| Pages:
1
2 |
FrankRizzo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 201
Registered: 9-2-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Make diamonds in the microwave?
While browsing through the amsci microwave experiments site, I came across a link where the author claims to produce diamonds using a microwave oven,
charcoal briquettes, and hold on....peanut butter. LOL
Now, my first impression is that this is a joke, but really, would it be possible to produce diamonds from just superheated carbon? I was under the
impression that diamond formation required heat AND immense pressure.
Looking through the rest of the site reveals that it's some pseudo-scientific bullshit artist's creation, but I'm still tempted to try
the experiment anyway..LOL.
http://www.rangeguide.net/diamonds.htm
Making diamonds in the microwave / Joe Champion Recipe [Do not do this experiment without competent adult supervision!]:
STEP 1
Using a pyrex microwave cooking dish with lid, place two charcoal brickets covered with 4 ounces of peanut butter inside. Microwave on high for 60
minutes at 10 minute intercals.
STEP 2
When cool enough to handle, take the dish outdoors and place on top of an unlit barbque grill. Remove the lid form the dish and saturate the charcoal
and residue with charcoal lighter fluid. Light the charcoal (Note: At this time the diamonds are made, this procedure is reducing the excess carbon to
ash.)
STEP 3
At this time you should have a dish full of a gray/black soot. Carefully scrape this soot into a dark colored dish and gently wash. The ash will wash
away leaving the diamonds you've produced.
If you decide to experiment with recipes other than the one above, do so with competent adult supervision and in extremely well ventilated areas or
outdoors. Joe Champion has released the recipe above due to its safety and lack of possible toxicity in your kitchen
peanut butter...wtf
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Worth an experiment just for kicks, but that site and all its links are heavily laden with pseudo-science...
| Quote: |
Hudson's research has led him to believe that ingesting the manna enabled the preists to approach the Ark of the Covenant without being killed.
|
| Quote: |
He will explain his theories about the Essenes and why he thinks Mary was given the white powders of gold in preparation for the conception and birth
of Jesus.
|
| Quote: |
Make and Drink Crystaline Water Molecules Loaded With ELECTRONS
|
| Quote: |
However, when this material is properly prepared and mixed with lesser metals such as lead, a transformation appears and macro quantities of gold and
platinum are produced.
|
| Quote: |
in today's water molecules are SMALLER and CAN'T HOLD the additional donor ELECTRONS (from OXYGEN) needed to make them work!! As a result,
VIRUSES and BACTERIA are mutating out of control... CAUSING almost ANY problem you can name! Our patented method STRETCHES TODAY'S WATER
MOLECULES... so they can take on more donor electrons!
|
Need I say more.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Diamonds were being made by electric means in the 60's, and in the 80's a japanese scientist rose to fame by using a standard kitchen
microwave and graphite powder to make diamond dust. Everything you read is not quackery just because you do not know about it beforehand. You will
find with just a little searching that this is not so. You can make diamonds in the microwave using anything which contains carbon, pressure is not
needed. It has been done repeatedly by most major scientific institutions for over 20 years, and yes they have written about it.]
I would not follow the plans on that site though. It is sad that people will take a sound scientific idea and surround it with quackery. Diamonds can
burn, and burning the excess carbon to get at the diamond dust is not very smart. If very small amounts at a time of fine graphite dust is microwaved
you will end up with diamond dust without the seperation problems. This method could not grow large diamonds. Deposition methods or heat and pressure
will however.
[Edited on 18-10-2005 by IrC]
|
|
|
Blind Angel
International Hazard
Posts: 845
Registered: 24-11-2002
Location: Québec
Member Is Offline
Mood: Meh!
|
|
I was looking a the new method of making dimaond using MW, heat and CH4/H2 mix, i don't remember the name, it's the one used to grow big
diamond today, you might want to look.
I'll try to find it and post it, it's pretty common, somebody has surely already hear of it.
Edit: Got it: CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition)
[Edited on 18-10-2005 by Blind Angel]
/}/_//|//) /-\\/|//¬/=/_
My PGP Key Fingerprint: D4EA A609 55E4 7ADD 8529 359D D6E2 33F6 4C76 78ED |
|
|
FrankRizzo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 201
Registered: 9-2-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I suppose this might actually be feasible. Granted, it's only going to produce diamond dust but it's still fun nonetheless. I suppose the
peanut butter is just used for the fat content which is a nice target for the microwaves.
Here's a link to that CVD process that Blind Angel is talking about :
http://carnegieinstitution.org/raining_gems.html
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
The rangeguide site is one of the stranger quackery type sites I have seen in a while. Some searching would likely find some decent sites out there
with real information on microwaves and diamonds. The peanut butter does not seem like a great idea (but can work), the scientist in japan who made
diamond dust used very pure graphite dust. Some of the links on that site make me wonder, like the one talking about the energy machine for improved
health where they mention patents by dial as if this gives credentials. Looking at the patents tells a different story, I have no idea how tesla
turbine technology gives anyone specail information on making multiwave machines (which I think are also quackery). Even scarier is the cult overtones
with links to all the wonderful ways you can spend your money there on all the "miracles" they have invented. I think the only miracle they
have is the fact that anyone would send them a penny.
You can always tell a scam site by the choice of links to spend money and the lack of any real technical information. Of course this is due to the
need to protect their "secrets". As I mentioned before it is sad to see a small technical truth altered into money making scams by adding a
wealth of gibberish in place of real science.
I forgot to mention but the diamond dust has real world application in coatings for drills and cutting wheels, and also abrasives. There is actually
real money in microwave diamond dust.
[Edited on 18-10-2005 by IrC]
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rogue chemist
| Quote: |
Hudson's research has led him to believe that ingesting the manna enabled the preists to approach the Ark of the Covenant without being killed.
|
|
Hmm Dave Hudson? As in ORME?
Tim
|
|
|
denatured
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 7-8-2004
Location: -
Member Is Offline
Mood: HCl 50%?
|
|
My brother told me that funny story here
EDIT : even if you make diamonds that way ... it will be very bad quality and sold cheaply.
[Edited on 18-10-2005 by alnokta]
|
|
|
jpsmith123
International Hazard
Posts: 764
Registered: 24-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here's an interesting patent regarding diamond film by a CVD process that uses a water-alcohol vapor mixture.
Apparently the file is too big to upload here. The patent number is: 5418018.
[Edited on 19-10-2005 by jpsmith123]
|
|
|
Quince
International Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Did anyone here actually try any of these methods? Diamond dust is very useful for tools such as used for jewellery and glass work.
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
Hermes_Trismegistus
International Hazard
Posts: 602
Registered: 27-11-2003
Location: Greece, Ancient
Member Is Offline
Mood: conformation:ga
|
|
Robert Wentworf Jr. of the GE superpressure team was able to make diamonds out of peanut butter (as a lark) but I really don't see this internet
quack panning out.
I don't know much about this CVD process except a blurb in my chemistry textbook that mentioned it is now being used to create the most high
quality tweeters for audiophiles! And that seems rather a peculiar use indeed.
And after doing a little research on the aforementioned Dave Hudson; I can now confidently propose that
Dave Hudson + ORMUS = Nutbar Extraordinaire!
[Edited on 24-10-2005 by Hermes_Trismegistus]
Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win: you\'re still retarded.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Wasn't the "Nutbar Extraordinaire!" the things I used to eat while climbing around in the Grand Canyon? IIRC they were very tasty!
[Edited on 25-10-2005 by IrC]
|
|
|
Quince
International Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Hermes_Trismegistus
is now being used to create the most high quality tweeters for audiophiles! |
As an audiophile, I can tell you that the best tweeters were created before the end of the 1970s.
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
uber luminal
Hazard to Others
Posts: 124
Registered: 25-8-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I really hope this isn't an april fools thing, which I am arguing.
CVD doesnt make any sense for making diamonds, unless you 1. already HAVE a diamond and just want to make it larger, 2. use a gaseous chemical
reaction that results in carbon as a precipitate, with a catalyst that forces the ZnS structure, 3. (2. would also need this), use an atmosphere that
was ideal to force carbon into a zinc blende structure.
my vote is that this microwave thing is bunk. How would you even test the resulting dust?
I don't think you can do your own CVD in a microwave... at least not with carbon. You would actually need to decrease the internal pressure quite
a bit to get mobile carbon atoms.
Carbon will want to form into the most stable state. And for this magnitude PT I would predict carbon nodules or even amorphous carbon would be the
resultant dust, if at standard pressure. But not diamonds. Hell, if this was honestly true, Diamond abrasion tools would the same price as other
abrasives.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I clearly remember all the articles in journals, newspapers, etc. in the 80's but have looked around a while and cannot find anything useful to
post here on the subject, but a Japanese scientist reached fame with carbon and microwaves. Too bad the internet was unborn at the time as then there
may still be things around to read. I do not have time to search microfilm records but you never know.
While you are waiting for astounding revealations from me (or not), here are some patents to read:
PAT. NO. Title
-------------------------------------------------------
6,461,692 Chemical vapor deposition method and chemical vapor deposition apparatus
6,342,195 Method for synthesizing solids such as diamond and products produced thereby
H1,792 Selection of crystal orientation in diamond film chemical vapor deposition
5,882,740 Method of producing diamond of controlled quality and product produced thereby
5,863,606 Method for producing diamond coated member
5,840,427 Method for making corrosion resistant electrical components
5,800,879 Deposition of high quality diamond film on refractory nitride
5,624,719 Process for synthesizing diamond in a vapor phase
5,571,616 Ultrasmooth adherent diamond film coated article and method for making same
5,571,615 Ultrasmooth adherent diamond film coated article and method for making same
5,540,904 Isotopically-pure carbon-12 or carbon-13 polycrystalline diamond
5,510,157 Method of producing diamond of controlled quality
5,415,126 Method of forming crystalline silicon carbide coatings at low temperatures
5,380,516 Process for synthesizing diamond in a vapor phase
4,985,227 Method for synthesis or diamond
|
|
|
FrankRizzo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 201
Registered: 9-2-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I’m sorry, but being an audiophile is just another type of quackery. Since the listening environment is a creation of your own brain, your
experience is nothing but subjective. If you've convinced yourself that those '60's "reference" tweeters are producing the
best sound, you'll hear it plain and simple.
..and now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
| Quote: | Originally posted by Quince
| Quote: | Originally posted by Hermes_Trismegistus
is now being used to create the most high quality tweeters for audiophiles! |
As an audiophile, I can tell you that the best tweeters were created before the end of the 1970s. |
|
|
|
Quince
International Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Nonsense. First of all, haven't you ever heard of blind testing? That completely eliminates any possible subjectivity/psychological bias.
As for the speakers I mentioned, you all-too-quick-to-spit-out-your-uninformed-opinion ignoramus, it has nothing to do with personal preference
(I've never even heard them; indeed, very few people actually have). I was talking about the physically most accurate speakers, which modulate a
DC glow discharge to create sound (for example, US4219705). I've seen the measurements of frequency response and the waterfall plots, and
nothing since has come close. Of course, given the use of helium, it wasn't very practical, thus the short life in the market. The point is
that they are the perfect speakers (short of a direct neural link to the auditory nerve) since the virtual lack of inertia of the plasma is
incomparable to any other sound driver that has been tried and has to compensate for it.
Of course, there is plenty of quackery in audiophilia, much fueled by snake oil marketing practices. But, there is peer-reviewed research showing
that the traditional summary measures of distortion, THD (total harmonic distortion), and IMD (intermodulation distortion), in general do
not correlate with perceptions (in blind tests), which shows that though these two figures have been minimized in modern equipment,
there's much more to be done to improve results -- there isn't even a perceptually significant metric for audio quality yet (again, with
perception measured in blind tests, so subjectivity is eliminated); it's no accident that the Audio Engineering Society isn't defunct yet.
Just like a non-blind listening test isn't a valid test, neither is an instrument-based measurement, unless that measurement has been shown to
correlate with blind listening tests. The analogy is the drug industry -- you always have human trials, you can't just measure some chemistry of
the substance.
[Edited on 25-10-2005 by Quince]
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
In the 60's Popular Electronics ran an article about building a flame loudspeaker, I remember trying. A torch flame between two electrodes, with
some real crappy glass in there to turn the flame Na yellow (the crappier the glass the better) to ionize the flame, and two tungsten electrodes were
wired to a plate modulation transformer, and two more could be added as high voltage bias to establish a current flow of high voltage in the flame.
Then you cranked up your old tube type stereo with a 45 of Jimi Hendrix as loud as it would go and fed it into the low Z side of the transformer. It
sounded like crap with momentary bursts of really good audio. Come to think of it my stereo sounded like just as much crap with it's speakers but
nobody noticed.
Hey, it WAS the 60's don't you know.
As an afterthought, by the late 60's I built two speaker cabinets 3 feet by 4 feet by 6 feet high, one inch thick wood, many 15 inch, 8 inch, and
6 inch speakers and 4 Jensen tweeter horns, porting, insulation, crossovers, and whatever the hell else I could find at B.A. in K.C.M.O., each of two
cabinets identical. Then my stereo no longer sounded like crap. But the police were there many times. I still remember those tweeters and no, I
don't think any of my stereo stuff today comes close to those 80W horns. In fact they keep cracking the piezo's, I have replaced the modern
horns several times. I bet any amount of money that whoever still has those old cabinets can still use them and the same 60's horns are in there.
|
|
|
Quince
International Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by IrC
It sounded like crap with momentary bursts of really good audio. Come to think of it my stereo sounded like just as much crap with it's speakers
but nobody noticed. |
Well, you can't just throw stuff together and assume that a current flow through the gas is all you need. You have to calculate exactly what
properties the plasma needs to reproduce sound right. That's why it took a plasma researcher (who wrote the patent I mentioned). For example,
the discharge thickness needs to be less than the shortest wavelength to be rerpoduced, the shape must be designed for the proper sound field
radiative pattern, the thermal relaxation must vary in such a way that integrating over each region with a different frequency peak gives a flat
response, an operating point needs to be chosen with a good tradeoff between power and distortion, etc.
And no transformers in the signal path. Plenty of tubes that can drive it directly (I'm using 4X150A, small forced-air cooling transmitter
tetrodes).
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
You are right no doubt, but 40 years ago the data was a little hard to come by. Not much was known, and what little there was resided in secret labs
as the entire subject stemmed from a classified project to introduce jet exaust noise in the burning output (audio modulation out of phase) in
attempts to make low to no noise stealth jet engines. So their electrodes were modulating the jet exaust aided by a fuel additive which made an ion
rich exaust, in the hopes that sensors hearing the exaust would then modulate it 180 out to reduce the jet noise. It was not public information, other
than the IDEA of flame loudspeakers and the hope of making quiet commercial airliners, which also were in the mystery world. Actually, the years I
spent reading all available information on physics and plasmas stemmed from my curiosity of the old article about the speaker idea. I wish I knew then
what I know now. Don't we all?
|
|
|
Quince
International Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Actually, nowadays it's possible to avoid the simplifying approximations Hill made in the patent calculations, and do numeric simulations to
figure out how to optimize this. It could start as simple as throwing in the equations he started from in the patent into Matlab+Maple or
Mathematica, though I've been too lazy to do it, and would rather spend the time playing with the plasma, trial and error... I'm reminded
of how glad I was to have my TI-89 calculator during calculus exams a few years back. The prof didn't know calculators had symbolic solvers,
LOL. Those were the days...
[Edited on 26-10-2005 by Quince]
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
FrankRizzo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 201
Registered: 9-2-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Quince
As for the speakers I mentioned, you all-too-quick-to-spit-out-your-uninformed-opinion ignoramus, </snip>
[Edited on 25-10-2005 by Quince] |
Guilty as charged. Sorry 'bout that bud, it's a knee jerk reaction when someone claims to be an 'audiophile.' Had I known that
you were talking about plasma loudspeakers...
I imagine that you've seen this site:Ulrich Haumann's DIY PLASMA TWEETER
Replacement plasma cells for the old Ionovac (not Hill Plasmatronics thou):
http://www.ionovac.com/
|
|
|
Quince
International Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sorry about calling you an ignoramus.
The ionic speakers you mentioned have five problems due to the use of a corona discharge instead of a glow discharge as Hill did:
a) noisier
b) more IMD
c) uneven frequency response due to lack of the control I mentioned in my post above
d) only usable as tweeters (the glow discharge can go down into the mids)
e) much more O3 and NOx (and possibly more UV)
Moreover, the use of RF to drive the discharge makes for a huge amout of interference to nearby equipment. Nowadays it seems only the German company
Acapella uses this technology in their $2500 a piece tweeters.
BTW, there existed a very few plasma headphones. There's a description with graphs here:
http://membres.lycos.fr/plasmapropulsion/Industrial_issues/P...
With headphones, it's reasonable to cover the full frequency range. These things had better numbers than the current king of the hill, the Stax
Omega II electrostatic headphones ($2000, but I've auditioned them and it's worth it, just that the amplifier's not very good,
there's a better and DIY design here).
I'm guessing Hill's glow discharge approach will also work with headphones, but the issue of heat needs to be addressed unless you want to
cook your ears.
A completely different type of corona discharge driver was made as a prototype by Nelson Pass, and put Pass in emergency due to the huge O3 produced.
Basically it was a grid of corona wires creating a vertical plane of ionized air, sitting between two electrode grids driven differentially. Kind of
like an electrostatic speaker but with ionized air instead of a membrane. This has an advantage over the Plasmatronics in that it can cover the whole
frequency range without needing 10+ kW, but it obviously is not very practical. I'm speculating here, but this should be doable with a glow
discharge by using a large array of microhollow cathode discharges. Unfortunately, I don't have anything like the resources to make a
prototype...
[Edited on 27-10-2005 by Quince]
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
DrP
International Hazard
Posts: 625
Registered: 28-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: exothermic
|
|
I very much doubt, hmm... in fact i think i'm certain that this will not work at all..........
...However, has anyone actually tried this yet for a laugh???? 
|
|
|
Quince
International Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What won't work? A series of things were mentioned here. We can't read your mind, so be more clear with your comments, or don't post
at all.
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
