Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Plastic Fractal Magnet

Posted by michael on from the attractive-ideas dept.

bedessen writes "An article at NewsFactor summarizes the developments in new plastics that exhibit magnetic fields of fractal dimensions. Whereas a simple bar magnet produces magnetic fields that go from the north pole to the south pole, the fields of the new hybrid plastic sprout like branches of a cactus lined with secondary fields that resemble needles. As these fields become increasingly interlocked, they exhibit a unique kind of order. This intensely ordered structure might one day be key to storing information with a very high density. The researchers behind this are Arthur Epstein, director of the Center for Materials Research at Ohio State University, and Joel Miller, a professor of chemistry at the University of Utah. There's also this PDF overview of the subject, which is quite technical but still readable."

12 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Practical Applications? by kavachameleon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there any news on actual practical applications of these new magnets we've been hearing about? BTW... Discover Magazine had an article on Carbon magnets, quite interesting, because carbon is not *supposed* to be magnetic. Link here. Just my comments...

  2. Less than one dimension is problematic... by dagg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Controlling nanoscale magnetic fields that exist in less than one dimension may prove problematic...

    Am I the only one having problems understanding that article? I'm not a physicist, but I didn't think anything could exist in less than one dimension. Freaky.

    --
    Sex - Find It
    1. Re:Less than one dimension is problematic... by BattleWolf · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Elsewhere in the article it states:

      "A fractal is an object whose volume is not a simple product of its dimensions," Epstein told NewsFactor. Where "the volume of a rectangular box is its length times its width times its height, the volume of a snowflake is a fractal," Epstein explained. Fractal dimensions are fractional -- instead of 3-D or 2-D, they might be 1/2-D or 0.8-D.

      I guess Fractals are freaky... they look kinda cool though... :)

    2. Re:Less than one dimension is problematic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      think about it, many solids and all liquids(that i know of) can be measured in the 3d world because of thier structure. water, when it freezes, doesnt make a solid sturcture, it has thousands of tiny(microscopic) air bubbles trapped inside, and thus makes it physicly imposible to measure it in three dimensions(unless you get into some extreamly complex calculus, which i imagine what fractal math is...) you can try to measure an ice cube by its dimensions but you will never get its exact volume(close because the air bubbles are so small and the ice structure is fairly close to solid, but not all the way) snowflakes have larger structures, thus the difference between actual and computed (based on standard geometry)volume has a greater difference. in theory the crystal structure of ice(im using specific cuz its easier for me to understand) has infinite surface area, but logicaly we know that it doesnt, and thus we get the sum of infinite fractions(if i take half the distance, plus half that distance, plus half that ill never reach the total distance but i can know what that distance is...) and fractal geometry is a simple way of figuring out the complex math.

      I didn't think anything could exist in less than one dimension

      in theory a point on a graph has no dimensions, but a series of points make a line that is one dimensional. if two points were in the same spot, they would still be less then one dimensional, but couldnt you also draw a line between them and get one dimensional object?(due to the fact that there are infitite points between any two points)... simply because a point exists in less the one diemension doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

    3. Re:Less than one dimension is problematic... by kasperd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anything that can be represented as a (or a finite number of) point could be considered to have a dimension of zero.

      That is true, but in fact you can even have an infinite number of points and still have a dimension of zero.

      There are different kinds of infinity. The set of integers is what we call a countable infinity, while the set of real numbers is what we call an uncountable infinity. There are even uncountable infinites that are infinitely larger than the real numbers. In fact it is a suprprise once you realize how large infinities can become compared to the quite small infinity of the integers. In fact the inifinity of the integers is the smallest infinity you can find.

      A set of countable infinity has dimension zero, anything with dimention larger than zero is an uncountable infinity same size as the real numbers. Wether the dimension is 0.1 or 3.0 the number of points will be exactly the same. And that is the case for any finite number of dimensions. And AFAIK no fractal can be of higher dimension than the space in which it exists, so we can never create fractals with inifinite dimension.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  3. I have a question... by rgoer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article, in its initial description of fratal geometry, cited this comparison: where a rectangluar prism has volume of length times width times height , a snowflake has a volume that is fractal in nature. The article went on to say that while the rectangular prism's volume is three-dimensional, the volume of the snowflake, being fractal, was fractionally dimensional (i.e. 1/2d or 0.8d or something, instead of 3d).

    My question: if you were to find a huge snowflake, and melt it down, and measure that water in a graduate, wouldn't you find its volume? And wouldn't that volume be 3d? How does its volume, assuming it remains constant, change from being 1/2d or whatever to 3d? Sorry if I sound ignorant, but fractal mathematics is a little beyond me.

  4. Temperature Issues by limekiller4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article
    The plastic ultimately stabilized in 1.6 dimensions at a temperature of minus 269 degrees Celsius (minus 452 degrees Fahrenheit).

    It would be nice if someone came up with a chart that plotted the correlation between the temperature necessary in the lab and the temperature necessary to bring the item to market for a significant number of products. Because I'm willing to bet that -249 C is pretty close to the Don't Hold Your Breath mark.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  5. Getting away from magnetic storage... by silvaran · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to get away from magnetic storage as a temporary removable storage device... The last time the floor waxer zamboni zipped past my locker I lost my college programming project... not to mention the number of VHS tapes that are useless now... am I alone in this?

  6. Plastics, Fractal Magnetics & Optics.. by jamesjw · · Score: 4, Interesting


    It raises an interesting possibility - with a new way of forming high density magnetic fields I wonder if we'll see a return to Megneto Optical media or weather the two will stay seperate..

    It'd certainly be interesting to get more storage out of yer cd sized media if you could use the plastics as a storage medium as well as the optical layer..

    Maybe its a crazy idea..

    Somebody will probably take this idea and ger rich off it none the less :)

    --
    -- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
  7. A fractal harddrive? by happyhippy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So doesnt that mean instead of just a single bit being corrupted affecting the one bit, in the fractal drive that bit could affect the rest of the drive?

    Doesnt this therefore introduce the need for a (quantum like) million bits error correction per one bit problem?

  8. Re:How do you measure 1.6 dimensions? by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, here's an interesting project for you:

    (1) Start with the Mandelbrot Set or the Julia Set, calculated to a resolution p (say, granularity of 0.0001.

    (2) Calculate the curvature (curve-centered curvature, not x-axis-centered curvature) as a function of position along the line, down to a resolution of 2p.

    (3) Take the fast-fourier transform of this data

    (4) Use the FFT data to see if you can predict the FFT for lower levels.

    My guess is that it won't be predictable -- but I don't know. It might be.

    BTW... :

    Snowflakes almost definitely aren't fractal. Rather, their development is probably going to be controlled by the semiconducting nature of the outer layer of ice as it freezes, and charges separating as widely as they can.

    Nor are trees fractal. They have their rules, but those rules aren't within the definition of what fractal. Rather, fractals can help one generate convincing images of trees, but the similarity stops there.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  9. Re:Poor physics majors by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorta. The volume's easier, but I was thinking of what happens if you're trying to figure out how two fields are interacting...

    --
    May we never see th