Uncovering the Truth: The Differences Between Man-Made and Natural Diamonds

[CNT]

thanks for refs

Thanks for the references, I appreciate it. Now the challenge is to actually find the journals...

 

[Antiphon]

You guys are missing a major element of this story.

I talked with a woman. They of course are the world's end-users
of all non-industrial diamonds.

She says that a woman would not consider a synthetic (laboratory-made)
diamond to have the same emotional impact as a natural diamond regardless
of it's quality (or price). She would not want one for an engagement ring.

So there you go...

 

[hypatia]

Eh Gads no! I would wear a plain band befor I wore a man made diamond as a wedding ring.
Now as for other jewlery made with synt. gems, I have no problem, and have several pieces that I wear often.

 

[Hurkyl]

Eh Gads no! I would wear a plain band befor I wore a man made diamond as a wedding ring.

Why is that?

 

[hypatia]

Its the symbol/ token of love that has a emotional connection historically for woman. Tho myself and many woman do not half to have one to wed or feel loved, just if I did, I would want it to be a diamond from the earth.
It doesn't half to be a new diamond, there are so many vintage ones in the market that you can get reset. My personal favorit are the early{19th c} mine cut stones.
I in no way would support the hardships of the diamond miners today.

Real quality diamonds are a investment, and normally do not loose there value.

 

[Locrian]

You guys are missing a major element of this story.

First off, no one is missing that element of the story. It's already been brought up and commented on. The fact is that the companies growing or pressing diamond are finding more customers than they have product to sell to. You can repeat "no woman will want that" until you are blue in the face and it won't eliminate this demand.

This argument some (not Antiphon) make that natural diamond is a tradition is cheesy in the extreme. Diamond wedding bands have been "tradition" for less than 70 years! They aren't worn because of tradition; they are worn because they are beautiful. Women are being underestimated in this thread, repeatedly. Given the choice between two identicaly priced gems of identical quality, many (but not all) women would pick the one that is four times the size and grown in a lab over the tiny one dug up in africa by slave labor.

In the next two decades you can expect CVD diamond reactors to begin growing chunks of gem quality diamond in the hundred and thousands of carats, which will be efficiently cleaved into gems the likes of which few had ever seen before. And for cheap.

Secondly, gem diamond is an awful small element of the story. If you add up the markets that CVD diamond may generate, gem diamond is small potatoes. Even Apollo are just using it as the low hanging fruit till they break into other areas. I can understand an interest in gem diamond, but keep in mind it really is fairly unimportant to the field.

Many areas of diamond research are in their infancy - transistors, for instance. Even these are showing consistent progress and have achieved important advances in the past two to three years. There is no reason to believe this will not continue, and even speed up.

Many other areas of diamond research are just now maturing. You can expect these technologies to begin to affect various markets by the end of next year (trust me ). However, unless you are in one of several technical fields, you will likely never know it.

Edit: PS...I always hear people say that diamonds are an investment. Could you explain this to me? THey've been dropping in value slowly but surely for at least a decade. Doesn't sound like much of an investment to me...

 

[hypatia]

When they married,Archduke Maximilian of Hamburg gave a diamond ring to Mary of Burgandy in 1477. This started a trend among the wealthy. Diamonds were so rare until the 1890's, that none but the very rich could afford them. Wedding rings have gone in and out of fashion ever sense, along with diamonds there were rubies and saphires
The african mines were discovered, large amounts were stockpiled, and prices remained high until the 1930's when they flooded the market. Jewelers pushed the now affordable stones as "the" only choice for engagement rings.
Cheesy or not its a trend that's been with us ever sense.

I bought several investment grade diamonds back in the 80's and sold them last year to buy a house. They did better then the stock markets for me. Would I buy investment grade again today? I don't think so. But they still tend to hold there own, over gold and silver.

 

[Locrian]

Would I buy investment grade again today? I don't think so.

A very wise choice .

 

[hypatia]

They have known for over 15 years that diamonds could handle much higher temperatures, allowing them to run at speeds that would liquefy ordinary silicon.
With these synths, I would expect to see a boom in microprocessors. The 2 companies that make them have now established a proven track record, of quality and dependability.
Last I heard the Apollo Diamond companies wafer processing was coming along just fine, but its expected to be at least 5 more years until they reach shapes of 5 inches or more and maintain there perfect quality. Intel uses silicon wafers a full 12 inches in diameter, so there is still a ways to go. Your thought of about 2 decades seems about right to me.

 

[Locrian]

Well, apollo are using hot filament technology. Michigan state has already broken 6 inch single crystal wafers. Besides, the initial boom in diamond electronics won't need large single crystal wafers; it will concentrate on small high power transistors for things such as cell phones.

Two decades was my thought on gem diamond; not much research is being done in the area, so I would think the progress would be slow. Other areas of diamond-improved goods should start affecting various industries over the next couple of years.

We'll likely be in production by the middle of next year.

 

[Locrian]

CNT, have you seen this website? http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/oct/boron.html

As far as the discussion about diamond electronics, I found this paper to be quite useful:

A. Denisenko & E. Kohn, "Diamond Power Devices. Concepts and Limits." Dmnd & Rel Materials Vol 14, Pages 491-498.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'll throw a wrench in all of this, and this is something Locrian already know.

I, contrary to most people, do not want "real" diamonds. From the characteristics that I've read, real diamonds are rather good electron secondary emitters. This is a nasty property for what I want to use it for. On the other hand, artifical diamonds, in particular ultranocrystalline diamond (UNCD) that can be doped to increase its conductivity, is what I want and in the process of fabricate and study it in my photoinjector. Yes, that's right. I'm using diamond as a photocathode in an accelerator. For such purpose, you can keep your real diamond, thankyouverymuch. Give me those artificial ones any day...

Zz.

 

[Locrian]

Which reminds me, I didn't run into the penetration depth of UV in the type of diamond you are dealing with. I only looked in elsivier and diamdns&rel materials, but those are usually the places that I find good information. To be honest, I have my doubts that much is published on that specific topic.

Did you find anything out? I'm curious to see if i overlooked something obvious.

 

[hypatia]

Thanks for the link, lots of basic great information. I can see where this field will continue to grow.

 

[Mariko]

there's a great NOVA program regarding diamonds i don't remember the exact name of it tho

 

[ZapperZ]

Which reminds me, I didn't run into the penetration depth of UV in the type of diamond you are dealing with. I only looked in elsivier and diamdns&rel materials, but those are usually the places that I find good information. To be honest, I have my doubts that much is published on that specific topic.

Did you find anything out? I'm curious to see if i overlooked something obvious.

Drat! Man, what good are you, Locrian?!

:)

No, I haven't come across that value yet. But then again, I haven't been looking much during the past few weeks. I have some numbers from the Handbook of Optical Constants and Solids (Palik), but they don't give the penetration depth explicitly. Rather, they give numbers that "resemble" the permitivity. One has to go through the theoretical explanation of what they measure to see if this is the same permitivity that we all know and love, or something else. And then, using a theoretical model, try to see if one can get a penetration depth at 250 nm UV.

I hate that! :)

Anyhow, I hope you will still continue to look. Think about it, if I do get to publish this, I'll acknowledge your help in the paper! :)

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

Zz, have you checked with your own folks at CNM ?

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz, have you checked with your own folks at CNM ?

Nope... because people in CNM tend to have cross appointment with other division, such as the MSD folks which are the ones making my UNCD. They don't have much info in the penetration depth because, until I came in and harrassed them, they were only interested in fabricating UNCD as field emitters. I, on the other hand, am trying to ask them to make UNCD as BAD field emitters, going counter to the grain, and turn them into good photoemitters. So I'm trying to teach old dogs some new tricks.

See? I'm a trouble-maker no matter where I go, not just on PF! [The exception being, of course, when I'm happy at Disney World]

:)

Zz.

 

[Antiphon]

You can repeat "no woman will want that" until you are blue in the face and it won't eliminate this demand.

I assure you that these are engagement diamonds that are either bought
by men and they are not telling their women the true source, OR they
are bought by women as jewlery but are NOT engagement rings. Hypatia
said it all.

They aren't worn because of tradition; they are worn because they are beautiful. Women are being underestimated in this thread, repeatedly. Given the choice between two identicaly priced gems of identical quality, many (but not all) women would pick the one that is four times the size and grown in a lab over the tiny one dug up in africa by slave labor.

My own informal poll of 4 women (so far) has not produced any support for your
claim. I'm not underestimating women- I'm listening to what they're telling
me.

 

[Locrian]

My own informal poll of 4 women (so far) has not produced any support for your claim. I'm not underestimating women- I'm listening to what they're telling me.

I place no weight in your informal poll of 4 people. I do place a great deal of weight on investment, sales and diamond news through good sources. You'll have to bring a lot more to the table than four people you walked up and asked to make much of an argument for anything. You have put far too little study into this.

Have a look at Gemesis sales and you'll see you are simply incorrect. The demand is huge and the supply tiny. That will change in the future.

 

[Antiphon]

I place no weight in your informal poll of 4 people. I do place a great deal of weight on investment, sales and diamond news through good sources. You'll have to bring a lot more to the table than four people you walked up and asked to make much of an argument for anything. You have put far too little study into this.

Have a look at Gemesis sales and you'll see you are simply incorrect. The demand is huge and the supply tiny. That will change in the future.

I'm not saying they don't sell. I'm saying that most women don't
want it as an engagement ring for sentimental reasons. Admittedly
my sample is size it small but I don't take surveys for a living.

Upon vising the link you gave, I found this right up top:

“We just sold our 29th stone”

I think this only helps my own case, not yours.

 

[Locrian]

I think this only helps my own case, not yours.

Only if you didn't read the article. One single store selling a 29th stone in six weeks is not shabby at all. Besides, they state later one reason they haven't sold more is that there isn't enough production; when Gemesis makes more, the store will sell more. In the future, please actually read the references I provide.

My suggestion to you is to let it go. This experiment is already in progress. The results, over the next two decades, will tell us who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Locrian]

I, contrary to most people, do not want "real" diamonds. From the characteristics that I've read, real diamonds are rather good electron secondary emitters. This is a nasty property for what I want to use it for.

This statement embodies a property of CVD diamond that deserves more attention in this thread. One of the great things about CVD is the amount of control you have over the diamond you are growing. You can affect the crystallinity, hardness, optical properties, grain size, amorphous content, electrical properties - you name it. Of course, many of them are interrelated, so this sometimes requires research, and there are only so many combinations available - but once you have your choice of growth conditions down, switching between types of diamond is quite easy.

I thought this paper was a good example of what I'm talking about:

Zimmermann et al, "Ultra-nano-crystalline/single crystal diamond heterostructure diode" Diamond & Related Materials 14 (2005) 416– 420

From the abstract:

A new type of highly rectifying diamond heterostructure diode is demonstrated. The p-type doped part of the diode consists of a single crystal diamond, the n-type part of a nitrogen doped ultra-nano-crystalline diamond (UNCD) layer. IV-measurements show 8 orders of magnitude of rectification (F10 V) at room temperature. The barrier behavior is rather complex and can be described by two junctions acting in parallel, reflecting the UNCD properties. This new material system displays an extraordinary thermal stability and has been tested successfully up to 1050 8C in vacuum. Thus, this novel diamond heterostructure diode belongs to the few ultrahigh temperature stable electronic devices.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, yes. But where are my penetration depth data? :)

Zz.

 

[Chronos]

I ran across this yesterday. Thought you might it interesting:
http://bold.oma.be/EuroDiamond2000_final.htm

 

[ZapperZ]

Oh, I forgot that I posted here and didn't check it till just now. :)

Thanks for the reference, Chronos. I have seen that paper and unfortunately, they didn't give the exact info that I needed.

However, I decided to follow the "paper trail" by looking at one of their published papers, and upon checking some of the references, I found close to what I'm looking for. A paper by D.R. Kania et al, Diamond and Related Materials v.2, p.1012 (1993) has a figure with the mean free path of photons of various freq. in a CVD diamond. It includes the photon energy that I want. Unfortunately (is that always the case?), they didn't cite where they got this data from, or if they did it (if they did the experiment themselves, their paper severely lack the experimental details). Besides, this paper is more than 10 years old. I'd like to find newer measurements to verify this result.

So my hunt continues...

Zz.

 

[Locrian]

I can't access papers before about '95 over the web, but I'm willing to place a bet that the information in that article is not about UNCD diamond, nor does it apply well to UNCD diamond.

That's the real kicker in your search as far as I'm concerned. These different diamond grain structures affect their electronic propertiesy. UNCD is an interesting diamond type because, unlike NCD diamond, it has a very low amorphous content. I think it will prove dramatically different in its optical properties than microcrystalene and single crystal diamond.

 

[ZapperZ]

I can't access papers before about '95 over the web, but I'm willing to place a bet that the information in that article is not about UNCD diamond, nor does it apply well to UNCD diamond.

That's the real kicker in your search as far as I'm concerned. These different diamond grain structures affect their electronic propertiesy. UNCD is an interesting diamond type because, unlike NCD diamond, it has a very low amorphous content. I think it will prove dramatically different in its optical properties than microcrystalene and single crystal diamond.

And I agree. That's why my hunt continues. I really need to know the penetration depth for UNCD for 5 eV photons. The properties of CVD diamonds are used only as ballpark figures.

Zz.

 

[Astronuc]

I can't access papers before about '95 over the web, but I'm willing to place a bet that the information in that article is not about UNCD diamond, nor does it apply well to UNCD diamond.

Besides "elsivier and diamdns&rel materials", there are the proceedings of the Materials Research Society (www.mrs.org[/url]) and E-journals available from Institute of Physics (IOP - [url]www.iop.org[/URL]). However, I am not sure how easy it is to search for specific information, such as the penetration depth of 240 nm UV in UNCD!.

There seems to be some research in UNCD at UIUC and PSU.

 

[eternalenemy]

Cubic Zirconia and Diamonds=the difference

In fact, it seems difficult to say with certainty which is http://www.fourseadiamonds.com/forum/cubic-zirconia/166-cubic-zirconia-vs-diamonds.html but it all appears easy once you know some facts about both diamonds and Zirconia.