Slashdot Mirror


Carbon Nanotubes Harder Than Diamond

purduephotog writes "CDAC has announced the formation of a new form of hexagonal packed carbon similiar to diamond. Carbon nanotubes are compressed at 75 GPa and quenched. The new material is conclusively different via Raman Spectroscopy and both cracked and indented the diamond anvil used in its creation. CDAC is also known to have created via CVD the hardest diamond to date."

297 comments

  1. reagenced carbon stronger than diamond ? by mirko · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well, Diamond is carbon so I guess it was not the most efficient way to compact it, or maybe it it takes 10000 years to coal to become diamond maybe it'd take 10 times more to diamond to achieve this new configuration ?

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:reagenced carbon stronger than diamond ? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here on the planet Klepton, we've built our saucer hulls out of this stuff for decades. You Earth scientists are so retarded. Except for the one who invented Twinkies. He's cool.

  2. But the real question is... by BayBlade · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does it go to 11?

    --

    The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.

    1. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      i think the real question is:

      where does one get a diamond anvil?!

    2. Re:But the real question is... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Parent is refering to the Mohs hardness scale in which diamond is used as the upper end of the scale at 10.

      If this is harder than diamond then either the scale will have to be scaled to make this the new 10 or this will be set as some value greater than 10 depending on its relative hardness.

    3. Re:But the real question is... by TrentTheWiseA · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm betting it's a combination of that reference with a Spinal Tap reference myself.

    4. Re:But the real question is... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, lets give some info on this, since I've researched it a lot before when I was on a big space-elevator kick.

      First off, the "diamond anvil" is a DAC: Diamond Anvil Cell. It's not an anvil in the typical sense. What you have is a stepping-down system of applying pressure. You have steel apply pressure to a very hard material, such as tungsten carbide, which then applies the pressure to a diamond (incredibly hard), which applies the pressure to whatever you're trying to compress. This means you can have a large area of steel on which to apply pressure, transferring it to a small area of tungsten carbide, transferring it to a tiny area of diamond. DACs are nifty ;)

      Secondly, what they've done here had been theorized years ago; I had been trying to convince Highlift (and later, Liftport) to put more research on this front. The concept of coming up with a nanotube epoxy that is as strong as the individual tubes is a bit far-fetched, but it was known that SWNTs, under pressure, can merge:

      http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/staff/taner/nanotube/in te rlink.pdf

      While carbon sp3 bonds are strong, sp2 bonds are stronger. Nanotubes use only sp2 bonds; diamonds only sp3. In the pressure-induced interlinking, depending on the types of tubes involved, different sp2 bonds will be replaced with sp3, merging the tubes. While this weakens their overall strength, they adhere to each other far, far more strongly than they normallly would from mere van der waals force alone.

      --
      "She was out of her depth in a shallow pool." -- Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin
    5. Re:But the real question is... by fiftyfly · · Score: 1
      Does it go to 11?

      man that'd be crazy!

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    6. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news says that John Kerry is a master debater. What? Why are you laughing?

      Nobody ever accused Bush of being a cunning linguist.

    7. Re:But the real question is... by toby · · Score: 1
      If this is harder than diamond then either the scale will have to be scaled to make this the new 10 or this will be set as some value greater than 10 depending on its relative hardness
      "This one goes to 11."

      --
      you had me at #!
    8. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't SiC (carborundum) already both harder and tougher than Diamond anyway (since the silicon carbide lattice is like a lumpy diamond lattice, and is thus harder to shatter and deform than plain diamond) ? (N.B. corundum != carborundum, people always seem to get them mixed up. I doubt decent industrial SiC was around when Mohs was making his little scale... )

    9. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Carborundum is not as hard as diamond on the Mohs scale, SiC comes in at about 9.3, a little harder than corundum (aluminium oxide)

      Boron nitride is damn near as hard as diamond, somewhere at about 9.8. Theoretically carbon nitride, C3N4 should be harder than diamond but getting sp3 bonding going in the structure is very tricky. I think very small amounts have been made. If the theory is correct then carbon nitride would be about 12 on the Mohs scale.

    10. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mohs scale is not linear..
      Diamond is still more than twice as hard as boron carbide.

      It will be interresting to see if they'll succeed in producing significant amounts of carbon nitrid..

    11. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IS that natural carborundum or artificial? I'm just wondering: I've seen harder-than-diamond claims for vapor-deposited => monocrystalline carborundum.

    12. Re:But the real question is... by mambodeath · · Score: 1

      Why ACME of course!

      --
      if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
    13. Re:But the real question is... by Aaron+England · · Score: 2, Informative
      Or this will be set as some value greater than 10 depending on its relative hardness.


      You mean like 11? As you said, the Mohs scale assigns ordinal values to make relative comparisons, not absolute ones. For a scale which makes absolute comparisons between the standard minerals see this website.

    14. Re:But the real question is... by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      "The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board. Eleven, eleven, eleven."

      "Oh, I see, and mostly, the amps go up to ten?"

      "Exactly."

      "Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?"

      "Well, it's one louder, isn't it?"

      "One louder."

      "Why don't you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top number, and make that a little louder?"

      "These go to eleven."

    15. Re:But the real question is... by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      So wait, you have a large bit of material placing pressure on a smaller piece of harder material, ad infinitum...

      Won't that just leave you with a series of bisected samples, each harder than the last?

      (ObSlashdotSuffix: Not a troll, I'm actually asking a question)

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    16. Re:But the real question is... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So wait, you have a large bit of material placing pressure on a smaller piece of harder material, ad infinitum...

      Won't that just leave you with a series of bisected samples, each harder than the last?


      No, due to the cell geometry. The face contacting the softer material is large, and the face contacting the harder material is smaller. As force is constant (not pressure), you end up with less pressure on the weaker face, and more (though hopefully less than your intermediate material's inelastic deformation pressure) on the harder face.

      This lets you apply huge pressures to a very small sample, between two diamond faces. My understanding is that they handle the edges by using a metal gasket, which is allowed to deform inelastically to transfer force to a side housing with more surface area (think "o-ring seal").

      Diamond anvil cells were big news when they came out because they were so _small_. You could hold them in-hand or put them on a lab bench and apply pressure by turning screws, whereas past high-pressure machines had been huge monstrosities. And with the diamond anvils as windows, you can even to spectrographic measurements of samples as they're being compressed (though the diamond's absorption bands interfere, and the faces can warp under very high pressure). Very nifty gadgets.

    17. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understoof whd it was so funny?

      They've had guitar amps(Fenders and others) since the 50's which actually "went to 12". All the controls were graded 1 to 12.

  3. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've never done a spectroscopic analysis of ramen before - I usually just ate it

    1. Re:Interesting by sharkey · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't that make you varelse then?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I've never done a spectroscopic analysis of ramen before - I usually just ate it

      I've experimented with ramen scattering before, but a vacuum will pick it right up.

    3. Re:Interesting by Wolfkin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think you should end this now.

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    4. Re:Interesting by irokitt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Believe me, you don't want to know...

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  4. Is it really that hard by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to spell out Chemical Vapor Deposition?

    Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

    1. Re:Is it really that hard by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it really hard to speak out Random Access Memory?
      Or Central Processing Unit?

      Its CVD. Like CAD or CNC.
      Acronyms stop being acronyms if the majority of peoply using them dont even know the original meaning without thinking a moment.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Is it really that hard by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1, Funny
      WTF???? OMG STFU! LOL!!!!

      ...hmm, I think I see your point, though YMMV.

    3. Re:Is it really that hard by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why he made it a link.

      Now, in order to read the article text in the proceedings of the national academies of science you'll apparently have to clink on a link with the name "WANG_PNAS.pdf" and I'm just not feeling that daring while I'm still at work on a Friday afternoon :)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:Is it really that hard by Shut+the+fuck+up! · · Score: 0, Funny

      Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

      stfu

    5. Re:Is it really that hard by snakeCharmer · · Score: 1

      But to a lay person how much more information does "Chemical Vapor Deposition" give that CVD does not? I mean they will both sound like gibberish. To a person who is in the know, CVD actually conveys that information more compactly (better).

    6. Re:Is it really that hard by kitty+tape · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An acronym is not appropriate to use instead of the full text until the majority of all people likely to be reading know what it means.

      --
      ----- "Type theory is like pretzels on crack." -- random friend
    7. Re:Is it really that hard by kitty+tape · · Score: 1

      What about people who know about it, but don't use the acronym regularly enough to be familiar with it? The full name then conveys more meaning than the acronym.

      --
      ----- "Type theory is like pretzels on crack." -- random friend
    8. Re:Is it really that hard by dtfinch · · Score: 0, Redundant

      My boss is having us research which MFG/POS system will work best for our company.

    9. Re:Is it really that hard by DAldredge · · Score: 1, Informative

      It would give them something to search for on google as CVD doesn't show the correct meaning in the first 5-10 hits.

    10. Re:Is it really that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not a lay person, but there are a lot of physicists and mathematicians (as well as wanna-bes like me :) who have studied deposition processes and thin films and thus know roughly WTF vapor deposition is, but do not understand the acronym.

      There is an entire audience of non-specialist scientific thinkers here - this is much different from an audience of laypeople.

    11. Re:Is it really that hard by Kumkwat · · Score: 1


      I like your sig.

      Type theory is giving me headaches at the moment.

    12. Re:Is it really that hard by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

      IKWYM!

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    13. Re:Is it really that hard by maxchaote · · Score: 2, Funny

      Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

      You mean "OADL, you know."

    14. Re:Is it really that hard by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats why you should define it once they use the acronym from then on out.

      for example:
      Oh my god(OMG) it's 6:30pm on a friday. Why am I still here. OMG my boss just gave me more stuff to do.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    15. Re:Is it really that hard by bluesnowmonkey · · Score: 1

      Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

      Overuse of acronyms degrades language, but it is a lost cause anyway.

    16. Re:Is it really that hard by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

      STFU.

    17. Re:Is it really that hard by Baseclass · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree with you, although, when an acronym is widely used within a certain discipline but not commonly known to the general populous, as a reader I feel it's good form to use the acronym spelled out like so...

      CVP (Chemical Vapor Deposition)

      I'm not sure if this is the case with Chemical Vapor Deposition or not but my point stands.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    18. Re:Is it really that hard by crayz · · Score: 1

      I would slashdot to make use of that HTML thing where you can hover on a word and see more text. Wordpress uses it quite well to display the meaning of acronyms.

      Just run all text through a filter to insert these HTML definitions for people who want them

    19. Re:Is it really that hard by Glytch · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'll have to correct you on this. It should be: hypertext transfer protocol://world wide web.computer science.university of virginia.educational institution/acronyms-are-good.hypertext markup language

      There you go.

    20. Re:Is it really that hard by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Oh my god(OMG) it's 6:30pm on a friday

      The correct way is to use the acronym and expand it in parentheses the first time it is used :

      OMG (Oh my God) it's 6:30pm on a friday. Why am I still here. OMG my boss just gave me more stuff to do

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    21. Re:Is it really that hard by quintessent · · Score: 1

      Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

      Of course. That's known as the OADL principle, isn't it?

    22. Re:Is it really that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d00d u r 50 !L33t

    23. Re:Is it really that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously never say "OK" as an acknowlegement, do you...

    24. Re:Is it really that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't hard for me to get an idea of what CVD means really quickly. I don't see how they degrade language; seems more like you felt like it would make you sound smart to say so

    25. Re:Is it really that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You obviously never say "OK" as an acknowlegement, do you...


      Nope, it is a good practice to say "okay" in full, in order to keep the language pure and proper.

  5. Somehow by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

    I cant see them becoming a girls best friend though

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Somehow by raitchison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You never know, I'm sure they are far more expensive than natural diamonds. The price tag alone would make them really appealing to some women. :-)

    2. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You never know

      At least they don't have blood on them like almost all natural diamonds do. Either the "blood diamonds" blood that deBeers and co want us to think about, or the blood of the exploited who work the mines and whose lives aren't worth squat that deBeers and co don't want us to think about. Any woman worth an engagement ring should know enough to not want a natural diamond in it - she'd be ashamed to be brandshing a symbol of exploitation on here finger.

      The price tag alone would make them really appealing to some women.

      The cheaper the woman is the more expensive her diamonds are.

    3. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...most women you mean.

    4. Re:Somehow by nuclear305 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Until they make sex toys and condoms out of this stuff...I mean, it's harder than diamond right? That's a lot to live up to...

    5. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they are already hard so now they just need to be long and thick.

    6. Re:Somehow by Baseclass · · Score: 1
      My wife and I are both in agreement that we will only buy manufactured diamonds (not that we buy all that many diamonds or anything).

      They are virtually indistinguishable from natural diamonds. Only sophisticated spectroscopy equipment can tell the difference.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    7. Re:Somehow by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      You know, you can also get Canadian diamonds, mined by union workers with respected rights, health care, etc. The only human misery there is the cold weather in Canada, but there's not much you can do about that.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    8. Re:Somehow by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      That's very interesting I didn't know that...And what's the fucking deal with your sig? LOL.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    9. Re:Somehow by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      My sig is just pure offensiveness, but only really offensive to those who are in most need of offense.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    10. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. You referred to HARD as PENIS. Yuo=genious!!11!1

    11. Re:Somehow by Deorus · · Score: 1

      In fact they are less likely to be expensive than natural ones, even though harder.

      Diamonds are not as rare as DeBeers wants people to believe, they are used everywhere from cooling chips in computer hardware to cutting and polishing other diamonds.

      Diamonds are only expensive because DeBeers has managed to make a successful propaganda telling people not to sell their diamods because "a diamond is forever" and buying cheaper diamonds from other companies to fix the prices. If they were a US company, they would be in violation of the antitrust law for that.

    12. Re:Somehow by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      "Until they make sex toys and condoms out of this stuff...I mean, it's harder than diamond right? That's a lot to live up to..."

      Wife: OMG your an animal ! How are you still going did you take some viagra tonight or something? Your still hard as a rock.

      Husband: Nope, got the new diamond condoms.

      Wife: Wow diamonds really are a girls best friend!

    13. Re:Somehow by Rei · · Score: 1

      I saw an interesting show about how the canadian diamond mines were found. It was really interesting - a small cooperative of prospectors managed to find it before DeBeers. Their method? While DeBeers found minerals that are normally associated with diamonds in one location, and were searching the area where they were found, the smaller group considered the fact that, given that the terrain was glacial, that the associated minerals were actually carried for hundreds of miles at the last glaciation when the top of the pipes was sliced off by the moving ice. They traced the path of glaciation back to a general area, and then used ground-penetrating radar to find the pipes ;) The first one they found was in this hellish location - dozens of feet below the surface of a frozen lake in the middle of the canadian arctic. They made a fortune.

      --
      "She was out of her depth in a shallow pool." -- Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin
  6. Gotta boil 'em by yotto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Raman Spectroscopy

    Dude, they're always tough until you boil them for 3 minutes. This is nothing new.

  7. Possible uses? by francisew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This might be good for new machining tools?

    I wonder what the optical properties are, and what the maximum size of these is?

    1. Re:Possible uses? by wximagery · · Score: 1

      Maybe big enough to toss into one of those annoying Troy built Chipper Shredders they sell on infomercials. Wonder what their return policy is.

    2. Re: Possible uses? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A thin, super-hard diamond layer? Put some on my razor blades please, so I don't need to throw them away after using them only a couple of times.

      Look elsewhere - no sig to be found here.

    3. Re: Possible uses? by theguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have a package of razor blades cryo treated... they'll last a really long time. A friend had a crankshaft cryo treated, and the owner of the company apparently puts disposable razor blades in with small batches and gives them out to friends, and sends them to service men overseas.

    4. Re: Possible uses? by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It cost me $15 for a pack of replacement razor blades. It cost me $30 to have them cryogenically treated. I've been using my current set for about 2 months now. The other ones got about 3-4 months of use before I threw them out. At this rate I've got about a 2 year supply left. There's a reason razor companies use the softest steel possible and charge between $5-8 dollars for a pack of 4 blades. It's also the same reason it can often be cheaper to buy a new printer instead of replacement cartridges.

      Cryogenic treating is nothing new. Top automotive racers have been freezing engine parts for over a decade now. Aeronautical companies have been doing it for longer. Did you just spend a lot of money on a special silk piece of clothing for your girl? Have it treated too. You'd be surprised how long silk will last, or how much stronger it will be after treatment. Tired of sharpening lawn mower blades? Did you buy your kid some expensive plastic toy you know he/she will destroy within a week? Damn near everything can be treated. Metals, fibers, and plastics (and other polymer compounds) are incredibly resilient afterwards.

    5. Re:Possible uses? by bryan314 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of some kind of super thin cutting device to compete with lasers, water jet cutters, and wire edms in the machining industry.

      bryan :)

    6. Re: Possible uses? by wximagery · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about my penis?

      Just do it! -Nike

    7. Re: Possible uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We ARE talking about nanotechnology, so you should be ok.

    8. Re: Possible uses? by Derg · · Score: 1

      This sounds hella cool, but as you and another poster on this thread have neglected to mention, How does one go about doing this? Where did you go to get it done?

      --
      I'm a little tea pot.
    9. Re: Possible uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What a good idea; I'm very skeptical about the application to e.g. fabrics (don't see how it could help, and if you're not careful it can do a lot of damage), but am quite interested in applying it to plastics/metals.

      Is there a FAQ about this, either service providers or an HOWTO assuming you have some LN2 and no knowledge of metallurgy? From what I researched, it uses temps around -320'F; that this is approximately LN2's boiling point cannot be a coincidence.

    10. Re: Possible uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That can't be true. You see, as Ayn Rand points out, the free market always gives the best solution, and monopolies are a myth. If people didn't like those razors, they'd just use a different brand made from a better steel. And if there wasn't a company making one, someone would invest in one.

      The free market is always right! Consequently, you are lying.

    11. Re:Possible uses? by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I want to know its tensile strength, so I can determine whether it'd be suitable for an economical space elevator. Impressive bulk modulus, at the very least!

      Still, 75 GPa being required to form the material is pretty high. Anyone know what type of SWNTs they used? Most, from the studies that I've seen, shouldn't need that kind of pressure. I came up with a general design previously for a press that could produce a high tensile strength fiber from CNTs, but I doubt it could handle 75 GPa.

      --
      "She was out of her depth in a shallow pool." -- Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin
    12. Re: Possible uses? by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      This sounds hella cool

      It is - that's where the "cryo" comes from...

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    13. Re: Possible uses? by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      I never thought of that. What a great idea. You know Gillette won't be championing that idea anytime soon since they make a killing on their Mach 1-5 with vibro lubricating blades (that sounds pretty sick).

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    14. Re: Possible uses? by Baseclass · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Then why doesn't some renegade small company come out with these everlasting products and put the megacorps out of business.

      Actually forget I said that...um, I have something to take care of brb (be right back).

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    15. Re: Possible uses? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      How can I find out where I can get things cryo treated? (I'm in Columbus, OH)

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    16. Re: Possible uses? by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Patents my good man, patents. It's not a free market as far as replacement razor blades are concerned.

    17. Re: Possible uses? by tim_mathews · · Score: 1

      300 Below seems like a possible source. They're in Decatur, IL which is about 350 Miles from Columbus, OH. What's that? Six hours?

    18. Re: Possible uses? by kidlinux · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to destroy a Fisher Price toy? My buddy and I began referring to the plastic as "Fisher Price" plastic, because it was some kind of rediculously resilient material, high above all other plastics.

      Seriously. That stuff is hard to break. These days though, a company is more likely to make it easy to break, so you have to keep buying replacements.

      --
      -kidlinux.
    19. Re: Possible uses? by Izago909 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then why doesn't some renegade small company come out with these everlasting products and put the megacorps out of business.

      The same reason that every company (that I know of) which makes 100 year incandescent light bulbs goes belly up. Anyone who has toured Edison's home has probably seen the light bulbs that he made which are still in use with no modifications or reconstruction. The term "engineered lifetime" is nothing new. Any old timer should be able to tell you stories of people making the news or celebrating when their "old iron" Detroit car passed 100K miles. Then people got a taste of some Japanese cars during the [original] oil crisis and realized 100K isn't impossible and isn't too much to ask for. We mustn't forget that a "free market" isn't necessarily interested in making better products unless it translates into its true intended goal, more profit. Longer product lifetimes usually means less repeat business. Imagine how long your razor business would last if you put freeze treated, diamond edged carbide in your products.

    20. Re: Possible uses? by ecloud · · Score: 1

      Well when each blade costs several dollars I use them for several months whether they were intended to last that long or not. I'm not sure whether I get a better shave from a 3-month-old triple-blade razor or a week-old single-blade one. At least the triple ones let the hair pass through instead of clogging up.

    21. Re: Possible uses? by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      What a good idea; I'm very skeptical about the application to e.g. fabrics (don't see how it could help, and if you're not careful it can do a lot of damage), but am quite interested in applying it to plastics/metals.

      Nearly everything that is solid in Earth's atmosphere has some sort of regular structure(ex: crystalline) except for metallic and organic glasses and a few other unusual compounds which are uncommon in nature and usually man made. Even though many solids have regular structures, they usually aren't close to being in perfect formation with rest of the molecules. By slowly heating and cooling the product to each extreme you can coax the molecules to accept a more uniform position. As we all know, a diamond is much stronger than graphite because of the uniformity in its' atomic arrangement.

      Cryo treating isn't a cure all though. The less uniform structure there is in a compound, the less benefit you will see. Many fibers work because even they have structure, especially silk. If you could zoom in on a small group of silk proteins you would see that they have interlocking amino groups that overlap their neighbors. Also, just drooping a piece of metal into a vat of LN2 and letting it thaw in the air is going to make it more brittle. You have to drop and raise temperatures very slowly, and once you do get it cold you have to let it sit for a while to make sure that temperature permeates the entire product. Even single digit temperature variations between the skin and the core of the material can weaken the whole thing. If you find a local place that treats things, don't be suprised if the turn around time is the better portion of a week, or even longer if you are also heat treating.

    22. Re: Possible uses? by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      sure, but in a actual free market, companies would actual be responsible for the entire consequences of their actions rather than as it is now, with the law so corrupted that we actually have no responsible companies

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    23. Re: Possible uses? by conan776 · · Score: 1

      You must not be Irish. Because everytime I shave, I bleed, to quote "The Untouchables", like a stuck Irish pig"

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
    24. Re: Possible uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but obviously the invisible hand has decided here that it is overall better for the economy if there is a lot of activity put into manufacture of soft steel razor blades. The negligible personal losses (come on, it's just a few dollars a piece) compound into a significant economic force which finds the best possible use in the global marketplace. Surely there cannot be anything wrong here? Or are you some kind of communist?

    25. Re: Possible uses? by ftzdomino · · Score: 1

      Isn't this not much different than heating a metal past its austenitization temperature for a while and cooling it quickly? I don't understand how this would work for a polymer, as there is no grain for heating and cooling to affect.

    26. Re: Possible uses? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "You see, as Ayn Rand points out, the free market always gives the best solution, and monopolies are a myth."

      Just two things... Sustained monopolies are not a result of a free market and we do not have a free market.

  8. Must we mention diamonds???? by Knightfall · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK great. Everytime diamonds/gems are mentioned in any way here on /. I get the familiar sound coming up from my computer room of "Honey, take a look at this. I bet NOBODY else at work would have one of these." Followed by a batting of the eyelashes and a subsequent emptying of my bank account. Please oh please stop mentioning these!!!


    Oh well, there is usually at least a sexual favor in there somewhere as well. Here's to hoping!!!

    --


    Knightfall
  9. Juvenile Humor Alert by SpecBear · · Score: 2, Funny

    Am I the only one who chuckled upon seeing the file name "wang_pnas.pdf"? TGIF

    1. Re:Juvenile Humor Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's even worse is that words like "harder" and "hardest" are used in the description.

    2. Re:Juvenile Humor Alert by burtman007 · · Score: 1

      No. It was a double take for me, I thought it was a joke!

    3. Re:Juvenile Humor Alert by billimad · · Score: 1

      OMIGOD! mod this up funny pronto. i'm such a sad geek that when i read it first i thought "gee, remember Wang PCs"

    4. Re:Juvenile Humor Alert by Kinkify · · Score: 0

      I'm sure glad i'm not the only one who noticed this. :(

    5. Re:Juvenile Humor Alert by Shinmizu · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of an old motherboard manual I had that referred to the connector for the "hard dick drive." Generic motherboard with generic translators.

  10. Kimberlites by Dareth · · Score: 0

    Diamonds are formed in a split second, under great pressure. Reference: Superman crushing coal. For others more skeptical, check out some kimberlite info: http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/kimberlites.html

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Kimberlites by JesseL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can this possibly be modded as informative? Refering to Superman as evidence and then posting a link that only talks about diamond finds around the great lakes does not convince me of the posters veracity.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:Kimberlites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe superman was able to pick up the statue of liberty by its finger instead of just breaking off the finger because the statue is made of carbon nanotubes.

      I think in the spirity of the parent poster, we should take this as absoulte proof that the statue is made of nanotubes.

    3. Re:Kimberlites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're joking, you're not funny.
      If you're serious, you are a fucking idiot.

  11. similar to a diamond? by SDEggbert · · Score: 1, Funny

    extra points for me... I just by my girl a Carbon Nanotube Engagement ring!

    1. Re:similar to a diamond? by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

      The fact that you think that's cool makes me seriously doubt said girl exists :)

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    2. Re:similar to a diamond? by Baseclass · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately any girl that would actually appreciate a carbon nano-tube ring probably wouldn't be very hot.

      Sorry if I offended any of the ladies in here...Oh wait this is Slashdot what was I thinking? Carry on.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    3. Re:similar to a diamond? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you've not looked hard enough, I can think of one.

  12. Carbon on carbon violence by martensitic · · Score: 5, Funny
    "both cracked and indented the diamond anvil used in its creation"

    And thus, the student overtakes the master.

    --
    Ut Tensio, Sic Vis
    1. Re:Carbon on carbon violence by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1
      "both cracked and indented the diamond anvil used in its creation"

      "Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful than you could imagine . . .""

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    2. Re:Carbon on carbon violence by nuclear305 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "And thus, the student overtakes the master."

      Don't forget you still have to slay the dragon and sleep with Violet.

    3. Re:Carbon on carbon violence by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      "When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master"

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
  13. thats nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    they should run hardness tests on some of the stuff in the back of my fridge

  14. medical use? by poison_reverse · · Score: 0

    tap it to my veins and kiss viagara/cialis goodbye

    --
    _+_+__+_+_+_+_+_+_+++
    when i moo u moo - just like that
  15. Acronyms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    CVD isn't an acronym, it's an initialism. Acronyms must be pronounceable as words. NATO, RAM...

    Acronyms don't degrade the language, they enhance it. They become words. Initialisms degrade it.

    On the other hand, it's definitional that overuse of acronyms degrades language.... that's the only meaning overuse could have for acronyms. The question is whether many people actually do overuse acronyms. I doubt it. It's mainly an initialism/acronym stew that causes trouble.

    1. Re:Acronyms... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Wrong again, Mr. AC.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    2. Re:Acronyms... by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, what does AC stand for again?

    3. Re:Acronyms... by modecx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can pronounce "CVD" as a word, so it must be an acronym. That I almost coughed my liver up as a result of said pronunciation has no bearing on that fact, from my point of view...

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    4. Re:Acronyms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wait, what does AC stand for again?

      Air Conditioning, what else?

    5. Re:Acronyms... by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 1

      No, no, no... Alternating Current.

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

  16. Space Elevator, here we come! by ave19 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These are the types of advances we need to make the space elevator a reality. Either using nanotubes like this in a matrix, or more mind-boggingly, create wires of them.

    Going up!

    --
    ...or maybe not.
    1. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      hmm, space elevators...
      http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html

      That would be a sweet amusement ride.

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    2. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 1

      Space Elevators are starting to become the new Beowulf Cluster of slashdot.

      "Imagine a space elevator made of this!"

    3. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't really matter how hard the material is. It needs to be VERY light and be able to withstand huge tensions. For example, spider silk does well in this area, but isn't anywhere near as hard as a diamond. But then I suppose that depends on your definition of "hard"...

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    4. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Liselle · · Score: 1

      These guys are already on the job:

      http://www.liftport.com/carbon.php

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    5. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by shokk · · Score: 1

      Heh, read Red Mars, where terrorists wrapped a Space Elevator twice around the planet and took out a number of settlements. That ought to be a real treat on a heavily populated planet like earth when that puppy comes down.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    6. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by gomoX · · Score: 1

      Actually carbon nanotubes are the only material known to humans that could actually serve as the space elevator's cable construction bricks.
      With a theoretical resistance to tension around 130 GPa (around 60 actually measured) with approximately the same mass that Kevlar, they make a great candidate.

      --
      My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
    7. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by cephyn · · Score: 1

      oh don't start this thread again.

      Here I'll nip it in the bud:

      Those "in the know" claim an earth-based elevator will not do that. It will be too thin to do any damage because it would fragment and burn up in the thick terran atmosphere.

      --
      Moo.
    8. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by cephyn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, space elevators are great, but can you make a Beowulf Cluster out of them?

      --
      Moo.
    9. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by LS · · Score: 1

      If you call setting up a shell company, making some drawings, and playing with lego mindstorms "on the job", then yes they are.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    10. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Compressive strength != tensile strength.

    11. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by LS · · Score: 1

      STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!!!

      Enough nanobot and space elevator garbage. Please! Unless we are specifically talking about science fiction. It's making me sick! When it comes to nanobots and space elevators, the abyss between available technology and implementation is larger than anything else I've ever seen. I'd be surprised if we had these things in a 100 years, let alone 10. We might as well talk about teleportation whenever a new property of light is discovered, or jacking-in whenever a new feature of the nervous system is discovered.

      ENOUGH, FAN BOYS! Stop it now!

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    12. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      Wow - can you imagine a new Beowulf cluster of slashdot?!?

    13. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prepare to be sick then. The foundations for these Future-Tech things are being laid now and in the years to come. People will talk. If you don't like it, go to News for Flatlanders or something.

    14. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by sageo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're thinking the word "toughness" toughness is tensile strength. Diamonds are relatively weak in relation to toughness compared to most things.

    15. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      Only if you can run it on Linux.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    16. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by gfody · · Score: 1

      I'm with you, fellow luddite ..and shut the fuck up about quantum computers already! IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! the whole concept is absurd! if god wanted us to compute at quantum speeds he would have given us bigger brains! just write your goddamn shareware and shutup!

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    17. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      By how large of a margin do carbon nanotubes actually qualify? (Yes I am in the process of Googling it)
      It just seems like it would have to endure an incredible amount of stress to achieve such a feat.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    18. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But then I suppose that depends on your definition of "hard"...

      You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton.

    19. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [obligatory welcome of our new space elevator overlords, you insensitive clod etc]

    20. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what she said!

    21. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by shokk · · Score: 1

      I think the parts about fragmenting and burning and coming down on living beings are part of the problem.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  17. so... by ColonBlow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    how long till we see nanotube engagement rings?

    --
    free online diet tracking.
  18. Chew on this... by superrcat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Raman, the technology and dietary staple of millions of college students makes carbon nanotubes harder than diamonds, (but still not harder than the $.25 cent Raman noodles themselves)

    1. Re:Chew on this... by metlin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Raman Spectroscopy refers to a spectroscopic analysis method for condensed matter based on Raman Scattering, which was by put forward by Sir CV Raman, a pioneering Indian physicist in optics and a Nobel Laureate. Incidentally, his nephew also Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar also won the Nobel Prize for work related to Black Holes.

      And oh, Raman's work also explained why the sky is blue, incidentally :-)

    2. Re:Chew on this... by KefabiMe · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the 25 cent figure from? I guess it's important that you have a fee for it. Free ramen gets you a free trip to court...

    3. Re:Chew on this... by Tongo · · Score: 1

      hehe, I ate so much raman in college I started eating it dry just for a change. Sprinkle a little of the flaver powder and crunch away. The bonus was that if you were poor (which I was), you could eat it dry, then drink a glass of water to rehydrate it. Filled you right up!

    4. Re:Chew on this... by didit · · Score: 1

      From wikipedia: "used in condensed matter physics and chemistry" does not mean it is a "method for condensed matter". Raman spectra can be recorded for solids (crystals and amorphous materials), liquids and gases. For example, Raman from air can be measured and you can observe the fingerprints due to O2 and N2 molecules vibrations and rotations. (google for more)

    5. Re:Chew on this... by ecloud · · Score: 1

      $0.10 on sale sometimes, or in big monster-packs at the warehouse club.

    6. Re:Chew on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering (light diffusing around particles smaller than its wavelength). What did Raman work on to explain that?

  19. Harder than diamond eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how long till they are applied to weapon systems? I bet these would be great at bunker busting, firing from space, or just cutting through armor.

    1. Re:Harder than diamond eh? by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      Actually... for projectiles you generally want density rather than hardness. Hard and light will bounce right off, heavy will punch on through.

      That and these things are *barely* any harder than diamonds. What 402 vs 407 GPa did they say? Not really enough difference to write home about unless there are other favorable properties... (Like avoiding the 4-way shear etc)

  20. the harder they come by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now we have drills to carve parts from synthetic diamonds. Very tiny drills, for very tiny machined parts. This nanotech is starting to get good.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  21. AA (Acronym Abuse) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IOHO (In Our Humble Opinion), we of the AAAAA (Amaerican Association Against Acronym Abuse) feel that AA will cause TTDOAM (The Total Descrution of All Mankind). Please refrain from using all acronyms.

    TYVM,
    AAAAA

    1. Re:AA (Acronym Abuse) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I welcome the AA Overlords who will one day descrute us.

  22. Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by francisew · · Score: 5, Informative

    I realize you are kidding... here is what Raman really is... (give or take a few details ;p)

    Spectroscopy: study of quantities of light at various wavelengths (or frequencies). Useful because matter interacts with light, so by measuring light passing through unknown matter, you figure out what its passing through.

    Raman spectroscopy, is a branch where one looks at the wavelength shift occurring as light passes through a sample. A bit like doppler radar involves a shift of frequency (although it's not a shift due to the movement of molecues, but rather due to energy differences in orbitals as they move/distort).

    The cool thing about Raman is that you just need a single wavelength of excitation, meaning you can build a spectrometer with a single laser diode. Then you filter off the laser line, and presto, the only light left will be the spectrum of interest.

    Caveats: low intensity, frequency shift is very small, you still need a monochromator. Advantages: you get information that isn't available in standard IR & UV-vis spectra, the spectra are excitation freuency independant (not entirely true), by taking advantage of resonances it's possible to get REALLY intense spectra (resonance Raman and SERS).

    1. Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Raman spectroscopy, is a branch where one looks at the wavelength shift occurring as light passes through a sample.

      Ramen spectroscopy, on the other hand, is applying a single frequency, usually 2.5GHz, to the ramen which is in a water solution, for about 3 minutes. The analysis is rather straightfoward, but you should blow on it otherwise it might scald your measuring equipment.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    2. Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Goddamn you are making me hungry. I want raman.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by DoraLives · · Score: 1
      Goddamn you are making me hungry. I want raman.

      Sorry. Raman's dead.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    4. Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by wolfywolfy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      funniest. reply. ever.

      --
      *meep*
    5. Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent has probably added one of the only informative comments in this entire subject, and they only have a 3 rating. Whose modding this and why are they clueless?

    6. Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by conan776 · · Score: 1

      All that MSG -- you'll only be hungry an hour later.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
    7. Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Good guess, but naturally, Raman Spectroscopy would be any spectroscopic measurement performed by the species which constructed the space ship from "Rendezvous with Rama," by Arthur C. Clarke.

  23. Umm by temojen · · Score: 0, Troll

    They're still made out of carbon, which oxidizes readily.

    1. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. and water is, like, 2/3 Hydrogen which burns easily so i could toss a match in the ocean and set the world on fire right?

      go back to chemistry 101 idiot.

    2. Re:Umm by yotto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've had to replace the diamonds in my wife's wedding ring 3 times in the past 5 years.

      Damn band keeps turning her finger green too. Does gold oxidize too?

    3. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and since they're still made of matter, they have a problem with evaporation. Just like diamonds do.

      Stupid matter-based materials. You call this a scientific advance? Nothing to see here, move along.

    4. Re:Umm by temojen · · Score: 1

      The Hydrogen in water is already oxydized. The carbon in carbon nanotubes isn't.

    5. Re:Umm by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      I guee in his case it meant for certain definitons of oxidized.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    6. Re:Umm by temojen · · Score: 1

      Your wife's ring probably doesn't get smashed between hunks of metal colliding at 1500m/s very often, as would happen with nanotube tipped projectiles.

      Also, copper in your (<24 Karat, you cheapskate) wife's ring is what is making her finger green.

    7. Re:Umm by JesseL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you ever seen a ring made of 24K gold that's been worn for a while? Pure gold isn't much harder than lead and will get beaten up in a hurry. 14-18K is much better suited to everyday jewelry. Although it is a pretty crappy alloy that would turn fingers green.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    8. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's actually the copper in brass fake-gold rings that turns into verdegris and turns your finger green.

    9. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like the diamond in oil drilling bits keeps oxidising and doesn't last. Seems to drill through rock for ages and ages and ages though.

    10. Re:Umm by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Uh, bonehead...

      >> doesn't get smashed between hunks of metal colliding at 1500m/s very often

      The last time I checked, most "weapon projectiles" only encounter such smashing, ONCE. After that point, it really doesn't f*ing matter.

      And I still see no relevence to oxidation.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    11. Re:Umm by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      You mean... arrgh! My blood! It's red because it's RUSTING! ... or something.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    12. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diamonds do oxidize, but NOT "readily". Heat a diamond red hot and drop it into liquid oxygen and it'll burn up completely. URL for the doubtful "In this lab a real diamond is being heated to over 1500 degrees centigrade. After being dropped into liquid oxygen, the diamond burns completely. "

  24. Drill bits! by ShadeARG · · Score: 1

    Drill bits made of carbon nanotubes would be an excellent application.

    1. Re:Drill bits! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Or those knives on TV that they use to cut through cans or pipes and then a tomato.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Drill bits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You! Suck!

    3. Re:Drill bits! by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      I have a set of those knives, and IIRC they have a thin layer of diamond film to give them their hardness. I tossed the wrapper with the information long ago, though.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  25. Reminder : Space elevator by S3D · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just to remind that every small progress in the carbon nanotubes helpful for Space Elevator or Tether

    1. Re:Reminder : Space elevator by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Every time we climb one branch higher on this tree, we're one step closer to the moon. We're on our way!

    2. Re:Reminder : Space elevator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And carbon nanotubes will be helpful for burglar tools! Bars, bolts, windows, walls, doorlocks, dobermans, you name it!

  26. Reminds me of by geekoid · · Score: 1

    thats funny. It reminds me of a my favorite martian episode where martin(he's from mars, get it?) needs to create a substance hard enough to fix his flying saucer. then, after this hilarity had ensued, he has to make a machine that can shape the substance.

    ah simple times....

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Marvin...

  27. diamond dating by happyfrogcow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    CDAC is also known to have created via CVD the hardest diamond to date.

    there's a joke in here somewhere, but my brain is mush right now.

    something about the difficulty in dating an inanimate object, i'm sure...

  28. Speaking of diamonds... by alexo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am still waiting for synthetic diamonds to break De Beers' cartel.

    1. Re:Speaking of diamonds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If synthetic diamonds could change anything, they would be illegal!

    2. Re:Speaking of diamonds... by alexo · · Score: 1


      > If synthetic diamonds could change anything, they would be illegal!

      Voting, when used intelligently, can change lots of thing and it is still legal (probably because most people don't).

    3. Re:Speaking of diamonds... by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

      unfortunately, important voting is generally done by senators and representatives and of course the electotral college. Once I was frustrated about the lack of interest in voting, but I have come to the conclusion that non-voters in the US are actually being realistic and reasonable. If more people voted, there would just be that many more votes from dead people, repeat voters, and pets. The system is broken, and broken badly.

  29. Gimme! by DiscordOfFive · · Score: 3, Funny

    Damn... Just when I get my +5 sword diamond bladed, they make a better diamond... or rather, carbon thingy

    --


    Only the purest of souls seek enlightenment. Everyone else just wants power.
  30. Wow that's awesome by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · · Score: 1

    Cool libertarian pipe dream!

    --
    If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
  31. background by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 2001 edition of the annual review of materials research, http://www.annualreviews.org/, has a nice review of the field of super hard materials. the authors point out that scratching a diamond is not, in intself, much evidence of anything; in the real world lots of soft scratch hard examples can be found. The authors of this article also point out that one of the few flaws of diamond is that it reacts with iron, so you can't diamond coat cutting tools; instead, you have to use much softer things like boron nitride or TiN. Nanotubes could have a major commercial future if they are harder then TiN, non reactive to iron, but softer then diamond.

    full citation SYNTHESIS AND DESIGN OF SUPERHARD MATERIALS; J Haines, JM Léger, G Bocquillon
    Annual Review of Materials Research, Vol. 31: 1-23

    1. Re:background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      GOLD is for the mistress--silver for the maid--
      Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade."
      "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
      "But Iron--Cold Iron--is master of them all."

      Kipling.

    2. Re:background by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Nanotubes could have a major commercial future if they are harder then TiN, non reactive to iron, but softer then diamond.

      I strongly suspect that nanotube coatings on iron won't work, unless you have a coating of some barrier material (in which case, diamond coating would also work). Any form of carbon would be likely to react to form iron carbides when heated.

  32. Price? by Mike+Rubits · · Score: 1

    What's the current price of production of something like this - is it more efficent to use this where you'd use diamonds normally? PDF link wasn't working for me, so apologies if this was already mentioned.

  33. Re:You're not fooling anyone. by Knightfall · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wasn't trying to ... just being a little silly on a Friday afternoon.


    Dick.

    --


    Knightfall
  34. How much will this one cost me? by xRelisH · · Score: 2, Funny

    Geez, now us guys have to buy our fiancees Carbon Nanotube Engagement rings?

  35. space [elevator] fanboyism by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
    These are the types of advances we need to make the space elevator a reality.

    Yeesh. No. There are just a few other problems, as with all ideas hatched by Scifi authors (who need to do little more than make something plausible on the most abstract level. Scifi authors almost always get it WRONG- we don't all use jetpacks and atomic cars to get to work, now do we? No 'death rays'- hell, we haven't even gotten speech recognition down, really).

    I know some -other- fanboy will link to a FAQ that "answers"(says, for each issue, "we're aware of it and working on it!") each of these, but:

    • safety
    • location
    • weather
    • construction
    • turning an extremely hard object into something useful for a cable which must be flexible
    • financial backing
    • insurance
    • commercial viability

    ...all of these issues stacked against the relative ease of launching things into space (used to be a big deal. Now it's pretty ho-hum). Nevermind the main benefit everyone always cites (conveniently leaving out all costs except the actual energy needed to lift something- wow, a business like that with no overhead? Cool). Cutting the $/lb price by ten, is not going to mean 10x more stuff in space to put up. God, I hope not, it's cluttered as is...

    Let the "flamebait" and "troll" mods who are Space Fanboys begin, for thou shalt not speak out against space development even if it IS a legitimate viewpoint- and one shared by many of us. Let's be a little more, uh, down to earth in our problem solving, please? We've got a lot of problems right here on earth, folks- and I'd much rather you all put that brainpower to them.

    1. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      callsub tumbleweed()

    2. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've got a lot of problems right here on earth, folks- and I'd much rather you all put that brainpower to them.

      There are lots of down to earth problems involving high loads and other stressors on cables. How do you make the SF bay area bridge safer against earthquakes? (or against sabotage?). How do we scale up the design of that suspension bridge to get multi-mile spans in the Florida keys or elsewhere? Is it possible to build such a bridge across the Gibraltar istmus?
      Can we make a cable that's strong and waterproof enough to safety retrofit earthenware dams all around the mouth of the Mississippi region, and do it cheaply? Is there something that could help stabilize really tall free standing radio masts in central Russia, and is thermally less expansive than steel cable, or better yet electrically non-conductive? What design changes could have kept the WTC standing for at least a few additional hours, and what sort of materials would they require?
      The thing is, if we get good answers to even some of these questions, they are likely in this case to point us towards towards space program uses as well. The problems you cite will apply to every use, not just a space elevator. Someone will be looking into using these fibers for zeppelin fabric to build really large gasbags and set up a major freight hauling system across the Mediterranian sea, and someone else will raise the issues of safety, location or insurance just like you have here.
      Half the reason so many engineers want to build really big projects like space elevators is to show all the people who toss out bullet comments just like yours for every new project, space or earth, military or peaceful, that big things can still be done. You're doing it about space. Someone else will do it about any new idea that could alleviate poverty, or clean up the environment, or somehow improve someone's quality of life. So nothing will change. Thank goodness its all perfect now.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    3. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by stu72 · · Score: 1

      For inventing the phrase "Space Fanboy" - you are now my personal hero.

      Thank you - it's about time.

      I'm as excited as any geek to have humans galavanting among the stars, but I don't feel it's going to happen, or that it even should happen, without sound economic principles. Wasting precious resources on symbolic efforts like the ISS & the space shuttle is not going to speed our return to the heavens.

      When I was young and I read all about the moon program I was so excited to think that Mars must be right around the corner. Once I found out that to accomplish the moonshot required about 10% of the entire federal budget of the USA, I realized it was before it's time.

      Cheap space travel will come one day, but just like cheap RAM and HD's, it's a long road.

    4. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by Baseclass · · Score: 1
      Believe me I agree that we have many more problems on Earth more worthy of solving but you know as well as I that's not the way the economy works.

      Businesses (and governments for that matter) are in it for the money, not to better humanity.

      Here in the good old US of A we have money coming out of our big fat asses and then some. The people that have money invest it into things that will make them even more money. Into lobbying efforts that will pass laws to make them more money. Into causes that will give them more power which leads to more money.

      There are a few idealists with money but they are few and far between. Yes I'm liberal but I'm also a science geek. I'm a bit torn but I've come to the conclusion that money will not be allocated to the causes that need it most. With that said I am in favor of the space elevator and just about any other worthy scientific endeavor the government's willing to finance, which isn't much nowdays unless you consider military technology.

      Let's make space travel cheap. One day we will cononize space, the moon, Mars, and beyond.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    5. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      Let's be a little more, uh, down to earth in our problem solving, please? We've got a lot of problems right here on earth, folks- and I'd much rather you all put that brainpower to them.

      Oh, the world would be such a better place if people this ignorant did what they used to do - that is, fail to survive to adulthood.

      I'll ask you the same thing I've asked many people before, and the same thing I've never once recieved a satisfactory answer for: Where do you get this delusion that we have to lock ourselves to the planet's surface until we've Solved Things Here first, and why do you think doing something involving space development is so expensive as to wipe out the possibility of accomplishing things on the ground?

      -PS

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    6. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by johannesg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I fail to see why a troll like you got modded up so far, but ok...

      Launching things into space is not relatively easy and not pretty ho-hum. In fact, the one remaining super power in this world does not even have the capability to launch people into space anymore! (the fact that efforts are under way to restore shuttle services does not change the current state of affairs)

      Energy costs _are_ a major factor, not just for the launch but throughout the entire space industry. Since launching is hideously expensive (between $50 million and $500 million depending on your launch vehicle), space hardware must be utterly perfect, and made to last more or less forever, before it leaves the ground. If you could drop launch costs to, say, $5 million, you could afford to build your spacecraft to lower standards. If one were to fail in orbit, no big deal - just send up another. This alone represents a major cost savings that is not usually taken into account by space elevator economics. Even though other cost factors remain (particularly, that of running your spaceport) the overal effect would be a significant lowering of cost.

      The cost of building a space elevator is irrelevant. It is the ultimate phallic symbol, so price doesn't matter. Moreover, relative cost per launch lowers each time you raise something into orbit, ultimately falling to zero.

      Cutting the price by 10x will, as you say, not mean 10x more stuff is going up. It will be more like 100x more stuff, since more groups will be able to afford a launch. Instead of building a small 3-person capsule that launches on a single rocket, we could assemble huge interplanetary spacecraft. They would be far larger and safer (because of heavier shielding, greater redundancies, etc.) than what we could launch today. We could also afford to send up garbage-collection craft that have no other purpose than clean up earth orbit, thereby reducing clutter.

      Finally, your comment about problem solving on earth BEFORE we are allowed into space is disgusting. It comes up every time space is discussed, and I always find myself wondering "when, then?" When will be allowed of this planet? Don't you realize that most earthly problems are man-made, fabricated to serve a political purpose? What makes you think engineers should be working on a solution to them? Moreover, do you have any idea how much money goes into space exploration, compared to say the military budget, or the healthcare budget, or the education budget?

    7. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Let's not also forget the big W word... terrorism.

      Not that W invented it, but if you have just one space elevator, you're going to have to try to protect it against the wealthy crazies.

      However, all of your reasons are reasons why I think it would be better to start by building a nanotube launch tower, rather than a nanotube space elevator.

      Then, you don't have to launch your materials into space; it pays off before it's done; you work the problems out step by step; and when you *do* want to build a space elevator, it doesn't reach all the way to the ground. It only has to reach to the launch tower. That makes your space elevator 2/3 the size, and that much cheaper.

      That said, I too don't think it'll be done in our lifetime.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    8. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by dj245 · · Score: 1
      I don't think the question is whether it is possible or not to build a build a bridge across the Gibraltar Isthmus. It will probably become possible soon.

      The question is whether it is possible to *maintain* such a tremendous bridge in a saltwater enviroment, and whether it would be much cheaper to pursue alternatives such as tunnels or ferries.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    9. Re:space [elevator] fanboyism by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      Another thing to consider is that R&D tends to go in cycles. For a long time there will be just incremental small improvements in things, surrounded by increased applicability - which is a good thing. Notice how many more things are becoming computer-controlled, to good results?

      Somewhere along that period there will be a buildup in knowledge and in ability (often due to the cycle's small improvements and increased applicability), and a breakthrough will happen. Notice that many of the big breakthroughs have occured in multiple places near-simultaneously.

      Big projects often have aftershocks of innovation, as materials, machines, and techniques founded during the production are capitalized upon.

      As a libertarian, I feel compelled to mention that it's best to have the big project be done by a private group, so that the innovations are indeed capitalized upon, and so that you do not "rob from the people to pay the rich" as so many large projects done by the government turn into.

  36. BAH! by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wolverine: Foolish humans. My adamantium claws would rip your nanocrap into shreds.

  37. Harder than diamond? by geomon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think the abstract said "at least comparable to cubic diamond".

    That would change Mohs hardness scale if it were harder.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Harder than diamond? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      That would change Mohs hardness scale if it were harder.

      Yeah. Now it goes to eleven.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Harder than diamond? by geomon · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Now it goes to eleven.

      Nice catch!

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  38. Jaws - 007 by otisg · · Score: 0

    Now we know what kind of teeth Jaws will wear in the next James Bond flick - Carbon Nanotubes dentures.

    --
    Simpy
  39. And best of all! by forkboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And best of all, no African peasants had to die to make these.

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    1. Re:And best of all! by owlstead · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? They compress African peasants to make diamonds? The bastards!

    2. Re:And best of all! by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      And best of all, no African peasants had to die to make these.

      Well, they didn't have to die.

  40. Excuse Me by OccidentalSlashy · · Score: 0

    Could this soon lead to blades that can slice through robots? Cause I could really use one of them right about now. *gulp*

    --
    vicious, untreated political sewage...niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive...worshipless pap
  41. Yeah, I agree by Colin+Smith · · Score: 0

    A diamond's no good unless it's been up some 3rd world miner's arse.

    --
    Deleted
  42. This could affect the diamond market... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and enough with the nanotube ring jokes. That's not what I'm talking about.

    You see, nowadays, when you want to facet a gemstone into the shapes most people have come to expect in jewelry, one has to use abrasives to put the faces in the stone. Usually Silicon Carbide grit (9.5 hardness, usually for softer stones) or diamond (10 hardness, for harder stuff) on a spinning disk to grind into the stone. But this doesn't work for all gemstones, notably diamond. Trying to facet a diamond with diamond grit on a lap (the disk) will just cut gouges into your lap. They are not cheap.

    So diamonds still have to be done the hard way: roughly shaping the stone by cleaving, then using 2 diamonds, one of poor quality, to rub the faces into the good diamond. If this stuff can be synthesized in different grits (particle sizes) for fairly cheap, then it can be used to facet diamonds with machinery rather than by hand. Much of a diamonds (and most other stones) value is actually from the labor put into faceting it. This is especially so for smaller stones. How cheap? Well, currently lapidaries are paying for synthetic diamond grit...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  43. cheap space launches by WillWare · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One person commented that this may help advance the Space Elevator, and that may be true, but it's an even bigger help for the space railway because the material is good under compression (the SE needs something good under tension). The space elevator subjects its payload to about a week of heavy radiation, so it's not practical for passengers. There are still lots of non-alive things we want to put in space cheaply, and for those it's great.

    For humans, J. Storrs-Hall (of sci.nanotech fame) proposed a space railway that could be built sooner and more cheaply than a space elevator. It's a linear induction motor laid along a 300km-long track, 100km above the ground, where the atmosphere is thin enough to take a few orbits to decay your orbit. You drive your spaceship up a ramp to one end, and the motor accelerates you along the railway at about 10G for about 90 seconds, putting you in a slightly elliptical orbit with an apogee on the other side of the Earth. When you hit apogee, you do a burn to get into a higher orbit.

    Relatively little radiation because you cross the Van Allen belts much faster. You get to LEO without burning any of your own fuel, which is a big energy win. The railway is low enough that orbits still decay slowly, so there's no space junk to worry about at that altitude.

    The structure is a collection of A-frames, built like a radio tower. Like the space elevator, only a tiny fraction of the height is subjected to significant weather. The structure is under compression, not tension, which widens the choice of materials. According to Storrs-Hall, existing synthetic diamond would be suitable.

    --
    WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    1. Re:cheap space launches by tyroney · · Score: 1

      Did I miss this the last few space elevator tangents, or is this something new and exciting to tell all my friends about?

    2. Re:cheap space launches by mlyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Relatively little radiation because you cross the Van Allen belts much faster. You get to LEO without burning any of your own fuel, which is a big energy win. The railway is low enough that orbits still decay slowly, so there's no space junk to worry about at that altitude.

      Um, what? LEO is generally considered to be below 500km or so; the inner Van Allen belts start at 650km. Exactly what problem are you trying to solve?

      I agree that for interplanetary stuff you may want something faster than the space elevator.. but for LEO you don't exactly get close to the Van Allen belts. Please elaborate.

    3. Re:cheap space launches by lommer · · Score: 1

      Uh what? Sounds good when you say it like that, but how exactly are you gonna build this "railway" at 100km up? For reference, 100km is the height that X-Prize competitors had to attain, and the world's tallest freestanding structure is only 553m tall. You want to build something 200x higher than anything we've built before, higher than most (all but 4) planes can fly, and expect people to take you seriously? The space elevator is pretty far-fetched, the only reason people are taking it seriously at all is that they've busted there ass to provide solid physical models of how it work and researched extensively the materials required, etc.

    4. Re:cheap space launches by WillWare · · Score: 1
      for LEO you don't exactly get close to the Van Allen belts. Please elaborate.

      When you ascend the space elevator, you go 200 MPH and you spend about a week getting to GEO. If you're at LEO, you've got a horizontal velocity component of about 90,000 times that much. When you do the burn at apogee, you can do a big enough burn to cross the Van Allen belts in a half-orbit. The Apollo astronauts crossed the belts in a few hours, getting about 1% of a lethal dose. Presumably the same should be possible when launching from the railway.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    5. Re:cheap space launches by mlyle · · Score: 1

      Well, ignoring the fact that if you take the space elevator up to about 700km you have the same potential energy as LEO, without spending a substantial amount of time in the lower belts (which don't have that high of a dose rate anyways).

      The space "railway" is a ridiculous concept. The author of that paper states that if the mass of the elevator were concentrated in one point (the structural best case), it would result in a column "only" 80cm on the side. Wow, that's only 2.3 *10^8 kilograms of diamond. You're talking (at 100% efficiency), 1*10^14 joules just to lift the column to an average height of 50km (not counting whatever goes on top). Likewise, to make the diamond, just looking at the raw potential difference between graphite and diamond (even ignoring the massive activation energy required, and >99.9% inefficiency in current industrial diamond production processes), you need another 5*10^3 joules of energy. Plus, you need some as-yet uninvented mechanism to bind the industrial diamonds together and maintain the compressive strength. And there will be huge bending moments supplied by wind that will exceed the structural limits of diamond.

      Even the space elevator today relies on Unobtanium (undeveloped miracle materials and processes). This "space train" is far worse.

    6. Re:cheap space launches by mlyle · · Score: 1

      That would be 5*10^13. oops.

    7. Re:cheap space launches by ecloud · · Score: 1

      Well I figure why does it have to go all the way to LEO? The lion's share of the fuel is burned just getting the rocket off the ground, usually; so anything that can give you a little kinetic energy using ground-based power is an improvement. Just running a train to the top of Mt. Everest, at any speed, at the right angle, and doing launches from the end of the track, would be an improvement; if the air is so thin you can't breathe without oxygen, it's got to be a lot less resistance for launches too. Gradually the technology will be developed to get such trains going higher and higher but we wouldn't have to do it all at once.

      Anyway nanotech really will change the world someday, and I think the space elevator is possible, if we don't get a better idea in the meantime.

    8. Re:cheap space launches by WillWare · · Score: 1
      if you take the space elevator up to about 700km you have the same potential energy as LEO

      This idea intrigued me, so I did the math but got a different answer. To get a potential energy difference equal to the kinetic energy needed to be in LEO, you need to climb to 5995 km above the earth's surface. This means you need to traverse almost the entire inner Van Allen belt.

      Instead, let the elevator lift the spacecraft to a height and drop it. Then the craft accelerates horizontally, ending up in LEO. With an acceleration of 10 Gs, you need 80 seconds to reach 8 km/sec. So the distance fallen is about 33 km. To end up at a 200-km-high LEO orbit, climb to about 233 km. Climb higher, and you can live with lower accelerations.

      That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach. I don't know offhand how much rocket fuel is needed, but it's got to be a better deal than launching from the ground. Interesting.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    9. Re:cheap space launches by mlyle · · Score: 1

      Space elevator at 5995 km:

      Potential: (1 kilogram) * (5 995 kilometers) * (9.8 ((m / s) / s)) = 58 751 000 Joules

      ((((radius of Earth + (5 995 km)) * 2 * pi) / (((24 hours) * 365.24) / 366.24))^2) * 1 kilogram = 814 074.554 Joules

      (58 751 000 Joules) + (814 080 Joules) = 59 565 080 Joules

      vs.

      Potential: (350 km) * (9.8 ((m / s) / s)) * (1 kilogram) = 3 430 000 Joules

      Kinetic: ((8 (km / s))^2) * 1 kilogram = 64 000 000 Joules

      Total: 67 430 000 Joules

      OK, you're right. I should do less math in my head and more with Google calculator ;). Still, a tower 62 miles high bearing those types of load made of out diamond.. is not happening anytime soon. There is a better chance technology will exist to build the space elevator.

      Finally, all this talk about radiation is a little irrelevent if Wikipedia is accurate. According to the article on the Van Allen belts, the dose rate for a satellite with 3mm of aluminum cladding is about 2500 rem/yr. Even if it takes a day to go through the Van Allen belts, this is a dose of about 7 rem.

      Maximum permissible dose (MPD),
      dose values based on the general recommendations by the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (see radiation protection), which stipulate that the average individual occupational dose to the whole body or to radiation-sensitive organs should not exceed 5 rems per year.


      The MPD dosing guidelines are a factor of 5 below detectable physiological effects, additional shielding could be provided if launch is so cheap, and the total time to ascend 5995km at 320km/hr is 18 hours (and the time spent in the Van Allen belts is a fraction of this).

  44. compressive strenth != Youngs Modulous by Brigadier · · Score: 3, Informative



    Keep in mind the compressive strength of a material is not the same as the strenth in tension. Not only that material like this has pretty much no elastic properties. ie, thats why you can easily shatter a diamond even though it's so strong

  45. The Next Bond Film by Performaman · · Score: 1

    It looks like diamonds aren't forever.

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
    1. Re:The Next Bond Film by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative

      > It looks like diamonds aren't forever.

      And they never were. Diamonds burn and don't even leave ash, they turn to CO2. This was known to the Romans. DeBeers was irresponsible by claiming that diamonds last forever. Diamond combusts at 1320 degrees. Jewelers coat diamonds to seal out oxygen when soldering.

      Diamond is overrated. Graphite is more stable. Cubic Zirconia requires much higher temperatures to combust. For industrial applications, synthetic diamonds are generally superior. If you're buying sex, it can be had more cheaply. There's really no good reason to ever purchase a jewelry diamond, and lots of reasons not to.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  46. New Acronym by douglips · · Score: 1
    Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

    OOADL.

  47. Ramans do everything in threes by dakara · · Score: 5, Funny
    Raman Spectroscopy

    I'm expecting 2 more dupes of this article.

    1. Re:Ramans do everything in threes by yeremein · · Score: 1

      Raman Spectroscopy

      So do I observe the spectrum before adding the little flavor packet to the noodles, or after?

    2. Re:Ramans do everything in threes by arodland · · Score: 1

      Three more. And they'll be a joint effort.

  48. Other uses? by Lifix · · Score: 1

    I see alot of people talking about uses of these nanotubes in a space elevator, but honestly, this can't be the only application. I was thinking another application could possibly be drill bits. If we can make these nanotubes more cost effective then actual industrial grade diamond we could use them as pieces of drill bits, I think :)

    I am a student, so I don't know much about this, but surely there have to be applications for super strong materials etc.

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
  49. parent sounds insightful to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except the part about so much cost from faceting. He left out the cartel part.

    1. Re:parent sounds insightful to me by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have said significant? If I remember to get a half carat diamond faceted for cheap in the US, it's something like $150? Looks about right judging from this site.

      You can get 1 carat certified G-white diamond round brilliant I1 for $430. It would cost $125 to get that faceted in the US. I'd say that's significant.

      To get a stone faceted on a machine, it's about $45 to $90 per carat stone (depends on the stone's charactoristics and the cut complexity usually) in the US.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  50. Am I the only one nerdy enough to think... by jeddak · · Score: 1

    ..."SWORDS!!!!" ?

    1. Re:Am I the only one nerdy enough to think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    2. Re:Am I the only one nerdy enough to think... by jeddak · · Score: 1

      thank you

  51. calculated hardness by GCP · · Score: 1

    Is it currently possible to calculate the hardness of a material knowing only its molecular structure? I'm guessing it is, but I don't know.

    If so, do we already know what the hardest *possible* material would be? (Assuming regular atoms, not neutronium.)

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    1. Re:calculated hardness by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      yes and no. there are certainly scientists doing these calculations, and they predict that certain nitrogen compounds may be harder then diamond; however, the calculations are not wholly reliable. by the way, when computer power/price goes another factor of a ~ 10,000, we will really be able to do this sort of calculation routinely beyond low atomic number elements (carbon, nitrogen) I do not beleive the calculations are that good; nor are they that good for more complex materials (e.g;, despite an immense amount of work, no one understands the cupric oxide high temp superconductors)

    2. Re:calculated hardness by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      THAT is a big fat NEGATIVE.

      The strongest material in existence is what the A-arms on my RC-truck are made of...

      Solid Unobtanium.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    3. Re:calculated hardness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can see the nanotube compound is not isotropic, so the hardness is not welldefined as a single number. You can define a Youngs modulus along the tubes and a transverse Youngs modulus, and two shear moduli. Why does the article only mention bulk and shear modulus? Can someone explain?

  52. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Welcome our new inanimate carbon rod overlords!

  53. you know you're a sucessful geek when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....you ask your girlfriend (success 1) to dress up like a hot romalan babe for your birthday--and she does it!(sucess 2)

  54. Terrorist proof buildings? by Stripsurge · · Score: 1

    If Chemical vapour deposition can be scaled up to construction size then buildings could be slowly built similarly to 3D printing. That'd be one hella strong building. If not whole buildings then perhaps just the windows. Short of that, maybe diamonds will be used as bullet proof glass.

    1. Re:Terrorist proof buildings? by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      You'd be better off wrapping structural elements in sheets of carbon fiber. It's been tested at UCSD's Jacobs School of Engineering as a way to retrofit against earthquakes and has been considered, at least, to add protection against bomb blast.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    2. Re:Terrorist proof buildings? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      How about shingles that do not wear out
      Or fail in a hurricane

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Terrorist proof buildings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, shingles that cut you god damn head off when the nail fails under the gale force winds. Now that is an ingenious idea.

      JAAC

  55. Just so happened... by zogger · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..that I was listening to a radio show the other day, and this was the topic. Turns out that *most* (not all but most) of the high level opposition to "blood diamonds" comes from the debeers monopoly itself, they started it as a disinformation campaign, and have used a lot of mercenaries to instigate violence against a lot of poor people just trying to dig up a buck or two. turned them into rebels and terrorists and such like. Various folks ran with this disinformation and now it's carved in stone "fact". Reality is diamonds are more common than some other precious stones, they just keep a higher market value from the dearth of competition and a lot of industry collusion.

    anyway, that's what was on the show....

    hey! searching google to look for some data to backup what I just remembered anecdotally found me this gem!.

  56. parent is a hiding TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um tin is like the oposite of hard. i believed you up untill that point. this would be obvious to anyone who ever had those tin xmas orniments.

    i believe tin is just a little stronger than aluminium. thats why they used to have tin cans.

    1. Re:parent is a hiding TROLL by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      you are right, tin, the element denoted by the symbol Sn from the latin stannum is soft TiN, Titanium Nitride is a very hard substance commonly used to coat tools; next time you are at the hardware store, if you look in teh drill bit section, u will c yellowish colored drill bits - the yellow is a layer of TiN BTW, TiN coating is millions, if not tens or hundreds of million a year

  57. tiny rigid tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yeah, I thought it said wang_fnas... I laughed double when I saw it was _pnas instead :)

    Carbon nanotubes: real hard, but real small. Dare I make an 'insert' joke?

    1. Re:tiny rigid tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Insert joke here?"

  58. Re:cheap space launches: Lofstrom Loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Keith Lofstrom came up with it first..

    Lofstrom, Keith H., "The Launch Loop", ANALOG 1983

    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/launchloop/index.h tm l

  59. Not going to be cost efficient by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

    Won't be efficient considering the materials to be manipulated. The basic requirement of a material to be used in machining is that it be harder than the material to be cut. Materials that are easily friable, however, tend to be quite expensive to use. The only application this material would see would be grinding, and the rate at which it would degrade would be very costly. Carbides of some type are already in use that are extremely cost efficient and capable of cutting anything that would ever see use in production. This includes titanium, space-age ceramics, tungsten carbide, and even diamond with its friable nature.

    This is just one of those nifty things that will be used in very specialized projects, but will be machined by other means. Further, the specialized projects this would be used for would most likely never see the use of a machine shop.

    --
    Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
  60. I'd think if you know the individual words... by ebyrob · · Score: 1

    you get a pretty good idea of the basic meaning.

    I mean Chemical Vapor Deposition.

    Some compound, in vapor form, gets deposited on some surface. Sounds pretty simple.

    Sure it don't make me no expert, but it gives me a heck of a lot more information than "CVD" does. (which sounds as much like a venereal disease as a fabrication method)

  61. What about the toxicity of nanotubes? by shoor · · Score: 1

    About a year ago there was a flurry of articles about how carbon nanotubes were highly toxic. There was even a thread in slashdot about it. Well, the stories keep coming about wonderful things that can be done with nanotubes but never a mention anymore about their toxicity. Why is that?

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    1. Re:What about the toxicity of nanotubes? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      The toxicity was reported on Fullerenes (i.e. buckyballs), not carbon nanotubes.

      This is because nanoparticles are much more probable to intoxicate you (mad cow disease anyone?) than common particles made of new alloys.

      But you got a point there. We have to make sure that current nano-materials are produced so that no particles are spread to the open air. Because they're obviously non-biodegradable.

      Luckily, "common" nanotubes are used to be only in electronics or organized structures (flexible solar cells, etc).

      Let's see what happens over time.

    2. Re:What about the toxicity of nanotubes? by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      All I know is... the second these things hit the market, those wonderful bullet chains are coming off of our rescue saws, and a bunch of new HPC-bladed chain is going on them. Nothing pisses me off more when I'm trying to cut an egress through brick and concrete, only to have the blade hang up (or overheat/fail) on rebar.

      Granted, using a chainsaw on anything not-wood is normally an abomination; but a real bullet chain is intended for these other things, and enables cutting tougher materials (mentioned above) with lighter tools (chainsaws instead of K12s etc), meaning it can be cut sooner, with less effort, and more safety. If HPC eventually pans out, they'll increase this factor even moreso.

      As far as toxicity, I suspect it's largely irrelevent when compared to the environment I'd be using it in. The majority of other places and other uses, though... your point is something to think about. I suppose we don't want to, because it'd rain on our parade (so to speak).

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  62. Acceleration by k2r · · Score: 1

    > For humans, J. Storrs-Hall [...] proposed a space railway [...]
    > You drive your spaceship up a ramp to one end, and the
    > motor accelerates you along the railway at about 10G for about 90 seconds

    Well, you might have been human at one end of the ramp, but you definitely ceased being human leaving the other end ....

    k2r (It's not easy being liquid)

    1. Re:Acceleration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10G of acceleration for 90 seconds is definitely survivable by a human.

      By riding the decelerator sled himself, Dr. Stapp demonstrated that a human can withstand at least 45 G's in the forward position, with adequate harness. This is the highest known G force voluntarily encountered by a human. Dr. Stapp believed that the tolerance of humans to G force had not yet been reached in tests, and is, in fact, much greater than ordinarily thought possible.

      See http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/people /stapp_biography.html

      You may say that this is for a short loading, rather than a sustained 10 second one. Well, the best fighter pilots with g-suits maneuver at +12Gz for >10 seconds, maintaining consciousness the whole time, doing so in body positions which don't maximize the human body's ability to withstand acceleration.

      I don't imagine it would be very fun, though.

    2. Re:Acceleration by k2r · · Score: 1

      I must admit that I'm impressed.

      Though I still doubt that 10G x 90s (=4860 KM/h) are something I might survive in an acceptable condition it seems as if trained fighter-pilots wearing the appropriate Anti-G equipment could do this.

      Thanks,
      k2r

  63. Re:But the real question is...-diamonds, DNA, & by iamcf13 · · Score: 1
    ...if the Mohs scale were linear, diamond's value would be about 42.
    -- Mohs hardness scale


    Ironic that Douglas Adams's solution to 'Life, the Universe, and Everything' would have something to do with diamonds, isn't it?
  64. OK who taught chemistry to this guy ? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Oxidation applies to NORMAL carbon.

    Nanotubes are CRYSTALS. Their molecular structure does NOT let them be oxidized. FYI, carbon nanotubes are graffite sheets rolled up. There's no open atoms that are chemically reactive.

    And I'm speaking about NORMAL nanotubes, not this new flavor harder than diamond.

  65. Not! The sky is blue because of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rayleigh scattering, in which incoming photons are scattered by gas molecules according to the fourth power of their energy - so blue photons get scattered about 16 times as much as red photons. Therefore, the sky scatters a lot of blue light to observers, and looks blue. Raman scattering does happen in the sky, but is about 6 orders of magnitude less than Rayleigh scattering, and doesn't contribute to sky color at all.

  66. building 100km up. by NuShrike · · Score: 1

    Run it up some really tall mountain. Old sci-fi idea.

  67. Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found the article's text confusing and riddled scary intimidating words! But looking up some of the freaky, big scientific terms, it seems they mostly deal with forces that affect, uh, gasses. I'm not the brightest lightbulb in the box, but then I was like, "Dude, wtf?"

    And was it just me, or were there like, seeds confirming the article's text in /. comments? Confirming bunk theories and offering supporting (?) evidence?

    The sites that were linked to from this site also have, uh, no physical contact information. Come on, guys, I'm sure you have an office or something somewhere? Some place I can mail a cheque, maybe? A paypal account?
    I dunno, whatever. But man, this seems fishy to me. I'm just sayin'. And yeah... I'm mentally ill... and am paranoid as fuck after smoking pot.

    Cheerio!







    NOGIAS

  68. Cryogenic steel treatment (it *works*) by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
    Links:

    Explanation is here, and here and more in google

  69. This is sick but... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    I actually scanned down the responses to this one to see if anyone had yet made a 'raman' joke. Well done and funny!

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  70. Waiting for Si Defeat by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    Diamond has long held a special unattainable allure, not only because of its unparalleled hardness, Youngs modulus, dielectric properties and thermal conductivity (hold a big diamond in your hand and it will feel cold as it draws heat quickly - hence the moniker "ice"), but because of the possibility of making semiconductors from it.

    IIRC, it has a really interesting wide band gap, but that two big practical problems exist:

    1. growing layers of diamond that are sufficiently defect-free. Last I heard, even the best CVD process seems to put down polycrystalline diamond layers.
    2. n doping is difficult to do well for diamond.

    If these barriers could be surmounted, diamond devices would become a more widespread and useful technology.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  71. http://lennon.pub.csufresno.edu/~rlk16/cryo.html by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BASICS OF CRYOGENIC METALLURGY

    Introduction

    The thermal treatment of metals must certainly be regarded as one of the most important developments of the industrial age. After more than a century, research continues into making metallic components stronger and more wear-resistant. One of the more modern processes being used to treat metals (as well as other materials) is cryogenic tempering. While the science of heat treatment is well known and widely understood, the principles of cryogenic tempering remain a mystery to most people in industry. Information regarding this process is full of contradictions and unanswered questions. Until recently, cryogenic tempering was viewed as having little value, due to the often brittle nature of the finished product. It is only since the development of computer modeled cooling and reheat curves that the true benefits of cryogenically treated materials have become available to industry and the general public.

    The purpose of this work is not to break new ground in cryogenic science, nor will it answer all of the questions surrounding this process. Rather, this is a condensation of much of the information available concerning the effects cryogenic treatment has on metal stucture, as well as an overview of the actual process involved in treating parts. Also included are theories and conclusions regarding the optimum use of cryogenic tempering on steels, costs and feasability notwithstanding. All information is as up to date as possible, having been gathered from various scientific and industrial databases (no books were harmed during the preparation of this treatise).

    Why Cryogenic Tempering is Important

    Possibly the most important restriction to industrial productivity is metallic parts wear. Tool bits, punch dies, and bearing surfaces are all subject to wear under normal use conditions. The cost and downtime associated with parts replcement has limited the speed of production equipment since the beginning of the industrial age. Proper cryogenic tempering offers impressive gains in terms of tool and component life. Increases of 400% in number of operations before resharpening are not uncommon, and claims go beyond 25 TIMES the normal tool life in some applications (Frozen Gears). Cryogenic treatment has also found favorable results in auto racing, sporting goods (golf balls that fly farther!), and firearms manufacturing. In short, there is little doubt about the effectiveness of the process in enhancing wear- and fatigue-resistance. Questions remain however, as to what actual structural changes take place during the cryogenic process.

    An Overview of How Cryogenics Works

    Cryogenic tempering may be oversimplified into a process of chilling a part down to relatively near absolute zero and maintaining that condition until the material has cold-soaked. The temperature is then allowed to rise until ambient equilibrium is reached. The part may then be subjected to a normal tempering reheat, although this step is not always included in the process. The complexity of the process involves determining and achieving the proper duration for the cooling, soaking, and warming cycles. It is here that developments in computer modeling and controls have placed cryogenic tempering on the cutting edge of metal treatment. Scientists in provinces of the former Soviet Union typically disagree with western methods of cryogenic treatment, as tests there have revolved around unceremoniusly dumping parts into a flask of liquid nitrogen, removing them, and allowing the material to cool uncontrolled in ambient air. Predictably, reports of extended tool life have not been as favorable as those achieved using more tightly controlled processes (History).

    (top)

    Alterations in Metal Structures

    An explanation of the effect of deep cooling on metallic structure requires a connection be drawn to the more standard elevated temperature treatment processes. When a metal (high carbon steel, for example) is heated, the increase in energy expands the

  72. Faberge Eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I bet no-one at work has a complete collection of Faberge eggs.

    Oh, and good luck with the whole wallet thing.

  73. New scale needed anyway. by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

    We need a better scale of hardness anyway Our current one does not take into account true hardness. (Quartz is 7, dimond is 10, but dimond is around 4 times harder than quartz) Our current mesuring system was developed before we could determine actual hardness of minerals, rather than just comparing them to each other.

    --
    All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.