Slashdot Mirror
New Material Harder Than Diamond
h4x0r-3l337 writes "Diamond is no longer the hardest substance known to man. Scientists have created a new material, called "aggregated diamond nanorods" by compressing carbon-60 under high heat. From the article: 'The hardness of a material is measured by its isothermal bulk modulus. Aggregated diamond nanorods have a modulus of 491 gigapascals (GPa), compared with 442 GPa for conventional diamond.'"
Diamonds will come down in price? If we could make a drill out of this new material, doesn't that mean we would have a surplus of diamond to use? And who gets the dub the name for this material?
OK, so obviously this could be used as "better-than-diamonds" for industrial purposes - grinding and such. But it seems to me that the improvement is only modest, and that this does not open up whole new frontiers of exciting materials - or am I completely wrong here? Is there some magical "limit" that was exceeded by this? If there *IS* a magical limit somewhere, what is it?
Black holes are where God divided by zero
We're (laregly) made of carbon. Diamonds, the (formerly) hardest substance known to exist, is made of carbon. This new material is also made of carbon.
Carbon is also the basis for buckyballs, nanotubes, and recently, nanofabric.
What is it about carbon that's so special? Can these things be done with other elements, like nitrogen? Is it just because we have an oil (carbon) based economy, or what?
Seems like all the interesting stuff in materials physics in early 2000's is ALL CARBON!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Artificial diamonds were first developed in Kiev, Ukraine at the University for Superhard Materials. Later, there were plans to make them into armor (armored cars, armored vests, etc.).
-Palal
Apparently... http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/physics.htm #properties
But only in certain cases. Also, bucky balls are toxic. While their individual atomic structure is superhard, they don't adhere to each other well, making them more like graphite than diamond.
Hmm ...
The Brinnel hardness test scale has Diamond listed on it. You can test this new substance by using it as an indentor on Diamond, then work backwards from there to arrive at a hardness number for this substance.
-Shaunak
Nope, no good for ringworld either, you need things strong in compression and tension for that.
Hard is good for scratching, cutting, abrading, resisting scratching, resisting cutting.
It's no good for avoiding chipping breaking or crushing - although I suspect there is a correlation between compression strength and hardness.
What I'm hoping for is a material such as this with excellent hardness, but also good optical properties and easy manufacture into large pieces of arbitrary shape. That would be good for lenses for telescopes, mirrors (telescopes again), spectacles (glasses), car windscreens, spacecraft windows... Imagine it - glasses that never scratch!
Reading TFA, they apparently used a Diamond Anvil Cell to measure the hardness. This apprently consists of "two opposing cone-shaped diamonds squeezed together by a lever arm" (wikipedia).
So my question is: If this stuff is harder than diamonds, surely the "opposing cone-shaped diamonds" would deform before the sample being measured?
Wow, that's almost half a mile of mercury!
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
I believe GP hulls are monomolecular, and the only thing that bothers them is a buttload of antimatter. Can't remember the story reference, though.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Quite possibly not. 'hard' means that it is resistant to pressure. The space elevator needs to be resistant to tension and torque. If this stuff is brittle (very likely), it could be useless for that application.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I had to look this up... General Products.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Speaking of other kinds of women, I read a statistic in the paper yesterday that said that there are more than 20,000 battered women in my city alone.
And to think, all this time I have been eating them plain.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You are assuming that the space elevator only requires a high tensile strength cable to work. What about the high strength anchoring mechanisms needed on each side of the cable as well as many other parts that will require materials with extreme hardness.
This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that such a material could be made - there are a lot of new potential materials out there, so don't expect this record to stand forever. For example, pressure-induced interlinking of carbon nanotubes could potentially best it. There's no reason to think that C60 is going to be the best source material to interlink.
Rock Us, Dukakis.
Wikipedia to the rescue. The story is called "Flatlander" by Larry Niven.
That, and tides.
See "Neutron Star".
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
This new material is harder than diamonds but there's nothing to indicate its toughness. Which is important. Diamonds are easy to chip on something tougher because they aren't themselves very tough; they're just hard. To illustrade: Imagine a picture window and a bar of iron. Throw the bar of iron at the window. The window breaks because it is not as tough as the iron bar. But take a peice of the resulting broken glass and you can scrape the iron bar because the glass is harder than the iron.
This is why a jewelry salesperson will panic if you try to scrape a diamond ring on the display glass; it's not the glass they're worried about. The diamond can break doing that if you hit someone else's prior scrape because the glass is tougher than the diamond.