Talk:Carbonado

There is also a small town called Carbonado in Washington State.

Some relevant quotes from the literature with citations
A fascinating aspect of carbonados is that there is no consensus about their origins, as illustrated by the quotes and citations below. The article has unduly emphasized a recent hypothesis.

Heaney, P. J., Vicenzi, E. P., and De, Subarnarekha, 2005, Strange diamonds: The mysterious origins of carbonado and framesite. Elements 1, pp. 85-89 “As this review illustrates, widely accepted genetic models for these diamond aggregates remain an unfulfilled challenge,”

Kagi, H., Sato, S., Akagi, T., and Kanda, H., 	2007, Generation history of carbonado inferred from photoluminescence spectra, cathodoluminescence imaging, and carbon-isotopic composition. American Mineralogist 92, pp. 217-224 “The CL halos are traces of radiation damage from radioactive nuclides. The texture of the haloes suggests that the radiation damage was a secondary event after formation of the carbonado diamonds.”

Konishi, H., Xu, H., Spicuzza, M., and Valley, J. W., 2008, Polycrystalline diamond inclusions in Jack Hills zircon: Carbonado?, Goldschmidt Conference Abstracts, p. A489 “Carbonado is widely thought to form by meteorite impact on terrestrial continental crust.”

Rondeau, B., Sautter, V., and Barjon, J., 2008, New columnar texture of carbonado: Cathodoluminescence study” in Diamond & Related Materials, in press, doi:10.1016/j.diamond.2008.04.006 “The origin of carbonado is still under debate. Several hypotheses have been proposed [Ref. 1 and references therein]: high-pressure origin (formation within the Earth's mantle, or during a meteoritic impact on the Earth’s surface) or low-pressure origin (formation by irradiation of an organic carbonaceous precursor, or by Chemical Vapor Deposition outside the solar system as ejecta from a dying star).” (Their Ref. 1 is Heaney et al. (2005), cited above) Omphacite (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to add this in...
New research says that the diamonds actually are from space. See http://www.physorg.com/news87577799.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrewHenson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

<>

consensus
Science isn't made of press releases... always be skeptical of scientists who say they have disproved all other theories simply by having evidence of their own. And might as well let things sit for a few days before bringing the revolution to Wikipedia :v).

Easy does it. Mind the POV. Potatoswatter 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the article had been thrown into disorder and screwed up, I attempted a small restructuring. If the new theory really is a POV issue, and remains unproven, someone will need to rewrite some of the statements made. I have no clue on the subject matter, and am merely copyediting what I could make out from the article content. SauliH 06:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

False information
My co-workers and I at the Canadian institute for research and development of crystalines have categorized this information as false, for it is not viable. We propose that immediate action is taken or we will take action ourselves. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.116.200.53 (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

A more recent study - Kagi et al. 2007, American Mineralogist 92 217-224, shows no evidence of an extra-terrestrial formation.

Most review articles on the subject, e.g. Heaney, P.J., Vicenzi, E.P., & De, S. 2005, Elements, 1, 85, place a low confidence in the extra-terrestrial hypothesis.

Also, the last two paragraphs on FTIR evidence for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis suggest that two different studies were done, but both paragraphs are summations of the same Garai et al. 2006 paper.

You might want to give the scientific literature 18-24 months to react to the Garai et al. 2006 study before presenting it as encyclopedic truth. Cwmagee 11:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just re-organized a bit to reduce the redundancy and remove some superlatives. Please add further sourced info from the the American Mineralogist and Elements references - I currently don't have access to them. Vsmith 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be a separate article on black diamonds. Not every black diamond is a carbonado. Boart is also a black diamond. Most gemstones that are sold today are actually near-white diamonds that are irradiated to alter the color. Probably also worth mentioning that hematite was once marketed as "black diamond." Apparently that's no longer legal and jewelers now call it "black diamond hematite."Dianalarose (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial origin hypothesis
The following paragraph was removed from the article until a proper source for it is found (i.e. published scientific literature):

"Supporters of an extraterrestrial origin of carbonados, such as Dr. Stephen Haggerty, a geoscientist from Florida International University, propose that their material source was a supernova which occurred at least 3.8 billion years ago. After coalescing and drifting through outer space for about one and a half billion years, a large mass fell to earth as a meteor approximately 2.3 billion years ago, possibly fragmenting during entry into the earth's atmosphere, and impacting in a region which would much later split into Brazil and the Central African Republic, the only two known locations of carbonado deposits.[ref] and see the associated video: [/ref]"

Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is plenty, search for Haggerty and carbonado. Will add later (got to go now).
 * Actually, some are already there - have a look at refs 3,4. Materialscientist (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Toughest?
The first line of the introduction states that carbonado is "the toughest form of natural diamond", but that characteristic is not addressed anywhere else in the article. I was expecting to find some discussion explaining what makes it tougher than other forms in "Unusual Properties", but the section instead appears to deal mostly with origins-related issues (even though there is a separate section for that). My guess is that the inclusions interrupt cleavage planes. (I have no idea if I have used anything close to the correct terminology there -- I know almost nothing of mineralogy or materials science.) Would anyone who has an explanation care to add it to the article? Starling2001 (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Carbonado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809204752/http://www.fiu.edu:80/~jgara002/research%20statement/carbonado/carbonado-infrared.htm to http://www.fiu.edu/~jgara002/research%20statement/carbonado/carbonado-infrared.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbonado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228141115/http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery_diamonds.htm to http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery_diamonds.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)