Slashdot Mirror


NIF Compresses Diamonds With 50 Million Atmospheres of Pressure

sciencehabit (1205606) writes The world's largest laser [the National Ignition Facility], a machine that appeared as the warp core in 'Star Trek into Darkness', has attained a powerful result: It's squeezed diamond, the least compressible substance known, 50 million times harder than Earth's atmosphere presses down on us. ... As the researchers report online today in Nature, the x-ray assault nearly quadrupled the diamond's density. "That's a record," Smith [one of the researchers] says. "No one's compressed diamond to that extent before." The blast pulverized the diamond into dust, but before the mineral's destruction the scientists successfully measured its density ... For a billionth of a second, the diamond, which is normally 3.25 times denser than water, became ... 12.03 times denser than water. ... Scientists have speculated that diamond worlds may exist elsewhere. If a solar system arises with more carbon than oxygen, then carbon should soak up the oxygen by forming carbon monoxide, leaving excess carbon to create carbon planets—which, under pressure, become diamond worlds. Thus, Smith says, the new experiment will probe the nature of such planets. They are performing similar experiments with iron in an attempt to understand the properties of super-Earth cores.

81 comments

  1. Car analogy? by sinij · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain this with a car analogy?

    1. Re:Car analogy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In automotive terms, they dropped a Hummer from the SpaceX reusable rocket at the peak of a test-launch and for an infinitesimaly small period of time during the impact, it was compressed to the size of a Pinto, before shattering into a pile of scrap metal.

      Except this was done with diamond and a laser instead of a Hummer and a rocket.

    2. Re:Car analogy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its like hitting a rock cliff with a car going at 50 million times the recommended speed limit. Before exploding, your car will be 4 times denser than normal (due to loss of volume).

    3. Re:Car analogy? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Funny

      In automotive terms, they dropped a Hummer from the SpaceX reusable rocket at the peak of a test-launch and for an infinitesimaly[sic] small period of time before the impact, it got almost the same MPG of a Pinto, before shattering into a pile of scrap metal.

    4. Re:Car analogy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Car analogy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Basically they used lasers to stuff 99 people into a VW bug for about a nanosecond. Then the entire thing exploded violently into sand-grain-sized chunks of metal and meat.

    6. Re:Car analogy? by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can someone explain this with a car analogy?

      Star Trek Into Darkness:Star Trek The Wrath of Khan :: Ford Pinto : Ford Mustang (1969 Boss version)

      No idea about the laser.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:Car analogy? by GrandCow · · Score: 1

      Think of a monster truck show.

      All those junk cars lined up in a row, that's the diamond. Then out comes Gravedigger. The driver revs the engine and hits the ramp, landing on the cars and crushing them. Bam, denser diamonds.

      Then Truckasaurus comes stomping out into the arena and starts grabbing the smashed cars and eating them. Flames and sparks are shooting everywhere and the cars (diamonds) explode into little pieces half a second later.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    8. Re:Car analogy? by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      Homer: Here are your messages: "You have 30 minutes to move your car," "You have 10 minutes," "Your car has been impounded," "Your car has been crushed into a cube," "You have 30 minutes to move your cube."
      [phone rings]
      Homer: [answering] Hello, Mr. Burns' office.
      Mr. Burns: Is it about my cube?

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    9. Re:Car analogy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I owned a Pinto. The mileage of that POS was in the same ballpark as the Hummer.

    10. Re:Car analogy? by idji · · Score: 1

      during the impact.

    11. Re:Car analogy? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      I owned a Pinto. The mileage of that POS was in the same ballpark as the Hummer.

      Either it was very old by the time you got it, or something was really wrong with it. Pinto's were advertised to get 34 MPG, and many did better than that. The worst mileage I've ever heard of a stock Pinto getting was 22 MPG, but that was pulling a trailer with the AC on.

      The Hummer H1 was 9 MPG city and 12 highway. The H2 was around 14 combined, and the H3 was 14 city, 18 highway. So no, not really in the same ball park at all.

    12. Re: Car analogy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow that's almost as dense as a house representative from a thoroughly red state.

    13. Re: Car analogy? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Yet only a small fraction as dense as a red state rep.

    14. Re:Car analogy? by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      So you needed a trailer to talke the air conditioning plant along - awesome!

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    15. Re:Car analogy? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      So you needed a trailer to talke the air conditioning plant along - awesome!

      Yes, and even towing an air conditioning plant the Pinto managed to get better mileage than a Hummer.

  2. There is only one "Solar system" by adric22 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I see that mistake so often. It should be "star system" because only our star system is called "Solar system" because our star is called Sol.

    1. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Solar System" in this case would be a specific noun, and as such warrants the capitalization. Sol, our Star, is also a specific noun, hence its warrant of capitalization, just as we would capitalize a person's name. If one is referring to "a solar system" in a generic sense rather than an unknown but implied specific Star and it's surrounding Planets, then lower case is appropriate.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      Further, Solar System is implying Star + Planets, or "like Sol System".

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    3. Re:There is only one "Solar system" by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 0

      And you will see its usage increase as it becomes part of the common lexicon.
      A very frequent place to find this misused is the pseudo-science programs on Science and History channels. And I'm sure the Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boos out their wouldn't understand the difference if you hit them in the head with a Star Encyclopedia, it would however, be enjoyable.

      Sigh, I had such great hopes for those types of channels when they first appeared. Now they live off of Ancient Aliens and Blob People From The Depths (actually I'm writing that one, it will be on right after the Ancient Egyptian Flying Taxis episode, don't miss it!).

      When I see those shows popularity ratings, then I fear George was giving the average person way too much credit when he said:
      "Just think how stupid the average person is - and then realize that half of them are even stupider"

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    4. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by MildlyTangy · · Score: 2

      "Solar System" in this case would be a specific noun, and as such warrants the capitalization. Sol, our Star, is also a specific noun, hence its warrant of capitalization, just as we would capitalize a person's name. If one is referring to "a solar system" in a generic sense rather than an unknown but implied specific Star and it's surrounding Planets, then lower case is appropriate.

      Can you please explain to me why this actually matters?

      Since somebody spent the time to write out a detailed explanation about capitalisation of the phrase "solar system", this must be of some importance.

      Again, why does this matter?

    5. Re:There is only one "Solar system" by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I see that mistake so often. It should be "star system" because only our star system is called "Solar system" because our star is called Sol.

      Funny thing is, often words have multiple meanings:

      Solar system
      noun
      1.the sun together with all the planets and other bodies that revolve around it.
      2.a similar system with celestial bodies revolving around a star other than the sun.

      http://dictionary.reference.co...

    6. Re:There is only one "Solar system" by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Furthermore we also refer to other stars as "suns" when we feel like it or the context makes it useful.

    7. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George must have meant "the median", not "the average"...

    8. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

      I come into the comments looking for someone modded up for actually explaining things, and THIS is the only thing modded +5?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    9. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some people can't live without syntax highlighting

    10. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure George ever gave his opinion about which side of that particular line he was on.

    11. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by fellip_nectar · · Score: 2

      Capitalization is the difference between...

      helping your Uncle Jack off a horse.

      and

      helping your uncle jack off a horse.

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    12. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a kludge. How are you going to express that with an ALL CAPS font?

    13. Re: There is only one "Solar system" by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Again, why does this matter?

      Because, technically correct is the best kind of correct!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  3. Shark? by Flavianoep · · Score: 0

    So, if we can mount a NIF-like laser onto a shark, we can use it to transform diamonds into dust?

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  4. Re:Been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to get technical, you compress excrements into turds.

  5. Black Hole? by karstdiver · · Score: 0

    How close did this come to creating a black hole?

    1. Re:Black Hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it didn't even manage to crunch the diamond into neutrons? Nowhere near...

  6. Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still quite short of actual fusion though... What I always wonder when I look at places like grand canyon (you see a mile of rock pushing down on other rock...) is just how much pressure is out there in everyday life happily existing all around us... and yet even the immense pressure of Jupiter's core is not enough to start fusion...

    And here we are attempting to generate *more* pressure than the core of Jupiter in a device at NIF... enough to rival the pressure at the center of the SUN... If we succeed in generating and controlling that plasma, that will be one amazing trick we play on nature.

    Also.... Jupiter... there be diamonds in there... Arthur C. Clark said so!

    1. Re:Fusion? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      By the time we're able to harvest diamonds from other planetary bodies we'll have perfected laboratory synthethis. Actually, we'll perfect that LONG before we start mining other planetary bodies.

    2. Re:Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wasn't part of the fusion campaign, but a side test for material science. So it mostly likely will be quite short of fusion not being optimized for that direction. A lot of big plasma and fusion experiments have side projects using the experiments in one way or another for astrophysics.

    3. Re:Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can already synthesize isotopically pure diamonds...

    4. Re:Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can already synthesize isotopically pure diamonds...

      If it isn't dug out of a wound on Mother Gaia's body by child slaves and shipped across the planet, then it's not a real diamond and means you don't "love" her.

    5. Re:Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time we're able to harvest diamonds from other planetary bodies we'll have perfected laboratory synthethis. Actually, we'll perfect that LONG before we start mining other planetary bodies.

      What's wrong with laboratory synthetics today?

    6. Re:Fusion? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      Because I'm mildly insane or something, I bought a lab made sapphire online, and when it came in the mail, I promptly took it around to the local jeweler, and asked him to take a look at this stone I had. He sits down, looks at it for a bit, goes "Huh." and moves to a more powerful microscope, looks for a bit longer, and finally says,
      "I don't see any flaws or inclusions, but I also don't see and bubbles, so its not glass.... I guess we can send it to a lab in New York and find out what it is if you want?"
      At that point, I said that it was not that important, and took my rock and left, because I was not really sure how he would react to being told I already knew what it was.
      The point is, we can manufacture perfect gemstones, better than nature makes them.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    7. Re:Fusion? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yep. The main selling point of "natural" gemstones these days is that the lab-made ones are "too perfect!"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The main selling point of "natural" gemstones these days is that the lab-made ones are "too perfect!"

      Strictly speaking it's because they're "more unique" and therefore "rarer". But yeah. The whole jewelry gig is more about how much it costs than any rational justification and mass produced industrial stones are too inexpensive to contribute to the value of high end jewelry.

    9. Re:Fusion? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      Many years ago I had a friend who was a gemologist. He told me once that it's not at all hard to tell that a stone's synthetic once you have it under the microscope. Synthetic gemstones (Not diamonds; they're done differently.) are built up little by little on a rod, then cut, shaped and polished. No matter how well done they are, you can see the layers. Either the technique has gotten much better over the last several decades or the jeweler didn't know what to look for.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    10. Re:Fusion? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      which translates to 'No one had to bleed in a mine for seven cents a day to get this lab made gem, and as you know, bleeding in a mine is the definition of romantic."

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    11. Re:Fusion? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I'm going to assume a 30/70 split, where 30% is better technique, and 70% my local jeweler not knowing to look for it.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    12. Re:Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already had this discussion in a bitcoin thread. Essentially the value of gold an gemstones are overly inflated and based mostly on peoples perception of their value, just like the currencies we use.

    13. Re:Fusion? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, there is only "unique" and "non unique", but there's no "more unique."

    14. Re:Fusion? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, there is only "unique" and "non unique", but there's no "more unique."

      True, but sadly, due to rampant misuse, there's no more "unique." :-)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    15. Re:Fusion? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      as opposed to bitcoin itself.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    16. Re:Fusion? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Yep. The main selling point of "natural" gemstones these days is that the lab-made ones are "too perfect!"

      Strictly speaking it's because they're "more unique" and therefore "rarer"....

      Yet, oddly, the market for natural pearls - by which I mean ones that aren't "cultured", but are formed naturally - collapsed when farmed cultured pearls were introduced, and has never really recovered -- even though they are easily identifiable, far rarer, and "more unique" (I am quoting the misconstruction). Natural pearl production is lower today than it was a century ago. This is a good thing, since it takes pressure off of living communities of organisms, but it is also inconsistent behavior of the market/industry compared to other gemstones.

      (I have an explanation for why this occurred for pearls - that "cultured" pearls are considered "real" pearls by the market - but laboratory diamonds are not considered "real" diamonds. Pearls were really, truly rare before culturing made them something everyone could buy -- thus cultured ones were accepted because they expanded the market into a mass market. Diamonds on the other hand were really, truly rare once, but that ended with the discovery of the African diamond deposits in the mid 19th century. After that time they were something everyone could buy, and required an international cartel to manage the supply to keep the price up (in addition to restricting the supply it began an unflagging sales efforts - "diamonds are girl's best friend" - to drive up demand). Artificial diamonds did not change the supply-demand situation, there was already a surplus of natural diamond, but the cartel does not wish for there to be "real" diamonds produced outside of cartel price control. Thus no one who deals in diamonds, and is thus dependent on cartel favor for their supply, will agree that an artificial one is "real".)

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  7. Diamond monopoly.... by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    So that's how De Beers keeps their monopoly, they dispose of extra diamonds... by crushing them with a really expensive laser...

    1. Re:Diamond monopoly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is far easier and cheaper to just burn them, literally, by heating with a torch then dropping into liquid oxygen.

    2. Re:Diamond monopoly.... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      It is far easier and cheaper to just burn them, literally, by heating with a torch then dropping into liquid oxygen.

      Why bother with the liquid oxygen? You can shovel them into a coal burning furnace. Diamonds usually completely burn up in house fires. It doesn't take any more heat/oxygen to burn a diamond than it does to burn coal.

    3. Re:Diamond monopoly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take any more heat/oxygen to burn a diamond than it does to burn coal.

      Coal will ignite around 400-600 C and will continue to burn. Diamonds don't tend to oxidize in air until around 700-800 C (some artificial types not until 1000 C), and won't actually ignite and sustain burning until 900-1000 C, even then only when smaller pieces or thin films. You either have to continually apply a lot of external heat, or add a lot of oxygen (with a bad enough case of the former, getting graphite instead).

    4. Re:Diamond monopoly.... by careysub · · Score: 1

      De Beers never destroyed diamonds to maintain scarcity - they just stockpiled them, and then worked to create new markets in emerging economies (the United States, later Japan, then Eastern Europe, now China) and eventually sold them. At one point they had a stockpile equal to several years of sales.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  8. Re:he stopped caring by July 2nd, 2013 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you babbling about? Are you so deranged by wingnut media that you're posting wingnut comments in random threads?

  9. The missing link by scdeimos · · Score: 3, Informative

    Disappointing that the Star Trek tie-in was mentioned but the link was omitted...

    National Ignition Facility provides backdrop for "Star Trek: Into Darkness"

    1. Re:The missing link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that where Star Trek goes into Africa?

  10. Is this a spin-off from "Will It Blend" ? by slincolne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't sustain fusion, so let's use the nice shiny laser to zap things and pretend its science :-)

    1. Re:Is this a spin-off from "Will It Blend" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honey, where's my ring? Did you clean it like I asked? Honey?

  11. The atmosphere does not press "down" on us by gweihir · · Score: 1

    It presses us from all sides with the same force (except for a minuscule difference due to different height of things). This is a real stupid beginner's mistake.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:The atmosphere does not press "down" on us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, P=rho*g*h

  12. Why will the Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not allow them to sell these diamonds? They could fund their own research if the Republicans didn't suck the DeBeer's dicks so hard. That is the way of their kind. Instead of giving us diamonds that have so many industrial uses, the Republicans require them to be destroyed. They hate us and want us to waste money on rings and on drill bits and saw blades that dull in a matter of minutes. They are so hateful.

  13. all the carbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh man, we would be so rich ....

  14. Democrat Senators are right wing? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    While Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, and the longest serving Democrat in any national office, he wrote scathing commentary about Obama ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the oval office. Nobody is more democrat than Byrd. More recently, the distinguished Senator from Ohio wrote that Obama's handling of Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional.

    I understand you're probably infatuated with the guy, but peek around the blinders once in a while.

  15. Similar experiments at the LHC by infuriatedweasel · · Score: 2

    Apparently, they're doing experiments like this at the LHC too: http://www.theonion.com/video/...

  16. Fraud To Impress Congress Budget Committee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The budget of the NIF is slated to be zeroed-out, i.e. killed, in the current U.S. Congressional Budget Negotiations.

    Unless "God" Intervenes, you are allowed to choose your "God", NIF is dead.

  17. Mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I get out of this is that greedy guts are looking to mine other planets for diamonds.

    I welcome our new overlords.

  18. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The taxpayers bought a bunch of scientists some incredible equipment to help them develop the most amazing car ever. The new car the scientists promised would be faster than any rocketcar to cross the salt flats, more rugged than an MRAP, have more luxury than a Maybach, and be nearly free to operate because it would run on sea water.

    As the decades slipped by and people asked these scientists "where's our shiny new ultimate car?" the scientists always gave the same answer: "We just got the first cough of ignition from the new motor and tha dashboard lit up, but we need a few more years (and more money) to complete it"

    Now we got a press release that they have been using the super-car building machine to destroy diamonds, which they apparently found to be more interesting than making the super car they kept promising.

    For "super car" substitute "fusion reactor", then get angry and demand that all involved be fired immediately for spending ANY time and ANY money at the National Ignition Facility doing ANYTHING not DIRECTLY involved in creating a working nuclear fusion reactor which is the whole reason their paychecks and that damned facility exist in the first place.

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

      for spending ANY time and ANY money at the National Ignition Facility doing ANYTHING not DIRECTLY involved in creating a working nuclear fusion reactor which is the whole reason their paychecks and that damned facility exist in the first place.

      If you wanted them to spend 100% of the time working on fusion, that would mean they would need even more money and even higher budget. Some of the larger experiments scale the number of operating days to their budget, because budgets don't cover for operation 24/7 (plus maintenance and servicing takes up some of that time). People with other funding can come along though and use some of that down time for other experiments. To most people this seems far more reasonable, that if you buy an expensive piece of equipment, you try to get as much stuff done with it for a given amount of money, instead of saying damn the costs, we need to do one and only one thing with it.

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

      It seems kind of stupid to suggest people should get angry over an expensive facility finding additional uses, especially considering the fusion research is a secondary goal for the facility. Often it can take a bit of analysis and planning for each step taken, so there will be down time between when previous data is being looked at and when there is a good idea of what to do next. Or sometimes part of the system could be working (e.g. diagnostics important to one goal are down for maintenance, but the rest of the system is capable of running).

      To stick with car analogies, what you're advocating is that important employees should be assigned a work car exclusive to each employee, even if they don't use it every day and will have head notice of when they will need it. Instead, the facility is run more like how various states and local governments handle vehicles via a fleet that pools cars. It is easy enough to ensure important and priority employees get it when they needed it, but now they get higher utilization from fewer cars. Yet you don't see people complaining "We bought a car so the health inspector could visit restaurants around town, anyone involved in letting building inspector or park supervisor from using it to do approved location visits should be fired."

  19. The only real question remaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until Beyoncé is spotted wearing an ultra-dense diamond at <insert music/film award night of your choice> ?

  20. Re: There is only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's something between you, your uncle and the horse

  21. Obsolete measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A standard atmosphere (atm) is an obsolete non-SI international unit of pressure defined as 101.325 kPa. For practical purposes it has been replaced by the bar, which is 100 kPa.