New Material Harder Than Diamond 450
h4x0r-3l337 writes "Diamond is no longer the hardest substance known to man. Scientists have created a new material, called "aggregated diamond nanorods" by compressing carbon-60 under high heat. From the article: 'The hardness of a material is measured by its isothermal bulk modulus. Aggregated diamond nanorods have a modulus of 491 gigapascals (GPa), compared with 442 GPa for conventional diamond.'"
Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, synthetic diamonds have been on the market for a while now. In fact, my sister just bought a ring with one in it.
To all the posters making jokes about thier wives (Score:1, Insightful)
Why are you giving us the modulus? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about giving us figures for hardness? Like the Brinell Hardness Number or the results of the Rockwell hardness test?
Re:Diamonds =/= Diamonds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Naming (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh Moh!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing that's sort of what you meant, right? That's interesting, because my girlfriend wrote a linguistics term paper last spring about how synthetic diamond manufacturers need to call their product something more appealing than "synthetic" (a word which doesn't exactly have glamorous connotations). It would suck for them if they finally realized they shouldn't call their product "synthetic" but were quickly forbidden to use the word "diamonds" in the first place.
Re:Possible uses? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Possible uses? (Score:4, Insightful)
Synthetic connotes "fake", which manufactured diamonds certainly are not.
--
BMO
Re:Does that mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Low-pressure construction? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean.. (Score:2, Insightful)
On the contrary, supply and demand has everything to do with the diamond market. You restrict supply by cornering the market, simultaneously bolstering demand through advertising, and prices increase, in accordance to the law of supply and demand.
No good instructional computer languages (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too bad; Pascal was a good choice for an instructional language. Straightforward syntax and usable for real-world problems.
I think that the move to Java for introductory programming classes is very depressing. What people wanted was a "safe C", so that beginners didn't have to worry about bizarre misbehavior in their programs. Java, however, is a horrible choice for a teaching language, as it brings an entire raft of crap along with it, including all the OO crap, masses of library code, fat abstraction layers, and so forth. I've seen people take intro programming classes in Java and come out with some vague memories of some Java terminology, but not having learned anything about algorithms or structured thinking because they're busy struggling with all of the nonsense in Java.
The older I get, the more I think that Knuth is right about wanting CS classes to be taught in assembly.