can cubic zirconia scratch glass?
106973
No.  Cubic zirconias are basically glass, and glass can not scratch glass.
1150921
Just break a piece off and rub it on your cut/scratch dailey..
22236
We have used the Chromium technique when making slides but for our purposes we found this doesn't work as the Chromium diffuses into gold over several days. You can use a technique such as allowing the clean glass slide to soak in PDMS and a solvent for several hours, rinsing, dry (preferably clean air line), and then place into a vacuum/heat chamber and allow the gold to coat the surface of the slide.  Done!  Check out some scholarly articles...more detailed explanations are available in experimental sections of research journals.
778339
In regard to prior posts, glass will scratch glass, as will a number of other semi-precious stones. Your best bet is to take the stone to a jeweler. There he can examine it with a loupe, and a device that examines density of the stone.
792378
Cubic zirconia is so optically close to diamond that only a trained eye can easily differentiate the two. There are a few key features of CZ which distinguish it from diamond, some observable only under the microscope or loupe. For example:\n\nDispersion. With a dispersive power greater than diamond (0.060 vs. 0.044) the more prismatic fire of CZ can be seen by even an untrained eye. \nHardness. CZ has an 8.5 to 9.0 on the Mohs' hardness scale vs. a rating of 10 for diamonds. \nSpecific gravity. CZs are heavyweights in comparison to diamonds; a CZ will weigh about 1.7 times more than a diamond of equivalent size. Obviously, this difference is only useful when examining loose stones. \nFlaws. Contemporary production of cubic zirconia is virtually flawless, whereas most diamonds have some sort of defect, be it a feather, included crystal, or perhaps a remnant of an original crystal face (e.g. trigons). \nRefractive index. CZ has a refractive index of 2.176, compared to a diamond's 2.417. \nCut. Under close inspection with a loupe, the facet shapes of some CZs appear different from diamonds. \nIn theory, many gems (such as CZs and diamonds) look best when the star facet, crown main facets, and upper girdle facets do not quite meet. (Per Step 11 of editor's note 36 to Marcel Tolkowsky's Diamond Design.) Diamond has such a high refractive index that having these facets meet at a single point does not cause much loss of fire or reflection. Diamonds normally have these facets meet at a point, because that is more symmetrical and reflects well on the cutter's precision. On the other hand, CZ has a considerably lower refractive index than diamond. CZs are often cut with 6-sided crown main facets, so that the star facets do not touch the upper girdle facets. This optimizes the brilliance and fire of the CZs. \nThe optimum angle of the main crown facets is steeper for diamond than for CZ. (According to Tolkowsky's model of the crown, for a given pavilion angle and girdle thickness). CZs are often cut so that the crown main facets do not touch the girdle. This allows the CZs to have a shallower crown angle, while still having the same crown height as a diamond with a similar cut. \nColor. More precisely, the lack of color: Only the rarest of diamonds are truly colorless, most having a tinge of yellow or brown to some extent. By comparison, CZ can be made in most cases entirely colorless: equivalent to a perfect "D" on diamond's color grading scale. \nThermal conductivity. CZs are thermal insulators whilst diamonds are among the most efficient thermal conductors, exceeding copper. This makes telling the difference between diamond and CZ quite easy for those with the right tools.
106463
You mean 'Swarovski' and technically (if it's clear), it's just cut glass and would have said conductance properties. If it's colored, they probably used some additive, maybe lead, so it might be moreso.
53419
Answer 1:\n"Glasses" are amorphous solids, that is, they don't have a regular shape.\nEssentially the opposite of crystalline solids which have a defined shape.\nWhen you break a crystalline solid, it will give flat, well defined faces.\nCrystals melt or decompose at definite temps and the change from s to l\nis usually abrupt.  Glass (say window glass) will shatter into irregular\nfaces and curves.  There are many different kinds of glass and none really\nhave a melting point.  All pretty much have silicon dioxide as a principle\ningredient then something else added:  Here are some numbers...keep in mind\nthese are all SOFTENING  points and NOT melting points:\nsilica glass: 1580 Celsius   soda-lime glass: 695 C\nborosilicate glass: 820 C    aluminosilicate glass: 915 C\nleaded glass: 630 C\nWhat I'm trying to say is:  glass isn't a liquid.  It's a solid with so\nmany 'defects' that the order inherent in a crystal is absent.  When I\nsay defects, I'm talking at the molecular level, not physical scratches,\nand so on. You may want to recheck that 100 K number you presented.\nThat's 173 degrees Celsius below zero (-280 F)!\nAm I going to get some arguments about my stance?  I'll find out more\nfrom our resident glassblower here at the university.\n-Joe Schultz\n\nAnswer 2:\nI very much agree with J. Schultz's response...  Here are a couple\nof other observations:\nGlass is formed by melting silicon dioxide (SiO2) which has a\nmelting point of 1710 deg. C..  In its crystalline form, SiO2\nhas a very ordered structure with each Si atom bonded to 4 O atoms\nand each O atom attached to two Si atoms.  If the SiO2 is quickly\ncooled after being melted, the SiO2 "molecules" do not have a chance\nto get completely lined up in their solid crystalline form and thus\nan amorphous solid (glass) is formed.\nOften we like to categorize substances as gas, solid, or liquid..\nobviously, glass is somewhere between a solid and a liquid --\nsome scientists refer to it as a pseudo-solid\n-Dr. Brown
352065
some is reflected by the glass, and some passes straight through.  A tiny part will go towards heating up the glass itself, as it is absorbed during its transition throught the glass.
1096251
One easy quick & easy way to find out is the streak test. Rub the mineral in question across an unglazed porcelain tile. If the streak it makes is black then it is pyrite (fool's gold). If it is golden yellow then you have gold. You can find these tiles in your local home & garden shop or hardware store.\n\nAnother simple one is the hardness test. Gold has a hardness of 2.5 to 3 on Moh's Scale. Pyrite is 6 to 6.5. Glass has a hardness of about 5.5. According to Moh's scale you should be able to scratch glass w/ pyrite but not w/ gold. Pennies can also be used as their hardness is about 3.5.\n\nGold is found in several different forms or habits. It can be dendritic (vein-like) or massive as in nuggets. Upon examining pyrite more closely (perhaps w/ a 10x magnifier) you will see that while it resembles a gold nugget it is actually made up of many tiny little cubes.\n\nGold will not cleave whereas pyrite will. Cleavage is simply how a mineral breaks evenly due to weaknesses in its crystal structure. Pyrite has cubic cleavage so that when it is hammered it will come apart in perfect little cubes.
481234
No. Porcelain is ceramic glass, it is what it is.  The only way to change them is to have them redone.
84127
No....glass is considered an amorphic substance. In other words, its structure looks the same in all directions from within the material.
593222
Glass I think it needs to be crown glass instead of flint glass
32045
According to the Mohs scale, diamond is the hardest mineral.  I believe that a harder mineral can scratch a softer mineral as well as itself.  So that would work.
803794
Glass can be under tension internally, and remain whole for years, and a slight scratch in the right place can cause explosive crack propogation. As soon as the energy available in propagating (continuing) the crack is more than it takes to form the edges of the crack(s)\nan explosion can take place.
206203
I think it's these metals chrome, cobalt, titanium, or ceramic materials can be used.  I think they have recalled ceramic because they were cracking though.
278543
that depends on which ceramic you're talking about.  There are hundreds of different ceramics which will interact with steel in different ways.\n\nAlso, the coefficients of static and kinetic friction are different
780172
Teacher is wrong. This is a popular misconception, but the usually cited "proof", that old windows are thicker at the bottom, only proves that old glass was irregular in thickness. A smart glazier would install a pane thick edge down for better strength.\n\nEvidence to the contrary includes the fact that large telescope mirrors and lenses, which must be figured  to within less than 100 nanometers (4 micro-inches), maintain this figure indefinitely. Telescopes over 100 years old are still in use. Also, glass artifacts over 3000 years old still hold their shape.\n\nThis misconception arises because glass, being an amorphous, as opposed to crystalline solid, has no clearly defined melting point. However, at temperatures below the glass transition temperature, glass is most definitely solid. Actually, metals exhibit more "liquid" behavior than glass does, because they will creep under load, something glass does not do.