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."

Comments

Is it really that hard

[WormholeFiend]

to spell out Chemical Vapor Deposition?

Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.

Re:Is it really that hard

[kitty tape]

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.

Re:Is it really that hard

[Baseclass]

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.

Re:Somehow

[raitchison]

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. :-)

Re:Somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Kimberlites

[JesseL]

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.

space [elevator] fanboyism

[SuperBanana]

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.

Re:space [elevator] fanboyism

[deathcloset]

http://www.uni-leipzig.de/urz/images/abacus.gif
http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/tubes3/600-nl-807.jpg
http://www.ti.com/corp/graphics/press/image/on_lin e/transistor.jpg
http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/resources/cisnews/v2i2/i lliac/Chip_Ant.jpg

Re:space [elevator] fanboyism

[Artifakt]

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.

Re:space [elevator] fanboyism

[johannesg]

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?

And best of all!

[forkboy]

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

Re: Possible uses?

[Baseclass]

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).

Re: Possible uses?

[Izago909]

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.

Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy

[wolfywolfy]

funniest. reply. ever.