In article ,
Tim Williams wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
I mentioned the problem of it subliming below the melting point.
And, it looks as though you used one of the extended ASCII characters
for degrees, which displays as '\260' on my screen -- one reason for
avoiding using *any* extended ASCII character -- not everybody sees them
the same.
Yeah, but you're using that weird Unix thing that nobody else ever uses.
BG
Now remember -- we've been through experiments before, and
differing systems show different characters, in part depending on what
characterset is selected. And while most recent systems have a choice
of charactersets (and I'm using iso8599-15), but there are still people
who don't have a choice.
AFAIK, most any windows or Linux reader displays ALT+0248 at the degree
symbol, so I'm reaching most of my audience properly, and you, the minority,
must cope. :-p
I'll bet that more people than you think will be scratching
their heads at whatever they see on their screens.
And we still have a disagreement of melting points (though not
as extreme as before).
Yeah, as I was typing I thought 7,000 seemed a bit hot... I always heard it
in the middle 6k range.
Forgive me for the use of HTML tags in there, but I was not sure
of any way to show italics to everyone -- some newsreaders may actually
*display* that as italics -- the rest will cue the reader that they
should be italics.
- Since your post is in plain text format, OE doesn't even try to translate
any HTML, and it gets as ugly as my use of an extended character.
Of course -- I was depending on *people* understanding what the
"i/i" pair meant -- especially since I also explained it immediately
following.
So -- what is the source for *your* figures, now that I have
corrected mine?
Flinn Scientific periodic table, has various data alongside each element. I
might've screwed something up, since it lists temperatures in kelvin, but I
think I subtraced 273 properly, so *shrug*...
FWIW, it says 4188K melting point, which should be 3915C = 7079F - go
figure.
Is that specific for graphite, or general for carbon? Mine was
general, with no separate figures given for graphite, so that might be
the difference.
It quotes, for instance, Al M.P. correctly at 933K = 660C = 1220F, dunno if
others might be screwed up.
Yep -- sometimes achieved by surrounding the carbon with steel
which shrinks in the chilling, generating the forces necessary -- but
only for very small diamonds.
I thought the iron was only necessary as a catalyst, by dissolving it at a
lower temperature? High pressure cast iron, anyone?
I think that the shrinkage of the iron helps in the formation --
perhaps just that slight extra boost over what they could get from their
hydraulics.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. |
http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---