Diamonds are soft and other scientific missunderstandings
- Thread starter OdeFinn
- 85 comments
- 4,321 views
- 72
- New Zealand
This thread went from strange to E. Henry Thripshaw in no time.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That depends on "if you believe air is soft because it can transfer sound waves". Which nobody does. Air is 'soft' because it is a molecularly-dispersed gas and because in our normal understanding of the substance it's at 200+ Kelvin. The ability of air to allow sound to pass across it has nothing to do with a 'softness' judgement. What you've done is come up with an interesting theory that doesn't hold any water (or air, or carbon) on investigation.
The more interesting questions are about how sound works (in several forms) at a theoretical 0K, if it can work at all without constituting heat.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I think the answer to that would be something along the lines of, "Head soft also because particle movement identical simple conclusion sound can't bend energy wave so must be soft. Two softs make hard reaction. Head hurt...
I love this thread.
You want to know whether a diamond is hard or not?
Just slam your forehead with it. There's your answer.
"
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Ode... what sort of "scale" of hardness are we talking about? Can you perhaps give us an example of something that is hard, and why it is?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Sim racing physics...
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I think you're mistaking him for someone that will give you a rational answer. See the previous two pages if you want examples of how he describes "why" something is hard.
Known thing, but not relevant to this, or doesn't change main "claim".
Orginal argument comes bit further back on history and it is exaggerated on the way, doesn't make it "wrong", but people are constantly spreading context wider.
I have just good laugh on this, that's enough for me, expressing this deeper on English is always making things funnier, some just want to read my texts as devil reading bible, and I understand why, but don't care.
You're clearly defining soft different then we usually do. And since you didn't explain what you meant by soft I can only assume you did this on purpose to provocate people.
I thibk you're idea of soft and hard is next to useless. It's interesting to know particles move it's astonishing as the shape of the solid stays the same. But even a solid is something strange when you don't realise how it works as 90% of solids is just empty space
(i could be wrong about the exact percentage but it was a big chunk) So while it's 'nice' to think about softness in that has no value in assessing the properties of said material.
No devils or bibels involved....
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I've been having fun trying to decipher their meaning. I am hoping for something fun in the answer. And i am curious as to what @OdeFinn thinks is harder to draw up am opinion on why diamonds are soft. To my knowledge, diamonds are currently the strongest known naturally occurring material in the universe. On top of that there are only two man made materials that are considered harder. Though both are not mohs harder, but rather indention resistant on the rockwell hardness scale. Those being graphene nanotubes, and wurtzite boron nitride. The latter being a lab made material with the same structure as a diamond.
So surely... there has got to be some quantification to this other than...
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That's quite interesting, I wasn't aware that anything had been discovered harder than diamond. It raises some interesting questions about how the tests were done, as Rockwell A is a similar test procedure to Mohs; it's a diamond versus the test specimen. I guess the test pieces must have deformed the diamond, which is pretty cool.
🤬 standing next to the press required to generate those pressures though.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I've used them before when I did my degree with metallurgy, it's not that bad, just pay attention like any scientific tool. I found using the torque test for Engineering more scary than the Rockwell. Hell plasma cutting and using massive band saws were probably the most scary.
Last edited:
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I guess it depends how big the sample is. I used to work in a concrete lab and we'd scare the snot out of newbies and visitors by letting them stand beside the compression tester while testing a 100+MPa sample. There's an inch of lexan between them and the tester so no danger, but the bang as the sample fails tends to make everyone check they haven't filled their undies.
It just makes you aware how much energy there actually is in a press and what it could do if it failed in the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, band saws are worrying too, but in a different way. I find presses more like a loaded spring, kinda fine but there's always that thought of what if all that energy got out at once?
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Its definitely about comfort levels. Band saws and plasma cutters dont bother me at all. I definitely jumped the first time i performed a tensile test though. Using an autozone spring compressor... that keeps me puckered...
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
It was a mid size Rockwell machine and older with the hand crank. So you had to be slow and aware with it or you'd screw up the test. What you've described reminds me of the bending tests done on weld sample, or taking sample of clean metal and doing tensile tests. When the much bigger slaps were tested they'd make a massive bang.
But yeah a ton of energy, good thing the materials are super soft and if it did fail in the wrong way it would of been tossing out marshmallows chunks, if you asked the OP that is.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,782
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
This thread is hilarious and horrifying at the same time. How can someone have such a terrible grasp of basic science?
While we've got a thread about misunderstandings - being exposed to the vacuum of space would not result in a person exploding. They would just go into shock, pass out, then die very quickly.
While we've got a thread about misunderstandings - being exposed to the vacuum of space would not result in a person exploding. They would just go into shock, pass out, then die very quickly.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Wait, so... Quaids face ballooning up on Mars wasn't an accurate depiction?
- 6,963
- South Africa
...Most likely. Let's ask Elon Musk to try it out once he gets to Mars. He'll probably tweet the results. Or something.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,782
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
Very inaccurate.
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
What should it do? My understanding was that the low pressure tended to form gas bubbles all through your body, which can make it swell immensely. Kind of like the bends, but extreme to the max.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,782
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
Actually, now that I do some reading on this...I would say the thing with Quaid is a bit of a stretch.
https://www.space.com/30066-what-happens-to-unprotected-body-in-outer-space.html
Another source for this topic.
