Slashdot Mirror


Harder-Than-Diamond Natural Carbon Crystals Found

HikingStick tips a piece from the science desk at MSNBC.com about a new, naturally occurring form of carbon found in a meteorite fragment. "Researchers were polishing a slice of the carbon-rich Havero meteorite that fell to Earth in Finland in 1971. When they then studied the polished surface they discovered carbon-loaded spots that were raised well above the rest of the surface — suggesting that these areas were harder than the diamonds used in the polishing paste... [G]raphite layers were shocked and heated enough to create bonds between the layers — which is exactly how humans manufacture diamonds... [The research] team took the next step and put the diamond-resistant crystals under the scrutiny of some very rigorous mineralogical analyzing instruments to learn how its atoms are lined up. That allowed them to confirm that they had, indeed, found a new 'phase' or polymorph of crystalline carbon as well as a type of diamond that had been predicted to exist decades ago, but had never been found in nature until now."

18 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How long by dohzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't bother. It turns out that it's less expensive than a diamond, so women won't be as happy with it.

  2. Re:Majorly confused now by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just say "Yes,diamond is not the hardest metal known to man" and move on...

  3. Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness by WGFCrafty · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well since diamonds were used as the reference on the scale, being the "hardest" of everything known. Yes, either the scale should go to 11, or diamonds should be lowered. The scale seems to be pretty arbitrary though, just what scratches what.

    According to the wiki article:

    Since the invention of the scale, there have been reports of materials harder than the highest mineral on the scale, diamonds; so the Mohs scale may be changed in the future.

    And the reference is:
    T. Irifune, A Kurio, S. Sakamoto, T. Inoue, H. Sumiya "Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite" Nature 421 (2003) 599

    A big meh to this slashdot story.

    Nature summary:

    Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other hard materials, but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is unusual and its production is slow. Here we describe the rapid synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature. Surprisingly, this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools.

  4. Re:Majorly confused now by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A much better name for this stuff would be "carbonite", obviously.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Re:How long by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wouldn't bother. It turns out that it's less expensive than a diamond, so women won't be as happy with it.

    Give DeBeers a few years and then see.

  6. Re:One thing I don't get... by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this mean De Beers will try to monopolize space as well?

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  7. Re:Majorly confused now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just say "Yes,diamond is not the hardest metal known to man" and move on...

    Nor is diamond a metal.

  8. Re:The De Beers Myth by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you are saying that De Beers is only as big as everyone else combined? Crack a history book. Until the last decade, their business practices have been deplorable, and they are still huge.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  9. Re:How long by cerberusss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Women need an un-fake-able signal of a man's seriousness, so the signal must take the form of something very (to the suitor) expensive.

    It's more than just expensiveness. Some years ago, I bought some earrings for my girlfriend which were handmade and embedded with a sapphire, a ruby and a tourmaline. Beautiful, and after negotiating, I still paid the full price because I just wanted. She says thanks, then continues to almost never wear it!

    Looking back, I would have made her much happier with some stupid cheaper, mass-produced but diamond-studded earrings...

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  10. Read more carefully by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wasn't defending De Beers. They have engaged in 'business practices' that are akin to that of organized crime. I was simply pointing out that they are not a monopoly. Reading comprehension is important and you need more practice.

  11. Re:One thing I don't get... by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have no idea where you are getting that from. Sounds like some 1970s flub.

    In the past, you could tell artificial diamonds from natural ones because of imperfections, but with today's technology, you can't tell even with a microscope.

    Get some up to date info buddy!!

  12. Re:One thing I don't get... by dziban303 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Once again the news media gets something very basic very wrong. From TFA's headline:

    Crystalline carbon has never been found in nature until now

    Uhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is? Chopped liver? No. Chicken dinner? No. Random collections of carbon atoms in no particular order? No. It's a crystal. Of carbon. Crystalline carbon.

    BUT WAIT!! -- There's more! What about pencil lead!? Wow-it, too, is a form of cabon? In a crystal lattice?

    Idiot science reporters should go back to covering the MTV music awards.

  13. Re:Contradict yourself why don't you... by Xabraxas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well if it fell from the sky, then it is not in nature now is it...?

    Space is natural unless you're a bible-thumping redneck.

    The story is interesting that we might have a new element on our chart

    I'm pretty sure carbon was discovered already.

    --
    Time makes more converts than reason
  14. Re:Contradict yourself why don't you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why must our view of the natural world be limited to the terrestrial sphere?

    Why must our view of the natural world exclude the results of human activities?

  15. Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness by lilomar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the more interesting thing is, slashdot readers are assumed to know what Moh's scale is, but spinal tap needs a reference...

    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  16. Re:One thing I don't get... by AtomicOrange · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That... or Wikipedia got /.ed by some gung-ho reader that wanted to edit something that wouldn't get immeadiately marked as irrelevant.

    --
    "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
  17. THIS crystalline carbon has never been found... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the headline was about a musician granting an interview, and the sub-header was "Famous performer never interviewed before", you wouldn't be scoffing "What? You mean no famous performer has ever been interviewed? Well I have a thousand back issues of Rolling Stone that would disagree!"

    What they're saying is that they have discovered a crystalline carbon, and it is something never seen in nature before. The sentence is accurate.

    Yes the truncated verbal style often used in headlines may have made it less clear than it could have been by the simple expedient of adding "This".

    Nevertheless, this is a perfect example of why I find pedantry to be so useless outside of technical fields where precise meanings not only exist but are required. Because more often than not, pedantry is just a way to fail to understand what is being said.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  18. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Find a geek girl that doesn't like jewelry, flowers, or perfume; just chocolate and beer. Now, if only I could get her interested in single malts. She claims all whiskies are nasty. *Sigh*

    What makes this hard is that I'd need to find one that doesn't also have the same figure as many of the male geeks I know.