World's First Single-Atom-Thick Fabric

Can it cut things? by CoreyGH · 2004-10-21 16:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, does this mean the edge of the fabric is really sharp? Can it cut through stuff?

Re:Can it cut things? by Amiga+Lover · 2004-10-21 16:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

I want to know, if you had a sheet of this stuff about 1cm by 1cm... could you see it? does light permeate it? refract off it in rainbows?
Re:Can it cut things? by Dancin_Santa · 2004-10-21 16:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Since it is only one type of molecule and only one molecule thick, the refractive index of the material would be constant. So if it had any color at all, it would be a constant color, not a rainbow like oil or a prism produces.
Re:Can it cut things? by fireman451f · 2004-10-21 17:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Diffraction grating is what ?
Re:Can it cut things? by nels_tomlinson · 2004-10-21 17:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

... does this mean the edge of the fabric is really sharp?
Can you keep it stiff? Paper will cut you if you can keep it stiff enough to slide your finger along the edge with a little pressure, but silk cloth of the same thickness won't because it isn't stiff.
If you can figure out a way to make it rigid, you'll have a nifty new razor blade.

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:Can it cut things? by MillionthMonkey · 2004-10-21 17:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Fullerenes conduct electricity, so its refractive index is most likely negative and it would be opaque if it were thicker. But the skin depth is on the order of a micron so individual fullerene sheets are transparent.
Re:Can it cut things? by RebelWithoutAClue · 2004-10-21 17:35 · Score: 1

Ooh, monomolecular blades!

--
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Re:Can it cut things? by Wehesheit · 2004-10-21 17:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Can you keep it stiff?
Well, I try. It's really up to her though.

--
This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
Re:Can it cut things? by k98sven · 2004-10-21 17:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, does this mean the edge of the fabric is really sharp? Can it cut through stuff?

Nope. It's not rigid.

But.. if you could add a layer on top of that layer, juxtaposed by the minimal amount (half of a ring, see this picture of graphite crystal structure), and then add another layer, and another..

Then you could form a 'perfectly sharp' knife.

I'm not sure how durable it'd be though, because the inter-layer bonds in graphite are rather weak.
Re:Can it cut things? by man_of_mr_e · 2004-10-21 17:59 · Score: 1

While it may not be rigid by itself, if it attached to two ends and stretched it might be.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:Can it cut things? by gardyloo · 2004-10-21 18:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Except glass (usually) has a constant index of refraction (as does bubble film, which you're apparently thinking of). It's the fact that there is chromatic dispersion (simply: different frequencies of light--the colors--travel at different speeds in the medium (giving different refraction angles, and, therefore, different paths and pathlengths). So even though the index of refracton is constant for a _given_frequency_, the fact that the index changes for different frequencies gives the colors (along with multiple reflections from front and back surfaces).

The fact that this stuff is only one molecule thick is much more persuasive. In fact, very thin bubbles are completely transparent to light, because the light cannot refract if the film is less than about a wavelength thick. Since molecules (chains and polymers get a little tricky, of course) are generally much, much smaller than a visible wavelength, this stuff will probably be virtually invisible, unless, as another poster pointed out, it's extremely highly conductive (which would cause a skin-depth effect and probably do more complicated things to light).
Re:Can it cut things? by Mattcelt · 2004-10-21 19:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe I'm wrong here, but doesn't refraction have to do with the absorption and re-emission of photons by atoms? It's my understanding that the presence of a color means that all other wavelengths have been absorbed by the material, leaving only those that constitute the color in question. So isn't this subject to the same inherent photon-manipulating characteristics as other carbon atoms?

What am I missing here?
Re:Can it cut things? by gardyloo · 2004-10-21 21:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, refraction is due to a change in group speed between media: if in one medium, the constituents interact a lot more with the light than the constituents of the other medium, the group speed in the highly interacting medium tends to be slower than in the other. Because of the requirement that various boundary conditions at the mediums' interface must be matched, the wavefronts tend to bend at the interface, and one has refraction.
You're right, in that absorption of all colors but, say, blue by some object will make that object look blue. BUT one may also separate colors into different portions of an object -- the light of different colors has simply ended up in different spots, but hasn't been permanently absorbed or attenuated (as in interference colors in bubbles, or oil slicks, etc.). One way to obtain this is to simply reflect light multiple times off of two parallel (or nearly parallel) surfaces, as in a bubble or a pane of glass. Very little of the light is really absorbed, just shuttled from place to place.

I think that we're probably just thinking of different "complementary" pictures of light -- you're focusing (agh!) on the photon, discrete picture, and I'm focusing on the continuum, wavelike picture. I'm essentially trying to scale down what I know about wave mechanics to spatial regimes where those wave mechanics get pretty strange (due to the wavelength vs. molecular size discrepancy). I think you're applying some scattering theory (or at least some good intuition) to the problem. Of course, if we're both careful, we should end up with exactly the same answer.

So isn't this subject to the same inherent photon-manipulating characteristics as other carbon atoms?
Oh, absolutely. However, one must recognize that things can scatter light in very strange ways depending on their spatial relationships to each other. Carbon atoms in graphite and diamond are identical, but their locations relative to each other make all the difference between opaque grey, and transparent brilliance. Same with water vapor in the air (humidity in the air doesn't scatter light by itself, but get those water molecules clustered together in big enough drops -- say, in a cloud -- and they scatter light quite effectively).

Basically, what I'm getting at is that you have to have some semblance of order on a scale comparable to the wavelength of light you want to interact with, to ever scatter that light. Because this "cloth" is so thin, I doubt it'll interact with the light much at all, unless you have wavefronts incident on it at grazing angles -- then you have the chance of the light interacting with it over larger spatial domains, and getting some scattering.

I dunno. Time to look at boobies. They scatter quite well. Especially when they hear geek-talk.
Re:Can it cut things? by Physics+Dude · 2004-10-21 23:29 · Score: 2, Informative

doesn't refraction have to do with the absorption and re-emission of photons by atoms?
No, that's just what a lot of physics classes teach. ;) Atoms can only absorb discrete frequencies of radiation and wouldn't provide the continuous responce across large parts of the EM spectrum like we see in the index of refraction of materials. The materials actually cause an effectivfe change in the permitivity and permeability of the space they occupy which results in the change in the speed of light (c = 1/sqrt( mu0 * epsilon0 )). This is due to the missing vector terms in Maxwell's equations which provide that dynamic EM fields themselves alter the permitivity and permeability of space. ;)
Re:Can it cut things? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 23:56 · Score: 2, Informative

it might actually exhibit photovoltaic properties if it's that conductive and thinner than a wavelength.
Re:Can it cut things? by mog007 · 2004-10-22 00:09 · Score: 3, Funny

All I know is that it's the perfect material for pants when you're getting a lap dance.

--
Learn something new.
Re:Can it cut things? by pete_norm · 2004-10-22 00:22 · Score: 2, Informative

The AI controlled woman used this kind of monofilament in Book 3 and 4 of Dan Simmon's Hyperion serie.
Re:Can it cut things? by Faluzeer · 2004-10-22 00:53 · Score: 1

Monofilament Blades were also mentioned in the Shadowrun game / books from FASA.
If memory serves me correctly there was also a reference to a monofilament blade in the original RingWorld book by Larry Niven, though that was used in conjunction with a stasis field around the blade.
Re:Can it cut things? by cbelt3 · 2004-10-22 01:01 · Score: 1

Larry Niven's Sinclair Molecular Chain- the key was that the entire length was one molecule- held together with strong bonds, and incredibly thin. Late 1960's SF from a master.
Re:Can it cut things? by MindStalker · 2004-10-22 01:06 · Score: 1

I don't think you could handle it at all, though I guess you could build the wire to be thicker on the ends so you could have a handle, I'm not sure though..
Re:Can it cut things? by Idarubicin · 2004-10-22 01:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Atoms can only absorb discrete frequencies of radiation and wouldn't provide the continuous responce across large parts of the EM spectrum like we see in the index of refraction of materials.
I agree with your point that this material certainly shouldn't be treated like it has a bulk index of refraction--a monatomic layer is definitely in the realm of weird quantum effects.
It should be noted that this system can't be treated like distinct atoms, however. It's effectively one giant molecule, with a very complicated electron cloud surrounding a layer of nuclei. In the ideal case where this system is perfectly flat, you (er, a solid state physics grad student) can probably come up with a reasonable idea of what its absorption and emission spectra look like. (I wouldn't be surprised if a creature like this showed not insignificant fluorescence.) On the other hand, as soon as you start to bend this stuff, or introduce small defects, or do anything else to it, it gets a lot more complicated. You get a whole pile of nonlinear effects, and I wouldn't be surprised of there were broadband absorption. (Actually, that absorption could be used to tell you all about the stresses and defects in a particular sample of the material. Can I have my patent now?)

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Can it cut things? by Linknoid · 2004-10-22 01:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Then you could form a 'perfectly sharp' knife.
That's so...stone age. Seriously :-) Obsidian can be fasioned into blades with an edge that's only 1 atom thick (I've seen pictures of an electron micrograph in a book, I wish I could find some online to post). Obsidian in fact is used in some cases as surgeon's scalpels because it can be made so much sharper than steel.
Re:Can it cut things? by flyneye · 2004-10-22 01:53 · Score: 2, Funny

So naturally they'll weave it like some Gawdawful doubleknit throwback from the 70s and turn up in colors so bad funk bands won't wear it.Murphys law says it will retain only the most foul body odors and probably itch.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:Can it cut things? by meatspray · 2004-10-22 01:56 · Score: 1

I would imagine that at one atom thick it wouldn't stand for a lot of stretching. I would venture to guess it would shred itself rather than slice through a more fortified material.
Re:Can it cut things? by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-10-22 02:48 · Score: 1

There was also the mysterious Shadow Square Wire found on the Ringworld that was never fully explained, but it was apparently of a similar construction and could sever just about anything.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:Can it cut things? by drinkypoo · 2004-10-22 02:49 · Score: 1

Did you learn that from snow crash, too? :) Not to invalidate it anyway, because I've actually seen obsidian scalpels meant for eye surgery in an exhibit someplace. When I saw it my respect for that book jumped up another notch.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Can it cut things? by salvorHardin · 2004-10-22 04:07 · Score: 2, Funny

The AI controlled woman used this kind of monofilament in Book 3 and 4 of Dan Simmon's Hyperion serie.
Having never read any Hyperion stuff, for some reason I took the above comment to mean that there are a bunch of AI women who wear incredibly skimpy G-string underwear.
Re:Can it cut things? by psetzer · 2004-10-22 06:26 · Score: 1

Monomolecular and monofilament are different things. In fact, you can buy monofilament by the hundred yards at Wal-Mart. It's called fishing line.

--
"Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
Re:Can it cut things? by Nebu · 2004-10-22 06:42 · Score: 1

(half of a ring, see this picture of graphite crystal structure)

Thank you, that picture clarified everything for me. </sarcasm>
Re:Can it cut things? by wikdwarlock · 2004-10-22 06:53 · Score: 1

"perfectly sharp" isn't quite right. If you start w/ a one atom thick sheet, then add 2 sheets offset by half the ring distance, and repeat back and back, you would get a nice pointy edge, but the angle wouldn't be great for cutting. It may be better to theorize the perfect knife as having the additionaly layers offset further, to give a shallower, smaller angle to the taper.

--

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Re:Can it cut things? by Pandora's+Vox · 2004-10-22 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

i believe that the original reference her was in "the fountains of paradise" by arthur c. clarke. i think the protagonist even cuts his finger off with it.

-Leigh
Re:Can it cut things? by Linknoid · 2004-10-22 07:49 · Score: 1

No, it was a historical book on Native Americans.
Re:Can it cut things? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · 2004-10-22 09:12 · Score: 1, Interesting

Actually, more likely than not, it would itch, as it would get under the skin and stuff. As it's carbon, it might actually get rid of the oders. But all of this is eclipsed by the fact that it would probably cause cancer, like almost all current nano-technology. (Buckyballs anyone?)

--
Sig
Re:Can it cut things? by slashdotjunker · 2004-10-22 09:56 · Score: 1

Since it is only one type of molecule and only one molecule thick, the refractive index of the material would be constant. So if it had any color at all, it would be a constant color, not a rainbow like oil or a prism produces.
Treatment using refractive index is not possible. A material like this would be subject to quantum chromodynamics. By the way, a rainbow like oil is caused by iridescence, a phenomenon caused by light reflecting off two surfaces with varying separation. There is a bit of a simple write up on this at the end of chapter 1 of Feynman's QED.
Re:Can it cut things? by cookiej · 2004-10-22 11:26 · Score: 1

I can't believe noone could name the Variable sword...

Wow.
Re:Can it cut things? by Bit_Captain · 2004-10-22 12:47 · Score: 1

That is funny. Thanks for the belly laugh. -B
Re:Can it cut things? by Teclis · 2004-10-22 14:49 · Score: 1

For your information, an SEM (Scanning electron Microscope) can not resolve atoms. In fact, it isn't even close. You need about 1000x more resolving power than an SEM to see atoms. Techniques are available now to resolve atoms, such as the AFM (Atomic Force Microscope), and it's predecessor the STM (Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope.) My field of research involves STM and you should know that it's not an easy technique. You are limited to conductors and semiconductors and even then you usually need Ultra-High Vacuum to image surfaces as any oxide film will interfere with the technique. A few highly innate materials such as gold, platinum, and carbon can be imaged in atmosphere.

Bottom line, don't go around saying you've seen 1 atom thick objects in an electron micrograph. It's not true.

--
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
Re:Can it cut things? by Mattcelt · 2004-10-22 17:55 · Score: 1

Atoms can only absorb discrete frequencies of radiation

Right - the electrons absorb quanta in discrete energies, photons in this case. But the electrons don't hold on to the energy, they re-emit it. (I know that this is what causes the sky around the setting sun to appear a different color than the sky when the sun is at apex, but I don't remember how that works...)

Now is it the density of the energy/matter that causes a change in the 4D fabric, or is some other 'quantum' effect that causes it? How does the presense of matter change the permeability/permitivity of spacetime?
Re:Can it cut things? by Physics+Dude · 2004-10-25 08:24 · Score: 1

Yes, but according to that theory the atoms do have to hold the energy for some amount of time or there would be no change in the speed of light.
There are other problems with the theory also. If the absorbtion/re-emission were caused by proximity to atoms as the photon passed through the material, there would be a gaussian distribution of speeds centered around a main 'index of refraction'. Atoms who missed more atoms would travel more quickly through the material than atoms which were absorbed/re-emitted more often. This would cause a general spreading out of any light pulse. We do see spreading, but what we see is specifically frequency dependent. This is the property used in a photo-spectrometer.
As to your other question, it's not the density of mater/energy alone that causes the change in how well space conducts electric/magnetic fields, but also the vector orientation of those fields, and possibly the frequency of the fields. Otherwise you would not see birefringent matterials such as calcite (which has the index of refraction dependent on alignment of a photon's EM fields).
Anyway, like everything else, it's currently just a theory. ;)

Whoo Hoo! by I+am+the+Bullgod · 2004-10-21 16:53 · Score: 5, Funny

J-Lo has already commissioned a dress made out of the stuff for the Oscars.

Re:Whoo Hoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:01 · Score: 1, Interesting

The condom industry is interested...
Re:Whoo Hoo! by ThetaKestrel · 2004-10-21 17:09 · Score: 5, Funny

I was gonna reply, "But they can only make a couple square microns of it!" - and then I realized, that's the point ;)
Re:Whoo Hoo! by TAGmclaren · 2004-10-21 17:09 · Score: 1

It sounded to me like a contender for the Emperor's New Clothes :)

--
Iran has endorsed
Re:Whoo Hoo! by trawg · 2004-10-21 17:30 · Score: 2, Funny

More importantly, when will Six of Nine's uniform be updated to take advantage of this new technology?
Re:Whoo Hoo! by CODiNE · 2004-10-21 18:03 · Score: 1, Funny

Well she's already behind in fashion cuz I'm wearing it right now.

-Don.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Re:Whoo Hoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 18:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, she wants to cover her brain with it
Re:Whoo Hoo! by xSauronx · 2004-10-21 21:47 · Score: 1

you guys forget....there is no brain.

--
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Re:Whoo Hoo! by Yewbert · 2004-10-22 02:36 · Score: 1

It sounded to me like a contender for the Emperor's New Clothes :)
I was about to propose the official trade name for the material: The Emperor's New Cloth. But ya pretty much beat me to it.
Re:Whoo Hoo! by wikdwarlock · 2004-10-22 06:55 · Score: 1

Yay, every time she moves or breathes, she's sliced into ribbons by every single kink and fold in the material. And as you reach toward her, thinking to save her and win some booty via chivalry, your fingers are also diced by those same folds and wrinkles.

--

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

Reminds me of Seinfeld by HonkyLips · 2004-10-21 16:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Kramer: I've cut slices so thin, I couldn't even see them.
Elaine: How'd you know you cut it?
Kramer: I guess I just assumed...

--
Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.

Re:Reminds me of Seinfeld by kzinti · 2004-10-22 00:20 · Score: 4, Funny

That's nothing. My uncle can cut roast beef so thin it only has one side. The cheap bastard...
Re:Reminds me of Seinfeld by Mignon · 2004-10-22 02:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Theorem: My uncle can cut roast beef so thin it only has one side.
Proof: Assume a cow that is topologically equivalent to a Klein bottle. The rest is left as an exercise for the butcher.

Finally! by Bill_Royle · 2004-10-21 16:55 · Score: 2, Funny

A reason to get behind wearable computers!

Would someone be allergic to it? by Dancin_Santa · 2004-10-21 16:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Something that small and fine could possibly become airborne and eventually irritate allergic responses.

Not to mention that consumption of the material could lead to carcinogenic effects.

Before we start throwing around phrases like "wonder material" and "the future is now", perhaps we should take a closer look at the health risks involved in making/using these practically invisible materials.

Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by CrazyGringo · 2004-10-21 17:02 · Score: 5, Funny

First off, fullerenes are strong enough to build a space-elevator with, I don't think they'll come apart so easy.
Secondly, if you are eating fabric on a regular basis, cancer risk might be the least of your problems.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by ZeroPost · 2004-10-21 17:07 · Score: 3, Informative

The material is made of carbon atoms. I don't think you'll find many people allergic to carbon, since most everyone I've met has been "carbon-based".
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by I+am+the+Bullgod · 2004-10-21 17:09 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't get thrown off by the term "fabric". If you read the article, you'll realize that the applications of this are mainly in integrated circuit fabrication. As far as the health and environmental issues, we're talking about a pure carbon lattice. With this process carbon can act as a semiconductor without dopants such as arsenic, so C-based semiconductors are actually "greener" than current silicon-based chips.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by iamdrscience · 2004-10-21 17:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Nobody is allergic to cat hair, they're allergic to the cat's "dander", that is, the residue of their saliva which is often attached to the hair.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

your not allergic to the carbon atoms in the cat hair. your allergic to the dust/dandruff (other atoms) that are on the cat hair.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Sir+Holo · 2004-10-21 17:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Something that small and fine could possibly become airborne and eventually irritate allergic responses.

Nah, it has to be micron-scale (1000x larger) for your lungs to recognize it as foreign, and eject it. Like it does with dust.

Not that that's a good thing. People get asbestosis and silicosis for just this reason. Sharp particles that are beneath detection become embedded. And if they aren't broken down and stay sharp, they cut, cut, cut at the cellular level for the rest of your life.

As for graphene becoming airborne, lodging in the lungs, and never breaking down, who knows?
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene , especially the "Possible dangers" section.
An experiment by Eva Obersdörster at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas which introduced fullerenes into water at concentrations of 0.5 parts per million found that largemouth bass suffered a "17-fold increase in cellular damage in the brain tissue" after 48 hours. The damage was of the type lipid peroxidation, which is known to impair the functioning of cell membranes. There were also inflammatory changes in the liver and activation of genes related to the making of repair enzymes.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Concerned+Onlooker · 2004-10-21 17:26 · Score: 1

Agreed. We should just charge ahead with nary a thought of the consequences of our actions! That's just for sissies. You first.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by jd · 2004-10-21 17:28 · Score: 1

My guess is that that's not the biggest health problem. Think for a moment - mono-molecular fabric meets soft lung tissue at high velocity. If you started breathing in mono-molecular fluff or dust, the least of your worries is going to be whether it'll cause a rash.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by drerwk · 2004-10-21 17:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

many posters seem to think that the irritation/allergy issue has only to do with chemical composition. You have to consider the mechanics as well. For example - sand size silicon is no problem - we walk beaches covered in the stuff, we have sand storms where the air is full of it, but we also have noses and lungs evolved to filter the stuff. When you get to micron sized particles, it can be the size as much as the composition that is relevant. See Link
Consider asbestos. Not a problem when incorporated in insulation. In fact you can touch it and eat it no problem. The problem is that asbestos tends to make the wrong size particles that can penetrate the lungs. So the physical size of the particle is more important than it's chemical composition.
Hope this is not too deep (in the lungs) for the non-allergy/chicken-little people to comprehend. What do you think coal miners get? Coal is carbon afterall. Two important pneumoconioses are coal worker's pneumoconiosis and silicosis.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by drerwk · 2004-10-21 17:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

What experiance do we have with stuff smaller than dust? I would guess that before we had experience with asbetosis, or the coal miner's black-lung (carbon by the way) we might have ignored it as having no possible effect.
Opps - didn't read your last sentence - yes it may be a problem. Are we not scientists? Do we not believe in actual data?
Experimentalists of the world unite!
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by dasunt · 2004-10-21 18:00 · Score: 4, Informative

The material is made of carbon atoms. I don't think you'll find many people allergic to carbon, since most everyone I've met has been "carbon-based".

However, if this material breaks down into tiny, airborne pieces, it could by-pass the lung's filtering system and lodge itself in the tissue.

Black lung disease is caused by coal dust, and coal is nothing more then carbon and hydrocarbons, both basic biological building blocks for life on earth. Its just that the coal dust gets lodged in the lungs, and the body can't remove it. The irritation then causes problems.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by metlin · 2004-10-21 18:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well said.

This is the kind of attitude that stops technological progress. Hey, what if Foo Bar happens.

Let the technology flourish, let's see how it works. If there is going to be a problem, we'll find out soon enough. We're not going to die out that easily.

Nukes were supposed to kill us 50 years ago. Surprise! We still haven't managed to blow ourselves up. Ditto for any number of things.

If it's going to be allergic, then ways around it will be found. You will not find them by banning them, but rather by letting people experiment and find out.

I'm honestly sick and tired of this bullshit argument that something should be banned, because a bunch of whiners come up with a what if scenario.

Good response, AC. Would have added you as a friend had you not been AC.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by uncoolcentral · 2004-10-21 18:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Um, no, actually, dander is bits of skin.
Look it up.
People are allergic to either the dander, saliva or urine of cats.
sure sure, off-topic, but correct ;)
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by rokzy · 2004-10-21 18:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

simply existing in a universe filled with cosmic rays leads to carcinogenic effects.

if people stopped to consider risks, we'd still be living in caves and dying by the age of 20.

short term risks lead to long term security.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by cammoblammo · 2004-10-21 19:37 · Score: 1

But the dust/dandruff is still carbon based.

--
Cogito, ergo sig.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Fred_A · 2004-10-21 20:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Isn't that what we've always been doing ?

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by AndroidCat · 2004-10-21 20:52 · Score: 1

applications of this are mainly in integrated circuit fabrication
I was thinking more along the lines of food-storage wrap.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by aussie_a · 2004-10-21 21:02 · Score: 2, Funny

at concentrations of 0.5 parts per million found that largemouth bass suffered a "17-fold increase in cellular damage in the brain tissue"

Does this mean they're easier to catch?
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Brelkin · 2004-10-21 21:24 · Score: 1

Odd. I always thought "dander" was poo.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Drey · 2004-10-22 00:32 · Score: 3, Funny

It may need a warning label.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by tommck · 2004-10-22 01:10 · Score: 1

Yeah...and we're something like 80% water and putting it in the wrong places (think: lungs) will kill you too!

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by gosand · 2004-10-22 01:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Secondly, if you are eating fabric on a regular basis...
Does munching carpet count?
Sorry, I realize there are a million geeks tilting their heads like confused dogs right about now.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Da+Twink+Daddy · 2004-10-22 01:55 · Score: 1

As the WordIQ entry posted with the article states:

At the time of presentation, the SMUD work had not been peer reviewed.

Without peer review, studies like this a easily fabricated or simply mistakes.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Somegeek · 2004-10-22 02:01 · Score: 1

I guess we better start working on nano machines to live in your lungs and help keep them clean. They could gather up nano dust and other hazards and build them up into lumps that are big enough to be ejected by the lungs. I bet the tobacco industry would fund this... They could package the nanobots in the cigarettes, thus making smoking healthy for you!

--
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by andrew_0812 · 2004-10-22 03:14 · Score: 1

I guess they can use this to make a space blanket around the earth.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Sir+Holo · 2004-10-22 04:18 · Score: 1

Oops! Didn't mean to be ringing big alarm bells. I should have followed up with:

People who get asbestosis, silicosis, blacklung, etc., are those who have been exposed to high airborne concentrations for extended periods, usually at their job. Coal miners, asbestos installers, potters, etc.. (Silica is used in making whitewares and stoneware, which is why silicosis is also known as "potter's lung").

Everybody has some amount of these types of materials in their lungs. If you've ever driven down a gravel road or broken some glass, you've generated some of these particles, just too few to matter. Everybody probably has some, but becasue our bodies come with extra capacity and the effect is small, you never notice.

So, unless we start slathering our houses with this stuff, or kicking up big dust clouds of it every day, the potential is nothing to worry about. Tiny devices using this would hold insignificant amounts for concern. This is just something for the engineers to keep in the back of their minds.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by hackstraw · 2004-10-22 04:35 · Score: 1

Its not very widely known that allergies are due to proteins. So, no this will not cause allergies.

Other irratations, possible but doubtful because this is just carbon.

I love it when people say they are allergic to smoke. I call BS. Irritated maybe, but not allergic.
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by K1-V116 · 2004-10-22 05:03 · Score: 2

People get asbestosis and silicosis for just this reason.
And don't forget pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, a disease similar to asbestosis caused by ultra fine volcanic ash.
Damn, but I've waited a long time to use that word in legitimate conversation. ;)

--
Got mead?
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by wikdwarlock · 2004-10-22 06:58 · Score: 1

Fullerenes are no more resistant to damage failure than any other materials. What makes fullerenes great is that they are almost perfectly structured, with very few faults, cracks, mismatched atoms, etc. However, if you try to pull on them near one of these flaws, they fail just like anything else. Trust me, I do research every day pulling apart carbon nano tubes.

--

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-10-22 10:25 · Score: 1

Yeah asbestos is very nasty stuff indeed.

My grandma died of asbestosis. It took 'em two weeks to cremate her.

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Re:Would someone be allergic to it? by rcamans · 2004-10-25 02:49 · Score: 1

SInce this material is pure carbon, there is no possibility that anyone could become allergic to it.
What were you thinking?

--
wake up and hold your nose

can you tear this? by the_2nd_coming · 2004-10-21 16:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

I mean, the fabrics we know can be torn because the atoms are clumped into partitions that we shove together, but this fabric is one layer of chemically bonded carbon atoms. that is some tough stuff.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Re:can you tear this? by SiliconEntity · 2004-10-21 19:02 · Score: 4, Informative

It would be really, really weak, because it is so thin. The slightest breeze would destroy it, if you made a macroscopically sized piece. And of course you couldn't see it, or feel it. You wouldn't even know it was there without special instruments.

As bonds go, the inter-atomic bonds in this fabric are strong; but there's only one layer! Compared to like ten million atomic layers in a typical fabric. The carbon bonds aren't *that* much stronger that you can make a ten million times thinner (and weaker) piece and still have it be strong.

It's the same with nanotubes; they're as strong as tubes get, considering that they're only a nanometer in diameter. But compared to the weakest macroscopic thread you could imagine, an individual nanotube is far weaker. Proposed nanotube cables would use trillions of them in parallel to carry a load.
Re:can you tear this? by HalfStarted · 2004-10-22 02:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

While you are probably right about it not being strong because there is only one layer it is much stronger than you think. When you tear a piece of paper of an other fabric you are not breaking atomic bonds you are separating fibers that are mushed or spun together.

A better comparison would be thinking about tearing a piece of aluminum foil. It is very hard to cause it to separate under tension and you have to add sheering forces to get a fracture to start.

--

Have you thought for yourself today?

Monosheet? by Solder+Fumes · 2004-10-21 16:57 · Score: 4, Funny

So...there's lots of stuff out there discussing "monoatomic filament" as a sci-fi concept. Supposedly the sharpest thing possible, and a dangerous weapon.

How strong is this stuff? If you stretched a band of it between two points, say along the edge of a sword, would you have something that could produce the world's nastiest paper cuts?

Re:Monosheet? by riprjak · 2004-10-21 17:15 · Score: 1

A monoatomic filament is only sharp if the bonds between its atoms are stronger than the bonds within the structure it is trying to cut through I would think.

hell, surely there is a possibility that a monoatomic filament would simply pass through solid matter without contacting it??
Re:Monosheet? by RedCard · 2004-10-21 17:50 · Score: 2, Informative

surely there is a possibility that a monoatomic filament would simply pass through solid matter without contacting it??

The Pauli exclusion principle begs to differ.
Re:Monosheet? by riprjak · 2004-10-21 18:45 · Score: 1

fair enough :) I am to used to the assumption of solids as a fluid with very high viscosity that I forget that is an APPROXIMATION of macro behaviour... LOL... given sufficient shear stress, most solids will flow...

the point about the filament only cutting if the filaments bonds are the stronger of the two is correct tho, checked that one :)
Re:Monosheet? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 23:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Even the super-strong "monofilament" is only strong for its size. Wildly high estimations of tensile strength still only give a few pounds of force to break it.
Re:Monosheet? by SimmonsJ2K · 2004-10-22 07:04 · Score: 1

But how do you apply such a force to a monofilament? I dare you to apply such a 'small' force to the edge of a razor blade with your finger. Given the effective width of the cutting edge, it should not require much force to cut through most materials.

The most major problem I see is control. How do you accuratly control and guide a monofilament cutting edge without exceding it's tensile strength, it can be difficult enough to keep a macroscopic cutting edge on the desired track. Imagine cutting a material with a molecular 'grain' to it.

I think the greatest gain in the ability of a monofilament in cutting applications is the near zero resistance it would experiance, as you're cutting into a material it is friction on the face of the blade that makes cutting difficult, given that the edge is sharp enough to cut into the material initialy.

Now, here's a question. Given that a monofilament would not really push the material apart any significant amount as it cuts, might it not seem to pass through with no effect, the material fusing back together as it passes?

I won't claim to be a physicist, I'm more into Electrical Engeneering and Computer Science, so feel free to correct me if you have some evidence that any of my assumptions are incorrect.

--
CK
Re:Monosheet? by RedCard · 2004-10-23 03:18 · Score: 1

Actually, nothing ever truly 'contacts' anything else. There's a small amount of space between all atoms, and they don't really touch. Sorry, I know it feels like we touch stuff, and it looks like stuff is solid and/or touching, but it isn't.

Not quite true, acutally. While the matter that you and I interact with on a daily basis is held apart by electromagnetic interactions, there do exist some species of matter that are held apart primarily by the pauli exclusion principle. The atoms in this type of matter can be said to be 'touching'.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by toddestan · 2004-10-21 17:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

They say in the FA that the fabric is "highly flexible and strong". But they only have samples roughly 10 microns large at this point, and the article doesn't really give any indication how well this will scale up. What I really want to know is if this stuff is airtight, or even watertight. If it is, I wonder if it would have any use in creating an ultralight spaceship?

Neato by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:03 · Score: 5, Funny

I hope they can make condoms out of this stuff.

Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:05 · Score: 2, Funny

So you could make really light balloons?
Re:Neato by erick99 · 2004-10-21 17:06 · Score: 3, Funny

And you would do, what, with it?

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:Neato by benchbri · 2004-10-21 17:36 · Score: 1

besides nerds making girl robots out of it, I could think of a couple uses... The first light bulb filimant was Carbon. Looks like we have an atom-thick heating device. That my go to scarves, mittens,car windshields and the such... Not nowing the properties of the system, such as the strength and permibality of air, but you could have a parachute on your hands... Or even a super-super lilght Zeppelin. You know, the one that the NSA wasnts to put up everywhere? Those are just ideas. Now if you want me to tell you what I think you should do is have a paper airplane race made outof this stuff. I'd be intresting just to get my handson a one-atom thick piece of paper. jut to see what it feels like. See if at has any coool properties... Wait. a. Minute. Paper that doen't burn.Cigarettes, man. The futurs in cigarettes.
Re:Neato by skaife · 2004-10-21 19:39 · Score: 2, Funny

After all, us geeks only need them to cover a few microns

CONDOMS ! ! ! by weighn · 2004-10-21 17:04 · Score: 5, Funny

I can hear the advertising slogan already.

you wont know you're wearing it.
And if you're a truely a geek, she wont know you're in it.

--
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths

Re:CONDOMS ! ! ! by eingram · 2004-10-21 17:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Riiiiiight.

"Is it on?"
"Yeah."
"Are you sure?"
"Uh.. n-yeah."

...9 months later...

"It's a girl!"
Re:CONDOMS ! ! ! by Stormwatch · 2004-10-21 17:45 · Score: 1

Geeks get laid?!

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:CONDOMS ! ! ! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 18:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

rich ones do

I found a picture of it! by eingram · 2004-10-21 17:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Here it is (below):

Cool stuff, huh?

Re:I found a picture of it! by aussie_a · 2004-10-21 21:09 · Score: 1

I looked at the HTML! There's no IMG tag you big liar >: (

Re:Didn't RTFA... by weighn · 2004-10-21 17:12 · Score: 1

production of the thinnest possible fabric - graphene

But this is carbon based, so is it, strickly speaking, really the thinnest possible?

--
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths

Re:Didn't RTFA... by Solder+Fumes · 2004-10-21 17:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

As far as sitting inside a hull one atom thick...be my guest. But maybe one application would be creating insanely large solar sails that fold up extremely small. You could even carry lots of spares.

i wonder if condoms could be made from it by rawr79 · 2004-10-21 17:13 · Score: 1

now THAT could be useful.... erm waitasec, this is /. ... nevermind

Not clothes; laminates by mrchaotica · 2004-10-21 17:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Sounds like even stronger and lighter carbon fiber to me...

Also, I wonder: could it be an even better material for the space elevator ribbon than nanotubes? After all, "ribbon" (which is how they describe the elevator cable in the articles I've read) suggests a flat string rather than a round one.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Re:Not clothes; laminates by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 19:00 · Score: 1, Informative

Most recent elevator development has been around "ribbons" of steel encased in rubber, replacing the traditional steel rope, allowing smaller, lighter and quieter machines. But this still needs the ribbon to have grip. Would this mono-fabric have much surface texture? i guess it could be engineered to have the right grip. The weight reduction would help current tech scale to this tower of Babel application.

massively useful by Doc+Ruby · 2004-10-21 17:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I want a 1m^2 sheet that electrostatically rolls up into a 1cm x 1m rod, then contracts like a telescoping antenna into a 1cm x 1mm disc. Then it can do all its various functions in rod and sheet size, and clip to my earring when I'm done. At such a low mass, its logic should be rechargeable by swinging while I walk, like a self-winding watch. The future is cool. If I can get a towel made of this stuff, I'll be the hoopiest frood in the Galaxy!

--

--
make install -not war

Re:massively useful by erick99 · 2004-10-21 17:34 · Score: 1

I don't know...it may be that once it is rolled up and folded up into discs that you can wear as earrings you may have made one of the highest density capacitors known to man. I don't know if you want that near your ear when it decides to discharge.... :-)

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:massively useful by Doc+Ruby · 2004-10-21 17:40 · Score: 1

Perhaps, but they say the graphene has excellent conductivity. Should be able to drain it. If not, manufacture it in its folded shape, and force electrons into its battery by pulling it out. Pulling itself back should consume the power, leaving it inert (or just charged enough to sustain its "nanoflash" memory). Molecular manufacturing offers unprecedented control, as well as unprecedented failures :).

--
--
make install -not war
Re:massively useful by erick99 · 2004-10-21 17:49 · Score: 1

That sounds like the beginning of a very high density storage medium.....better hurry and patent it before Microsoft does....

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

This letter will self destruct in 30 seconds... by Plaid+Phantom · 2004-10-21 17:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

With the proper planning, could you use this to put a computer on a sheet of paper masked as a letter home? Imagine if spy agencies had some of this stuff...

--
All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.

Re:This letter will self destruct in 30 seconds... by ALT064 · 2004-10-21 17:34 · Score: 1

Interesting idea, however a computer would need to be made out of more stuff than just this wouldn't it? It may be more possible to store data with it though and if you wanted to I guess you could coat a sheet of paper with it.

--
@
Re:This letter will self destruct in 30 seconds... by kbewley · 2004-10-21 20:44 · Score: 1

Well, it IS possible to put an entire computer on a really thin piece of silicon.. what will they think of next??

--
-- These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer in any way.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by toddestan · 2004-10-21 17:15 · Score: 1

Well, if one layer isn't enough, why not stack them? I bet even 1,000 layers would still be a lot lighter than anything else we got now.

priceusefulness? by snaphu · 2004-10-21 17:15 · Score: 1

Even if it ends up being used widely (besides the fact it'd probably be easy to misplace :P), will it still be costly to create anyway? If not, there probably will be some crazy people who'll make a cool storage medium out of it. (I guess then there'd be a problem reading/writing to such a thing)

Processors by ALT064 · 2004-10-21 17:15 · Score: 1

I wonder how long it will be before the first microprocessor will be made using this material. It appears that it holds great potential for the microprocessor world.

I don't think wearing this stuff is an option. It's highly conductive and wearing it in a lightening storm wouldn't be a good idea. ;)

--
@

Re:Processors by Lord+Bitman · 2004-10-21 17:22 · Score: 1

yeah, you know, that and it's a highly toxic nanomaterial. But yeah, definatly lightning should always be right up their on your list of concerns whenever you leave the house. Oh right, and being a one-atom-thick sheet of ordered carbon atoms, you may violate a local ordinance or two. (stick to multiple layers of unordered carbon when in public, pls)

Please remember: "Stupid Joke" and "Troll" are not the same thing. stick to "overrated" when moderating.

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Re:Processors by dbIII · 2004-10-21 17:49 · Score: 1

It appears that it holds great potential for the microprocessor world.
It depends if you know what the word "conductor" means, coupled with the word "highly" or "semi". Just because it can be made thin doesn't make it a good microprocessor material - and things that are, like single layers of indium gallium arsenide on a substrate, have been in labs for more than fifteen years. This stuff has lots of potential uses, but how would you make P/N junctions out of it?
Re:Processors by ALT064 · 2004-10-22 06:11 · Score: 1

I was refering to the article which states:
By employing the standard microfabrication techniques used, for instance, in manufacturing of computer chips, the team has demonstrated an ambipolar field-effect transistor, which works under ambient conditions. They found that the nanofabric exhibits a remarkable quality such that electrons can travel without any scattering over submicron distances, which is important for making very-fast-switching transistors.
and also:
In the quest to make the computer chip more powerful and fast, engineers strive to produce smaller transistors, shortening the paths electrons have to travel to switch the devices on and off. Ultimately, scientists envisage transistors made from a single molecule, and this work brings that vision ever nearer.
It's true it doesn't specifically say that they will make transistors for microprocessors out of this stuff. It is however, a nice idea.

--
@
Re:Processors by dbIII · 2004-10-22 12:36 · Score: 1

Ultimately, scientists envisage transistors made from a single molecule
The fact the journalist used this sentence shows they don't have a clue what they are talking about. For all intents and purposes a jet turbine blade is a "single molecule" since crystals are made of repeating units bound together. What is nice is to have a junction in a crystal a single atomic layer thick (size of atomic layer will vary with the size of the largest atoms), and this was being done at least fifteen years ago by chemical vapour deposition in a variety of places - but that is the top layer on a thicker substate.
The potential of being able to form a thin sheet of fast swiching transistors is a different story, and makes this material very interesting - as well as the very strong bonds.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by Mostly+a+lurker · 2004-10-21 17:17 · Score: 1

this is carbon based, so is it, strickly speaking, really the thinnest possible?

Hmmm... not sure how practical something like this would be made out of hydrogen atoms.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by SlashdotMeNow · 2004-10-21 17:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Carbon is the smallest atom that can bind to 4 other atoms. 4 is the minimum needed to create a 2d material. Therefore unless we find a way to make materials out of sub-atomic particles this is the thinnest we can go.

Two Words... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:19 · Score: 1, Funny

1. solarwindsail
2. biatch

Re:Two Words... by jdray · 2004-10-22 03:48 · Score: 1

I'm not really clear on #2, but the use of this fabric as a solar sail was my first thought.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011

The world's tiniest novel is now possible! by DoorFrame · 2004-10-21 17:20 · Score: 3, Funny

I've always wanted to write the world's tiniest novel. Now all I need is a monoatomic pencil and a monoatomic eraser. Or maybe just a monoatomic word processor.

When will science catch up with my worthwhile ideas? When?

--

--
RumorsDaily

Re:The world's tiniest novel is now possible! by mirko · 2004-10-21 19:46 · Score: 1

This'd have to be a monologue ;)

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:The world's tiniest novel is now possible! by RedBear · 2004-10-22 08:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, amusing, but remember the micro-sized Orange Catholic Bible that Doctor Yueh gave to Paul Atreides in Dune? Thousands of unabridged pages in something the size of a matchbox, with some kind of device in the casing to help you open it to the correct page, and a magnifier to allow you to read the micro-printing. This nano-fabric is one more step to making that little book a reality. In 30 years, not 3,000.

I remember also there was mention of some kind of sheets of superstrong crystal material that they used for long-term archiving of documents. This may also be a step in that direction.

Sometimes life really is amazing. What's next, a working 'thopter?

Carbon by RealProgrammer · 2004-10-21 17:21 · Score: 1

Probably Carbon (6) would be thicker than Beryllium (4) fabric, but it all depends on the structure of the crystal lattice.

Really, we're talking about how many angels can dance ... uh, we're splitting hairs ... uh, umm, it's really a fine point.

--
sigs, as if you care.

Brrrr.... by corngrower · 2004-10-21 17:21 · Score: 3, Funny

I don't think it'll be very useful in winter coats. Maybe for ladies' swimwear.

Re:Brrrr.... by TheRaven64 · 2004-10-21 22:30 · Score: 1

Actually, it would potentially be very good for winter coats. Imagine several layers of the stuff. You'll get a think layer of stationary air between each layer, providing insulation on the same principle as double glazing. It would also be very light.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:Didn't RTFA... by Parsec · 2004-10-21 17:21 · Score: 1

Maybe a better application would be a very sensitive microphone.

future uses? by eamonman · 2004-10-21 17:21 · Score: 4, Informative

(IANA Chemist but...)
Probably not very. However, as with many thin and light materials, a very good use would be to layer these sheets into thousands of layers. Each sheet layer probably could not be one single molecule; that would be far too brittle, but if someone could figure out a way to neatly link sheets of a regular size (say 10x10 microns), and then stack thousands of them on top of each other, you'd get a very strong (linkage along one plane, and layering interplane), light, and smooth (graphite). You'd end up with flexible and chemically non-reactive materials that happend to be strong as well... Maybe you'd have a very pliable armor, or maybe some sort of non-reactive soft containers (if Nalgene made waterskins)

Or not :)

--
0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC

Re:future uses? by tonsofpcs · 2004-10-21 17:37 · Score: 1

2 words -- Transparent Graphite (or Transparent Aluminum even)

If you layer the layers with the proper spacing in between, this should work, right?

--
Video Production Support
Re:future uses? by mOoZik · 2004-10-21 18:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Transparent aluminum already exists.

--
A blog like any other.
Re:future uses? by Stephen+H-B · 2004-10-21 19:34 · Score: 1

That's transparent alumina (Al2O3), not aluminium. This was on /. already, and we had to correct this assumption I don't know how many times.
Oh, and it's ALUMINIUM people. AL-U-MIN-I-UM. Sigh, only in America.

--
Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
Re:future uses? by Andy_R · 2004-10-21 21:20 · Score: 1

Transparent Graphite already exists too.

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Re:future uses? by untaken_name · 2004-10-21 23:47 · Score: 1

You're wrong.
Not just about the correct spelling, but about 'only in America'. In fact, Canada uses that spelling as well. Of course, I am not correcting your spelling of aluminum, as I realize that in other parts of the world, that is the accepted spelling. Wow, funny how that works, isn't it? Realizing that other parts of the world might do things differently? What a fucking concept! Or do you insist that Americans spell curb 'kerb' and tire 'tyre' as well? To-MAY-to or To-MAH-to? Oh fuck, let's call the whole thing off.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:future uses? by tonsofpcs · 2004-10-22 04:53 · Score: 1

Graphite and Diamonds are different polymorphs of Carbon. They have different structures and different properties.
See this site for more detals.

--
Video Production Support
Re:future uses? by francisew · 2004-10-22 09:08 · Score: 1

I'm a chemist. Not really the kind that is into materials though.

My guess, if you could make regular sheets, and cross link them with other polymer substrates, then coat the sheets externally with other fabric, you could make an air-tight, water-tight strong, light, flexible fabric.

This stuff would also burn really easily, and get punctured easily. While flexible, the material wouldn't have any place to dissipate the energy of an object penetrating it.

The reason we consider spider silk to be so 'strong' is because it is a fiber that self-folds and unfolds. This means that it can dissipate tension along its axis. It can hold a higher tension for a while because of that.

Stuff like kevlar, can stretch really well, and this carbon fabric wouldn't. As soon as you poked it, it would begin to rupture. It would also probably be HIGHLY susceptible to chemical reaction from the 2 directions normal to its surface.

The posts talking about the semiconductor uses are more on track.
Re:future uses? by Stephen+H-B · 2004-10-22 11:03 · Score: 1

Wow, that's new. A USian justifying something on the basis that Canadians do it to :)
BTW I realise my comment probably reads a bit harsher than I meant, I was only poking gentle fun at your insistance on using different words. I am a chemist and it just gets irritating when American journals and papers start spouting out different names/units than IUPAC/SI.

--
Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
Re:future uses? by untaken_name · 2004-10-24 09:03 · Score: 1

I didn't insist on using different words. I insisted that both uses were correct. There's a world of difference. Besides, I've been calling sofas Chesterfields for years, and justifying it based on the fact that people from Canadia[sic] 'do it to'[sic]. :)

--
http://xkcd.com/386/

It's called graphite by I+am+the+Bullgod · 2004-10-21 17:23 · Score: 1

The trick was to seperate the layer for its electrical properties. ;)

Re:It's called graphite by tonsofpcs · 2004-10-21 17:31 · Score: 1

Or, if you compress the layers together really, really hard, with alot of heat, it becomes a diamond.

--
Video Production Support
Re:It's called graphite by I+am+the+Bullgod · 2004-10-21 17:35 · Score: 1

I like where this is going! We could compress it even further and get a primordial black hole.
Re:It's called graphite by mrchaotica · 2004-10-21 18:08 · Score: 1

What if you glued the layers together instead?

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:It's called graphite by tonsofpcs · 2004-10-22 05:07 · Score: 1

They are smaller than the glue itself. The glue most likely would be unable to bond with the graphite, and if it could, it would make the structure more glue than graphite. My idea would be to take many full-sized (let full-size be as big as you want, but at least something workable, say 1cm) sheets and layer them with 1 or two padding layers between on the edges only. If it is rigid, it will stay immediately, if not, when you pull it taught it will.

--
Video Production Support

Who thinks this might be good for a elevator by matlantis · 2004-10-21 17:24 · Score: 1

I could see this ribbon being good for material to be let down from a satellite to be the begining of a space elevator its light and tough

Two-Dimensional by Arzach · 2004-10-21 17:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The nanofabric belongs to the family of fullerene molecules, which were discovered during the last two decades, but is the first two-dimensional fullerene." Two-Dimensional? Surely a molecule has at least three dimensions...

Re:Two-Dimensional by Shishberg · 2004-10-21 17:51 · Score: 1

Maybe you were just quipping, but on the offchance that it was a serious question... I think the point is that previously known fullerenes (Buckyballs etc) weren't planar, i.e. the molecular bonds meet each other to form a three-dimensional structure, so you can't flatten it into a single sheet.
Re:Two-Dimensional by k98sven · 2004-10-21 17:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually it's all just hype.

This material was known before.. long before fullerenes even. It's just graphite.

The structure of graphite and the fact that the interplanar bonds are weak has been known for quite a long time.

The news here is that someone actually found a practical way to produce a single graphite layer.

But it's not really a new compound.
Re:Two-Dimensional by DrFalkyn · 2004-10-21 18:03 · Score: 1

I think they mean that the C-C and C=C bonds lie in asingle plane so the material is essence flat or "two-dimensional". If you remember chemisty, the carbon atoms exhibit sp2 hybridization which only allows for three sigma and one pi bond. So a single carbon atom binds to only three other carbon atoms(two single bonds and one double bond)

This differs from graphite proper because it is only a single sheet, and thus is not considered an allotrope.
Re:Two-Dimensional by zokrath · 2004-10-21 18:12 · Score: 1

The second dimension is an abstraction that is used to describe an object or system where there re only two pertinent locational identifiers, either because the third dimension does not exist or it is not relevant because the system lies entirely on a single plane.
Re:Two-Dimensional by NanoGator · 2004-10-21 18:56 · Score: 1

""The nanofabric belongs to the family of fullerene molecules, which were discovered during the last two decades, but is the first two-dimensional fullerene." Two-Dimensional? Surely a molecule has at least three dimensions..."

That depends on what your smallest unit of measurement is.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Two-Dimensional by pyrote · 2004-10-21 20:49 · Score: 2, Informative

but it's not really a new compound

Technically it's not a "compound" at all.

and if this new... uh... material is just graphite, can you send me some graphite bundles from the jewlery shop? it has as much a right being called planiar diamond as graphite.

but yes, the material was known before. the idea of fullerenes and this material must have been on somones wish list.

--
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
Re:Two-Dimensional by k98sven · 2004-10-22 00:29 · Score: 2, Informative

and if this new... uh... material is just graphite, can you send me some graphite bundles from the jewlery shop? it has as much a right being called planiar diamond as graphite.

Only if because you don't know what you're talking about.

Let me hit you with some undergraduate-level chemistry:

Graphite is the planar crystal conformation of carbon where each carbon atom binds to three others, forming plane unit rings of 6 carbon atoms. See this image, for example. The bonds between the layers are not chemical bonds. They are van der Waals bonds, which are intermolecular bonds, and are far weaker than a real chemical bond.

Diamond, on the other hand, is a conformation of carbon where the atoms bind with four others in a tetrahedral fashion. See this picture. All bonds here are equally strong, and far much stronger than the interplane bonds in graphite. That's why diamond is hard.

Fullerenes on the other hand, are bonded like graphite, with three bonds on each carbon. However, in the case of these molecules, there are both five and six-member rings, causing a curved structure. See this picture.

These are the three distinct types of stuctures pure carbon can have. This monolayer compound belongs to the first. It is a monolayer of graphite, or a single 'graphite molecule' if you want.
Re:Two-Dimensional by pyrote · 2004-10-23 10:10 · Score: 1

thank you, that makes alot more sense than my drivel :)

atleast we now have a reason for it to be graphite and not diamond.

now that I have the attention of somone who knows chemical and intermelecular bonds, with this new configuration (4 interconnects) does this create yet another material, due of it's own properties and description? also, what would the physical properties of this material be?

just trying to clear my ignorance.
Thanks!

--
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
Re:Two-Dimensional by k98sven · 2004-10-24 18:56 · Score: 2, Informative

now that I have the attention of somone who knows chemical and intermelecular bonds, with this new configuration (4 interconnects) does this create yet another material, due of it's own properties and description? also, what would the physical properties of this material be?

But it's not a new configuration, it's the same as graphite (3 bonds per carbon in a six-ring stucture)

The new thing here is that you only have a single layer. Even though the layer itself is relatively strong, it doesn't mean the thing is strong as a macroscopic material. It's strong on the axis of the plane of atoms, but very weak in the other direction.

One idea would be to build up the layers and make a super-strong material, but you can't do that here, because the bonds which would hold the layers together are weak. You just end up with ordinary graphite, which is soft. Van der Waals bonds are the weakest kind there is.

I think the main uses here aren't trying to make some new macroscopic material out of this stuff alone.

I think the idea here is that you can use this monolayer of graphite together with other stuff to create new materials. For instance as a coating or as a layer in a semiconductor. Like a slice of cheese in a sandwich.
Re:Two-Dimensional by k98sven · 2004-10-24 19:02 · Score: 1

Speaking of semiconductors.. that's another interesting property that should be mentioned.

This graphite monolayer should conduct electricity fairly well.

Graphite itself conducts electricity, but with a pretty big resistance. But most of the restistance in graphite is because the electrons have a difficult time moving between the layers, not because of moving within the layers.

So, since this material only has a single layer, the conductivity should be pretty good.
Re:Two-Dimensional by pyrote · 2004-10-24 21:19 · Score: 1

must have been late when I read the article... I thought I read that it had 4 bonds... maybee thats why i'm so confused

--
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.

In other news by jd · 2004-10-21 17:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Janet Jackson has filed a new appeal against the FCC Superbowl obscenity ruling, claiming she was testing a prototype of the new material.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Didn't RTFA... by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-10-21 17:34 · Score: 1

Well, the skin of the Apollo landers was no thicker than tin foil, so, a spacecraft with a thin hull isn't a problem. However, a spacecraft capable of withstanding orbital entry or atmospheric re-entry back to Earth would require something more substantial.

It is conceivable that, if this material's properties are good enough and if it can be thickened or layered effectively, it could form the basis of future light but reliable heat-shield devices.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Can someone fill me in here? by KinkifyTheNation · 2004-10-21 17:43 · Score: 1

It's been a while since i've been to any science class, but I was still under the assumption that we couldn't even see atoms themselves, how are they able to know it even exists? Can someone please fill me in on what i've missed while i've been living under my rock the past few years?

Re:Can someone fill me in here? by Elvis77 · 2004-10-21 17:53 · Score: 1

Sounds like it could be the Emperor's new clothes to me, but me thinks it would be use for a new line of lingerie... "Honest honey those new nickers for you cost me a fortune..."

--

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed (SK)
Re:Can someone fill me in here? by erick99 · 2004-10-21 17:54 · Score: 1

A Scanning/Tunneling electron microscope could resolve a one atom thick sheet of carbon.

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:Can someone fill me in here? by servognome · 2004-10-21 18:17 · Score: 2, Informative

There's alot of ways to detect atoms. Human "Seeing" is just detecting the light bouncing off/radiated by an object.
For example atomic force microscopy uses a very sharp needle and detects the force of the individual atoms.
IBM even used it to move individual atoms to spell "IBM".

--
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Re:Can someone fill me in here? by jcuervo · 2004-10-22 20:45 · Score: 1

Hmm. I remember seeing that before. Cool stuff.

Question: I always figured atoms looked, y'know, spherical. (Roughly, anyway.) Why do they look like little mountains in that top picture?

--
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
Re:Can someone fill me in here? by servognome · 2004-10-22 22:03 · Score: 1

The AFM glides along the top, you are basically getting the top half, the connections between the mountains are the atomic bonds.

--
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73

Re:Didn't RTFA... by deglr6328 · 2004-10-21 17:43 · Score: 1

A solar sail one atom thick wouldn't work I don't think. Photons would tunnel through a barrier so thin with such ease I suspect it would be largely transparent.

--
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"

Re:Didn't RTFA... by WalksOnDirt · 2004-10-21 17:47 · Score: 1

Carbon CAN bond to four other atoms, but in this case it's only three. So is this not a 2d material?

Boron and Nitrogen bond to three other atoms too, and there may be a form of planar boron-nitride with similar properties.

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)

"computers made from a single molecule" by greenguy · 2004-10-21 17:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm guessing that comes without a floppy drive. Or a USB port.

--
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?

Re:"computers made from a single molecule" by ecloud · 2004-10-22 05:43 · Score: 1

Feh. Optical or RF proximity communications will have replaced USB by then.

nanocapacitor by RealProgrammer · 2004-10-21 17:55 · Score: 1

With a similar insulator, you could roll a garmungulus sheet of this stuff into a itsy-bitsy package, charge it up with a jet engine, and voila!

Instant taser.

--
sigs, as if you care.

The Emperor's New Clothes by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:55 · Score: 5, Funny

That Hans Christian Andersen was so far ahead of his time he wrote about this graphene stuff hundreds of years ago.

Re:World's First Single-Atom-Thick Fabric? No Way! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 17:55 · Score: 3, Informative

What about gold leaf?

Gold leaf is very mallable indeed. But not to the extent that you can get it down to a single atom. The thinnest we can get today is a few hundred atoms.

Doesn't anyone remember the experiment where they shot beta particles at a sheet of gold leaf, which is one atom thick, or darn close, and they saw some of the particles were being reflected when they bounced off of the nucleus.

Yes, that was Rutherford. His sheet was approximately 400 atoms thick.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by SlashdotMeNow · 2004-10-21 17:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, only 3 of the 4 is used, because the 4rth one points in the wrong direction (outwards). The atomic geometry of Boron and Nitrogen is not suitable for making flat 2d structures.

computers made from a single molecule by chip_s_ahoy · 2004-10-21 17:56 · Score: 1

Would be very hard to type on.

Re:Terrorists? by mattyrobinson69 · 2004-10-21 18:06 · Score: 1, Offtopic

yes, but what if the terrorists realised that if you bite somebody, it really, really hurts. it would be mayhem:

terrorists lobby to get capital punishment legal in all major countries (for one murder)
terrorists bites innocent old lady
lady screams
lady beats terrorist to death with handbag
lady gets electric chair

what? it could happen.

Fullerene? by WalksOnDirt · 2004-10-21 18:12 · Score: 1

I sort of question calling this a fullerene. It's just a single layer of graphite; so if this is a fullerene, it would seem to imply that graphite is too. I thought fullerenes were supposed to be new: now it turns out we've been mining them for thousands of years?

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)

Re:Fullerene? by bwd234 · 2004-10-21 21:47 · Score: 1

Actually fullerenes can be found in candle soot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene So they have actually been around for thousands of years.

ummm, SEVEN of Nine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 18:12 · Score: 1, Funny

and you call yourself a geek...

Re:ummm, SEVEN of Nine by slavetrade55 · 2004-10-21 20:02 · Score: 1

Hopefully you don't call yourself a male.
Re:ummm, SEVEN of Nine by Zerth · 2004-10-22 02:25 · Score: 1

Obviously you watch the wrong show. Although I much prefer the Six of Nine from the Tripping the Rift pilot(who wouldn't want a handjob from Terry Farrell) over the one from the regular series.

So... by I7D · 2004-10-21 18:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Can we finally fold a piece of paper more than 11 times now?

--
Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...

sounds like a material for panites by kiljoy001 · 2004-10-21 18:38 · Score: 2, Funny

sounds great for womens underwear, no struggling with bra straps ma'am!

Re:sounds like a material for panites by kbewley · 2004-10-21 20:47 · Score: 1

"struggling with bra straps"?

You just need WAAY more practice dude!

--
-- These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer in any way.

Re:World's First Single-Atom-Thick Fabric? No Way! by falsified · 2004-10-21 18:40 · Score: 1

Does anyone know how Rutherford was able to get a sheet so thin? The experiment was done over a hundred years ago, and I'm not aware of any technologies that would have allowed for such precision cutting. (Offtopic, probably, but I don't really care. My curiosity is stronger than my karma.)

--
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.

Capacitors? by Lisandro · 2004-10-21 18:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder if something like that could be used to make very high capacity unpolarized capacitors, just like the regular foil ones (an isolator sandwiched by two conductor sheets and rolled into a can). The only way to get high capacitances practically (above 1uF) is to use electrolytics, which have quite a share of disadvantages.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by WalksOnDirt · 2004-10-21 18:51 · Score: 1

Yes, only 3 of the 4 is used, because the 4rth one points in the wrong direction (outwards). The atomic geometry of Boron and Nitrogen is not suitable for making flat 2d structures.

All four of the bonding electrons in carbon are used. There are three sigma (spp) bonds and a delocalized pi (p) bond.

It is true that if you tried to make a planar material out of just boron or nitrogen, it wouldn't want to lie flat. Combined, thought, you get an electron structure very similar to pure carbon. Here are some links mentioning planar boron nitride: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0111020 and http://www.uminokai.net/nanotube/index.htm

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)

Imagine by PingPongBoy · 2004-10-21 18:57 · Score: 1

Long ago I've been thinking of whether a computer can be made from one atom. Now what is next? A proton? How about a vacuum?

--
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.

MOD PARENT UP!!!! by SlashdotMeNow · 2004-10-21 18:58 · Score: 1

It's funny because it's true.

One great use of this! by Gentlewhisper · 2004-10-21 19:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Ever noticed that women are wearing lesser and lesser?

Presenting the next frontier in fashion, nanowear 3000(tm), now modern women can stuff those traditional nutjobs together with their religion, by wearing fully covered garments... minus the heat and discomfort!

To order your nanowear 3000(tm) garment, please phone 1800-BLACKHOLE, that's 1800-BLACKHOLE! Now selling at a new introductory price of $19.95. Order now and we will overnight your order to you in a small envelope!

--
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!

Graphene by Jormundgard · 2004-10-21 19:08 · Score: 2, Informative

If the memory of an old man serves me right, graphene has long been used to describe the carbon sheets within any sample of graphite (it's why pencils are so good at writing: the sheets strip off). What must be new here is the ability to make individual sheets of graphene.

Re:Processors(good for lighting) by Anarchitect_in_oz · 2004-10-21 19:12 · Score: 1

Wouldn't wearing this in a lighting storm be a good idea. after all the lighting wants to travel the easiest way in can. if it can travel in the suit it won't travel in you. in the same way people who are completely soaked when hit by lightinging will only be burnt where there aren't wet on the skin, and the current can't travel in the water.

--
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck

Can I wear it... by thrill12 · 2004-10-21 19:23 · Score: 1

???
I assume that would probably be what women reading this would think, instead of all the really cool nerd-stuff you could do with it.

'Sure honey, go right ahead :)'

Why did I think of the fairytale "The emperor's new clothes" right now?

--
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd

Re:World's First Single-Atom-Thick Fabric? No Way! by surprise_audit · 2004-10-21 19:25 · Score: 1

From the article quoted by the GP poster:

the foil used by Rutherford was of gold, beaten into leaf about 400 atoms thick.

Basically, just take a chunk of gold and pound on it until it's as thin as you want it... I imagine it's just a little more sophisticated than that, but that's the principal.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by Xerxes2695 · 2004-10-21 19:26 · Score: 1

or a condom

Life imitates art by devphil · 2004-10-21 19:30 · Score: 1

Joe Haldeman had single-molecule thick condoms in one of his hard-SF novels, Buying Time, published back in the late 80's. In the book, the TV adverts for the condoms had to use polarized lightspots in the studio so that the condoms would actually be visible for the cameras.

"Airskins. All you feel... is safe."

--
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)

Re:Didn't RTFA... by greg_barton · 2004-10-21 19:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

If it is, I wonder if it would have any use in creating an ultralight spaceship?

Ah, you mean a hull made from one single molecule which is transparent? linky

Computers made from single molecule by panurge · 2004-10-21 19:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm beginning to think that nowadays every tech article has to include at least 1 really stupid claim, either so the authors can laugh at the stupid journos who pass them on uncritically, or because it's the bit the journalist will think he understands and that will make a headline.
Any kind of machinery requires differentiated structures, and anything involving electricity requires localised anisotropy - or how will you get your current flows separate in order to do anything useful? DNA has a differentiated structure but it is not a machine, it is a recording medium (parenthetically, it's just as well the RIAA wasn't around when life evolved: "What do you mean, you can replicate DNA? That's illegal file-sharing!") and the machines that do something useful with it are all multi-molecular. It's unlikely a few billion years (sorry, George) of evolution will be seriously wrong about this. I don't mind Slashdot contributors including marketoid claims in headers, but they might at least quarantine them in quotes and put a [sic] at the end so we know that they know what we know.

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

Re:Computers made from single molecule by Virtex · 2004-10-22 02:28 · Score: 1

It was only the Slashdot paraphrasing that made mention of single molecule computers. The article referred to single molecule transistors. Quite a difference.

--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
Re:Computers made from single molecule by LWATCDR · 2004-10-22 02:28 · Score: 1

"Any kind of machinery requires differentiated structures" Not really a ramp or inclined plane is considered one of the "simple" machines.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ?sid=126662 &op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=134&tid=1& mode=thread&pid=10595952
BTW I do not think this site is correct. The wedge and inclined plane are really the same thing. And the screw is a a form of an inclined plane. And the pully is a modifed wheel/axel.
Anyway an inclined plane can be a uniform structure.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Computers made from single molecule by panurge · 2004-10-22 06:10 · Score: 1

Ahem! an inclined plane is not a machine until a second component moves on it. And a wheel/axle requires a pivot. As Archimedes observed, give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the Earth.

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Re:Computers made from single molecule by The_REAL_DZA · 2004-10-22 09:10 · Score: 1

Any kind of machinery requires differentiated structures, and anything involving electricity requires localised anisotropy - or how will you get your current flows separate in order to do anything useful?

You naysayers have been saying things like "That'll never work!" and "Don't you think if that could be done, somebody (somebody smarter than YOU, probably) would have already done it?!?!" for centuries, and will be for centuries to come:*

Thalassa: Have you prepared the megaton hydrocoils for the drawing Sargon supplied?
Scotty: For all the good it'll do you. It's a fancy name, but how will something that looks like a drop of jelly make this thing work? You'll need microgears and a pulley that does what a muscle does.

*Star Trek "TOS", Season Two, "Return To Tomorrow"

--

This space intentionally left (almost) blank.

indium gallium?! by Capt'n+Hector · 2004-10-21 19:35 · Score: 1

...and iodine and thorium and thulium and thalium! (yes, I memorized it)

--
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?

Vacuum balloon material by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 19:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

A helium ballon rises because it is lighter than the volume of air it displaces.

If this material is air tight and coupled with a nanotube structure, could a balloon/box be constructed with a vacuume inside?

The end of the space shuttle? by Deep_Priest · 2004-10-21 19:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Isn't this fabric excactly what Arthur C. Clarke described as the building blocks for his space elevator in "The Fountains of Paradise"?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446 677949/104-1661537-6837554?v=glance

He described long wires of single atom-wide carbon fibers stretching into space at geostationarily stable points. Which were used as the framework for elevators that brought people and cargo to space a lot cheaper than by rockets. It looks like NASA likes the idea:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1 .htm

Re:So..., yes by majid_aldo · 2004-10-21 19:57 · Score: 1

http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezone /muse/muse0704.asp/

Paper didn't appear to work, so she decided to use gold foil--only 11 millionths of an inch thick. Working with soft artists' brushes, rulers, and tweezers, she managed to fold a 4-inch-by-4-inch square of gold foil in half 12 times without tearing the extremely delicate sheet.

--
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.

Finally!!! by Vash_066 · 2004-10-21 20:00 · Score: 1

Something to make my Dream pair of boxers out of!!!! Now I bet those will breath just fine!

I guess pron sites are gonna be crazy about this by floydman · 2004-10-21 20:01 · Score: 1

Panty Girls

Wet Tshirt contests

Girls in Single-Atom-Thick Fabric

--
The lunatic is in my head

Re:Didn't RTFA... by zakalwe · 2004-10-21 20:07 · Score: 3, Funny

But maybe one application would be creating insanely large solar sails that fold up extremely small.

Aha, but could you fold it in half more than 7 times? ;)

The real question is by Dot+Com+Drew · 2004-10-21 20:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Does this fabric make me look fat?

--
This .sig is .false

What's with the lack of photographs these days? by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-21 21:16 · Score: 1

It is becoming increasingly rare that when I read a news story on the web that I almost never get a picture.

In an age when everybody has access to digital photography, and when publishing full color images is no more expensive than publishing black and white text, what gives?

Anyway, this story was incredibly uninformative.

It told me nothing I actually would have wanted to know, which is both typical, and in this case almost certainly deliberate. Reality often makes for boring copy.

If they didn't mention the tactile qualities of the so-called "fabric", it's probably because it doesn't have any. --Meaning, I bet they haven't made more than a continuous square centimeter of the stuff.

We are talking about atoms here.

Which is probably why, (in this case anyhow), there were no pictures.

-FL

Re:What's with the lack of photographs these days? by Mant · 2004-10-21 22:13 · Score: 1

If you read TFA you would know it is mircons across.
Re:What's with the lack of photographs these days? by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-21 23:13 · Score: 1

If you read TFA you would know it is mircons across.

Funny thing is, I did. But I was also skimming through about twenty other stories on twenty other subjects at the time.

It's a big world. There's a lot to cram in over breakfast!

-FL
Re:What's with the lack of photographs these days? by Winterblink · 2004-10-21 23:58 · Score: 1

If you read TFC you would know he argues that very same point right back at himself.

--
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn

Good idea for better sex - molecule condoms! by tod_miller · 2004-10-21 21:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Condoms!

Molecule thin!

Get them while they are hot!

2050: Durex extra sensitive using nanotech technology with built into internal wifi nano-webcam and apache-hhtpd. Runs linux.

--
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com

Re:Good idea for better sex - molecule condoms! by jakel2k · 2004-10-22 03:49 · Score: 1

Damn... That's all I need is more spam.

Pardon my double negatives. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-21 21:19 · Score: 1

It is becoming increasingly rare that when I read a news story on the web that I almost never get a picture.

Grammar? Bah. You know what I meant.

-FL

I think I have a sample of this stuff... by TheHornedOne · 2004-10-21 21:40 · Score: 1

I have this Metallica T-shirt that I bought when I was 14 (I'm 32 now) and it's been washed so many times that I could SWEAR it was not much more than one atom thick now!!!!

University Doesn't Exist by noelmarkham · 2004-10-21 21:56 · Score: 1

On 1 October 2004, The Victoria University Of Manchester and UMIST merged to form The University Of Manchester. The new site is here

Well.. by The+Creator · 2004-10-21 22:04 · Score: 1

That's because he rendered it as ASCII-art you dummy...

--

FRA: STFU GTFO

Already have it in our skin by essreenim · 2004-10-21 22:10 · Score: 1

Nothing new here folks. Nature has already invented an invisible layer for us - the one we wear - part of our skon (the epidermis I think - correct me) is transparent..

Re:Already have it in our skin by chuckT · 2004-10-21 22:29 · Score: 1

My skons are opaque. But then I use organic flour.

--
- These are small, *those* are _far away_
Re:Already have it in our skin by Major_Small · 2004-10-22 02:11 · Score: 1

but how many atoms thick is it and does it act as a conductor that can be used in processors?
RTFA
Re:Already have it in our skin by JimFromJersey · 2004-10-22 05:02 · Score: 1

ah but do you have buttered skons for tea?

--
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt

In the shops soon... by paj1234 · 2004-10-21 22:33 · Score: 1

...at the same time as the release of Duke Nukem Forever.

Manchester or UMIST by doodlelogic · 2004-10-21 22:40 · Score: 2, Informative

The article linked to the wrong university website, the new one is here.

The University of Manchester is really still two universities, in the process of merger. As an ex Owens student, I'm intrigued as to whether it was their physics teams that found this or UMIST's down the road... Both good teams and I'm very proud they're still doing such good work.

self healing? by Augoeides · 2004-10-21 23:08 · Score: 1

Its early in the morning and I may not be thinking clearly yet. Tell me if this makes any sense. Imagine if this stuff was in a vacuum. If it were torn, its edges would have ionic charges. They would want to reconnect. This material, in a vacuum, should heal its wounds to some extent. Of course a problem would be preventing wrinkles that would occur when an atom bonded with an atom other than the one it was originally bonded to. But I wonder if a gentle sustained vibration along the entire sheet would help remove those wrinkles.

compared with gold leaf by Lust · 2004-10-21 23:15 · Score: 1

Considering that gold leaf is thick in comparision (100+ nm [ref]) I find this pretty amazing.

...then scrapped the program because by CFD339 · 2004-10-21 23:41 · Score: 1

...it wasn't built on top of Websphere.

--
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln

perhaps he has a very small by CFD339 · 2004-10-21 23:43 · Score: 1

'unit of measure'

--
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln

anybody remember the sci fi story ... by cascadingstylesheet · 2004-10-21 23:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Was it Piers Anthony? A whole *town* had women wearing transparent, incredibly thin bodysuits.

The story was set in the 50's, I think. The whole moral structure of this town had changed, because women could just, er, pop stuff right back out, without the slightest danger or even evidence. Some guy wandered into the town and was amazed at what he found.

Of course, most of modern society is that town now anyway, but without the bodysuits :(

Re:anybody remember the sci fi story ... by twelveinchbrain · 2004-10-22 00:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Was it Piers Anthony? A whole *town* had women wearing transparent, incredibly thin bodysuits.

The story was set in the 50's, I think. The whole moral structure of this town had changed, because women could just, er, pop stuff right back out, without the slightest danger or even evidence. Some guy wandered into the town and was amazed at what he found.

Of course, most of modern society is that town now anyway, but without the bodysuits :(

Up Schist Crick, Piers Anthony 1972

Remember the ending? The guy, uhh, sat on the toilet without taking his bodysuit off...

--
Not Found
The requested URL /signature.html was not found on this server.
Re:anybody remember the sci fi story ... by cascadingstylesheet · 2004-10-22 00:18 · Score: 1

Up Schist Crick, Piers Anthony 1972

That was it; thanks! I read it in some collection of "taboo" scifi stories (most of which would seem quite tame now, but a few were just really weird ...)

Re:Didn't RTFA... by Physics+Dude · 2004-10-21 23:47 · Score: 2, Informative

the skin of the Apollo landers was no thicker than tin foil

Do you have a citation for that claim? The Apollo landers had a foil shilding, but the only claims I've found like the one above are from "fake moon landing" sites. The walls have to support one atmophere at a minimum which is over a ton of pressure per square foot.

Only protein by spectrokid · 2004-10-21 23:54 · Score: 1

Airborn protein is likely to cause allergy (pollen, flour...) but this is pretty much inorganic. Nobady ever became allergic to sand either...

--

10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

oh, you furrinnerrrs.... by CFD339 · 2004-10-21 23:55 · Score: 1

you don't gotta go nuculer on us 'mericans now. After all, we have really really big er...bombs....and we're really really good at ....er....breaking stuff.

--
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln

While true....the lander was slow moving.... by CFD339 · 2004-10-21 23:59 · Score: 1

Accellerate the thin foil skinned ship up to some useful speed and every particle of dust becomes destructive. In space, its not the size of the stuff that gets you, its the speed and distance.

--
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln

Re:While true....the lander was slow moving.... by jdray · 2004-10-22 03:59 · Score: 1

Well, at that, you only need a good strong barrier on your leading face; more or less an umbrella shield out in front of you. Also, an electric field will guide charged particles around you, or at least that's what I read. And, no matter your speed relative to your target, the real question is the speed of the particle hitting you relative to your momentary position.
I always say, the faster you go, the less chance of being around when an accident happens.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011

two dimensional? by Blitzenn · 2004-10-22 00:12 · Score: 1

You insult our intelligence by claiming it is two dimensional.

Re:two dimensional? by tommck · 2004-10-22 00:59 · Score: 1

I know... Jesus.. how the hell does someone post this to Slashdot? There are WAAAAY too many science geeks on here for that shit to fly.

T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

And here's the accompanying article from 5 hence by Zenmonkeycat · 2004-10-22 00:19 · Score: 2, Funny

"Li'l Kim Fined by FCC For Wearing Clothing Made Out of Nearly Transparent Monomolecular Graphene Cloth"

--

*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

Original press release without Physorg spam. by argent · 2004-10-22 00:51 · Score: 1

Physorg's page is just the original press release with the original contact information removed and no link back to it. And really broken HTML apparently to prevent the browser from letting you select the story text as a bonus.

Physorg is useful as a place to find stories, but its "link trap" design is really getting annoying... if you're going to link them, at least include a link to the original story as well.

New toilet paper technology by qray · 2004-10-22 01:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Great, now we'll see toilet paper in public restrooms get even thinner. Hopefully this might be stronger than the current stock.

Better yet... by hummassa · 2004-10-22 01:16 · Score: 1

as it's a good conductor and only one atom thick, it would be a better anti-mind-control hat than a tinfoil!

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Great by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2004-10-22 01:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Thats just what I need. A really sharp, invisible razor blade. My face hurts just thinking about it.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:Great by tpaddock · 2004-10-22 10:08 · Score: 2, Funny

The Mach 4
Now if they could just make it vibrate.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by Solder+Fumes · 2004-10-22 02:10 · Score: 1

Yes! I once developed a formula for the 7-times rule which was based on the ratio of material thickness to material dimensions, and the stiffness of the material. With paper there is a sheet size that will let you get to the 7th fold. You need to have enough area left so that there is enough leverage to fold the 64 layers and overcome the semicircular reinforcing folds at the edges.

conductivity and refraction by Rufus88 · 2004-10-22 02:18 · Score: 1

Fullerenes conduct electricity, so its refractive index is most likely negative.

Pardon my ignorance, but I've got two questions:

1) Why is there a relationship between conductivity and index of refraction?

2) Index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to the speed of light in the material. As a result, you always have a number greater than 1. What does a negative I-of-R mean physically? The speed of light in the material would have to be negative? Would it reflect the beam rather than refract it?

Re:conductivity and refraction by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-22 03:41 · Score: 4, Informative

>1) Why is there a relationship between >conductivity and index of refraction?

There is a relationship between dielectric constant (not exacty conductivity) and refractive index. The dielectric constant involves the ability of a material to attenuate an electric field, through the dipole moment and polarizability of the material. Light (or more exactly, electromagnetic radiation) is just alternating electric and magnetic fields.

>2) Index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to the speed of light in the material. As a result, you always have a number greater than 1. What does a negative I-of-R mean physically? The speed of light in the material would have to be negative? Would it reflect the beam rather than refract it?

If you shine light into a pool of water at a 45 degree angle to the vertical, the beam bends at a >45 degree angle. If the same pool of water had a negative refractive index, the beam would bend at a 45 degree angle.

One interesting thing about the material described is that graphite is about 1000X as conductive parallel to the sheets as perpendicular to them. Light with its electric field in the plane of the sheet would see an almost metallic surface, while light polarized perpendicular to it would just see a layer of carbon atoms. It might make a really efficient thin film polarizer.
Re:conductivity and refraction by hankwang · 2004-10-22 03:51 · Score: 4, Informative

1) Why is there a relationship between conductivity and index of refraction?
Reflection of radio waves has to do with electrons in the material that move because of the electrical field of the radio waves. Conductivity obviously has to do with how well electrons can move. You can regard light to some extent as an high-frequency version of radio waves, if you ignore the quantum effects that become important at those frequencies.
2) Index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to the speed of light in the material. [...] What does a negative I-of-R mean physically?
I think the parent poster was incorrect. The index of refraction is complex, i.e., has an imaginary component. That is a mathematical trick; if you describe a wave as
E(z) = exp(2 pi i n z/c),
then the imaginary component in n will cause the wave to dampen out while propagating.
A refractive index can actually be smaller than 1, which means that light propagates faster than the speed of light (can happen with X rays). This does not violate Einstein's laws, since what counts is how fast you can transmit information and you can't transmit information with a constant wave.

--
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.

Obligatory by TheBoostedBrain · 2004-10-22 02:22 · Score: 1

Do you imagine Natalie Portman dressed on this single atom fabric? Sure you do

--
-- When did Ignorance Become a Point of View?

CO by Rufus88 · 2004-10-22 02:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, and we breathe oxygen too. So putting them together can't be harmful either, right?

I guess that's why carbon monoxide is so safe.

Name change proposal by argStyopa · 2004-10-22 02:54 · Score: 1

I'm not sure graphene's the right name.

It's a 'fabric', so it's made entirely of threads that are evidently:
a) weak
b) transparent
c) of no actual value whatsoever
d) exists only in an insulated technical world

Sounds like it would better be called 'slashdotene' to me.

--
-Styopa

No big deal... by jeff_brh · 2004-10-22 02:58 · Score: 1

I have a few pairs of socks that thin.

Victoria Secret... by johnwyles · 2004-10-22 03:14 · Score: 1

Victoria Secret needs to consult with these scientists to start making these fabrics for all to have... I'd love to see my girlfriend running around in nano-lingerie!

--
[[ the only 15 letter word that is spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable: it may soon be, however. ]]

Slaver Stasis Field by Lynchenstein · 2004-10-22 03:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wrap a Slaver Statis Field around it and BLAM-O! ...Instant variable sword!

Good ol' Larry Niven.

It's the first two-dimensional fullerene by SengirV · 2004-10-22 03:42 · Score: 1

Kewl. Now we only need to have these babies in three dimensions - Ahhhhh, nevermind.

--

Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

Monofilament Whip by jakel2k · 2004-10-22 03:42 · Score: 1

Excellent, one step closer in developing my Monofilament Whip.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by jdray · 2004-10-22 03:55 · Score: 1

Actually, I remember reading an interview with one of the first moon-landing astronauts (Armstrong??) wherein he said that the hull thickness on the capsule was thin enough that you could easily put your fist through it. I think he's the one that said it was "basically tinfoil."

I think they only used about 8 or 10 psi for their atmosphere, rather than the 14.7 that is sea-level standard. They achieved this by increasing the ratio of oxygen, by the way. Also, remember that very thin materials can hold pressure very well. Try to explode a mylar baloon sometime. It will be the seams that fail, not the fabric.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011

One atom thick, eh? by operagost · 2004-10-22 03:57 · Score: 1

I guess now Hollywood designers can redefine the word "sheer."

I'm definitely watching the next Oscars.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by jdray · 2004-10-22 04:03 · Score: 1

What makes you say that? Not that I'm arguing, but I just wonder what brings you to that conclusion.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011

Obligatory Simpsons Quote by rvandervort · 2004-10-22 04:17 · Score: 1

"feels like I'm wearin' nothin' at all....nothin' at all...nothin' at all..."

stupid sexy flanders.

--
New Snot Eunichs.

Re:Didn't RTFA... by deglr6328 · 2004-10-22 05:27 · Score: 1

Metals, traditionally, are opaque and highly reflective, yes? Take a piece of glass and coat it with a few nanometers of metal (tens of atoms thick) and you'll see that you can still see through it! For instance mylar balloons which have a metal coated plastic of up to a couple microns (if I remember right) thick are still slightly translucent (hold it up to a bright light).

--
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"

Re:Processors(good for lighting) by ALT064 · 2004-10-22 06:02 · Score: 1

Hmm... Interesting. Better find a way to cover your head and face then I guess. ;)

Seriously though, I don't think this stuff has any prospects for becoming clothing.

--
@

The old Folding Problem? by fuctape · 2004-10-22 06:23 · Score: 1

Can you fold this stuff more than 8 times?

Re:Didn't RTFA... by jdray · 2004-10-22 06:28 · Score: 1

Very true, but even if such material only reflected half the light that struck it, it might make for a good solar sail because of the dramatically reduced mass. Also, if, for instance, a one-atom thick sheet reflected only 10% of the light, and a sixty-atom thick (an arbitrarily selected number for illustration purposes) sheet reflected 100% of the light, you'd be far better off to make a sheet ten times the size of your original to capture as much light as something six times more massive.

Lastly, what of the electrostatic properties of this material? If you put a surface charge on it, you might be able to sail the ion-rich solar wind and not worry about the photonic reflection.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011

Re:Would someone be allergic to proofreading? by http · 2004-10-22 06:52 · Score: 1

The researcher's name is Eva Oberdörster, for those wonder why there are so few web pages about this experiment on google, But hey, it's a wiki - I'll go correct it -now-.

--
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1

The old Folding Problem? by fuctape · 2004-10-22 07:01 · Score: 1

What I want to know is, can you fold this stuff more than 8 times?

Not quite by serutan · 2004-10-22 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

The space elevator concept involves a ribbon of carbon nanotubes either bonded or woven together, so not quite as thin as a 1-atom sheet but pretty thin. Others are working on how to make long nanotubes for this purpose. The point of the Russian research seems to be the electrical properties. The article doesn't explain what they mean when they say the sheets are "strong." Probably strong considering it's only 1 atom thick, but not space elevator ribbon strong.

ready to wear by saltydogdesign · 2004-10-22 07:24 · Score: 1

How long until we see bikinis made out of this stuff?

--
// This is not a sig.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-10-22 07:43 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't believe it.. by euxneks · 2004-10-22 08:17 · Score: 1

I'll believe it when I see it. ;P

--
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

Re:World's First Single-Atom-Thick Fabric? No Way! by Artifakt · 2004-10-22 08:29 · Score: 1

Possibly Rutherford had it passed through rollers instead of beaten. When you get to the limit where spacing the rollers any closer causes them to flatten out due to machining irregularities, you can stack multiple sheets and then peel them apart after rolling. (This trick is still done commercially in making aluminum foil. It's easier to roll two sheets at once in the final stage, than to make rolling machines that can go smaller without flattening.) Since Rutherford was working with a soft metal that requires little pressure to flatten, and didn't need industrial quantities, automated manufacturing processes, and the like, this process was available to him, and had been for about 40 years, as goldsmiths used it for preparing book inlays.

--
Who is John Cabal?

Re:Didn't RTFA... by deglr6328 · 2004-10-22 09:27 · Score: 1

very very interesting thoughts, you are now on my friends list :)

--
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"

WOW by ITT-TechnoGeek · 2004-10-22 15:14 · Score: 1

Maybe the monofilament thumb-whip from johnny pneumonic is closer than we think

--
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who can read binary and those who can't.

A semantic quibble... by smartalix · 2004-10-22 15:55 · Score: 1

They call it a fabric, but it isn't. It is a film. A fabric is woven together, and in this case the atoms are linked side-to-side. If it was woven, by definition it wouldn't be one atom thick.

--
Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild

The Emperor has no clothes? by stiggystiggy · 2004-10-23 02:38 · Score: 1

Check out my new outfit. It's made from the finest one-atom thick fabric. It's no thin, you can't see it. But really -- it's there!

Maybe not a whole computer... by kcb93x · 2004-10-24 13:17 · Score: 1

...but maybe several MB/GB/TB worth of data? Mail a letter...the content wouldn't matter, but it would be the paper itself that was the medium.

Could be used real-world:

Sign a paper (say, your will)
encoded on the paper (in addition to whatever is written/printed on the paper) is say, something that ties it to you, like a message that can be decoded with your public key (which would also be included...maybe...) or something that uses a 2nd key (one you only have for legal documents...) that only your lawyer and family have the public key for.

Extra validation of the authenticity of documents.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Slashdot Mirror

World's First Single-Atom-Thick Fabric

286 of 390 comments (clear)