Yarn Spun from Nanotubes

jabberjaw writes "Nature is reporting that Professor Alan H Windle has spun nanotube yarn by twisting nanotubes onto spinning rods as they come out of the furnace from which they are made. Professor Windle's team used ethanol (carbon source) with ferrocene (catalyst) and thiopene (for thread assembly) to create the structure. To create the tubes a mix of the above chemicals is inserted into a furnace in a jet of hydrogen gas. However, do not get your hopes up yet, the press release also indicates that the yarn has a strength comparable to that of most modern textiles but the groups does state that there is room for improvement. Yes, for those of you wondering, there is mention of a space elevator."

Comments

Space Elevator and Nature

[smoondog]

Getting a space elevator mentioned in Nature is huge, whether or not it is a viable project. It will help give it the exposure it needs to get debated on whether it is a viable project by people that could actually help get it off the ground.

-Sean

Re:Space Elevator and Nature

[Chris Burke]

Getting a space elevator mentioned in Nature is huge, whether or not it is a viable project. It will help give it the exposure it needs to get debated on whether it is a viable project by people that could actually help get it off the ground.

I hope it isn't premature. I worry about generating a lot of hype about an elevator, and then have it go nowhere, or have a high-profile experiment/test fail. I don't want to see it go the way of cold fusion, where everyone knows what it is, and thinks its a joke, so you can never get funding for it again.

Re:Space Elevator and Nature

[bfree]

The Space Elevator idea is quite safe from becoming a joke until someone announces "I have a material strong enough to build a space elevator". Then you will see the put or or shut-up moment for it's proponents but up until then it is theoretical. I think it is important for research to continue into the logistics of space elevators but until we have a potential material it's an aspiration. I just hope that if/when we find a meterial we can find the techniques to turn it into a space elevator. Of course it is possible that someone will figure out a way to build a space elevator that doesn't require as strong a material but I think at present it all hangs on the material researchers. When they solve their problems the engineers will have to come in and see if they can turn a theoretical idea with a plauible material into an actual workable installation plan (just cause you can make a material in a lab doesn't mean you can produce the quantities required on site).

nanotube "dust" hazards?

[scrytch]

Given the toughness and other properties of carbon nanotubes, does the dust tend to be like graphite, and reasonably safe as an inhalation hazard (being heavy and all), or has any kind of toxicology testing been done with them? I'd hate to see carbon nanotube fragments becoming the next asbestos.

Re:Grandmothers delight

[CriX]

Hmm... ya know, I wonder what an all carbon sweater would feel like? I guess it would be super light, but even with a conductivity 1/10 that of copper it would probably not work too well at keeping you warm. I imagine the conductivity of cotton has got to be a couple order of magnitudes less.

Maybe if they reduced the size of the threads you might be able to make a really great wind-breaker? Just some ideas.

Re:Mundane nanoparticles

[rolofft]

I hope you didn't think I was talking about seawater droplets. Sea spray does contain submicron particles. And with toast, I was talking about aerosol soot, not bread crumbs.

You're not playing Chicken Little; I'm not throwing caution to the wind. I'd rather see someone like the Forsight Institute setting the pace for nanotech; you'd probably rather see someone like the EPA or FDA.

You're right that caution can kill. How about a real-life example? The FDA took ten years to approve the Sensor Pad, a simple device that makes self-examination for breast cancer much more effective. FDA put it in the same class as an artificial heart for approval. Their incentives are wholly on the side of caution. They're not accountable to the victims of their delays. Another notable example is the FDA's footdragging on approval for the home HIV test. The FDA serves a good function. But that function often comes at a high price. My point is that regulation isn't a panacea.

I'm not an anarchist, and I'm sure you're not a totalitarian. But we probably do have different world views. You're worried about DDT thinning egg shells; I'm worried about millions of people dying from malaria. You don't like asbestos; I don't like the thought of dying in a house fire. You're offended by car exhaust; I can't stand horse manure. Nanotech could be poised to drastically improve material conditions in the world. I'm asking that you consider the flipside of your worldview, the risks of choking progress, as you promote regulation.

When you impy we should wait until the best experts have given us a thorough diagnosis on the safety of nanotech, I'm thinking of the benefits we'll lose while stalled: cleaner cars, safer buildings, medical breakthroughs, better slacks. I'm also skeptical that nanotech regulation won't be motivated by junk science, liker other health scares (e.g. alar, saccharin, acrylamide, etc).