DailyDirt: Diamonds, With Lucy, In The Sky

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Carbon comes in several allotropes: graphene, diamond, nanotubes, buckyballs, nanofoam etc. Some forms are easier to manufacture than others, but someday we might have diamond-based semiconductors or diamond-based quantum computers. If you like shiny minerals, here are just a few interesting links on diamonds. By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 5:06pm

    Qubits for seconds

    Seconds!? Not milliseconds or microseconds?

    Normal ram has to be 'refreshed' every 50 (give a or take a few dozen) milliseconds or it forgets its data--so a couple seconds would make it awesome RAM!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rob, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 6:21pm

      Re: Qubits for seconds

      There are plenty of non-volatile RAM technologies out there, as well as volatile RAM technologies that don't need to be refreshed, like SRAM. DRAM just does a better job of getting performance and size out of the same dollar.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 6:58pm

    Diamond jewelry - good example of an artificial market.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 8:07pm

    -- weighs in at about 150 carats and $68 million.

    WOW,, how much does $68 Million weigh ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    teka, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 8:11pm

    I thought that diamond tended to be brittle. It is Hard, not Strong or tough. That ring would probably shatter if it fell on a tile floor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 8:23pm

      Re:

      "Brittle", in materials terms, just means it breaks instead of bending. Lack of deformation does not mean that it falls apart when dropped. That tile floor will break before the ring does.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        teka, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 11:12pm

        Re: Re:

        I know what brittle means.

        I also know, from a friend who does amateur jewelry work, that the moderate pressure of fitting a diamond into a setting can easily chip and crack it. Add that to the giant structure of the ring and all the places where pressure would be troublesome.. Just as well that it will probably never be worn.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 8:43pm

    The experimental quantum-grade diamond is 99.99 percent pure carbon 12 (DIAMOND), the most common isotope of the element. But the crystal also contains a small amount of the heavier isotope carbon 13 (NOT DIAMOND) as well as implanted nitrogen ions (NOT DIAMOND) that form defects in the diamond lattice known as nitrogen vacancy centers. Both impurities have certain quantum benefits.

    So the qubits are not 'stored in a diamond' they are stored in Carbon 13 and nitrogen ions..

    Consider a transistor in a plastic case, do you write that the transistor works because it is in a plastic case ?

    "my computer works because the box it is housed in is metal !!"

    Dont even bother to consider that "time" and qubits have a significantly different relationship to each other compared to 'normal' matter.

    If something came be in two states (0 and 1) at any one time (superposition), then time itself ceases to be a significant factor. You simply cannot equate electronic computer concepts (like DRAM) to how a quantum computer could possibly operate.

    You also might be able to store the state of a qubit over time, but you still need super cold equipment to read or write or 'program' information

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 8:47pm

      Re:

      That not to say that I dont think the work this group is doing is amazing, cutting edge, and possibly world changing work.

      it's all a part of the development of what hopefully will be increadable computing power, and work like that will or could make that possible sooner rather than later.

      It's just that TD's take on it was flawed as usual..

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 8:57pm

      Re: “carbon 13 (NOT DIAMOND)”

      Isotopes of carbon are still carbon, and still just as diamond-y. They occupy exactly the same positions in the tetrahedral diamond lattice as carbon 12. Chemically they are virtually identical.

      Let’s put it this way: if living things can’t tell the difference between carbon 12, carbon 13 and carbon 14, why should a piece of rock?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:39pm

        Re: Re: “carbon 13 (NOT DIAMOND)”

        so you believe graphite is "diamond-y" !!!

        its position is irrelevent, it's still not diamond, even if it is IN a diamond.. is nitrogen 'diamond-y' as well ?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:13am

    And if it gets stuck on your finger, it'll be really hard to cut off without taking your finger with it....

    No. Not true. Also, silly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:29am

      Re: No. Not true. Also, silly.

      The taper of your fingers is such that it is easier to slip a ring on than off.

      Been there, done that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Rekrul, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:29pm

        Re: Re: No. Not true. Also, silly.

        The main reason that rings are harder to take off than to put on is that the skin bunches up when you try to pull it off.

        When you slide a ring on, the skin of your finger can't move very much since it only goes from your fingertip down to the base. However when you try to pull the ring off, the skin can move quite a bit more, and ends up getting bunched up at the knuckle.

        The solution for a stuck ring, in addition to using some kind of lubrication is to hold the skin taunt at the base of the finger while attempting to pull the ring off.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Rose M. Welch (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 3:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: No. Not true. Also, silly.

          The solution for a stuck ring, in addition to using some kind of lubrication is to hold the skin taunt at the base of the finger while attempting to pull the ring off.

          And on that note, please don't use your spit if you're going to hand the ring to someone else. That's just disgusting. Also, you can draw the skin taunt by slightly bending your finger.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rose M. Welch (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re: No. Not true. Also, silly.

        And if it gets stuck on your finger, it'll be really hard to cut off without taking your finger with it....

        Not slip off or take off. Cut off. Specifically.

        I used to manage a fine jewelry store, and we had to remove stuck rings on a regular basis. Most took a special little saw tool. Others, such as tungsten bands and this ring, require a C-clamp. Easy and relatively painless.

        Been there, done that.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    Diamonds can store qubits at room temperature for at least a couple seconds -- a pretty long time in the world of quantum physics.

    I'll file this right next to all the other advances that are going to revolutionize computers 'any day now', like IBM's manipulation of individual atoms...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This