Slashdot Mirror
A Step Toward the Diamond Age
An anonymous reader writes "Carnegie Institution researchers have learned to produce 10-carat, half-inch thick diamonds at rates of about 100 micrometers per hour, which in the diamond biz is blazingly fast. And these aren't cruddy, yellow diamonds either, but gem-quality stones. The goal: A 300 carat beast in whatever shape they want."
Pictures and the press release.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
High quality rubies are still more expensive than high quality colorless diamonds, though there might have been a period when that wasn't true.
Pink and blue natural diamonds are a different story.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
It's artificial rarity, so it may be poetic justice that "artificial" (not a completely accurate term, since they are indeed "real" diamonds) diamonds are what ultimately bring down the price on the stones.
I believe they want to use it instead of silicon as opposed to copper because of it's semiconductor capabilities.
Indeed. Whilst a yellowish tint may devalue a white diamond, at the extreme end of the yellow colours (fancy yellow) it increases the value. The Wikipedia article covers this.
This is true, the value of a diamond is way too inflated. However, it's only one way inflation. Try to re-sell that diamond you just bought, and you'll know what I mean. The DeBeers family worked it right though!
/.ers aren't very interested in diamonds, but there are a number of modern techniques, some of which even have patents on them. The particular cuts make use of the refraction index in order to create very bright points on the polished surface, which creates the glittery effect. Check out old victorian era antique diamond jewelry. They look dull, and it's no polishing will bring them up to par with modern diamonds. That's also why the artificial 1/2" diamond in the picture doesn't look that shiny, even though it's semi-polished. Actually, the inscriptions on the said diamond make a great demonstration for the laser, but totally fsck up the brilliance of the diamond itself...
That said, one of the reasons diamonds have a higher value now than they used to is partially due to new cutting techniques. I'm pretty sure most
I'm sorta interested to see what levels of impurities these artificials have. In the natural world, the larger the diamond is, the more likely there's a significant impurity in it. Impurities drive down the price of diamonds significantly. Also, being not-so-yellow isn't good enough, there are multiple levels of clearness when grading diamonds, so I'm also interested to see exactly HOW clear these diamonds are. Now, if they can create a 300 carat diamond with color D and clarity SI2 to IF, whoa, run for your money DeBeers!
It does happen.
I know a journalist who did a lot of research into DeBeers and wrote a number of articles and a book about them was attacked and systematically beaten up, which necessitated a stay in hospital for several months.
Other companies doing research into artificial diamonds have claimed that they believe that their senior employees could be targets for assasination.
Think about how much the diamond industry is worth, and the lengths that some people might be prepared to go to in order to protect it.
The yellow diamonds that are being referred to in this context are not the fancy and sought-after "canary" variety; they're diamonds with certain impurities in the carbon that give them a yellowish or brownish tint, instead of the clear "white" that is deemed so valuable.
Here's a page with a photo about halfway down that will give you an idea. Another page from the same site shows the various grades of colorless-ness.
A true fancy diamond of any color doesn't fall under these grading systems, obviously. The difference in intensity between the muted yellow-brown of a 'Z' color and a true canary-yellow is like the difference between a glowstick and a krypton-bulb flashlight. See here for some examples of blue, canary, pink, and peach diamonds. (No greens, though; and they're my favorite.)
And for the record: Yes, I Am A Jeweler.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
The proper term in the industry for man made gems is synthetic, if they are the same composition as the natural gem.
If they just look like the natural gem the proper term is simulated, that is they are simulants. These are sometimes call artificial, as well.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
I rarely pick up a copy of Wired magazine nowadays but the Diamond cover was just too enticing. Lots more detail for the geeks in this article including a few choice ones I picked out in response to the parent.
Read the Article Here
In response to your comments:
(1) The artificial diamonds from some techniques were too perfect compared to regular diamonds and could be identified.
(2) DeBeers did launch a campaign called the "Gem Defensive Programme." From the Wired article:
But the sudden appearance of multicarat, gem-quality synthetics has sent De Beers scrambling. Several years ago, it set up what it calls the Gem Defensive Programme - a none too subtle campaign to warn jewelers and the public about the arrival of manufactured diamonds. At no charge, the company is supplying gem labs with sophisticated machines designed to help distinguish man-made from mined stones.
(3) Diamonds grown with another technique called Chemical Vapor Disposition are indistinguishable from naturally formed diamonds. From the wired article:
To grow single-crystal diamond using chemical vapor deposition, you must first divine the exact combination of temperature, gas composition, and pressure - a "sweet spot" that results in the formation of a single crystal. Otherwise, innumerable small diamond crystals will rain down. Hitting on the single-crystal sweet spot is like locating a single grain of sand on the beach. There's only one combination among millions. In 1996, Linares found it. This June, he finally received a US patent for the process, which already is producing flawless stones.
This was a very interesting article and has made me afraid of buying diamonds. It's like buying a car and having it depreciate faster than the stock market crash.
Sunny
Be my Friend
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/courses/306/af rica_diamond_wars1.htm
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
as a point of reference, contracts cost about 15k, 25 for high quality or specials, 40+ for "accidents"; obvious premiums for added risks, security or high profile jobs. i wonder if /. tracks ip for ac posts?
although I agree with your statement on the colour aspect I don't think SI2 is a 'good' level of inclusions
for those of you not up on your diamond clarity scale it goes:
** Best at Top **
IF (Internally flawless)
VVSI1-VSI2 (Very Very Small Inclusions)
VSI1-VSI2 (Very Small Inclusions)
SI1-SI2 (Small Inclusions)
I1-I3 (inclusions)
so as can be seen a grade fo SI2 is pretty bad, I would say DeBeers need a good colour plus a good clarity, nothing less than VS1 IMHO. And just for completeness the colour scale goes from D (the best - clear or blue) to Z (yellow), so again they would not want anything less than G or H I would think, seeing as how hard it is to get a pure D diamond.
plus I don't think man made diamonds are ever going to eclipse natural ones for jewelry, there is just no cache (can't be bothered to find the accented e at the end of that word) attached to them.
'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'
Here is a wired article, with some comments from the owner of the tactics of the diamond cartel: Wired Link
Generally speaking, lab-grown crystals of any material used as a gemstone -- most notably the corundum group (sapphires and rubies) -- will have fewer imperfections than mined stones. Both the growth process and the "ingredients" are controlled. There are some trade-offs, though: most lab rubies tend to look pinkish and glassy in comparison to mined rubies, because the growth process is so fast. Lab-grown emeralds usually have too much of a blue tint, and that gives them away. When the only use is in jewelry, appearance is the overriding consideration.
However, that's not the case here. Most lab-created corundum, for instance, isn't used in the jewelry trade. Since it was first "grown" in the late 1800s, various industrial and commercial applications have accounted for most of the production. One example is the "glass" plate over the laser in the grocery barcode scanner: actually made from colorless "sapphire" because it is both harder and tougher than glass. The same goes for lab-created diamonds, which can be used in all kinds of ways. A quick Google search on technological applications turns up a whole mess of hits, and you can see for yourself what one of the manufacturers has to say about potential uses.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
The process deposits carbon on a surface, so the thickness grows at 100 micrometres per hours. The area of the surface is presumably limited by some other factors, but it clearly allows for a diameter of at least half an inch.
Oh, and a carat is 0.2 grams. It's okay, you were only out by three orders of magnitude... I work out a half-inch sphere at about 15 carats if your density figure is right. (Checks.) Or about 18 carats based on a figure of 3.5, which is what Google coughed up.
Another good stab at de Beers and the diamond scam: Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?
Some of you already know what carbon sequestration is. For the rest, there's Google.
Unlike some other forms of carbon sequestration, where you have the possibility of catastrophic release of the sequestered carbon, diamonds would be essentially permanent.
Yeah, not too practical, even with this advance. But who knows how far it will go? Maybe we could stop global warming and fix the potholes in the roads for good.
All funny/paranoia jokes aside, people that get in the way of DeBeers have a way of sudden financial ruin or disappearing. They actively and dilligently seek out and buy or destroy technologies to artificially create gem quality diamonds. Researchers in this field have every reason to be concerned about their security. Scary stuff. Wired did a great article on this very thing a few years ago.
More on this - Epstein wrote what's now considered to be the "classic" expose of the whole De Beers / diamonds racket for The Atlantic Monthly back in 1982.
n d1.htm
It's in 3 parts - here's a link - http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82feb/8202diamo
NOTE ----- You'll either need to subscribe or chamge your useragent to Google (or whatever).
I thought yellow diamonds (depending on their exact colour) could be worth much more than normal ones. At least, that's what the Antiques Roadshow said on Sunday...
It depends. Yellow tinted diamonds tend to be worth less than the whiter diamonds, but if the coloration is fairly strong then it is considetred a "fancy" diamond and can be worth more money, especially if it is of significant size. Diamonds also can be found in pink, green, blue, yellow, orange-ish, and even a "champagne" sort of variety. There are probably even more shades than that, but those are just the ones that I have seen.
They call them "Cultured Diamonds". Available in pink, yellow and blue. There was a story about these guys not that long ago.
But if you want a truly "perfect" gemstone, CVD is the way to go. The article linked above talks about a company called "Apollo Diamond":
=Smidge=
Interesting link on Teflon, which probably has some truth to it, but I wouldn't advise most people to throw out their teflon pans, yet. The thrust of the article seemed to be that Teflon breaks down at elevated temperatures, giving off some nasty stuff when this happens. So, just don't use the pan for very high heat applications (and don't leave an empty pan too long on a hot burner) and you'll be fine. The labelling on every teflon pan I've ever bought tells you not to use the pan with high heat (although they don't warn you about why). I would agree that teflon coated drip pans are a bad idea.
As far as reacting with acidic or watery foods, I find that hard to believe. Where I work, if you want something that's not going to react with the acids (HF, sulfuric, phosphoric, etc.), you use Teflon. It's pretty much the gold standard for not reacting. However, what could happen in a Teflon coated pan is that if the pan is scratch, then the aluminum that is exposed will react with the acid.
I think this is who he's talking about. Specifically, this excerpt talks a little about the assault on her. It's just a sample from the book. I haven't read the book yet. Of course I could be wrong and he's talking about someone else altogether. In the end though, I find it hard to believe that a cartel that engages in the kinds of labor practices that the diamond cartel does would have any qualms about assault, battery or even assassination. We see it all the time in the drug industry and other organized crime. The diamond cartel isn't really any better.
Most home kitchens don't have ranges that cook at high enough heat to cause teflon break down. Commercial kitchens use uncoated pans and plenty of oil (not butter, it would be in flames!) to keep the food from sticking. At high temps, the oil heats up enough to cook the food, acting almost like a deep fryer.
FWIW, getting a _real_ commercial range for your house is hard. Typically, you need to bolster the floors to handle the weight, install a tile backing to protect the wall behind and a high CFM hood to keep the ceiling from burning. Since commercial ranges are not insulated, you needs lots of clearance on the sides too, otherwise your cabinets would warp due to the heat. In most cases, you'd also be voiding your homeowners policy. And I almost forgot, most homes don't have a gas line big enough to supply a high-performance range.
How do I know all of this? I re-did my kitchen and wanted to get a commercial range. After I found that the cost of installing the range was 4x the cost of the unit, I went with the standard equipment.
The link to the original article, Diamond Age, is available via the Diamond Age.
We praise our new Google overlords!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Metals consist of electrostatically bonded atoms which can slip without breaking covalent bonds, so that they can never be as hard as covalent bonded compounds. Hard cutting tools consist of a covalent substance such as WC embedded in a metal matrix. Diamond cutting tools work the same way.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I saw a green one, once, at the Smithsonian. Harry Winston had sponsored a show with fabulous examples of a diamond of several colors, including red, yellow, orange, and green, to go with the famous blue Hope Diamond. (They also built a new case to for the Hope, which shows it off far better than the old one, which looked like a vault with the door open, the diamond stuffed in the back.)
The green one was truly remarkable. The exhibit notes claimed that it's not due to chemicals mixed in but due to variations in the structure caused by radioactivity, and that most green diamonds (unlike this one) were artificially irradiated.
If so, I see no reason why they couldn't make artificially-green cultured diamonds.
So you don't use blood oil products or Chinese blood cheap imports or asian blood textiles and you don't live on blood land obtained by conquest? Then there's the electrical linemen who died to give us blood electricity , and construction workers who died to give us blood high rises and skyscrapers ....
>Honestly, yellow doesn't go with anybody's skin tone. Well, very few.
I know several people who have pronounced red undertones to their skin, and look incredible in many shades of yellow, especially saffron. I wish I could pull it off!
>Now if they can learn to make synthetic greens...
Well, I looked around, and Gemesis seems to be selling (as in "I can buy them right now") blues and pinks. I wouldn't be surprised if greens were not that long behind.
Me, I'd go for a nice blue... that certainly goes with my skin tone.
Lea
It doesn't. What is worse, the "blood" diamonds may not just exploit the people who mine them. They may be also used to finance some really horrible things: My wife, who grew up Sierra Leon during the '80s, will not wear diamonds because the civil war there was financed by diamonds. Many of her friends were either beaten and raped (female) or hacked to bits (male) by machette wielding rebels financed by money that came from illegal diamond trade. It puts a whole different light on DeBeers commercials.
Read their Industry scheme for regulation. Note the phrase "Not to buy any diamonds from suspect or unknown sources of supply". That's all about market control.
Before the "Kimberly Process", diamonds were generally bought and sold, even in DeBeers showings, with no indication of origin. So introducing synthetic diamonds into the market was easier. With the "Kimberly Process" in place, it's much tougher.
The diamond industry has been lobbying countries to require that synthetic diamonds be labelled in some way. The term "cultured diamonds" is widely used, but there's litigation in Germany to require some more negative term, like "synthetic".
DeBeers has also developed identification devices, the DiamondSure and the DiamondView to try to sort out synthetic and natural diamonds. The diamonds produced in high-pressure presses can be identified without much trouble. But grown diamonds are tougher to identify.
Long term, diamond prices will probably crash, like sapphire did once you could buy sapphire bar, tube, and rod.