Talk:Diamond/Archive 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overall quality
I came here looking for something simple - the thermal conductivity of crystalline and poly crystalline diamond. I didn't find an accurate number for that in the article (the citation says that the highest measured thermal conductivity is 410 W/m.k, not the 900-2300 W/m.k written in the article), but I did notice that the overall quality of this article is very poor, there are grammar mistakes throughout, many citations are not primary or even reputable sources (citing a knife exporter for chemical stability of diamond?!), and the general writing style is casual and unprofessional. I don't edit Wikipedia with an account, so I cannot clean this up. Would someone please take some time to go through and edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.194.93 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
| I would like to add some possible changes to improve the wording. Under the Cutting section, the phrase "Unlike cutting, which is a responsible but quick operation" seems odd. I suggest changing it to "Unlike cutting, which is a critical but quick operation". Other possibilites include "demanding" or "exacting". Asknapp (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Help
there are 2 words that are stuck together, when I add a space between them it deletes the space but the edit shows up under the history Scientific Alan (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- What words? I saw one you fixed and I added another missing space. Vsmith (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Proceess of a diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.172.59 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Spelling
For "Valuation Wholesale, discounted and cheaper diamonds are of lower value. Some indicators that lowers a diamond's value are when the diamond is not natural such as heat or clarity enhanced or synethic." can we please have "Valuation Wholesale, discounted and cheaper diamonds are of lower value. Some indicators that lower a diamond's value are when the diamond is not natural, such as heat enhanced or clarity enhanced, or is synthetic."
203.97.123.30 (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This article on DIAMOND is "semi-protected" because the diamond industry has PAID WIKIPEDIA NOT TO ALLOW the truthful details to be posted in this article.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Industrial-grade diamonds
Industrial diamonds are valued mostly for their hardness and thermal conductivity, making many of the gemological characteristics of diamonds, such as the 4 Cs, irrelevant for most applications. This helps explain why 80% of mined diamonds (equal to about 135,000,000 carats (27,000 kg) annually), unsuitable for use as gemstones, are destined for industrial use.
Mining
Approximately 130,000,000 carats (26,000 kg) of diamonds are mined annually, with a total value of nearly US$9 billion, and about 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) are synthesized annually.[76]
CHECK OUT THE NUMBERS!! THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE! "80% of mined diamonds (equal to about 135,000,000 carats (27,000 kg) annually), unsuitable for use as gemstones, are destined for industrial use" COMPARED to "Approximately 130,000,000 carats (26,000 kg) of diamonds are mined annually" !!!
"THEIR OWN LIES SHOW THEM UP ! " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.157.142 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
THAT is why this page is semi-protected...121.127.222.230 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I am certain they have hired people for PR purposes and that would include editing wikipedia like most companies do, but I don't think they paid wikipedia directly. You never know though. Anyway the sentence with the number of blood diamonds at 2-3% needs to state the source in the sentence. Citing the very people who cause these problems and profit from the problems as saying there are not many problems is just stupid. It should read "according to the (gay little acronym) blood diamonds make up x percent". Oh yeah also its fifteen fucking years old so yeah. Put a time line on it. This article has been a huge dispute for years now and it won't end any time soon but come on.... clean it up a little please. It's too obvious as propaganda. Also as the previous commenter stated the numbers thoughout this ENTIRE article are made up and thrown together randomly. Sometimes two sentences apart. Preceding comment made by 98.155.55.68 (talk) - Please remember to sign your comments --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Gramophone Needles
Does anybody know how big a part of industrial-grade diamonds are used for gramophone styli? One per million...? Harjasusi (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Phase diagram description, "hatched areas indicate metastable states"
The phase diagram for carbon seems to derive from the following website:
http://sciexplorer.blogspot.com/2012/09/non-silicate-gems.html
The hatched areas in the diagram indicate metastable states, wherein (say) carbon can exist with graphite, even though the one (or the other) is less stable. Over aeons, the less stable, "metastable", state gradually decays, into the stable state. Thus, near the metastable border regions, graphite <--> diamond can convert back and forth (perhaps according to some kind of Boltzmann energy level population equation, n ~ e-ΔE/kT ?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Diamond-spewing eruptions derive from deeper magma chambers, where-with-in Pressures are higher. According to the carbon phase diagram, higher Pressures would keep diamonds, dredged up from depth, closer to the diamond/graphite phase transition, and "deeper" within the "hatched region" on the plot, where diamond remains metastable (only slowing "decaying" into graphite). Plausibly, diamond is more (meta-)stable at higher Pressures, and so "decays" more slowly. Perhaps the diamond-relevant difference, between normal eruptions, and volcanic pipe eruptions, is that the higher Pressures, in the magma chambers, of the latter, preserve diamonds longer, so that more diamonds remain as larger crystals, in their erupted lavas?? If so, then eruptions which occur more quickly, would leave less time, for metastable diamonds to "decay"; whereas potentially supra-normally super-large crystals of diamond possibly exist, at depth, have grown to considerable size there, without having "erosively decayed" (ablating from their surfaces), in shallower magma chambers, whilst awaiting delivery, to earth's surface?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The spontaneous conversion of dense diamond "popping out" into graphite, at lower pressures, resembles the spontaneous conversion of Olivine (e.g. (FeO)2SiO2) to Pyroxene plus oxides (FeO)SiO2 + FeO). Apparently, pressure can crush molecules together; and reducing pressure allows them to "pop back apart", in sort of a "molecular fission" process. Perhaps, extrapolating, to nuclear fission processes, the intense pressures, inside immense stars, allow elements heavier than iron to be "metastable"?? Perhaps, arguing from analogy, that would require pressures on the nuclei themselves, i.e. nuclear densities, characteristic only of relativistically-compact objects, e.g. Neutron Stars?? So, perhaps by the time nuclear densities are reached, all the electrons have been crushed into protons, generating neutronized, neutron-degenerate material, in which no chemical elements (everything is neutrons) can even exist.66.235.38.214 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Another analogy would be the Pressure-induced phase changes, from Spinel ( (MgO)(Al2O3) ) to Garnet ( (MgO)3(Al2O3)(SiO2)3 ).66.235.38.214 (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Inexpertly, "metastable" states seem described, with language, implying that they have "half-lives", as if the analogy of "molecular fission" were appropriate.66.235.38.214 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The afore-cited "sci-explorer" website says, that most gems form, at the Crust-Mantle interface, i.e. the MOHO. Perhaps, by analogy, deeper-forming diamonds crystalize and grow, at the interface, between the solid Lithosphere mantle material above, and the still-molten mantle material below?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Inexpertly, the article could clarify, that "diamond formation" (slow crystal growth at depth) and "diamond delivery" (to surface) are unrelated phenomena (?). In some places, at some times, diamonds grow to macroscopic scales, down at deep depths. And, some times, those diamond formations are later blasted to the surface, by another "delivery elevator process", which dredges up all manner of xenocrysts and xenoliths, some small fraction of which, are diamonds. Presumably, too, those xenocrysts are scoured from the all depths, from deep diamond bearing regions (≤200km), all the way on up (?). If so, then perhaps the article could clarify that, more. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Slight grammatical error
There is a small grammatic mistake where formation temperature is described; it is stated that it will form "at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900–1300 °C (1652–2372 °F)."
I would re-phrase this as "at a comparatively low temperature range - approximately 900–1300 °C (1652–2372 °F)." OR I would re-phrase this as "at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900 and 1300 °C (1652 and 2372 °F)."
But I may well be being 'nitpicky'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.204.85 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I agree to bring this minor inconsistency of formatting in line with the remainder of the article. As proposed
Please Change Current Text
"at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900–1300 °C (1652–2372 °F)."
TO
"at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900 and 1300 °C (1652 and 2372 °F)."
Jcislowski (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Chemical stability
" A diamond's surface can only be oxidized a little by just a few oxidants[which?] at high temperature (below 1000 °C). " This statement is from a cited source and is in fact contradictory if read against the facts from the source.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#cite_note-DBS-23 ... <-- above statement from the linked source
The statement regarding ignition point states that it is present in oxygen an oxidant and air which contains the oxidant oxygen. And with the temperatures below 1000C this source covers all but the "a little" part of this statement. You could say we have a verifiable piece here, but i believe the source and the context of its usage leave a lot to be desired.
I find the statement to be overall incomplete and lacking perspective to the surrounding subject matter and suggest it be reworded or removed. As in its current form and intent its a total fact hack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#cite_note-22
Jcislowski (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Suspect materials as oxidizers include nitric acid, fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, permanganate ion, hydrogen peroxide, liquid oxygen. Substances that can oxidize graphite just might oxidize diamond. As reducing substances? Alkali and alkaline-earth metals. Those metals reduce carbon as coke or graphite to acetylides. Pbrower2a (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Green from radiation exposure
In the introduction, there is stated: "Small amounts of defects [...] color diamond [...] green (radiation exposure), [...]." I question this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Diamond is no longer the hardest naturally occuring material.
In the hardness subsection of "material properties" I noticed that the first sentence said "diamond is the hardest known natural material". In fact there are two materials now known to be harder then diamond. Those are wurtzite boron nitride and lonsdaleite.
Wurtzite boron nitride occurs naturally after very powerful volcanic events and is up to 18% harder then diamond because it's atoms of boron and nitrogen are even more powerfully bonded. It has no facets and therefore has no strange facet differences like lonsdaleite. It has a hardness of 114 Gpa compared to diamond's 97 Gpa.
However, the hardest naturally occuring substance is lonsdaleite which occurs naturally when an asteroid containing large amounts of graphite hits the Earth. The force of the impact changes the graphite into a substance similar to diamond but with the crystal structure of graphite giving it superior hardness then diamond by up to 58% on certain facets but on others it is weaker then diamond, leaving it open for debate.
- I thought this was common knowledge. It comes up on tests a lot with the younger generation. (That's why us older folks need to keep up with the latest discoveries.) Of course diamond is still the hardest substance the average person is likely to encounter, but yeah, that should be in the article. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Diamond thermal conductivity
i think diamond's thermal conductivity should be added to the diamond characteristics chart under "identification". it is listed somewhere in the article as: thermal conductivity 900–2,320 W·m−1·K−1 (current citation number 20) i was going to add it but i figured i'd discuss it here first.Among Men (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Citation needed
"Excellent optical and mechanical properties, notably unparalleled hardness and durability, make diamond the most popular gemstone." Whether or not it's the most popular gemstone, which also should have a citation, there should be a citation(and perhaps an explanation) for the cause of the popularity being caused by its optical and mechanicalproperties, esp the unparalleled hardness blah blah, which was mentioned before, which sounds like a real estateadvertisement.76.218.104.120 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
From the introduction: "...renowned for superlative physical properties"?
It depends what you are using it for. It wouldn't be superlative talcum powder. So this is a pov issue.76.218.104.120 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- The whole lede needs work. First it should distinguish between the rock and the mineral. Hardness was an issue in ancient times and the Middle Ages. Gems were commonly used as armor (jade) or as supplemental armoring. They were usually unfaceted, cut en cabochon or polished in a tumbler. Diamonds would not have been very effective, but people also wore gems as personal adornment, partly in the belief that they could ward off back luck and evil spirits. That's why diamonds were so highly prized: if they could scratch other gems, which in turn could protect warriors, then they must have had powerful magic. Today few people care how their jewelry rates on the Moh's hardness scale.
- Diamonds are generally opaque, ranging in color from dark brown to light brown. The 2% that are gem-quality are mostly color P-Z, with no individual letter grade, and a split clarity grade: I2-3. Since most gem-quality diamonds are uncertified and the FTC (at least in the USA) says a jeweler's report need only be accurate to within one grade, it follows that most gem-quality diamonds are actually color ZZ, clarity I4. Which is to say, opaque to translucent, ranging in color from medium brown to light brown. Since most are only slightly larger than a grain of sand, people can't see how dark and deeply flawed they are. They also can't see that the diamond cutter was in too much of a hurry to cut all 17 facets on the "single cut," or to try to make them even remotely symmetrical.
- If we're talking about diamonds that cost thousands of dollars, such as for engagement rings, the color is still likely to be off by a bit, as well as the clarity. That's because many people really want a 1-carat diamond, but couldn't afford one if it wasn't a little off color, with flaws that can hardly be seen at arm's length.
Diamonds in minecraft
someone add something about diamond tools in Minecraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.176.127 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
