Ahhh...Dumb Question Time from WP

[Mako]

Curiously, the article makes two contradictory statements:

(1) There is absolutely no difference, down to the atomic layer, between natural diamonds and synthetic ones made with the new techniques,

(2) Natural diamonds have a diamond-shaped crystal structure; synthetic ones have a square crystal structure.

These statements cannot both be true. I am still jamming on other matters, but will look into this later.

Synthetic diamonds produced by current mfg processes also glow in UV light. So the claim that at the atomic level they are identical must be false (perhaps over optimistic is a more polite term).

CYa!
Mako

[ZOMBIE USER 6611]

Synthetic diamonds produced by current mfg processes also glow in UV light. So the claim that at the atomic level they are identical must be false (perhaps over optimistic is a more polite term).

The article mentioned that; and specifically, that the latest processes overcame this effect.

Just to confirm...

KeenSpace is still a dead guy, and has been for days, right? I've seen statements of "back on the air by (Friday afternoon) but I have not actually seen it back up. Everyone else having the same experience?

(And your own server was refusing connections earlier today, my friend.)

[Kellogg]

Diamonds:

Curious... Without having read the article, perhaps they're implying that
there is no difference between a synthetic diamond's diamond-diamond
carbon bonds than a natually formed diamond-diamond carbon bond.
Diamonds with any color have that color due to impurities.

Jenny's diamonds were made in semiconductor process equipment and
so are boron doped, which actually gives them a slight blueish tinge
(possibly aided by reflections from her sky blue flight jacket.)

But, those impurities will undoubtedly cause florescence and other
color changes. Thing is, a natural diamond with the same impurities
will have the same properties.

Keenspace woes:

Here's the latest message I've gotten from the KeenGuys:

From: Nate Stone <nate@keenspot.com>
Subject: Keenspace Update

Well, this has been a rough ride. The server, Schlock, is now officially
dead. Unfortunately, I was not able to complete the entire transfer
before it went down.

Of the 7300 accounts on Keenspace, 6007 were successfully transferred.
This leaves a bunch of accounts that were not transferred. At this point,
the best solution for these accounts is for us to create empty directory
structures and ask you, the artists, to upload your sites again.

So, if you can not ftp in, it's because your account is not set up yet.
We'll be setting them up shortly and you'll be able to load your site back
up.

Those of you who have hosted domains - we are working to reinstate your
domain redirection. These records were lost with the death of Schlock and
we have to rebuild them from an old backup. It will probably take the
remainder of the day.

It's really unfortunate because I was one minute from sending the lost
information to the new server when the entire internet went down last
night due to a Microsoft virus. The virus has had a massive effect and
crippled the entire internet for most of the night - check out
http://average.matrix.net for some interesting graphs.

Unfortunately, by the time I could get back into the server, the hard disk
had failed completely.

We're at least operational right now, but it will take a few days for
everything to smooth out. Please bear with us.

Thanks,
Nate

Just to let you all know, I *have* been able to FTP into the site
so there's no major catastrophe with the uploads. However, thus
far, I've not been able to get the system to run through the
update process. The comics are all in the queue up until
Wednesday (And I just finished coloring Friday's, so that'll get
put in there in a few minutes.)

Of course, I'm annoyed that the site is down, but I can't fault
the KeenGuys for not working on the problem.

Level Head, as far as I can see, the site is up, but it still display's
last Monday's strip. Very annoying, but patience should pay off.

I'm very sorry for the outage, but it's kind of out of my hands.
With luck, the KeenGuys will sort it out soon.

Thank you for your patience!

And thank MAKO for the alt site!

Scott

[ZOMBIE USER 6611]

Just to let you all know, I *have* been able to FTP into the site so there's no major catastrophe with the uploads...

I'm glad I asked. Netscape 7 running AdSubtract is completely prevented from accessing any KeenSpace webcomic.

However, IE does get in. How strange. It's the first time I've seen a KeenSpace site up for several days. KeenSpace does this on a regular basis, KeenSpot less so--figure out some way to look to a NetScape browser that they are off the air completely.

I wonder why.

[ZOMBIE USER 7666]

Understand the problems with KeenSpace and especially the virus problem that singled out servers and slowed the internet way down. It was reported on the national news media last night. The FBI is involved and will probably locate the Bozo who started it all. Once he serves a little jail time, he'll probably be hired on by some internet security firm--go figure.

Thank you for the additional information on Jenny's diamond necklace and the slight blue tint to the diamonds. It's little details like that that make a drawing even more interesting...BLAST IT! I think I just let the fox out of the bag. Shhh...you didn't hear a thing...you only think you heard something about a drawing...it was only a dream...go back to sleep.

[Kellogg]

Shhh...you didn't hear a thing...you only think you heard something about a drawing...it was only a dream...go back to sleep.

I know nothing!
I see nothing!
I hear nothing!
I know nothing!

Ooo! Neat!

Scott (completely ignorant) Kellogg

[Hortmage]

White Pony! Dabbling in water colors?

I'm gonna tell Florence! I'm gonna tell Florence!

(You hussy!)

[Nebulous Rikulau]

There is an article in the current (February 03) Scientific American that details the manufacturing processes of synthetic diamonds, and discusses the propietary technique used by a company called Debeers.

Curiously, the article makes two contradictory statements:

(1) There is absolutely no difference, down to the atomic layer, between natural diamonds and synthetic ones made with the new techniques,

(2) Natural diamonds have a diamond-shaped crystal structure; synthetic ones have a square crystal structure.

These statements cannot both be true. I am still jamming on other matters, but will look into this later.

The usual form of a diamond crystal is a regular octohedron. The complementary solid of the octohedron is a cube.

Many minerals have two, or more, crystal forms, even though the molecules are still arrayed the same way. This occurs when different faces, or edges of faces, are the preferred locations for the deposition of new molecules. The reasons for the differences, AFAIK, are poorly understood, but they can be a result of changes in temperature and saturation level of the crystalizing solution.

The conditions used in the creation of artificial diamonds might be different enough from those of natural diamond for the atoms to prefer to fill in the centers of the crystal faces, instead of expanding them. This would create cubical crystals, but the internal crystal structure would be the same as the more usual octohedrons.

As for the fluorescence of artificial diamonds, many natural diamonds also fluoresce under UV. Frex: The Hope Diamond fluoresces blue, while the other diamonds in the setting with it fluoresce red. The differing colors of fluorescence can be used to help identify the origins of the diamonds.

[Mako]

(And your own server was refusing connections earlier today, my friend.)

Indeed, I've been working on it today. It's on it's last legs due to kruft overload. Nothing a big magnet won't fix though I posted elsewhere about it in the Keensplat thread...

CYa!
Allen

[Kellogg]

Good points, Nebulous Rikulau!

(Post gets eaten... take two!)

I think part of it does indeed have to do with the crystal orientation.
Crystals tend to form in (1,1,1,) and (1,1,0) patterns, if dim memory
serves. I think it has more to do with the initial orientation of the
seed crystal that the diamond forms around.

Diamond crystal orientation will mainly affect the way the diamond
cleaves when they cut it to produce reflective facets for a jem stone.
(Or, in a semiconductor, how the diamond would interact with an
ion implantater for doping (inserting impurities) into the crystal
structure to form transistor junctions.) [In one orientation, the
crystal has open pathways that would allow high energy ions to
fly right through the crystal to unpredictable depths. In the other,
there are more atoms in the way, so the ions slow down more
predictably, and reproducibly, so you can create transistors more
reliably.)

Without having read the article, it sounds to me like there's some
aspect of diamond sales kept in the mind of the people talking.
DeBeers very much wants to protect the value of mined diamonds.
To suddenly have synthetic diamonds available that are just as
good as natural ones would not make them very happy.

Scott

[ZOMBIE USER 8511]

I'm glad I asked. Netscape 7 running AdSubtract is completely prevented from accessing any KeenSpace webcomic.

However, IE does get in. How strange. It's the first time I've seen a KeenSpace site up for several days. KeenSpace does this on a regular basis, KeenSpot less so--figure out some way to look to a NetScape browser that they are off the air completely.

I wonder why.

When I access a Keenspot or 'space site, with Netscape 4.75, and no adkiller, after a long delay, I'm getting a note that the browser couldn't find the site 'ad.keenspace.com' and was using the cached copy, waiting for an "OK". This is probably what's confusing AdSubtract.

Now, on all the sites not redirected from their own domain, I get:

You don't have permission to access / on this server.

and as has been noted, nothing has been updated since the crash. ::sigh::

[Mako]

and as has been noted, nothing has been updated since the crash. ::sigh::

At least you can get the latest 21CF strips from: http://www.hirezfox.com/ , nothing to be done for the KS strips lost inthe crash though, sigh...

[HugoFuchs]

My Turn! My Turn!
Here's <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2703diamond.html">NOVA's Bit on it</a>.
<a href="http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/debeersmillenniumdiamonds.html">DeBeer's</a> came up with <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonight/wnt001221_diamonds_feature.html">laser etching serial numbers</a> on all real diamonds.
Any light last longer in the synthetics, you can read why on the NOVA transcript. Florescent light is used on synthetic stones of other sorts and is because the people who grow them add a synthetic dye to distinguish them from the real stones. They get paid real well by the real stone industries to make sure they don't "forget" to add the dye.

I have this discussion it seems every few months with people.

I've got a gem book around here that covers all the various shapes of diamonds and their names with some cool pics. I'll try to locate it for you. All I can find on the web is modern cuts.

Until then here's <a href="http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/amber/go340/diamond.htm">a basic overall on diamonds</a>.
<a href=""http://pricescope.com/eightstar_beginning.asp>This article</a> adresses the modern cut of diamonds.
Here is <a href="http://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/prologue.htm">more on diamonds</a>.

[ZOMBIE USER 7666]

Diamonds may be a girl's best friend, but they're an artist's worst nightmare.

Almost finished with the pencil work. I've spent all day working on the detail of her outfit, her hair and that diamond necklace. If the original drawing, inks up and colors as nicely as the pencil work is so far...I'll let Mako have a High Rez copy to post on his website.

Scott? If there's anything you've been wanting to add to her blue outfit: seam lines, cuffs, buttons, logo lapel pin...let me know ASAP before I ink it. I sincerely believe you're going to like what you see when I finish the drawing for you.

I haven't forgotten my promise to you, my friend.

[Mako]

:D
My Turn! My Turn!
Here's <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2703diamond.html">NOVA's Bit on it</a>.
<a href="http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/debeersmillenniumdiamonds.html">DeBeer's</a> came up with <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonight/wnt001221_diamonds_feature.html">laser etching serial numbers</a> on all real diamonds.

Until then here's <a href="http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/amber/go340/diamond.htm">a basic overall on diamonds</a>.
<a href=""http://pricescope.com/eightstar_beginning.asp>This article</a> adresses the modern cut of diamonds.
Here is <a href="http://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/prologue.htm">more on diamonds</a>.

Facinating links Hugo, thank you!

Mako
Zzyzxian diamond in the rough

[Kellogg]

Hey, great links, Hugo Fuchs!

Since Jenny's diamonds are the result of some college projects and
materials experiments, they don't have serial numbers on them.
Consequently, they're not "Worth anything".

It's been my observation that a lot of folks own or wear things, just
because they're expensive. Jenny wears her diamonds for better
reasons than that:
1: They're pretty.
2: *She* made them.

There's also a bit of irony in it. After all, her diamonds are large
enough to go on a royal crown. If they were natural, they'd be
worth a fortune. If you laid them out, side by side with natural
diamonds, they'd be bigger, brighter, and prettier than most
natural ones, but because they're synthetic, they're not "Worth
anything".

Diamonds were originally valued because they're pretty and
very durable. Their value increased because of demand, and
economic need to support their valuation. It's a bit silly that
something that's newer, prettier and more durable would have
less value than something that's older and natural.

I just find the irony irresistably silly.

Scott

[Kellogg]

Diamonds may be a girl's best friend, but they're an artist's worst nightmare.

This may be why you find me drawing them as very simplified.

Scott? If there's anything you've been wanting to add to her blue outfit: seam lines, cuffs, buttons, logo lapel pin...let me know ASAP before I ink it. I sincerely believe you're going to like what you see when I finish the drawing for you.

I haven't forgotten my promise to you, my friend.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to seeing it!

I can't think of anything to add really. Her outfit is already as detailed
as I can comfortably manage. Remember Mark Stanley's comment
about saving the number of times he had to draw fingers by simplifying
people's hands? Factor that in with the relative compexity of Jenny's
outfit, and multiply it by the number of times I draw her and you'll see
what I mean.

Thanks! If this is half as nice as your Florence Ambrose art, this will
really be something!

Scott

[HugoFuchs]

Diamonds were originally valued because they're pretty and
very durable. Their value increased because of demand, and
economic need to support their valuation. It's a bit silly that
something that's newer, prettier and more durable would have
less value than something that's older and natural.

I just find the irony irresistably silly.

Scott

Thanks all, pays to be an informationaholic with internet access.

More notes.
There valued now because of:
1) Tradition
2) People think they look nice.
3) People think they have value.

Gems were valued in early times because:
1) They looked Pretty
2) They were thought to imbue a mystical effect - for diamonds it was protection.
3) They had decent cash value, where today resale on gemstones in average sizes is as low or lower than wholesale.

I personally prefer stones with color, and If I wanted rarity then I would go for <a href="http://www.gemhut.com/alex.htm">alexandrite</a>. Hmmmm, that would make a good present for our lioness hostess. It can be gotten as a "cat's eye" stone, it's rarity makes it worth money, and as #3 Jack has quite a large amount of financial entertainment resources. Still cheaper than a luxury sportscar like the ones wrecked by the former #3.
<img src="http://www.gemstone.org/images/01/Stones_Alex_ani.gif">

Finally <a href="http://www.gemhut.com/diamond.htm">HERE</a> you can see line drawings at the bottom of modern cuts. I'm still looking for where I put that gem book with the more antiquated designs.

[ZOMBIE USER 7666]

Thanks! If this is half as nice as your Florence Ambrose art, this will really be something!

Thank you Scott...I sincerely believe you won't be disappointed--in fact, I'm willing to bet you're going to be really surprised by her appearance in my art style.

I modeled her pose and attire from the January 22, 2003 strip; Panel #2.

The following is a link to a very rough copy of the pencil sketch. If you do not want to see it until after the artwork is completed, then don't click on the link. New Jenny Art from White Pony. Since this drawing is a rough sketch, please don't redistribute or post this artwork anywhere else. It still needs some more detail...then cleaned up...inked... and colored. I'm just letting those of you who want to see its progress, a chance to see it.

[ZOMBIE USER 7666]

Finally <a href="http://www.gemhut.com/diamond.htm">HERE</a> you can see line drawings at the bottom of modern cuts. I'm still looking for where I put that gem book with the more antiquated designs.

Thank you so very much for that link to the drawings of the diamond cuts. That was a HUGH help...Thank you, thank you, thank you...