New Microscope Shows Nano-Fibre Formation

Freshly Exhumed writes "An article, with mpeg and avi movies, in Chemical and Engineering News describes how researchers from Danish high-tech firm Haldor Topsoe and the Danish Technical University have made a groundbreaking discovery in the field of nano-research. With the help of a specially designed microscope, researchers can now directly observe carbon nano-fibre formation. This is a prelude to actually controlling the growth of the fibres, which up until now has been very problematic. The new microscope's impact is expected to have tremendous significance for the development of future electronic components, energy extraction, and environmental technology."

Comments

Space elevator, here we come!!

[stephenisu]

The implications for this are amazing. If we had a working space elevator, getting to mars would cost next to nothing, relative to todays costs of breaking low earth orbit.

Re:Space elevator, here we come!!

[Rostin]

Notwithstanding the hideous cost of the space elevator, you are correct.

Step

[strike2867]

This is a very small step up the ladder to massproducing nano particles. When you need millions to be produced cheap enough to be profitable for business, a microscope that can see one at a time isnt that helpful, just makes one of the steps in the process a bit cheaper.

Re:Step

[BigBadBri]

No - the real help is that being able to video the fibre formation helps in understanding the reaction dynamics, which is important.

This could lead to improvements in catalyst design, maybe to new methods of production with the sort of yield that will make these nanofibres economically viable.

Well done the Danes, I say.

Who knew?

[ArcticChicken]

...up until now has been very problematic

You'd never think so given the comments you read about carbon nanotubes here on Slashdot. If you were to go by all the discussions about "space elevators"...

(Sorry, have to catch my breath after laughing so hard.)

...you'd think that half the world's suspension bridges are already made out of the stuff, and that building a space elevator won't cost more than a couple thousand bucks. Should be ready by 2010, right guys?

My question is, how did all these people who are so detached from reality figure out how to operate computers to the point they can even get to Slashdot (the number one source of their "research")? Now that's something worth looking into.

Mars??

[misleb]

The implications for this are amazing. If we had a working space elevator, getting to mars would cost next to nothing, relative to todays costs of breaking low earth orbit.

What about breaking low Mars orbit? Sending people to Mars is only half the problem. Getting them back is the other half. Sure, Mars is smaller than Earth, but it isn't THAT small. WHat are ya gonna do, send half of NASA to Mars to build a launch pad/control center/space elevator?? Are they gonna live there for a 10 years or whatever while the means of getting home is assembled and tested? Even if you could ship prefabricated facilities, you'd need a lot of equipment/tools. You have all the cost problems all over again (probably worse). SUre, we might have this kind of thing there eventually (like 75 years from now), but not one person can leave Mars until this stuff is in place. They are essentially stranded. Personally, i'd rather be stranded on Gilligan's Island. At least the weather was nice there.

I guess a space elevator would be neat, but come on, get your head out of clouds.

-matthew

Re:Mars??

[Smidge204]

Just send them an ACME Do-It-Yourself Space Elevator Kit!

One complete space elevator tailored for Martian use. Pack it up, send it over, put it into geo-stationary orbit where you want it, and drop anchor. This can probablty all be done remotely.

If I'm not mistaken, that's pretty much how they (currently) plan to build on for Earth: Unreel a starter cable from above and anchor it. Only difference is the crawlers that go up and down the starter cable to reinforce it would have to start at the top.
=Smidge=

Re:Implications of nano-technology

[The_REAL_DZA]

["A biomonitor that will give you a signal (on your mobile with wireless technology)"]

Why bother carrying a "mobile" when you're already toting around a processor the size of a flea's earlobe inside you? All it'd have to do to report to you is transmit the info directly into your nervous system (which it's already hooked up to in the first place ) and Presto! no worry about the info being intercepted and decoded by Wal-Mart so they know whether you need toothpaste (or Viagra, or Odor Eaters, etc...) and send a message of their own to your handheld device.

So, does this stuff have the potential to be abso-freaking-lutely COOL? Sure! Does it also have the potential to be an equally terrifying nightmare? Sure! Just look at how "cool" the automobile is compared to a covered wagon:

1. MUCH faster (cross country: days -vs- months)
2. more convenient (inclement weather? Who cares!)
3. more effective ("perishables" less likely to perish, resulting in expansion of produce markets, etc.)
4. more comfortable (hot? A/C! cold? Heat!)

Now, let's consider how "terrifying" the automobile is -vs- the covered wagon:

1. top speed approx. 10X (take somebody from 1862 for a little drive at 90mph and listen for their heart to explode!)
2. if you don't have to worry about the horse freezing to death, you might be more likely to get out on a night that's literally "not fit for man nor beast", and get yourself frozen to death
3. Things (and, *gasp!* ideas) move around so much faster we can't keep up!
   1. no matter WHAT the mode of travel, people carry germs with them; faster cross-country transit times for people = faster cross-country transit times for germs
   2. Upheaval in markets/supply lines (Suddenly nobody wants to buy my cleverly-concocted artificial orange flavoring in Massachusetts - formerly my best customers - because the real thing is available year-round at about the same cost from Florida!)
4. Like it or not, riding around in a covered wagon will make you tough (either that or it'll kill you...); if we start driving these newfangled "automobiles" instead of our trusty old covered wagons, we're liable to go soft and get lazy!

All that, and we still haven't considered how many people (not to mention squirrels and puppies) are run down by speeding automobiles every year (that's not to say there wasn't the occassional smushing of a squirrel or clueless pedestrian back in the "horse-and-buggy" days, but still...)
My point: (betcha thought I wasn't going to end up having one, didn't you?)
every revolution we can see coming sparks fear and dread in the population about to undergo said revolution, mostly because it upsets the "status-quo"; whether or not they admit it most people prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar and change is upsetting to our basic nature (got an infant handy? Try effecting a drastic change in his/her sleeping or eating schedule sometime -- you'll hear complaints. Loud complaints.) Does the fact that this "revolution" is being received almost exactly as previous ones were mean that we're silly to consider the implications and we should instead rush headlong into the unknown? Of course not, but history tells us that once the dust settles we'll all be better off (generally speaking, that is...)