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 .
Also, watch out bringing up goats around here...
...and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'
It's a new building structure, not a new building material. It may not even be a truely new structure at that, at least similar designs have been used for qite some time.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
There are many materials lighter and
stronger than steel. If that were the
only important criteria, all modern
structures would be made of carbon
fiber. Since structures are big, and
require lots of material, the most
important question is: how much does
it cost?
I rock climb. I use carabiners, specifically blackdiamond Locking D's with asymetrical gates. These are rated at 22 KiloNewtons. Some quick calculations: A newton = .2248 pounds. So: .2248* 1000(kilo)*22 newtons = 4946 pounds. Which is two tonnes approx. Ergo, 2 of my climbing 'biners can support two tonnes. Each carabiner weighs less than one half of a pound.
www.convert-me.com was my resource.
Am I not getting something here? It all seems wrong to me.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)