Talk:Chemical vapor deposition of diamond

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gemology and Jewelry Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article needs quite a lot of work. . . PitOfBabel 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any info on growth rate ?[edit]

If you have any info on growth rate please add it to the article. Thanks. 78.97.51.13 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-stick cookware[edit]

How is a low coefficient of thermal expansion an advantage for coating cookware? If you coat a metal pan with a rigid material with a low coefficient of thermal expansion, it will crack or peel as soon as it is heated. --Slashme 09:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the substrate is metal, you surely are right. If a substrate with lower thermal expansion coefficient, pyrex for example, is used you could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.181.105 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

The section criticizing CVD diamonds appears to be a poorly organized set of slander, which is not supported by so much as one citation.24.65.95.239 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling it slander is pretty silly. The list there includes research issues I faced every day when I worked in this area, including criticism we got from both manufacturers and venture capital companies we were courting. Since I spent quite a bit of time trying to overcome exactly those problems and did a lot of research into other group's work to do the same, calling it slander is wrong.

On the other hand, it's clearly unsupported. I think there are some "state-of-the-field" type papers that might go into these arguments well enough for a few links, and if I can find the time maybe I'll dig one up. The reality is that people don't spend a lot of time publishing papers that document why they haven't been able to enter the marketplace, so if someone removed the section I'd understand - I hope they'll keep a copy of it in here, the discussion page, just for future reference.--PitOfBabel (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went bold and emptied the section - it did appear as an essay and promotion of the Carnegie group (they are not special in high-rate CVD diamond growth). The mentioned problems, if included at all, should be written keeping a neutral point of view, and with recent references - things change quickly in this field. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from CVD Diamond[edit]

CVD Diamond should redirect here rather than to Synthetic Diamond. If someone knows how to do this, please do. 66.71.70.134 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]