Talk:Synthetic diamond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Synthetic diamond 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 20, 2009.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 7, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
June 2, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 18, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Synthetic diamond is a loaded term[edit]

The term synthetic diamond implies that it is somehow artificial and not the same as natural diamond (which is a neutral term). Isn't Man-made a better term, the synthetic diamond page could just link there.

I don't consider it a loaded term. Synthetic things are often of better quality than natural things. People who favor "natural" things usually do so through conditioning, not because of any implications inherent in these terms. Agateller 11:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, to me synthetic definitely suggests different, whereas "natural" and "synthetic" diamond are primarily the same. I, too, believe it is a loaded term - however, I also believe we're stuck with it. "Lab grown diamond" is my personal preferred description, as it accurately points out the fact that the biggest difference between the types of diamond is not what they are, but how they came into being. PitOfBabel 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe it's a loaded term, but probably OK to use provided there is a clear explanation that they are (or at least can be) chemically identical. The current revision of the page explains this rather well. As a chemist, whether something is natural or synthetic is irrelevant if they're chemically the same. It's something I try to explain to friends but some people believe natural means healthier or just better.
De Beers is giving these machines to diamond dealers that can supposedly detect synthetic diamonds. I doubt that they work all that well (if at all), but give the synthetic diamond industry another decade or two and no machine will be able to tell the difference.
If you're going to invest, invest in gold - it'll be a long, long time before anyone can make synthetic gold at a profit. ZZYZX 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You may very well be right chemically, but obviously a diamond is all about emotion. Hence loaded or not loaded, that is what the thing is: a synthetic diamond, and some argue it should be called lab-created, cultured whatever your stance, Wikipedia is not really involved (or really NOT) involved in these political discussions. In the gem world, synthetic stones are a pretty common term, but so are lab-created. Let me check if there is a paragraph on the discussion between "lab-created" and "cultured"... that should cover the contentiousness of terminology Gem-fanat 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Beware writing this issue off too easily. Currently the phrase "synthetic diamond" means something to most of the public that simply isn't true. The insistence on using the term is done because natural diamond companies want this misconception to continue (see the way they dealt with the GIA on this issue over the past couple of years as evidence). It is tacitly accepting the term that is being political, not questioning it. As a side note, the three billion carats of man made diamond sold each year to industry are not "all about emotion." PitOfBabel 17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me give you a link: http://www.farlang.com/diamonds/parsons-synthetic-diamond/page_001 An article of 1893 titled "Synthetic Diamond". If you search their library for synthetic diamond you will find 4-5 more references (articles of books) that have used that term over the decades, including GE's breakthrough in 1955 http://www.farlang.com/diamonds/gregory-oppenheimer-biography/page_016/view?searchterm=synthetic%20diamonds

So I am not so sure it's a recent campaign by the natural diamond companies (i.e. de Beers). it is pretty clear that in scientific circles, "synthetic" means from synthesized material and that is exactly what this type of diamond is. Obviously 90 % or more of the synthetic diamonds are used in industry. I am pretty neutral about it, "lab-created" or "artifical" diamond would be a pretty proper name as well. I am curious as to what you mean with the public impression of "synthetic diamonds" that is not true...

Gem-fanat 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both are true; in scientific circles it is called synthetic, and DeBeers and others have pushed to stick the term to lab diamonds sold publicly. As with many other words, the scientific and popular interpretation of the word are different. The public thinks of synthetic diamond as something different that can be used in place of the "real" thing. Consider this example, where they say "Traditional wisdom tells us that a synthetic creation is usually not quite as good as the original it strives to emulate. (The difference between clothing made of polyester versus silk comes to mind.)" In that case synthetic is being used to describe something that is fundamentally different but used for the same purpose. Also note that, on the other side of the spectrum, companies making imitation diamond often call their imitation "synthetic." More than a few have edited here doing exactly that, one very recently, and this illustrates why lab companies are trying to relabel their product. Obviously we shouldn't change terms just to suit them.
As I said a ways above, I don't think the term can be avoided. However we need to always be aware of these conflicts of interpretation and recognize when to tune the content accordingly. My point is that this is very much a serious issue and I am glad we are getting to discuss it more. PitOfBabel 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added the words lab-created and artificial in the first sentence.. so perhaps this should frame the context of synthetic more. Let me check if these two expressions actually redirect to synthetic diamonds in wikipedia.. not sure how to do this if they do not..
Why not just use the term cultured, which is what most of the manufacturers of man-made diamonds prefer? They would be the experts on this issue, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapierian (talkcontribs) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Gem-fanat 15:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DONE !!! Gem-fanat 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Man made diamonds are not synthetic, as they are composed of generally all the same elements, bonds and structures to that of a natural diamond. Is a GM crop synthetic? Is fresh water from our taps synthetic when compared to natural fresh water? I disagree to saying man made diamonds are synthetic or to say they are "artificial". Something synthetic is plastic, or new different replicas of something natural that does not share all the characteristics to that of the natural one, which is not the case with man made diamonds. Is the fire from a lighter synthetic than to that of nature? If thats the term for using the word synthetic, that whenever a human hand touches a process, then almost everything we consider natural can be synthetic, even orange juice. I guess some people here are working on behalf of diamond monopolies, to keep their investments safe. It's good banks are wise enough to invest in gold and elements which have a limited supply, whereas diamonds are continuously being formed underground. I feel sorry for women who think they have something valuable on their fingers. Please reconsider the so called "synthetic" tag as it does not apply in this case. Sorry guys.--78.86.117.164 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article:

Dear Wiki Editors: Please include a note about how the Diamond Association/DeBeers is pressuring the Federal Trade Commission to call these diamonds “synthetic” instead of “cultured.” Perhaps the title of this article should be "lab-created" or “man-made” diamonds rather then siding with the diamond industry and calling them synthetic. This wiki article is a marketing piece in the sense that the success of these man-made diamonds as gem stones will likely turn on whether they come to be known as "synthetic" or as "cultured." Therefore, it seems clear that the very title of this article is not neutral, but rather the result of sophisticated marketing. Here is a helpful article: “Jem Wars” in the Wall Street Journal (Jan. 13, 2007). Unsurprisingly a free copy can be found on a diamond maker’s website http://www.apollodiamond.com/ under the Corporate/Media links. (I apologize for this intrusion. … I'm not really sure how edits work, but I am sure someone will fix my poorly formatted comment promptly. Hopefully they will change the name of this article as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.190.179 (talk)

As the previous posters have pointed out, the term "synthetic diamond" predates any of the terms such as "cultured" or "lab-grown" which are used by the people who market synthetic diamonds, and it is therefore not part of a De Beers conspiracy. As has also been discussed, the fact that something is "synthetic" doesn't make it worse, as opposed to "artificial diamonds" which are not diamonds at all, and could more correctly be termed ersatz diamonds or diamond substitutes. It is true that in the gem trade, "diamonds are all about emotion". As larger quantities of synthetic diamond become available, people will increasingly be faced with the decision of whether to buy a smaller mined diamond or a larger synthetic diamond, and this will moderate the emotion involved. To make my allegiances clear: I work for a health food and supplement company, and am not in any way funded by De Beers. My wife and I are not emotional about diamonds and precious metals, and we both wear stainless steel wedding bands. --Slashme (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I hope you are alerted to messages here. I think your conclusion that the term synthetic is neutral is mistaken. I will assume that you are correct that "synthetic" predates "lab-grown," but the fact that DeBeer's did not pioneer the term does not preclude their marketing teams from trying to brand these gems as "synthetic." Furthermore, your use of the word conspiracy leads me to believe that you might not understand why I find the term lacking neutrality. Of coarse if there was a secret conspiracy to use the word, it would be biased, but that is not what I am contending. I am simply pointing out what is undisputed -- marketing teams are trying to equate these gems with the word "synthetic." Branding like this is very common and falls quite short of any conspiracy theory, but still makes it a non-neutral term. Words and their connotations are extremely influential. That is precisely why the makers of diamonds want them to be called "cultured." Because this article chooses "synthetic" for its title, it declares one camp the winner.

It might be true that sellers of mined diamonds are in favour of labeling man-made diamonds as "synthetic", but it is also true that sellers of man-made diamonds are trying to label them as "lab-grown" or "cultured". While the source of the labels is useful in determining their suitability, it is not the only basis for a decision. We must simply try to determine which term is most accurate. Who would seriously suggest that we should call synthetic vitamin E "lab-grown" vitamin E, or that we should call synthetic motor oil "cultured oil"? These terms are simply marketing terms without scientific meaning. The word "synthetic" is descriptive and accurate and should remain as the title of this article. --Slashme (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are persuasive arguments for identifying them as synthetic, but what I found shocking about this purportedly neutral piece is that it did not even mention this debate. What reason is there for not including a one-line disclosure.

Actually, the very first sentence says "Synthetic diamond, also called lab-created, manufactured, "lab-grown" or cultured diamond is a term ... ". What more would you want to see? --Slashme (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My bias is obvious: I think synthetic is misleading, and I also think that the word carries a negative connotation in the eyes of ordinary consumers. That said, I would never contend an article would be comprehensive if it did not at least mention the merits for using the word synthetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.190.179 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree that it is misleading, especially as the concept is so clearly explained so early in the article. As for the word "synthetic" carrying a negative connotation, that is a challenge that makers of all types of synthetic products must overcome. The reason that it has a negative connotation is that so many synthetic products were initially inferior to the corresponding natural product due to impurities and lack of stability. Some synthetic products are now superior to the corresponding natural products, as is already the case for some (not all) synthetic diamonds. People who buy rope, fishing line, condoms and raincoats don't mind that they're made of synthetic materials, and would normally accept no natural substitutes. Maybe someday that will also be the case for diamonds. --Slashme (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also agree that synthetic is the correct term, whether in this particular market (and some others) that term has become loaded whether for good or bad reasons is irrelevant to it being the correct word to use. Trying to fix people's perceptions by imposing a perpetual euphemism treadmill is a pointless waste of time. --86.129.6.0 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

--

My name's Justin Richards. I'm a journalist who has researched lab-created diamonds. The problem with synthetic is that it describes the combination, or synthesis, of two different elements. That is the definition given by Merriam Webster. Diamond formation, on the other hand, involves pure Carbon only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.142.42 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merriam Webster is hardly an authorative source on the way terms are used in physics (or even chemistry), the definition you quote is a fairly poor definition of chemical synthesis. Would you say speech synthesis is the wrong term because it doesn't involve combining any chemical elements at all? --86.129.6.0 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Synthetic diamond is a loaded term. I would suggest anthropologic diamond or geologic diamond if we need to differentiate whether they are formed as a result of human action or geologic action. After all, you might build a factory (as opposed to a lab) to make diamonds which are every bit as practically useful as geological diamonds to mount on a metal band on a finger.

The usefulness of a diamond on a band is as a result of the ideas it is imbued with, which has been achieved through clever marketing paid for through prices achieved as a result of scarcity. Forgetting the ideas diamond is imbued with, cubic zirconia is just as functional as a gem stone as diamond. We need to remember that diamonds formed through geologic processes have a range of properties in terms of contaminants. Those contaminants appear to be the method to distinguish anthropologic vs geological. It appears the quality and contaminant components of anthropologic diamonds can be very closely controlled using CVD. It is therefore not reasonable to assume that geologic vs anthropologic diamonds can be reliably distinguished today. As mentioned above, it will be increasingly difficult to continue the illusion of scarcity as manufacturing techniques improve. Techniques will likely continue to improve as there are many industrial uses for crystalline carbon. As scarcity falls, and marketing margins fall, we may need to find some other scarce material to imbue the ideas formerly associated with Diamond. DeBeers - You will have to find something other than Diamond! Nick Hill (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Conversion?[edit]

3000 degrees Celsius is NOT 5432K. To convert from Celsius to Kelvin you add 273. Now I don't want to make the edit because I don't know which value is correct but this is a glaring error. 124.185.183.122 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Since later on they managed to heat it to 5000K, which is higher and since 3000°C=5432°F, I am assuming the correct temperature is 3000°C.Calamarain 09:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

corrected structure type of diamond from tetragonal to cubic[edit]

Since the diamond structure is cubic, with space group Fd3m (see for example the "Manual of Mineralogy" 21st edition by Klein and Hurlbut"), I changed "tetragonal carbon allotrope" to "cubic carbon allotrope".Wikimedes 07:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Preceramic polymer subsection deleted[edit]

I found and analyzed the original paper JACS 126 (2004) 3191 but saw no proof of diamond synthesis and therefore deleted the "Preceramic polymer" section. Even if the JACS authors were correct in producing diamond, the result is very poorly described and should be

1) Confirmed by other authors. I should note an inconsistency in that JACS paper. The only evidence of diamond is the Raman spectrum, but it is way too sharp for such a synthesis, and the 1320 peak suddenly shifts to 1276 cm-1 upon changing the laser wavelength, which is much too suspicious.

2) Properly described. This Wikipedia article picked up the creams of that paper (easy low-temperature synthesis) whereas the actual growth took 121 hr at 1120 C in Ar flow + 24 hr at 1300 C in air and had very low "diamond" yield. Anybody who tried knows how difficult it is to convert carbon into diamond :-) NIMSoffice (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To NIMSoffice and Materialscientist:

First, we provided bona-fide references - three of them - to back up the poly(hydridocarbyne) entry in Lonsdaleite. Neither one of you have provided a *single* contrary reference to backup your subjective comments.

Second, the JACS 126 (2004) 3191 paper we referenced was peer-revived in one of the most prestigious journals in America - a very high standard for accuracy indeed.

Third, if either of you had bothered to read the other two references we provided you would have found the corroborating X-ray evidence from other authors (Toppare et al):

page 361, section 3.2, Characterization of Diamond, para 2: "The X-ray powder pattern of the ~mixture shows it to consist of Lonsdaleite" from: Toppare L et al. (May 2008). "Facile Synthesis of Poly(hydridocarbyne): A Precursor to Diamond and Diamond-like Ceramics". Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part A 45 (5): 358–363. doi:10.1080/10601320801946108.

page 2776, para 2: "The data represents Lonsdaleite, a hexagonal form of diamond the fit is even better than the one in aprevious work": Toppare L et al. (June 2009). "Electrochemical polymerizatıon of hexachloroethane to form poly(hydridocarbyne): a pre-ceramic polymer for diamond production". Journal of Materials Science 44 (11): 2774-2779. doi:10.1007/s10853-009-3364-4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SixFingeredMan (talkcontribs) 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gemstones[edit]

"The mined diamond industry is evaluating marketing and distribution countermeasures to these less expensive alternatives."[need quotation to verify]

"The three largest distributors have made public statements about selling their diamonds with full disclosure and have implemented measures to laser-inscribe serial numbers on their gemstones." - The external reference only mentions one company stating their intent to laser inscribe. Should this be rephrased? Furthermore, Gemesis only sells rough diamonds so they cannot laser inscribe the polished diamonds. EEFranklin (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Synthetic diamond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

After a quick scan I've found some MOS issues, listed below. I have not given the article a full review yet, and will wait until the major MOS issues are resolved before doing so.

  • Introduction The lead paragraph is too short (see WP:LEAD for more info). The lead should be a summary of the entire article, any information which is in the intro should be found within the main body as well. I find it is easiest to just take snippets from each paragraph (or in the case of longer articles such as this one, perhaps every other paragraph) and put the most interesting and pertinent information into the lead. Also, valid redirects to this page should be listed in bold type, not italics. Alternative names which are not redirects from other pages should not be bolded or italicised. Another point, the first sentence should not describe the article title as a "term", it should tell us what a synthetic diamond is.
Yes check.svg Done

The intro is still too small. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done
  • Images Problems with image stack-ups, especially in the lead. Also, image sizes should not be specified unless absolutely necessary. I would suggest not coding all the images together in one big stack, but instead, sprinkling them throughout the prose as well as alternating them from left to right (but only when possible, without placing them directly under 1st level headers, 2nd and 3rd are OK). It is good to place images next to relevant prose, but only if there is sufficient space to do so. Remember, some users may have large screens resolutions which will cause images which are coded on top of each other to stack up, introducing large gaps in the text. For more info, see MOS:IMAGES.
Yes check.svg Done

On second thought, the lead image and images of detailed diagrams may be sized larger to allow better viewing, but normally no larger than 300px, so I changed some of them around so it would look better. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Units Temperature and size units should be converted using the {{convert}} template. This will ensure accurate conversion between metric and standard units. BUT... converting units is not necessary for scientific articles (see Formation and evolution of the Solar System), so simply listing the metric units is sufficient. This is not to say that you cannot provide conversion of units for this article, to enable better understanding by the lay reader, but if you choose to do so you should use the template.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Links Wikilinks should only occur upon the first mention of the subject, and subsequent mentions of the word should not be linked. Linking words in the intro, and upon first mention in the body is OK, but third and fourth mentions should certiainly not be linked. There is still consensus-building regarding the linking of dates, but I am fine with it so I will let that one slide.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Text There are numerous one-sentence paragraphs which could be consolidated with other paragraphs. It is ok to have one-sentence, or short paragraphs, but they should be used sparingly and normally are used for emphasis.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Refs References should be properly formatted using the various {{cite}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite web}} templates. At the bare minimum, they should include an accessdate, publisher, author name (if available), URL or book title, and date of publication (if available). I also spot some statements which are not cited. If a single reference is used for an entire paragraph, one can simply cite it at the end of the paragraph. The standard format is to place the cite at the end of sequence of statements which are supported by the reference, or the end of a paragraph, whichever comes first. It is also not required to place citations within the introduction (unless the statement is controversial or being challenged, which I don't think we have that problem here), providing the information is repeated (and referenced) within the body of the article (which it should be anyway, MOS requires that the intro be a summary of the article, e.g., no information in the lead that is not within the main body).

I fixed some. Note that journal citations do not need access date and publisher. Regarding {{cite journal}}, I prefer using much shorter style, which is much easier to type and read in plain text (cf. the codes of this [1] and this [2] references; note that most GAs have ~50 of them and that {{cite journal}} is very sensitive; e.g., Title instead of title will be ignored), but I shall change it to {{cite journal}} if required? This is a non-issue. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Author, A. (2000). "Title". journal 1: 10. 
  2. ^ Author, A. (2000) "Title" journal 1: 10
The {{cite journal}} template should be used. I agree that the simpler form is easier to use and read, but it makes it easier and clearer to future editors who might need to use or modify the refs. You are right that they dont need publisher and accessdates, though, I was just trying to say they need the minimum fields to be filled out. Also, for future reference, citations should be placed after punctuation, not before (this includes commas and parentheses). I have taken the liberty of fixing this problem for you, but if you see any I have missed, please change them. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done

I think I have covered everything, and I haven't even given the article my "thorough" review yet. On second thought, this probably would have qualified as a quickfail, as it might take longer than seven days to fix all the issues. But the seven day limit is mostly a suggestion and as long as I receive a reply within seven days I am willing to overlook the time limit. If an editor has not expressed an interest in addressing these issues within seven days, that is usually when I fail the article. So... good luck! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article, I have come across some issues, listed below.

  • GE diamond project "In 1941 an agreement was made between General Electric (GE), Norton and Carborundum to further develop diamond synthesis." - Who are Norton and Carborundum?
Yes check.svg Done They are companies, rather famous around that time (not now).
  • Later developments "Another successful diamond synthesis was produced on February 16, 1953 in Stockholm, Sweden by the QUINTUS project of ASEA (Allemanna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget), " - Some explanation of what the "QUINTUS" project is would be nice.
Yes check.svg Done Code name of top-secret project.
  • Ultrasound cavitation - Is this an emerging field of diamond production? This section seems awfully small for something that seems so promising. If this is true, perhaps some mention of the "newness" of this field might help the reader who wonders why this section is so lacking.
Yes check.svg Done There are very few methods of growing diamond, and thus every one deserved mentioning. However, it is Ok to delete the whole section.
No, no, the section should stay. I think it is fine now that you have fixed the problem. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also made numerous minor edits to the article to improve readability and understanding. Although I have taken care not to change anything I didn't understand, please check to be sure I haven't changed anything I shouldn't have. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your help is really appreciated ! NIMSoffice (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well done. And thanks for adding the proper cite templates, it looks much better now. Good job, article passed, and here is your green circle! Symbol support vote.svg --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


  • History section note: "...he spent 30 years (1882–1922)..."

I believe 1882-1922 is 40 years, not 30... though I cannot find the correct information to clarify it. Syhon (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Post-FAC1 review[edit]

After the first unsuccessful FA nomination, the Enlgish style of the article was brushed up as reflected here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing information[edit]

The article is good on the technology side but not on the socioeconomics.

The article only indirectly indicates why anyone would bother to make synthetic diamond rather than using natural diamond. I would have assumed it was purely because of price; the #Economics section on this Talk page has a bit of information, but the article itself does not. Having read the article, it seems that another advantage of synthesis is that you can fine-tune the properties of the resulting diamond to be atypical or unknown among natural diamonds; this is implicit in the Properties section but never actually stated. I presume this tuning will also affect the price.

Also, the article is very circumspect about the use of synthetics in jewellery/gemstones. It seems POV to focus on the opposition of the natural-diamond companies. What about their competitors? How widespread are they? How much cheaper? How do consumers value "naturalness" against price? (The #Synthetic diamond is a loaded term section above is relevant for this.) Given that diamonds are conspicuous consumption, is price-based competition even feasible? Are there cases of fraud, passing synthetics off as natural? Are firms making efforts to fool the DiamondView and/or make nature-identical synthetics? jnestorius(talk) 09:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good questions. There are bits of information flying around, such as that companies selling natural diamonds are doing their best to block usage of synthetics as gems, etc. I just never got my hands on enough encyclopedically reliable sources for this topic. Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Jnestorius - a late reply, but the reason the socioeconomics aren't mentioned much is that, as Materialscientist suggests, it's very difficult to document that information. As someone who worked in CVD diamond growth in the past, I'd like to answer your questions from my point of view, and you can decide for yourself how reliable the information is.
Being able to control the properties of the diamond you make is just about the only good reason to produce synthetic diamond. With CVD diamond growth you can control the conductivity (even making semiconductive diamond), the crystallinity, the hardness, the color, and other properties. You can also grow diamond directly on a substrate, which gives you options you don't have with mined (or HPHT) diamond. If you want to use diamond in a variety of circumstances (cutting tools, x-ray diffraction, colored gemstones, heat spreaders), being able to control the properties of your diamond is critical.
However, this control has its limitations, and often comes at a price. I would argue the single biggest problem facing CVD diamond growth (and I realize I'm not addressing HPHT much) is the same problem they had in '85 - growth rate. 5 micrometers an hour is just slow. Now, you can find lots of articles where people have obtained substantially higher rates than that - I know I did. However, you give up control when you do that, and often the diamond you produce is very specific and/or very low quality. The other huge issue is substrate size, though in my opinion more progress has been made on that.
As far as gemstones go, a lot of people who thought synthetic diamond was going to be a great competitor to mined diamond were in for a shock a decade ago. The reality is that mined diamond isn't that expensive, and by the times it's cut, marketed, stored and sold it's price goes up tremendously. When you do the same to CVD diamond you end up wiping out most (but maybe not all) of your margin. There's a reason Apollo Diamond did all its own maketing and sales for so long (though I think they've branched out). The one area of exception is in colored stones, because they're so rare naturally. Thus most HPHT (I'm especially thinking Gemesis) have spent most of their time in that area, and we're back to the control argument.
I really think the best explanation for why synthetic diamonds haven't had more impact on the gemstone marketplace is because the actual business of selling gem diamond is a lot less dependant on their original source than people think. Of course, technological and business model improvements may well change this situation. Don't place any money on when.
To address one other question you've had, dishonest companies that pass off non-diamond as "synthetic diamond" were very common, even two years ago. This certainly contributed to confusion in the marketplace, but I really doubt it's a big factor. Try to figure out how much reactor space you need to compete with the amount of gemstone quality diamond mined each year and you'll discover very quickly what kind of effort is needed to really impact the market with synthetic gems.
Long ago I had some Diamond & Related materials articles that went into some of this (if you go back far enough you'll see I spent a lot of time on this article, many years ago). I've long lost them. Maybe I can dig them up, but I doubt it. More likely this will get deleted and that will be that. It was fun walking down memory lane though. --PitOfBabel (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I never believed CVD would be any good for gem diamonds, and that its only niche is electronic or mechanical coatings. What I saw in the original comment is a hint to those Chinese plants with hundreds of BARS-like presses which can easily produce cheap and reasonably good diamonds. Yellow color and inclusions can be avoided by optimizing the growth; size is limited, but optimized HPHT can result in clear, blue and even orange or greenish stones. Technology has long been developed for that (by Russians and Kanda), but then comes marketing .. Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Synthetic diamond has myriad industrial applications, and it is far easier to synthesize it for industrial applications than to mine it (which I suppose might be an economical reason, though it's also a simple utilitarian one)--and I don't know whether polycristalline (PCD) diamond can be mined, and PCD is harder than monocrystal diamond, and lasts longer in industrial use. Sources about this could be found, and used to build up such an explanation in this article. Actually I think the article is potentially missing quite a lot of information on that. --RichardAlexanderHall (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ashes to diamonds[edit]

The ashes from a cremation are sometimes used to make a diamond to be used as a gemstone for sentimental reasons. Should there be a section on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.14.27 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a note on that in 1st paragraph of "Gemstones". Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a bit of a scam. The high temperatures and conditions of cremation should leave only the non-carbonaceous inorganic components of the body in the ashes.96.54.53.165 (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please advice us on ashes. As I understand, and adult produces >2 kg of those, most of which are not carbon, but. Only grams are needed for a diamond. The companies say they oxidize the ashes at high temperature, leaving only graphite, which is then converted. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

High-power switches at power stations[edit]

The article refers to one potential use of synthetic diamond being "high-power switches at power stations". Being an electrical transmission engineer, I expect what this means to say is "high-voltage switchgear on transmission systems", but I would need to read the full paper to be sure. It's referenced to: J. Isberg, M. Gabrysch, A. Tajani, and D.J. Twitchen (2006). "High-field Electrical Transport in Single Crystal CVD Diamond Diodes", Advances in Science and Technology 48:73, but that link leads only to the abstract and first paragraph. Does anyone have access to the full paper they could share with me? Thanks, —BillC talk 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

This phrase is a little preposterous "Numerous claims of diamond synthesis were documented between 1879 and 1928; each of those attempts were carefully analyzed and none were confirmed." Every claim was carefully examine? I am sure there were a number of claims that were just brushed off. Which is fine as science is not required to carefully examine and refute every bogus claim. But saying all were examined without references is a little far fetched.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

History line[edit]

The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has grown stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g) for research purposes.

Is there a reason this sentence is in the middle of a history section? Did it occur at some auspicious time? Could a knowledgeable editor relocate this statement or else give it the needed context? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a unique historical growth of largest HPHT synthetic diamonds, which happened some time in the past. If anyone knows more, please let us know. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cultured" diamonds[edit]

I noticed the discussion above, which talks about the article name, and whether it should be called "synthetic" or "cultured". It seems to me that the term "cultured diamonds" exists in the industry as being different from squishing a bunch of carbon together, but instead refers to "growing" from a seed.

So, if synthetic covers all non-natural diamonds, and "cultured" diamonds describes a process and a product that is a subset of synthetic, then shouldn't we have a section (namely the Synthetic diamond#Later developments section), named "cultured diamonds" or "culturing diamonds"? Am I a making any sense? What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(By the way, I did notice Chemical vapor deposition of diamond. But that just confused me.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pricing[edit]

It would be interesting to have a graph of the price of diamonds (of a certain size or quality or whatever) produced by different technologies over time. In particular, I'm wondering what the impact of synthetic diamonds on the natural diamond market is. -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardness, and harder forms of diamond which have not been synthesized[edit]

The section on hardness lacked any mention of polycrystalline diamond, or PCD (which is synthetic Carbonado), so I added it with links to other articles at Wikipedia which support this. However, it needs direct citation from scientific sources (I don't know but that this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_properties_of_diamond#cite_note-11 cited in the article Material properties of diamond, may illuminate that. I have run across information on the hardness of all known forms of diamond in GPa, but don't recall where now--and I think it would be useful to compare the different forms of diamond listed in this section, in those terms (GPa). Also, it may be worth noting that several times, Tracy Hall accidentally synthesized ballast (opaque white PCD, which accomplishment was announced in this paper, I believe -- http://www.sciencemag.org/content/169/3948/868.abstract -- and reproduced here also http://www.htracyhall.org/papers/19700427.pdf -- and there seems to be no mention of ballast diamond anywhere on Wikipedia), and that this has not yet been reproduced, and that no one has yet synthesized Lonsdaleite (which is about five times harder than monocrystal diamond) either. Both of these, with theoretical GPa, could be added somewhere here--perhaps under a section entitled "Forms of Diamond Which Have Not Been Synthesized" -- perhaps that could be a sub-section of "Hardness". --RichardAlexanderHall (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Impurities and inclusions vs. Synthetic Diamonds[edit]

Under the section "Impurities and inclusions", it says "Every diamond contains atoms other than carbon in concentrations detectable by analytical techniques." However, under the section "Thermal conductivity", it talks about "isotopically pure diamond" that is " Single crystals of synthetic diamond enriched in 12C (99.9%)" according to this article, but "100% 12C or 100% 13C" according to the isotopically pure diamond article. It is my understanding that these diamonds do not have "atoms other than carbon" and invalidates the "Every diamond" statement. Alancnet (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Meaningful concentrations are on the order 0.1% (1000 parts per million, ppm) for thermal conductivity, where we talk about carbon-12 and 13, and roughly 1 ppm for "impurities .. detectable by analytical techniques". Note that 13C is an "impurity" for thermal conductivity, but not for most other properties. Materialscientist (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Identification of synthetic diamond - automatic deletion of content through "lack of citation"[edit]

"Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."

Stating that growth lines are visible under magnification in CVD diamonds is not challenged, nor is it likely to be; it's a statement of fact, not opinion. Automatically deleting edits because of lack of citation would appear to demonstrate that the individual has not bothered to investigate the edit in any way shape or form. Where proprietary training material is the source of the information it cannot be cited - and it is significantly more important that an article be factually correct than adopt the head-in-sand approach of "it isn't cited so it can't be allowed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.207.92 (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not a fact, but an unsourced and likely incorrect claim, see your talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)