Tag Archives: iron

Combustibility and properties of the diamond

It has been stated, that the diamond was able to resist the power of the highest temperatures, but that it must be carefully removed from the furnace, and suffered to cool gradually, otherwise it will crack and fall to pieces.

We have seen a large and costly Brazilian diamond fractured accidentally in two by some such means ; but if we remember right, this was occasioned by a fall, after having been subjected to heat. Many authors have permitted their fancy to rove on some attribute peculiar to the diamond, either real or supposed; thus, we are told, that a diamond is softened and broken if steeped in the blood of a goat; but not, according to others, unless it be fresh and warm, nor even then, fractured without blows; and that it will also break the best hammers and anvils of iron.

Sir Thomas Brown says, that a diamond being steeped in goat’s blood rather receives thereby an increase of hardness; ” for,” he observes ” the best we have are reducible to powder without it; and are so far from breaking hammers, that they submit to pistillation, and resist not an ordinary pestle.”
The truth is, as far as the goat’s blood is concerned it makes no difference either way ; and we know very well that it is a matter of no difficulty to crush the diamond in a steel mortar; from its lamellar texture it is also capable of being split and cleaved, and jewellers are by these means enabled to work it. The test of a diamond, in the Brazils, we believe to be this: when placed on a hard stone, and struck with a hammer, if it either resist the blow, or separate into laminae, it is concluded to be one. The introduction of a steel point will easily separate the laminse of the diamond. Small round diamonds cannot however be split.

From the extreme brilliancy of the diamond, and its purity, it was consecrated to all that was celestial, and accordingly supposed that it would triumph over all means employed to subdue it, the solar ray, excepted. It did triumph indeed over the hot furnaces to which it was exposed in the crucible of the alchymist, but the spell which united it to the sunbeam is now dissolved, and it has yielded to the severity of the ” torture and inquisition” of modern chemistry. Newton, reasoning from its great density and high refractive property, concluded that the diamond was combustible, or, to use his own language, ” an unctuous substance coagulated,” though he was in some measure anticipated by Boetius de Boot, in 1609. The event has amply verified this conjecture, and the Tuscan philosophers and the Honourable Mr. Boyle ascertained the fact.

The first grand experiment to prove the combustibility of the diamond took place in the presence of Cosmo the III. Grand Duke of Tuscany, wherein the diamond being exposed in the focus of the great lens (still in the Grand Duke’s laboratory at Florence), it was entirely volatilized. Guyton de Morveau, and others, consumed the diamond, and it was readily dissipated in the focus of the great mirror of Tchirnhausen, as we believe it subsequently was in that of Parker’s burning lens. In the year 1771, Macquer observed the diamond to inflame. Guyton de Morveau had proved that the diamond was destroyed when projected into red-hot nitre; and it was also burnt by means of melted nitre in a gold tube, by Mr. Tennant.
When fragments of diamond were introduced into the brilliant arch of flame, evolved between points of charcoal in the galvanic batteries of the Royal Institution, consisting of 2,000 double plates, and exposing a surface of 128,000 square inches, they rapidly disappeared, being completely volatilized. The diamond may be easily consumed by being placed in a cavity of charcoal, and urging on it the flame of a spirit lamp, by means of a stream of oxygen.

So far the combustibility of the diamond was completely ascertained, but its nature remained still undetermined. Lavoisier had proved and pointed out that carbonic acid gas was evolved as a product both in the combustion of the diamond and that of charcoal, and thus their identity was inferred. The researches of Clouet, Messrs. Allen and Pepys, and others, have confirmed this conclusion- Sir George Mackenzie converted iron into steel by powdered diamonds. Mr. Children’s immense battery consisted of twenty triads, each six feet long, by two feet eight inches broad, exposing a total surface of thirty-two feet; when iron, with diamond powder interposed, was exposed to its influence, the iron was converted into steel, and the diamond disappeared; and Mr. Smithson Tennant, having placed a diamond in a gold tube, supported in a state of incandescence ; a stream of oxygen, by means of gentle pressure, was made to traverse it, and the result proved that the oxygen was transformed into an equal volume of carbonic acid gas, which was found in an opposite receiver resting over mercury.

Sir Humphry Davy, when at Florence, made some experiments with the Grand Duke’s burning lens, on the combustion of the diamond. He found that when the gem was introduced into a glass globe supplied with oxygen, and kindled by the lens, it continued to burn after it was removed from the focus—the oxygen was supplanted by an equal volume of carbonic acid gas, while there was no deposit of aqueous vapour. On the other hand, when plumbago and charcoal were consumed under similar circumstances, there was a sensible diminution of volume, and also a formation of watery vapour, clearly proving that the latter contained hydrogen.

It was once stated that some approximation had been made to the formation of the diamond in the laboratory of the Royal Institution, with their extensive galvanic battery. By acting on charcoal in vacuo, minute hard crystals were said to be formed round the superior wire. Our informant, however, had but an indistinct idea of the mode adopted, and the general features of the experiments ; and as it has never been announced or described, in all probability there is some mistake in the case. It does not seem to us at all probable that diamonds are likely to be formed by an artificial process, though we know the attempt has been made both by means of the galvanic battery and the compound-gas blowpipe; no fear need, however, be apprehended from any such rivalry, more than from the method of forcing by artificial means the unio margaritifera or meleagrina margaritifera to form pearls at command. These molluscs either would not obey the commission, or they were misshapen, unsightly, and worthless.

Spherules of shells, or some other substance, flattened at the bottom, are forcibly inserted between the animal and the shell, in such a way as the animal may not be able to displace them. These, in a short time, are covered with a layer of pearly matter, which is supposed to be secreted by the mantle. It has been stated in France, that a solution of phosphorus in sulphuret of carbon yields minute diamonds. We have been in the habit of using this compound for many years, and have never discovered any thing of the kind; and the diligent search we have made, since this strange announcement, has been equally unsuccessful—we believe diamonds are not so easily formed. From the result of our experiments, we are inclined to think, that in steel the charcoal assumes a crystalline form and arrangement.

The diamond is a gem characterised by its extreme hardness ; notwithstanding this, it often presents, in its rough state, sufficient evidence of having undergone abrasion by friction. There is a peculiar and almost indescribable grating sound produced by rubbing two diamonds together in the hand, which is a tolerably good test.

The diamond is sometimes externally, and always internally, bright, and causes a single refraction of the rays of light.
It is generally crystallized of various forms, of a lamellar structure, strikes fire with steel, and is the hardest of all known bodies; it cuts the hardest crystals, even rubies and sapphires, and the oriental amethyst.
Nothing but diamond powder, obtained by rubbing two diamonds against each other, can polish it, and it is cut by fragments of diamond set in a maule. The diamond is stated to be consumed and volatilized at a temperature which melts silver. It requires a temperature of 5000° F. for its combustion. When exposed to the sunbeam, and carried afterwards into darkness, it exhibits phosphorescence, and it has been stated that such diamonds as do not display this peculiarity may be made to do so by dipping them into melted borax. It becomes phosphorescent also when fixed to the prime conductor of an electrical machine, and a few sparks are taken from it.

The diamond becomes electric by friction, and the Honourable Mr.Boyle obtained electric gleams on rubbing two diamonds together in the dark. It is said, that when fulminating silver is exploded in contact with the diamond, reduced silver is precipitated on it. By igniting fulminating mercury both on and near some diamonds, I found however only faint and equivocal evidence of reduction. The specific gravity of the diamond has been estimated at 3500, water being 1000,—though it must be admitted, that the comparative hardness and specific gravity have been variously estimated, thus:

—An oriental diamond from Ormus, possessed a specific gravity of 3′ 4, and a comparative hardness equal to 20
—a pink diamond with a similar specific gravity, exhibited a hardness equal to 19
—while a bluish diamond, and one of a yellowish tint, with a similar hardness of 19, possessed a specific gravity of 3′ 3, and a cubic diamond of 18, a specific gravity of 3′ 2.

Diamond known since antiquity

The diamond seems to have been known from the most remote period of antiquity. We find it was associated along with the emerald and the sapphire in the second row of the twelve precious stones on which the names of the children of Israel were engraved, ” every one with his name according to the twelve tribes,” and these were set in the breastplate of judgment worn by the High Priest. What the Urim and Thummim (Urim, Lights. Thummim, Perfections) were, which also adorned the breastplate, when he went into the ” holy of holies,” we have now no accurate means of ascertaining, but as the terms imply what is luminous and perfect, it is by no means unlikely that these were diamonds of great beauty and splendour, which reflected the glories of the symbol of the Divine Presence.

Thus we know distinct names were given to the two pillars that were reared in the porch of the temple at Jerusalem ; and the two chief diamonds belonging to Persia are hyperbolically termed, in the language of the east, ” the Sea of Glory,” and ” the Mountain of Splendour.”

The ancients seem to have been well acquainted with the use of the diamond in etching, and it is even stated that the figure of Mars, or of Hercules surmounting the Hydra, was engraved on it. The diadem, which is more ancient than the crown, was not worn until after Constantine, in the lower empire. This was a fillet, tied in a knot behind, and adorned with pearls and diamonds, either in a single or, a double row, which empresses were also permitted to wear. The diadem thus decorated may be observed on some of the coins of Constantine and Jovian.

There is in the British Museum an ancient Roman gold ring, with an octahedral diamond set in it: and in the clasp of the mantle of Charlemagne, still preserved at Paris, there are four diamonds, natural crystals. It was sometimes considered a talisman, and when under the planet Mars, esteemed favourable.

In former times it was supposed to cure insanity, and to be an antidote to poisons; notwithstanding which, Paracelsus was said to have been poisoned by diamond powder :* we believe it to be as inert in the one case as it is harmless in the other.

The Greeks called this gem “unconquerable” and AdaMant was given to it in consequence of this suppositious virtue, in that it was esteemed victorious over fire, and to resist the hardest things.

Ancient Greek writers describe it as only found in Ethiopia, between the island Meroe and the temple of Mercury. The notions of the ancients about it seem to be altogether confused and indistinct.

According to Pliny, there existed between the diamond and the magnet a natural antipathy. ” There is,” says he, ” such a disagreement between a diamond and a loadstone, that it will not suffer the iron to be attracted ; or if the loadstone be put to it and take hold of it, it will pull it away.”-)
- It is needless to observe, no such antipathy can now be discovered in the case; and if the grand test of inductive truth, ” experimentum fiat,” had been then applied, it would, like the witty monarch’s problem propounded to the Royal Society, have been found an equally gratuitous assumption. We, at least, have found no diminution of the attractive powers of the magnet, when we interposed between a magnet and a fine needle no less than five fragments of diamond.