Scientific American
Uncle Al
Scientific American 285(3) 67 (2001) "Less is More"
Page 73 displays an illustration of an "organic dendrimer." It
is perfectly INCORRECT! A dendrimer is all but empty at its
center, with its incremental volumetric content of atoms
increasing exponentially towards its skin. After three or four
generations its skin is so densely packed with atoms -
essentially a solid surface - that another generation of growth
is not possible. That is when you call in your chemists and
expect them to be clever.
http://www.unibas.ch/mdpi/ecsoc-4/a0098/a0098.htm
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Foxhighlight.html
(half way down)
http://www.chemie.uni-karlsruhe.de/PI/Literatur/downlit2.html
http://www.pwtinc.com/DendrimerArticle.htm
[After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
If you examine the volume vs radius of a sphere in increasing
dimensions you find that almost all its volume becomes localized
near its surface. Even by 10 dimensions you find 90% of the
volume in the furthest 10% of the radius. For complex
multivariable problems (getting folks to buy your product),
insisting on a compromise set of solutions near the middle of the
solution-space sphere automatically excludes almost every viable
set of solutions.
"Scientific American" has successfully grasped mediocrity.]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Dirk Bruere
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3B8D277E...@hate.spam.net...
> To the editors, <edi...@sciam.com>
>
> Scientific American 285(3) 67 (2001) "Less is More"
>
> Page 73 displays an illustration of an "organic dendrimer." It
> is perfectly INCORRECT! A dendrimer is all but empty at its
> [After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
> subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
> densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
> triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
I'm sure that really worries them - NOT.
What you should have said is:
"Your shit is still to hard for us normal guys. I'm not taking out a
subscription 'til you get it right."
Now THAT would have had them poohing their pants.
Dirk
Mark Tarka
Pig-latin Ph.D.s.
I first heard of them during a bus-ride
to Jr. High School.
Poly-water...cold-fusion...any other great
examples where folks were able to get a
candid photo of this nervous herd of
beggers.
Mark
Uncle Al
N-rays, Lysenko, Star Wars defense and redux, the Fifth Force,
controlled fusion, the Cyc project, parapsychology, psychology,
remote viewing and the Pentagon, homeopathy, the EPA and the
religion of Enviro-whinerism... a remarkably large piece of
buckeyballs, ditto physics and gravitation, micro-gee research...
and now NANOTECHNOLOGY!
Uncle Al is an organic synthetic chemist. Uncle Al's nano is
smaller than your nano. Nanoo nanoo.
Oxymorons:
Military intelligence
Jumbo shrimp
Pretty ugly
Equal Opportunity
Microsoft Works
Dirk Bruere
> > > I'm sure that really worries them - NOT.
> > > What you should have said is:
> > > "Your shit is still to hard for us normal guys. I'm not taking out a
> > > subscription 'til you get it right."
> >
> > Pig-latin Ph.D.s.
> >
> > I first heard of them during a bus-ride
> > to Jr. High School.
> >
> > Poly-water...cold-fusion...any other great
> > examples where folks were able to get a
> > candid photo of this nervous herd of
> > beggers.
>
> N-rays, Lysenko, Star Wars defense and redux, the Fifth Force,
> controlled fusion, the Cyc project, parapsychology, psychology,
> remote viewing and the Pentagon, homeopathy, the EPA and the
> religion of Enviro-whinerism... a remarkably large piece of
> buckeyballs, ditto physics and gravitation, micro-gee research...
> and now NANOTECHNOLOGY!
>
> Uncle Al is an organic synthetic chemist. Uncle Al's nano is
> smaller than your nano. Nanoo nanoo.
So, you admit that there is plenty of scope for SciAm to get it right by
democatising the content, instead of pandering to elitist eggheads?
Dirk
Florian Dufey
complains about Scientific American are 100% correct, although I can
better judge the german version " Spektrum der Wissenschaft". In the
beginning, about 80% of the journal consisted of full articles written
by renowned scientists. Nowadays the number of full articles is much
smaller and half of them are written by staff of sciam about such
highbrowed topics like pictures of sand from different coasts. Many nice
columns like " Mathematische Unterhaltungen" have disappeared or were
replaced by some more than trivial riddles of the form " You have three
matches. How many do you have to take away that only two are left?". In
the german edition, the "amateur scientist" disappeared already about 10
years ago. And instead of learning how to build your own x-ray gun or
mercury laser, you are now informed how the brakes of an ascensor work,
on one page which to 95% is filled with an motley coloured graphic.
Lamentable!
jmfb...@aol.com
>"Scientific American" has successfully grasped mediocrity.]
And it's getting cited by a certain radio night talk show guy
who has been on a crop circle rampage for the last week.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Martin Kroeker
OTOH - can anybody recommend an alternative, a journal like the "old"
SciAm once was ? Nature and Science offer the scientific content, but
not the kind of short review or background articles as they used to
appear in SciAm. Over here in Germany, "Bild der Wissenschaft" has been
for several years where SciAm is heading now, and "Umschau" is long
gone. :-(
Martin
--
Dr. Martin Kroeker, daVeg GmbH Darmstadt CAD/CAM/CAQ m...@daveg.com
Precision Powered by Penguins
Jan Panteltje
<m...@daveg.com> wrote in <2001Aug30....@daveg.com>:
>Hear, hear.
>
>OTOH - can anybody recommend an alternative, a journal like the "old"
>SciAm once was ? Nature and Science offer the scientific content, but
Internet & google
Links from Uncle All's sites.
Hug a tree ;-)
B
Doug Dwyer
distort with the weight.
A worthwhile thesis could be constructed drawing on conclusions
indicated by plotting the average mass of one copy in each year from the
beginning.
A current copy is at a guess only 20% of the mass of a 1960s copy.
Until the 60s there was a UK glossy called Discovery it was supplanted
by BiWeekly New Scientist which has slowly replaced SciAm as my source
of background knowledge.
In article <2001Aug30....@daveg.com>, Martin Kroeker
<m...@daveg.com> writes
>Hear, hear.
>
>OTOH - can anybody recommend an alternative, a journal like the "old"
>SciAm once was ? Nature and Science offer the scientific content, but
>not the kind of short review or background articles as they used to
>appear in SciAm. Over here in Germany, "Bild der Wissenschaft" has been
>for several years where SciAm is heading now, and "Umschau" is long
>gone. :-(
>
>Martin
--
Doug Dwyer
Ian Gay
Doug Dwyer <d...@ddwyer.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My pile of SciAm goes back to the early 60s and causes the book case to
>distort with the weight.
>A worthwhile thesis could be constructed drawing on conclusions
>indicated by plotting the average mass of one copy in each year from the
>beginning.
>A current copy is at a guess only 20% of the mass of a 1960s copy.
>Until the 60s there was a UK glossy called Discovery it was supplanted
>by BiWeekly New Scientist which has slowly replaced SciAm as my source
>of background knowledge.
And N.S. is not what it used to be, either. (Or maybe we're all getting old)
*** To reply by e-mail, make double u single in address ***
Graham Cowan
"American Scientist" doesn't have a lot of pages,
but I liked the story on Ti3SiC2, the machinable carbide,
in the July-August edition.
---
Uranium $1 = oil ca. $116 plus special taxes = natural gas $58 p.s.t.
Here's how personal transportation gets decarbonized:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Boris Mohar
>My pile of SciAm goes back to the early 60s and causes the book case to
>distort with the weight.
>A worthwhile thesis could be constructed drawing on conclusions
>indicated by plotting the average mass of one copy in each year from the
>beginning.
>A current copy is at a guess only 20% of the mass of a 1960s copy.
>Until the 60s there was a UK glossy called Discovery it was supplanted
>by BiWeekly New Scientist which has slowly replaced SciAm as my source
>of background knowledge.
>
Check the font size, line spacing and paper thickness. Not to mention the
advertising content. It makes for a thin read.
Regards,
Boris Mohar
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs
Dirk Bruere
"Ian Gay" <g...@sfuu.ca> wrote in message news:9mmgc4$rgf$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
Thank God.
I recall back in the early 70s when it was New Socialist AntiScientist
Dirk
Mark Fergerson
>
> "Ian Gay" <g...@sfuu.ca> wrote in message news:9mmgc4$rgf$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
<snip>
> > And N.S. is not what it used to be, either. (Or maybe we're all getting
> old)
>
> Thank God.
> I recall back in the early 70s when it was New Socialist AntiScientist
Ah, yes; the thinly disguised Luddite "Nufoods" cartoon in the back,
frex. They must just be loving the current "Frankenfoods" flap. I hope
they all go back to subsistence farming. At least there'll be fewer of
them.
Mark L. Fergerson
Doug Dwyer
Ill do that .
If theres less advertising does this mean that the average reader no
longer has so much available cash, consistent with the relative salary
of the readers.
In article <k7itot0pb320dhj1d...@4ax.com>, Boris Mohar
<bor...@sympatico.ca> writes
>Check the font size, line spacing and paper thickness. Not to mention the
>advertising content. It makes for a thin read.
>
--
Doug Dwyer
Doug Dwyer
I certainly am, and will be even with the appropriate DNA modification.
NS (to my taste) gets better.
In article <9mmgc4$rgf$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>, Ian Gay <g...@sfuu.ca> writes
>And N.S. is not what it used to be, either. (Or maybe we're all getting old)
--
Doug Dwyer
Mike Darrett
> Uncle Al is an organic synthetic chemist. Uncle Al's nano is
> smaller than your nano. Nanoo nanoo.
Were you part of the team that (stereochemically) synthesized Taxol? I
remember back in the days my organic professor had a serious fetish
for Taxol (but hey, this is the same guy who used cocaine as his
favorite base, and showed us its structure every chance he could get),
and told us about how the synthetic chemists beat the guys who wanted
to grow Taxol from trees.
Mike
Ace Schallger
> [After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
> subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
> densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
> triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
The fact that you've been a reader of that trash pseudoscience for 20
years itself is an indictment of your sanity.
Jim Carr
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
}
} [After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
} subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
} densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
} triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
In article <030920011601320508%phys...@att.net>
Ace Schallger <phys...@att.net> writes:
>
>The fact that you've been a reader of that trash pseudoscience for 20
>years itself is an indictment of your sanity.
How can you say that about this person?
http://www.tfn.net/~jcarr/sunshine.jpg
Of course, that is before reading Sci Am for 20 years.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
SirCam Warning: read http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-22.html
e-mail info: new...@fbi.gov pyr...@ftc.gov enfor...@sec.gov
Mark Tarka
This could be interpreted as a viscous...err...vicious post
attacking sunshine. Place your bet, Mr. Carr :-)
Mark (A "viscous" post...what a concept..."thick" :-)
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3B8D277E...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> }
> } [After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
> } subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
> } densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
> } triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
>
> In article <030920011601320508%phys...@att.net>
> Ace Schallger <phys...@att.net> writes:
> >
> >The fact that you've been a reader of that trash pseudoscience for 20
> >years itself is an indictment of your sanity.
>
> How can you say that about this person?
>
> http://www.tfn.net/~jcarr/sunshine.jpg
>
> Of course, that is before reading Sci Am for 20 years.
Aw, I feel like Hanoi Jane Fonda and "Barbarella," or maybe Yaweh in
"South Park." How in Goshen (before it is melted into trinitite) did
you ever find my Moo U graduation pic? "The lions tremble in their
dens..."
I thought Mother had put pins into all of them years ago. Oh - the
ASM$U Yearbook. For the historic record, I'm giving the Moo U
photographer a bilateral bird as the button is being pushed. The
shirt was orange and yellow.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
Dirk Bruere
"Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:9o16qg$gh2$1...@news.fsu.edu...That looks very much like the kind of person that should be on the FBIs most
wanted...
[Just a touch of 'profiling'].
DO NOT GIVE THIS MAN FLYING LESSONS!
Dirk
carr_tom
>Jim Carr wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B8D277E...@hate.spam.net>,
>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> }
>> } [After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
>> } subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
>> } densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
>> } triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
>>
>> In article <030920011601320508%phys...@att.net>
>> Ace Schallger <phys...@att.net> writes:
>> >
>> >The fact that you've been a reader of that trash pseudoscience for 20
>> >years itself is an indictment of your sanity.
>>
>> How can you say that about this person?
>>
>> http://www.tfn.net/~jcarr/sunshine.jpg
>>
>> Of course, that is before reading Sci Am for 20 years.
>Aw, I feel like Hanoi Jane Fonda and "Barbarella," or maybe Yaweh in
>"South Park." How in Goshen (before it is melted into trinitite) did
>you ever find my Moo U graduation pic? "The lions tremble in their
>dens..."
>I thought Mother had put pins into all of them years ago. Oh - the
>ASM$U Yearbook. For the historic record, I'm giving the Moo U
>photographer a bilateral bird as the button is being pushed. The
>shirt was orange and yellow.
Al you can run, but you can't hide. I got that in one, but then I had
already scanned the picture and sent it to Jim in the first place.
It is fortunate that I didn't have you as a TA for Chem Lab, that would
have made you even more twisted. Seems as though there where a high
preponderance of young female Pre-Vet students (small animal specialty
only) in that lab.
Not as bad as in my daughter's Chem class in Briggs this year. Someone
actually asked what the subscripts were for in chemical formulae. (i.e.,
what does the "2" mean in H2O?) Bizarre.
/Tom
--
Thomas Peter Carr | I have a dream, ...
carr...@si.com (Internet) | M L King Jr 08/28/63
616-241-8846 / 616-241-7712 FAX (Telephone) |
Smiths Industries, MS 3D1; 3290 Patterson Ave SE; Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> writes:
>
> >Jim Carr wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3B8D277E...@hate.spam.net>,
> >> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> }
> >> } [After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
> >> } subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
> >> } densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
> >> } triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
> >> How can you say that about this person?
> >> http://www.tfn.net/~jcarr/sunshine.jpg
The larva pupated and evolved?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/uncleal.jpg
> >Aw, I feel like Hanoi Jane Fonda and "Barbarella," or maybe Yaweh in
> >"South Park." How in Goshen (before it is melted into trinitite) did
> >you ever find my Moo U graduation pic? "The lions tremble in their
> >dens..."
[snip]
> Al you can run, but you can't hide. I got that in one, but then I had
> already scanned the picture and sent it to Jim in the first place.
Uncle Al never runs! In fact, I don't release my HTML code to the Web
page. It grows strong and escapes.
> It is fortunate that I didn't have you as a TA for Chem Lab, that would
> have made you even more twisted. Seems as though there where a high
> preponderance of young female Pre-Vet students (small animal specialty
> only) in that lab.
I didn't TA in Moo U, I tutored. Watch out for those farm women!
There was a standing offer in one class that a guaranteed A was
garnered by castrating a juvenile animal with one's teeth (makes sense
- the crushing minimzes bleeding). I don't know about the rest of the
dorms, but Mason had at least one woman who did it. There were change
purses made of spare parts, too.
> Not as bad as in my daughter's Chem class in Briggs this year. Someone
> actually asked what the subscripts were for in chemical formulae. (i.e.,
> what does the "2" mean in H2O?) Bizarre.
Think of it as evolution in action. Some will go on to be chemists,
others will go on to be chemists' bosses because they haven't the
brains to be otherwise engaged. At Oxy Research I ordered a CPK
molecular model set and was called in to "assemble it" so they could
slap a capital item sticker on the finished whatever. When Oxy went
tits up the auctioned off what wasn't stolen by managment. I got that
big wooden case and its fillings for $10. (The connectors have
degraded with time.)
Dirk Bruere
"carr_tom" <ca...@falcon.si.com> wrote in message
news:3bab5ec7$1...@news.si.com...
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> writes:
>
>
> Not as bad as in my daughter's Chem class in Briggs this year. Someone
> actually asked what the subscripts were for in chemical formulae. (i.e.,
> what does the "2" mean in H2O?) Bizarre.
It is shorthand for '1/2' because there is only half as much oxygen as
hydrogen in water.
Next!
Dirk
Steve Harris
--
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3BAB7732...@hate.spam.net...
> carr_tom wrote:
>
> > >> How can you say that about this person?
> > >> http://www.tfn.net/~jcarr/sunshine.jpg
>
> > >Aw, I feel like Hanoi Jane Fonda and "Barbarella," or maybe Yaweh in
> > >"South Park." How in Goshen (before it is melted into trinitite) did
> > >you ever find my Moo U graduation pic? "The lions tremble in their
> > >dens..."
How close are we to the guess that this is maximal hair time in the US, e.g.
1975?
> > It is fortunate that I didn't have you as a TA for Chem Lab, that would
> > have made you even more twisted. Seems as though there where a high
> > preponderance of young female Pre-Vet students (small animal specialty
> > only) in that lab.
A chem lab full of female pre-vet students. Ahhhh. NOW, we're getting close
to Heaven. Forget these stupid Muslim oases.
> Think of it as evolution in action. Some will go on to be chemists,
> others will go on to be chemists' bosses because they haven't the
> brains to be otherwise engaged.
No, no. Those who pay attension to how to kiss ass and run spread-sheets
eventually get to give orders to people who are paying attention to nature
and molecular modeling programs. How to kiss ass involves a different kind
of intelligence (it's only partly visual/spacial). Same for the money-making
center, which (believe it or not) is located far from the math center.
>At Oxy Research I ordered a CPK
> molecular model set and was called in to "assemble it" so they could
> slap a capital item sticker on the finished whatever. When Oxy went
> tits up the auctioned off what wasn't stolen by managment. I got that
> big wooden case and its fillings for $10. (The connectors have
> degraded with time.)
ROFL. See how stupid you were? They sent you all those parts of a molecule,
prob'ly the Ultimate Molecule, and you couldn't even put them together. And
now you complain.
They make these in Russia these days, but I know what it must have cost at
the time.
SBH
Feel free to email me (no advertising), but remove caps from my address.
Spammers: I use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of
the last ISP address on your header. Then I forward your message & headers
to "abuse@yourISP." Enjoy.
Uncle Al
>
> --
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3BAB7732...@hate.spam.net...
> > carr_tom wrote:
> >
> > > >> How can you say that about this person?
> > > >> http://www.tfn.net/~jcarr/sunshine.jpg
> >
> > > >Aw, I feel like Hanoi Jane Fonda and "Barbarella," or maybe Yaweh in
> > > >"South Park." How in Goshen (before it is melted into trinitite) did
> > > >you ever find my Moo U graduation pic? "The lions tremble in their
> > > >dens..."
>
> How close are we to the guess that this is maximal hair time in the US, e.g.
> 1975?
"8^>) 1973!
> No, no. Those who pay attension to how to kiss ass and run spread-sheets
> eventually get to give orders to people who are paying attention to nature
> and molecular modeling programs. How to kiss ass involves a different kind
> of intelligence (it's only partly visual/spacial). Same for the money-making
> center, which (believe it or not) is located far from the math center.
I had an East Indian (of course) cab driver one year in the People's
Republic of Canada who ran a lovely monologue of how the gods of
Scholarship and Money were perpetually at war.
> >At Oxy Research I ordered a CPK
> > molecular model set and was called in to "assemble it" so they could
> > slap a capital item sticker on the finished whatever. When Oxy went
> > tits up the auctioned off what wasn't stolen by managment. I got that
> > big wooden case and its fillings for $10. (The connectors have
> > degraded with time.)
>
> ROFL. See how stupid you were? They sent you all those parts of a molecule,
> prob'ly the Ultimate Molecule, and you couldn't even put them together. And
> now you complain.
>
> They make these in Russia these days, but I know what it must have cost at
> the time.
In fact I did put them together. Nobody would sponsor the research
into a 1-D polymer of lonsdaleite. The original idea as such was real
iffy, but the general synthetic paradigm is worth investigating. It
is general for creating high symmetry large discrete or face-fused
chains of carbon cages in a single gulp from reasonable starting
materials.
Uncle Al is mighty fed up with US EPA bullshit on how an essential
human macronutrient needs $10 million in safety testing as a ppm roach
repellent; and how a human-harmless cheap and easy to make insecticide
demosntarted 20,000 times more potent than carbamates in independent
roach feeding studies is a Canadian NRC "risky venture." We're
setting up to chemically grow diamonds from solution as a big final
push, on our own.
Regulate that, bumwipes.
hanson
>
> lonsdaleite.....
> We're setting up to chemically grow diamonds
> from solution as a big final push, on our own.
Lonsdaleite....
If that's the route you take to get to diamond, I say to you:
"Pretty clever and highly original!, Al"
Still using your "devil solvent" in these xps?
How slow (or fast) is the xx growth?
hanson
Uncle Al
1-D londsdaleite was a discrete synthesis. Diamond will be a kinetic
firestorm controllable because of the small reaction volume vs the
bulk of the solvent. We figure 1 carat/cm^2-hr. We're hoping to know
by Christmas.
Our first goal is Type IIB because it phosphoresces orange-red for up
to 90 seconds after 254 nm excitation. If we make anything we can see
it, grab it, and send a nice note with enclosure to Norton or GE
Superabrasives. Won't Sumitomo be surprised? Industiral abrasive
would be nice. There is no reason why we can't grow gem diamond. The
questions are, how big and how clean?
hanson
> Diamond......We figure 1 carat/cm^2-hr. We're hoping to know
> by Christmas.
> Uncle Al
My kudos and congrats to you and your guys for poking and pushing the
envelope EXPERIMENTALLY.
A few years back we sold our work on mass producing cheap nano xx diamond
for direct use and it's sintered applications. To my belated and now immense
chagrin the contract contains a fucked non-disclosure, "keep my mouth shut"
clause, so that I can't even brag now about how easy it is to make diamond.
All I can say is that it is possible to make diamond under much more ambient
conditions than what was just announced on the web for another cheap
Dia-synthesis via burning of SiC in Cl2 : Yury Gogotsi, et.al, Nature 411,
283-287 (17 May 2001)
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010517/010517-5.html
Re: On your mg = or <> GmM/r^2, Eotvos:
Here too, you must receive my compliments.
Tell us, how much money did you sink into this venture?
Has your http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/.zip been published by the sci.
establishment press? My fear is that you made so much and so long
propaganda on the net about it that the publishers consider this no longer
as "news" and hence may not (have) accept(ed) it for this reason alone.
I read in your "Revised 28 August 20001" version:
" The most geometrically chiral octahedral complex is claimed[110] to be
tris[1,2-dithiolatophenylenetungsten(IV)][111] (with a large unit cell,
5649.0 Å3 (racemate)).
Check the word: tris[1,2-dithiolatophenylenetungsten(IV)]
Since I have no direct and easy access to refs any longer to verify this, I
never the less suspect that this is a typo and should read instead:
tris[1,2-dithiola*c*tophenylenetungsten(IV)],
(unless it's in Italian, also referring to latte. :-))
Keep on plowing ahead, guy,
hanson
Steve Harris
...
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3BACC8E4...@hate.spam.net...
>
>
> > Diamond......We figure 1 carat/cm^2-hr. We're hoping to know
> > by Christmas.
> > Uncle Al
But since diamond is not thermodynamically stable with respect to graphite
at room pressure, how come you won't just crystallize graphite?
Uncle Al
We will get diamond (certainly on paper) for the same reasons CVD gets
diamond at 20 torr and 1000 C:
1) Diamond is the only kinetically stable carbon phase in the
environment, graphite cannot accumulate; and
2) Bradford Pate's doctoral thesis at Stanford.
Diamond *can* be the *thermodynamically* stable phase at ambient
pressure or below if you respect a couple of footnotes (chemical
environment and dimensionality). Once you pull off the tricks the
bulk is stuck where it is past 1000 C in a mildly oxidizing
environment or past 1500 C in a neutral or reducing environment. No
carbide-forming metals are allowed, of course, or you make graphite
catalytically. We operate below 800 C in solvent.
Graphite doesn't exist in Devil Solvent (proven by the first densified
graphite crucible in which we tried to contain it), diamond dust is
recoverable. Amazing and very convenient. Do our thing, cool, dump
into a 55 gallon drum of ice water, stand back. Filter solids, hit
with a 254 UV lamp in the dark. If it phosphoresces red-orange it's a
winner.
The next step would be to talk my way into a laser raman spectrometer
and look for a clean 1332 cm^(-1) line. I suspect I could quietly
trade the sample lump for a spectrum!
Ya gotta look.
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3BACC8E4...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > Diamond......We figure 1 carat/cm^2-hr. We're hoping to know
> > by Christmas.
> > Uncle Al
>
> My kudos and congrats to you and your guys for poking and pushing the
> envelope EXPERIMENTALLY.
Uncle Al is an empiricist. What do the experts know?
Offical Truth is a confederacy of dunces. Look at Washington or
Dissertation Abstracts/Liberal Arts.
> A few years back we sold our work on mass producing cheap nano xx diamond
> for direct use and it's sintered applications. To my belated and now immense
> chagrin the contract contains a fucked non-disclosure, "keep my mouth shut"
> clause, so that I can't even brag now about how easy it is to make diamond.
Check out the time limit. Most contracts like that auto-expire 5-7
years after leaving your employer. Something about being "in
restraint of trade" if made perpetual.
> All I can say is that it is possible to make diamond under much more ambient
> conditions than what was just announced on the web for another cheap
> Dia-synthesis via burning of SiC in Cl2 : Yury Gogotsi, et.al, Nature 411,
> 283-287 (17 May 2001)
> http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010517/010517-5.html
It was an interesting article! We immediately ask... are there any
gentler chemistries that are as aggressvie plus specific or selective
for silicon over carbon? Hot concentrated aqueous ammonium hydrogen
difluoride (probably with a little detergent) immediately comes to
mind, but then we have to rationalize the lattice collapse is a rather
reactively carbon-capping environment. (Go dipolar aprotic
non-aqueous...) So we think of molten fluorospar with alkali fluoride
added to control pK(F-). I don't think the article even began to
touch on the possibilities - and nobody in the endeavor has the
brains/creativity/balls needed to go there.
Remember -you can get big chunks of clean colorless single crystal CVD
SiC as Moissanite at reasonable prices.
> Re: On your mg = or <> GmM/r^2, Eotvos:
>
> Here too, you must receive my compliments.
> Tell us, how much money did you sink into this venture?
$12 total for parking at UC/Irvine to do some hardcopy literature work
three times. Adobe Acrobat courtesy of others. 18 months of Google.
Some kind aid via e-mail on ephemeris data and intermetallic structure
compilations. The x-ray data is on the shelf if you know where to
look and have UCI's library budget.
> Has your http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/.zip been published by the sci.
> establishment press? My fear is that you made so much and so long
> propaganda on the net about it that the publishers consider this no longer
> as "news" and hence may not (have) accept(ed) it for this reason alone.
It will not be publsihed until it has irrefutable positive data. I
shopped it around. Creativity has a bad smell.
I've more than once approached Eric Adelberger (who tried left- and
right-handed machine screws on his own but won't even discuss the
definitive chiral Eotvos experiment), Riley Newman (who was at least
polite), Wei-Tou Ni (no response) and Ramanath Cowsik (no response).
If you know of anybody else who operates a credible Eotvos balance,
send forth their names. Sensitivity must be to the limits of current
technology, one in 10^13 relative. It's not something you wang
together in your kitchen.
Adelberger has Pelltier heater/cooler modules on two legs of his
apparatus to keep it level to a microradian or so. His limiting noise
is random thermal motion of his apparatus' constituent atoms. Newman
is building to do it at 2 K, cutting down on the thermal noise.
Newman might have the big brass ones to try chiral Eotvos, or not.
Intense chirality has NEVER been tested as an Equivalence principel
challenge because theory says it won't work. Bear in mind that EP
challenges say all metric theories of gravitation including Einstein's
General Relativity are incorrect. What is wrong with this picture?
Proposing the chiral Eotvos experiment is like selling condoms in a
nunnery - it's not that the need isn't there, but OH! the politics!
> I read in your "Revised 28 August 20001" version:
There's a couple of typos to be fixed and a few new references. It's
not worth another revision yet.
> " The most geometrically chiral octahedral complex is claimed[110]
to be
> tris[1,2-dithiolatophenylenetungsten(IV)][111] (with a large unit cell,
> 5649.0 Å3 (racemate)).
>
> Check the word: tris[1,2-dithiolatophenylenetungsten(IV)]
> Since I have no direct and easy access to refs any longer to verify this, I
> never the less suspect that this is a typo and should read instead:
> tris[1,2-dithiola*c*tophenylenetungsten(IV)],
> (unless it's in Italian, also referring to latte. :-))
The name is correct as posted. The ligand is the dianion of
benzene-1,2-dithiol (dithiocatechol).
Note that there are two fundamentally different ways of creating a
chiral environment! You can put the heavy atom in a chiral hole, such
as the tungsten complex or bismuth in a distorted oxygen tetrahedron
in bismuth triborate. You can spiral the heavy atoms themselves to
make a helix. I much prefer the latter to shape spacetime in the
chiral Eotvos experiment.
Richard Henry
: hanson wrote:
:
: 1-D londsdaleite was a discrete synthesis. Diamond will be a kinetic
: firestorm controllable because of the small reaction volume vs the
: bulk of the solvent. We figure 1 carat/cm^2-hr. We're hoping to know
: by Christmas.
:
: Our first goal is Type IIB because it phosphoresces orange-red for up
: to 90 seconds after 254 nm excitation. If we make anything we can see
: it, grab it, and send a nice note with enclosure to Norton or GE
: Superabrasives. Won't Sumitomo be surprised? Industiral abrasive
: would be nice. There is no reason why we can't grow gem diamond. The
: questions are, how big and how clean?
The problem I see with growing gem diamonds is that you will immediately
force dowm the market price. The South Africans are capable of opening
their storage vaults and "out-producing" and underpricing any synthetic
diamond venture until the chemists/physicists and their VC backers run out
of money trying to keep up.
Dirk Bruere
> 1-D londsdaleite was a discrete synthesis. Diamond will be a kinetic
> firestorm controllable because of the small reaction volume vs the
> bulk of the solvent. We figure 1 carat/cm^2-hr. We're hoping to know
> by Christmas.
Expect some problems from de Beers and the Russian Mafia.
Dirk
Uncle Al
Welcome to capitalism. There will be great care taken that any
licensing agreement greatly annually compensates us for ant sweetheart
agreement between the licensee and the de Beers cartel. Go ahead, buy
my compassion and ethics. They have fair market price. I am a
reasonable man.
Or maybe Bill Gates wants into the diamond market. go argue with him.
First, we gotta do it.
Steve Harris
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:utfr7.21978$6c5.7...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
COMMENT:
This bit of leftist propaganda seems to be nearly as pervasive as the idea
that economics is a zero-sum game.
A big company CANNOT force smaller but more efficient ones out of the game
by simply "dumping" product on the market at below-marginal cost for both
companys. The reason for this is that the smaller company can usually simply
start its target at an arbitarily small fraction of the market, and wait it
out. If it has 0.1% of the market and is losing money on every unit as fast
as the "monopoly," that means the "monopoly" is losing money 1000 times
faster. The "monopoly's" stockholders, who are quite shortsighted about
their quarterly returns, are not going to tolerate that for long. You can
explain all you like about how you're losing money in boatloads temporarily,
in order to kill some smaller competitor. They will simply point out that
even if you succeed, you won't be able to go back to gauging for long,
because some other little competitor is sure to spring up that will make you
hemorrhage money just as fast again. You can't keep this up, so you might as
well stop.
The ONLY way a monopoly can stay a monopoly (keep most of the market for a
long time) is by CONTINUOUSLY offering a comparable product at a PROFITABLE
price no competitor can profitably match. Like the Alcoa Alumninum company
of old. And like Microturd today. And why should the consumer care if that
is happening? So long as it doesn't stop for long (and it can't, in a free
economy) it's always great news for the consumer.
SBH
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my
address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of
unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true
corporate name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then
forward message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Richard Henry
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:9olj4d$t9o$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
:
: "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
Leftist propaganda? I haven't considered myself a leftist for about 30
years.
See Uncle Al's previous response for a more practical analysis if the
situation. And correct me if I am wrong, but I thought deBeers was a
privately-held company, or at least one with a hidden ownership permitted by
the South Africa government due to its importance to the South African
economy.
And since you brought up M$: they are in a similar situation to deBeers.
They have already spent the money to stock the vault, and have already
turned a profit on the effort. Their stockholders will not let them lose
the market to upstarts who are essentially offering their prime product for
free. As Linux and the artificial gemstones improve, both monoplies will be
_driven_ by their stockholders/owners to use all means at their disposal to
drive them out of business or buy them out.
Graham Cowan
A little bird tells me of a web site
of no particular interest to bit-heads
that up to about a month ago had got 0.9 percent
of its hits from Linux users.
Will that fraction reach 2 percent by 2010? No.
Kilogram diamonds are a different thing entirely.
Cooks would probably want monolithic diamond pans, for instance.
("Can I use a steel scraper without hurting it?")
---
Uranium $1 = oil ca. $116 plus special taxes = natural gas $58 p.s.t.
Here's how personal transportation gets decarbonized:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Kilogram diamonds are a different thing entirely.
> Cooks would probably want monolithic diamond pans, for instance.
> ("Can I use a steel scraper without hurting it?")
It will especially need a thermally-insulating handle. I don't know
how to get around the cleavage plane problem. OTOH, no hot spots!
(... For cooking only. May not be broken up into engagement rings or
bellybutton inserts.) Sintered diamond would make more sense -
available in black and translucent. I'd love to see the Novatek press
that compression molded them. Maybe I will.
(Warning! If you heat them to over 1000 C in air they suddenly
discombobulate into graphite! And steel scrapers lower the transition
temperature.
)
More commercial would be sintered diamond inserts in frypan bottoms so
your tacos, crepes, omlettes, and pan bread get a nicely browned
Elvis, Christ, or Bill the Cat every time. How come we never see
"Playboy"'s laughing Christ ever appear on sweatshirts or moldy church
walls? It always looks like a pansy looser with clinical depression
and a bad case of deadly sperm buildup. (A kid with a big stencil
stamp and some fungicide or fertilizer could make a real industry of
ad hoc miracles.)
David Hedrick
Your theory that monopolies are always benign works in a perfect market
- open markets and no corruption. A monopoly has many ways it can
attack a small company, through it's customers and suppliers, for
example. Perhaps the simplest is through governmental regulatory
agencies, since they are familiar with the rewards of the revolving
door.
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:utfr7.21978$6c5.7...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> >
--
~DBH
Hedrick Services - literature search, technical writing, and data
analysis.
hanson
> The next step would be to talk my way into a laser raman spectrometer
> and look for a clean 1332 cm^(-1) line. I suspect I could quietly
> trade the sample lump for a spectrum!
>
> Ya gotta look.
You are aiming high, dude and you got balls, man!
> "a clean 1332 cm^(-1) line........?"
The 1332.5/cm is pure for the very pure, cubic block stuff.
1332/cm tends to be for nano xx dia.
I bet you'll accept anything within the range of 1130 to 1555/cm.
You'll get acceptable industrial dia-stuff almost anywhere
within this range.
Good luck, man
hanson
Dirk Bruere
> Graham Cowan wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Kilogram diamonds are a different thing entirely.
> > Cooks would probably want monolithic diamond pans, for instance.
> > ("Can I use a steel scraper without hurting it?")
>
> It will especially need a thermally-insulating handle. I don't know
> how to get around the cleavage plane problem. OTOH, no hot spots!
> (... For cooking only. May not be broken up into engagement rings or
> bellybutton inserts.) Sintered diamond would make more sense -
> available in black and translucent. I'd love to see the Novatek press
> that compression molded them. Maybe I will.
>
> http://www.novatekonline.com/
Diamond artificial teeth might sell well.
Esp amongst pimps.
Dirk
Keith F. Lynch
> The ONLY way a monopoly can stay a monopoly (keep most of the market
> for a long time) is by CONTINUOUSLY offering a comparable product at
> a PROFITABLE price no competitor can profitably match. Like the
> Alcoa Alumninum company of old. And like Microturd today.
It also helps if they buy a few legislators. At least that seems to
be the only explanation for why Microsloth hasn't been sued into the
stone age despite:
* Being a fertile breeding ground for computer viruses and worms. No,
viruses and worms are NOT inevitable. No other operating system
gets them. If my neighbor keeps mounds of rotting garbage that
breed rats and roaches, I could have it declared a public nuisance,
and he would be forced to clean it up. Why hasn't Microsoft been
declared a public nuisance, and sued for the damage done by Nimda,
Code Red, Lovebug, SirCam, Melissa, etc?
* Arranging it so that it's all but impossible to buy a PC without
their software already installed. And then reneging on their
"shrink-wrap contract" in which they agree to refund the price
if you don't accept the license terms and choose not to use the
software.
* Selling a grossly defective product, which frequenty crashes,
resulting in the loss of one's work. No, this is NOT normal or
inevitable. It's routine for non-Microsoft systems to stay up for
YEARS at a time, even during heavy multi-user multi-peripheral use.
And when any other vendor's system DOES crash, they apologize, and
fix it for free. Microsoft says it's fixed in some later version,
and offer to sell it to you. Of course the new version has even
more bugs than the old, and runs slower while wasting more memory
and disk space.
* Getting a judge removed from their case when they didn't like his
rulings. Their obvious strategy is delay the case well into the
next century. And they're getting away with it.
Unfair monopolies cannot exist under a system in which the same laws
apply to everyone. Unfortunately, that is not the system we live under.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Rhonda Moore
reparable and if it fell on its face the user had hopes of correcting the
problem. If only more applications were written for Linux!
Doug Dwyer
a more relevant model is the internal combustion engine where if the
phasing is correct the give away cycle puts the competition out of
business and then "fleece them" phase earns more than the give away
phase.
A large business with multiple markets can operate several profit
engines like this and maintain a consistent high average profit.
In the end the engines wear out and need replacing.
article <9olj4d$t9o$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, Steve Harris <sbharris@
ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> writes
>The ONLY way a monopoly can stay a monopoly (keep most of the market for a
>long time) is by CONTINUOUSLY offering a comparable product at a PROFITABLE
>price no competitor can profitably match. Like the Alcoa Alumninum company
>of old. And like Microturd today. And why should the consumer care if that
>is happening? So long as it doesn't stop for long (and it can't, in a free
>economy) it's always great news for the consumer.
--
Doug Dwyer
Bill Nelson
: The problem I see with growing gem diamonds is that you will immediately
: force dowm the market price. The South Africans are capable of opening
: their storage vaults and "out-producing" and underpricing any synthetic
: diamond venture until the chemists/physicists and their VC backers run out
: of money trying to keep up.
If the gem diamonds can be grown inexpensively enough - the DeBeers
cartel would not have a chance of competing on an equal basis. Nor would
they have to - they sell natural diamond. It does not matter if the
man-made diamond (synthetic diamond is not the proper term, as such a
material would not be diamond) is as good or better. They can still
play on the vanity of people that "natural is better".
The real competition would be in the industrial diamond area, and I
doubt if DeBeers is a serious competitor there anyway.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In sci.chem Richard Henry <rph...@home.com> wrote:
>
>: force dowm the market price. The South Africans are capable of opening
>: their storage vaults and "out-producing" and underpricing any synthetic
>: diamond venture until the chemists/physicists and their VC backers run out
>: of money trying to keep up.
>
>cartel would not have a chance of competing on an equal basis. Nor would
>they have to - they sell natural diamond. It does not matter if the
>man-made diamond (synthetic diamond is not the proper term, as such a
>material would not be diamond) is as good or better. They can still
>play on the vanity of people that "natural is better".
>
diamonds are already better. We're using them for x-ray
monochromators and they're great (not cheap, though). Natural
diamonds are not of sufficient quality for this purpose.
But I agree with you, vanity is an important selling point. In fact,
as far as jewelry is considered, it is the *main* selling point.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Greatest Prime
bi...@spock.peak.org wrote on 9/30/01 10:50 PM:
There already is an example in the ruby trade. In spite of synthetic gem
rubies being of better optical and mechanical quality than almost any
natural ruby, the snob factor is still keeping the price of natural rubies
higher than that of synthetics.
A problem arises with those few very high quality natural stones. They are a
lot like the synthetic ones. At least one maker has voluntarily added
something to give an unnatural fluoresence to their rubies.
Bill
Jacques Jedwab
There is a metaphorical factor bound to the natural gems, which is
difficult to beat. It's not just snobbery or vanity: most jewels are given
by gentlemen to ladies as a token of love. HE knows quite well that SHE
will have a bad opinion about the quality of HIS love, if HE gives a jewel
with a synthetic gem. The subjective value of love is metaphorically
represented by the value (in $) and the eternal strength of a natural gem
(as opposed to an artifact). We are not dealing here with rational
behaviours. J.J.
Dirk Bruere
"Jacques Jedwab" <jje...@ulb.ac.be> wrote in message
news:jjedwab-0110...@geochim-mac2.ulb.ac.be...
>
> There is a metaphorical factor bound to the natural gems, which is
> difficult to beat. It's not just snobbery or vanity: most jewels are given
> by gentlemen to ladies as a token of love. HE knows quite well that SHE
> will have a bad opinion about the quality of HIS love, if HE gives a jewel
> with a synthetic gem. The subjective value of love is metaphorically
> represented by the value (in $) and the eternal strength of a natural gem
> (as opposed to an artifact). We are not dealing here with rational
> behaviours. J.J.
And if the only way to tell the difference between an artificial
(relatively) dirt cheap diamond, and an expensive natural one is a
certificate... I think I'll enter the certificate business.
Dirk
Uncle Al
The Gemological Institute.
As natural diamonds are ppm contaminated with much of the Periodic
Table, neutron activation analysis should do it. (You might not want
to wear the diamond afterwards.) Metal flux-grown diamond has metal
micro-inclusions that show up in a Guoy balance or a SQUID. Low temp
photoconductivity and fluorescence are also diagnostic.
That birefringent Moissonite (hexagonal SiC) is mistaken for diamond
is diagnostic of the ease of passing off any carat-sized "diamond" as
long as it has anomalously high thermal conductivity to fool the SOP
thermistor probe.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
Greatest Prime
at art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote on 10/1/01 10:16 AM:
If that seperates into two classes, natural and artificial, I think I would
prefer the artificial kind.
Bill
Dirk Bruere
"Greatest Prime" <Fish...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:B7DDFD17.7DE8%Fish...@mediaone.net...
> >
> > And if the only way to tell the difference between an artificial
> > (relatively) dirt cheap diamond, and an expensive natural one is a
> > certificate... I think I'll enter the certificate business.
> >
would
> prefer the artificial kind.
You are obviously a nerd with no taste, as I was accused of being when I
said I'd rather have perfect artificial sapphires, emeralds, rubies etc than
the crap 'real thing'.
Dirk
Don Thompson
news:9p907s$oj1$3...@sevenofnine.peak.org...
> In sci.chem Richard Henry <rph...@home.com> wrote:
>
> : The problem I see with growing gem diamonds is that you will immediately
> : force dowm the market price. The South Africans are capable of opening
> : their storage vaults and "out-producing" and underpricing any synthetic
> : diamond venture until the chemists/physicists and their VC backers run
out
> : of money trying to keep up.
>
> If the gem diamonds can be grown inexpensively enough - the DeBeers
> cartel would not have a chance of competing on an equal basis. Nor would
> they have to - they sell natural diamond. It does not matter if the
> man-made diamond (synthetic diamond is not the proper term, as such a
> material would not be diamond) is as good or better. They can still
> play on the vanity of people that "natural is better".
>
Diamond prices are held artificially high in any event by the DeBeers
"monopoly" they only release to the market enough diamond to satisfy current
demand and hold back the rest. The DeBeers vaults hold huge quantities of
mined diamonds.
>
> The real competition would be in the industrial diamond area, and I
> doubt if DeBeers is a serious competitor there anyway.
>
DeBeers has a subsidiary with the interesting name " DeBeers Industrial
Diamond Division Ltd." so it would appear that they are indeed a "serious
competitor".
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>
franz heymann
Don Thompson <flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote in message
news:9padpe$dlk$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Did you know that there are hundreds (thousands?) of acres on the
shore line near the mouth of the Orange River which are fenced off and
concreted over because there are just too many alluvial diamonds lying
around on and near the surface?
One of my sisters-in-law inherited a tract of farm land near that part
of the world. That is, she owns the land, but de Beers has the mining
rights, so she is the proud possessor of an essentialy valueless bit
of property in an arid semi-desert. The land is almost certainly
diamond bearing, but she cannot do a thing about it.
>
> >
> > The real competition would be in the industrial diamond area, and
I
> > doubt if DeBeers is a serious competitor there anyway.
> >
>
> DeBeers has a subsidiary with the interesting name " DeBeers
Industrial
> Diamond Division Ltd." so it would appear that they are indeed a
"serious
> competitor".
Franz Heymann
Dirk Bruere
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:3bb8d46d$0$8509$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
>
> Did you know that there are hundreds (thousands?) of acres on the
> shore line near the mouth of the Orange River which are fenced off and
> concreted over because there are just too many alluvial diamonds lying
> around on and near the surface?
> One of my sisters-in-law inherited a tract of farm land near that part
> of the world. That is, she owns the land, but de Beers has the mining
> rights, so she is the proud possessor of an essentialy valueless bit
> of property in an arid semi-desert. The land is almost certainly
> diamond bearing, but she cannot do a thing about it.
I suggests she seriously gets into gardening.
Dirk
Uncle Al
Enviro-whining! Deep plough it, disk it, remove all the rocks, seed
it, go away. If you can get a bunch of noisey abos to crap on it
after de-rocking, plus Media coverage, so much the better.
Dirk Bruere
> > > Did you know that there are hundreds (thousands?) of acres on the
> > > shore line near the mouth of the Orange River which are fenced off and
> > > concreted over because there are just too many alluvial diamonds lying
> > > around on and near the surface?
> >
> > > One of my sisters-in-law inherited a tract of farm land near that part
> > > of the world. That is, she owns the land, but de Beers has the mining
> > > rights, so she is the proud possessor of an essentialy valueless bit
> > > of property in an arid semi-desert. The land is almost certainly
> > > diamond bearing, but she cannot do a thing about it.
> >
> > I suggests she seriously gets into gardening.
>
> Enviro-whining! Deep plough it, disk it, remove all the rocks, seed
> it, go away. If you can get a bunch of noisey abos to crap on it
> after de-rocking, plus Media coverage, so much the better.
I think anything but gardening would count as mining, and de Beers would
want it all.
OTOH, I've always fancied my own mole machine...
Dirk
Don Thompson
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:3bb8d46d$0$8509$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> shore line near the mouth of the Orange River which are fenced off and
> concreted over because there are just too many alluvial diamonds lying
> around on and near the surface?
>
I knew it was fenced but not that it was concreted.
>
> One of my sisters-in-law inherited a tract of farm land near that part
> of the world. That is, she owns the land, but de Beers has the mining
> rights, so she is the proud possessor of an essentialy valueless bit
> of property in an arid semi-desert. The land is almost certainly
> diamond bearing, but she cannot do a thing about it.
>
I believe she could farm the land using deep tillage techniques and walk
around on it as much as she wants. Picking up any exposed diamonds as she
walks. If I were doing the farming I would study the layout so that my
"farming" would take place on the ground with the highest probability of
large gem quality stones. I also might take up potato farming as practised
in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. As long as she doesn't "mine" the land
there is nothing DeBeers can do.
fred b mcgalliard
doping it makes a great high temperature transistor. Way more usefull than a
glittery adornment.
Uncle Al
Diamond is worthless as a transistor. A few ppm of boron give you
lovely p-type diamond. A few hundred ppm will give you nearly
metallic conductivity at ambient temp - great for inert electrodes
(especially anodes). You can do Schottky diodes if it pleases you.
N-type diamond (Li or N by growth, P by implantation and annealing)
has its donor levels way too deep. Worthless. It's still a good
electrical insulator despite the doping.
There is no useful barrier layer for diamond. Silicon has SiO2.
Gregory L. Hansen
Build something on it? DeBeers can have the dirt dug out for the
basement, if they want it.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
franz heymann
> >
> > "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> > news:3bb8d46d$0$8509$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Did you know that there are hundreds (thousands?) of acres on
the
> > > shore line near the mouth of the Orange River which are fenced
off and
> > > concreted over because there are just too many alluvial diamonds
lying
> > > around on and near the surface?
> >
> > > One of my sisters-in-law inherited a tract of farm land near
that part
> > > of the world. That is, she owns the land, but de Beers has the
mining
> > > rights, so she is the proud possessor of an essentialy valueless
bit
> > > of property in an arid semi-desert. The land is almost
certainly
> > > diamond bearing, but she cannot do a thing about it.
> >
> > I suggests she seriously gets into gardening.
>
> Enviro-whining! Deep plough it, disk it, remove all the rocks, seed
> it, go away. If you can get a bunch of noisey abos to crap on it
There ain't any. They were hunted practically to extinction in the
past three centuries
> after de-rocking, plus Media coverage, so much the better.
You will end up with a very long jail sentence, media or no media.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CE4u7.12666$qi.18...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Four problems :-
(1) She lives in a retirement village about a thousand miles fron
there.
(2) There is no water worth talking about in those parts
(3) Illicit diamond dealing is a more serious crime than murder in
South Africa.
(4) Her father was a diamond dealer. He was lucky up to a point. She
does not want to follow in his footsteps.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Don Thompson <flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote in message
>
> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3bb8d46d$0$8509$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > Did you know that there are hundreds (thousands?) of acres on the
> > shore line near the mouth of the Orange River which are fenced off
and
> > concreted over because there are just too many alluvial diamonds
lying
> > around on and near the surface?
> >
>
> I knew it was fenced but not that it was concreted.
I have seen it. It is, in the richest parts.
Would you like a diamond urban legend? Well you will get it any way:
It is said that the diamonds originate somewhere in Lesotho, carried
along by the Caledon River which is a tributary of the Orange River.
There is a waterfall in the latter at Aughrabies. There is one hell
of a deep rocky pool at the bottom of the falls. What may be lying on
the bottom of that pool?
>
> >
> > One of my sisters-in-law inherited a tract of farm land near that
part
> > of the world. That is, she owns the land, but de Beers has the
mining
> > rights, so she is the proud possessor of an essentialy valueless
bit
> > of property in an arid semi-desert. The land is almost certainly
> > diamond bearing, but she cannot do a thing about it.
> >
>
> I believe she could farm the land using deep tillage techniques and
walk
> around on it as much as she wants. Picking up any exposed diamonds
as she
> walks. If I were doing the farming I would study the layout so that
my
> "farming" would take place on the ground with the highest
probability of
> large gem quality stones. I also might take up potato farming as
practised
> in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. As long as she doesn't "mine"
the land
> there is nothing DeBeers can do.
So what does she do with the diamond when she has found it?
The laws on diamond dealing in SA are pretty repressive, thanks to de
Beers' influence over the years. And the government has always
respected de Beers' wishes, because of the importance of diamonds in
the SA economy.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Bruere
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9pb5nh$hg8$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> > I suggests she seriously gets into gardening.
> >>
> >> Enviro-whining! Deep plough it, disk it, remove all the rocks, seed
> >> it, go away. If you can get a bunch of noisey abos to crap on it
> >> after de-rocking, plus Media coverage, so much the better.
> >
> >I think anything but gardening would count as mining, and de Beers would
> >want it all.
> >OTOH, I've always fancied my own mole machine...
>
> Build something on it? DeBeers can have the dirt dug out for the
> basement, if they want it.
Swimming pools.
Olympic ones.
Lots of them.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> >
> > I suggests she seriously gets into gardening.
>
> Four problems :-
> (1) She lives in a retirement village about a thousand miles fron
> there.
Time for you to get a nice holiday home.
> (2) There is no water worth talking about in those parts
You need a resevoir/swimming pool.
> (3) Illicit diamond dealing is a more serious crime than murder in
> South Africa.
Only if you're caught.
> (4) Her father was a diamond dealer. He was lucky up to a point. She
> does not want to follow in his footsteps.
'Dealer'? Euphemism?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> Would you like a diamond urban legend? Well you will get it any way:
> It is said that the diamonds originate somewhere in Lesotho, carried
> along by the Caledon River which is a tributary of the Orange River.
> There is a waterfall in the latter at Aughrabies. There is one hell
> of a deep rocky pool at the bottom of the falls. What may be lying on
> the bottom of that pool?
I don't know.
Don't people go swimming?
> So what does she do with the diamond when she has found it?
Contact one of my relatives?
Dirk
franz heymann
>
> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3bb99add$0$8511$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > Would you like a diamond urban legend? Well you will get it any
way:
> > It is said that the diamonds originate somewhere in Lesotho,
carried
> > along by the Caledon River which is a tributary of the Orange
River.
> > There is a waterfall in the latter at Aughrabies. There is one
hell
> > of a deep rocky pool at the bottom of the falls. What may be
lying on
> > the bottom of that pool?
>
> I don't know.
> Don't people go swimming?
You haven't seen the pool. Cauldron would be a better description.
Incidentally, I think it is only an urban legend.
>
>
> > So what does she do with the diamond when she has found it?
>
> Contact one of my relatives?
You mean they are in the same business?
Franz Heymann
Dirk Bruere
> > > Would you like a diamond urban legend? Well you will get it any
> way:
> > > It is said that the diamonds originate somewhere in Lesotho,
> carried
> > > along by the Caledon River which is a tributary of the Orange
> River.
> > > There is a waterfall in the latter at Aughrabies. There is one
> hell
> > > of a deep rocky pool at the bottom of the falls. What may be
> lying on
> > > the bottom of that pool?
> >
> > I don't know.
> > Don't people go swimming?
>
> You haven't seen the pool. Cauldron would be a better description.
> Incidentally, I think it is only an urban legend.
I recall my father telling me a story about how my grandfather knew where
Krugers Gold was located, but could never buy the land of the man who owned
it. Apparently is lies behind a waterfall.
> > > So what does she do with the diamond when she has found it?
> >
> > Contact one of my relatives?
>
> You mean they are in the same business?
I'm sure I can find some dodgy relatives.
My fathers side of the family is old Afrikaner - we're related to just about
everybody in that community.
Dirk
Steve Smith
> One of my sisters-in-law inherited a tract of farm land near that part
> of the world. That is, she owns the land, but de Beers has the mining
> rights, so she is the proud possessor of an essentialy valueless bit
> of property in an arid semi-desert. The land is almost certainly
> diamond bearing, but she cannot do a thing about it.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth, but not the mineral rights."
-- J. Paul Getty
I'll bet they also have the right to dig up anything on the property, if
they think that they might find useful quantities of diamonds.
--
Steve Smith s...@aginc.net
Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Uncle Al
>
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:27:43 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> wrote:
>
> >fred b mcgalliard wrote:
> >>
> >> Recall that monocrystaline diamond is a good semiconductor. With suitable
> >> doping it makes a great high temperature transistor. Way more usefull than a
> >> glittery adornment.
> >
> >Diamond is worthless as a transistor. A few ppm of boron give you
> >lovely p-type diamond. A few hundred ppm will give you nearly
> >metallic conductivity at ambient temp - great for inert electrodes
> >(especially anodes). You can do Schottky diodes if it pleases you.
>
A compound requires small integer ratios of components.
Organometallics push "small" to the edge of triple digits, but
certainly not to ppm relative. Where does boron-doped diamond slip
into boron carbide?
franz heymann
He must have taken at least some of it with him to pay for that
desirable real estate he acquired near Montreux.
>
> > > > So what does she do with the diamond when she has found it?
> > >
> > > Contact one of my relatives?
> >
> > You mean they are in the same business?
>
> I'm sure I can find some dodgy relatives.
> My fathers side of the family is old Afrikaner - we're related to
just about
> everybody in that community.
>
Franz Heymann
mark.p...@virgin.net
<art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ian Gay" <g...@sfuu.ca> wrote in message news:9mmgc4$rgf$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> And N.S. is not what it used to be, either. (Or maybe we're all getting
>old)
>
>Thank God.
>I recall back in the early 70s when it was New Socialist AntiScientist
>
>Dirk
So now that it's New Environmentalist AntiScientist - is it any
better?
Sweetums
>> >> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> >> }
>> >> } [After some 20 years of readership I have not renewed my
>> >> } subscription. "Scientific American" is now dendrimeric - all
>> >> } densely fancy skin with no palpable internal content. It is a
>> >> } triumph of management over objective accomplishment.
>[snip]
What took you so long? Scientific American went to hell in a
handbasket when the founder/publisher sold it to the Germans and they,
it turn, put his idiot son in charge.
I confess I have not looked at it since and have no idea who drives
that garbage truck now.
Harry Conover
Well said.
Are they in fact still publishing? I thought they pulled the plug
about two years ago, which is about the last time that I saw an SA
issue?
Harry C.