Author Topic: Dumb Question  (Read 5305 times)

rong

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15386
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2015, 12:07:39 am »
i'm no materials scientist or what have you, but i believe heat is a by product of crushing - could some of the carbon "burned off" or something similar and left the scene as CO2 in the process? 
"he was a smart feller who felt smart"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2015, 12:51:30 am »
i'm no materials scientist or what have you, but i believe heat is a by product of crushing - could some of the carbon "burned off" or something similar and left the scene as CO2 in the process?

Sure, of course it could. But if that's the case it needs to be properly accounted for in the explanation of the process.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2015, 01:24:52 am »
According to DeBeers, a .2 gram diamond was formed from 2.8 grams of pure carbon.

So, 1/14th.

Where does the rest of the carbon go?

If it's anything like sapphire, it doesn't go anywhere.  The atoms all line up in perfectly straight lines, and the mass is in fact stored as energy bonding the atoms so rigidly.

I am unsure of the physics involved here, because diamonds don't explode when you crush them. Of course, what you're really doing is just making smaller diamonds, so I guess they wouldn't.

That makes no sense at all to me, but I haven't taken physics and I only have four terms of chemistry.

Thing is, I'm not an actual material science geek.  I'm a technician.  I don't understand it, either.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2015, 01:58:42 am »
According to DeBeers, a .2 gram diamond was formed from 2.8 grams of pure carbon.

So, 1/14th.

Where does the rest of the carbon go?

If it's anything like sapphire, it doesn't go anywhere.  The atoms all line up in perfectly straight lines, and the mass is in fact stored as energy bonding the atoms so rigidly.

I am unsure of the physics involved here, because diamonds don't explode when you crush them. Of course, what you're really doing is just making smaller diamonds, so I guess they wouldn't.

That makes no sense at all to me, but I haven't taken physics and I only have four terms of chemistry.

Thing is, I'm not an actual material science geek.  I'm a technician.  I don't understand it, either.

Changing the chemical bonds won't change the mass. That's one thing I know for sure. Making and breaking bonds never changes the mass of an element. The mass of a quantity of pure carbon is determined solely by how many carbon atoms are present.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2015, 03:29:51 am »
According to DeBeers, a .2 gram diamond was formed from 2.8 grams of pure carbon.

So, 1/14th.

Where does the rest of the carbon go?

If it's anything like sapphire, it doesn't go anywhere.  The atoms all line up in perfectly straight lines, and the mass is in fact stored as energy bonding the atoms so rigidly.

I am unsure of the physics involved here, because diamonds don't explode when you crush them. Of course, what you're really doing is just making smaller diamonds, so I guess they wouldn't.

That makes no sense at all to me, but I haven't taken physics and I only have four terms of chemistry.

Thing is, I'm not an actual material science geek.  I'm a technician.  I don't understand it, either.

Changing the chemical bonds won't change the mass. That's one thing I know for sure. Making and breaking bonds never changes the mass of an element. The mass of a quantity of pure carbon is determined solely by how many carbon atoms are present.

See, I don't know.  I DO know, though, that to make 4 cubic cm of sapphire, weighing .3 kg, you need 1 kg of high purity alumina.  I was led to believe that the high temperatures involved caused the mass to be used up making bonds, and I was obviously misled.  Where does it actually go?  NO IDEA.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87071
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2015, 03:35:30 am »
Completely unfounded guess: even at its purest, there's no such thing as "100%" any material. So in the process, the non-carbon parts that add to mass get burned off/disposed.


Again, just a guess.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2015, 04:01:02 am »
Completely unfounded guess: even at its purest, there's no such thing as "100%" any material. So in the process, the non-carbon parts that add to mass get burned off/disposed.


Again, just a guess.

Problem:  Our feedstock was 99.995% pure.  This doesn't allow for that much missing mass.  Of course, you're going to have LOI issues, but there's not that much water involved, either.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Wizard Joseph

  • Tryna transcend duality or whatever
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 47228
  • Product of Wisconsin
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2015, 05:22:05 am »
Completely unfounded guess: even at its purest, there's no such thing as "100%" any material. So in the process, the non-carbon parts that add to mass get burned off/disposed.


Again, just a guess.

Problem:  Our feedstock was 99.995% pure.  This doesn't allow for that much missing mass.  Of course, you're going to have LOI issues, but there's not that much water involved, either.

That IS a thinker. I'm not sure I have an answer if there's not much dross and waste material that could carry the rest of the alumina. The extra mass HAS to be somewhere. Fuck if I know though.
You can't get out backward.  You have to go forward to go back.. better press on! - Willie Wonka, PBUH

Life can be seen as a game with no reset button, no extra lives, and if the power goes out there is no restarting.  If that's all you see life as you are not long for this world, and never will get it.

"Ayn Rand never swung a hammer in her life and had serious dominance issues" - The Fountainhead

"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation."
 - Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality :lulz:

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2015, 06:32:47 am »
Completely unfounded guess: even at its purest, there's no such thing as "100%" any material. So in the process, the non-carbon parts that add to mass get burned off/disposed.


Again, just a guess.

Problem:  Our feedstock was 99.995% pure.  This doesn't allow for that much missing mass.  Of course, you're going to have LOI issues, but there's not that much water involved, either.

That IS a thinker. I'm not sure I have an answer if there's not much dross and waste material that could carry the rest of the alumina. The extra mass HAS to be somewhere. Fuck if I know though.

God is cheating again.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Wizard Joseph

  • Tryna transcend duality or whatever
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 47228
  • Product of Wisconsin
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2015, 08:41:29 am »
Completely unfounded guess: even at its purest, there's no such thing as "100%" any material. So in the process, the non-carbon parts that add to mass get burned off/disposed.


Again, just a guess.

Problem:  Our feedstock was 99.995% pure.  This doesn't allow for that much missing mass.  Of course, you're going to have LOI issues, but there's not that much water involved, either.

That IS a thinker. I'm not sure I have an answer if there's not much dross and waste material that could carry the rest of the alumina. The extra mass HAS to be somewhere. Fuck if I know though.

God is cheating again.

"God does not play dice" they say...

Oh really, so what's with the suspicious dice rolling noises and snickering coming from behind all that Shekhinah Glory? Just a big, ineffable 'effing ST screen so we can't be sure if he's "going fiat" or winging it. He knows how to run a "free will" universe, hedge your bets.
You can't get out backward.  You have to go forward to go back.. better press on! - Willie Wonka, PBUH

Life can be seen as a game with no reset button, no extra lives, and if the power goes out there is no restarting.  If that's all you see life as you are not long for this world, and never will get it.

"Ayn Rand never swung a hammer in her life and had serious dominance issues" - The Fountainhead

"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation."
 - Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality :lulz:

Q. G. Pennyworth

  • Slimy Thing Who
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 82747
  • QUEEN BITCH OF FLYERS
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2015, 02:24:21 pm »
The raw diamond created would be the same mass as the carbon, but you have to grind off some to get it "diamond shaped" and polished.
Overheating Pheremone Pustule of Last Saturday's Jiggle Fun| _xgeWireToEvent: Unknown extension 131, this should never happen.

Don't fucking judge me, I've got tentacles for a face.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2015, 06:31:58 pm »
The raw diamond created would be the same mass as the carbon, but you have to grind off some to get it "diamond shaped" and polished.

That is also fair, but is also information that cannot be assumed.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2015, 06:39:33 pm »
According to DeBeers, a .2 gram diamond was formed from 2.8 grams of pure carbon.

So, 1/14th.

Where does the rest of the carbon go?

If it's anything like sapphire, it doesn't go anywhere.  The atoms all line up in perfectly straight lines, and the mass is in fact stored as energy bonding the atoms so rigidly.

I am unsure of the physics involved here, because diamonds don't explode when you crush them. Of course, what you're really doing is just making smaller diamonds, so I guess they wouldn't.

That makes no sense at all to me, but I haven't taken physics and I only have four terms of chemistry.

Thing is, I'm not an actual material science geek.  I'm a technician.  I don't understand it, either.

Changing the chemical bonds won't change the mass. That's one thing I know for sure. Making and breaking bonds never changes the mass of an element. The mass of a quantity of pure carbon is determined solely by how many carbon atoms are present.

See, I don't know.  I DO know, though, that to make 4 cubic cm of sapphire, weighing .3 kg, you need 1 kg of high purity alumina.  I was led to believe that the high temperatures involved caused the mass to be used up making bonds, and I was obviously misled.  Where does it actually go?  NO IDEA.

Perhaps that is the amount of usable sapphire product after processing.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2015, 10:24:32 pm »
According to DeBeers, a .2 gram diamond was formed from 2.8 grams of pure carbon.

So, 1/14th.

Where does the rest of the carbon go?

If it's anything like sapphire, it doesn't go anywhere.  The atoms all line up in perfectly straight lines, and the mass is in fact stored as energy bonding the atoms so rigidly.

I am unsure of the physics involved here, because diamonds don't explode when you crush them. Of course, what you're really doing is just making smaller diamonds, so I guess they wouldn't.

That makes no sense at all to me, but I haven't taken physics and I only have four terms of chemistry.

Thing is, I'm not an actual material science geek.  I'm a technician.  I don't understand it, either.

Changing the chemical bonds won't change the mass. That's one thing I know for sure. Making and breaking bonds never changes the mass of an element. The mass of a quantity of pure carbon is determined solely by how many carbon atoms are present.

See, I don't know.  I DO know, though, that to make 4 cubic cm of sapphire, weighing .3 kg, you need 1 kg of high purity alumina.  I was led to believe that the high temperatures involved caused the mass to be used up making bonds, and I was obviously misled.  Where does it actually go?  NO IDEA.

Perhaps that is the amount of usable sapphire product after processing.

Naw, sapphire manufacturers are like proper Scotsmen.  "NOTHING GETS WASTED 'ROUND HERE."  The RF pots they use to attain 3500C are like never-ending stew pots, but they are measured between each batch, so the amount actually used is known.  Also, I asked a friend of mine over there what the LOI mass loss was, and he said it was about 3-5%.

I have also been digging on the DeBeers thing.  Nobody knows how much - if any - wastage happens during the natural formation of diamonds, but apparently the numbers they gave for synthetic diamonds are net numbers.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Dumb Question
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2015, 10:52:57 pm »
According to DeBeers, a .2 gram diamond was formed from 2.8 grams of pure carbon.

So, 1/14th.

Where does the rest of the carbon go?

If it's anything like sapphire, it doesn't go anywhere.  The atoms all line up in perfectly straight lines, and the mass is in fact stored as energy bonding the atoms so rigidly.

I am unsure of the physics involved here, because diamonds don't explode when you crush them. Of course, what you're really doing is just making smaller diamonds, so I guess they wouldn't.

That makes no sense at all to me, but I haven't taken physics and I only have four terms of chemistry.

Thing is, I'm not an actual material science geek.  I'm a technician.  I don't understand it, either.

Changing the chemical bonds won't change the mass. That's one thing I know for sure. Making and breaking bonds never changes the mass of an element. The mass of a quantity of pure carbon is determined solely by how many carbon atoms are present.

See, I don't know.  I DO know, though, that to make 4 cubic cm of sapphire, weighing .3 kg, you need 1 kg of high purity alumina.  I was led to believe that the high temperatures involved caused the mass to be used up making bonds, and I was obviously misled.  Where does it actually go?  NO IDEA.

Perhaps that is the amount of usable sapphire product after processing.

Naw, sapphire manufacturers are like proper Scotsmen.  "NOTHING GETS WASTED 'ROUND HERE."  The RF pots they use to attain 3500C are like never-ending stew pots, but they are measured between each batch, so the amount actually used is known.  Also, I asked a friend of mine over there what the LOI mass loss was, and he said it was about 3-5%.

I have also been digging on the DeBeers thing.  Nobody knows how much - if any - wastage happens during the natural formation of diamonds, but apparently the numbers they gave for synthetic diamonds are net numbers.

Well, here is the thing. When atomic mass is converted to energy, that's fission. If you don't have any actual atomic decay, a mole is a mole is a mole.

Perhaps in your process you lose some mass in a gaseous state. Who knows? Not me.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 10:54:54 pm by Mesozoic Mister Nigel »
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.