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

421–430 of 511 posts

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

#421

Post by DoughnutHole »

notfed wrote: post #157
fidotron wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point is to spend money and to be an honest signal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory In the event artificial diamonds are genuinely indistinguishable from natural ones they will all, natural and artificial, become worthless aside from practical applications.

That's a really, really dim signal though, right? You literally need a microscope to see the signal.

A higher-end Rolex knockoff is indistinguishable from the real thing to the naked eye of a casual observer, and yet people still buy the real thing for 10 times the price.

Brands will make themselves known as the more expensive option. People don’t give cubic zirconia engagement rings as is because they’ll look cheap if they’re honest and be outed as a cheap fraud if it’s found out that it’s not a diamond when they pretended it was.

De Beers will find a way to make aspects of the jewellery other than the gem identifiably theirs. Then when you’re caught pretending a $100 lab diamond ring is a $6,000 natural diamond De fBeers ring you’ll be in just as much trouble as if you’ve given them a cubic zirconia.

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

#422

Post by parineum »

gosub100 wrote: post #396
LtdJorge wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A lot of people regret LASIK. Dry eyes and diminished night vision are the top complaints.

I know of these as side effects but I don't know if they are ubiquitous and people prefer them to glasses or of they don't happen to everyone. Do you happen to know amd know about what the rate of regret is?

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

#423

Post by Workaccount2 »

dirtdobber wrote: post #403

Natural diamonds have value in terms of luxury. Synthetics do not, hence why they are cheap. If you want to buy a diamond because you think they're pretty, buy a synthetic one. If you want to buy a diamond as a luxury gift, buy a natural one. Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings. If you think that natural…

>I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it

What you likely to consider "trying to justify it" is more likely "trying to let someone know they are delusional."

"My synthetic diamond is functionally identical, if not even better than your mined one" is factually true and not a justification...

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

#425

Post by pc86 »

exabrial wrote: post #424

Except they're stupid expensive for no reason

Yeah, cartels gonna cartel. When I bought an engagement ring you'd find a natural stone for $x and the lab-grown version was, at best, $0.9x - I came across several instances where you'd choose between lab-grown and natural and the price was the same regardless.

They've been cheaper for a while but it doesn't matter that it's cheaper to make lab-grown diamonds than it is to mine natural diamonds if the consumer is going to pay the same regardless.

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

#426

Post by CamperBob2 »

sxv wrote: post #386
saghm wrote: post #294

When my fiancee and I got engaged last year, we bought our rings from a place that (in addition to having a robust process that allowed us to avoid having to go anywhere in person) uses lab-grown gemstones. Not only is the quality quite high and the color impressive (she picked a pink sapphire), the prices were much lower than we expected. I'm not really sure why anyone would want a "real" diamond at this point; you…

Many see a value in "natural" objects that is absent in those engineered by man. There is a raw energy and story behind it. Would you be just as awe-struck by a magnificent waterfall built by engineers flowing atop beautiful factory-produced rocks as one created by geologic forces over millennia?

Would you be just as awe-struck by a magnificent waterfall built by engineers flowing atop beautiful factory-produced rocks as one created by geologic forces over millennia?

Why wouldn't I be? Human creations can be every bit as awe-inspiring as anything found in nature.

No waterfall is as impressive as a smartphone, if you know what you're looking at and what it took to make it happen.

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

#427

Post by dredmorbius »

chronogram wrote: post #404
dredmorbius wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pineapple and aluminium come to mind. Both were considered absolute luxuries in the 19th century. Mechanical watches, perhaps.

Sugar was a Veblen good, now its superfluousness is the worst part about it.

When and where?

AFAIU by the time of British colonisation in the Carribean / West Indies, sugar was cheap and afforded plentiful calories (and caries) to the working class.

Along with (relatively) inexpensive tea, the practice of serving boiled water-sugar solution greatly improved health (given the lack of water treatment at the time), reduced alcohol consumption, and provided additional food energy. And that was by the mid-to-late 18th century so far as I'm aware.

I'm not aware of any time or place where sugar was considered a luxury item, at least not for any substantial duration (say, excepting famine, economic recession, or war).

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

#428

Post by TheRealPomax »

Xcelerate wrote: post #389
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…

> diamond windows for lasers 10cm across > Diamonds are now something you can buy by the kilo, in plastic bags. I can’t wait to use diamond cookware. A pan with a thin layer of 430 stainless steel for induction, a wafer of diamond, and then another thin layer of stainless on top will be amazing. Almost perfect evenness over any cooktop.

This is what oil-core cookware already does. But there's only so much "heat spreading" you can do before faster conductivity does basically nothing. The thermal conductivity of steel itself becomes the limiting factor pretty quickly.

That said, if they can figure out vapor depositing diamond onto stainless steel, I'd take a diamond surface over an enamel surface. Provided they can figure out how to make it perfectly flat rather than so jagged at the molecular level that literally everything sticks to it.

("wouldn't that burn? It's just carbon after all": only if you give it the cast iron pan treatment and manage to have it sit on so much gas for so long that you get it up to 700C, which would make no sense)

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

#429

Post by ninetyninenine »

hungie wrote: post #411
ninetyninenine wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is shallow. Women want tribute or some sort of proof that you care. This is the true meaning of romance. Romance is essentially a man paying some sort of tribute to a woman mostly in the form of time, effort and/or money.

Can we avoid painting with such a broad brush? "Women want tribute" is a wild thing to assert.

[flagged]

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

#430

Post by semi-extrinsic »

alex_duf wrote: post #367
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some innovation is just around the corner It's already here! Stainless steel for pots, carbon steel for pans. Once I got my first carbon steel pan (not cast iron) I knew it was game over for the teflon pans in my house. I'm now gradually replacing the teflon pans with carbon steel, and then I'll never have to replace another pan in my lifetime. The upcoming PFAS ban in Europe will probably accelerate this transitio…

I replaced my téflon pans with carbon steel. I find the transition and learning curve to be much more difficult than téflon. Cooking an egg is a big no-no, I need to think about when to squeeze a lemon or when to put my tomato sauce otherwise I might damage the seasoning. Nothing blocking but definitely a lot of things I don't want to think about.

For stuff like eggs or pancakes, stainless is actually better in my experience. Just use a little oil and get the pan hot enough so that you have the initial Leidenfrost effect until the bottom of what you are frying has had time to solidify, then you're golden.
Post reply on HN