Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Material Harder Than Diamond

ScuttleMonkey posted about 9 years ago | from the thats-one-gem-thats-hard-to-imagine dept.

Science 450

h4x0r-3l337 writes "Diamond is no longer the hardest substance known to man. Scientists have created a new material, called "aggregated diamond nanorods" by compressing carbon-60 under high heat. From the article: 'The hardness of a material is measured by its isothermal bulk modulus. Aggregated diamond nanorods have a modulus of 491 gigapascals (GPa), compared with 442 GPa for conventional diamond.'"

cancel ×

450 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hmmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433582)

491 gigapascals.... Wow!!!

WTF is a gigapascal?

Re:hmmm (4, Informative)

polysylabic psudonym (820466) | about 9 years ago | (#13433622)

100000000 Pascals. It's a unit of pressure. It's equal to 1000 bar or 29,529.99 inches of mercury

Re:hmmm (4, Funny)

mad.frog (525085) | about 9 years ago | (#13433634)

And here I thought it was some cool new programming language (presumably a billion times better than old fashioned Pascal...)

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433743)

presumably a billion times better than old fashioned Pascal.

Ah, you are talking about VB.NET!

Re:hmmm (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 9 years ago | (#13433775)

Wow, Pascal must've been one gawd-awful programming language...

Re:hmmm (4, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | about 9 years ago | (#13433663)

This is from the article:

The group created the ADNRs by compressing the carbon-60 molecules to 20 GPa, which is nearly 200 times atmospheric pressure, while simultaneously heating to 2500 Kelvin. "The synthesis was possible due to a unique 5000-tonne multianvil press at Bayerisches Geoinstitut in Bayreuth that is capable of reaching pressures of 25 GPa and temperatures of 2700 K at the same time," Dubrovinskaia told PhysicsWeb.

I was reading that and I thought, 200 atmospheres? What do they need the 5000 ton multianvil press for? They messed it up. 20 GPa is 200000 atmospheres, not 200. [google.com]

Re:hmmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433659)

491 gigapascals.... Wow!!! WTF is a gigapascal?

program gigapascal(output);
          procedure WriteResponseHeader;
        begin
                writeln('content-type: text/html');
                writeln
        end;

begin
        WriteResponseHeader;
        writeln('[HTML]');
        writeln('[HEAD]');
        writeln('[TITLE]GigaPascal[/TITLE>');
        writeln('[/HEAD]');
        writeln('[BODY]');
        giga := 0
                  while [ i [less than] 1000000000 ] DO:
                  giga := giga + 1;
                  writeln('[BIG] This is a Gigapascal! How the hell are you? [/BIG]');
                  endfor;
        writeln('[/BODY]');
        writeln('[/HTML]')
end.

[edit requires to get slashdot to accept this]
Any questions?

Re:hmmm (5, Funny)

coolgeek (140561) | about 9 years ago | (#13433755)

Someone give this guy a wedgie. He remembers how to program in Pascal.

Re:hmmm (4, Informative)

art6217 (757847) | about 9 years ago | (#13433756)

It's a pressure unit. 1 Pascal = 1 Newton / square meter On Earth, an object of ~ 0.98 kg, standing on a 1 square centimeter base ( ~ an iron rod 1.3 meters long, 1.13 cm diameter ) , would exert because of its weight a pressure of about 0.1 megapascal. Typical atmospheric pressure ~ 1013 hPa = about 0.1 MPa too. 1GPa is 10000 as much as in these examples (i. e imagine the same iron rod 13 km long). By the way, compare the first two examples, and you'll see that an astronaut in a vacuum might feel not very comfortable.

I want... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433583)

A butter knife made entirely out of THAT!

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433589)

fp

Ring (5, Funny)

CalcMan (179244) | about 9 years ago | (#13433590)

So I guess this is what she's going to want on her finger now.

Re:Ring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433613)

Well as long as I can pick one up on QVC using my Flex-pay credit card all will be good....

Re:Ring (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#13433639)

Dude, I wish I could get away with buying my girlfriend a dirty, black, carbon based rock for a ring. You must have a really accepting significant other :(

Re:Ring (5, Funny)

niteskunk (886685) | about 9 years ago | (#13433702)

"Aggregated diamond nanorods: She'll pretty much have to."

Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (1, Insightful)

kavachameleon (637997) | about 9 years ago | (#13433592)

Forgive my ignorance after Reading TFA... but this "harder than diamond" material is... made of diamonds! Seems like false advertising, though I get what they did.

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (4, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | about 9 years ago | (#13433610)

I guess it should be better defined. It is talking about two different diamond states. 1) There is the natural, mined diamond you get from the Earth. 2) This artificial, human-created diamond-type substance that is made from diamond. In essense they are both just really hard carbon structures, with different atomic states.

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (1)

Cash202 (854642) | about 9 years ago | (#13433698)

I agree.

Science classifies substances as different at minor compound changes. O and O2 are not the same, but they were both O. The two funciton and opperate differently, thus making them different. Same applies to the article.

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (2, Insightful)

saskboy (600063) | about 9 years ago | (#13433679)

Coal and graphite are also made from diamond material, carbon. It's the final structure that counts, and it isn't structured like a diamond, or it would have the hardness of one.

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433710)

How differently structure from regular-old diamond is it? I know coal and graphite are very different from diamond. Is there any graphical representation of the structure of this new (man-made) harder than diamond, diamond-like substance? Or is it a trade secret?

Do we now know what happens when someone sticks a lump of diamond up the man of steel's ass? (Please, no pictures of that.)

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (3, Informative)

superyanthrax (835242) | about 9 years ago | (#13433730)

It is made by compressing buckyballs (C_60), which consist of carbon, just like Diamond. For the record charcoal and graphite are forms of carbon too. All of these things are just carbon atoms arranged in different ways. The name of the substance has the word "diamond" in it b/c it is similar to diamond, but it is not the same as diamond.

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | about 9 years ago | (#13433731)

Forgive my ignorance after Reading TFA... but this "harder than diamond" material is... made of diamonds! Seems like false advertising, though I get what they did.

From the article: "(..) made the new material by subjecting carbon-60 molecules to immense pressures. The new form of carbon, which is known as aggregated diamond nanorods"

So the new material consists of tiny diamond rods, but is made of carbon-60 molecules (aka 'buckyballs', which has many interesting properties, but like most carbon-based materials, is NOT diamond).

Always amazing how few words are needed to make people misread them.

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (5, Funny)

Deitheres (98368) | about 9 years ago | (#13433739)

I guess a pretty simple way to put it would be like this:

butter and ice cream are both essentially different forms of milk, but you don't see people walking around with cones full of butter do you?

If you do, that's pretty gross.

Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433795)

erm... maybe that's a bad comparison.

Sorry, I'm drunk.

Space Lift? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433595)

Can this be used in the Space Lift project?

Re:Space Lift? (4, Informative)

polysylabic psudonym (820466) | about 9 years ago | (#13433635)

Probably not. Hardness does not equate to tensile strength. Tensile strength is what you need for a space elevator.

You'd probably still use carbon, but nanotubes rather than nanorods.

Re:Space Lift? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 9 years ago | (#13433722)

Though it might be useful for building a tower to meet the cable partway, maybe a kilometer or five up?

Does that mean.. (2, Interesting)

postgrep (803732) | about 9 years ago | (#13433597)

Diamonds will come down in price? If we could make a drill out of this new material, doesn't that mean we would have a surplus of diamond to use? And who gets the dub the name for this material?

Re:Does that mean.. (4, Insightful)

kavachameleon (637997) | about 9 years ago | (#13433604)

Supply and demand has nothing to do with the diamond market. As I understand it, the prices are kept artificially high by the diamond cartels and their storehouses of stones.

jewelry diamonds price is controlled by debeers co (1)

bxbaser (252102) | about 9 years ago | (#13433618)

diamonds are actually not that rare, emeralds and rubies are rarer.
Industrial diamonds are pretty plentifull

Re:Does that mean.. (4, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#13433633)

Um, no. Diamonds currently retain value as expensive the same way Oil does. It's controlled by a company who's got overwhelming control over the supply, and thus, can charge any price they want for the goods.

That being said, synthetic diamonds have been on the market for a while now. In fact, my sister just bought a ring with one in it.

Re:Does that mean.. (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 9 years ago | (#13433740)

Oh hell, OPEC wishes it had the control that De Beers does.

The oil industry allows wildcat drilling, the Diamond industry quashes wildcat diamond supplies outside of it's control.

Now they are trying to quash synthetic diamonds by getting trade regulators to force synthetic fabricators diamonds as something other than a diamond.

Re:Does that mean.. (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | about 9 years ago | (#13433636)

Don't they use already the "waste diamond" which or is discarted diamond after sculpturing it [wikipedia.org] (of which I thought 60% decrease of original size of the diamond after sculpturing it) or diamond which hasn't the purity for jewelry yet is good enough for industrial applications?

Synthetic diamonds [wikipedia.org] could bring down the value though.

MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433677)

i call fud

Re:Does that mean.. (3, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | about 9 years ago | (#13433699)


If we could make a drill out of this new material, doesn't that mean we would have a surplus of diamond to use?

No. Synthetic diamonds were developed by GE in the 50s. Most (if not all) of the diamond in diamond coated drills are produced through this process. The process developed in the 50s only produces what's called "industrial diamonds" and are nowhere near gem quality.

So any new harder substance would only effect the industrial diamond market, and have no effect on the gem quality diamond market.

Re:Does that mean.. (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 9 years ago | (#13433769)

"Most (if not all) of the diamond in diamond coated drills are produced through this process"

You were OK, sortof. It's not the GE process, but something entirely new (relatively).

Diamond coatings are done through a process called Vapor Deposition. It's a low pressure process, done at Standard Pressure, using a hot carbon rich gas, a reducing atmosphere, and a cold substrate (the thing you're coating).

It's an entirely new process, discovered entirely by accident by someone trying to figure out why certain welds were a bitch to grind smooth. It turned out that there were microscopic diamonds in the welds, and that was why.

--
BMO

Re:Does that mean.. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 9 years ago | (#13433717)

And who gets the dub the name for this material?

I want to know who will get the dupe of this article. If recent /. history is a prediction, It should be here in the next 2 days.

Re:Does that mean.. (1)

postgrep (803732) | about 9 years ago | (#13433757)

Surely some boffin has already made a name so complex already it's not worth remembering? So the Carbon-60 lattice of 10 Carbon textrate could be called "Super diamond!" by the press? Sounds adequate?

Unobtainium! (1)

Ira Sponsible (713467) | about 9 years ago | (#13433794)

Let me be the first to suggest we call it Unobtainium. But since the material really exists and is obtainable... Um, I think I broke my brain. I go to bed now.

Article Text (4, Informative)

CalcMan (179244) | about 9 years ago | (#13433603)

Diamonds are not forever
26 August 2005

Physicists in Germany have created a material that is harder than diamond. Natalia Dubrovinskaia and colleagues at the University of Bayreuth made the new material by subjecting carbon-60 molecules to immense pressures. The new form of carbon, which is known as aggregated diamond nanorods, is expected to have many industrial applications (App. Phys. Lett. 87 083106).

The hardness of a material is measured by its isothermal bulk modulus. Aggregated diamond nanorods have a modulus of 491 gigapascals (GPa), compared with 442 GPa for conventional diamond. Dubrovinskaia and two of her co-workers - Leonid Dubrovinky and Falko Langenhorst - have patented the process used to make the new material.

Diamond derives its hardness from the fact that each carbon atom is connected to four other atoms by strong covalent bonds. The new material is different in that it is made of tiny interlocking diamond rods. Each rod is a crystal that has a diameter of between 5 and 20 nanometres and a length of about 1 micron.

The group created the ADNRs by compressing the carbon-60 molecules to 20 GPa, which is nearly 200 times atmospheric pressure, while simultaneously heating to 2500 Kelvin. "The synthesis was possible due to a unique 5000-tonne multianvil press at Bayerisches Geoinstitut in Bayreuth that is capable of reaching pressures of 25 GPa and temperatures of 2700 K at the same time," Dubrovinskaia told PhysicsWeb.

The Bayreuth team measured the properties of the samples with a diamond anvil cell at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility at Grenoble in France. These measurements indicated that ADNRs are about 0.3% denser than diamond, and that the new material has the lowest compressibility of any known material.

In addition to working out why the new material is so hard, the Bayreuth team also hope to exploit its industrial potential. "We have developed a concept for innovative technology to produce the novel material in industrial-scale quantities and now we are looking for partners in order to realize our ideas," said Dubrovinskaia.

but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433606)

...a diamond is forever

Re:but (1)

mad.frog (525085) | about 9 years ago | (#13433625)

So will the new ad slogan be "An aggregated diamond nanorod is longer-than-forever...." ?

General Products? (5, Funny)

bmo (77928) | about 9 years ago | (#13433608)

So when are we going to see a General Products hull constructed out of this?

--
BMO - Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of Kzinti

isothermal bulk modulus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433611)

Now I finaly know what IBM stands for.

Hope it doesn't sparkle (0, Redundant)

Zordak (123132) | about 9 years ago | (#13433612)

I don't care how hard it is, I am not buying my wife a new ring.

Do you realize how much pr0n you could buy....? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433782)

I don't care how hard it is, I am not buying my wife a new ring.
You mean you have to buy your wife a new ring every time it's hard?

Jeez, just do what the rest of us Slashdotters do. Trust me, you won't go blind or grow hair on your palms. On the other hand (hah!) the carpal tunnel's a bitch.

Borazon (5, Informative)

pato101 (851725) | about 9 years ago | (#13433614)

Long time ago, when I was student, I bought a very good russian thermodynamics book (Kirillin) where they said Borazon [wikipedia.org] synthetic material be harder than diamond. It is a pity Wikipedia does not agree with that fact.
Of course, the thermodynamic process to achieve it was far expensive. Required very high pressure and temperatures.

Re:Borazon (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 9 years ago | (#13433637)

It's not harder than Diamond.

I wish it was. It would make my job a whole lot easier.

However, it *is* better for grinding ferrous materials than diamond.

--
BMO - Toolmaker

Jesus (-1, Redundant)

highwaytohell (621667) | about 9 years ago | (#13433615)

I hope my wife isnt reading this

WOW (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 9 years ago | (#13433723)

you have somebody just chasing you with Anti-Mod points. At worse, you were not funny, but off topic? hummmm.

Possible uses? (4, Interesting)

allanj (151784) | about 9 years ago | (#13433619)

OK, so obviously this could be used as "better-than-diamonds" for industrial purposes - grinding and such. But it seems to me that the improvement is only modest, and that this does not open up whole new frontiers of exciting materials - or am I completely wrong here? Is there some magical "limit" that was exceeded by this? If there *IS* a magical limit somewhere, what is it?

Re:Possible uses? (5, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 9 years ago | (#13433686)

"OK, so obviously this could be used as "better-than-diamonds" for industrial purposes - grinding and such. But it seems to me that the improvement is only modest"

Uhm, don't underestimate the profit-increasing abilities of new materials.

Borazon, for example, is a synthetic material that is used in abrasives and cutting tools. The value isn't in the material itself, but in what one can do with it.

If it's about as expensive as synthetic diamond (an oxymoron - synthetic diamond is just as real as "real" diamonds) or borazon, expect this to wind up in concrete saws, grinding wheels, end mills, drills (masonry, metal, oil industry) and a whole zoo of tools.

It's not a "modest improvement". It's a technological leap comparable to synthesizing diamonds and superabrasives, which revolutionized a lot of industries.

--
BMO

Re:Possible uses? (5, Interesting)

jericho4.0 (565125) | about 9 years ago | (#13433726)

Maybe it's not a given that it would be good at the common industrial uses of diamonds. As it's formed from evenly sized tubes of carbon atoms, it might not Carry a strong, sharp edge, and that it might have a grain. I imagine the structure is pretty squished though, just like diamond, only with fewer flaws.

In some googling on this, I've become confused. "ultrahard fullerene" [google.ca] is C-60 buckyballs compressed at high temperature also. I see many different values quoted for UHF hardness and diamond. This Russian paper [aip.org] gives a value of 1 TPa in 1988!

Stability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433624)

How stable is it? Diamond is really hard and also stable for a long time (a diamond is forever...). I RTFA and it didn't say anything about stability, so I'm wondering if anybody else knows. If they want to use it in an industrial setting, it's going to need to be stable for a long period of time.

Also, I too wonder what the structure must look like. Neat article and neat material.

Re:Stability? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | about 9 years ago | (#13433687)

Diamond is really hard and also stable for a long time (a diamond is forever...).

      Yep. But that's under "normal conditions" -- diamonds will burn quite readily given normal atmospheric gases, and very well with more oxygen. So for all over the posters talking about scratching rings with this new material, just use a lighter instead. It's easier, cheaper, more effective, and much more interesting.

Re:Stability? (1)

duffahtolla (535056) | about 9 years ago | (#13433752)

I saw a diamond burn once. I remember that they heated it with a blowtorch until it glowed and then they tossed it into liquid oxygen.

Are you sure a simple lighter will do the trick?

Re:Stability? (1)

mikeophile (647318) | about 9 years ago | (#13433793)

Diamonds burn in pure oxygen at about 1320 degrees Fahrenheit. In air (which is about 20% oxygen), the temperature raises to around 1560 degrees Fahrenheit.

Also, when a diamond burns in O2, it converts completely to CO2. No ash is produced.

I don't know about regular lighters, but crack lighters can get well above 2000F.

Diamonds are a hell of a drug.

Re:Stability? (4, Informative)

mikeophile (647318) | about 9 years ago | (#13433766)

Actually, diamonds are only metastable at standard temperature and pressure.

Eventually, they convert to graphite.

Granted, this will take a (long) while, but it's really more accurate to say graphite is forever.

I don't know about the structure of the ADNR, but it might be even more prone to conversion or sublimation than diamond.

To all the posters making jokes about thier wives (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433641)

Why'd you marry such shallow, pathetic women?

Re:To all the posters making jokes about thier wiv (5, Funny)

mad.frog (525085) | about 9 years ago | (#13433646)

Why'd you marry such shallow, pathetic women?

What -- you mean there's some other kind?

Re:To all the posters making jokes about thier wiv (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433749)

Cause they give great head...

Re:To all the posters making jokes about thier wiv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433688)

Its the product of living in a society that is obsessed with materialism.

Re:To all the posters making jokes about thier wiv (1)

Donald Ferrone, Ph.D (882198) | about 9 years ago | (#13433754)

Many women are too insecure and stupid to demand anything except a meaningless object for a physical manifestation of love. I'm gay, so I guess I win. :D.

20% harder, via^H^H^H carbon! (3, Funny)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about 9 years ago | (#13433644)

Is this what the viagra ads meant when they said 20% harder?

Enhance your carbon based member now! EXRNZ

Impressive results, you'll be the hardest she's ever seen! Become the new hard you.

--

You cant talk about anything around here without someone thinking about it sexually

Sabotage (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 9 years ago | (#13433645)

When do they start selling sandpaper with this stuff so I can ruin all my rich friends' wives rings and laugh at them? They totally deserve it for spending $300 on a ring in the first place. Stupid jerks.

Re:Sabotage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433695)

$300 bucks for an engagement ring is NOT expensive.

Re:Sabotage (5, Funny)

pintomp3 (882811) | about 9 years ago | (#13433706)

if their wives' rings costs $300:

a) your friends aren't rich
b) you can scratch up the rings with normal sandpaper

Re:Sabotage (1)

weighn (578357) | about 9 years ago | (#13433728)

$300 !? I think you mean rich and stingy friends. :)

Re:Sabotage (1)

jericho4.0 (565125) | about 9 years ago | (#13433781)

Yeah, that's like, a lot of squeegeing.

Why are you giving us the modulus? (5, Insightful)

hopethisnickisnottak (882127) | about 9 years ago | (#13433647)

It is, after all, a measure of strength in compression, which is completely different from hardness.

How about giving us figures for hardness? Like the Brinell Hardness Number or the results of the Rockwell hardness test?

Re:Why are you giving us the modulus? (5, Informative)

TenderMuffin (319798) | about 9 years ago | (#13433760)

To be honest, I'm not sure those tests would work...

The hardest scale on the Rockwell test (I'll let someone else give a link somewhere) uses a diamond to make an indent. This works for pretty much everything since diamond is the hardest material.

Until now, at least. Since diamond isn't harder than this, it wouldn't make an indent. No indent, no Rockwell reading.

Er, what? (0, Troll)

gblues (90260) | about 9 years ago | (#13433648)

Diamond is no longer the hardest substance known to man.

Are you a fucking moron? This isn't a new substance, it's just a more tightly packed and more highly organized version of a conventional diamond. It's still a diamond. I mean if it was some new alloy or new substance altogether, that would be one thing. But this is still just plain ol' carbon--just specially treated to be harder than the run-of-the-mill industrial diamonds we use now.

Nathan

Re:Er, what? (5, Informative)

polysylabic psudonym (820466) | about 9 years ago | (#13433665)

It's still a diamond.
No, it's not. It's made of the same stuff as diamond - carbon-60 - but it's a different crystalline structure, just as graphite is a different crystaline structure to diamond.

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433694)

You mean just like graphite is the same substance as diamond?

It may be "plain ol' carbon", but it's not just "specially treated". Diamond has a certain hardness (at standard temp/pressure), and this is different.

Re:Er, what? (2, Informative)

pdxdada (684092) | about 9 years ago | (#13433696)

Are you a fucking moron? This isn't a new substance, it's just a more tightly packed and more highly organized version of a conventional diamond.
And by the same logic a diamond is just a more tightly packed and more highly organized version of graphite. As it turns out there are a lot of ways to arange carbon, many of which have different names (diamond, graphite, buckminsterfulerene, nano tubes, etc...) this appears to be one more.

For all the people asking how useful this is, take a moment and google for some of comercial applications of diamonds (aside from looking pretty), there are a lot of them. If this stuff can be produced economically there will be a huge market for it.

Hmm (2, Funny)

aarku (151823) | about 9 years ago | (#13433656)

Anyone else having the sudden urge to get their fiancée one of these bad boys so they can scratch the hell out of lesser gemstones?

Hmmm.... (-1, Troll)

vectorian798 (792613) | about 9 years ago | (#13433675)

I got something harder than diamond for you....

PS: only women
PS2: ok so no one from slashdot :)

Methods for measuring Hardness (4, Informative)

hopethisnickisnottak (882127) | about 9 years ago | (#13433678)

For a good description of Hardness measuring methods, See this page [216.109.125.130]

WARNING GOATSE LINK IN PARENT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433732)

Parent's link goes to goatse pic, you have been warned!

LIES! NO GOATSE LINK! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433764)

The link goes to a legitimate source. Not a goatse link. Fucking trolls.

Now's the time. (2, Funny)

Petersson (636253) | about 9 years ago | (#13433682)

Get me a plenctor from this material.. I'll pick my guitar and play the hardest rock mankind ever heard..

Marilyn wouldn't like it (0, Redundant)

YuriGherkin (870386) | about 9 years ago | (#13433700)

I mean, really, "Aggregated diamond nanorods are a girl's best friend" just doesn't have the same catchy ring to it. :P

Prices for Dimonds (1)

OneArmedMan (606657) | about 9 years ago | (#13433708)

Would come down ... that is if De Beers could be regulated and stop their monopolistic practices of artificilly limiting diamond supply to keep prices up.

still Emeralds and other jems are rarer than diamonds and should there for be worth more, but since De Beers controls the supply of diamonds and spends stupid amounts of money telling everyone how "rare diamonds really are" , prices will always be what they are.

( go google it if you dont believe me )

ever wonder why every 4 / 6 months you see jewelery adverts saying *OMGz , 50% off*

yeah .. they can afford to.

Still , if it keeps the little woman happy and people dont bother thinking about it, De Beers is always going to have demand far out strip the supply it is willing to give and make lots and LOTS of money.

Re:Prices for Dimonds (1)

YuriGherkin (870386) | about 9 years ago | (#13433720)

Have you ever seen a jewellery store go out of business?

I went back to visit (one) of my old home towns from 20 years. Almost all the shops had changed hands, even some of the McDonalds had closed down but the jewellery stores were still in the exact same locations.

Re:Prices for Dimonds (1)

jizmonkey (594430) | about 9 years ago | (#13433772)

Whether emeralds and rubies are rarer than diamonds is not determinative; as any Econ 1 student knows, it is supply and demand that determines the market price.

Debeers doesn't have nearly the market share that they used to. It's not simply a matter of artificial scarcity holding up the price, although we all know the tricks they used to play.

One could argue that the demand is artificial, created by clever advertising, but then what's it to you? If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you do want it, are you just complaining that your tastes and preferences were altered by advertising? That's a pretty weak thing to whine about.

There are lots of pretty baubles to spend your money on. If you think emeralds and rubies are better simply because they're rarer, you should be happy that the price is "artificially" low because all those schmucks are off buying their wives semi-precious diamonds instead.

Personally, I suspect the demand is genuine. People like the fire in their eyes and the ice in their hands. You don't get fire and ice from anything besides diamonds. We are fortunate to live on a planet where something so pretty is common.

Discovery? No way. (5, Funny)

Stuntmonkey (557875) | about 9 years ago | (#13433714)

There's no way these guys can claim priority here. It completely stretches all notions of credulity. I mean, Superman has been transforming coal into diamonds with his bare hands for nearly 60 years now (first mention Action Comics #115; 1947). Together with his optical super-powers, in this case I'm of course referring to what is simplistically referred to as his "heat vision", it's clear that Superman could generate the required pressure and heat with almost no effort. He probably discovered this new diamond stuff by accident when he was like 8 or something. Jeez, I can't believe the crap that makes it through peer review these days.

What is it about carbon? (4, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | about 9 years ago | (#13433715)

We're (laregly) made of carbon. Diamonds, the (formerly) hardest substance known to exist, is made of carbon. This new material is also made of carbon.

Carbon is also the basis for buckyballs, nanotubes, and recently, nanofabric.

What is it about carbon that's so special? Can these things be done with other elements, like nitrogen? Is it just because we have an oil (carbon) based economy, or what?

Seems like all the interesting stuff in materials physics in early 2000's is ALL CARBON!

Re:What is it about carbon? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 9 years ago | (#13433768)

No, we are largely made out of water.

"Water is the most common molecule in the human body. Fully 87% of human body atoms are either hydrogen or oxygen."

http://www.biology-online.org/9/1_chemical_composi tion.htm [biology-online.org]
http://www.eurekah.com/abstract.php?chapid=541&boo kid=51&catid=44 [eurekah.com]

Re:What is it about carbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433771)

I'm no chemical expert, but I believe it has to do with the fact that carbon has 4 free electron slots in its outermost "electron shell". It just happens that this number makes it bond with other atoms in very useful ways. Also, it can crystalize with other carbon atoms in a very strong structure (tetragonal, if I'm not mistaken) to form diamond, a very tough substance indeed.

Naming (1, Insightful)

shut_up_man (450725) | about 9 years ago | (#13433718)

Aggregated diamond nanorods is a bit of a mouthful... shall we call it Adinar? Agdian? Xena? Buffy?

nuh uh (1, Funny)

i_should_be_working (720372) | about 9 years ago | (#13433721)

This can't possibly be harder than adamantium. Otherwise Captain America would have used it instead for his shield.

Re:nuh uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433753)

This can't possibly be harder than adamantium. Otherwise Captain America would have used it instead for his shield.

"A direct blow from Thor's hammer, conveyed with the thunder god's full strength, will slightly dent a solid cylinder of True Adamantium." --http://www.marveldirectory.com/misc/adamantium.h tm [marveldirectory.com]

For our next topic... can mighty mouse beat up superman?

That's not hard! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433736)

That's not hard... What I'm hiding in my pants, now that's hard!

Marketing? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433741)

Diamond XP or GNU/Diamond?

Was never hardest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433742)

Apparently these guys haven't heard of Ultrahard Fullerite. [wikipedia.org]

Trivia (2, Interesting)

Palal (836081) | about 9 years ago | (#13433744)

Artificial diamonds were first developed in Kiev, Ukraine at the University for Superhard Materials. Later, there were plans to make them into armor (armored cars, armored vests, etc.).

heh, I though otherwise (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 9 years ago | (#13433746)

I though Jack Thompsons' head was the hardest material.

Alot of work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13433767)

for a measely 69 gigapascals

Oh Moh!! (2, Insightful)

craznar (710808) | about 9 years ago | (#13433779)

The old scale is broken.

Next gen ridiculous expensive gift (1, Redundant)

setien (559766) | about 9 years ago | (#13433780)

Engraved diamonds for your girlfriends, anyone?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>