Mass Produced Perfect Diamonds

[B5B7]

If DeBeers was capable of innovative thinking, then they would realize that a whole new industry is made possible by this - artistic design of new items of jewellery, and of course a whole stack of non-jewellery applications that can involve artistry.
That's what they need to get involved in to save their business.

[Shinova]

I wonder if they can make colored diamonds.

[Lord of the Abyss]

In response, diamond giant De Beers has set up a "Gem Defensive Programme" with the aim of finding ways to tell apart synthetic and natural diamonds.

How are they going to do this? Carbon is carbon is carbon. The only conceivable way they could tell natural and artificial diamonds apart is that natural diamonds have flaws.

IIRC, that's exactly what happened with some gems, like sapphires and rubies; when synthetic ones were created, the flawed gems became more valuable than the flawless ones because the artificial process created flawless gems.

Are there any benefits to replacing "normal" usages for glass (camera lenses, windows) with diamond?

Sheer durability comes to mind. I bet that a diamond lens is a lot less likely to get scratched up.

[starslayer]

The problem with diamond in optics is that it's very dispersive; it is in fact over twice as dispersive as some types of optical glass. This means that it makes a more effective prism, something you don't want in most common optical systems, such as glasses and cameras. It doesn't help spectroscopy since we already use diffraction for that, which is much better than any diamond prism we might make.

If there were some way to counteract the high dispersion and thus extra chromatic aberration, diamond would be a very good scratch-resistant lens material. It could however find good use in telescope mirrors, because it backs the reflective surface instead going in front of it, and has a thermal expansion coefficient three times less than that of Pyrex (borosilicate glass). However, it is somewhat heavier, so it might not be used; I'm also not sure how well the metal coating would stick to it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The women who demand a diamond ring are not interested in the diamond itself but rather in the fact that the guy had to spend X amount of dollars to buy it. They would probably be content with wearing a piece of dried up cows shit if they were certain you could only get ahold of one for thousands of dollars.

I have just such a piece of cow shit for you, and I'm willing to let it go for only $2650.

[Surlethe]

The problem with diamond in optics is that it's very dispersive; it is in fact over twice as dispersive as some types of optical glass. This means that it makes a more effective prism, something you don't want in most common optical systems, such as glasses and cameras. It doesn't help spectroscopy since we already use diffraction for that, which is much better than any diamond prism we might make.

Would it be possible to coat the surface of a lens with diamond so thinly the dispersion is negligible, but still enough to make the lens more resistant to wear and tear?

[Lord of the Abyss]

The problem with diamond in optics is that it's very dispersive; it is in fact over twice as dispersive as some types of optical glass. This means that it makes a more effective prism, something you don't want in most common optical systems, such as glasses and cameras. It doesn't help spectroscopy since we already use diffraction for that, which is much better than any diamond prism we might make.

Would it be possible to coat the surface of a lens with diamond so thinly the dispersion is negligible, but still enough to make the lens more resistant to wear and tear?

It might be possible; I've read over the years of various processes that cover surfaces with a "diamondoid" film; even speakers of all things. And it says in the article :

A team led by Russell Hemley, of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, makes diamonds by chemical vapour deposition (CVD), where carbon atoms in a gas are deposited on a surface to produce diamond crystals.

[Broomstick]

Are there any benefits to replacing "normal" usages for glass (camera lenses, windows) with diamond? The usage for armoured windows is obvious (Neal Stephenson also mentioned it, but decades after Niven)? In addition, this might be a lot cheaper than regular diamonds, but that doesn't mean that it'll be cost effective compared to the items (apart from natural diamonds of course) that it might replace.

So many things can be made out of diamond... diamond glasses, diamond toilets, diamond silverwear... you know someone will do it!

What's wrong with that? I want diamond windows, a diamond car, and a chain made of solid diamond.

The only question is whether the house walls should be made of Diamondillium or Diamondtrillium

There is the problem that diamond, being so hard, can be difficult to shape. After all, it takes a diamond to cut or grind another diamond. (Well, OK, you can use lasers, too)

One other possible drawback - although diamonds are tough, if they are hit at the proper angle they do split or even shatter.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Are there any benefits to replacing "normal" usages for glass (camera lenses, windows) with diamond? The usage for armoured windows is obvious (Neal Stephenson also mentioned it, but decades after Niven)? In addition, this might be a lot cheaper than regular diamonds, but that doesn't mean that it'll be cost effective compared to the items (apart from natural diamonds of course) that it might replace.

So many things can be made out of diamond... diamond glasses, diamond toilets, diamond silverwear... you know someone will do it!

What's wrong with that? I want diamond windows, a diamond car, and a chain made of solid diamond.

The only question is whether the house walls should be made of Diamondillium or Diamondtrillium

There is the problem that diamond, being so hard, can be difficult to shape. After all, it takes a diamond to cut or grind another diamond. (Well, OK, you can use lasers, too)

Diamond tools would be economical and preferable, you'd probably see a mass replacement of tips in cutting equipment with diamonds, a lot use diamond dust even know after all, so while a bit harder to cut it wouldn't necessarily mean a magnitude of additional, unwanted expense.

One other possible drawback - although diamonds are tough, if they are hit at the proper angle they do split or even shatter.

Yes, yes, tough but not hard. One wonders as to how much of a problem this would be when the diamond can more easily be shaped and with less flaws, maybe multiple layers of diamonds to prevent "dangerous" angles from being overly exposed? It would obviously be a very specific case by case thing.

The problem with diamond in optics is that it's very dispersive; it is in fact over twice as dispersive as some types of optical glass.

Interesting, didn't know that, thanks! As surlthe said though, the possibility still exists to use it as a coating for the outer layer, as it wouldn't detract from light gathering unlike most ultra hard covers for glass worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[The Spartan]

If DeBeers was capable of innovative thinking, then they would realize that a whole new industry is made possible by this - artistic design of new items of jewellery, and of course a whole stack of non-jewellery applications that can involve artistry.
That's what they need to get involved in to save their business.

Actually that's not a bad idea. If they can figure out a process for it (assuming they haven't already got one), imagine buying your fiance a diamond that has here name etched directly into it.

[Broomstick]

They can already do that.

[Mayabird]

I wonder if they can make colored diamonds.

Definitely. It's just a matter of adding some impurities that discolor the gem. Nitrogen will make the diamonds yellow (hence while industrial-made diamonds usually end up yellow), and boron turns diamonds blue.

Actually, let me rephrase that. They might not have the technique down yet to add the minuscule amounts of impurities to make diamonds that have whatever colors someone wants with their method. But even before that, there are methods of treating diamonds (usually 'natural' ones right now) to change their colors which can certainly be done to these cultured diamonds (yeah, that's right, cultured diamonds, and I'm sticking to it unless someone thinks of a better term).


Also, a note: there are already diamond tools because diamonds have been made in laboratories since the 50s. They're widely used in stonecutting and ceramics, for instance.

[Kanastrous]

Don't diamonds also change color under irradiation?

[Zixinus]

Don't diamonds also change color under irradiation?

Some types change colour depending on radiation. I can't remember which.

Of course, if you hit the diamond hard enough (with radiation), you will most likely break off some molecules and add some others. Do it enough, and you might "pollute" the diamond enough for it to visibly change colour.

[Kanastrous]

Are diamonds subject to accumulation of Wigner energy, when irradiated?

[Zixinus]

On a wild and random question, what would happen if you put diamond powder into steel? Or try to combine steel and diamonds somehow?

[Broomstick]

You mean, like the diamond-dust impregnated steel disk my dad used in his glass grinder to shape pieces for his stained glass projects? (Wow, it just occurred to me - we bought that for him 30 years ago!)

[Master of Cards]

I wonder if they can make colored diamonds.

Definitely. It's just a matter of adding some impurities that discolor the gem. Nitrogen will make the diamonds yellow (hence while industrial-made diamonds usually end up yellow), and boron turns diamonds blue.

Actually, let me rephrase that. They might not have the technique down yet to add the minuscule amounts of impurities to make diamonds that have whatever colors someone wants with their method. But even before that, there are methods of treating diamonds (usually 'natural' ones right now) to change their colors which can certainly be done to these cultured diamonds (yeah, that's right, cultured diamonds, and I'm sticking to it unless someone thinks of a better term).


Also, a note: there are already diamond tools because diamonds have been made in laboratories since the 50s. They're widely used in stonecutting and ceramics, for instance.

If I'm not mistaken they have been able to produce colored diamonds cheaply for a few years now, this announcement is so important because its now easy to create perfect and at any size diamonds.

[starslayer]

Would it be possible to coat the surface of a lens with diamond so thinly the dispersion is negligible, but still enough to make the lens more resistant to wear and tear?

For common optical systems (your garden variety camera lens, glasses), most likely. One benefit, oddly enough, is that diamond has twice the refractive index of optical glass; you might be able to lessen the curvature of the lenses somewhat using a thin diamond coating. And especially for stuff like reading glasses, chromatic aberration is already negligible anyways, so a cheap diamond coating could do wonders for their durability; hell, just make them purely out of diamond.

Premium products, however, are not so lucky. The tolerances are just too tight, and the need to reduce any kind of aberration too much to allow for a diamond coat. If you could find a way to counteract the dispersion using only diamond and anti-reflection coatings, though, this arena is opened too, with the added bonus that the sometimes very aggressive element curvatures could be reduced, as above.

As an aside, the way chromatic aberration is normally reduced when it must be eliminated or is unavoidable is to use a doublet or triplet system composed of elements with different refractive indices, thus bringing two (achromat) or three (apochromat) colors to focus. You might be able to make the front lens out of diamond, and then the sealed inside elements out of something else, where the diamond would serve to protect the inner elements. It'd be bloody expensive though, because of the special glass and the precision needed in grinding it.

Would it be possible to coat the surface of a lens with diamond so thinly the dispersion is negligible, but still enough to make the lens more resistant to wear and tear?

If you're bombarding them with neutrons, sure. Otherwise, no, the Wigner effect does not apply, as it only has to do with neutron radiation.

[Winston Blake]

One other possible drawback - although diamonds are tough, if they are hit at the proper angle they do split or even shatter.

Yes, yes, tough but not hard. One wonders as to how much of a problem this would be when the diamond can more easily be shaped and with less flaws, maybe multiple layers of diamonds to prevent "dangerous" angles from being overly exposed? It would obviously be a very specific case by case thing.

This sort of thing could be achieved by growing diamonds as a collection of smaller, randomly oriented crystal grains - polycrystalline diamond. Metals are polycrystalline and generally get tougher as you decrease the grain size - it would interesting to see if very tough diamondoid material could be made this way.

Note that Google tells me that the name 'polycrystalline diamond' is already taken by a fairly mundane diamond/metal composite.

Also, just to nitpick, diamonds are indeed very hard, but they're not very tough. Hard materials are difficult to scratch or indent - tough materials take a lot of energy to break them.

[Imperial Overlord]

(yeah, that's right, cultured diamonds, and I'm sticking to it unless someone thinks of a better term).

That sounds good to me.

[avatarxprime]

They'd have to stamp/etch every diamond they pull out of the ground, or develop some new technology.

So they are going to try to exploit the "nature is better" BS?

I imagine that's exactly what DeBeers would do. Look at their marketing angle, a diamond is special, it's unique, it's precious for that precious someone. A factory manufactured diamond hardly fits with that, but you can turn it around and say that because natural diamonds are by definition formed by nature they are inherently unique and special unlike the "cookie-cutter" artificial diamonds.

BTW, anyone know what happened with DeBeers court case when the creators of artificial diamonds tried to get them a nice name like "cultured" diamonds instead of artificial?

[starslayer]

I went back and reread the section of my optics textbook dealing with dispersion, reflection, refraction, etc. and found something that just about torpedoes any use of diamond for lens elements (it's still great for mirrors, though): because it has a higher index of refraction, it also has a higher reflectance; that is, it reflects more light at an air-diamond interface than does glass. Increased dispersion can be dealt with, but extra reflections and light loss simply make it too much of a hassle. You could make a case for special uses involving total internal reflection (its critical angle is smaller than that for glass), but conventional lenses are out.

[Zablorg]

As I recall some scientist in the early 1900s released enormous amounts of radiation upon several diamonds. They became vivid colours of orange and red and blue and stuff. Unfortunately this caused them to become highly irradiated and the scientist died several weeks later due to radiation poisoning. The diamonds are still dangerously irradiated to this day.

Coloured diamonds have also been found due to natural radiation sources, but I would imagine that they are not nearly as impressive.

[Zablorg]

Fuck. I just researched the matter (in retrospect I probably should have done that before I posted), and it turns out that for the most part I'm full of shit. There was one diamond, it turned dark green, and I can't find anything that says the fellow died.

I apologize.