This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Shirayuki wrote on 2010-12-22 22:14
Quote from Shironi;257203:
I think he meant 100cm = 1 metre
:D
WHAT.
Now I get it :(
-
Fracture wrote on 2010-12-23 05:12
Quote from MikeHo;258001:
Graphite is more stable then diamond and because all substances want to go to its most stable form all diamond will eventually convert itself into carbon Graphite.
But Diamonds do have really strong bonds. So the process does take a long time.
I think the confusion came in on our definition of instability as well as in to what substance.
Oh, the joys of entropy. But yes, it's very stable due only to the infinite-tetrahedric bond structure, even though it's more complex than, for instance, graphite or C60.
-
MikeHo wrote on 2010-12-23 05:46
Quote from Fracture;258582:
Oh, the joys of entropy. But yes, it's very stable due only to the infinite-tetrahedric bond structure, even though it's more complex than, for instance, graphite or C60.
Yes you are quite correct. My definition of Instability is a substance at a higher energy level which wants to move to a lower energy level. So to me even though Diamonds are very strong and take a very long time to degrade. Diamonds are not forever and will eventually return to Graphite. So they are theoretically unstable to graphite but to a minimal extent. The use of "very" was not a correct choice of words. But yes the Crystal Structure does make Diamonds extremely strong due to the extremely small tight packed atoms.
-
Iyasenu wrote on 2010-12-23 06:39
SUCH TECHNO MUMBO JUMBO I HAVE NO CLUE!
HOW MANY DIAMONDS NOW ARCHI?
-
Fracture wrote on 2010-12-23 08:58
Quote from MikeHo;258643:
Yes you are quite correct. My definition of Instability is a substance at a higher energy level which wants to move to a lower energy level. So to me even though Diamonds are very strong and take a very long time to degrade. Diamonds are not forever and will eventually return to Graphite. So they are theoretically unstable to graphite but to a minimal extent. The use of "very" was not a correct choice of words. But yes the Crystal Structure does make Diamonds extremely strong due to the extremely small tight packed atoms.
Mhm. Personally I regard stability as the half-life of a given substance form. While less stable then graphite in a relative manner, it's still very stable, especially compared to weaker carbon arrangements.
@Iyasenu Entropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropy.
-
Iyasenu wrote on 2010-12-23 09:02
Quote from Fracture;258978:
Mhm. Personally I regard stability as the half-life of a given substance form. While less stable then graphite in a relative manner, it's still very stable, especially compared to weaker carbon arrangements.
@Iyasenu Entropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropyentropy.
SHARP MIND FAILED!
COULDN'T TELL WHAT'S GOING ON!
-
Jando wrote on 2010-12-23 09:25
Wish you were in Mari so I could sell you the 10 cm diamond I just got from mystery box.
-
Archibald wrote on 2010-12-23 09:26
While geology/chemistry is interesting and neat, showing off and derailing the thread, not so much.
-
MikeHo wrote on 2010-12-23 09:49
Quote from Archibald;258996:
While geology/chemistry is interesting and neat, showing off and derailing the thread, not so much.
Sorry! Back on topic then whens your ego going to get the feast of a life time (Like when do you hope to get it to cap? in next couple weeks?)? Also what type of spirit/weapon is your ego?
-
Jando wrote on 2010-12-23 10:01
You have to tell us the stats on your ego before and after you feed it all those diamonds.
-
Archibald wrote on 2010-12-23 17:07
before is easy. I am almost to all 20 even. Once I get to 20 I'll start on the smaller diamonds and work my way up.
-
Exi wrote on 2010-12-23 22:05
I shall not be outdone. Lets get this **** started shall we? ;)
-
Fracture wrote on 2010-12-23 23:58
Quote from Archibald;258996:
While geology/chemistry is interesting and neat, showing off and derailing the thread, not so much.
Derailing, yes, showing off, no. If I wanted to show off I'd get into quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. :x
OT: What's the largest diamond you've got?
-
Archibald wrote on 2010-12-24 00:41
Quote from Fracture;259838:
Derailing, yes, showing off, no. If I wanted to show off I'd get into quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. :x
OT: What's the largest diamond you've got?
OT 5 x 10cm.
Off: And by all means please tell me how to use Planck's principles on photo electronics in predicting quantum strings, and how we can apply those formulai to design quatumn machines. I was having trouble with that 15 years ago.
And why bother with hiesenburg?
-
Fracture wrote on 2010-12-24 00:57
Quote from Archibald;259898:
OT 5 x 10cm.
Off: And by all means please tell me how to use Planck's principles on photo electronics in predicting quantum strings, and how we can apply those formulai to design quatumn machines. I was having trouble with that 15 years ago.
And why bother with hiesenburg?
No, 'cause we'd get told off for getting off topic as that would result in a lot of back-and-forth. And I'd only bother with Hiesenburg because, for reasons I cannot fathom, most of my class
doesn't get it. I see nothing within his principle that doesn't make sense. I can understand having issues with electrons and photons being in two places at once, but not with an inverse relationship between accuracies of speed and direction.
OT: Seems 10cm is as big as they get then. Damn.