Slashdot Mirror


Easy-to-Make Material Scratches Diamond

holy_calamity writes "A material tough enough to scratch diamond that can be made without resorting to massive pressure has been developed at UCLA. A regular furnace and a zap of current is enough to meld boron with the metal rhenium." Sound familiar? This is the other new material tougher than diamond, but no word yet on how they rate against each other.

213 comments

  1. Adamantium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's about time!

    Now how is the skeletal bonding programing doing?

  2. Stiffer, not harder by caramelcarrot · · Score: 5, Informative

    The old material was stiffer, not harder, than diamond. It could still be scratched by diamond.

    1. Re:Stiffer, not harder by ElGringo · · Score: 2, Funny

      cue "Nobody doesn't like molten Boron" jingle

    2. Re:Stiffer, not harder by Megane · · Score: 1, Funny

      So that's what happened to the boron in the elephant dung.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Stiffer, not harder by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, that's pretty obscure as a reference.

      The Gods Must Be Crazy--right?

      Good flick, but hardly mainstream.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    4. Re:Stiffer, not harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Bob Dole could get a new spokesman gig.

    5. Re:Stiffer, not harder by tieTYT · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A material tough enough to scratch diamond

      As a measurement, I don't get this. If water slaps against a rock over and over again, it can modify its shape too. Does that mean water is "tougher"?

    6. Re:Stiffer, not harder by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      Not that I'm an expert, but it seems to me that the physics of solids are slightly different that the physics of fluids.

      Two solid objects come into forceful contact. One gives way and loses its shape, the other does not. The one that does not, is the harder material of the two.

      Fluids do not factor in this because by definition they do not have a shape in the first place.

    7. Re:Stiffer, not harder by ChatHuant · · Score: 1
      As a measurement, I don't get this. If water slaps against a rock over and over again, it can modify its shape too. Does that mean water is "tougher"?

      It's a standard way for measuring mineral's hardness, used extensively in geology for identifying and classifying minerals. More here

    8. Re:Stiffer, not harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he said stiffer.

  3. rhenium diboride? by Spazntwich · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's a funny way to spell dolemite.

    1. Re:rhenium diboride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...cuz dolemite is the hardest thing in history YO!

    2. Re:rhenium diboride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. I was really confused for a second, because dolomite isn't an especially hard mineral.

    3. Re:rhenium diboride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's that righteous black mineral that don't cop out when there's heat all about.

    4. Re:rhenium diboride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a funny way to spell dolomite.

    5. Re:rhenium diboride? by SurturZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it can scratch diamond, then it must be chucknorrisite.

  4. Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rhenium is very expensive. Pure boron isn't cheap either. This stuff could end up costing as much as diamond.

    1. Re:Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checking current prices on eBay, the cheapest I've seen rhenium is about $8 per gram a few minutes ago. Not too expensive in my book.

    2. Re:Price by mangu · · Score: 1
      rhenium is about $8 per gram a few minutes ago. Not too expensive in my book.


      Considering that gold goes at $22 per gram, what would be the "too expensive" to you? I may have some stuff to sell...

    3. Re:Price by asuffield · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rhenium is very expensive. Pure boron isn't cheap either. This stuff could end up costing as much as diamond.


      Almost anything useful costs more than diamond. Of the materials used in industry today, diamond falls firmly into the "common and cheap" section. Subject anything with carbon in it to the temperatures and pressures common in geology, and you end up with diamond in it somewhere.

      Those prices you see in jewellers? They are on the order of a thousand times larger than the actual value of diamond. Some of that pays for the expertise to cut diamonds into decorative shapes (which isn't easy), most of it is just an insanely huge markup.

      We don't have a need for cheaper alternatives to diamond - it would be like searching for a cheaper alternative to sea water. Most likely the whole diamond angle is just a bogus press spin on the story.
    4. Re:Price by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      comparing diamonds in jewellery to industrial diamonds is like comparing Whitby Jet to coal, or a 17 foot block of Carrara marble to a sack of chalk pebbles.

    5. Re:Price by dkf · · Score: 1

      Those prices you see in jewellers? They are on the order of a thousand times larger than the actual value of diamond. Some of that pays for the expertise to cut diamonds into decorative shapes (which isn't easy), most of it is just an insanely huge markup.
      The other thing you're paying for is the fact that jewellery requires large diamonds, as opposed to the cheap stuff (which is basically like very hard fine sand). This is a very important distinction.
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    6. Re:Price by Tom+Womack · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course it is. But this material is not, as far as I can tell, something that you can grow in beautiful crystals for jewellery use; any applications would be as industrial superabrasive, and the fact it's ten times the price of industrial diamond dust is an issue.

    7. Re:Price by AlKaMo · · Score: 1

      We don't have a need for cheaper alternatives to diamond - it would be like searching for a cheaper alternative to sea water. You're missing the point. The question isn't "can we create something to replace diamond?", it's "can we create something with some of the same properties as diamond, that can be used in situations where diamond cannot?" Diamond, for instance, is not thermodynamically stable, so a hard material that is thermodynamically stable can be used in a range of activities where diamonds are impractical.
  5. Nice. by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 5, Funny
    In the unlikely event that my sworn enemy is wearing a suit of diamond armor, I can now SLOWLY scratch him to death.

    Sweet.

    1. Re:Nice. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's no problem. Given the flexibility of diamond, even SLOWLY scratching him to death beats any kind of movement he could make.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Nice. by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 2, Funny

      It'd obviously have to be diamond mesh, smartass.

    3. Re:Nice. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      (cue Homer Simpson)

      Mmm... diamond mush...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Nice. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny
      It'd obviously have to be diamond mesh, smartass.

      Yeah, and it'd cost at least two months' salary.

    5. Re:Nice. by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 0

      You must be a contractor. Hello, welcome to slashdot.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    6. Re:Nice. by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Then why scratch the diamond at all? Just hit the links, eh?

    7. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then use a blunt weapon and simply shatter his bones. Actually, that would work on diamond plate too since diamond is brittle.

    8. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You did realize his user id is one thirtieth of yours, right? If anything, he should be welcoming you, n00b.

    9. Re:Nice. by bazorg · · Score: 1

      his sworn enemy happens to have a bunch of sidekicks ready to push him off the top of a building.

    10. Re:Nice. by Zatchmort · · Score: 1

      Actually, properly made armor allows you a pretty fair range of motion. This is true whether it's made of diamond or steel (which, realistically, most people can't easily bend with their bare hands.) It would, however, be fairly heavy.

  6. IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Diamond is one of the hardest (if not THE hardest) metals known to man!

    Due to extensive research done by the Fourchon University of Science, diamond has been confirmed as the the hardest metal known the man. The research is as follows.

    Pocket-protected scientists built a wall of iron and crashed a diamond car into it at 400 miles per hour, and the car was unharmed.

    They then built a wall out of diamond and crashed a car made of iron moving at 400 miles an out into the wall, and the wall came out fine.

    They then crashed a diamond car made of 400 miles per hour into a wall, and there were no survivors.

    They crashed 400 miles per hour into a diamond traveling at iron car. Western New York was powerless for hours.

    They rammed a wall of metal into a 400 mile per hour made of diamond, and the resulting explosion shifted the earth's orbit 400 million miles away from the sun, saving the earth from a meteor the size of a small Washington suburb that was hurtling towards midwestern Prussia at 400 billion miles per hour.

    They shot a diamond made of iron at a car moving at 400 walls per hour, and as a result caused two wayward airplanes to lose track of their bearings, and make a fatal crash with two buildings in downtown New York.

    They spun 400 miles at diamond into iron per wall. The results were inconclusive.

    Finally, they placed 400 diamonds per hour in front of a car made of wall traveling at miles, and the result proved without a doubt that diamonds were the hardest metal of all time, if not just the hardest metal known the man.

    1. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by kippers · · Score: 1, Informative

      Diamond ain't metal. It is made of Carbon.

    2. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Violation of rules 1 and 2.

      Anonymous does not forgive.

    3. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by thrashbasket · · Score: 1

      Diamond is one of the hardest (if not THE hardest) metals known the man.

    4. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the god damn most funniest thing I've read in ages. :P

    5. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here, and while I do frequent that site, this is actually a gamefaqs meme.

      You're doing it wrong.

    6. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Diamond is made of man.

    7. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is copypasta from said site (and even worse, it mentions the site of which YOU DO NOT FUCKING SPEAK in it), and thus NO U.

    8. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by jalet · · Score: 1

      > saving the earth from a meteor the size of a small Washington suburb

      How many Library of Congress is this ?

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    9. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      Just one. It's on Independence Ave.

    10. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Haha. Who thought this one up?

    11. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      gb2gaia

    12. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Thank god for fourchon.

    13. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Diamond is made of man. You forgot the link
    14. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some types of carbon nanotubes are metallic, so being made of carbon is not the reason why diamonds aren't metals. Metals aren't an arbitrary subset of the periodic table, they correspond to materials with certain properties and, although elemental composition is a good indicator, the correct way is to test for the metallic properties directly.

    15. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diamond ain't metal. It is made of Carbon.

      And that sound you hear ain't the wind. It is the sound of the joke flying over your head. WHOOSH!

    16. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      %% Hard than diamond are a woman's tears %%

      (strumming my guitar and yodelling)

      -- Blind Lemon Emo, in concert with Yanni

    17. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by ABasketOfPups · · Score: 2, Funny

      I only wish I could afford the drugs you're obviously taking.

    18. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by zerkon · · Score: 1

      How do you violate rule #1? Learn something?

    19. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail it!

      1: that meme is from gamefaqs.com
      2: rule 1&2 are only about the name or the address so we don't get more gaiafags. spreading a meme outside of *mumble* is fine too.
      3: NO U

    20. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    21. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that emotion!

    22. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks for fixing that glaring error. Now the rest of the post makes perfect sense.

    23. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by MooUK · · Score: 1

      I just read that as "small Washington shrub" and wondered what was so special about this particular small bush.

    24. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      It's the President, silly.

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    25. Re:IMPOSSIBLE! by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  7. Wedding ring replacement by failedlogic · · Score: 4, Funny

    In my last marriage, my ex-'s ring didn't last very long. Six-months to be exact - so diamonds aren't forever. If this new substance can ensure the santity of marriage, I'm all for it!

    1. Re:Wedding ring replacement by jb.cancer · · Score: 1

      sorry bro, but you don't talk about your marriage on /. and get away with it. hope somebody can lend some Adamantium :)

    2. Re:Wedding ring replacement by JFMulder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given this line of thought, I understand now why your nick is "failedlogic".

    3. Re:Wedding ring replacement by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much!!! Something that this alterego of mine appreciates. ;) It is my saracsm which feeds the failedlogic moniker.

    4. Re:Wedding ring replacement by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      In my last marriage, my ex-'s ring didn't last very long. Six-months to be exact - so diamonds aren't forever. If this new substance can ensure the santity of marriage, I'm all for it!

      Nah, scratch that!
    5. Re:Wedding ring replacement by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny

      In my last marriage, my ex-'s ring didn't last very long. Six-months to be exact - so diamonds aren't forever. If this new substance can ensure the santity of marriage, I'm all for it!

      Use a bigger test sample. Larger diamonds are more resilient in matrimonial tests, as are a greater quantity of diamonds, though to a lesser extent.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    6. Re:Wedding ring replacement by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Experiments to date have proven that larger diamonds just create more repeated test samples but seem to have absolutely no bearing on endurance.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  8. If this sounds familiar... by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Funny

    A regular furnace and a zap of current is enough to meld boron with the metal rhenium....Sound familiar?

    If this sounds familiar you need to get out more. Seriously.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:If this sounds familiar... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thanks, Nerd Version of Jeff Foxworthy.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    2. Re:If this sounds familiar... by Kazymyr · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've considered it, but at a meeting of my multiple personalities the vote was 7-to-4 against it.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    3. Re:If this sounds familiar... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, I heard this when I wasout.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  9. Obligatory... by WFFS · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I for one welcome our new rhenium diboride overlords!

    But seriously, its good to see a metal that is tougher than diamond. Though it is prohibitively expensive no doubt, I wonder how it would fare as a bullet?

    1. Re:Obligatory... by bigtrike · · Score: 3, Funny

      On soviet slashdot, overlords make joke about you!

    2. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I wonder how it would fare as a bullet?

      Not well as a typical bullet. You want expansion.

    3. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I wonder how it would fare as a bullet?

      That's the first thing that came to mind is it?

      Do you also pick up inanimate objects and wonder how practical they'd be for clobbering someone to death?

    4. Re:Obligatory... by joto · · Score: 1

      Though it is prohibitively expensive no doubt, I wonder how it would fare as a bullet?

      Badly. Bullets should be (a) heavy, and (b) tear apart easily. That way they (a) contain lots of kinetic energy, and (b) rips the target to pieces.

      Military ammo usually lacks quality (b) because it's better to disable an enemy soldier than to kill him, both for the psychological effect at the enemy, who has to watch him suffer; and because his buddies will be busy rescuing him instead of fighting. Oh, and because the Geneva convention says so, they seem to think it's somehow more "humane" to cripple soldiers than to kill them.

    5. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong. The use of hollow point and similar ammo during times of war is restricted by the Hague convention of 1899, not the Geneva convention. Also note that tumbling and frangible full metal jacket ammo is allowed, such as British mark 7 .303

    6. Re:Obligatory... by DrWho520 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If the bullet has enough (a) is does not need any (b,) because nothing lasts very long against lots of (a) moving really fast. (I need me some (a.))

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    7. Re:Obligatory... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Military ammo usually lacks quality (b) because it's better to disable an enemy soldier than to kill him, both for the psychological effect at the enemy, who has to watch him suffer; and because his buddies will be busy rescuing him instead of fighting. Oh, and because the Geneva convention says so, they seem to think it's somehow more "humane" to cripple soldiers than to kill them.

      God, I wish this dumb myth would die.

      First: there is no infantry weapons system (other than the "NLW" which are designed for crowd control, not combat) specifically intended to cripple rather than kill an enemy. One shot, one kill, is always the infantryman's goal. The best possible way to remove an enemy soldier from the fight is to kill him; wounded enemies often can and do keep shooting back. The "wounding is better than killing" meme is often repeated among soldiers as well as civilians, but it does not appear anywhere in Army doctrine.

      Second: the LOAC's prohibition on "dum-dum" rounds is basically intended to make things easier on military surgeons; it's a matter of what's humane off the battlefield, not on it.

      Third: FMJ rounds, as opposed to the wide variety of other types of rounds which would be acceptable under the LOAC, are used primarily for reliability and versatility. Reliability, because rounds with any exposed lead will foul a rifle under typical infantry combat conditions (dirt, mud, sand, and enormous volume of fire between cleanings.) Versatility, because softer rounds are better for use against unarmored human targets, but that's about it. Trying to stop a vehicle with soft-nose rounds? Good luck. And modern body armor is very very good, but you've still got a good chance of getting through it with a dead-on shot from a rifle of decent caliber if you're using FMJ; soft-nose will just go splat.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:Obligatory... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      We already know how to make metals that are much harder than those we make bullets out of. Problem with hardness is that along with it usually goes brittleness. Ever try to use a diamond to scratch glass? It is quite likely to shatter under your fingers. Hit two hardened steel tools together? Bad news, there is a strong risk of either sharp bits flying off, or one or both tools shattering completely.

      I'd imagine that a bullet as hard and as brittle as diamond (or more so) would likely shatter before it even left the barrel. So instead of one piece of matter with a ton of momentum coming at you, you'd have a lot of tiny shards, each with not much momentum, and thus each one much more easily stopped by body armor, or even just clothing.

      OTOH, I don't know that this new metal they are describing is exceedingly brittle. It might not be.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    9. Re:Obligatory... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I wonder how it would fare as a bullet?
      Great, probably. You could even penetrate a diamond wall after about 100 million rounds.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    10. Re:Obligatory... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If the bullet has enough (a) is does not need any (b,) because nothing lasts very long against lots of (a) moving really fast. (I need me some (a.))

      No matter how much (a) it has, if it is hard enough, it will strip the rifling grooves right out of the barrel, and won't hit worth crap. A bullet isn't supposed to be hard. Unless we're talking about the Penetrator of a Discarding Sabot round.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bugger all to do with the Geneva convention - The switch to 5.56 was primarily made for the following reasons :

      Cheaper manufacture. Lead & Copper aren't cheap
      Soldiers can carry more ammo

    12. Re:Obligatory... by Phanatic1a · · Score: 3, Interesting


      God, I wish this dumb myth would die.


      So do I. There are still other reasons it's dumb.

      First, the argument goes, as stated by the parent poster, that "and because his buddies will be busy rescuing him instead of fighting." Except they won't. Troops aren't trained to put down their guns and stop fighting back to rescue wounded. The other argument goes that it ties up the other guy's resources in getting him to a hospital, fixing him, caring for him, and so forth. But that only matters if *you* lose the battle. If you *win*, you're now in possession of all those wounded, and now *you* have to care for them. Then there's the fact that there are all sorts of wounds that allow the wounded to not only keep fighting, but to return to the front to fight again after some medical care.

      It's a dumb myth.

    13. Re:Obligatory... by Phisbut · · Score: 4, Funny

      Military ammo usually lacks quality (b) because it's better to disable an enemy soldier than to kill him, both for the psychological effect at the enemy, who has to watch him suffer; and because his buddies will be busy rescuing him instead of fighting. Oh, and because the Geneva convention says so, they seem to think it's somehow more "humane" to cripple soldiers than to kill them.

      God, I wish this dumb myth would die.

      We tried to kill the myth, sergeant, but apparently our bullets could only cripple it.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    14. Re:Obligatory... by joto · · Score: 1

      What would make the most damage to your body? A clean hole straight through from a bullet that survives the impact, or a huge gaping hole from a bullet that disintegrates?

    15. Re:Obligatory... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Badly. Bullets should be (a) heavy, and (b) tear apart easily. That way they (a) contain lots of kinetic energy, and (b) rips the target to pieces.

      Right because k increases linearly with weight but with the square of speed. Therefore a heavier bullet packs more energy than a fast one?

      b) Not sure about your second point. A bullet that tears apart easily would have much less utility. For example, iirc, M60 rounds will penetrate tank armor at a close enough range, but that is because they are a) fast (carry a lot of energy) and b) tough (don't break apart on impact). I would think that tough bullets would actually be more useful and versatile than ones that were designed solely to maximize the damage to an unarmored target.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    16. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard metals can still be brittle. That means shattering on impact. Not very good for bullets.

    17. Re:Obligatory... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, pure-lead rounds won't strip the riflings, that type of heat will melt the lead and make it clog the riflings up. I made that mistake with my dad's AR-15 (I filed the metal jacketing off and used a dremel to cross-point the lead core for a hollow-point effect..) Two shots and one misfire later, the gun's barrel was fucked, clogged with lead.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:Obligatory... by merikari · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One shot, one kill, is always the infantryman's goal. The best possible way to remove an enemy soldier from the fight is to kill him; wounded enemies often can and do keep shooting back. The "wounding is better than killing" meme is often repeated among soldiers as well as civilians, but it does not appear anywhere in Army doctrine.

      I have a military training (Finnish Defence Forces, conscript not professional). Though I'm not sure if it's an official doctrine, wounding an enemy soldier is often a good way to disable more than one enemy fighters. In fact during infantry training we were told that we should aim for the belly. This will, in most cases, disable the enemy and tie a larger number of support personnel and strain the enemy logistics. Only in movies, soldiers continue shooting like madmen after being shot in the belly.

      I have also a medical corps man training and I know that the enemy will try to strain the medical logistics and other support units in a conflict. Breaking the support chain, of course also by killing, but especially by wounding a lot of soldiers is a fastest way to deplete supply and restrict mobility. In a symmetrical conflict, where both sides have field armies it is a more logical _strategy_ to wound as often as possible as this will strain enemy's resources also behind the front.

      I don't know that much about asymmetrical combat (like the one we see in Iraq), I'll leave that to all the wannabe experts out there.

      --
      My other SIG is a Sauer.
    19. Re:Obligatory... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Actually, pure-lead rounds won't strip the riflings, that type of heat will melt the lead and make it clog the riflings up.

      Pure lead isn't very hard. Nor is it especially heavy. It's just the heaviest CHEAP metal. Note that copper jacketed bullets will clog the rifling too, eventually. It just takes longer. It's only an issue when you're firing a shot-pot full of rounds without cleaning the barrel - something that happens more often in combat than in target shooting.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:Obligatory... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You should aim for the 'belly' because there is more target for you to hit. Aiming for that area gives you the best chance of hitting anywhere. Unless you're a trained marksman with plenty of time to aim, you're not going to hit exactly where you want to anyway.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    21. Re:Obligatory... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Bingo. In the US Army we called it "center of mass."

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    22. Re:Obligatory... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      "Right because k increases linearly with weight but with the square of speed. Therefore a heavier bullet packs more energy than a fast one?"

      Drag also increases with the square of speed. Therefore density is key, since a high mass/size ratio ensures the bullet will fly farther and straighter. The point isn't to make a massive bullet, it's to make a small fast one with enough inertia to go straight (well, parabolic).

    23. Re:Obligatory... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Informative

      As another reply to your post pointed out, the reason to "shoot for the belly" is not to wound (vs. kill) the target, it's because by aiming for the "center of mass" you have the best chance of actually hitting your target. Snipers can go for the fancy head shots; regular grunts in the middle of a firefight don't have the time. And gut wounds are very often fatal.

      Only in movies, soldiers continue shooting like madmen after being shot in the belly.

      I have personally seen people with horrific wounds continue to fight.

      I have also a medical corps man training and I know that the enemy will try to strain the medical logistics and other support units in a conflict.

      Any combat will strain medical logistics, with or without a deliberate "shoot to wound" policy. Overall, "shoot to wound" would probably create less strain on logistics because if you're not trying to shoot to kill, you're much less likely not to hit your target at all. Any army which tried not to kill its opponents would find it itself at an enormous disadvantage on the battlefield against any army which tried (as in fact all armies do) to kill as many as possible; what the medics are doing is irrelavant if the infantrymen fail to accomplish their mission. And I speak as someone who's done both jobs -- I liked being a medic a lot more than I liked being a grunt, but the simple fact is that medics don't win wars.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    24. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's army do you mean? Maybe your dads? I'll take a wild guess and suggest team USA.
      RE: Doctrine, ever wondered why targets for infantry have concentric circles around the middle of a torso?
      That would be around a stomach. There is the obvious big target thing, but maybe you should RTFM again.

    25. Re:Obligatory... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Note that I never said that weight wasn't important. Just that it doesn't make as much a difference to k.

      We aren't going to see Aluminum bullets in use by the military any time soon...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    26. Re:Obligatory... by joto · · Score: 1

      Right because k increases linearly with weight but with the square of speed. Therefore a heavier bullet packs more energy than a fast one?

      Yes, for exactly the same reason that 1kg feathers will have higher kinetic density when dropped from the top of Empire State Building, than 1kg iron will have when dropped from the same place.

      For example, iirc, M60 rounds will penetrate tank armor at a close enough range, but that is because they are a) fast (carry a lot of energy) and b) tough (don't break apart on impact).

      You are correct. You want different caracteristics for a bullet intended to pierce armor, than for a bullet intended to damage carbon-based multicellular lifeforms.

    27. Re:Obligatory... by Jame_Retief · · Score: 1

      Look at your targets again, moron. Those circles are at about . . . mid-chest. Think heart, lungs both good things to hit to KILL YOUR ENEMY! It would be cruel and unusual punishment to shoot to wound. To the Finn who thinks his army is teaching him to shoot to wound: The Soviets left thousands of their injured to die in the cold when 'wounded' by your ancestors. Wounding only made them die more slowly and painfully. The Finns killed many thousands of the Soviets and did a commendable job of holding them off for a time.

    28. Re:Obligatory... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Air resistance is based on a lot more than just weight. And my point was that speed was more important than mass.

      The ideal high kenetic bullet would be extremely aerodynamic and extremely fast. Weight would be by far a secondary concern. In fact I could imagine circumstances certain types of projectiles might need to be light (where acceleration was spread over a period of time, such as some of the recent scramjet experiments). THe point is that having something with a low aerodynamic signature and a high speed is more important than weight.

      For example, take a saboted round. Because the bullet is smaller, it is lighter, but because it is faster, it carries more energy.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    29. Re:Obligatory... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The myth, as you call it, does have some basis in fact. While not good strategy for a direct engagement, most land mine designs are intended to cripple rather than kill. Land mines are often deployed to slow an advancing army. When they detonate, your soldiers are not likely to be nearby, so the fact that a wounded person can still fire a gun is not an issue. The fact that they then need two people to carry the wounded person either with them (in which case you get two tired soldiers when you engage them) or away (in which case you get three fewer soldiers you need to fight) makes it better. Most modern designs also have a short delay after being triggered, so they will detonate in the middle of an advancing group, rather than just getting the first line.

      The civilised world (not including the USA) has banned the use of mines of this type, due to the fact that they are very likely to cause large numbers of civilian casualties.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    30. Re:Obligatory... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You forgot land mines and the version that is dispersed from the air and works the same way known as cluster bombs.

    31. Re:Obligatory... by merikari · · Score: 1

      As another reply to your post pointed out, the reason to "shoot for the belly" is not to wound (vs. kill) the target, it's because by aiming for the "center of mass" you have the best chance of actually hitting your target. Snipers can go for the fancy head shots; regular grunts in the middle of a firefight don't have the time. And gut wounds are very often fatal.

      Yes, and it's completely understandable from a grunt's view that they will not take any chances. I am, however, talking more about strategy than tactics. And I'm not saying that regular infantrymen just try to wound enemy soldiers. Shooting at "the centre of mass" will most likely stop you and leave you wounded and dying, and tie a lot of resources to help you. Most of us don't continue fighting Hollywood style after being shot like that.

      There are plenty of weaponry that are *normally* designed to wound and maim. Anti-personnel mines, for example. And they are usually used as strategic weaponry (to bolster defences at strategic points). It's a much more effective weapon if it doesn't just kill the target instantly.

      Any combat will strain medical logistics, with or without a deliberate "shoot to wound" policy. Overall, "shoot to wound" would probably create less strain on logistics because if you're not trying to shoot to kill, you're much less likely not to hit your target at all. Any army which tried not to kill its opponents would find it itself at an enormous disadvantage on the battlefield against any army which tried (as in fact all armies do) to kill as many as possible; what the medics are doing is irrelavant if the infantrymen fail to accomplish their mission. And I speak as someone who's done both jobs -- I liked being a medic a lot more than I liked being a grunt, but the simple fact is that medics don't win wars.

      I respect your practical experience in the matter. I still maintain that wounded will strain any army's logistics much more than the dead. I'm not saying that regular infantrymen should "aim to wound", but overall it is better to wound a lot of enemy soldiers (in addition to killing, of course).

      --
      My other SIG is a Sauer.
  10. When keying someone's car isn't enough by Eudial · · Score: 5, Funny

    When keying someone's car isn't enough to say I hate you, make a key out of this material and key their jewelery.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:When keying someone's car isn't enough by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Now that's actually funny.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  11. Move over DeBeers by tumutbound · · Score: 4, Funny

    rhenium diboride is a girls best friend

    1. Re:Move over DeBeers by inviolet · · Score: 5, Funny

      rhenium diboride is a girls best friend

      You laugh, but as a female geek I would be Seriously Impressed by a marriage proposal which featured a ring made from something exotic like that. Assuming that I was sufficiently insane to consent to marriage, I would forever after wear that ring and smirk at the Normals with their plain old diamonds.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:Move over DeBeers by l0b0 · · Score: 1

      As soon as the marketing drones get a whiff of this, it's gonna be "Diamond 2.0".

    3. Re:Move over DeBeers by TechForensics · · Score: 1

      Gee, with a name like "Inviolet" for a female geek, you can see how easy it is to understand why male geeks almost never get laid.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    4. Re:Move over DeBeers by russotto · · Score: 1

      Gee, with a name like "Inviolet" for a female geek, you can see how easy it is to understand why male geeks almost never get laid.
      Because they can't spell?
    5. Re:Move over DeBeers by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Because they can't spell?

      It's the combination of 'inviolate', which is what you become when (at long last) you love yourself, and 'violet', a color which is particularly relevant to my sense of self. It's a long boring emo story, of course, but suffice it to say: the misspelling is intentional.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    6. Re:Move over DeBeers by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Gee, with a name like "Inviolet" for a female geek, you can see how easy it is to understand why male geeks almost never get laid.

      That shouldn't be a factor - c'mon, guys, stir up the gene pool a bit. Double recessive defects are bad, m'kay?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Move over DeBeers by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I would forever after wear that ring and smirk at the Normals with their plain old diamonds. Why smirk at their diamonds, when you can scratch them. Imagine the fun you could have with the line 'that doesn't look like a real diamond. There's an easy test; real diamonds can scratch fake ones...'
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Move over DeBeers by Dacmot · · Score: 1

      There are no girls on Slashdot. Nice try Johnny.

    9. Re:Move over DeBeers by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it is just going to cost way too much to get a ring that would go around your finger.

  12. Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to be slightly off topic, but does anyone have the formula for converting libraries of congress to Moh's hardness scale and vice versa?

    I just need to be able to explain these new results to my boss on monday, thanks!

    1. Re:Offtopic by dsgrntlxmply · · Score: 1

      It requires only a simple normalization constant: 1/sqrt(football_field).

    2. Re:Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But where do the kiloelephants fit in?

  13. Aaaargh, "tough" again by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    Much energy was spent in the comments to the older story (linked from this one) to make clear that it is about "harder", not "tougher". What does CowboyNeal do? Repeat the same mistake twice in the new story. Can CowboyNeal be fired?

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    1. Re:Aaaargh, "tough" again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I'm not sure what the difference is, but it appears that the comments in the last article were about how the material was *stiffer* not *harder*.

    2. Re:Aaaargh, "tough" again by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Right, i remembered wrongly. Much energy was spent in the comments on explaining the difference between stiffer, harder, tougher, etc., because many posters got it wrong. Anyway this new story is about a material being able to scratch diamond, and that is the definition of scratch hardness. Toughness is something different. Can we fire CowboyNeal now?

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  14. Re:hardest metal by billsoxs · · Score: 1

    So I guess that diamond is no longer the hardest metal known the man

    So Diamond is a metal? I guess it is a chain in some cases. Then in answer to your comment, it depends - is it in or out of a marriage?

    --
    This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
  15. clobbering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes. You wanna make something of it, whelp? Because I have a pair of computer speakers and a receipt from the gas station that will make handy weapons.

  16. Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Dr.+Stavros · · Score: 5, Funny

    Again, we mustn't conflate hardness, stiffness, and toughness!

    I've been studying diamond for a while now, and have a fairly prominent webpage about diamond's material properties, and on three separate occasions I have been contacted in the following way:

    A budding fantasy author is writing a book in which the protagonist has a sword made out of diamond, "because diamond is the hardest material of all!", and they wanted to run the idea past me first.

    So I point out that, despite being very hard (i.e. resistant to indentation), diamond is in fact very brittle (i.e. not very tough), and indeed the very first time that our hero hits something with his diamond sword, it will shatter.

    In one case, the author said that I had basically ruined his life by wrecking the whole concept of the book that he had been writing for the last few years. In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution (e.g. diamond sword, coated with steel, etc.?)...

    1. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Tell him he fails at life and should kill himself now.

      He's a fantasy writer, I'm not. It's fantasy. White gold has magical properties. Make the sword out of white gold and shut the fuck up.

    2. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest the hero having a big bag of diamonds, for the purchase of a real sword :o)

      On the other hand, I'd just suggest he leaves in the sword, and call it diamantite or something. Completely like diamond, except flexible ;)

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    3. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by fossa · · Score: 1

      Steel sword coated with diamond? Isn't this how samurai swords are essentially made, with a softer steel on the inside and hard martensite on the outside for a sharp edge but flexible sword?

    4. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Diddlbiker · · Score: 1

      Tell your friend that: (a) He should do research BEFORE committing two years of his life to something (b) YOU didn't ruin his book - you saved him from embarresment (c) Coating the sword with steel would give you the worst of two worlds - why not a steel sword coated with a solid layer of diamonds or something along those lines, or a hollow diamond reinforced with polonium-plated titanium? (I guess steel would not be exotic enough) (d) If the book gets ruined because the plot evolves around a diamond sword. Mmmh. I dunno, but usually a book is built upon a good story, not a flashy gadget. He might want to reconsider that part as well...

    5. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bukkytubes that use little diamonds as ball bearings, but i guess that would be a whip. It would sparkle tough.
      regulating stiffness by an electric current, but that would be hard to do in a more medieval setting. i really don't see a hero using a sword in a modern setting well maybe a ninja, but a ninja doesn't need a diamond sword a paper sword would suffice.

    6. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Quixadhal · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's a writer... he should come up with something.

      The sword was crafted by an Uber Death Mage, who used the blood of the last virgin to scream "first post!" on slashdot to cast a technobabble spell, which caused the entire blade to form as a single facet of diamond. Thus having no stress points, the blade would be nearly perfect, as long as the victim didn't use a Google shield to find previous postings and block it.

      That took me a whole 15 seconds.... surely he's had a bit more time to ponder?

    7. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      Something tells me the author won't be very successful if he can't write himself out of that corner. Even if it was possible, would you in a fantasy novel explain it's a diamond-steel alloy with micrograin and internal stress? Any of the following should work:

      a) The sword is magical. If it's that central, it should be anyway and so it's the magic making it indestructable, not the material
      b) The sword isn't actually of diamond, but the material is unknown and looks like it, so it's been given a poetic name
      c) It's been created in a magical forge or forger, and doesn't have the properties of diamond (sorta a) but less emphasis on the sword's power)
      d) In the hands of the wielder, it changes power (something along the lines of the power flowing through it)
      e) Don't actually explain why, it's fantasy after all

      Certainly a) and b) should be trivial to implement. After all, I assume he must have taken more than a few liberties with reality already to explain how a diamond sword came into being.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Interesting
      the author said that I had basically ruined his life by wrecking the whole concept of the book that he had been writing for the last few years. In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution

      If he can't figure out a solution to that I'm guessing the rest of the book ain't gonna be all that hot.

    9. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or he could just clobber his foes with the sack of diamonds..

    10. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by onedotzero · · Score: 1

      Something like that, yes. I'm not sure of the metals used, but one is softer than the other. This also gives the katana its trademark curve, as one metal contracts sooner than the other as they cool.

    11. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Lazarian · · Score: 1

      "In one case, the author said that I had basically ruined his life by wrecking the whole concept of the book that he had been writing for the last few years." Jeez! What does the guy expect? Maybe he'd want you to change the laws of physics just because his premise for his novel doesn't wash? Sounds like you have a real doofus on your hands. You should get him to send you a sample of his writing - the giggles might make up for having to put up with him. (I would never condone posting a link to it. Naah. Never. ;)

    12. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by elmartinos · · Score: 1

      In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution (e.g. diamond sword, coated with steel, etc.?).

      How about the good old deus ex machina, it worked for the ancient greeks. Just let one protagonist say something along this line:
      "thanks god they invented the nanofluxdiaconplexor, which transforms diamonds into the toughest material in the universe!"

      problem solved.

    13. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

      Eh, tell them to throw in an extra chapter about how he found or somehow acquired a sword of true damascus steel. Then in the word file, just have them replace 'diamond' with 'damascus'. I'm sure that sword would do good enough.

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
    14. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Katana are forged from steel, not different metals. How the steel is quenched gives it a different properties. Pearlite (soft, flexible) and martensite (hard, brittle) are steel which is cooled at different rates, and to use these properties, katana are painted with layers of clay before quenching. The curve happens because of the different cooling rates of the steel because of the clay.

    15. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by inviolet · · Score: 1

      He's a fantasy writer, I'm not. It's fantasy. White gold has magical properties. Make the sword out of white gold and shut the fuck up.

      Actually, "white gold" is gold mixed with silver. In D&D it is called electrum.

      Why not a steel sword with a segmented, diamond-coated edge? I mean hey, it works great for modern-day sawblades...

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    16. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Dreamstalker_wolf · · Score: 1

      If it's a fantasy world making copious use of magic, real-world physics need not apply--the author should be able to whatever they want as long as it's plausible in the story's canon. Sheesh.

    17. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      A pattern-welded sword with diamond dust impregnating the edge laminate?

      They add diamond dust to all sorts of grinding/cutting tools today, and although I think it would not make much of a difference in this case (unless the sword is designed to *grind* through armor) it is at least feasible.

      A better idea would be some auger with diamond dust in the edges...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    18. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by DaleGlass · · Score: 1

      Wasn't one of the concepts in sword forging that you want to have a lot of carbon on the edge, and less of it on the back (or middle) to get a sword that's sharp but bends so that it doesn't break?

      A sword made fully of diamond would be stupid as the whole sword would shatter, but one with a diamond edge should cut really good (and chip very badly afterwards).

      Here's a solution for the author:

      In the Fullmetal Alchemist anime, alchemy is a sort of the science of transformation of matter. An alchemist can reshape matter, but not create it. Still, an alchemist could easily and quickly make a sword out of anything that happened to be lying around. So that's a solution to the breaking sword problem, when it breaks, just reform it. Carbon is so abundant that it could be made pretty much anywhere.

      Of course such a thing would be still impractical as you couldn't parry somebody else's sword without your breaking. My solution to that: Diamond throwing knives or stars. If it breaks, even better.

    19. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by servognome · · Score: 1

      In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution (e.g. diamond sword, coated with steel, etc.?)...
      The sword is MAGIC!!
      or...
      The fact that a diamond sword is awe inspiring and valuable, but shatters upon the protagonists first use could actually make for an interesting story element. An enormous sense of loss, coupled with the shock of reality would definately be affective.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    20. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by funfail · · Score: 1

      Mmmh. I dunno, but usually a book is built upon a good story, not a flashy gadget.
      Yeah, just like "The Lord of the Rings". Right...
    21. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      The GP is probably referring to Stephen R. Donaldson Thomas Covenant books. In that fantasy world, white gold from our world had special properties.

    22. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's almost as silly as making armour out of glass, or ebony ...

    23. Re:Hardness, stiffness, and toughness by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me the author won't be very successful if he can't write himself out of that corner. I wonder if you've read any popular books, or seen any popular films or TV shows. The inability to avoid obvious technical errors is by no means a handicap for the modern author. Just look at The Matrix (humans fed entirely on dead humans being the power source of the machines) for an obvious example.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. Re:YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON--THAT'S WHY SHE DUMPED Y by failedlogic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thanks for the information, but the post WAS A JOKE.

  18. AM I A FUCKING MORON? by just+another+clown · · Score: 1

    Can I put in a song request? I'd like want to hear "Goodbye Beautiful Day" by beat&path—I can't get that song out of my hand.

    Thanks.

  19. STUPID BORON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF, UCLA?

  20. Headline is wrong... by Aphrika · · Score: 1
    Yup, this new material scratches diamond, but from the article:

    The material is nearly as hard as cubic boron nitride and boron suboxide, two of the hardest materials known, and like them can scratch diamond. It should also be able to cut steel without reacting chemically with the iron.
    Ideally the headline should be mentioning that it's a material created in a furnace without using expensive high pressure methods. That's what makes this annoucement special.
    1. Re:Headline is wrong... by mattcrumley · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's why the title is "Easy-to-Make Material Scratches Diamond".

    2. Re:Headline is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think the parent maybe right - I'm pretty sure it read "New Material Scratches Diamond" earlier.

    3. Re:Headline is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Sir, what makes this material SPECIAL is that it was DESIGNED by hypothesis to be hard BEFORE my labmate tested it. The idea behind the material is what is best of all...oh and I have some of the pictures of scratched boronitride and diamond that led up to the article.

  21. what? by nanosquid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Chuck Norris's toe nail clippings?

    1. Re:what? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I want a sword made out of Chuck Norris' toenail _clippers_.

    2. Re:what? by jinxidoru · · Score: 2, Funny

      Chuck Norris's toe nail clippings?

      What the?! How did I suddenly get teleported into Barrens chat?

    3. Re:what? by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      how do i get 2 xroad? im in crossroads. thx.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  22. Obviously none of you have heard of by krbvroc1 · · Score: 0

    or tried to eat one of my mother-in-law's biscuits... They are hard enough to scratch any diamond.

  23. Does this mean.. by kbox · · Score: 1

    .. We need Mohs 2.0?

    1. Re:Does this mean.. by ShadeOfBlue · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but now it goes to eleven. It's one harder.

  24. Nobody does it like by someguyfromdenmark · · Score: 0
    --
    I change my sig often.
    1. Re:Nobody does it like by someguyfromdenmark · · Score: 0

      Well, screw it. My karma is so low, nobody will EVER find this comment.

      --
      I change my sig often.
  25. Everyone knows... by dosle · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Everyone knows diamond is the strongest of all metals.

    1. Re:Everyone knows... by arktemplar · · Score: 1

      For Gawd's sakes please there is nothing wiereder than hearing self proclaimed "nerds, geeks", call diamond a metal dude its made of carbon, a NON METAL and thus cannot be a metal please. I know this might be redundant but then constant repetition is required to get the point accross it seems.

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    2. Re:Everyone knows... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Everyone knows... by arktemplar · · Score: 1

      in soviet russia jokes dont get you ??

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    4. Re:Everyone knows... by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      It's all a matter of perspective. To an astronomer, any element that is not hydrogen or helium is a metal.

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  26. Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UAW will love this! The latest in ass scratching technology!

  27. Obg. Futurama by Xaroth · · Score: 1

    o/~ Nobody doesn't like molten boron! o/~

  28. won't be seeing this stuff around much, by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

    since rhenium is more costly than platinum.

    1. Re:won't be seeing this stuff around much, by Tom+Womack · · Score: 1

      I think you might be getting your pricing from one of the several Web sites that confuses rhenium (element 75) and rhodium (element 45).

      Platinum is roughly $1300 per troy ounce of 31 grams on the spot market; rhenium is $13 per gram from ebay, so about $400 per troy ounce. Rhodium is $6300 per troy ounce, and so hopelessly rare and hard to extract that people have made reasonable economic arguments for reprocessing it from used reactor fuel since it's a common fission product and has no very-long-lived radio-isotopes (though you would need to leave it twenty or thirty years for the Rh-101, hl=3.3 years, to decay, which would impose nasty cost-of-capital problems).

    2. Re:won't be seeing this stuff around much, by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Tom, just saw your reply. Thank you for the info.

  29. I wonder? by Paracelcus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If it could be incorporated into a matrix of buckytubes, it could be a great laminating material for armor.

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  30. can anyone explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why diamonds are considered to be "one of the hardest substance known to man"? I know it CANNOT be compressed a lot... But it can be cut easily no? How are people cutting diamonds? Do they use knifes of a super-mega-rare substance? If not, can't these knifes be used to scractch diamonds too? Or is it that diamonds can be cut but not scratched?

    1. Re:can anyone explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way people cut steel bars with steel saw or making stone weapons by chipping it with stone: use a diamond saw to cut (or laser now) or use force to chip pieces of it. Then use a diamond grinder to polish it.

  31. See www.diamondssuck.com for reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
  32. One more idea by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Since he is a fantasy author, why not make a material up?

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  33. Mohs would be proud. by Tavor · · Score: 3, Funny

    On his scale, this one goes up to 11.

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
    1. Re:Mohs would be proud. by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      Your comment is pretty funny. In fact, I wish I had come up with it first. Oh wait, I did.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    2. Re:Mohs would be proud. by Tavor · · Score: 1

      My apologies, I didn't even see yours before posting. Mea culpa.

      --
      Windows has detected an undetectable error.
  34. Obvious answer... by Striver · · Score: 2, Funny

    tell him to make the sword out of rhenium diboride

    --
    this is loaner...my sig is in the shop
  35. This costs about 5x abrasive-grade diamond by Tom+Womack · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rhenium costs £6.50 per gram if you want to buy it on ebay; boron is £13.50 a gram on ebay because the one seller there is selling an exotic crystalline form. [ebay search for 'rhenium metal' or 'boron element']

    So making ReB2 using source materials bought in small quantities on ebay would be about ten pounds (about twenty dollars) a gram; probably the cost of the electricity to run the furnace would be more than that, and the depreciation on the furnace more still.

    I paid ten Euros (about fifteen dollars) for the diamond sample I have, which is two milligrams, and various diamond-industry sites give prices on the order of a hundred thousand dollars per gram; of course, rather like microchips, diamond pricing is exponential in the size because you have to find one big diamond rather than gluing two small ones together.

    But ReB2 will be competing with diamond abrasive, and http://www.diamondtech.com/products/categories/dia mond_powder_price_list.html will sell you twenty grams (a hundred carats) of half-micron diamond dust for fifty dollars which is a lot cheaper than either the rhenium or the boron.

    http://www.metalprices.com/FreeSite/metals/re/re.a sp suggests that bulk rhenium is $3000 per pound, which is a bit over half the ebay price above; some sites, I think mostly run by gold bugs, suggest $6000 per troy ounce, so either there's an opportunity for arbitrage, or they've confused rhenium and rhodium.

    The not-so-trustworthy-looking http://biotsavart.tripod.com/bmt.htm has boron at about $5000 per kilogram, so $2200 per pound; still these are orders of magnitude cheaper than diamond.

  36. Re:... and a zap of current by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Isn't UCLA the place where that kid got tasered 6 times by a cop?

    Shocking!

  37. not quite a drop in replacement yet, though... by arclyte · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man (down on one knee): Honey, will you marry me? Woman: What the hell is that? Man: It's rhenium diboride, more durable than diamond. I wanted to show you just how much I love you, even more than diamond. Woman: Cheap bastard. Come back when you have a diamond.

  38. A solution for the literary troubles by woolio · · Score: 1

    In one case, the author said that I had basically ruined his life by wrecking the whole concept of the book that he had been writing for the last few years. In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution (e.g. diamond sword, coated with steel, etc.?)...

    Perhaps the author should consider a hero that scratches the enemy to death. He shall be named "Sir Scratch-a-lot"

    1. Re:A solution for the literary troubles by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      'Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a cat, to scratch a man to death! a braggart, a rogue, a villain, that fights by the book of arithmetic!

  39. New toy by asCii88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I can finally scratch all moms jewelry for a few bucks! Yay!

    1. Re:New toy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I've been able to do that for a long, long time.

      Being rich is not always an advantage. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. Oh teh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fear a "will it blend" sub-thread.

  41. Obligatory Futurama reference by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Thompson's Teeth - The only teeth strong enough to eat other teeth.

  42. Spot price of rhenium by NewIntellectual · · Score: 0

    See http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/rheniumpricesusdollar s.html. At the time of this posting the price of one troy ounce of rhenium was $5,950. Gold is $691.60 per troy ounce. So rhenium is over 8 times more expensive than gold, before you even add the costs of further processing. Doesn't seem very economical.

  43. Actually, I did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just the other day, your wife told me that her mom has hard biscuits. I told her that I had something harder. She asked to see and she could prove that it was easier to eat than the biscuits. I told that it was way too hard for me to eat, but that she could. So she did. And she was right. It is now softer.

  44. Sword of slaying by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Some place I've got a sword of slaying. He might want to use that.
    --
    Slice through utility rate increases. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  45. You're not alone by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    The female geek who for some reason married me insists that any future jewelry be something other than a mined diamond. Preferably something created with human skill and science.

    1. Re:You're not alone by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      something created with human skill and science
      I initially read that as human skull and science resulting in a much more amusing voodoo and test-tubes visual.
      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  46. Lemoine, 1905 by morcego · · Score: 1

    Sounds familiar ?


    I hope I'm not the only one around here how ever studied the great con artist of history.

    In 1905, a Henri Lemoine, 81st Lecourbe St. (Paris), said he could create diamonds using nothing more than his cooking stove and electricity (15000 or 18000 amps, at 110V).

    He manage to get about 70000 British Pounds (imagine how much was that in 1905) from Sir Julius Werner (president of Da Beers Corporation).

    Even thou this is not related to the article, it did remind me of this fact. Yes, definitively sounds familiar.

    Reference: Rolin, Babette: COMMENT ON VOLE SON PROCHAIN ( INVITATION A L'ESCROQUERIE )
                        Portuguese Title: Como Roubar o Próximo (A quinta Essêcia da Arte de Vender)
    I don't think this book ever got an ISBN.
    --
    morcego
    1. Re:Lemoine, 1905 by Jame_Retief · · Score: 1

      I think you mean watts, not amps. 15000 to 18000 amps would be enough to power several hundred stoves. The circuit in the wall next to me, on the stove, is a 40 amp, 220v breaker.

  47. and so it goes by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    The sword is made of Diamond 9 and if it touches other diamonds they too become Diamond 9
    (Apologies to the late KV).

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  48. Hardness is not toughness by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
    Hardness; 0=talc, 10=diamond. It's a measure of a material's resistance to deformation. An extremely hard substance may be very easy to shatter. Add a bit of ductility to a material and it may be slightly less hard, but more tough. Toughness in a stone like say, serpentine jade (which is essentially petrified asbestos) has an interlinked fibre mesh structure that makes it much tougher than diamond, although not as hard (I think it's somewhere around 8-8.2 from rapidly dwindling memory). Thus, diamond can easily scratch a material that is much tougher than it.

    Try whacking a pebble of serpentine jade some time with a hammer and see how hard it is to break. Wear eye protection over remaining eye...

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  49. A little more complex - soft iron + hard iron by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Katana are forged from steel, not different metals.

    Not quite true - one is a very soft almost pure iron and the other is effectively a high carbon white cast iron or a steel too high in carbon to really be useful alone (wootz). Thin layers of both give you a composite material under exactly the same principle as fibreglass (brittle but strong glass + soft plastic gives you a range of properties depending on how much glass goes in).

    Apart from the pattern welded (lots of thin layers) core there is also a small section on the blade side of the high carbon material to give a better cutting edge (but it chips easily if it hits anything hard). On the back is soft material which was used to block other swords and dent instead of chip. The technique was never lost despite the ravings of various "in search of" loonies - it's just easier to get materials with similar properties today by other means and the mine that produced the hard "wootz" material ran out.

    Pearlite as mentioned above is obtainable from cast steels and gives you effectively a similar structure and strength to something that is pattern welded but it isn't acheivable with an ordinary charcoal fire (while wrought iron and cast irons with a lot of carbon are are - cast steel needs high temperatures). Different cooling rates can give you a wide range of high carbon structures and give you the sort of hard metal carbides in the right shape that are in the "wootz" material. Tempered martensite is the easiest to get - a water quench and then heat up again for a while so it is not so brittle works with a lot of steels. Controlling the cooling rate with insulation (like clay) gives you a lot of other possibilities.

  50. Exotic by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    I was going to get my last girlfriend a Titanium band (who doesn't love Titanium?) with one of those awesome blue synthetic diamonds that has the mildly radioactive isotopes in it. She threatened to break up with me if I did. Sigh... geek girls are a tragically rare form of life. Any girl who doesn't appreciate a radioactive gemstone set in a strip of spaceship hull... well, she leaves something to be desired.

    1. Re:Exotic by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      You should have chosen a green one instead, maybe shaped as a lantern.

    2. Re:Exotic by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
      Indeed. Maybe with one of those 50000 mCd LEDs mounted underneath it... although that could be a bit over the top. I mean, where do you go from there? After that, anything else would be anticlimatic.

      Unless it was a set of vitreous-metal bracers. But how one would go about developing a glowing gold lariat to go with them? Clearly more research is required.