Diamonds can now be made in laboratories by Scientists???

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by John Schilling, Jun 25, 2006.

  1. People have been making diamonds in laboratories for more
    than fifty years. The basic patents have long since run
    out, and the price of diamonds remains high.


    Three reasons. First, even the most recent, still-patented
    techniques, cannot practically duplicate top-end natural
    gem-quality diamons. The one-carat blue-white "flawless",
    which is essentially the benchmark of the industry, is
    still somthing you have to hunt for in a mine. Or you
    can have one made in a laboratory as a stunt, but you
    can't have them mass-produced for sale with any technology
    we know of.

    Second, people don't *want* synthetic diamond gemstones.
    The ones who might have wanted such a thing, have long
    since moved on to cubic zirconia or whatever; the ones
    who are still buying mediocre half-carat diamonds of the
    sort that can be mass-produced in a factory, want them
    not for what they intrinsically are but for what they
    represent - the closest thing people on a budget can
    get to the archetypal one-carat blue-white flawless.
    Which is to say, among other things, natural and mined.

    Third, the techniques for producing synthetic diamond,
    are not themselves cheap. Well, industrial abrasive
    diamond, yes, sort of, but not any sort of synthetic gem
    diamond. Some of them are pure laboratory curiosities
    of no practical or economic significance; others can be
    industrialized, but you're not going to be seeing the
    output at your local 99-cent store any time soon.

    Not really, no. DeBeers has long since lost its monopoly
    in the field; the Australians and Canadians and Russians
    provide most of the world's gem diamonds now and each will
    gladly fill any supply shortfall the others might try to
    create.

    The profitability of both natural and synthetic diamonds
    is for the most part maximized by increasing demand, by
    means of some rather noteworthy and successful advertising
    campaigns.

    You might still be able to arrange cheap diamonds, but by
    definition nobody will care.


    --
    *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
    *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
    *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
    *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
    * * for success" *
    *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
     
    John Schilling, Jun 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Schilling

    studyandjobs Guest

    studyandjobs, Jun 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Schilling

    jeff Guest

    jeff, Jun 26, 2006
    #3
  4. John Schilling

    Peter Trei Guest

    It's my suspicion that when the patents run out, around
    15-20 years from now, the price of diamonds will finally
    fall to a realistic level, and deBeers will pack up shop.

    For the time being, the profitability of both natural and
    synthetic diamonds is maximized by restricting supply.

    Peter Trei
     
    Peter Trei, Jun 26, 2006
    #4
  5. John Schilling

    BernardZ Guest

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    Well equipment can tell them apart!

    What is interesting is that deBeers gave Jewelers in Australia free
    special equipment to tell them apart because most Jewelers could not
    tell them apart!

    That is for sure. The Russians are apparently sitting on a fortune of
    diamonds and not selling them for that reason.
     
    BernardZ, Jun 26, 2006
    #5
  6. John Schilling

    Salmon Egg Guest

    If it should ever come to that, diamond lenses would become the lightest and
    highest index lens material. The would impervious to scratching. The biggest
    drawback would be the design and application of a decent antireflection
    coating. Without a coating, reflectivity at each surface would be about 17%.
    Chromatic aberration might be a problem.

    Even so, based upon posts here, people will be complaining about thick
    lenses and want lighter ones as well.

    Bill
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jun 26, 2006
    #6
  7. I kind of doubt it. A lot of people who want diamonds for jewelry want
    them because they're expensive, not because they're just diamonds. All
    De Beers has to do is keep pumping the idea that their diamonds are what
    the consumers want and artificial diamonds are fake, regardless of
    whether they're indistinguishable. De Beers already has methods of
    tracking the authenticity of their diamonds, so whether you can't tell
    them apart is really irrelevant in that respect.

    Diamonds for industrial purposes is another thing, but there already De
    Beers doesn't have a lock on that market.
     
    Erik Max Francis, Jun 26, 2006
    #7
  8. John Schilling

    Steve Hix Guest

    Steve Hix, Jun 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Even better, diamonds can now be made in factories by Laborers.
     
    Leonard Migliore, Jun 26, 2006
    #9
  10. In addition: suppose you have a small start-up company that produces
    diamond in large crystals. Do you try to compete in an established
    market of luxury baubles already dominated by De Beers, or do you
    target the market for high temperature semiconductors, radiation
    detectors, and lasers which is currently wide open? The later requires
    moderately priced materials that can compete with silicon, silicon
    carbide, and Nd:YAG. I know I'd try to make my fortune by touting my
    product as a superior material for technological applications, and if
    flooding the jewelry market with inexpensive diamonds was a by-product
    of this, then so much the better.

    Luke
     
    Luke Campbell, Jun 27, 2006
    #10
  11. John Schilling

    Mark A Guest

    I kind of doubt it. A lot of people who want diamonds for jewelry want
    Diamonds also come in various colors and clarities. Gem quality diamonds (as
    opposed to industrial diamonds) are not cost effective to make in a
    laboratory.
     
    Mark A, Jun 27, 2006
    #11
  12. John Schilling

    Marc VB Guest

    Is it possible to stop to spam ou newgroup fr.rec.arts.sf ?
     
    Marc VB, Jun 27, 2006
    #12
  13. John Schilling

    herve.forum Guest

    Marc VB a écrit :
    fu2 sauvage.

    Hervé <YFAB>
     
    herve.forum, Jun 27, 2006
    #13
  14. To All:
    Diamond material has been created for a long time. Diamond
    particles have been created for grinding and polishing compounds for
    years. Diamond coatings for thermal transfer for say heat sinks
    attached to micropocessors has been available of the shelf. Creating
    diamond optically clear films or windows, lenses is around. The problem
    is if you look is that De Beers owns the patents on any diamond
    material that is considered optically transparent (any wavelenght not
    specified in patent) above a certian thickness. Figure out away around
    that and you can create your gems in a vacuum chamber fairly simply.
    You include what ever impurities you want (a lot of analysis of these
    has been done over the years and is in papers) and you would have a
    very hard time telling the real from the newly created diamond.

    Cliff Schuring
     
    Cliff Schuring, Jun 27, 2006
    #14
  15. Bill and Salmon Egg,

    Diamond lense are already here about $1700 each and the
    company Sixth Element is making them, wild quess who owns them. Thats
    right the De Beers, here is a site with a PDF file talking about them.
    By the way Intel also uses a lense version for IC analysis on the new
    emmi instruments. Enjoy.

    http://files.hanser.de/zeitschriften/docs/2669134433-101_eLP100379.pdf

    Regards
    Cliff
     
    Cliff Schuring, Jun 27, 2006
    #15
  16. John Schilling

    Peter Trei Guest

    The Wikipedia article on "Synthetic Diamond" is informative.

    You might want to look at Apollo Diamond
    http://www.apollodiamond.com/ who say they will start
    selling synthetic colorless diamonds this year.

    Gemesis http://www.gemesis.com/home.htm is specializing on
    colored diamonds, which actually command a higher price than
    mined ones.

    The current "custom" of diamond engagement rings actually only
    dates back to an advertising campaign by deBeers in the 1940s.

    When its possible to buy synthetic diamond jewelry for a
    fraction of the current price, and the stones are
    distinguishable from mined stones by (a) their lack of
    flaws, (b) or by using lab equipment, deBeers is going to
    have a real problem on its hands. Most people simply won't
    care.

    Peter Trei
     
    Peter Trei, Jun 28, 2006
    #16
  17. John Schilling

    acemanvx Guest


    Hes right, many people insist on the real thing even when replicas look
    identical to the nakid eye. It may be a while before technology can
    make synthetic diamonds as perfect as the real thing where no one can
    tell any difference. Still I wouldnt invest in diamonds now because
    they wont be worth so much years from now. As for diamond lens glasses,
    they would cost a fortune to make and probably will consist of hundreds
    of tiny diamonds glued together. The chromatic and other aberrations
    would make them impratical. They also would be impratical for anything
    less than -15 diopters. We have 1.9 index glass(a far cry from 4.0
    diamond) and I cant believe how thin those 1.9 glasses are! A -14 was
    shown in those glasses and they are about half a centimeter thick or as
    thick as standard index -5 glasses! I hear cermics with index as high
    as 2.5 is in the works. This will mean super, super high pescriptions,
    even -30 can have 2.5 index glasses less than a centimeter thick! No
    more cokebottles, no more myodiscs(very poor field of vision)
     
    acemanvx, Jun 30, 2006
    #17
  18. John Schilling

    Salmon Egg Guest

    Being a cubic crystal, diamond is not birefrinent.

    Bill
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 2, 2006
    #18
  19. The real novelty is in the use of carbon from dead relatives to make a
    "wearable legacy" in the form of a diamond. So, if you just can't wait
    to wear grandma on your ring finger or really remember your dog Spike,
    look at this website:

    http://www.lifegem.com/
     
    doctor_my_eye, Jul 3, 2006
    #19
  20. John Schilling

    Salmon Egg Guest

    More antiknowledge. Quartz is indeed birefringent but its crystal class is
    trigonal, not cubic.

    Bill
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.