Author
Abstract
Synthetic diamonds have begun to be used as an alternative to natural diamonds, both in jewelery and in industrial applications. Given the many remarkable properties of synthetic diamonds, it is not surprising that it is not only the jewelery material, but also has extensive industrial applications in thermal management, cutting tools, wear-resistant coatings, optical components and possibly semiconductor electronic devices. The resulting demand has supported active research and development programs on synthetic diamond growth worldwide. In this study, it is aimed to evaluate the difference between natural and synthetic diamonds in laboratory conditions. One of the diamonds used in the research is natural and the other two are synthetic diamonds produced in the laboratory. In this context, three stones were examined in the laboratory. The information obtained by the FTIR device of the stones whose gemological analysis was completed was also photographed. According to the findings, when the infrared spectrum images were examined, it was seen that natural diamond gave high peaks at 171.99 nm, 415.13 nm and 440.5 nm. The peak values in HPHT diamonds are 174.9 nm, 428.5 nm, 560.7 nm and 883.37 nm. In CVD diamonds, these values were determined as 171.41 nm, 428.4 nm and 739.3 nm. The reason for the difference is the arrangement of the atoms, the density, the diamond lattice structure and the absorption variability depending on the growth structures. As a result of the research, it is not possible to distinguish natural and synthetic diamonds from each other in a simple way without examining them in the laboratory. The difference between natural and synthetic diamonds with the same physical and chemical properties should be determined using advanced spectroscopic devices by applying appropriate techniques and methods.
Suggested Citation
Deniz Tanju YILMAZ & Süheyla KANBUR, 2022.
"Evaluation Of The Difference Between Natural And Synthetic Diamonds In Laboratory Conditions,"
Eurasian Eononometrics, Statistics and Emprical Economics Journal, Eurasian Academy Of Sciences, vol. 21(21), pages 51-68, February.
Handle:
RePEc:eas:econst:v:21:y:2022:i:21:p:51-68
DOI: 10.17740/eas.stat.2022-V21-04
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eas:econst:v:21:y:2022:i:21:p:51-68. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kutluk Kagan Sumer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.eurasianacademy.org/index.php/econstat .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.