> The real novelty is in the use of carbon from dead relatives to make a
> "wearable legacy" in the form of a diamond. So, if you just can't wait
> to wear grandma on your ring finger or really remember your dog Spike,
> look at this website:
> http://www.lifegem.com/
> studyandjobs[at]yahoo.com wrote:
> > Diamonds can now be made in laboratories by Scientists???
> > > Diamonds can now be made in laboratories and can be used for very
> > unusual purposes.
> > http://www.studyandjobs.com/diamond.html
> > > or visit
> > http://www.studyandjobs.com/basicscience_study.htm
> > > regards
Isn't that something like a graven image?

> I'm surprised, though. Quartz has the same structure, yet it is
> birefringent.

> Diamonds can now be made in laboratories by Scientists???
> Diamonds can now be made in laboratories and can be used for very
> unusual purposes.
> http://www.studyandjobs.com/diamond.html
> or visit
> http://www.studyandjobs.com/basicscience_study.htm
> regards

> Being a cubic crystal, diamond is not birefrinent.

> Also, sapphire seems like a very good lens material, because it has not
> only a high index, but low dispersion. Diamond has a high dispersion -
> and isn't it birefringent too?

> Diamond lense are already here about $1700 each and the
> company Sixth Element is making them, wild quess who owns them. Thats
> right the De Beers, here is a site with a PDF file talking about them.
> By the way Intel also uses a lense version for IC analysis on the new
> emmi instruments. Enjoy.

> Erik Max Francis wrote:
> > Peter Trei wrote:
> > > > It's my suspicion that when the patents run out, around
> > > 15-20 years from now, the price of diamonds will finally
> > > fall to a realistic level, and deBeers will pack up shop.
> > > I kind of doubt it. A lot of people who want diamonds for jewelry want
> > them because they're expensive, not because they're just diamonds. All
> > De Beers has to do is keep pumping the idea that their diamonds are what
> > the consumers want and artificial diamonds are fake, regardless of
> > whether they're indistinguishable. De Beers already has methods of
> > tracking the authenticity of their diamonds, so whether you can't tell
> > them apart is really irrelevant in that respect.
> > > Diamonds for industrial purposes is another thing, but there already De
> > Beers doesn't have a lock on that market.
> The Wikipedia article on "Synthetic Diamond" is informative.
> You might want to look at Apollo Diamond
> http://www.apollodiamond.com/ who say they will start
> selling synthetic colorless diamonds this year.
> Gemesis http://www.gemesis.com/home.htm is specializing on
> colored diamonds, which actually command a higher price than
> mined ones.
> The current "custom" of diamond engagement rings actually only
> dates back to an advertising campaign by deBeers in the 1940s.
> When its possible to buy synthetic diamond jewelry for a
> fraction of the current price, and the stones are
> distinguishable from mined stones by (a) their lack of
> flaws, (b) or by using lab equipment, deBeers is going to
> have a real problem on its hands. Most people simply won't
> care.
> Peter Trei

> Peter Trei wrote:
> > It's my suspicion that when the patents run out, around
> > 15-20 years from now, the price of diamonds will finally
> > fall to a realistic level, and deBeers will pack up shop.
> I kind of doubt it. A lot of people who want diamonds for jewelry want
> them because they're expensive, not because they're just diamonds. All
> De Beers has to do is keep pumping the idea that their diamonds are what
> the consumers want and artificial diamonds are fake, regardless of
> whether they're indistinguishable. De Beers already has methods of
> tracking the authenticity of their diamonds, so whether you can't tell
> them apart is really irrelevant in that respect.
> Diamonds for industrial purposes is another thing, but there already De
> Beers doesn't have a lock on that market.

> On 6/25/06 9:33 PM, in article
> 1151296424.239616.62670[at]m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,
> "studyandjobs[at]yahoo.com" <studyandjobs[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Diamonds can now be made in laboratories by Scientists???
> > > Diamonds can now be made in laboratories and can be used for very
> > unusual purposes.
> > http://www.studyandjobs.com/diamond.html
> > > or visit
> > http://www.studyandjobs.com/basicscience_study.htm
> > > regards
> > If it should ever come to that, diamond lenses would become the lightest and
> highest index lens material. The would impervious to scratching. The biggest
> drawback would be the design and application of a decent antireflection
> coating. Without a coating, reflectivity at each surface would be about 17%.
> Chromatic aberration might be a problem.
> Even so, based upon posts here, people will be complaining about thick
> lenses and want lighter ones as well.
> Bill
> -- Ferme le Bush

> Erik Max Francis wrote:
> > I kind of doubt it. A lot of people who want diamonds for jewelry want
> > them because they're expensive, not because they're just diamonds. All
> > De Beers has to do is keep pumping the idea that their diamonds are what
> > the consumers want and artificial diamonds are fake, regardless of
> > whether they're indistinguishable. De Beers already has methods of
> > tracking the authenticity of their diamonds, so whether you can't tell
> > them apart is really irrelevant in that respect.
> In addition: suppose you have a small start-up company that produces
> diamond in large crystals. Do you try to compete in an established
> market of luxury baubles already dominated by De Beers, or do you
> target the market for high temperature semiconductors, radiation
> detectors, and lasers which is currently wide open? The later requires
> moderately priced materials that can compete with silicon, silicon
> carbide, and Nd:YAG. I know I'd try to make my fortune by touting my
> product as a superior material for technological applications, and if
> flooding the jewelry market with inexpensive diamonds was a by-product
> of this, then so much the better.
> Luke