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.

41 of 81 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. Re:Car analogy? by idji · · Score: 1

      during the impact.

    8. 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.

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

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

    10. 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
    11. 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 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?

    4. 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...

    5. 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.

    6. 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?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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. 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 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.

    2. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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"

  7. 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 :-)

  8. 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

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Re:Fusion? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

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

  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. 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.

  17. 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
  18. Re:Fusion? by retchdog · · Score: 1

    as opposed to bitcoin itself.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  19. 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