[HN Gopher] Forget billions of years: Researchers have grown dia...
___________________________________________________________________
Forget billions of years: Researchers have grown diamonds in just
150 minutes
Author : dargscisyhp
Score : 39 points
Date : 2024-04-26 18:44 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (charmingscience.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (charmingscience.com)
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Recently determined diamonds normally form in geysers when magma
| spurts up through layers of rock. Takes minutes, not billions of
| years. Anyway, cool article.
| squigz wrote:
| That's neat. Source?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Well, slightly harder to replicate under laboratory conditions.
|
| Sort of like if there was an article saying we'd figure out how
| to harness fusion for power and someone responded with "big
| deal, have you seen the sun?".
| Simulacra wrote:
| I remember when lab grown diamonds really took off, and deBeers
| and others started calling their diamonds "natural"
| whatindaheck wrote:
| Buy our "Rare" Organic Non-GMO Rock!
| dylan604 wrote:
| you can ++ that by adding gluten free
| littlestymaar wrote:
| _Gluten? In my diamonds? It 's more likely than you think_
| littlestymaar wrote:
| "artificial diamonds are radioactive" (because of Carbon 14)
| dylan604 wrote:
| This company should hire Lily James to make a counter
| commercial to the "only natural" campaign.
| Double_a_92 wrote:
| But will it really be the same if you didn't have some little
| kid dig them out of mines? /s
| Aunche wrote:
| Jewelers have already done this successfully with a lot of
| gemstones. Artificial rubies, sapphires,and emeralds are dirt
| cheap, but natural ones are 100-1000x the price.
| gene-h wrote:
| What's more important is that they demonstrated making diamond at
| 1 atm and lower temperatures(1025 C). This is compared to ~50,000
| atm and ~1500 degC diamond is conventionally made at. The
| diamonds they made were very small, but this is a new process and
| optimization might enable it to make bigger diamonds.
| asah wrote:
| obvious reference! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
| kloch wrote:
| I just had an idea that may be my worst technology idea ever.
|
| Assemble some unstable atoms (that decay into carbon) into the
| desired cubic structure. When they decay you have a diamond.
|
| The problem with this is that if it can decay fast enough (even
| with outside neutrons) it will be too hot (pun intended), and if
| it decays slowly enough it will take too long. Depending on the
| source isotopes and process it could also result in a radioactive
| diamond! Also, the heat of the process would have to not change
| the crystal structure.
|
| However, some day when we master quarks and the weak interaction
| we might be able to do this quickly and safely.
| Ellipsis753 wrote:
| Why would this be easier than just making a diamond?
| dylan604 wrote:
| what part of "I just had an idea that may be my worst
| technology idea ever." did not make sense to you?
| fch42 wrote:
| Hmm; so the only thing that can "easily" decay into the stable
| forms of carbon - C12 and C13 that is - is N13 (b+ to C13 with
| "minutes" half-life). Nothing decays into C12, since N12 or O12
| would have half-lifes so short as to make them "doubtful"
| isotopes.
|
| But Nitrogen wouldn't crystallise in a diamond lattice;
| nevermind the crystal absorbing "heat" from the radioactive
| decay disturbing positions temporarily, there's just no way to
| arrange Nitrogen and Carbon atoms into similar locations of a
| crystal lattice. This sort of "transmutation" isn't even
| science fiction, it's only a dream
|
| (follow your dreams but think a few times before trying to make
| money off them)
| ars wrote:
| Leaving aside the decay part of things, carbon makes a crystal
| structure of a diamond, other materials don't. So they would
| refuse to assemble into the right shape.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| It's pretty impressive what you can buy on eBay with the words
| "CVD Diamond" in the title. As best as I can tell, they're
| chemically identical. (Modulo honesty on eBay, of course.)
| Buttons840 wrote:
| 6 CT diamond for $600, not bad.
| jl6 wrote:
| So what kind of cool/useful things could we make out of diamond
| if diamond were suddenly very cheap?
| vonzepp wrote:
| Diamond with nitrogen valance centers are used as fluorescent
| markers. If a current passes close they change their emission
| spectrum. Some workon this as a method to measure neurons
| firing. So maybe that use case expands. Also quantum
| applications with diamond.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| A phone screen or camera lens that's harder to scratch?
|
| Diamond bearings?
|
| IDK if the technique can create such a large crystal though.
| Iulioh wrote:
| We don't actually want a phone screens that's harder to
| scratch. Mostly because it means that it will break more.
| tithe wrote:
| Anything with an edge: knives, drill bits, saws,
| scissors...maybe the last razor blade you'll ever buy!
| krisoft wrote:
| If you make them cheap enough we can make windowpanes out of
| diamond.
|
| This is the titular conceit of Neal Stephenson's novel the
| Diamond Age. In that fictional futuristic word almost anything
| can be manufactured in nanotechnological "material compilers".
| And according to the novel if you can do that, at scale it is
| cheaper, and easier to build transparent panes for windows out
| of diamond than glass because the chemical structure is
| simpler.
| jameshart wrote:
| Diamond Age also posited 'aerostats' - macroscopic diamond
| structures that are structurally solid, but contain nothing
| but vacuum, enabling them to be used to generate buoyancy in
| air. Not sure how realistic the material physics of those is.
| Aunche wrote:
| Diamonds thermodynamically want to turn into graphite under
| normal conditions, so I'm guessing that they inherently
| require more energy to create than glass. Sapphire is more
| shatter resistant than diamond anyways, so it would be more
| appropriate to use for something like a window.
| FrameworkFred wrote:
| I've always wanted that diamond sword from Bard's Tale.
| luma wrote:
| Crazy efficient heat sinks, diamond's thermal conductivity is
| off the charts.
| bsder wrote:
| I thought the real issue is that diamonds _aren 't uncommon_
| (despite DeBeers) so weird manufacturing simply isn't profitable.
| DennisP wrote:
| Lab-made diamonds are common in jewelry these days, and
| generally cheaper than mined diamonds. I bought some from Belk
| recently.
| logtempo wrote:
| they are also better for industrial purpose if I remember
| correctly. And better from n ethical pov.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-26 23:01 UTC)