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."

37 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. One thing I don't get... by Looce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... is why human-made diamonds, made the same way as that carbon-rich rock was discovered, are not harder than natural diamonds - at least, the summary seems to imply this. If it's graphite in both cases, then shouldn't both be harder than diamonds?

    1. Re:One thing I don't get... by Kneo24 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The very end of the article suggests that they are harder than regular naturally occurring diamonds.

      However, there is no way at the present to compare them to the artificial ultra-hard diamonds known as lonsdaleite and boron nitride, Ferroir said.

    2. Re:One thing I don't get... by Toonol · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it's clear that space-diamonds will have capabilities far outstripping any of our mundane terrestrial diamonds.

    3. Re:One thing I don't get... by sjwt · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I, for one, welcome our new shiny super tough, space born overlords

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    4. Re:One thing I don't get... by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      However, there is no way at the present to compare them to the artificial ultra-hard diamonds known as lonsdaleite and boron nitride, Ferroir said.

      Boron nitride is not diamond at all, and lonsdaleite is described by Wikipedia as an allotrope of carbon that is found in meteorites and is harder than diamonds. Perhaps these people have just re-discovered something that was already known.

    5. Re:One thing I don't get... by jandersen · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... not harder than natural diamonds.

      That is because what they are (or should be) talking about is not hardness, but mechanical strength. Black diamonds are not harder, but because they consist of microscopic crystals, they don't have the convenient break lines of monocrystals, and therefore are more difficult to process. See:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery_diamonds.htm

    6. Re:One thing I don't get... by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

      They've got an odd definition of "diamond" there: boron nitride has no carbon in it. It's a chemical analogue of diamond, in that you turn half the C atoms (atomic number 6) into B (atomic number 5) and the others into N (atomic number 7). B-N compounds are fun analogues of C compounds but it's a bit of a stretch.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:One thing I don't get... by Goffee71 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So now meteorites are a girl's best friend? That's going to complicate some relationships

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    8. 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!
    9. Re:One thing I don't get... by Xest · · Score: 5, Funny

      I doubt it, they've not found enough space children caught up in intergalactic warfare to exploit yet.

    10. Re:One thing I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I move that we start referring to these super hard diamonds as Viagronds.

    11. 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.

    12. Re:One thing I don't get... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, you can tell, but in the opposite sense: it is exceptionally rare to get a natural diamond that has absolutely no imperfections; even the best usually have some minor flaw. On the other hand, it is relatively common to produce an artificial diamond that is flawless. De Beers and other companies have gone to quite some lengths to keep these diamonds away from the consumer market.

    13. 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
    14. Re:One thing I don't get... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I, for one, welcome our new shiny super tough, space born overlords

      Not without DeBeers permission, you don't!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    15. Re:One thing I don't get... by Verdatum · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it wasn't a rock....it was a rock LOBSTER!!!

  2. As the saying goes... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    "Polymorphs of crystalline carbon are forever."

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. The remnants of my empire by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 3, Funny

    And so a remnance of my empire once vast and impenetrable falls from the sky. Damn you Flash Gordon. Eventually I will get off this rock.

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
  4. Mohs Scale of Hardness by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now it goes all the way to 11.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness by RobVB · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's 1 harder!

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    2. Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Mohs hardness is ordinal, not linear, so until unless this item is added to the scale it will have an undefined Mohs hardness. Actual engineers use Brinell hardness or something similar.

  5. Re:I don't know about you by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...do you think that the meteorite was made by magicians?

    Space is natural too.

  6. 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.

  7. Lonsdaleite by mdsolar · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article mentions hexagonal diamond (lonsdaleite) as an artificial form of diamond, which it is with a very interesting low energy formation method, but it was first found in nature in the Canyon Diablo Meteorite in 1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite Pure lonsdaleite should be harder than regular diamond. I wish the article has said a little more about the crystal structure the researchers had found. That the energy required to make lonsdalite is low has interesting implications since the quantity needed to replace structural steel needs only about 1/280 of the energy needed to make the steel. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/anaximenes-way.html

    1. Re:Lonsdaleite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It probably *COULD* hold more *for a time*. But the question is what is the failure load in all directions? Buildings/bridges/dams/etc are not static structures. They 'move around'; be it wind or snow or people just walking around on it. They are designed to 'float' in the dirt. Ever been in a house that 'settled' a little? The house didnt collapse it just bent a little. That is part of the design. Buildings/bridges that do not flex break, and quite spectacularly.

      This is an example of a design that had too much sway in it (the wind didnt pass over the roadway correctly). But notice it DID sway...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw&feature=fvw

      My point? You can design in too little sway and it will crack your building in half when everything around it fails. Or you can design in too much sway and it will fly apart.

      Could this have applications? Absolutely. However, with your diamond I-beam how do I rivet it together as we do not grow buildings on site? Rivets work by melting two large chunks of steel with a smaller one with a small weld. There are a few challenges you need to get past with construction.

      For example concrete is also harder than steel. It is however extremely brittle which is why roadways and building structures are reinforced with something 'hard' but flexible. I could make an I-beam of concrete (and people do this) and get similar strength out of it but I would be a fool not to reinforce it in some way. It would shatter within months of use.

      I may not be an architect but I studied many years to be one. And I didnt want to be a structural engineer.

  8. Re:Ohhh shinny! by maxume · · Score: 3, Funny

    Your rich and vivid imagination is going to get your ass kicked.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  9. 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/
  10. Another way to make harder than normal diamonds by Aargau · · Score: 4, Informative

    One can also make diamonds harder by isolating and using heavier isotopes. A diamond of purified carbon-13 is harder than a mix of 12,13,14. Man-made diamonds can actually be harder than naturally occurring ones.

  11. 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.

  12. Re:How long by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Funny

    How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?

    Why do you call it shit? It comes from a meteorite, not from Uranus!

  13. Re:How long by inviolet · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    Women are only that way because men are ever scheming to hit-and-run their womb space. 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.

    That we use diamonds for this purpose is a benefit to the man, because DeBeers has made sure that there is no resale market. If there was a resale market that offered even 50% value, then the man would first need an un-fake-able signal of the woman's seriousness before passing the rock across the table.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  14. 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!
  15. Re:What about bb's? by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fullerite is formed from fullerene or buckyballs and is about twice as hard as diamond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#Fullerite_.28solid_state.29

  16. 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.

  17. Journal Article by Drache+Kubisuro · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those that are interested in considering scientific paper without the media filter:

    Ferroir, Tristan, Leonid Dubrovinsky, Ahmed El Goresy, Alexandre Simionovici, Tomoki Nakamura, and Philippe Gillet. 2010. Carbon polymorphism in shocked meteorites: Evidence for new natural ultrahard phases. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290, no. 1-2: 150-154. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.015. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0012821X09007389.

    I sure wish that secondary sources properly cited primary sources, even if they are only interviewing the main scientist involved. Giving the journal name and date as Discovery News did is a good step, though.

    --
    -Drache Kubisuro
  18. link to orign article by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 3, Informative

    found here
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4Y4XCTH-3&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F15%2F2010&_rdoc=18&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235801%232010%23997099998%231609118%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5801&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=26&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ae24ceb289eae1dcc9bc6870f3192dc2
    And this is the abstract A slice of the Haverö meteorite which belongs to the ureilite class known to contain graphite and diamond was cut and then polished as a thin section using a diamond paste. We identified two carbonaceous areas which were standing out by more than 10 m in relief over the surface of the silicate matrix suggesting that the carbonaceous phases were not easily polishable by a diamond paste and would therefore imply larger polishing hardness. These areas were investigated by reflected light microscopy, high-resolution Field Emission SEM (FESEM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, Raman spectroscopy, and were subsequently extracted for in situ synchrotron microbeam X-ray fluorescence (XRF), imaging and X-ray diffraction (XRD). We report here the natural occurrences of one new ultrahard rhombohedral carbon polymorph of the R3m space group which structure is very close to diamond but with a partial occupancy of some of the carbon sites. We also report the natural occurrence of the theoretically predicted 21R diamond polytype with lattice parameters very close to what has been modelized. These findings are of great interests for better understanding the world of carbon polymorphs and diamond polytypes giving new natural materials to investigate. These natural samples demonstrate that the carbon system is even more complex than what is currently thought based on ab initio static lattice calculations and high-pressure experiments since this new ultrahard polymorph has never been predicted nor synthesized.

  19. 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