That was ten years ago. Today, lab grown diamonds are cheaper than natural at any size or quality, which is why the diamond cartels are sh*tting little bricks that are almost as hard.
This is not my field, but I'm...social adjacent? and my understanding is that we grow big crystals of silicon because that's the mature technology, but then there are multiple cutting & polishing steps that add to the cost.
We want small pieces of thin wafers, but we grow huge crystals and then slice them into wafers that we then have to cut up. With vapor deposition diamond you can remove a lot of those steps by growing what you need, say a grid of chips of the desired dimensions directly on a carrier substrate.
The moment it becomes useful its cost will fall down to silicone prices really fast.
Right now you can buy 100g of diamonds for low teens in $ from China. Diamonds are produced in enormous quantities as abrasives. And if you do something on large scale you become better at it.
So far we haven't invested in big monocrystals because there was not much use for them aside from jewelry and probably other small niches. The moment some R&D makes something useful out of them - they will be Jevoned into oblivion.
It still amazes me that the rare shiny rocks humanity has appreciated for thousands of years also turn out to have amazing properties even compared to the synthetic materials we are now capable of creating. It's still the hardest material we have measured. It is the best thermal conductor, even though it's an electrical insulator.
Thermal conductivity measures the heat flux given a temperature gradient. That is, how fast heat energy flows across a surface, given a certain temperature gradient across it.
It has nothing to do with the velocity of the heat carriers themselves (phonons, or charged particles).
E.g. phonons always travel at the speed of sound, in any material.
I've thought about this at times. How convenient that things seem to work out that way! Though I wonder if it's more just a bias. All the very impressive things you can make from the abundant materials have already been made. Like, say, all of life?
Up until electricity abundance, aluminium was almost unknown to most as refining it requires lots of electricity.
Aluminium ore is very abundant too but we didn't know what to do with it.
Diamonds are crystals, like silicon
Nothing wrong with liking shiny rocks, but they aren't that rare and we can generally produce them. Materials have properties. Understanding the properties generally gives us leverage to use them in our own benefit.
> even compared to the synthetic materials we are now capable of creating
Aren't like almost all commercially used diamonds these days synthetic as well? As far as I can tell, other than just for the sake of them being "natural" or for having weird impurities that add color to them (read as: subjectively better to some people), no one wants/needs natural ones anymore.
We can recreate lots of things, but almost always appreciate the true version better. It’s why it’s cooler to see the Mona Lisa than to see a poster print of it.
Why? As far as I can tell, other than just for the sake of the view being “natural” or having some weird color issues due to time and radiation and oxidization, nobody wants/needs the actual painting anymore.
Reason: because even when it’s identical or even inferior, the touch of nature is just… nice.
A painting has a 3 dimensional texture to the paint, while a poster is inevitably flat. Different paint compositions will also reflect light differently, while a poster won't.
So, yeah, having the real painting has additional value.
I wouldn't pay much for a painting anyway. I have several paintings and posters up on the walls, and they're interesting for a time, and then I just don't see them anymore. They're just part of the wall.
To be clear, you acknowledge the natural version would be better, but the controversy and conflict surrounding it is what actually turns you off. This has no effect on my argument that people prefer real things.
Naturally, if you said “you can have the Mona Lisa but only if someone is murdered in the process”, reprints of it would be very popular.
>To be clear, you acknowledge the natural version would be better
No, not at all. I prefer the artificial ones. Any size you want at a much lower cost. No massive amounts of mining. The fact they don't cost some indigenous kids lives is a well earned bonus.
It is you with a strong attachment to the idea that natural is somehow better.
Unrelated, but does anyone else find the adjacent (4b) definition of 'synthetic' to be unusually unusual, in a way few definitions in a dictionary are?
Without anything redacted, definition 4b is "devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities"?
> It's still the hardest material we have measured.
Can't believe this statement hasn't caused other nerds to crawl out of their holes to correct it yet, so here I go: acshually...
We know about Lonsdaleite, which packs its structured in hexagons rather than the usual cubic forms of diamonds.
... too bad its natural occurance is always somewhat spoiled and it doesn't reach its full potential in nature in any meaningful size, as far as we could observe.
Lonsdaleite looks like it should be harder than diamond based on simulation data, but we haven't actually measured a piece of Lonsdaleite that is harder than diamond.
You ever play that really old Zachtronics game where you have to design circuits at the silicon level? (KOHCTPYKTOP: Engineer of the People)
Give me an inverter and single logic gate and I can by myself recreate computing. Give me a silicon wafer and dopants and I no longer know what I am doing. The structure is 3D and also somewhat abstract and I fail to be able to maintain the mental state to understand it.
I don't understand my mental barrier. I get the abstract theory and rough physical concepts, but somehow I can't pull features out of a micrograph like Ken Shirriff can.
"DF's production of SCD wafers is as green as any tech manufacturing gets: converting the greenhouse gas methane into diamond crystal using zero-emission energy."
The average cow releases about 250lbs of methane a year. I know press releases get more traction when there is mention of green tech, but it's a bit much to claim that that the production of these wafers will sequester methane in a meaningful way.
Normally, I am the first to complain about broken websites, but it looks fine for me on Firefox on a laptop. Scrolling works normal using up-down arrow keys and dragging on the side scrollbar. There is an unnecessary effect with the 3D diagram, but it doesn't interfere with the site. How are you viewing it?
hmm, I'm not seeing anything that can be described as "inertia". Not on chromium either. Both of these are on a laptop with dragging the side scrollbars and using the up/down arrows on the keyboard.
Is this something that is related to a touch screen? I'm not using a touch screen.
I'm on a non-touchscreen mac, on firefox with smooth scrolling turned off, and have LinearMouse installed. I tried both trackpad scrolling and mousewheel scrolling. The weird "smooth" scrolling of this website is very jarring to me, and makes it take significantly longer to scroll to where I want to, since the responsiveness went from ~instant to ~.5s and I keep on overshooting.
try using a mouse or trackpad, they only seem to intercept pointer input. i also don't get affected when dragging the scrollbar or using the arrow keys.
You ever watch a sitcom where a future mother-in-law comments on how big the diamond in the ring is? Next time she'll be disappointing it's synthetic, except they'll come up with a more negative term (artificial, fake, etc.).
Is there any new information here? They've been working on this for years and their last news post was almost a year ago. Is there progress? Is it viable yet?
I'm seeing more Silicon Carbide and Gallium nitride transistors in shipping products over the last ten years. With the latter a lot over the last 5 years.
I've only been hearing about diamond transistors for the last 30 years.
We know that a certain shiny rock consortium has done everything it could to slow down the development of synthetic diamond manufacturing. Maybe things will change when we can have research without a handbrake.
92 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] threadAnd logical, now that we can produce them easily enough.
This, is one of many uses of the rocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
I believe the main difficulty is making large and pure diamonds. Making small low purity diamonds is cheap and easy to scale.
We want small pieces of thin wafers, but we grow huge crystals and then slice them into wafers that we then have to cut up. With vapor deposition diamond you can remove a lot of those steps by growing what you need, say a grid of chips of the desired dimensions directly on a carrier substrate.
As I understand it.
just one tiny tiny microscopic question...
why would someone use diamond wafer costing 1000x more than a silicon wafer??!
:)
Right now you can buy 100g of diamonds for low teens in $ from China. Diamonds are produced in enormous quantities as abrasives. And if you do something on large scale you become better at it.
So far we haven't invested in big monocrystals because there was not much use for them aside from jewelry and probably other small niches. The moment some R&D makes something useful out of them - they will be Jevoned into oblivion.
Superfluid helium's maximum thermal conductivity is roughly 100x diamond's maximum!
1. They can grow diamonds.
2. Diamonds are good for heat conduction in the liquid-water-temperature range.
3. Diamonds are good for electrical insulation.
Where are the full diamond water blocks for the water cooled RGB bling computers?!?
I guess it is a matter of what shape is grown. For some reason I thought a flat plate being sublimated onto but I honestly don't know.
But if you can get a flat plate made from diamond then a clever design should be able to use that.
But never mind the practicality - as long as it doesn't leak - then marketing could have a field day...
Never thought about this before. Would that mean that heat propagates much more quickly? Possibly even approaching the speed of sound of the material?
You can kind of isolate the different vibrational modes and their corresponding energy transmission. "Phonons" are basically sound waves (the particle analogue), labeled in figure 2: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2019/07/12/dcs_2...
It has nothing to do with the velocity of the heat carriers themselves (phonons, or charged particles).
E.g. phonons always travel at the speed of sound, in any material.
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/diamond-dome-tweeters/...
It’s wild how not long ago aluminum was an unbelievably rare, valuable metal, and now it’s ubiquitous and cheap.
The intense electricity requirement is also why recycling aluminum is not just an environmental activity: it’s a profitable one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall%E2%80%93H%C3%A9roult_proc...
Aren't like almost all commercially used diamonds these days synthetic as well? As far as I can tell, other than just for the sake of them being "natural" or for having weird impurities that add color to them (read as: subjectively better to some people), no one wants/needs natural ones anymore.
Why? As far as I can tell, other than just for the sake of the view being “natural” or having some weird color issues due to time and radiation and oxidization, nobody wants/needs the actual painting anymore.
Reason: because even when it’s identical or even inferior, the touch of nature is just… nice.
So, yeah, having the real painting has additional value.
I wouldn't pay much for a painting anyway. I have several paintings and posters up on the walls, and they're interesting for a time, and then I just don't see them anymore. They're just part of the wall.
For gemstones, nah I really don't want blood diamonds.
Naturally, if you said “you can have the Mona Lisa but only if someone is murdered in the process”, reprints of it would be very popular.
No, not at all. I prefer the artificial ones. Any size you want at a much lower cost. No massive amounts of mining. The fact they don't cost some indigenous kids lives is a well earned bonus.
It is you with a strong attachment to the idea that natural is somehow better.
I thought they are “lab grown”.
(Synthetic implies non-real, when at a molecular level the lab grown are 100% real)
Sense 4a1 here, not 4c: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synthetic
Without anything redacted, definition 4b is "devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities"?
Can't believe this statement hasn't caused other nerds to crawl out of their holes to correct it yet, so here I go: acshually...
We know about Lonsdaleite, which packs its structured in hexagons rather than the usual cubic forms of diamonds.
... too bad its natural occurance is always somewhat spoiled and it doesn't reach its full potential in nature in any meaningful size, as far as we could observe.
Give me an inverter and single logic gate and I can by myself recreate computing. Give me a silicon wafer and dopants and I no longer know what I am doing. The structure is 3D and also somewhat abstract and I fail to be able to maintain the mental state to understand it.
I don't understand my mental barrier. I get the abstract theory and rough physical concepts, but somehow I can't pull features out of a micrograph like Ken Shirriff can.
The average cow releases about 250lbs of methane a year. I know press releases get more traction when there is mention of green tech, but it's a bit much to claim that that the production of these wafers will sequester methane in a meaningful way.
Is this something that is related to a touch screen? I'm not using a touch screen.
Much more likely to actually get to market is diamond as the heat dissipating substrate.
Can you hear the sound of DeBeers' execs melting down? I intend to play it as a white noise while I sleep.
There may be market for artisanaly doped synthetics by customer design or something.
You ever watch a sitcom where a future mother-in-law comments on how big the diamond in the ring is? Next time she'll be disappointing it's synthetic, except they'll come up with a more negative term (artificial, fake, etc.).
I've only been hearing about diamond transistors for the last 30 years.