Dumb Question

[rong]

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? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[LMNO]

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]

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.

[The Wizard Joseph]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Wizard Joseph]

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.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.