diamonds are flawless et much better than HPHT diamonds.
Please could somebody help me????

Thanks.
Allegra

Diamond Nexus Labs do not use either process....their product is not diamond!! It is a near colorless material similar to Cubic Zirconia. As far as all CVD diamonds being flawless.....that is a misconception. CVD diamonds are grown as a plate and then "pre-formed" (similar to cutting cookies out of a sheet of dough) to make the cutting process easier. The preforming allows for the removal of flaws.

Another indication that the information in the original data is bogus is the hardness of "9.1" - there's no such thing. You can have 9, 9 and a half or 10 or a range between these - but 9.1 is meaningless.

Jolyon

Diamond Nexus labs produces two artificial diamond products. The first is a diamond simulant which has as its core material a zirconium/yttrium/hafnium base. There are other additives to this such as gadolinium and cobalt. This results in a core material that has optical properties that are very close to natural diamond and a hardness and tensile strength significantly greater than zirconium oxide. The gemstone is then finished and infused with several different optical coatings that bring the refractive properties more in line with natural diamond and eliminate the porosity problem common to zirconium.

Diamond Nexus labs also produces a true carbon-based synthetic diamond. This is reportedly done by the HPHT method, yet they produce a clear "white" diamond which leads one to believe that they must somehow be doing this process in a vacuum. However the synthetic diamond product is only available in limited quantities and in sizes only up to one quarter carat and less.

Actually, John, independent lab analysis by Anderson Materials has proven that is a "ordinary cubic zirconia." It also proved that their brand of CZ contained no hafnium.

Here are excerpts from the report:

"The principal elements of the gemstone are zirconium, yttrium, and oxygen, so the gemstone is a common cubic zirconia."

"No Hf, Fe, Ni, or Co were detected, despite Diamond Nexus Labs listing them as present in the FAQ's page of their website."

Here is the full report here:
www.betterthandiamond.com/diamondnexuslabs/

It should also be noted that it has been nearly 3 months since this report has been made available to the public, yet Diamond Nexus has failed to provide any evidence to refute this rather damning lab analysis, despite the fact that such a independent analysis would cost a mere $400 - $600 in today's market. But I don't expect to see any true independent proof on DNL's claims. They have been marketing their CZ for nearly 10 years without any evidence substantiating their claims.

Therefore, in conclusion, they sell a brand of CZ. Nothing more. The lab analysis found no special coatings as it only found zirconium, yttrium, and oxygen on the surface: the main components of CZ.

It is also worth noting that Diamond Nexus Labs, in fact, has no labs, but purchase their cz from Signity, the world's largest manufacturer and distributor of CZ.

Everything I've read online seems to be "Betterthandiamond.com" and "Diamond Nexus Labs" battling it out. I don't really know who to believe?? Aren't they competitors? betterthandiamond seems to go out of their way to prove that DNL's are just CZ yet what are their BetterThanDiamond's Asha Diamonds - CZ's with tons of tiny 'diamond crystals' covering the outsides.. sounds like polycrystalline to me!?? They seem to avoid the subject of what their stones really are. I can't seem to believe either sites - if anything, atleast DNL has a good return policy and they'll replace your stone whevenever you need LOL ... seems like some shady shady stuff. I don't think i'd believe their "Independant Studies" anyways... doesn't sound very legit. Personally - BetterThanDiamond bad mouthes DNL... DNL doesn't seem to say anything about them... more of a gossip issue than anything else.

Angie, did you even read the analysis you are referring to?

Here is some information on Dr. Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D., the author of the independent analysis (www.andersonmaterials.com).

"Dr. Anderson is the founder of AME and is a co-owner of the company. Dr. Anderson has long specialized in the characterization of surfaces, interfaces, thin films, and coatings. He began applying surface analysis techniques to the solution of materials problems in 1972 with the use of Auger spectroscopy and Mössbauer emission spectroscopy to characterize the magnetic properties of surfaces. Since 1980, he has used XPS or ESCA extensively for the analysis of materials properties, often combining XPS and Auger results with those of other techniques such as microscopy, DSC, SEM, FTIR, EXAFS, Rutherford backscattering, electrochemistry, thermogravimetry, SEM, and XRD to solve complex materials problems."

"He worked for Case Western Reserve University as a post-doctoral fellow, the Dept. of the Navy as a research physicist, and Martin Marietta and Lockheed Martin as a senior scientist before founding AME, Inc. in 1995."

His specialty is in Materials Physics, Surface Chemistry, Adhesive Failure Analysis, Corrosion, XPS, Auger Microprobe, DSC, TGA, RGA MS, and Coating Properties

But yes, I am sure he would be willing to throw away his career and reputation by publishing a biased analysis for a mere $500 (note sarcasm).

The report is FACT not opinion. And the facts are Diamond Nexus Labs has not and cannot prove ANY evidence at all concerning their claims. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. They never have. Their entire FAQ section are nothing more than evidence-less, base-less claims. They are worth nothing.

There return policy may be great, because any person who is tricked into buying one of their overpriced stones pays $150 for a $3 stone. At that price, they better have a good return policy! I hope they are able to make up in service what they lack in value.

The fact is, an extremely credible, reputable, and well established lab has PROVED the DNL simulant to be "common cubic zirconia" and no amount of fictitious testimonials that will eventually pop-up on this thread will change that fact.

DNL has been notorius for creating fake testimonials all over the internet (including some from fake scientists who developed their cz). Watch them roll in over the coming weeks right here in this thread. Bring it on DNL.

I'm just doing a research about DNL. After all the research comparisons a normal everyday person can do, aren't we truly buying the "set"...mounting...the gold? I can go to kmart and buy myself a cz for a few bucks, but it's sterling silver or just polished metal. CZ, DNL or those other "man made diamonds" are all the same in the end. Otherwise real diamonds will loose their value.

Just my personal oppinion...

SO...I want a good quality CZ, because we've proved that's what's available for the sparkle-hungry on the cheap or the polit/eco buyer. Will SOMEONE stop arguing atomics and answer the following: Does it look like a diamond, or nearly enough if you don't take it to a jeweler? Meaning, it doesn't have 'dead spots' in it (Diamonique, Stauer). Does it only have dead spots if the stone is big? Does it only have dead spots if mounted with a 'girdle' of gold? Does it flash all rainbows like a Moissanite as opposed to some rainbows and mostly white light like a real diamond? (I've seen ALL the products I am discussing.) NOT a MOUNTED DNL yet. And now...the price of gold. Does the ring 'feel' weighty or flimsy (Diamonique). Is $550 a reasonable price for a nice weighty ring in 14K gold? If yes, maybe all the B.S. about $5/carat vs. $300/carat can cease, please! Figure in that somebody mounted the aforementioned stone AND gave whatever return policy you felt was sufficient for YOU personally. Service costs $'s too. SO who makes a believable ring/stone combo? ANYONE, anybody got one?

Norma, unfortunately all of the "$5/carat vs. $300/carat" B.S. is important to most people because when they purchase a DNL CZ they are under the impression that they are buying something MORE than just a CZ. What they are buying is a good return policy and a promise to replace the stone when it clouds and loses its brilliance (and yes, ALL CZ will cloud with time and lose its sparkle, CZ is incredibly oxgen deficient and will eventually react with oxygen and cloud). But even this will cost them money as they have to pay for shipping both ways and setting fees.

The fact of the matter is, IF DNL was more upfront and honest about what they were selling, I would guess that very few would be willing to pay the outrageous prices. So DNL continues with the deceptive marketing practices.

As far as having "dead spots", YES, DNL stones do display windowing as all CZs do (and YES, I have seen DNL stones in person). It displays windowing when mounted and also when loose (Although the windowing is less than might be seen in poorer cut CZ stones).

Referring back to my previous comment: "DNL has been notorious for creating fake testimonials all over the internet". You seem quite upset, angry and defensive for somebody who is not affiliated with DNL. Sorry if you find this information offensive since it is negative for your company's stones. But its the truth. And sometimes the truth hurts. But maybe if you would simply be a little more upfront with what your company sells, these forums wouldn't be necessary.

Since I made the claim that Dnl is not being honest, here are some of the statements I am referring. Since we have already established that it IS in fact a CZ as verified by an independent lab (Anderson Materials), here are some of the many mistruths:

Search on Google for "Created Diamonds" and you get this ad:

DiamondNexusLabs.com - Perfect Man-Made Diamonds: Flawless Synthetic Diamonds Set In Solid 14k Gold. Get More, Pay Less!

CZ is a simulant diamond, not a synthetic. To state synthetic is to imply they have the same composition. This is blatant misleading advertising.

On their DNL vs diamond comparison chart, here are the mistruths:

1. Hardness: 9.1, FALSE, CZ is only 8.5 (which in actual hardness states that the stone is more than 2.5 times harder than it actually is)

2. Fire/Dispersion: 0.046, FALSE, CZ is much higher at 0.058–0.066 (but isn't more fire better? you may ask. Why would they state its lower? To make their CZ appear more inline with a diamond's dispersion.)

3. Refractive index, 7.4, FALSE, but I have no idea what this figure relates to and have to only guess they made it up. The refractive index (brilliance) of CZ is 2.15 compared to the 2.42 for diamonds. Therefore more "rainbows" and less white light than diamonds.

4. Toughness: Excellent, diamonds: Very good to excellent, FALSE! So according to DNL their CZ is at times more tough than diamonds, and at least equal in toughness. Toughness is the stone's ability to resist chipping. Measured in million PSI, the toughness of cz is 2.4 and diamond is 14.6. But 2.4 and 14.6 are equal? Only in the DNL's world of make-believe science.

5. Porosity: 0.097, again, I have no idea what this relates to. I can only assume its another made up number since they give no unit of measurement. CZ is known to be much, much more porous than diamonds which is one of the reasons it discolors with time (hand oils and other liquids seep into the stone with time)


More mistruths are concerning the chemical composition (as stated earlier in this thread and proved false by Anderson Materials).

They attempt to smear the independent report by stating:

"Diamond Nexus Labs has learned there is some speculation about the atomic components or structure of its gem material, coming primarily from those claiming to be jewelers or gemologists, often misinforming others. Upon investigation, it did not surprise DNL to learn that not only were these so called "experts" not qualified as material engineers or scientists, but that they have not subjected a single DNL gemstone to the rigors of X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry to actually make any bona fide statements with respect to the elemental composition of DNL's gem material, and most have never even seen a DNL gemstone."

This statement is simply a load of crap. Look earlier in this thread to read Dr. Andersons credentials. His report virtually proves that DNL knows very little concerning the very CZ that they claim to create (which in reality they buy wholesale from Signity).

DNL made the following claim years ago:

"Diamond Nexus Labs has engaged three independent laboratories to confirm what chemical elements are present in our diamond simulants."

Yet despite repeated requests over the years, they refuse to release the names of these "independent labs". I wonder if they are the same "labs" that such scam infomercials claim to use to prove their weight loss drug works? lol What is the point of having an independent lab prove anything if you won't release the name of such labs?

In summary: Lies and deceptions.

I'm giving more details about what I seek because there may be someone out there who was successful finding a product which meets MY needs. (I'd rather not deal with Asia unless it's worth it.) I regret my request was so misunderstood. Do I want something which doesn't exist yet? I want a nice 6-prong Tiffany solitaire ring and don't wish to pay diamond prices. Chris, I appreciate the info that all CZ's cloud and have see-thru spots at some angles. Do you have an estimate of how long the clouding takes? The smaller stones seem to be less see-thru, agreed? The ring is for my enjoyment, but, yes, some people will see it and I want it to look good. I won't enjoy it and my fiance would be ashamed if it looked fake. I have a channel-set diamond band which I love; it's perfect for me; I'm very active. During the engagement period (temporary) I'd like a solitaire - I won't wear it forever. I'll inherit my Mom's ring someday if I want to wear more than my band. I tried a silver ring from Stauer, the mounting showed thru the stone and made a dead 'O'. The Diamonique ring was flimsy. I ordered a too-big unmounted DNL stone, with no mount I couldn't tell enough. I'd like to avoid return postage to every possibility with recommendations from satisfied customers. Isn't this what the web is for?