A Building Material 12 Times Stronger Than Steel

nm1m writes: "For the last few months I have been following with some interest a few stories (story link may not work) in the school newspaper about a new structural technology being developed at BYU. It is called PYRAmatrix, and is 12 times stronger than steel, yet less than 10 percent the weight of steel. A 47 foot cylinder of this stuff, 16 inches in diameter and weighing just 47 pounds, can support almost 4 tons. It seems to have obvious applications in aerospace, electricity utility poles, radar and communication towers, and just about any structure that needs exceptional strength. An interesting press release with facts and figures can be found here. Photos can be found here." The link worked for me -- and reminded me of the plastic-walking scene in Sabrina .

Comments

no "less than" or "more than" please

[Anonymous Coward]

Less than 10% can mean anything from 0% to 10%. It's shorter and more precise to state that it's 9% the weight of steel.

This is not even slightly new or revolutionary

[p4k]

Will everyone saying how cool this is *please* read the article properly, not just look at the pictures.

They are *not* claiming to have a new material, their "product" is simply a triangulated braced beam made of carbon or glass fibre. Woohoo, a well designed braced beam made of carbon fibre is lighter than a solid block of steel, well that's a major advance for engineering. NOT. The only slightly unusual feature is that the bracing extends beyond the longitudinal members, but if that significantly improved strength/weight ratio, everyone would be doing it already. In fact, some quick back-of-the-envelope work suggests that its a fair bit worse.

Structures made of carbon/glass composites are way to expensive to make to be any use in buildings (production is very labour-intensive), and I see nothing on their website to suggest they have successfully addressed this.

My guess is their business plan depends on either getting bought by someone clueless, or abusing the patent system to get royalties from general engineering companies. On that subject, I would really like to know what exactly they think is worthy of a patent? The angle of the bracing?

Not What it's cracked up to be.

[katarn]

Okay, to summarize:

1. There is nothing new about Carbon Fiber. The supposedly 'original' thing here is NOT the material, it's the structural design.
2. People have been using triangles in structural designs for over 100 years. This looks like a cool demonstration of what some basic engineering principles can do with modern materials, but nothing truly new or patentable. This may make an interesting collage course, but the rest of the hype seems to be just B.S.
3. Yes, some of the pictures are poorly faked, but they are at least labeled as such.
4. Since this is nothing new, these material/ structure will have all the problems inherent with any carbon fiber structure. They will be prone to invisible stress fractures, breaking before bending, and be $$. Don't get me wrong, carbon fiber is great for some application. But it's generally best for applications where constant inspection and knowledgeable care can be continually provided. High performance hang gliders are made from carbon fiber. Personally my hang glider is good old aluminum. Much less $$$ and more forgiving of stupidity for us beginners. And a telephone pole, a power pole, or a street sign does not receive anywhere near the maintenance, inspection, and care as even a beginner's hang glider.
5. If you want to see something truly NEW done with carbon fiber, check this out. I must admit *I* would have never thought to make this item out of carbon fiber. And, incidently, I think THIS is where these folks should put their patents.