Synthetic diamond generation
John Seeliger
I once heard that in order to create diamonds, pressures of 40,000
atmosphere would have to exist. How long would these conditions have to be
held in order for a piece of graphite to be formed on a piece of carbon of
sufficient size to make say a 10 carat diamond? Also, would the procure
and temperature have to be reduced gradually? What kind of pressure can be
generated by the detonator for a nuclear bomb, which implodes subcritical
fissile material into supercritcal material and could this in principle be
used to generate diamonds by replacing the fissile material with graphite?
Has this technique been tried?
Thanks.
Uncle Al
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/diamond/submissions/diam_intro/cphased.htm
http://www.journey.sunysb.edu/lmd/carbonph.html
The diamond stability field is 80-100 miles directly under your
brogans, and they have been growing for 3+ billion years longer than
currently mined diamonds. One presumes they are somewhat larger than
SOP.
Typical geodynamic conditions for diamond growth at equilibrium are
around 865,000 psi and 1250 C. A carat requires about a week of
growth with exquisite temperature and pressure control. Go faster or
burp it and you get graphitic inclusions. The bigger the stone gets
the slower the crystallization goes. Note that about 60% of an
octahedral rough stone is cut away to reveal the properly facetted
gemstone. Almost everything you see in a jewelry store is known in
the trade as "swindle cut." Think about it.
It is not technologically possible to squeeze graphite into
monocrystal gem diamond, no matter what Superman did with the MBweBwe
natives. It is not technologically possible to grow a 10 carat gem
diamond - the MTBF of the geodynamic press will eat you. Claims to
overnight geodynamic growth of multiple carat Type IIa gem diamond at
the University of Florida have curiously never resulted in a
commercial process.
It is not possible to recrystallize graphite into large gem diamond
under any circumstances. Look at the difference in densities, figure
the difference in volumes at 865,000 psi, and remember that one
liter-atmosphere is 101.325 Joules. One would just as likely control
the detonation of a like mass of TNT. Gem diamond is solution (molten
ferrous alloy) recrystallized from crap diamond to avoid net volume
change. Black industrial diamond is solution recrystallized from
graphite.
Cylindrical implosion synthesis of diamond from graphite gives
microscopic crystals in 30-60% yield. Remember to use a copper
container not a ferrous alloy one. It's a commercial process in a
Michigan cave (noisy). Spherical implosions give recoverable results
if the explosive sphere is surrounded by a gapped brass jacket. The
secondary reflection is timed to arrive just as the central mass
rebounds, tapping it so as to not exceed the tensile strength of its
high tensile strength steel jacket. This only gives you two problems
to diddle:
1) The seams in the explosive blanket are shaped charges. You dice
the center container with plasma jets unless the fit is perfect and
the detonation wave convergences are perfect;
2) The multiply blasted steel is one physically hard bastard
thereafter. Cutting through it is a bitch.
Uncle Al has reason to believe that gem diamond can be kinetically
chemically synthesized to arbitrarily large size at a rate of one
carat/cm^2-hr using a rather nasty molten salt reaction medium
christened Devil Solvent and some awesomely clever reaction subtleties
building on CVD diamond and Brad Pate's insights. Two attempts to
date have underlined procedural problems (re "molecular acid" in
"Alien"). The Big Kahuna is scheduled for next year. If I can find a
gas-tight 1/2" coupling that uncouples after 12 hrs at 700 C, I'm in
business.
(As the largest c-BN crystal ever obtained is around 1 mm^3, you know
what our second goal is. Conveniently, the solution phase chemistry
is accomodating on paper. I can hardly wait to meet the corrosivity.)
If you want large synthetic gem diamond, contact Sumitomo
Superabrasives, General Electric, Norton (Type Ib diamond only) or H.
Tracy Hall's boys at Novatek http://www.novatekonline.com/ (who will
sell you Type Ia semi-synthetics).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
greysky
don't brag too much to your girlfriend about how you could afford such a
large stone.... ;-) If found out, reply "I used the finest lead crystal in
the world honey pie..." Just be sure to duck extremely fast.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3A4151EA...@hate.spam.net...
Randy Poe
wrote:
You are aware that diamonds are created synthetically all the time,
aren't you? And nothing as exotic as nuclear fission is required.
This led me on an interesting few minutes of reading of web pages on
synthetic diamonds (best links: search for "synthetic+diamond+gem").
Some of what I turned up:
Most of the uses require thin films of diamonds, but there are
definitely people making large gem-quality diamonds.
The gem industry is worried about synthetics being pawned off as
natural diamonds, but not overly worried yet. Diamonds of high gem
quality can be produced, but they can still be distinguished in the
laboratory by a variety of tests. I didn't turn up any numbers for
diamond sizes in this brief bit of research.
There's another process called "Pegasus" that improves the grade of
existing natural diamonds. Diamonds so treated are inscribed with a
laser as a safeguard. A number of diamonds have been fraudulently
submitted for appraisal that have Pegasus marks partially or wholly
obliterated. Pegasus diamonds up to 6+ carats have been produced.
Have fun.
- Randy
Bryan Reed
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>It is not technologically possible to squeeze graphite into
>monocrystal gem diamond, no matter what Superman did with the MBweBwe
>natives. It is not technologically possible to grow a 10 carat gem
>diamond - the MTBF of the geodynamic press will eat you. Claims to
>overnight geodynamic growth of multiple carat Type IIa gem diamond at
>the University of Florida have curiously never resulted in a
>commercial process.
>
I know how, but I'm not telling.
I also have a perpetual motion machine.
Invest now! Operators are standing by.
Have fun,
Bryan
(Actual results may not match claims. Offer void in Utah, Nebraska,
Florida, and The Bronx.)
EPK
news:01c06adc$7e5c4720$3f6fffd1@adkins...
Diamonds need to be grown directly from vapor/solution, not from another
form of solid carbon. Once the other C form exists, it is much more
difficult to nucleate and grow the diamond phase.
EPK
dw
Drop me a line. I can give you a gas-tight 1/2" coupling that you can
separate after 12 hours at 700C.
Dale
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3A4151EA...@hate.spam.net...
>
Rwboer
> If I can find a
> gas-tight 1/2" coupling that uncouples after 12 hrs at 700 C, I'm in
> business.
Uncle;
Will not VCR style gas couplings work? SS materials, generally a nickel gasket.
Bob
Uncle Al
Like http://www.iprocessmart.com/particlecounters/psiaccessories.htm
(as in Cajon metal gasket face seal fittings)? Zero clearance is a
definite advantage. An all stainless system with h-BN solid lubricant
is at the ragged edge.
In a VCR or Swagelok coupling, how do I unscrew the nut after it has
been snugged at 700 C for 12 hours? I've got room for a 6" tool max
in the oven, and no way to pin the Paar bomb against rotation except
to hold it after it cools overnight. If I can't decouple the couping
I can't get the bomb out. The inside of the bomb and the tube that is
in the oven will be contaminated with solidified Devil Solvent (vapor
transport *against* gas flow). Devil Solvent is incompatible with
air, water, ceramics, and organics - and it isn't shy about it.
Densified graphite dissolves in the stuff at temp. Fast. (It was a
very memorable morning). It also eats nickel (corrosion), copper
(shatters), and aluminum (too hot anyway).
Remember, I've got to contain hydrogen at 5 psi and 700 C. Almost
isn't nearly good enough.
Rwboer
>In a VCR or Swagelok coupling, how do I unscrew the nut after it has
>been snugged at 700 C for 12 hours?
We typically design the gas handling connection to be outside the reaction
zone. TIG welded, He leak checked with cooling strategies custom built on the
connector.
Is Devil Solvent a salt vapour? Are you under a reducing atmosphere at partial
pressure?
Will quartz reactors withstand your process?
Bob
Bob
Boaz Ben-David
dw <da...@lazerlink.com> wrote in message
news:yix06.174218$j6.20...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
> Uncle Al,
>
> Drop me a line. I can give you a gas-tight 1/2" coupling that you can
> separate after 12 hours at 700C.
>
> Dale
Please explain coupling and why don't you address to the gas type.
Or is it that gas tight refer to Helium at any context?
Boaz
Uncle Al
The coupling must be in the oven given the way the thing is
dimensioned. The bomb is loaded under inert atmosphere, mounted in
the oven while protected with a frangible seal, coupled and connected,
purged with hydrogen at slight overpressure, then warmed to operating
temp under slight hydrogen flow with the control wire closing a
circuit with the body and gas tube. There's other stuff threaded
about, but small bores are no problem.
Devil Solvent is remarkably aggressive, persnickety and perverse, but
it is the only condensed medium that has any hope of supporting
kinetic chemical synthesis of diamond at ambient pressure. We went to
a eutectic Devil Solvent II which dropped the operating temp and vapor
pressure, and nicely augmented the already impressive corrosivity. I
converted 12 cm of Vycor tubing to a vigorous vapor plume when I tried
it as dielectric insulation around the probe wire in the coutercurrent
gas stream. Alumina, mullite, zirconia, porcelain, fused silica, hot
pressed h-BN... it's like putting an ice cube on a red hot stove. We
can plate stainless to laugh at it, but can't find a survivable
dielectric. Without internal monitoring and feedback control things
get seriously out of hand. The reaction zone hosts very emphatic
chemistry. We can't tolerate an equilibrium reaction regime or we get
graphite pro forma and de jure, and bad things happen.
Reaction workup is easy: Cool Paar bomb overnight, uncouple, quickly
toss into a 55-gallon drum of crushed ice and water. Stand back.
Filter. Type IIb diamond phosphoresces red-orange for up to 30
seconds after you hit it with UV. We consider working in the dark to
be an asset. "8^>)
There is no reason to make diamond dust, which retails for about
$5/gram. Kilogram diamond ingots will have widespread industrial and
military applications. The reaction scales with area of the
deposition pedestal. One could imagine lowering a plated 5 ft square
steel sheet into a reaction vat and 24 hrs later pulling out ~20
ct/cm^2 of diamond on both sides. What would you do with a room that
produced 180 kg of large crystal industrial diamond every other day?
Even as grit that's a potential $80 million/year gross. High
pressure/high temperature presses might give you 40 g of diamond grit
every couple of hours at a cost of $1 million/press up front.
Even if it only produces abrasive at scale, our process puts the whole
of Ireland out of business. I want to make big lumps as a reduction
to practice. There is general skepticism about it happening.
Displacing the cubic zirconia and Moissonite diamond simulant markets
at sub-carat and carat sizes is a pretty penny, too. What counts is
what gets done.
As we say in the trenches, "it's the second mouse that gets all the
cheese."
John Seeliger
<3A4151EA...@hate.spam.net>...
Well, I assumed it was probably impossible or else somebody would have done
it. What about sapphire synthesis. Possible?
Does one carat/cm^2-hr mean that for each cm^2 of area, there would be one
carat deposited per hour? What kind of pressure would this involve?
John Seeliger
<3a415a1c....@news.newsguy.com>...
> On 20 Dec 2000 23:23:41 GMT, "John Seeliger" <jsee...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I once heard that in order to create diamonds, pressures of 40,000
> >atmosphere would have to exist. How long would these conditions have to
be
> >held in order for a piece of graphite to be formed on a piece of carbon
of
> >sufficient size to make say a 10 carat diamond? Also, would the procure
> >and temperature have to be reduced gradually? What kind of pressure can
be
> >generated by the detonator for a nuclear bomb, which implodes
subcritical
> >fissile material into supercritcal material and could this in principle
be
> >used to generate diamonds by replacing the fissile material with
graphite?
> >Has this technique been tried?
>
> You are aware that diamonds are created synthetically all the time,
> aren't you? And nothing as exotic as nuclear fission is required.
Well, I didn't actually mean using a nuclear reaction. I was just thinking
of the detonator of a nuclear bomb which uses a conventional explosive (TNT
I think) to compress a subcritical piece of Plutonium or Uranium-235 to a
highly supercritical state in a fraction of a second. Apart from the fact
that the feds would be swarming on my place if I set off a nuclear weapon,
even if it was in the middle of Montana (not where I actually live) and
apart from the huge amount of radiation that would prevent me from getting
to the diamonds and all the digging involved, there is the cost of the
Plutonium or U-235 which would probably be greater then the value of the
diamonds on the black market. I don't know. I've never tried to build a
nuclear bomb. :-)
btw, there is a scene in "The Spy Who Loved Me" where bond blasts through a
wall using the detonator from a nuclear warhead from a torpedo.
>
> This led me on an interesting few minutes of reading of web pages on
> synthetic diamonds (best links: search for "synthetic+diamond+gem").
> Some of what I turned up:
>
> Most of the uses require thin films of diamonds, but there are
> definitely people making large gem-quality diamonds.
I know. One of my professors, Dr. Sharma of The University of Texas at
Arlington grows diamond films using methane.
Uncle Al
John Seeliger wrote:
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in article
> <3A4151EA...@hate.spam.net>...
[snip]
> Well, I assumed it was probably impossible or else somebody would have done
> it. What about sapphire synthesis. Possible?
Blue sapphire? By the pound. Ruby? By the tens of pounds. White
sapphire? Tonne boules by directional solidification and arbitrary
lengths like extrusions by edge-defined growth.
[snip]
> > Uncle Al has reason to believe that gem diamond can be kinetically
> > chemically synthesized to arbitrarily large size at a rate of one
> > carat/cm^2-hr using a rather nasty molten salt reaction medium
> > christened Devil Solvent and some awesomely clever reaction subtleties
> > building on CVD diamond and Brad Pate's insights. Two attempts to
> > date have underlined procedural problems (re "molecular acid" in
> > "Alien"). The Big Kahuna is scheduled for next year. If I can find a
> > gas-tight 1/2" coupling that uncouples after 12 hrs at 700 C, I'm in
> > business.
>
> Does one carat/cm^2-hr mean that for each cm^2 of area, there would be one
> carat deposited per hour? What kind of pressure would this involve?
You got it, one carat of crystalline diamond gorwn on each cm^2 each
hour. Reaction runs at ambient pressure in a kinetic (not
thermodynamic) reaction regime in solution like growing rock candy.
The first set of experiments we tried we used the wrong solvent system
and got nothing but graphite, hence the informed switch to Devil
Solvent. The second set of experiments with Devil Solvent had
engineering (containment, corrosion) problems. The third try in 2001
is the Big Kahuna.
Common sense suggests it won't work. We've got a jeweler who has no
common sense, but does have an exclusive 365 day contract if it works.
Uncle Al
John Seeliger wrote:
[snip]
> Well, I didn't actually mean using a nuclear reaction. I was just thinking
> of the detonator of a nuclear bomb which uses a conventional explosive (TNT
> I think) to compress a subcritical piece of Plutonium or Uranium-235 to a
> highly supercritical state in a fraction of a second.
HMX and microseconds; explosive lenses are passe. The implosion wave
impacts the levitated hollow thick-walled Pu/Ga alloy pit at orbital
velocities. Uranium is unsuited to an implosion warhead.
> Apart from the fact
> that the feds would be swarming on my place if I set off a nuclear weapon,
I doubt it. They'll at least wait for the crater to radiologically
cool.
> even if it was in the middle of Montana (not where I actually live) and
> apart from the huge amount of radiation that would prevent me from getting
> to the diamonds and all the digging involved, there is the cost of the
> Plutonium or U-235 which would probably be greater then the value of the
> diamonds on the black market. I don't know. I've never tried to build a
> nuclear bomb. :-)
Offer to remediate Hanford. There are several kilos of weapons grade
Pu (even better - all the short half-life heavy isotopes have nicely
decayed) literally lying about. Even a 40 megatonne nuke won't begin
to go 80 miles down. A better bet would be to pop it at the bottom of
the Mariana Trench where you have no granite continental crust and a
five-mile head start into the basalt - plus overlying implosion
tamper. Surf's up!
> btw, there is a scene in "The Spy Who Loved Me" where bond blasts through a
> wall using the detonator from a nuclear warhead from a torpedo.
500 lbs of Torpex will do that, no nuclear anything - composition or
configuration - required.
> I know. One of my professors, Dr. Sharma of The University of Texas at
> Arlington grows diamond films using methane.
He should mount the deposition pedestal on the end of an ultrasonic
horn and see what plasma shocks do to surface growth.
Edward Green
>Well, I didn't actually mean using a nuclear reaction. I was just thinking
>of the detonator of a nuclear bomb which uses a conventional explosive (TNT
>I think) to compress a subcritical piece of Plutonium or Uranium-235 to a
>highly supercritical state in a fraction of a second. Apart from the fact
>that the feds would be swarming on my place if I set off a nuclear weapon,
>even if it was in the middle of Montana (not where I actually live) and
>apart from the huge amount of radiation that would prevent me from getting
>to the diamonds and all the digging involved, there is the cost of the
>Plutonium or U-235 which would probably be greater then the value of the
>diamonds on the black market. I don't know. I've never tried to build a
>nuclear bomb. :-)
Perhaps you could create diamonds which glowed in the dark. That
should be worth something! :)
>> The gem industry is worried about synthetics being pawned off as
>> natural diamonds, but not overly worried yet. Diamonds of high gem
>> quality can be produced, but they can still be distinguished in the
>> laboratory by a variety of tests. I didn't turn up any numbers for
>> diamond sizes in this brief bit of research.
>>
>> There's another process called "Pegasus" that improves the grade of
>> existing natural diamonds. Diamonds so treated are inscribed with a
>> laser as a safeguard. A number of diamonds have been fraudulently
>> submitted for appraisal that have Pegasus marks partially or wholly
>> obliterated. Pegasus diamonds up to 6+ carats have been produced.
Assuming this is true, it raises some interesting issues... are we
paying for state or history? Evidently many people feel they are
paying for history and would feel duped if they found they had merely
purchased a state indistinguishable from one with the desired history.
There is a rational, an irrational and a super-rational way of
looking at this:
The rational, in the case of a Stradivarius or a fine wine, is to
suppose that even if an objective assay is not known one possibly
might be devised; the irrational is to feel that a "genuine" state,
with proper history, is somehow of higher quality than an "artificial"
sate, while at the same time conceding there is no possible
operational distinction between them; the super-rational accepts
the reality of the indistinguishability of states but chooses to
assign an additional aesthetic value to the history itself,
independent of the internal state of the product.
People are free to bid with their money on whatever floats their
boat; utility based on history is no more or less rational than
any other utility provided it is honest with itself what is being
valued. The state versus history thing is perfectly expressed in
the ideals of meritocracy vs. aristocracy, with the same grades of
self-deception possible on either score; that on the one hand
products of the right history are intrinsically better quality
whether measurably better or not, that on the same hand we may
explicitly value the history itself as opposed to the product, that
on the other hand in the brave new world of merit we are measuring
only the product, which is not all the time acquiring the trappings
of new histories; now the right university as opposed to the right
family, or the right supplier as opposed to the right quality lot.
Even in commodities there is an induced Bayesian lag in perception,
however small, and the smaller the simpler, faster and cheaper a
measure of true state. (I know an insufficient amount of hard
science, so must pad my posts with this sociological drivel :).
Dr. Michael Albert
> and got nothing but graphite, hence the informed switch to Devil
> Solvent. The second set of experiments with Devil Solvent had
> engineering (containment, corrosion) problems. The third try in 2001
> is the Big Kahuna.
> Uncle Al
Uncle Al:
Have you ever considered the possibility of performing this
synthesis in a microgravity environment? The process could
occur in freely floating globules of solvent, so there is no
need to worry about corroding the container!
Think about it Uncle Al! You would finally have a reason to
take a trip to your favorite space station! The cost is
a bit steep, but I suspect there are a lot of folks willing
to invest in any venture which gets you off the planet, at
least temporarily :-).
Best wishes,
Mike
Uncle Al
>
> > The first set of experiments we tried we used the wrong solvent system
> > and got nothing but graphite, hence the informed switch to Devil
> > Solvent. The second set of experiments with Devil Solvent had
> > engineering (containment, corrosion) problems. The third try in 2001
> > is the Big Kahuna.
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al:
>
> Have you ever considered the possibility of performing this
> synthesis in a microgravity environment? The process could
> occur in freely floating globules of solvent, so there is no
> need to worry about corroding the container!
Devil Solvent has a substantial vapor pressure at 700 C. A container
is absolutely required. It is incredibly reactive and overtly toxic.
How do you keep something hot in 20 psia of hydrogen without a
container?
> Think about it Uncle Al! You would finally have a reason to
> take a trip to your favorite space station! The cost is
> a bit steep, but I suspect there are a lot of folks willing
> to invest in any venture which gets you off the planet, at
> least temporarily :-).
The micro-gee environment of International Space Station Freedom FUBAR
Space Hole One sums to maybe a couple of basketballs. The whole
stupid thing is groaning, flexing, vibrating, rotating... as the
Soviet, er, Russian air conditioning system plays its 90 db music.
Also note that we are in the midst of a fat solar maximum, and anybody
in that $trillion can is getting fried by energetic protons and their
bremsstrahlung. The most economic strategy would be to fill the thing
to bursting with handicapped children (make a wish!) and pop the
seals.
NOTHING worth having has come out of zero-gee experimentation. It's
stooopid human tricks in space. OTOH, if mixing molten lead and
sodium chloride in a blender to a homogeneous dispersion blows warm
air up your skirts, go for it.
Lee Spencer
practical manner, some the dollars that have been dumped into Tokomak
fusion research.
Lee Spencer
remove the fjfj to reply by email
Uncle Al
How 'bout an internally plated 316SS Paar bomb?
Kuruvilla Cherian
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3A4151EA...@hate.spam.net...
>
> Uncle Al has reason to believe that gem diamond can be kinetically
> chemically synthesized to arbitrarily large size at a rate of one
> carat/cm^2-hr using a rather nasty molten salt reaction medium
> christened Devil Solvent and some awesomely clever reaction subtleties
> building on CVD diamond and Brad Pate's insights. Two attempts to
> date have underlined procedural problems (re "molecular acid" in
> "Alien"). The Big Kahuna is scheduled for next year. If I can find a
> gas-tight 1/2" coupling that uncouples after 12 hrs at 700 C, I'm in
> business.
>
Would be interested to know more about the molten salt route to diamond
synthesis, having investigated such a route myself earlier.
Are there any publications on the process you refered to?
Any info would be much appreciated.
Dr. K.A. Cherian
Email: k.a.c...@usa.net
Uncle Al
Process details are a trade secret. The chemistry is unique. An
elemental carbon precursor is dissolved in a suitable solvent in which
graphite is not a stable phase. As per Brad Pate's PhD thesis and
plasma CVD, chemistry is fomented that results in the kinetic
deposition of elemental carbon as diamond. Other carbon phases are
selectively eroded faster than they deposit. By conducting the
chemistry in a condensed phase at *ambient* pressure, many advantages
accrue:
1) No dilute percolative growth leading to multiple twinning,
2) Much larger mass transfer/volume,
3) Reaction interface confined to a very small volume,
4) Bulk medium buffers the sturm and drang (which is considerable
in /_\G if not in gross amount),
5) Selective exclusion of impurity elements,
6) Process directly scales to tonne production if it works at all.
7) Comparatively safe and inexpensive apparatus once reduced to
practice.
The only apparent suitable solvent, Devil Solvent, is hard by its
thermal stability edge and incredibly reactive toward almost
everything (except diamond dust). As reaction monitoring and control
require an isolated electrical probe at the deposition pedestal, and
no known dielectric survives Devil Solvent for even seconds, we were
eventually forced to be clever. This is somewhat expensive and
complex. Finding a suitable wire was a pisser - copper, silver,
nickel, nichrome... aren't survivable.
Uncle Al recommends Type IIb (boron-doped) diamond as the initial
synthetic target. After UV irradiation it phosphoresces red-orange
for up to 30 seconds. That makes it facile to locate in a reaction
sludge. One does a photographic film time exposure in the dark
through a UV+blue filter, with reference grains of phosphor (from a
red fluorescent TLC plate) to demonstrate focus and field of view.
Diamond dust retails for $1/carat, which isn't very exciting. OTOH,
gram single crystals and up are nicely profitable.
19th century diddles with molten calcium acetylide and such are not
relevant to the task.
John Seeliger
<3A4B80D6...@hate.spam.net>...
> The only apparent suitable solvent, Devil Solvent, is hard by its
> thermal stability edge and incredibly reactive toward almost
> everything (except diamond dust). As reaction monitoring and control
> require an isolated electrical probe at the deposition pedestal, and
> no known dielectric survives Devil Solvent for even seconds, we were
> eventually forced to be clever. This is somewhat expensive and
> complex. Finding a suitable wire was a pisser - copper, silver,
> nickel, nichrome... aren't survivable.
What does survive in Devil Solvent then? Only certain metals? Is the
inside of the Paar bomb lined with a non-reactive metal, like say, Platnum?
Uncle Al
I've got the patent written except for one small deficiency. "8^>)
If the process works it is not the sort of thing one could stumble
upon. Each piece of the puzzle was paid for by sweating blood,
suckling the UC/Irvine technical library, and spending money (and
eating through densified graphite, furnace brick, lab bench, and a bit
of the floor. Devil Solvent is a a ravenous little squirt if it gets
loose. Luckily it violently reacts with air.)
Think about it - what doesn't react with monoatomic carbon? You've
got to sneak up on it and cheat.
Edward Green
>I've got the patent written except for one small deficiency. "8^>)
>If the process works it is not the sort of thing one could stumble
>upon. Each piece of the puzzle was paid for by sweating blood,
>suckling the UC/Irvine technical library, and spending money (and
>eating through densified graphite, furnace brick, lab bench, and a bit
>of the floor. Devil Solvent is a a ravenous little squirt if it gets
>loose. Luckily it violently reacts with air.)
Now I understand your previous reference to "molecular acid" and
Alien. Is the composition of "Devil Solvent" one of the trade secrets?
John Seeliger
<92ght3$p8v$2...@news.panix.com>...
I am guessing it is. I read molten salt in one of his previous messages
and I read sodium chloride in one of the replies by another person and I
guess I just supposed that that was what he was using but not that I think
about it, it couldn't be because there must be plenty of things to hold
molten sodium chloride, since it is used to make sodium metal.
But hey, if he doesn't find diamonds, he can make a fortune selling Devil
Solvent as drain cleaner. ;-)
Uncle Al
When you see the chemistry you see that Devil Solvent is the crux.
It's either fiendishly clever on several counts or at least a good
try.
Xaonon
<jsee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> But hey, if he doesn't find diamonds, he can make a fortune selling Devil
> Solvent as drain cleaner. ;-)
"...and just look, folks, no more clogged pipes!"
"No more pipes, either."
"SSSSH!"
--
Xaonon, Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"I'm going to start walking around in my underwear from now on so that I
don't become a lesbian!" -- James "Kibo" Parry, in alt.religion.kibology
MLclan
moly to form 3D grid. Grid was then treated in Hydrogen at about 1000F and ~5
psig. Similar problem getting things apart afterward. We ended up coating
threads with Milk of Magnesia (available at local drugstore). Not sure why,
but it worked.
Mark
Frank Carbone
Have you tried one of the cobalt-based alloys like Haynes 188 or L605 for
your coupling? These materials are somewhat machinable and survive in jet
afterburners, but I have no idea how they would tolerate your Devil
Solvent. Also, could coating the threads with an anti-gallant coating
help?
Frank
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3A43A7A6...@hate.spam.net...
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al
>
> Have you tried one of the cobalt-based alloys like Haynes 188 or L605 for
> your coupling? These materials are somewhat machinable and survive in jet
> afterburners, but I have no idea how they would tolerate your Devil
> Solvent. Also, could coating the threads with an anti-gallant coating
> help?
I've got survivable alloys. What I don't have is a 1/2"
hydrogen-tight coupling that can be easily decoupled after 12 hours at
700 C. Stuff grows together; trace glop carbonizes and prevents
untorquing the coupling.
We have three leads:
1) Dusting the threads with micronized h-BN (horribly craps out at
high temp wtih oxygen).
2) Dusting the threads with micronized magnesium oxide (Milk of
Magnesia, then let dry).
3) A proprietary high temp anti-seizant.
Silver Goop doesn't do it. I got a little more budget shaken loose.
We'll pull it off as long as the threads are isolated from Devil
Solvent. Will the chemistry itself work? It's got to do something
when push comes to shove, the carbon precursor can neither sit around
as it is or revert to graphite. We'll see.
John Seeliger
transcript:
EPK
> Frank Carbone wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al
> >
> > Have you tried one of the cobalt-based alloys like Haynes 188 or L605
for
> > your coupling? These materials are somewhat machinable and survive in
jet
> > afterburners, but I have no idea how they would tolerate your Devil
> > Solvent. Also, could coating the threads with an anti-gallant coating
> > help?
>
> I've got survivable alloys. What I don't have is a 1/2"
> hydrogen-tight coupling that can be easily decoupled after 12 hours at
> 700 C. Stuff grows together; trace glop carbonizes and prevents
> untorquing the coupling.
>
> We have three leads:
>
> 1) Dusting the threads with micronized h-BN (horribly craps out at
> high temp wtih oxygen).
> 2) Dusting the threads with micronized magnesium oxide (Milk of
> Magnesia, then let dry).
> 3) A proprietary high temp anti-seizant.
>
> Silver Goop doesn't do it. I got a little more budget shaken loose.
> We'll pull it off as long as the threads are isolated from Devil
> Solvent. Will the chemistry itself work? It's got to do something
> when push comes to shove, the carbon precursor can neither sit around
> as it is or revert to graphite. We'll see.
>
Is it possible to abandon the screw fittings, and just use external clamps?
EPK
Uncle Al
H. Tracy Hall's sons are at
http://www.novatekonline.com/
and they still do good work.
The Earth is filthy with carat diamond and thereabouts. de Beers has
perhaps 100 tonnes of gem diamond in its vaults. If you need a large
single crystal lump at a decent price you are out of luck.
Moissonite is a very good substitute for diamond in anvil presses, and
in much larger sizes for the price. Anybody who can routinely,
timely, and cheaply produce single crystal kilogram ingots of diamond
will be of interest to cvilization. We can't do worse than fail.
Uncle Al
HYDROGEN at 700 C? No way. I've been flash pyrolyzed in a magnesium
fire. Took a year to get shut of it. I don't look forward to being
explosively disassembled. Ambulances charge by the piece.
Rwboer
>In a VCR or Swagelok coupling, how do I unscrew the nut after it has
>been snugged at 700 C for 12 hours?
> Uncle Al
Uncle,
Have you attempted zirconium boride or niobium boride instead of zirconia as a
dielectric? We use molydisulfide as an anti-seizing material at high
temperatures<1000C for inert atmospheres. Semiconductor LPCVD systems.
Bob
EPK
> EPK wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to abandon the screw fittings, and just use external
clamps?
>
> HYDROGEN at 700 C? No way. I've been flash pyrolyzed in a magnesium
> fire. Took a year to get shut of it. I don't look forward to being
> explosively disassembled. Ambulances charge by the piece.
>
EPK
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al is discussing:
[snip]
> Have you attempted zirconium boride or niobium boride instead of zirconia as a
> dielectric? We use molydisulfide as an anti-seizing material at high
> temperatures<1000C for inert atmospheres. Semiconductor LPCVD systems.
Moly sulfide won't react with steel at red heat?
I need a sleeve to insulate a wire. It will be very pricey. If
nothing else works we'll get some powders and see how they stand up to
Devil Sovlent.