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."
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).
Just to remind that every small progress in the carbon nanotubes helpful for Space Elevator or Tether
I am still waiting for synthetic diamonds to break De Beers' cartel.
It would give them something to search for on google as CVD doesn't show the correct meaning in the first 5-10 hits.
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
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
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?
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!"
...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.
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
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!"
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.
Ok, lets give some info on this, since I've researched it a lot before when I was on a big space-elevator kick.
;)
n te rlink.pdf
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/i
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
> 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.
..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!.
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.
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.