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!"
...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.
Isn't this already possible with OLEDs?
on that page was the urine powered battery.... Now that could useful. Drink a few beers and power your laptop.
If it strongly absorbs microwaves, I wonder about its potential as a radar-absorbing material for stealth military aircraft, leadfoot driver's cars, etc.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
You are right... if your space is asymptoticaly flat. In an arbitrary space it is not necessarily true.
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.
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.