Jump to content

Talk:Diamond: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Diamond/Archive 8) (bot
Chemistry: new section
Line 75: Line 75:


There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:Diamond the Body#Requested move 29 July 2023|Talk:Diamond the Body]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Diamond the Body#Requested move 29 July 2023 crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 10:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:Diamond the Body#Requested move 29 July 2023|Talk:Diamond the Body]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Diamond the Body#Requested move 29 July 2023 crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 10:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

== Chemistry ==

Wow, is this a bad article. The lead states:"Because the arrangement of atoms in diamond is extremely rigid, few types of impurity can contaminate it (two exceptions are boron and nitrogen)." This is absolute rubbish. It isn't its "rigidity" that gives bulk diamond its impermeability (if that's what is meant by contamination). It is easy to "contaminate" a diamond CVD film with you name it. How big is the difference between contaminating a 1 inch cube (say) of pure iron vs. pure diamond? Not much. Ion implantation into (the near surface of) a diamond is also trivial. If the editors meant that NATURAL diamonds (on Earth) are typically quite pure, then SAY THAT! I suspect, but just an ignorant suspicion, that diamond must transition between impure high-carbon 'stuff' to the pure allotrope. I expect that at some point there's LOTS of contaminants in the nascent diamond. Aren't most natural diamonds black? What's that?? (the preceding is a digression, I'm ignorant on their natural occurrence.) There are so many FALSE statements in this article that it needs a total rewrite. There are many other bloopers but I don't have the patience to list them all. (For instance, did you know that hydrogen will leave an ash when burnt? No? Well, just read this article. When a diamond burns (in O2), any contaminants are left as ash. Ridiculous. (as is the assumption of complete combustion of the carbon) Another false claim is that diamond contains the most atoms per unit volume. (aside: at first, I thought the editor meant per unit cell volume!, not sure why s/he used the word "unit" since it doesn't add clarity (but it is not wrong)). Estimates of hydrogen density in the sun's core is ~10,000 kg/m^3, and without qualifying pressure and temperature the claim is likely false. I could go on...)[[Special:Contributions/40.142.183.146|40.142.183.146]] ([[User talk:40.142.183.146|talk]]) 20:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:59, 20 August 2023

Featured articleDiamond is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 11, 2005.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 16, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
January 23, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2009Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 17, 2010.
Current status: Featured article

"Incandescent lighting will not cause a diamond to fluoresce."

Shouldn't it say "visible light," since there are incandescent ultraviolet lights? And shouldn't "Ultraviolet" in the preceding sentence be lowercase? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

The term ‘Paragon’ is used an an adjective but appears to be a noun Andyeff (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity of diamonds

This piece states that diamonds are very rare, but this is not true. Multiple sources exist to counter that notion, e.g., from the International Gem Society. Diamond production has been heavily controlled to suit specific merchants. 2001:861:5E49:DF60:DD77:2926:A831:39E3 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond the Body which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry

Wow, is this a bad article. The lead states:"Because the arrangement of atoms in diamond is extremely rigid, few types of impurity can contaminate it (two exceptions are boron and nitrogen)." This is absolute rubbish. It isn't its "rigidity" that gives bulk diamond its impermeability (if that's what is meant by contamination). It is easy to "contaminate" a diamond CVD film with you name it. How big is the difference between contaminating a 1 inch cube (say) of pure iron vs. pure diamond? Not much. Ion implantation into (the near surface of) a diamond is also trivial. If the editors meant that NATURAL diamonds (on Earth) are typically quite pure, then SAY THAT! I suspect, but just an ignorant suspicion, that diamond must transition between impure high-carbon 'stuff' to the pure allotrope. I expect that at some point there's LOTS of contaminants in the nascent diamond. Aren't most natural diamonds black? What's that?? (the preceding is a digression, I'm ignorant on their natural occurrence.) There are so many FALSE statements in this article that it needs a total rewrite. There are many other bloopers but I don't have the patience to list them all. (For instance, did you know that hydrogen will leave an ash when burnt? No? Well, just read this article. When a diamond burns (in O2), any contaminants are left as ash. Ridiculous. (as is the assumption of complete combustion of the carbon) Another false claim is that diamond contains the most atoms per unit volume. (aside: at first, I thought the editor meant per unit cell volume!, not sure why s/he used the word "unit" since it doesn't add clarity (but it is not wrong)). Estimates of hydrogen density in the sun's core is ~10,000 kg/m^3, and without qualifying pressure and temperature the claim is likely false. I could go on...)40.142.183.146 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]