Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 511 posts

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#221

Post by [deleted] »

Terr_ wrote: post #182
db48x wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not quite. They were making diamond windows from atmospheric carbon dioxide at room temperature in household machines or machines you could rent at the post office. We’re a ways off from that yet.

Also the whole aerostat thing where you make a diamond "balloon" full of vacuum that floats in air, using the strength of the rigid diamond to avoid it being crushed and popped. I'm no materials-scientist, but I did some napkin-math on that once and it came out to some ridiculously-thin-sounding layer of diamond.

[deleted]

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#222

Post by opan »

amelius wrote: post #211
_ph_ wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pretty sure, diamonds would make awful eyeglasses. While their index of refraction is high, which makes glasses thin, their chromatic dispersion is high. That is the very thing which makes their glitter so colorful. For good optical systems you want to try to reduce the dispersion, to 0, if possible. Another story is the scratch-resistance. For that it would be sufficient to coat the surface of the lens with a t…

Maybe we can have diamond-based scratch protection on smartphones?

Don't we already have good scratch protection? Cracks from drops seem like the main issue.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#224

Post by shiroiushi »

_ph_ wrote: post #208
biomcgary wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diamond eyeglasses? The lenses would still be cheaper than the Luxottica frames.

I am pretty sure, diamonds would make awful eyeglasses. While their index of refraction is high, which makes glasses thin, their chromatic dispersion is high. That is the very thing which makes their glitter so colorful. For good optical systems you want to try to reduce the dispersion, to 0, if possible. Another story is the scratch-resistance. For that it would be sufficient to coat the surface of the lens with a t…

Before I got to the end of your comment, I was just about to ask if it's possible to make a diamond coating. The scratch resistance would be very valuable, and I'm guessing if it's very thin, the chromatic dispersion wouldn't be an issue. This would probably be valuable for other applications too. However, I don't see how this would work on today's predominantly plastic (polycarbonate) eyeglass lenses, and switching back to glass lenses would make eyeglasses much heavier. It'd be great for smartphone screens though.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#225

Post by FireBeyond »

dboreham wrote: post #133
gwbas1c wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's based on supply and demand. In 2012, when I was shopping for an engagement ring, a natural 2ct diamond cost $250,000. (I bought a 2ct moissanite for much, much less, and my wife is very happy with it.) When I looked in fall 2023, a natural 2ct diamond cost $20,000. That's a loss of over 90% of value, not counting inflation! (Now the supply of diamonds is much higher, and the demand for natural diamonds is much l…

Quick note that a very nice 2ct stone has never cost $200,000. Not sure who was trying to charge you that much in 2012 or why, but gem diamond prices haven't changed much in the past 30 years, although there was an uptick in the covid/inflationary years, and a reversion to trend more recently. https://www.pricescope.com/diamond-prices/diamond-prices-cha...

Even today, Tiffany will want to charge you $142,000 for a 2ct IF (internally flawless) colorless (D) diamond. Not quite $200K but nonetheless.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#226

Post by rlpb »

_ph_ wrote: post #208
biomcgary wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diamond eyeglasses? The lenses would still be cheaper than the Luxottica frames.

I am pretty sure, diamonds would make awful eyeglasses. While their index of refraction is high, which makes glasses thin, their chromatic dispersion is high. That is the very thing which makes their glitter so colorful. For good optical systems you want to try to reduce the dispersion, to 0, if possible. Another story is the scratch-resistance. For that it would be sufficient to coat the surface of the lens with a t…

> While their index of refraction is high, which makes glasses thin, their chromatic dispersion is high

Isn’t the layer caused by the former? For a given required refraction, isn’t the chromatic dispersion the same?

In complex lenses corrections can be made, but for a simple single eyeglass lens, how is chromatic dispersion affected by anything apart from simple refraction?

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#227

Post by shiroiushi »

LtdJorge wrote: post #194
Balgair wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a bit of a throwaway comment, but I'd never thought of diamonds for eyeglasses. And, honestly, that would be really really cool. Yeah, there are other materials with better refractive indices and that are tougher and cheaper and dont shatter. Sure. But if we can get diamonds down to something that could be made into lenses for the (very high end) retail market, man, that would just be so cool !

I'd rather use the diamonds to manufacture the laser machines that do eye surgery and remove glasses lol

No, because eye surgery can't take the place of corrective lenses in all cases: it's not a full replacement for glasses or contacts. For people the farther ends of the spectrum (either needing very light correction, or extremely heavy), surgery doesn't work, or for very high prescriptions it only helps but it's not enough by itself. (Ophthalmologists please feel free to chime in.) And there's other reasons people aren't eligible for surgery, such as being too young.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#228

Post by FireBeyond »

kevinventullo wrote: post #169
littleweep wrote: post #101

Tangentially related: Does anyone in the HN community have a recommendation for a reputable place for obtaining a lab-grown diamond for an engagement ring?

Brilliant Earth

Seconded.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#230

Post by wkat4242 »

agumonkey wrote: post #160
Animats wrote: post #105

That's a good article. The whole history is there. The commercial side has made huge progress, too. Look up "diamond making machine" on Alibaba. You can buy a high-pressure, high temperature six sided press for about US$200,000. A chemical vapor deposition machine is about the same price. De Beers, the diamond cartel, has an R&D operation, Element Six. They sell synthetic diamonds for lasers and other exotic applicat…

How will they maintain their jewelry business ? It feels like Sony CD-R drives in the Playstation era.

Maybe they'll just stop caring about it because they have a much better new business.

The same way rolls royce no longer sells luxury cars to stuffy British aristocracy but makes a mint building huge jet engines.

Post reply on HN