Slashdot Mirror


Nanotubes Start to Show their Promise

Rei writes "Researchers at the University of Texas at Dallas have developed the highest quality nanotube sheets to date (the team previously set strength records with polymer-nanotube composites). Producable at a rate comparable to commercial wool spinning, the transparent cloth has exceedingly high conductivity, flexibility, has huge surface area to volume ratios, can potentially be made into very effective OLEDs and thin-film photovoltaic cells, and outperforms even our best bulk materials (such as Mylar and Kevlar) at strength normalized to weight. It strongly absorbs microwaves for localized heating (leading to applications in seamless microwave welding of sections and even windshield warming), changes conductivity little over a wide temperature range (very useful in sensors), and is expected to be used in commercial applications very soon. The research should even be expandable to artificial muscles! To head people off, while the exact tensile strength is not listed, it sounds like it is still far from the >100 GPa needed for a space elevator. Anyways, here's to process advancements!"

329 comments

  1. Near first post by Kawahee · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd like to see these sort of things geared up with 'smart' nanotechnology to make 'smart' cords and stuff like that, imagine a highly conductive wire that provided +, - and ground and detangled itself, or melted into a pool and you just pulled cord out of it, all detangled or bent into whatever shape you want.

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    1. Re:Near first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The magical pixies on lollipop lane have all sorts of wonderful smart cords.

  2. Still lot of carbon... by TarryTops · · Score: 0

    and I wonder if that helps in terms of conservation of energy?

    --
    Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
    1. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do people automagically assume that carbon = bad for the environment?

    2. Re:Still lot of carbon... by aleander · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, the greatest danger to the clean, sterile environment is carbon-based, you know...

      --
      Segmentation fault. Ore dumped.
    3. Re:Still lot of carbon... by TarryTops · · Score: 1

      and human ;-)

      --
      Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
    4. Re:Still lot of carbon... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Conservation of energy is a law of physics (ok, as long as you don't include General Relativity, at least). So you don't need carbon nanotubes to conserve energy.

      However maybe it helps with conservation of entropy :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Still lot of carbon... by LucidBeast · · Score: 0

      It might help you by replacing cancer causing asbestos underpants when engulfed in ./ flamewar. (don't know if carbon nanotubes combust readily)

    6. Re:Still lot of carbon... by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...as long as you don't include General Relativity, at least...

      Even in GR, the stress-energy tensor has zero divergence.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    7. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 1

      Well, the greatest danger to the clean, sterile environment is carbon-based, you know...

      It's also gas based. You may also want to look up the carbon cycle

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    8. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beleive he means life... as in, we are carbon based... and so is gas.... and so is acetone, my anti script word for this post...

    9. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Well, those carbon-based lifeforms that pose the greatest threat to a clean, sterile environment also tend to spew a lot of hot air...

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    10. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Even in GR, the stress-energy tensor has zero divergence.

      You are right... if your space is asymptoticaly flat. In an arbitrary space it is not necessarily true.

    11. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that energy is not conserved in a non flat spacetime in GR?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Still lot of carbon... by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1

      No, the GR field equations state that the stress-energy tensor is proportional to the Einstein curvature tensor - which has a divergence that is identically zero in any spacetime. Even with a cosmological constant different from zero, since the metric has zero divergence the conclusion still holds.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    13. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the anonymous coward you are replying to.

      No, it is not, what it is zero is its covariant derivative, don't be confused by the notation in GR: the nabla does not denote divergence but a covariant derivative. To prove the conservation of any quantity you have to show that the usual divergence of such quantity vanishes identically as stated by Noether's Theorem.

      I will recomend you to look at Weimberg's book on cosmology or this online book for more information about these topics

    14. Re:Still lot of carbon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I did not mean that. Notice that I said asymptotically flat that means flat at the infinity not everywhere.

    15. Re:Still lot of carbon... by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1

      When I said "zero divergence" I was loosely referring to the fact that the contraction of it's covarient derivative vanishes. This, though, is surely local conservation of energy? Which is all I am claiming. The extra terms you have involving the connection coefficients do stop the "usual" divergence from vanishing, but that is hardly surprising - gravitation (i.e. curvature) influences the matter fields!

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  3. Hurm... by ErikZ · · Score: 5, Funny


    Oh good. I wonder how much it will cost for a packet of laser printer paper made of this stuff?

    I could use something snazzy for my resume.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    1. Re:Hurm... by PerlDudeXL · · Score: 5, Funny

      This type of paper will require nano-tube based ink/toner.
      of course, the ink will be the most expensive type of fluid with built-in DRM!

    2. Re:Hurm... by Morky · · Score: 5, Funny

      Marcy, come in here please. I just severed my hand with this young man's resume. Get him in here! I like his moxie!

    3. Re:Hurm... by HomerJayS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In all likleyhood, if you could afford to print your resume on such paper, you wouldn't need a job.

    4. Re:Hurm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antonio Banderas' semen?

    5. Re:Hurm... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? At this point the lab is surprised at how quick they can make this stuff.

      Throw some process engineers at this, and I wouldn't be surprised that the final production cost is *cheaper* than paper. It's just carbon.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    6. Re:Hurm... by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      And hey, if you take a picture of it, the page will EXPLODE. Guess that'll deal with all of those spys...

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    7. Re:Hurm... by dacaldar · · Score: 1

      Added benefit: Your resume won't go through the shredder anymore! :)

  4. Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And yes, folks, it cures most deceases and will get rid of that bronchitis for you and you can use it to clean your hubcaps.

    1. Re:Miracle by TheSloth2001ca · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      but will it slice dice and make julienne fries???

      --
      Just another crappy blog
    2. Re:Miracle by JimmehAH · · Score: 5, Funny

      it cures most deceases

      Just like Jesus!

    3. Re:Miracle by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 0

      Wow! If it cures deceases, sign me up for some of that!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, folk, just like Jesus, carbon nanotubes can do anything, and are also a myth!

    5. Re:Miracle by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > just like Jesus, carbon nanotubes [are] a myth!

      No, he was real, just a little crazy.

    6. Re:Miracle by yourfnmom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right on. I'll believe in nanotubes when I see them.

    7. Re:Miracle by utnow · · Score: 0

      WWJD What Wouldn't Jesus Do??!?

    8. Re:Miracle by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      You know, theoretically, it might be possible to create a nanotuble-like structure with a radius of a visible length. The structures integrity with walls one atom thick casts some doubt into its lifespan, but it could be done. Maybe.

      --
      Sig
    9. Re:Miracle by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1

      That would be cool - I suppose it would look a little like a soap bubble.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  5. Space elevators by onion2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To head people off, while the exact tensile strength is not listed, it sounds like it is still far from the >100 GPa needed for a space elevator.

    Why do they say they're going to enter the material into some space elevator competition at the end of the article then?

    1. Re:Space elevators by MaestroSartori · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The authors also say that, with further tweaking, their nanotube sheets may be useful for building a space elevator tether. They're planning to put the sheets to the test by entering the Spaceward Foundation's Elevator:2010 contest.


      Emphasis mine. Seems to suggest that they think they're not too far away from it, so you're not totally off the mark, but we all know that the last few tweaks can be the bit that don't work, relegating this to other uses...
    2. Re:Space elevators by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's just modern journalism.
      It used to be Who What When Where and How, now it's May Might Could HelpTo and SomeDay.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Space elevators by WiFiBro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      is it the journalist or: the pr behind the product?

    4. Re:Space elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because it's the best there is atm, and that's what (I'm guessing) the competition is about. Getting people to make as good as possible materials for space elevator theter use, even if it's not enough to build the real thing, so to speak.

      Baby steps.

    5. Re:Space elevators by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there even a difference anymore?

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    6. Re:Space elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine both play some part. Like they even care if the story happens to be the best one this millenia (for example, I'm not saying this story is), they still have to hype it up to the point where it's at least partly bullshit. God knows why, probably the PR wants more people to buy their product and the journalists want more people to buy their newspaper\magazine\tv show\whatever.

    7. Re:Space elevators by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I use the worst ATM. I have to put money in it to get it to work.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Space elevators by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's just modern journalism.
      It used to be Who What When Where and How, now it's May Might Could HelpTo and SomeDay.


      Yeah, modern journalism. Nothing like those retro journalists and their flying cars.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    9. Re:Space elevators by jafac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember a meeting of the Chicago Society for Space Settlement* at the Adler Planetarium back in 1978 where space elevators were discussed. Even back then, they knew that carbon-fibers were about the only material that could potentially be strong enough.

      It's taken a very long time to get here (I was just a kid at the time), and I pretty much have always dismissed the idea of space elevators, but it's kinda neat to see that the concept is evolving along the same vein as over two decades ago.

      *(CSSS merged with the L5 society in the early 1980's.)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    10. Re:Space elevators by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      I use the worst ATM. I have to put money in it to get it to work.

      No, that's the one-armed bandit. The ATM is on the other side of the room.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Space elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, "if."

    12. Re:Space elevators by mediocubano · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was an article in the IEEE Spectrum magazine this month about how a space elevator was inevitable, and they acted like it was mere weeks away and a completely done deal, all wrapped up and ready to go. At least that was how the title came across. So by the end of the article (slashvertisement was more what it felt like) they had disclosed all of the tons of technical hurdles to doing the magical space elevator. Its a "Scooby Do" if I ever saw one. Here's the slashvertisement: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature /aug05/0805spac.html

    13. Re:Space elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's because of the way you have to sell basic research. These people probably made the stuff just because it's really cool, a common motivator in science. Now they want to tell about the result (to get new grants) and even though they'd like to just say "this is really cool" what they need to do is plug applications. (To get new grants).

      Since they're scientists at heart, and need to retain a bit of credibility they can't claim that the applications will work (they might not) and so they qualify every little statement they make. The journalist knows too little about science to correct the resulting bad writing.

    14. Re:Space elevators by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      Um, there SHOULD be and if you get the right newspaper there IS.
      The lazy journalist and the lowerquality journal will just copy most of the press release, and will just accept weird claims and all the bruha. As I suppose happened here.

    15. Re:Space elevators by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Why do they say they're going to enter the material into some space elevator competition at the end of the article then?

      For this year's space elevator tether competition (a collaboration between the Spaceward Foundation and NASA's Centennial Challenges), I think the tether doesn't have to actually be space elevator strength, it just needs to be stronger than everyone else's. As for following years, it needs to be the previous year's winner by 50%.

    16. Re:Space elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5 W's are: who; what; when; where; why. Just like "try", there is no how.

  6. Does this mean? by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can soon have a solar powered bulletproof jacket that enhances my strength, protects me from cell phone emissions, and displays DVDs?

    1. Re:Does this mean? by Lil-Bondy · · Score: 3, Funny

      teletubby?

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
    2. Re:Does this mean? by fatgav · · Score: 2, Funny

      And you still won't get laid!

    3. Re:Does this mean? by mikael · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but he didn't say he wanted to be turned into a gay.

    5. Re:Does this mean? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      What about the hover boards I want one of those even though it can't go on water and not one of those crappy ones that can be made out of a vacuum cleaner.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    6. Re:Does this mean? by Alef · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you don't wear it while rioting.

    7. Re:Does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spawn cape here I come!

    8. Re:Does this mean? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You can shoot teletubbies?

    9. Re:Does this mean? by alphabet26 · · Score: 1

      Teletubbies are bulletproof?

      Rats...

      --
      -AlPhAbEt
  7. flexible screens..? by welshwaterloo · · Score: 5, Funny
    The research should even be expandable to artificial muscles!

    Or, from the article, and perhaps of more interest to us:
      "flexible computer screens that could be rolled into a sack"

    Haven't we been promised this for years? I wanna roll up my computer screen & carry it into my flying car!

    1. Re:flexible screens..? by Maian · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Isn't this already possible with OLEDs?

    2. Re:flexible screens..? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Funny

      Imagine the excitement: thousands of Slashdot users could get their first roll in a sack!

    3. Re:flexible screens..? by stupid_is · · Score: 1

      What, like one of these?

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    4. Re:flexible screens..? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      No. They are pretty, shiny, bright, low-power and promising-to-be-inexpensive, but they are not any more rollable than LCD. OTOH "video paper" IS rollable.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    5. Re:flexible screens..? by khrtt · · Score: 1

      I wanna roll up my computer screen & carry it into my flying car!

      No, not possible. But, you can carry your LCD monitor into your PT cruiser:-).

    6. Re:flexible screens..? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      I'm holding out for a connection directly into my brain...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    7. Re:flexible screens..? by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Better hope that the only nanotubes in there are in that roll!

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    8. Re:flexible screens..? by welshwaterloo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like one of

      "October 18, 2004", "unveiled prototypes", "Commercial products are probably in the middle of the three to eight year time zone"

      those..

    9. Re:flexible screens..? by abb3w · · Score: 1
      Haven't we been promised this for years? I wanna roll up my computer screen & carry it into my flying car!

      Well, judging by a recent episode of SciFi's (mediocre) show Master Blasters, you could do such a thing if you really, really wanted. Of course, the impossiblility of unrolling and using the screen afterwards would be a minor concern compared to the problems of the car's prospects for landing. But I'm sure you'd lead the candidates for the next round of Darwin Awards, so it might not be an entirely bad thing....

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    10. Re:flexible screens..? by the_sidewinder · · Score: 1

      No, OLEDs can be rollable. It all depends on the matrial used as the substrate. right now, it's glass, but plastic and this nanotube tech can also be used. Then you may think "well, why can't LCDs do this" just remember that LCDs are filters for light, and do not filter uniformly in all directions. also remember those ripples you see when you touch an LCD. OLEDs are not so subseptible to that

      --
      /. is not to be used by individuals with high blood pressure or a history of heart attacks
  8. How about... by markild · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...the cost?

    I know tfa says that it will be efficient, but does that take the cost into perspective? It's not unusual to hear about a new idea that is totally ground braking in several fields, then the research on the commercial fades out, because they find out that it's too pricey. A lot of products was that way in the beginning. Just look at LCD screens etc.

    Well. That being said. This sound awesome, I'd like to see it developed...

    --
    Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
    Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
    1. Re:How about... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...the cost?
      Cost isn't determined in the lab where the stuff is invented at the time of invention - it's worked out later when it becomes clear that there is more than one way to make something and the best way can be taken advantage of. The first few transistors cost a fortune each to produce, as did aluminium for the first few years. We make both in a different fashion now to the first processes used to make them.
    2. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not unusual to hear about a new idea that is totally ground braking in several fields, then the research on the commercial fades out, because they find out that it's too pricey. A lot of products was that way in the beginning. Just look at LCD screens etc.
      Yeah, just look at how unpopular they still are and the complete lack of a market for flat panel monitors and laptop screens.
    3. Re:How about... by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      ...cost a fortune each to produce, as did aluminium for the first few years.

      Years? More like decades. Discovered in 1825, aluminum (note spelling) was considered a precious metal until better methods of extracting it were developed in the 1880s.

    4. Re:How about... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      aluminum (note spelling)
      My spelling? From the colour of it you may gauge that I am writing in English English and not in American English.

      If people are going to go as far as actaully trying to correct spelling on slashdot they should make sure the original spelling is actaully wrong. Trying to correct people for using color instead of colour would be stupid because both are correct in different bits of the world (additional clue - the word gauge above also has a different spelling).

      Back to alumimium (note that the spelling is correct in a lot of english speaking countries), not a lot of research work was actually put in between discovery and the effort to make extraction practical decades later, when a method related to extracting other metals was used to extract aluminaium as well.

  9. Producable at a rate... by ArbiterOne · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, it's producable at a certain rate- but what about the cost? Is it economically feasible?
    Unfortunate about the space elevator. Looks like the highest we've gone is 63 GPa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_strength)

    1. Re:Producable at a rate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the fastest we've gone is 1000 instructions per second, as was said some 50 years ago about computers.

    2. Re:Producable at a rate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if it can be woven at the rate of commercial wool spinning on research grant money, then it's within the realm of "I can make money doing that if I charge enough". I'm sure that if our government can spend $350 billion on something and still not have proper body armor for the soldiers in Iraq, some senators can find it in their hearts and our pocketbooks to equip them with this stuff for a few hundred billion more (or whatever it takes).

    3. Re:Producable at a rate... by mattspammail · · Score: 2

      The certain rate at which it's producable would be the rate at which wool is woven commercially. Come on, man. Get with the program.

      The steps involved in the wool-producing process include

      • Scouring
      • Carding
      • Combing
      • Drawing
      • Finisher drawing
      • Spinning

      In the year 2000, the US wool-making industry produced 46.5 million pounds of wool, averaging out to 3.875 million pounds per month. Obviously the rates of wool production vary greatly with the season. In fact, more than half of American-produced wool is shorn during April, May and June. That means that if we assume around 24 million pounds in those three months, that means 8 million pounds per month during peak production. That means (with 23 work days per month) 347826 pounds per day, assuming all that is shorn is fully developed during those months. And WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ASSUME SOMETHING! Be careful about your assumptions on sheering versus producing. That's all I'm saying here.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    4. Re:Producable at a rate... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      ...the rate at which wool is woven commercially.

      All it is saying is that if you have a pile of nanotubes and a pile of wool ready for weaving then it will take about the same time to make either into cloth. It said nothing about the rate of wool production, I imagine that would be proportional to the number and quality of sheep that are available.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Producable at a rate... by mattspammail · · Score: 1

      Would those be African or European sheep?

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
  10. Cost is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is the resource usage and sustailability that makes it worthwhile. Cars cost a shedload of cash, but they are still bought. People work longer and longer hours, parents both work. Why? Because they want to buy the things they want and they are expensive.

    Cost is irrelevant.

    If the cost of the item is too great to be commercial (as computers used to be), it will be bought by those with the need for this stuff. After a while, it will become cheaper, as computers did.

    However, if the creation of these nanotube materials is not resource efficient, then they will never be able to become widely used.

    1. Re:Cost is irrelevant by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to this article, Andrew Barron (Rice University) seems to think we could see this technology used in Formula One racing cars, as early as next season. Although he's probably being a little optimistic, something like a Formula One team would certainly have the sponsors to experiment with tech like this, and develop cheaper manufacturing processes (if possible).

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    2. Re:Cost is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be more likly to show up in the 2007 F1 season. The designs for next years cars are already well underway. Jumping back to play with some new material or idea isn't really an option at this point.

    3. Re:Cost is irrelevant by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Depends on the reason for that cost, doesn't it?

      If it's because of major limiting factors, such as enormous amounts of energy being used, that would make it impractical to produce in high quantities, then we're limited in applications in the real world.

      Gold is a great material. You can probably think of a million applications for this metal that almost never rusts and has great electrical conductivity. But the practical limitations imposed by its scarcity and, hence, high cost, means we have to use it sparingly and can't really build any major applications that rely upon the stuff.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Cost is irrelevant by asoap · · Score: 1
      This would be interesting to see considering that the chassis for next year are already well in the design stage.

      Plus they would also have to get the material approved to show that when they collide with something it should shatter into millions of tiny particle like the current carbon fiber does.

      Then there is the actual testing of the fuselages to get them all approved.

      I would really love to see it, but there is also the fact that the cost of running an f1 team is going up and up. While the organisers of the series are trying to constantly reduce the cost. It's sad but I can see them possibly banning this material today.

      --
      Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
    5. Re:Cost is irrelevant by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > its scarcity and, hence, high cost, means we have to use it sparingly

      I think it's time alchemy made a comeback!

    6. Re:Cost is irrelevant by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I would expect to see the first use not in tha chassis but in the wings and other body parts. It would be a lower risk area to try them out on.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Cost is irrelevant by asoap · · Score: 1
      There is no place on a f1 car to "test" them out. Considering that f1 cars produce more then twice there weight in downforce they would not want to use them on the wings. If a car is going around a corner and suddenly a wing rips apart then that car is now going into a wall. Not safe.

      The engineers that work with composite material in formula 1 are some of the best in the world. They use carbon material for the housing of the transmission instead of metal. Well they really made it half metal / half carbon which is the major challenge.

      If this material gets green lighted for formula 1, then you will see it in every single place possible.

      That is unless the FIA decides to only allow them to use it for spoilers and the such like you sudgested.

      --
      Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
  11. Oh, wonderous progress! by rocjoe71 · · Score: 5, Funny
    It strongly absorbs microwaves

    Super, I envision the day where I can replace my tin-foil hat with a nanotube beret.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  12. so... by bmeteor · · Score: 1

    if they ever remade the Graduate, that line would go...

    Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
    Benjamin: Yes, sir.
    Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
    Benjamin: Yes, I am.
    Mr. McGuire: Nanotubes.

    That, and once again punish Paul Simon with another reunion with Art Garfunkle

    1. Re:so... by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 0

      Hey, make fun of the man all you want, but nobody could play a tambourine like Garfunkel.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    2. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linda McCartney could.

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

      Ya, and probably Yoko Ono, too.

    4. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that back when the Graduate was made, "plastics" had a double-meaning unlike "nanotubes" which means nothing to people who aren't pasty dorks.

  13. Over-simplifying? by bariumLanthanide · · Score: 1

    The researchers have now shown that by teasing nanotubes away from one side of a forest and attaching them to a strip of sticky tape they can draw the nanotubes into a continuous sheet. Umm, surely this must be totally over-simplifying what they -really- do..

    1. Re:Over-simplifying? by hattig · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is like that nylon stuff, like in school you had a bucket of liquid polymer goop, and you stick a needle into it and bring it out, and you get a thread of nylon attached to the end?

      I'm quite surprised at the rate of development relating to nanotubes. Motorola have those displays utilising nanotubes to direct electrons. Now we have sheets of them suitable for multiple applications. What next?

    2. Re:Over-simplifying? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Obviously, proceeding by induction, three and four dimensional arrays.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:Over-simplifying? by dr.+loser · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, surely this must be totally over-simplifying what they -really- do..

      Nope. I saw this presented last month at an Air Force program review, and it is exactly what they say. For example, they showed pictures of 1 m long ribbons, where the length was limited by the length of the postdoc's arm who manually pulled the sheets from the nanotube "forest".

    4. Re:Over-simplifying? by Sesticulus · · Score: 0

      You must not have kids. If Dora the Explorer has taught us anything, it's that sticky tape is always a quick fix for any problem!

    5. Re:Over-simplifying? by loose_cannon_gamer · · Score: 1
      What they don't mention is that the sticky tape is a glue-sticked sheet of ultra high strength kevlar / mylar.

      Hey, wait a minute! (j/k)

      --
      In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
  14. Space Elevator by Branc0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I've heard nanotubes were a possibility to build the space elevator (another /. article some months ago) and this seems to be good news on that front. Anyone thinks it will be built in our lifetimes?

    --

    rm -rf /home/leia

  15. Wow..... by mormop · · Score: 2, Funny

    and outperforms even our best bulk materials (such as Mylar and Kevlar) at strength normalized to weight. It strongly absorbs microwaves for localized heating

    Should be interesting to see the day when a drug dealer overrides the safety interlock on his microwave and points it at nanotube body armour wearing DEA officials during a bust.

    Should bring a new meaning to the phrase "hot tits"

    --
    Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
    1. Re:Wow..... by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have my tits get hot than cooked internally.

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    2. Re:Wow..... by khrtt · · Score: 1

      Don't you forget, human body is also conductive, and microwaves heat it up rather well as it is, though wrapping would make you crispy.

  16. Re:MS And The Dreamcast 360 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commiting suicide?

    Why?

  17. Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by mrRay720 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It strongly absorbs microwaves for localized heating (leading to applications ... in windshield warming)

    Yeah, I'm going to have a microwave generator going in my car, aiming the the windshield, just to warm it up. That's got to be safe right?

    Just a shame we can't do something slightly safer, like send a small electric currents through tiny wires, or blow hot air at it.

    But oh no... we have to shoot microwaves through our cars instead.

    1. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by fish+waffle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm going to have a microwave generator going in my car, aiming the the windshield, just to warm it up.

      Don't be silly. It'll just use the ambient microwave radiation we're pouring out now for communications. I'm more worried that with the windshield absorbing all the microwaves my coffee will no longer stay warm in the car.

    2. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 2

      Why not? We shoot them into our skulls with cell phones.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

      they also said the sheet conducts, i think they'd use that. on another reply to this: heating from microwaves from selphones are neglible. the damage from the radiation is just a small increase to the normal radiation you recieve from space, human nuclear activities etc.

    4. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Funny but the article I read talked about using the nanofabric to Weld sheets of Plexiglas together and for putting in a windshield as an antenna and for windshield warming. For the Windshield warming application it was being used as a simple conductor... you know the tiny little wires you spoke about.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I'm more worried that with the windshield absorbing all the microwaves my coffee will no longer stay warm in the car.

      I think there is something wrong with your coffee maker or your water. Coffee does not, under normal operating conditions, emit microwaves.

    6. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by Mikya · · Score: 1

      You obviouly missed the joke so let me explain it to you: He was implying that the coffee receives the ambient microwaves and are warmed by them, not that coffee emits them.

    7. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. How else does coffee stay hot for so long?

    8. Re:Ummm, that doesn't even begin to sound safe. by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Maybe a '(Score: +5, Insightful)' of this story tells something about the average /. reader?
      Sigh. PLEASE THINK BEFORE MODDING!!!

  18. Never mind that. by mrRay720 · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for my microwave-controlled nanotube jetpack, powered by stirling engines and hydrogen fuel cells.

  19. Re:Oh, wonderous progress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may laugh, but Raytheon has been expending quite a few research dollars on its torture^h^h^h^h^h^h^h "active denial system".

    A jacket that makes a Faraday cage around your body would make that technology obsolete before it ever gets off the ground.

  20. Space elevator time... by Morky · · Score: 4, Funny
    Just keep it out of my neighborhood, please:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoptheelevator/

    1. Re:Space elevator time... by Lectrik · · Score: 1

        Just keep it out of my neighborhood, please:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoptheelevator/


      Cool, you live on the equator, 1000 miles west of the Galapagos islands too?
      Can I borrow a cup of sugar?

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    2. Re:Space elevator time... by JustAnOtherCodeSerf · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmmm... worlds largest sundial :)

      --
      -=sig=-
    3. Re:Space elevator time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people seem to like the idea of a local elevator:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/tangentialism/4385965 /

    4. Re:Space elevator time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I take a guess that you've seen some of the pro-elevator flyers that were posted up last Feb?

  21. This reminds me strongly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of the Flanders and Swann "Wompom" song

    You can do such a lot with a Wompom,
    You can use every part of it too.
    For work or for pleasure,
    It's a triumph, it's a treasure,
    Oh there's nothing that a Wompom cannot do.

    Now the thread from the coat of the Wompom
    Has the warmth and resilience of Wool
    You need never wash or brush it,
    It's impossible to crush it
    And it shimmers like the finest sort of tulle.

    So our clothes are all made from the Wompom;
    Modern Gowns, Sportswear, Lingerie (Going up)
    They are waterproof and plastic
    Where it's needed they're elastic
    And they emphasise the figure as you see.

    Hail, to thee blithe Wompom.
    Hail, to thee O Plant!
    All-providing Wompom.
    Universal Aunt!

    You can shave with the rind of a Wompom,

    etc etc

  22. Re:Oh, wonderous progress! by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
    Super, I envision the day where I can replace my tin-foil hat with a nanotube beret.

    I'd suggest a balaclava. You get better coverage that way.

    --
    "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  23. Why they are weaker by convex_mirror · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason why nanotube composites don't end up being nearly as strong as nanotubes is that nanotubes are very slippery inside of a composite, so once force is applied, it doesn't transfer through the interface and the ultimate tensile strength is primarily determined by the composite.

    In this case, when they are weaving fibers together, the weakness in tensile strength will come from the interface between linked nanotubes which will have a tensile strength many orders of magnitude than that of an individual tube.

    1. Re:Why they are weaker by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they need a way to crosslink the nano-tubes

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:Why they are weaker by convex_mirror · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, the problem is whatever they cross link them with typically does not have the super-awesome tensile strength of a nanotube and consequently the tensile strength just becomes that of the crosslinker...

    3. Re:Why they are weaker by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      You would use photocure once the epoxy matrix is set. This would take care of the slippery problem.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    4. Re:Why they are weaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they should sew them together with nano-thread.

  24. more efficient then a car engine? by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

    in the first link: "For example, Baughman and other researchers would dearly love to create artificial versions of the body's muscle fibers, which can convert a chemical energy supply into mechanical work with even more efficiency than a car engine." and what's the efficientcy of a car engine? 30%? its pretty good but the sentence seems to imply that a car engine is more efficient then say an electromotor. (ofcourse an electromotor needs its more generated elsewhere, but these nanotube also do)

    1. Re:more efficient then a car engine? by QMO · · Score: 1

      You quoted "convert a chemical energy supply into mechanical work with even more efficiency than a car engine."

      Is there any common direct conversion of chemical energy to mechanical other than the internal combustion engine?

      I guess coal-, gas- and oil-fired power plants convert chemical energy to mechanical (and then to electrial) but those aren't very portable. I also don't know whether any of them are internal-combustion on a grand scale or how efficient they are.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    2. Re:more efficient then a car engine? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Is there any common direct conversion of chemical energy to mechanical other than the internal combustion engine?"
      Yes
      Gas turbines.
      Rockets.
      Ram Jets.
      Pulse jets.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:more efficient then a car engine? by QMO · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I don't know why I didn't think of them.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    4. Re:more efficient then a car engine? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No problem. I left out guns as well but technically it could be considered an internal combustion engine depending how picky one gets.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:more efficient then a car engine? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Steam engines.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    6. Re:more efficient then a car engine? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yea I guess there are a ton of them. And you can divide steam engines into turbines and piston. Then you have Stirling engines.... Goodness.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:more efficient then a car engine? by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

      Bmm sorry that i missed the if would work directly from chemical energy, while i quoted it (next time ill pay more attention). If we're talking about direct conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy. Not that this is a bit vaguely defined, for instance an internal combustion energy is directly from chemical energy? (as implied in a post earlier in thread) The energy goes into heat and presure first and only then into the movement of the pistons.in a steam engine its even water that is is heated up before causing mechanical energy. We're just discussing energy conversion methods here. In this context it seems irrelevant how "direct" the conversions are.

  25. Open source it by dustrider · · Score: 1

    if there was ever a technology that could benefit from more people working on it, this is it.
    For me, nanotech is probably the most exciting thing going on at the moment, it's a shame that more people can't take a hand.

    1. Re:Open source it by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 1

      You can bet that this kind of research, at the public university level, will end up being patented by the researcher(s) involved rather than given back to the taxpaying public who funded it in the form of of free research.

      Professors in the natural sciences are often ranked by how many patents they hold in their field. Rather sad, isn't it?

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
    2. Re:Open source it by berbo · · Score: 1
      it's a shame that more people can't take a hand.
      Much of the science is published in journals available at your local University library - probably lots of them even published online. So it s pretty much open source. If you've got a lab, materials, staff, etc, feel free to lend hand.

      Go for it!

    3. Re:Open source it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're lending a hand, please also feel free to sub,itt your latest proposals for a Unified Field Theory, a theory of Quantum Gravity and if possible a non perturbative definition of string theory!
      All these fields could use a hand!
      Also accepting:
      Design plans for a maned Mars mission, help with gravitational wave detectors, a design for an experiment probing the Planck regime, and so on.
      There are so many open scientific problems that really aren't progressing fast enough, because they have not been open sourced, and people can't lend a hand!!

      Crickey!
      Get a clue, science is open. Scientists *PUBLISH*, and anybody who has library access (which is cheaper then internet access) can read this stuff, everybody who can write can (in principle) submit a paper.
      The only thing that is keeping people is that it's hard and that you actually need a couple of years of dedication to the field to be able to read the current research.

    4. Re:Open source it by dustrider · · Score: 1

      I will bet money that you cannot find the details of this particular method of nanotube growing anywhere. Yes scientists publish, but they also need funding, funding they get from research grants which normally include the intellectual property of what they are researching. I can't claim any personal knowledge of this, but this is what I am lead to believe reading scientists opinions of research grants, and critising other scientists for "selling out". In my personal experience though is research published in CS, and you very rarely find that the actual method is published, sure they'll explain their thoughts and present their results, but I've only found the occasional CS research paper that actually allows you to take the idea and run with it. Contradictorily the paper I recall reading with the most technical detail was published by researchers working for Pixar, who obviously have IP tie in. go figure.

  26. waiting... by distantbody · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...and is expected to be used in commercial applications very soon..."
    ,
    Hmmm, hasn't that been the case for the past decade? That's what my inner cynic says, anyway. Just like the fuel cell revolution, not to mention the nuclear fusion revolution.

    there should be a revolution any day now... :(

    1. Re:waiting... by daemones · · Score: 1

      We need a revolution, but not necessarily a technological one. Our governmental systems could use a good flushing if nothing else.

      --
      Alas, Babylon.
  27. Also.. by wpiman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    on that page was the urine powered battery.... Now that could useful. Drink a few beers and power your laptop.

  28. In soviet Russia by Kvasio · · Score: 0

    In soviet Russia both space and elevators were not unheard of.

    1. Re:In soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not true. Low quality mass-produced blocks of flats are the epitome of Soviet architecutre. As is anything that's low quality and mass-produced.

      And yes, they do have elivators, albeit cheap and nasty ones.

  29. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XP!

  30. Good bye disposables by St0rmward3n · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, a pair of underpants that won't wear out!

    1. Re:Good bye disposables by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally, a pair of underpants that won't wear out!

      Underpants wear out?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Good bye disposables by Alsee · · Score: 1

      They take a lot of wear and tear if you run them through the washing machine every week or so.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  31. Funny... by TarryTops · · Score: 2, Informative

    intr.v. deceased, deceasing, deceases To die. n. The act of dying; death. And disease (d-zz) n. A pathological condition of a body part, an organ, or a system resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

    --
    Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
  32. Stealth material? by mwilliamson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it strongly absorbs microwaves, I wonder about its potential as a radar-absorbing material for stealth military aircraft, leadfoot driver's cars, etc.

    1. Re:Stealth material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking a snapshot of carbon nanotubes using an ordinary camera flash can cause them to emit a loud pop and then suddenly burst into flame. Scientists say this unique explosive phenomenon may lead to new means of manufacturing nanoscale carbon materials and even remote-control devices for small explosive charges.

      I DONT THINK SO :D >:D

    2. Re:Stealth material? by bdcrazy · · Score: 1

      Most likely no.

      If it absorbs microwaves and heats up, it will be visible to infrared.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    3. Re:Stealth material? by mohaine · · Score: 1


      If it absorbs microwaves and heats up, it will be visible to infrared.


      Ah, anything that absorbs microwaves will heat up. Conservation of energy kind of makes this the case for all materials. The amount of energy hitting a plane from radar is pretty damn small so I doubt it would emit a measureable amount of IR. It isn't like you fly these planes in a microwave.

      --
      (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    4. Re:Stealth material? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      By that reasoning you should also doubt that if the radar wave was reflected, it would emit a measurable amount of energy.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    5. Re:Stealth material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But measuring a reflected radar wave is done with a giant dish and amplification circuitry, so you need much less energy for it to be measurable. The heat radiation, even from a stealth plane with minimized heast signature, will be orders of magnitude higher than what you can hope to achieve with a radar beam, so it's essentially useless.

  33. Better just hope that... by Tmack · · Score: 1
    no one takes a flash phototograph of you in your jacket....

    tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    1. Re:Better just hope that... by thc69 · · Score: 1
      From the link:
      Ajayan says the explosion occurs because the black carbon nanotubes absorb light so efficiently that, when it is converted into heat, the heat cannot dissipate quickly enough across bunched-up tubes.
      Does this mean that we can use them to build the monolith from 2001, or maybe the spaceship stolen from the Milliways parking lot?
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    2. Re:Better just hope that... by dextroz · · Score: 1

      hmm... so if you see a guy at the airport hanging around with just a camera flash... he probably a new-wave terrorist...

      --
      Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
    3. Re:Better just hope that... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Whoa there, so you are saying they would make absolutly great solar energy collectors if we just just figure out how disipate the heat quickly enough and use it.

    4. Re:Better just hope that... by mengel · · Score: 1
      From the linked article:
      ...However, only the single-walled variety of nanotubes catch fire. Those with multiple walls do not explode - the researchers are unsure why.
      I suspect they must be doing that, as I suspect the picture they took for the article may have used a flash :-)
      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  34. the key ingredient to this all: by DohnJoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    by teasing nanotubes away from one side of a forest and attaching them to a strip of sticky tape

    again proof that duct tape can make anything work!
    Soon we will have duct tape made out of this nanotubes, after that, who knows or even dares to dream!!!

    1. Re:the key ingredient to this all: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, stickiness at the atomic level, I bet that'd take some pulling to get it off your finger. Or maybe it would just rip the skin off altogether.

    2. Re:the key ingredient to this all: by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'll name my first duct tape spaceship, the "DohnJoe" in your honor!

    3. Re:the key ingredient to this all: by kabocox · · Score: 1


      by teasing nanotubes away from one side of a forest and attaching them to a strip of sticky tape

      again proof that duct tape can make anything work!
      Soon we will have duct tape made out of this nanotubes, after that, who knows or even dares to dream!!!


      Didn't you hear? They changed their minds are planning on building that space elevator out of *the new* duct tape. 3M is sponsoring the whole thing. It's going to be an ad for all the assorted uses of duct tape.

      http://www.ducttapefashion.com/

  35. Of course, all the features are great but... by stripe4 · · Score: 0

    ... does it run Linux?

  36. Dallas Morning News - Article and Video by HideEverFree · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Dallas Morning News (19-AUG) has a story on this. Registration is usually required, so text follows . . .

    Article URL: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/lat estnews/stories/081905dnmetnanosheet.1c9439ac.html
    Video URL: http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2005/nanotech/

    ---------

    LITTLE CREATION, BIG STEP

    UTD team's chemical ribbons could assist many high-tech dreams

    09:01 PM CDT on Thursday, August 18, 2005

    By SUE GOETINCK AMBROSE / The Dallas Morning News

    Scientists from the University of Texas at Dallas have spun yards of chemical ribbons that are lighter than a feather but stronger than steel a significant advance in the rapidly growing field of nanotechnology.

    (Picture: LOUIS DeLUCA/DMN University of Texas at Dallas scientists (from left) Mei Zhang, Sergey Lee, Ali Aliev, Anvar Zakhidov, Shaoli Fang and leader Ray Baughman took part in the research.)

    The development could lead to a host of high-tech applications that scientists have dreamed of but haven't had an easy way to create: futuristic clothes that light up, store energy or blunt bullets; car doors that are ultra light, extra strong and double as batteries to store solar energy; flexible, filmy light bulbs that are thinner than a human hair; artificial muscles for robots; and solar sails to propel space vehicles.

    A report describing the chemical ribbons, created from tiny carbon tubes barely visible to the human eye, appears in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

    "This is a big deal, a real big deal," said James Tour, a chemist at Rice University in Houston, of the new study. "Every paragraph is a gold mine."

    The ribbons are created from carbon nanotubes, filaments about one-five-thousandth the width of a human hair. At the atomic level, the nanotubes look like cylinders of chicken wire. Because the nanotubes, like diamonds, are made entirely of carbon, they are extraordinarily strong. They also conduct electricity.

    Scientists had known of carbon nanotubes' exceptional properties but had struggled to easily convert them into convenient forms. Last year, the UTD scientists, led by chemist Ray Baughman, had spun the nanotubes into yarn. Other scientists had created small sheets of nanotubes, but their process was cumbersome. DallasNews.com/extra

    "The value of this invention is to make it into sheets," said Ned Thomas, a materials scientist at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. "Clever people will take those sheets and put them into technologies that have yet to be invented."

    THE PROCEDURE

    Making the ribbons is quite simple, Dr. Baughman said. The UTD scientists started with a "forest" of nanotube trees, about one-third of a millimeter high. Then they stuck a Post-It note to one edge of the forest and gently pulled away. The nanotube trees were drawn out, and as the researchers kept pulling, the trees stuck to each other side by side, forming a long, wispy and transparent sheet.

    Sheets more than a meter long, about two inches wide, and less than one-thousandth the width of a human hair thick can be pulled in less than a minute, by hand in the lab, Dr. Baughman said. The process easily could be industrialized, he said.

    "There is no limit on how wide they can be," Dr. Baughman said.

    The ability to convert carbon nanotubes into such a useful form will be a boon to many small companies trying to use them to create newer or better devices, Dr. Thomas said.

    "Nanotechnology needs this," he said. "It's been hyped, and there's been a lot of expectations."

    Dr. Baughman, who said the university and a collaborating Australian national lab have

    1. Re:Dallas Morning News - Article and Video by tcatt · · Score: 1
      Making the ribbons is quite simple, Dr. Baughman said. The UTD scientists started with a "forest" of nanotube trees, about one-third of a millimeter high. Then they stuck a Post-It note to one edge of the forest and gently pulled away. The nanotube trees were drawn out, and as the researchers kept pulling, the trees stuck to each other side by side, forming a long, wispy and transparent sheet.

      This is one of those amazing accidentally discovered things, that seems pretty obvious to me.

      "OH CRAP! My Post-It note got stuck to the precious nano-forest!!"

      "Quick! Pull it off before the Professor gets back! Gently!! Ahhh!!"

      "Oh no! It's peeling the forest away!... Make it stop, make it stop! Oh man we're screwed, dude!"

      "Hey wait! Look what it's doing! That's way too cool! We just invented Superman's cape!"

      --
      [I have no name!:/]# _
  37. Space elevators will never work by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And it has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. It's all about the economics.

    A space elevator is going to require a truly civilisation shaking level of investment by a country. Then, once it's built that investment has to be amortized over it's lifetime, but wait, it only has two end points and it takes a certain amount of time to load and unload a vehicle of cargo and passengers, it takes a certain amount of time to travel the distance up to orbit. These two fundamental physical limitations will mean that a space elevator will never be able to pay back the investment. It's always going to be cheaper to load a cargo on top of a rocket booster and fire it up.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Space elevators will never work by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      why are you limited? load 100 vehicles about 1 hour apart on the elevator....

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    2. Re:Space elevators will never work by Colin+Smith · · Score: 0, Troll

      What? Um, how much do you think it's going to cost to build and run?

      The ISS is 35 billion plus so far and that's nothing compared to a space elevator. Multiply it by 10, 100, 1000? What about loading 10,000 vehicles or 100,000 in order to break even.

      In the meantime the Russians and others in the private sector are launching equivalent payloads for peanuts comparatively. In order to "work" economically, a space elevator will require government subsidy, just like trains.

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:Space elevators will never work by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The issue is maximum payload, not how many vehicles. The "best" designs so far, that is, the ones that envisage a "safe" elevator that, if cut at the top, will not cause the end of civilization as we know it, can only carry a few tens of pounds of weight. That's a total, not a per-vehicle value. And that small wieght has to travel a distance of over 50,000 miles. You can imagine the time that'll take. Realistically, we're looking at over a week for that small amount of mass to travel the entire length of the tether.

      Now, that's not to say the GP is right. At the moment, the investment needed would be astronomic, but we don't know how much this will run long term, and a country that already has a space program and regularly launches satellites may find it works out cheaper in the long term to build such a thing, at least, once the price of mass producing materials strong enough to be used in one comes down.

      The other response incidentally is largely wrong. One major advantage of an elevator is you can use it to trap the energy of something coming back down. For launching satellites, the elevator may be uneconomic, for more far sighted applications, such as returning materials mined from elsewhere, it will be more than economic. Of course, just as we're a long way from having a practical material to build an elevator from, we're also a long way from mining asteroids.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Space elevators will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For a large payload you use a large number of thin cables, each of which will safely burn up in the atmosphere in the case of an accident. Also protects against being cut by a single micrometeorite.

    5. Re:Space elevators will never work by DisownedSky · · Score: 1

      Got any numbers supporting that argument?

      The CM of an elevator is at GEO, but that doesn't have to be the destination. The elevator will actually go quit3e a bit higher, from which a transfer to the moon (for example) would be much cheaper than a launch from the ground.

      --

      "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

    6. Re:Space elevators will never work by Rei · · Score: 1


      That's simply not true. Read the calculations done by Edwards. Basically, the more affordable the elevator is is almost completely premised on one technological factor: how strong your ribbon is per unit weight. Nobody is proposing building a space elevator with, say, a 10 GPa ribbon, because the launch cost for even a preliminary ribbon. On the other hand, if you have a 120 GPa ribbon, the launch cost is trivial. Yet, both hold the same amount of payload - one is just the tiniest fraction of the total mass of the other.

      There are many staging options available for payload shipping. Basically, the closer you are to the Earth-end of the ribbon, the more stress you put on it. It is trivial to have many elevators supported at a time on the ribbon that's most of the way to the station, but difficult at the Earth end. The Earth end being your limiting factor, you can launch again once that elevator gets high enough.

      The investment would *not* be astronomical if we're talking about a >120 GPa ribbon, and probably be reasonable for anything over 100 GPa (100 GPa is questionable). We're looking at a couple billion dollars, which is nothing compared to the cost of a large new craft development.

      Interestingly enough, the Edwards elevator is up-only. I have some issues with this, but the basic issue is that down vehicles limit up traffic near the critical Earth-end, and that "passing" of other elevators is difficult. My main issues are that it's not hard to envision a passing scheme involving twin separated lines with occasional spacers at passing zones, and that down elevators not only allow component reuse (including the expensive motors and solar panels), but also enable manned elevator return, payload return, and most importantly, power transfer to up-climbers (which consequently lightens the up-elevators and makes their transit easier). The biggest problem with power transfer between elevators, by my calculations, is frequency of passing: you need to have many small elevators instead of few large ones, or the time between passes becomes too great to make a difference. The importance of power transfer is that power beaming is highly inefficient, so the elevators will be huge power siphons at the ground station.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    7. Re:Space elevators will never work by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Not seeing where you're contradicting me, unless you meant the bit at the end about going back down that even you appear to disagree with.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Space elevators will never work by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm disagreeing with your comments that A) they inherently cost an unreasonable amount of money, and B) if they don't threaten humanity in the event of a collapse, they have minimal cargo. Both of these claims are false when using the type of ribbon that is actually proposed for use (a >100 GPa SWNT ribbon)

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    9. Re:Space elevators will never work by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      We're not talking about building a Dyson Sphere here, and it's not that expensive. Some estimates put it at about the same as developing the shuttle program. Of course, that's an estimate for building something out of an unknown material, so....

      Anyway, assuming we get it built, cost of kg-to-orbit will plummet. Rockets are right at the borderline of efficiency. For example, the Shuttle weighs 4.5 million lb, and can get 20,000 lbs of cargo up. That's not very efficient.

      You might turn out to be right, as details of how it would actually be built, and how it would function after building, are still to be seen. But it still seems like an idea to come back to when we get the materials. As a side note, the space elevator doesn't need 100+ GPa for a tether, the bottom limit is ~65 GPa.

      PS. Who the hell modded the OP 'troll'? Please learn what an 'opinion' is, and what a 'troll' is, thank you.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    10. Re:Space elevators will never work by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 2, Informative

      Paragraph two is mostly right anyway.

      First one is wrong regarding total payload mass. I'd do math to refute the statement, but it has already been done. http://trs.nis.nasa.gov/archive/00000535/

      And yeah, the travel time will likely be few days. So what? You can get to LEO in a matter of hours once everything has been built out and systems put in place to deal with any whiplash effects that jumping off before the steady-state altitude.

      And it isn't 50K miles to Geo -- it is about 24K miles. I point this out simply because it seems like you are kind of 'creating data' to put it politely. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/sa tellites/geo-high.html

      Finally, advantage of capturing energy: again, completely off base with respect to the current design considerations. It would be a LOT cheaper ( I estimate at least by a factor of ten, but that is just a guess) to take high energy fuel up to the anchor mass (at the end of the tethor), than to design the system to actually allow both up and down capabilities.

      And even if you HAVE a down capability, that by no means implies that you can capture the potential energy of a decending object. Recall that it is a 'rope', not a bar. And the rope is already in tension. I can see no solution which would allow you to gather any worthwhile amount of energy. You can't run a current through the elevator, as you would then have a stupendeous amount of magnetic drag thanks to Earths magnetic field. So no electromagnetic regen. Which doesn't matter, as *any* form of draggy braking against the cable just looks like more mass to be lifted from the perspective of the anchor mass.

      If it were a solid bar than the shift of mass would do the job on its own, thanks to the whole inertia game. If we used a 'dangling rope' and litterally tied the 'Low end' to a mass, lifted it into space and then dropped it back down, you could also get the energy back, minus drag.

      In summary, your entire post strikes me as pure opinion, with no basis in fact. If I am mistaken, I urge you to issue some form of defense. While I commend you for caring, I believe that you do a disservice by attacking something you don't understand, while pretending, or worse assuming, that you do.

    11. Re:Space elevators will never work by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      RE up only:

      My understanding There is no real way to gain back any significant energy without making the system completely impossible to build within the foreseeable future. So we gain no energy by returning.

      So, if you gain no energy by returning, you don't want to USE energy (and space, and the mass of the 'passing' systems etc) to return!

      So you use super simple cargo craft that are disposable. Remember, if it has valuable components (solar panels, metals) it isn't just going to be pitched out the window! The craft will be in space; those panels will be added to the station, or they will be put to use on some satellite. Nothing is going to be 'thrown away'.

      For the more complex craft, if there are any (people movers, maybe?) you store them at the upper station in some collapsed form, and once a month or whatever you send them back planet side via a simple dropship -- just a cargo hold an a heat shield, basically.

      Really, my thought on the matter is that humanity cannot yet see a day when we will not need/want to keep every spec of mass that comes up in space, for use on (whatever). We are at LEAST a couple of decades away from digging minerals out of the lunar surface or dragging an asteriod back to mine. Perhaps even a century or more from doing so.

      And as for PEOPLE -- current plans don't include them as using the elevator, if I recall (which is sad), but if/when people start using the system, then there would be small, simple return ships every few days. Though getting BACK to earth from Geo would be a real bastard. I suppose one could use pure electric propulsion system though, which would help -- use magnetic drag to slow down. In 20 years we should have the super-conducting materials we would need to make it a reasonable trip, though I'm only daydreaming here.

      Oh yeah, and the power thing. I almost wonder if the space elevator would be a major driver of fusion power :~) MAN is it going to suck electrons :~)

      Cheers,

    12. Re:Space elevators will never work by Rei · · Score: 1

      My understanding There is no real way to gain back any significant energy

      And your explanation for the physics behind this is...?

      The fact is, at GEO, you're effectively floating. You need energy to start moving down the cable. The further down the cable you are, the more your elevator wants to accelerate toward the Earth, until when you're just above the surface, the force is like being on the ground. In short, a return trip takes energy to get started, but once you've gone a measurable distance, you can (and in fact, must) start sapping energy or you'll accelerate to breakneck speeds.

      The problems with down climbers are passing and energy storage/transfer.

        * Passing: Easy enough if you have "passing zones" - if they're infrequent, the alteration to the taper factor will be insignificant.

        * Energy storage/transfer: The required battery mass is unreasonable if you only have a few large elevators climbing at a time, but if you have dozens, it is quite reasonable. Discharge times during passsing are also quite reasonable. I can probably dig up my calculations on these factors if you would like.

      super simple cargo craft that are disposable

      Sorry, it doesn't work that way. These craft, to be at all power-efficient (and by "at all", we're talking 3-10%), you need top-of-the-line solar cells. You need effective, very lightweight heat dissipators. You need incredibly powerful motors to provide the requisite speed without being too heavy. You need effective cable grippers, safeties, and all sorts of other things. The climbers will not be cheap.

      via a simple dropship

      Once again, things don't work that way. Reentry is anything but "simple" - in fact, it is probably the single most difficult task in manned rocketry. First off, the craft cannot be "just a cargo hold and a heat shield" - you have a lot of potential energy in a GEO orbit that you need to get rid of, which takes either climbing down, or an engine. Secondly, as mentioned, heat shields are difficult, finicky devices. To make matters worse, the larger your "drop ship", the worse it becomes, as your return mass increases faster than your surface area, meaning that you have to dissipate more heat on proportionally less skin.

      Should the first elevator, at least early on, be one way? Sure. Should that be a long-term option? No. Otherwise, you're still building complex, inefficient craft to toss away or to reenter with a complex reentry system - you might as well just build rockets.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    13. Re:Space elevators will never work by orac2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Edwards' scheme explictly includes the construction of multiple elevators (at least two) to provide down and up capability.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    14. Re:Space elevators will never work by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't you do a scheme like a giant ski lift? You could just load the down cars with space junk as counterweight. Also the power could be efficiently collected at the top point with solar equipment.

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
    15. Re:Space elevators will never work by Rei · · Score: 1

      Rotating elevators have been resoundingly "voted down" on space elevator forums every time a person suggests them. The main problem is that a taper factor is absolutely essential for an Earth elevator, so you can't have it rotate. The closest thing you can come to that is small segments which rotate, but the potential complications (especially in linking them) outweigh the potential benefits.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    16. Re:Space elevators will never work by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Edwards declares two as "preferable", one exclusively up and the other exclusively down, and provides no means for power exchange between them. He also doesn't study down climbers, which have different requirements (braking and dissipating the braking energy, plus different strains on the tether)

      There is a big difference between an up-only cable and an up-down cable - up-down allows for easy energy exchange, better utilization of cable bearing strength, and lower capital costs (than two separate cables), but needs to be a small amount larger, is slightly harder to build, and most significantly, requires many launches of small elevators instead of few launches of large elevators for effective power exchange.

      To understand why having both up and down utilize the tether better, picture the strains on each part of the tether if you have one starting at the bottom and the other starting at the top. Start the one on the top first - once it has enough acceleration to go without pulling on the tether, start the bottom one. They pass each other at a point less than 0.5g. The one that was at GEO lands on earth braking slowly while the other elevator largely drifts, and once it touches down, the Earth elevator brakes as fast as it wants to and arrives at GEO.

      You'll notice that these two elevators could be carrying a full payload, and put little more stress on the tether than just an up-only climber with equivalent payload at any given point.

      Adding in more elevators decreases this benefit somewhat (although still keeps minimal strain on the critical bottom part of the tether at any given time - it's easier to reinforce the further up you get, because reinforcements have to be supported all the way back to GEO), but allows for power transfer. With just two elevators at a time, power transfer isn't realistic (unless the tether superconducts or you can afford the mass of thousands-of-miles-long superconductor, the resistance is too great for long distance transmission; furthermore, the battery mass to store energy for several days of power accumulation is not realistic. Storing several hours worth, however, is realistic, as is transferring that much power in a couple minutes time in a "passing zone")

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    17. Re:Space elevators will never work by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      I addressed all of your points above 'via simple dropship' in previous posts along this thread.

      SO, jumping into the statement regarding GEO potential energy. 100% correct. You have a lot of potential energy. You also have a huge amount of kinetic energy. In the wrong direction. General rule of thumb for orbits: Speed up, go up. Slow down, go down. Which is why, if you ever found yourself in the same orbit as the ISS, but 2 miles behind it, you would die if you aimed for it and burned your engine -- you would go into a higher orbit and 'slow down' WRT to the station. You actually need to aim AWAY from the station, drop into a lower orbit, which is FASTER (you cover more radians per second along the arc), and then when you are in position, 'speed up' again, to take you up to the ISS.

      The only way your gravitation potential energy means anything is when you are 'falling down' a guided path; your rotational motion must be restricted. E.g. you are attached to the elevator cable.

      Getting from a 800km orbit to a 40,000 km orbit (~geo) takes exactly as much energy as getting from a 40,000km orbit to an 800km orbit. Matter of fact, I would bet that anybody trying to get home from geosync would actually go into a lunar flyby orbit and re-enter that way; probably cheaper than the change in eccentricty required to make your perigee low enough to slow you into a capture. Because I am bored and don't do this enough:

      rp = 6378km + 200km = 6578km
      ra = GEO = 42,164 km
      a = 1/2(ra + rp) = 24371km
      v = root(2*mu*(1/r-1/(2*a)))
      mu_earth = G*Me = 3.986E5 km^3/s^2

      v with (r = rp) = 10.2km/s

      With an apogee of 370km (that of the ISS, IIRC):
      rp = 6378km + 200km = 6578km
      ra = 6378km + 370km = 6748km
      a = 1/2(ra + rp) = 6663km
      v = root(2*mu*(1/r-1/(2*a)))
      mu_earth = G*Me = 3.986E5 km^3/s^2

      v with (r = rp) = 7.882km/s

      The Apollo (lunar) reentry speeds were in the range of 11.1 km/s.

      So even IF you make no attempt to circularize your orbit first, you STILL only add ~2km/s to your re-entry speed -- about 30%. It makes a difference, but it isn't that big of a deal. And if it is? Circularize your orbit first.

      As to finicky, the Space Shuttles heat sheild is a finicky device; heat shields in general are rather well understood. Honestly, how you can even begin to compare a heat shield to an engine (which you implicitly do, in your final paragraph) I cannot begin to fathom.

      Size is not a big deal at all, in this case, as there is certainly no WAY we will be getting even close to the size of the space shuttle, which, while not exactly a shining example, is obviously 'doable'. Realistically the logical thing to do would be use a typical tear-drop design, which has most certainly proven itself in practice.

      I simply cannot understand why people CARE if it is one way or two way? As far as PEOPLE are concerned (as 'cargo'), using a shuttle to get back will be FASTER. By like a WEEK. As far as materials, once again, tell me ONE thing that you would actually NOT want on a space station? Any raw mass is useful. Once our technology improves, I imagine even human wastes would be put to some use, rather than being shot towards the sun.

      Design the 'disposable' climbers correctly, and you can integrate virtually all of the craft into the growing orbital station. Are there some highly-specific actuators that you can't manage to find a use for on orbit? Pack them in a box and send them earthside via a return craft. And your arguement that the heat shield tech is 'finicky' followed by a conclusion that 'you might as well just build rockets'...well, surely you recognize the contradiction.

      The problem with our current system is that we Americans insist on doing everything the 'super high tech' way. It isn't elegant, it is failure prone, and it isn't cost effective. 'Cheap' is a relative term. Jet fuel isn't 'cheap' either, but a 747 can burn over 300 thousand pounds of it in one flight. And make a profit.

      I argue this because I do not want oth

    18. Re:Space elevators will never work by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      Good answer. I meant to add that the only limitation on this idea is material properties...

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
    19. Re:Space elevators will never work by Rei · · Score: 1

      I addressed your points above

      Ok, if you're going to make me look through your other posts, I will. Is this what you're referring to?

      And even if you HAVE a down capability, that by no means implies that you can capture the potential energy of a decending object. Recall that it is a 'rope', not a bar. And the rope is already in tension. I can see no solution which would allow you to gather any worthwhile amount of energy. You can't run a current through the elevator, as you would then have a stupendeous amount of magnetic drag thanks to Earths magnetic field. So no electromagnetic regen. Which doesn't matter, as *any* form of draggy braking against the cable just looks like more mass to be lifted from the perspective of the anchor mass.

      You have a rope, sandwiched between rollers (just like when you climb). The closer you get to Earth, the more G-forces you experience - the Earth is trying to *accelerate you toward it*, because you don't have enough orbital momentum. You need to *brake*. You brake against the rope (actually a ribbon in most modern designs) with your rollers. Either you toss away the energy from braking (i.e., let it turn into heat and radiate the heat), or you turn it into electricity through regenerative braking.

      What exactly is hard about this for you to understand? There's not the slightest need for a rigid "bar". The same mechanism that you used to climb the ribbon is what allows you to brake against it and generate electricity from the braking.

      Which is why, if you ever found yourself in the same orbit as the ISS, but 2 miles behind it, you would die if you aimed for it and burned your engine -- you would go into a higher orbit and 'slow down' WRT to the station

      Play around in Orbiter a bit until you understand orbital mechanics, please. 2 miles is close enough that it can be considered an "approach" - only minor corrections would be needed. Even if you started a burn straight at the station from 100 miles away, all that will happen, from your perspective, is that the station would seem to move away "beneath" you, and you'll have to do consecutive corrective burns until you line up. You won't "die", unless you burn yourself out of fuel ;)

      (snip a bunch of obvious things which I never once claimed anything contrary to)

      Then...

      So even IF you make no attempt to circularize your orbit first, you STILL only add ~2km/s to your re-entry speed -- about 30%. It makes a difference, but it isn't that big of a deal. And if it is? Circularize your orbit first.

      Or simply don't do it - how's that for a plan. :P Why waste energy going into a lunar transfer orbit, delaying your reentry, and then tossing that energy away? You leave GEO by doing a burn opposite your direction of motion, and thus changing you to a GTO that intersects earth's atmosphere. On a space elevator, you start "climbing" down the elevator, which makes your formerly circular GEO orbit slightly elliptical, which, under the influence of the stationary elevator sapping your horizontal momentum, removes your orbit's ability to compensate for gravity losses, and hence, you experience more G forces. G forces are acceleration, and you don't want to accelerate indefinitely, or at the end you'll just plow into the planet. Hence the need to sap some of that energy (and the further you go, the more you need to sap the energy).

      As to finicky, the Space Shuttles heat sheild is a finicky device; heat shields in general are rather well understood. Honestly, how you can even begin to compare a heat shield to an engine (which you implicitly do, in your final paragraph) I cannot begin to fathom.

      No. All heat shields are inherently finicky. There were serious concerns on, for example, Apollo 13 that the heat shield had been damaged. Damaged ablatives are just as bad as damaged tiles, and they chip relatively easily. If it had been damaged, Apollo 13 would have fried on reentry. The he

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    20. Re:Space elevators will never work by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1
      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    21. Re:Space elevators will never work by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the international space station (An tin can in space) was going to cost $7 billion. Do you believe everything you're told?

      --
      Deleted
  38. Ringworld Fans? by klnW · · Score: 1

    So many uses... perhaps we should start working on the vaccine against the bug that eats the stuff.

  39. It'll never be built by Colin+Smith · · Score: 0, Troll

    A space elevator gives you serial access to space. Rockets give you parallel access. Rockets will always be cheaper.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:It'll never be built by gomoX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, no. That's the whole point. Even if it's serial it can boost you bandwidth per buck a huge lot.

      --
      My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
    2. Re:It'll never be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO... What you're saying is that SATA hard drives will never outsell or out perform their IDE and EIDE brethren? I want some of what you're smoking.

    3. Re:It'll never be built by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      How big are your bucks? A space elevator will cost trillions. It'll require thousands, maybe tens of thousands of individual lifts to pay for it. In the meantime, rocket launches are just getting cheaper and cheaper. The Russians and commercial operations like Sea Launch can launch for a miniscule fraction of the cost of a space elevator.

      --
      Deleted
    4. Re:It'll never be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!

    5. Re:It'll never be built by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      Rocket launches will never be as cheap as the energy required for lift. Rocket launches cannot (without an absolutely insane level of production....such as with advanced nanotechnology), in my opinion, provide the kind of routine heavy traffic needed by a large spacegoing civilization engaged in large scale space industry, mining, and colonization (unimportant to you I'm sure).

      If you want to just launch lots of probes, sats, and maybe have a few space stations....sure, hey rockets are awesome. But if you want to build a large spacefaring civilization you need some real infrastructure. This means megascale engineering projects like a space elevator. There are other possible systems that could be built to get us this...but it looks like the space elevator is the one that's closest to getting done. And the costs don't look to be as expensive, for a "starter elevator" as you are assuming. Private corporations are looking into this, and talking billions, not trillions...
    6. Re:It'll never be built by kaze+dcat · · Score: 1

      maybe tens of thousands of individual lifts

      Two initial lift and a stitcher/climber
      The Plan
      All other materials are lifted using the initial 20cm ribbon cable

    7. Re:It'll never be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guys who came up with the SATA interface would like to have a word with you.

    8. Re:It'll never be built by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

      You're probably trolling using a phrase like "will always be cheaper" but since the moderators seem to think your post is serious I'll bite.

      Launch 100 rockets at 100 bucks per rocket and you've paid $10,000. Launch 100 elevators at at $1 per use and you've paid $100. Point is, which method is cheaper depends on the relative costs of the two methods.

      Space Shuttles run $1 billion per launch. Since we don't know how much the elevator will cost to build or operate, $1 per launch is as good a number as any right now.

    9. Re:It'll never be built by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Without any calculations and relatively little knowledge in the subject, I wouldn't be surprised if the energy needed in a shuttle launch and the energy needed in an elevator launch were just about the same. And isn't the biggest cost of launching the fuel (energy) to get out of the atmosphere?

      You'll also have to take into account time, since time is money. I'm sure shuttles reach orbit quicker than an elevator would.

      In the end, I think relative costs would be about the same. Then other factors such as safety, reliability weigh in.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    10. Re:It'll never be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that link... it was worth it beeing modded to hell :-)

    11. Re:It'll never be built by d.hawk · · Score: 1

      I heard that the last NASA Shuttle launch was ~280 million (probably not taking into account the huge sunk costs they have incured..), and recently the largest .com satelite thrown into orbit cost 250 million.

    12. Re:It'll never be built by Slicebo · · Score: 1

      They don't eat cereal in space. They drink Tang!

    13. Re:It'll never be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea here is:

      Q: How can I get something into space?
      A: Strap something that chucks stuff out the back until we're in space.

      Currently, since we don't have reactionless drives, we have to do this. Rockets, for the most part, are inefficent, expensive, and dangerous.

      Q: How to I get something up a space elevator?
      A: Drive up it.

      Basically, if the sides weren't too slick, the elevator would just need to have some rubber-ish tires and drive. Now, we can use any system to power those tires, like an electric motor powered by batteries (unlikely), solar, who knows. The idea is that it gives us something to grab onto and pull ourselves into space. MUCH easier.

    14. Re:It'll never be built by radtea · · Score: 1


      Rockets cost ~$1000/kg to get to LEO (the space shuttle costs ten times that). A space elevator will lift the same to GEO for a fraction of the cost. The energy required (estimated conservatively) is about 150 MJ/kg, or about 50 kWh/kg. Energy prices currently run 5 to 10 cents per kWh, so we're talking an energy cost of about $5/kg. Let's say the total cost per kg for the space elevator is five times that, in keeping with other modes of transportation, for a total cost of $25/kg. It could easily be lower than that.

      So if a space elevator cost a trillion dollars (enough capital for 4000 shuttle flights) it would take about a billion kg lifted to make the difference, although again, this is lift to GEO, not LEO, so I'm being very unfair to the space elevator. This is equivalent to 35,000 shuttle flights with full payload (to LEO).

      Bottom line: the space elevator won't be built until the cost is well under a hundred billion dollars, but this is quite reasonable. There is no reason to believe that a trillion dollars is required. Most of the cost is in the rockets to carry the first assemblers up to GEO with sufficient material to run the first strand down to Earth. After that, assembly can be done from the ground.

      So the relatively low cost of rockets is actually going to make the space elevator more likely in the long run, not less.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    15. Re:It'll never be built by deathcloset · · Score: 1

      are you implying that there will only ever be ONE space elevator.

      I venture that once the first elevator goes up, hundreds or thousands more will be deployed at a fraction the price of the original.

      so, are there hundreds of rocket launces every day?

      and explain again why a rocket - which is singular - is parallel.

    16. Re:It'll never be built by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      This link has been posted a billion times on slashdot already, but here it is again. 10 billion dollars for the first elevator, and roughly 3 billion apiece for the next ones. I have a feeling that construction on the space elevator will begin in the beginning of the next decade, though I'm not sure who will build it. According to this survey nanotubes are already produced in quantities of hundreds of tons, with production in all four regions with space-launch capability. Most likely we'll see two competing elevator projects, with the chinese and NASA-ESA as the competitors.

    17. Re:It'll never be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without any calculations and relatively little knowledge in the subject, I wouldn't be surprised if the energy needed in a shuttle launch and the energy needed in an elevator launch were just about the same. And isn't the biggest cost of launching the fuel (energy) to get out of the atmosphere?

      The biggest energy cost of lifting anything to orbit with current tech is the cost of lifting the fuel and reaction mass (one and the same in a standard rocket). The second largest factor is the energy cost of lifting a structure capable of withstanding the forces incurred by the former. If we can lift a payload to orbit without lifting the fuel and reaction mass, the energy savings would be insane (without knowing the masses offhand, you can visually compare the size of a rocket to the size of the payload to get a sense of the ratio). The theory is that the elevator system itself is the reaction mass meaning that, if the car can be supplied with energy throughout the ascent (as a beam, at stages or through a third rail), the vast majority of the energy cost is spent actually lifting the payload.

      Personally, I don't think a space elevator will turn out to be the solution but rather a "kitchen sink" approach involving any or all of mass drivers, buoyant or aerodynamic systems, energy beams, SCRAM jets, space tugs etc. with each being the most efficient way to lift the load through the "next mile."

    18. Re:It'll never be built by jschoenberg · · Score: 1

      You're way off here, did you read the article? Are you not agreeing with the article's breakdown of cost? He lays it out pretty convincingly in terms of $/kg. Can you provide any sort of data like the author has provided that shows it will cost more than the author has stated? Rockets have a pretty serious limitation on the mass that can be lifted. There are things that "cheap rocket flights" just can't do, at ANY cost.

    19. Re:It'll never be built by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Where the heck are you getting "Trillions" from???

      The highest estimate I've seen has been 80 billion, and that was years ago.

      Building the first working space elevator will be a huge event in the history of mankind. It will be the gateway to the universe.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  40. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP

    (Not to mention Members Only, Vans, and Button-fly 501s)

  41. remember by fbartho · · Score: 1

    its *them* who could be telling you this...

    how can you ever fully trust nanotube sheets, maybe they actually conduct and amplify your thoughts making it even easier for them to pinpoint you deviants out there and eliminate you... or just listen to your thoughts... everyone has tinfoil, only deviants will have nanotube berets.

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  42. Spider webs by Musteval · · Score: 1

    I bet spider webs are still stronger.

    --
    Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
    1. Re:Spider webs by leonardluen · · Score: 2, Informative

      sorry, according to the wikipedia article on tensile strength. there are a great many things stronger than spider webs. among them include glass and kevlar

    2. Re:Spider webs by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      The carbon-carbon bond in graphite sheets is the strongest possible atomic bond. Nothing *can* be stronger than a defectless nanotube.

    3. Re:Spider webs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you being funny? If that were realy the case, carbon wouldn't burn, would it.

    4. Re:Spider webs by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      I'm not being funny. The electronegativity of elements increases to the right and toward the top of the periodic table. The most electronegative element with a valence of 4 is Carbon. So the bonds in long chains of Carbon atoms will hold onto each other more forcefully than any other atomic bond. The strong bond is also the reason that Carbon has such an incredibly high melting point, and forms the hardest substance there is (Diamond).

  43. Re:Oh, wonderous progress! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Thanks a lot, jackass. Now I have to go listen to Price all day to burn that song out of my head.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  44. Re:Oh, wonderous progress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *it strongly absorbs microwave radiation, which causes localized heating*

    Super, I envision the day where I can replace my tin-foil hat with a nanotube beret

    And fry your brain! Although you apparently won't miss it. :P

  45. Specific strength by nuggz · · Score: 2, Informative

    WTF is Strength normalized to weight?
    Specific strength is the term they are looking for, second it is normalized to mass, not weight.

    Suggest to me someone with little science/engineering background "wrote" the article, and just listed off the interesting stuff they 'heard about nanotubes'

    1. Re:Specific strength by Hsien · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the world of scientific journalism where you get the highschool science entheusiasts or 1st year uni dropouts becomming "science" journalists.

    2. Re:Specific strength by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      WTF is Strength normalized to weight?
      Specific strength is the term they are looking for, second it is normalized to mass, not weight.


      Maybe they were trying to target a nonscientific audience. To Joe sixpack Specific strength means nothing, and weight is the same thing as mass(assuming Joe has a vaguely idea about what the word mass means)

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:Specific strength by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Strength normalized to weight is exactly what its name would imply. "Specific strength," not being a very common term, would have needed to be said as, "Specific strength, which is strength normalized to weight..." I'm personally glad they saved the reader the time.

    4. Re:Specific strength by nuggz · · Score: 1

      I have 2 points.
      1. Specific strength is the correct term.
      2. Strength normalized to weight is not a common term suggesting the author is not knowledgable in this field and it is actually incorrect, again suggesting a lack of knowledge of the author.

    5. Re:Specific strength by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Because heaven-forbid that Joe Sixpack might be required to learn something new to understand a term he's encountered...

      That's one of the biggest problems I've noticed in North American culture... the drive to dumb everything down so that everyone can grasp the idea immediately, without thinking. Um... don't we generally learn by encountering something we don't fully understand, and then try to understand it?

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    6. Re:Specific strength by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Specific strength is the correct term. Strength-to-weight is the common term. Strength normalized to weight is regional-speak for strength-to-weight.

      And even if it mattered, the author was just summarizing another article, which doesn't actually require any knowledge.

      But congrats on knowing the word. We all think you're really smart.

    7. Re:Specific strength by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      That's not a legitimate excuse for writing things more obfusce than they need to be for your target audience. If you are broadcasting in the US, it'd be stupid to broadcast in French and just expect that human beings, being so interested in learning, will attempt to pick up the language to better understand that broadcast and then never use it again.

      Joe Sixpack doesn't care what strength normalized to mass or specific strength or anything of the sort is. He watches the evening news and wants a basic grasp of what they're talking about. He's not looking to build his own space elevators or nanotubes, he just wants to know whats up in the news.

      Yes, people should try to learn things they don't understand when it serves them in some tangible way to do so. No, that doesn't mean we should broadcast all news at the maximum jargon level.

    8. Re:Specific strength by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      'He's not looking to build his own space elevators or nanotubes, he just wants to know whats up in the news.' and so is everybody else.

      If every 'a bug has been found in the kernel' story amounted to the diff to fix the bug then it would be fairly useless to the majority of people who care about bugs in the kernel. If some is interested about the exact cause of the bug then a simple story is enough for them to start looking on the kernel mailing list to identify the patch.

      So long as the story doesn't amount to gross missinformation then I don't see a need for everyday media to be aimed at anyone with the mental age above 10 years old.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    9. Re:Specific strength by nuggz · · Score: 1

      And even if it mattered, the author was just summarizing another article, which doesn't actually require any knowledge.

      If you want an intelligent summary it does require knowledge. Which is exactly the point I am making and you seem to be missing.

    10. Re:Specific strength by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Joe sixpack doesn't have a freaking clue what the word "normalized" means, either. The closest he can come is to guess it's a new reality TV show where they take geeks and give them makeovers to make them "normal."

    11. Re:Specific strength by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss it. I think we're just expecting different things from our advertisements for articles in Science.

  46. Sounds great... by gadgetman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this stuff is so resilient, NASA should really research a coating of it over the Shuttle tank foam that keeps falling off.

    --
    Artifical Intelligience is no match for natural stupidity.
    1. Re:Sounds great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we finally found what the black box was made of.

  47. Does the article summary mean... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    ... that Nanotubes are to materials as XML is to software?

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    1. Re:Does the article summary mean... by Eudial · · Score: 1

      Easy to read and write, slightly bloated and a real bitch to parse without external libs?

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Does the article summary mean... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      No: The "solution to everything".

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  48. Sheet tensile strength by The+Evil+Dwarf+from · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the Science article(subscription required) abstract a stack of 18 sheets had a strength of 465MPa/(g/cm^3) (high strength steel listed as 125 MPa/(g/cm^3)).

    They also built an OLED of 500 cd/m^2 with a onset voltage of 2.4V.

    1. Re:Sheet tensile strength by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Not only did they make a bright OLED, they did it on "polymer-based OLEDs on both flexible plastic and rigid glass substrates" (from the Science article; emphasis added). Yep, here come those TV t-shirts and Harry Potteresque paintings and newspapers.

      This is very promising technology. Whether or not it becomes commercialized to any extent remains to be seen, but it should be quite revolutionary if it does.

  49. Novel development by jbeaupre · · Score: 0

    I have an idea for using what they call a "light emitting diode" and using it to create what I call a "laser." I will point this "laser" at the earth and demand 1 MILLION DOLLARS!

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:Novel development by dextroz · · Score: 1

      make that a billion - it will probably cost you over a hundred million just to realize your dream...

      --
      Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
    2. Re:Novel development by baquiano · · Score: 1

      Why make a billion when we could make...(dramatic pause) ... a MILLION?

      --
      You're bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything. --Donald Knuth
  50. nanotubes and robots? by genckas · · Score: 0

    Nanotech promise for robotics is great. Imagine being able to built synthetic muscules out of nanotubes, that can contract, expand, it would be just like in Ghost in The Shell :)

    --
    --gks
  51. Let's hope it's safe to use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some fullerene molecyles have been shown to go into brains and kill them.

    Let's hope this miracle material is not new asbestos. It would be much better that people using it would die or get sick in wery short time after using it. If it takes 10 years to discover it's bad health effects many people will suffer.

    1. Re:Let's hope it's safe to use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, unlike the materials you mention, nanotubes consist of only one element, and a well known element at that. The only real possible danger is the asbestos danger (as in, small particles coming free and damging lungs). The possibility of this, however, seems narrow due to the chemical properties of the nanotubes. They do not stick well, unlike asbestos, and they are made purely of carbon, which, in theory, the body can absorb.

      I suppose there is the possibility of other dangers unlike any seen before, but if we halted advancement for every risk, we would not exist, as even without technology life is full of risk (some would say more without all of our technology).

    2. Re:Let's hope it's safe to use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ANY* fire which produces carbon waste produces nano-tubes. We've all been breathing nano-tubes our entire lives.

  52. Solar cargo blimps by ManyLostPackets · · Score: 1

    Good material for solar powered airships/blimps to jumpstart super cheap air-cargo. nough power to get a good clip and even replenish bouency with hydrogen from ocean/lake.

    Yeah, yeah, hindenburg and all. Did any one on that thing die from fire or did they ALL jump out?

    1. Re:Solar cargo blimps by all204 · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Solar cargo blimps by tsotha · · Score: 1
      Good material for solar powered airships/blimps to jumpstart super cheap air-cargo. nough power to get a good clip and even replenish bouency with hydrogen from ocean/lake.

      There's no need for that. Modern airships only need to be topped off about once a year or so, so there's no reason not to use helium. In any event, airships aren't economic for cargo because they're too slow, and I don't see any reason CNT cloth would change that.

  53. Next will be... by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

    A strength-boosting, bulletproof, super-light-weight bodysuit that can change colour and styles, doubles up as a solar battery, washes itself, heats itself up, cools you down, lights up or darkens things, temporarily blinds and electrocutes hostiles (causing paralysis), cooks food, has jetpack-like capabilities to take you places, remembers everything that happens to it and can replay it (like how much pressure in what places occur when you are hugged), has an in-built calculator, browser and email client, calendar, alarm clock, 100 Megapixel camera with flash, stores addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and bookmarks (and can communicate using them via speed-of-light methods), can play computer games, movies, music, makes you invisible, all controlled by your thoughts alone, and it will only costs 3 pennies from a wide range of stores.

    1. Re:Next will be... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Meh. Jimmy Neutron already invented all this.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:Next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but will it run linux?

  54. The Emperor's New Clothes by arr28 · · Score: 1
    Does this mean I can soon have a solar powered bulletproof jacket that enhances my strength, protects me from cell phone emissions, and displays DVDs?

    Maybe, but with a description like this...
    Producable at a rate comparable to commercial wool spinning, the transparent cloth has exceedingly high conductivity, flexibility, has huge surface area to volume ratios, can potentially be made into very effective OLEDs and thin-film photovoltaic cells, and outperforms even our best bulk materials (such as Mylar and Kevlar) at strength normalized to weight.
    ...it wouldn't surprise me if, just like the Emperor in Hans Christian Andersen's tale, you too could end up in the embarassing position of having a little boy declare "But he has nothing on at all".
  55. About time. by Liam+Slider · · Score: 0, Troll
    Producable at a rate comparable to commercial wool spinning, the transparent cloth has exceedingly high conductivity, flexibility, has huge surface area to volume ratios, can potentially be made into very effective OLEDs and thin-film photovoltaic cells, and outperforms even our best bulk materials (such as Mylar and Kevlar) at strength normalized to weight.
    Super-cheap nanotubes? About fucking time. We've been hearing about nanotubes for years, their possible use in computers, all their various other properties... It certainly took them long enough to discover a cheap way to make them.
    1. Re:About time. by Bearpaw · · Score: 4, Funny
      Super-cheap nanotubes? About fucking time. We've been hearing about nanotubes for years, their possible use in computers, all their various other properties... It certainly took them long enough to discover a cheap way to make them.

      Of course, if you had been part of the effort, it would've happened twice as fast. But you obviously had other priorities, and I'm sure I speak for all of us here when I express my deep appreciation for taking a little of your precious time to share your insight with Slashdot.

    2. Re:About time. by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      Nowhere in the article do they mention cheap. Who knows how much the 'nano-tube forest' cost?

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    3. Re:About time. by Liam+Slider · · Score: 0

      No, but perhaps if more money had been pushed into research for for these and other materials with interesting properties, then the progress might have gone faster yes?

      Not that I'm a huge fan for government funding of research, but if we are spending taxpayer money...we should fund it decently or not do it to begin with.

      So of course, remarks like these get my posts marked "troll."
    4. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So of course, remarks like these get my posts marked "troll."

      That's because you're a whiny troll bitch. WAAH! About fucking time! WAAH! Needed more funding! WAAH! Don't spend taxpayer money!

      WTF?? You can't have it all ways at once, dumbass.

      Oh, that's right, sorry I forgot for a second. That was a troll. Good one!

    5. Re:About time. by BlueHands · · Score: 1

      And thus you prove the purpose of trolls. Without trolls we could not get you post and it has been a wile since I have seen such a tactful ridicule here on /.

      Thank you.

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
  56. We're that much closer to.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    3d nanoprinters that will eat you once your microsoft OS gets the latest virus.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  57. Re:Oh, wonderous progress! by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > A jacket that makes a Faraday cage around your body

    I obviously don't know enough about Faraday cages, but would it have to cover you "completely?" Like could you have openings for hands, feet, and especially face with it still working as intended?

  58. Space elevator = Tower of Babel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    the American dream

  59. But will it slice bread? by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

    I'm no chemist or engineer, I don't know what potential carbon nanotubes have or don't have but whenever I read an article that seems to promise everything, I figure it is about 95% hyperbole and wishful thinking.

    I'm pleased to see that these things are getting ready to move into a sort of production phase but really wonder what applications they will find themseves in? If some conventional prduction method produces a product of acceptable quality, I don't see carbon nanotubes making much of a dent in these products. The reason is simple, new technologies are always expensive in comparison to existing technology. Where I'd expect to see them shine is where some feature of the nanotube makes something that was previously difficult, expensive, or impossible to become affordable and easy to produce.

    Since I like to play with composites, I hope that they will come out with some fabrics that can be used in conjunction with epoxy to produce exceptionally strong, light weight structures.

    1. Re:But will it slice bread? by fearofcarpet · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm no chemist or engineer, I don't know what potential carbon nanotubes have or don't have but whenever I read an article that seems to promise everything, I figure it is about 95% hyperbole and wishful thinking.

      I am a chemist, I work in the "nanotechnology" field, and I have spent time in Engineering/MS labs making OLEDs, PV cells, and other thin film devices. Many of "us" consider nanotubes to be the only viable "nanotechnology" at the moment because of the fact that they can be used by spraying thin layers, making entangled sheets, or other easy-to-commercialize methods of preparation. As for the hybperbole, I think the fact that you're reading an article on MSNBC should give you a clue : ) If you read the Science article they make essentially none of the claims present in the MSNBC article. In fact all they really claim is a new method for preparing NT sheets that is way better than the current methods used for preparing NT 'paper' (it really looks and feels like paper).

      Yes, nanotubes are cool. Yes, they conduct electricity. Yes, they emit white light in an OLED configuration. I'm not 100% sure where they're getting the artificial muscle thing, but from what I've read (from peer reviewed journals) don't hold your breath - but I'm no expert there. What generally happens here is the inventors like to hype their discovery up (in this case a method for preparing better NT sheets) as much as possible, but in "science speak". That is, this "may be used for ___" or "has the potential for ___" and then they rattle off stuff NTs can be used for which gets all mixed up in the in article. In this case NT sheets are nothing new and most of what they're claiming has been done before (IBM even got light out of a single NT, far more impressive if you ask me), but they're doing it better with higher quality NT sheets. When it was discovered that poly(aniline) had great mechanical properties as well as interesting "chemical switching" and conductive properties there were people that were sure it was going to be used in planes, clothes, computers... You name it. Too bad it is deliquescent - D'Oh. I can't remember whether this happened before or after the discovery that poly(acetylene) had a high tensile strength and people were claiming space elevators, lightweight electric motors, etc etc. Too bad it catches fire in air in its conductive form - D'Oh D'Oh.

      At the end of the day this is another step towards some real nanotechnology applications, but you're reading about it because the editors at Science decided it was worth publishing. Only in the Science article they include all the references to the past work that made it possible :) Oh, and the microwave thing is neat because the NTs will spark like crazy in your microwave oven. So will graphite, which you can try at home if you like... If you don't know NTs are essentially "rolled up" graphite sheets, so they share a lot of common properties.

      Here is the abstract:

      Individual carbon nanotubes are like minute bits of string, and many trillions of these invisible strings must be assembled to make useful macroscopic articles. We demonstrated such assembly at rates above 7 meters per minute by cooperatively rotating carbon nanotubes in vertically oriented nanotube arrays (forests) and made 5-centimeter-wide, meter-long transparent sheets. These self-supporting nanotube sheets are initially formed as a highly anisotropic electronically conducting aerogel that can be densified into strong sheets that are as thin as 50 nanometers. The measured gravimetric strength of orthogonally oriented sheet arrays exceeds that of sheets of high-strength steel. These nanotube sheets have been used in laboratory demonstrations for the microwave bonding of plastics and for making transparent, highly elastomeric electrodes; planar sources of polarized broad-band radiation; conducting appliqués; and flexible organic light-emitting diodes.

      So what they did was create sheets

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    2. Re:But will it slice bread? by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your reply and all of the great information that it contained. Someone Please mod this up!!!!

      Can I ask you a layman's question? What are the first products that consumers are likely to see made out of this technology? When are we likely to see them in production?

      Once again, thank you very much for your reply. I really appreciate it.

    3. Re:But will it slice bread? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Probably radio-controlled autonomous flying
      decapitators, since military uses always get
      priority. And you'll see them when you try to
      establish self-government in an oil-producing region. Lots of them. Flying about neck-high.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    4. Re:But will it slice bread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretically would one actually be able to make a nice knife or blade out of them?

  60. Transparent Aluminum??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll take us years to figure out the matrices...

  61. April by maxrate · · Score: 1

    The description sounds so good, it's like an April fools joke... I'm glad it's not April 1st !!

  62. Uses! by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay it looks like this could be used anywhere that you currently use Carbon Fiber. I can hardly wait.
    Super strong light weight helmets.
    Homebuilt aircraft.
    Bicycles.
    It just goes on and on.
    The fact it is transparent, conductive, and absorbs microwaves makes me think that we will see a lot of it uses for RAM coatings on ships and aircraft.
    I can also see it being used for anti rf wall paper and and windows in secure buildings.
    All in all very cool.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Uses! by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Okay it looks like this could be used anywhere that you currently use Carbon Fiber.

      Hm... maybe we'll see SpaceShipTwo or SpaceShipThree made out of this stuff? I wonder how it performs under high temperatures...

    2. Re:Uses! by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Hm... maybe we'll see SpaceShipTwo or SpaceShipThree made out of this stuff?

      After reading a little more, maybe not:

      http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /nanotube_concepts_020206-2.html

      Smalley readily concedes, "for all of the wonders of carbon nanotube, it does have an Achilles Heel. It burns."

      But that's only in comparison with their famed tension strength. Space vessels designers have avoided flammable materials ever since the Apollo 1 disaster that claimed the lives of three astronauts. But carbon nanotubes aren't particularly prone to flame - they burn at 900 degrees Celsius. And they conduct heat largely into one direction, a quality called anisotropism, so carbon nanotubes could conduct heat away from a wing's leading edge, rocket's nozzle, or from electronic components.

      But for extremely high temperatures, Smalley notes that carbon nanotubes have an unsung cousin, boron-nitride nanotubes. These two elements can combine to mimic the carbon nanotube form, and can withstand much greater heat. It may prove our only fallback in this field. "After you've finished with carbon and boron-nitride, there's nothing else," Smalley said. Other shapes, patterns of atomic bonding, aren't as ideal. "A pentagon would provide curvature, but it would be an odd number," meaning that vulnerable edges would remain, he noted.

      Yowell shares Smalley's assessment. "A molecular tube of pure carbon offers some really wonderful and unique advantages, but for certain applications - at very high temperature for example - we want to consider other materials (such as Boron-Nitride nanotubes). The benefits really come from the unique properties of structures at the nano-scale. Regardless of the constituent elements, it makes sense to design and manufacture materials from the atom up."

    3. Re:Uses! by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Regarding its transparency, I've got a feeling it's about as transparent as fiberglass, which, while the individual fibers are transparent, when you lay them together, the net effect of each fiber refracting light in a different direction gives you a sheer cloth, less so the thicker you weave it. Still, I think you're right about eventually seeing carbon-fiber replaced by nanotubes in applications where strength-to-weight is critical, as long as we don't find out that it causes cancer or clogs your capillaries or makes you Celine Dion music or one of the other horrors commonly associated with new products.

    4. Re:Uses! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Carbon fiber has the same problem as does Carbon carbon. Yes the stuff they use for the shuttles nose cap and leading edge the hottest parts of the shuttle are covered by stuff that burns. The trick is to keep Oxygen away from it usually with a coating of some kind. The real issue would be that it conducts heat well. It would not be good for a thermal protection system.
      Now the boron nitride stuff sounds really cool.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  63. Proper use of the English language, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you meant ground breaking. The other is a method of stopping a car.

  64. Need For Speed by FridayBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article:

    ... With this method they can produce nanotube sheets at up to seven meters per minute, ...

    Assuming the product eventually exceeds 100 GPa, at this rate it would take over 27 years to produce a 100,000 km ribbon in one piece. Since that timescale would be impractical, I figure they should aim for at least a meter per second, which would allow them to do it in a little over three years instead. On the other hand, they could also, for example, set up 30 production lines to work at the current speed, run them all for about a year and then glue the segments together using the extra length for overlap. However, that would add extra volume and make it heavier (remember that the first ribbon has to go up on a rocket).

    1. Re:Need For Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 27 years though, that should be enough time for NASA to launch another rocket.

    2. Re:Need For Speed by Runnin_Rob · · Score: 1

      Not quite 100,000 km - the 'edge of space' is more like 100 km. The length has to be doubled for stability and we probably want to hit a higher orbit, but I think the range is more in the 1,000 km range. A bit better.

    3. Re:Need For Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly sure you want the centre of mass to be approximately geosynchronous. That makes the whole apparatus at least 36,000km long. The real question is how long does the key span have to be?

    4. Re:Need For Speed by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      According to this plan it would need to be 100 000 km. The center of gravity would need to be in a geostationary orbit, which is ~36 000 km, the additional 64 000 km is for a 600 ton counterweight, which would include a space station.

    5. Re:Need For Speed by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was referring to the space elevator (stupid of me not to have mentioned that). You are correct in that the edge of space is considered to be at 100 km altitude, but the space elevator has to go a lot higher up than that: all the way up to geosynchronous orbit (35,785 km) and beyond. They figure it's got to be about 100,000 km long (with counterweights at the end), or else the Earth's rotational speed will not generate enough centrifugal force in the structure (a tether in the shape of a ribbon) to keep it from falling back to Earth. This is especially important if you want to use it for hauling heavy loads of freight up from the Earth.

  65. They already have an upgrade for the tinfoil hat! by Ferromancer · · Score: 1
    It's called a "Thought Screen" made from Velostat (you know, the anti-static stuff computer parts are shipped in).

    Pictures, assembly instructions, and... user testimonials!

    --
    "Worker bees can leave
    Even drones can fly away
    The Queen is their slave."
  66. Joe Sixpack by nuggz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I wouldn't rely on a tabloid science article for the current status of technology.

    I do find it odd that you'd expect someone who doesn't know that weight and mass are different would know what 'normalized' means.

    Depending on the target audience I would have said either
    High specific strength or
    Good strength/weight ratio

    I'll stand by my initial statement that this is a junk article.

    1. Re:Joe Sixpack by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Joe sixpack doesn't need to know what 'normalized' is, all he has to know is that something has been done to the weight and normalized suggests that it's kinda normal.

      You'd be supprized at the number of people who use weight to mean mass (and probably never use the word mass) and on earth it's just about normalized (weight = mass * G and G ~= 0.96?) so it doesn't matter too much anyway.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  67. Nano ... by kabz · · Score: 1

    1950's ... It's a floor wax ... It's a dessert topping!

    --
    -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
  68. ok, what's the downside? by LS · · Score: 1

    We know buckyballs tear fish brains apart. What does this stuff do? Have biological experiments been run yet?

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:ok, what's the downside? by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Been wondering about that myself. I hope strands of nanofiber won't have the same effect on wetware as asbestos has.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
  69. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OT

  70. What about ...? by steveo777 · · Score: 1

    I remember a story posted a few months ago that spoke of nanotubes. It said something about a resonance frequency. If this is true (the article didn't seem to address this), then what is to prevent people from emitting the waves, somehow. Say, if you were wearing these threads woven as a flak jacket? Or, if they were creatable strong enough, I would not ride the orbital elevator if someone's ringtone could cause the thing to just vaporize around me... even though, it would be the way to go.

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  71. not good for body armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'strongly absorbs microwaves' Abdul, get me the MASER, there are American troops out there! Let's have a BBQ!

  72. YaY! by rlbond86 · · Score: 1

    You can even cut a tin can with it!

  73. Re:Oh, wonderous progress! by Rei · · Score: 1

    No holes for body parts to protrude out of, but if the holes are much smaller than the wavelength and don't have a conductor down the center to act as a waveguide, it should work just fine. I.e., a very fine mesh that allows your body (and lungs!) to breathe is acceptable.

    --
    Kneel Before Christ!
  74. Re:Oh, wonderous progress! by rocjoe71 · · Score: 1

    ... the "tingling" tells you it's working!

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  75. Not science fiction according to IEEE Spectrum by Zordak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This month's IEEE Spectrum features an article by Bradley Edwards who studied the near-term feasibility of a space elevator under a grant from NASA. His conclusion is that it could be accomplished in as little as 10-15 years and for as "little" as $10B (meaning little enough that there are several individuals on Earth who could fund it privately). Of course, the major technological limitation is the nanotubes. He suggests "spun" nanotubes (like yarn) or nanotube composites (and he contends that if one of these broke near the top, it would not be the end of life as we know it -- it's a ribbon that would loft gently down to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere). He even addresses storms, terrorism and space-borne threates. It's a good article and somewhat technical (written for engineers). His conclusions are quite credible, and probably more informed than your average Slashdot debate.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    1. Re:Not science fiction according to IEEE Spectrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Also from that article:
      In theory, at least, carbon-nanotube-based materials have the potential to be 100 times as strong as steel, at one-sixth the density. This strength is three times as great as what is needed for the space elevator. The most recent experiments have produced 4-centimeter-long pieces of carbon-nanotube materials that have 70 times the strength of steel. Outside the lab, bulk carbon-nanotube composite fibers have already been made in kilometer-long lengths, but these composite fibers do not yet have the strength needed for a space elevator cable. However, we think we know how to get there.
  76. Read the recent IEEE article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature /aug05/0805spac.html
    and then come back and argue your point from an educated point of view.

    Sorry I have to be so blunt about it.

  77. This is just like in a movie by zlogic · · Score: 1

    There was a movie, filmed about 50 years ago called "The man in the white suit".
    The man invented an indestructable type of polymer string which was used to make cloth. The cloth also never got dirty. The people chased him because the invention promised the complete destruclion of the clothmaking industry.
    Well, this invention reminds me of that movie.

    1. Re:This is just like in a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess: At the end he got kicked to death with wooden shoes.

  78. Spelling Nazi...(obligatory) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Man, I can't believe a discussion was started with the word 'producable'

    Wouldn't it be Producible ?

  79. If done right... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    A suit of this stuff will shrug that sort of thing off like water off a duck's back. It's conductive. If done right, it'll act like a Faraday Cage and the RF will never impinge on your tissues except where you've got exposure out of the suit's confines...

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:If done right... by Alef · · Score: 1
      Just because it is conductive it doesn't mean it wont heat up. Your skin may be shielded from the microwaves, but your nanotube clothing would cook you like an oven.

      From the article:

      Microwave radiation can be used to heat the nanotube sheets, so the researchers sealed a sheet between two plates of plexiglas with a few blasts from a kitchen microwave oven. This type of process could be used to make windows or transparent adhesive appliqués, say for heating car windows or perhaps the outer surfaces of airplanes, according to Baughman.

  80. Condoms by Aphoric · · Score: 1

    There is a higher calling than space elevators... Condoms

    --
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
    1. Re:Condoms by zardo · · Score: 1

      A condom that powers itself on vaginal discharge to create a stimulating electrical current!

  81. Isn't this the type of technology the X-33 needed? by zardo · · Score: 1

    If I can remember correctly, the biggest hurdle in the development of the X-33 was the strength of the composite LOX tanks. Apparently this is exactly what they need, just wrap this ribbon around the tank and double the storage capacity. Hell make the whole spacecraft out of this stuff.

  82. Re:Isn't this the type of technology the X-33 need by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't they wrap the exterior fuel tank on the shuttle so that it would not lose any insulation on take off.

  83. Need some physics help here by slickwillie · · Score: 1

    I you could build a strong enough sphere out of this stuff and pump out all the air, would it have more lift than the equivalent volume of hydrogen?

    1. Re:Need some physics help here by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Zero mass per unit volume (vacuum) is always going to have more "lift" than a small mass per unit volume (hydrogen). But this isn't the material you're looking for - tensile strength is useless for what you want to do.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:Need some physics help here by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      OK, maybe this isn't the material, but could nanotubes be used? If they could be constructed so they become rigid when compressed, maybe like a geodesic dome? Buckyballs?

      I'm thinking of a blimp that has more lift than nydrogen, and has no danger of exploding.

    3. Re:Need some physics help here by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      nydrogen ?

  84. 100 GPa in perspective by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The article stated the goal was 100 GPa (gigapascals...a measure of stress) tensile strength. The parent mentions the highest measured strength to date comes from a single-walled nanotube that bore 63 GPa (double-walled will theoretically hold more). To give you a comparison, I've pulled ultimate tensile strengths of common materials from matweb.com (note these are in MPa, not GPa, so the goal is 100,000 MPa)
    • Molded Nylon - 75 MPa
    • Plain carbon steel - 450 MPa
    • 4130 Cromoly steel - 1110 MPa
    • Dupont Kevlar 49 - 3620 MPa
    • Carbon Fiber - 4000 MPa (approx)
    As you can see, carbon fiber is about 4% as strong as the target, which tells you two things: First, nanotubes kick butt. Second, this elevator is not right around the corner. Sure they're getting good at making individual fibers, but the weave will not carry the same stress as the individual fibers, and we have to find a way to work around that.
  85. Way to go Anvar and Ray by billsoxs · · Score: 0

    eom

    --
    This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
    1. Re:Way to go Anvar and Ray by billsoxs · · Score: 1

      Wow! Overrated...... Hey Moderator dude RTFA. Ray and Anvar are the guys running this show.

      --
      This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
  86. Shuttle Tank 1st, then elevator OK? by scotty1024 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It sounds like to me they should use this stuff to wrap the foam insulation onto the space shuttle external tank so it won't fall off. Then they can think about using it for space elevators.

  87. Re:Isn't this the type of technology the X-33 need by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    Because by the time this stuff gets into commercial production and tested vigorously by government scientists, there won't be a space shuttle any more.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  88. Future dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is a dupe, backwards in time.

  89. Magic words are... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    ..IF DONE RIGHT...

    Considering that you'll have heating, you'd change the thermal conductivity so that unless you're totally bathed in microwaves, you're not going to have issues (HINT: if you're bathed in microwaves such that it's going to bake you in that sort of armor, then you're going to get baked in a tank or any other armor you'd might field- the energy densities in question are such that there's little to shield you unless you can shed the heat... This stuff could shield you against riot control uses of Microwave energy...)

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Magic words are... by Alef · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, if done right it could work. I still believe it might be rather tricky to do it right, though. My presupposition was that if the microwaves cause excruciating pain when unshielded, they would at least heat the nanotubes enough to set fire to the rest of the clothing, or even destroy the nanotubes. Maybe they could be combined with a fashionable cooling fin hat. =P