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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 18:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, she wants to cover her brain with it

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 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 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 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 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 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 Drey · 2004-10-22 00:32 · Score: 3, Funny

It may need a warning label.
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 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?

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 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: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 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 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: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.

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

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: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.

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

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.

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 mOoZik · 2004-10-21 18:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Transparent aluminum already exists.

--
A blog like any other.

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 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 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 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.

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)

"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?

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.

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

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!

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.

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: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.

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: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

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

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

World's First Single-Atom-Thick Fabric

103 of 390 comments (clear)