Slashdot Mirror


Material Tougher Than Diamond Developed

sporkme has handed us a link to a New Scientist article. The piece outlines the development of a new substance reported to be stiffer than diamond. A team of scientists from Washington, Wisconsin, and Germany combined the ceramic barium titanate and white-hot molten tin with an ultrasonic probe. The new material was, in some tests, almost 10x more resistant to bending than diamond. Composite materials researcher Mark Spearing of Southampton University comments on the result: "The material's stiffness results from the properties of the barium titanate pieces, Spearing says. As the material cools, its crystal structure changes, causing its volume to expand. 'Because they are held inside the tin matrix, strain builds up inside the barium titanate,' Spearing explains, 'at a particular temperature that energy is released to oppose a bending force.'"

19 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Ah misleading Slashdot article titles... by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Informative

    I love them almost as much as dupes. :) Material Tougher Than Diamond Developed...(in some tests), like say: "The tests were carried out at a variety of temperatures. Between 58C and 59C the samples became stiffer than diamond."

    Not to knock the experiment though, it seems interesting, and I'm sure there are all sorts of new exotic materials on the horizon.

  2. Re:That's impossible! by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, according to wikipedia it isn't. It's the hardest natural material (which I think is what you meant, not metal). There are actually 2 known matericals that are stronger, and probably a third material after the one in this article is added to the article.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  3. Bah by MadUndergrad · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Bah by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

      And also, hardness != either of the above, and *hardness* is the material property diamonds are known for (in addition to having a reasonably high index of refraction, although not the highest by any means.)

      The most typical test of hardness is attempting to scratch a material. (To measure a material's hardness on the Mohs scale, essentially a series of scratch tests are performed, and a material's place on the Mohs scale was determined by what it could scratch vs. what would scratch it.)

      I don't know about stiffness, but diamonds are definately not *tough*. As your links above show, "toughness" is resistance to fracturing under stress, and one of the ways diamonds are cut and shaped is by fracturing them along their crystal lattice planes. There are plenty of materials (Including, I believe, many plastics) that are *tougher* than diamond, but not necessarily harder. (For example, I believe ABS plastic and polycarbonate plastic are extremely tough, but neither are hard - i.e. they are VERY difficult to break via stress and impact, but scratch easily.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  4. Re:Wait a minute by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually the word diamond is derived from the Greek word adamas, so in fact diamond is adamantium.

  5. Hardness != toughness, get it right by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Toughness is a measure of the amount of energy necessary to break a material. Hardness is a measure of the amount of pressure required to deform it. The two are not the same. In fact, diamond is not a particularly tough material -- which is one reason why folks are discouraged from wearing diamond jewelry when, say, rock climbing. It's easy to fracture a diamond by bashing it against something even moderately hard -- even though no mineral is harder than the diamond, good ol' granite is much tougher.

    1. Re:Hardness != toughness, get it right by Tomfrh · · Score: 2, Informative

      even though no mineral is harder than the diamond, good ol' granite is much tougher

      Toughness (units in MPa m^0.5)

      Granite: ~2
      Diamond: ~3.5
      Steel: ~100

      Toughness is a combination of strength and ductility. Granite is medium strength and very low ductility. Diamond is high strength and very low ductility. Steel is medium strength and high ductility.

  6. Re:Wait a minute by dsanfte · · Score: 3, Informative

    adamas, adamantis  N  M     3 6  M   [XTXCO]
    steel, hardest iron (early); anything hard, adamant; white sapphire; diamond;

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  7. Re:That's impossible! by Falladir · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't conflate hardness with strength or stiffness. Hardness is not well quantified. For hardness we refer to the Mohs scale, which will tell you which of two substances is the harder, but doesn't strictly quantify hardness. A claim that substance A is "twice" as hard as substance B probably refers to the Young's Modulus, or stiffness, rather than to hardness.

    A common way to measure the Young's modulus is to support a sample of the material on two struts, and then apply pressure from above to the center of the sample. The less it bends, the higher the Young's modulus. The apparatus looks like this.

    Strength is a different quantity. Strength is the amount of force needed, per unit cross-sectional area, to cause the material to fail. For tensile strength, this means pulling apart. For compressive strength, it means collapsing. A material with great tensile strength can have a great weight hung from it without snapping, and a material with great compressive strength can act as a pillar to support a great deal of weight.

    The article claims nothing about the strength of this material.

  8. Re:Wait a minute by mollymoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA says it's stiffer than diamond, that doesn't mean that it's harder than diamond.

    --
    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  9. Re:resistant to bending .... by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here's the most relevant portion of TFA:

    Once ingots of the new composite had cooled, rectangular or cylindrical samples 3 centimetres long and 2 millimetres across were tested for stiffness. The response of the samples to bending was tested by gluing one end to a strong support rod and the other to a magnet with a small mirror attached.

    Rhythmic force
    An electromagnet was used to exert a rhythmic force on the material one hundred times per second. The resistance of the composite to the bending force - called the Young's modulus - was recorded by a light sensor monitoring laser light bouncing off the mirror.

    The tests were carried out at a variety of temperatures. Between 58C and 59C the samples became stiffer than diamond. Some were nearly 10 times as resistant to bending.
    ...
    Since energy has to be stored in the material to make it super-stiff, the creators have only really measured an "apparent Young's modulus", says Spearing. A true Young's modulus is an inherent property of a material, and would also be more constant across a greater range of temperatures, he notes.
    So no, this isn't going to be used for cutting diamonds AFAIK.

    But since this stuff seems relatively easy to make, I imagine it'll have a wide range of uses. Price is usually the number one obstruction in using high strength materials.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  10. Re:There is a molecule harder than diamond by jd · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Wikipedia article on aggregated diamond nanorods is a little more helpful. However, there is a non-carbon material harder than diamond (ultrahard fullerine). What we seem to be seeing is that exotic materials form at the real extremes of pressure and/or temperature - that remain stable at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures. We also know that crystals form very differently under extreme changes in pressure and/or temperature. This discovery isn't particularly earth-shattering in and of itself. What is interesting is that material science is continuing to evolve in the most unexpected of directions, with those involved being rather more creative in their research than has been typical in other disciplines.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. Re:Wait a minute by iq+in+binary · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just because it's stiffer doesn't mean that it's harder. (god there are so many things wrong with that statement on so many levels)

    Note however that we don't need a stonger abrasive material. Grinding works on the basis of extreme velocity on the part of the particles in the abrasive wheel or band to do the cutting work. Aluminum oxide would work for the purposes of grinding this material into print. Given that it's a ceramic within a tin matrix; ALO2 would do beautifully.

    As for heavy cutting work, Tungsten Carbide would do just as well. I don't see anything to indicate that the material is HARDER than carbide.

    And speak of the applications..........to tell you the truth there really aren't that many widespread uses for a material like this. For now, with the expense of this material that's going to stay as it is for quite a while, there are FEW cases that would warrant using this material.

    --
    Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
  12. Not really. Here's how it works (sort of) by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Barium titanate is a structure called a spinel. It has oxygen ions packed in a face-centred cubic structure, with the barium and Titanium ions stuck on the holes between. Above a certain temperature, spinels are cubic. however, at lower temperatures, the structure can reduce its energy by breaking symmetry and squashing a bit down one of the cubic axes, becoming orthorhombic. This compression is not huge, but it is a lot bigger than the typical stretchings you get due to thermal expansion or mechanical stress.

    Stick the spinel structure into a tin matrix and cool it. If you are ingenious about your choice of tin matrix, then the stress on the tin can actually get the spinel to change its shape in a way that opposes the bending, rather than going with it as you might expect. Tin is funny stuff - it also has a change in crystal structure on cooling from cubic to hexagonal (though at a much lower temperature) so I guess it is somehow squeezing the spinel in some anisotropic fashion and triggering the phase change.

    This is ingenious stuff but it isn't really a high stiffness in the normal sense, any more then the compound pendulums you can somtimes find in grandfather clocks have a very low thermal expansion coefficient. Those have brass and steel rods which all have expansion coefficients, but they are put together in a way that makes the stotal expansion zero. Supposing you had a piezo crystal, with attached electronics that applied a voltage causing it to resist any force put upon it. You could make this infinitely stiff depending on your level of control, or even have it push pack on what is pressing on it.

    So, back to your original question. It is heavy, and it only demonstrates the stiffness over a limited range. Bulk material stiffness is not usually important - you can make stiff structures like a cage of tubes by design. However, if you wanted to make some structure appear perfectly stiff, then some active control like the hypothetical piezo stuff I described earlier would probably be lighter and better. I would love to know what this ingenious stuff is for, but I don't think it is for space.

  13. Re:Wait a minute by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    the driver would die.

    Your car isn't made of steel any more but foldable, collapsable sections so the car takes damage instead of the people inside. Literally the materials are designed to bend at certain deceleration speeds. This goes back to the passenger compartment, where those sections suddenly become stronger. Ever notice how in a car wreck the only thing in one piece is the passenger compartment? The entire engine will go missing first.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  14. Toughness... by TerranFury · · Score: 2, Informative

    True... and "toughness" is not the same as "stiffness" either. "Toughness" refers to a material's resistance to failure by fatigue (whereas "stiffness" is, as you said, resistance to bending -- Young's Modulus). They are clearly not the same thing, as there are plenty of brittle materials which are stiff yet fail quickly in fatigue.

    On a related subject, do you ever wince when somebody on TV refers to something that can push harder as being more "powerful?" Or who talks about some kind of battery having more "power" than another when they clearly mean "energy?" I understand that these words are commonly confused in everyday use, but -- if you're putting together a supposedly-educational show, for the love-of-god get it right; even if your viewers don't appreciate the subtlely, choosing words like "velocity" or "energy" when appropriate aren't going to confuse them!

    To science writers everywhere: I know, I'm not perfect either -- but could you please refrain from running your fingernails across my mental chalkboard?

  15. And even that... by IdahoEv · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... doesn't mean it's tougher than diamond. Any mechanical engineer will remind you that strength, stiffness, and toughness are three different properties. IIRC my materials engineering class 15 years ago, they are approximately:

    strength: maximum load before failure

    stiffness: resistance to deformation

    toughness: tendency to avoid reduction in strength over time in the face of repeated deformation

    also:

    hardness: ability to resist permanent deformation, particularly vs. small surface insults like scratches and indentations.

    Diamond is very strong, very stiff, and very hard but it is definitely not tough: large blocks of the stuff are fairly brittle and tend to crack and chip. In fact extremely stiff materials are often not tough because they are brittle. OP has a very screwed-up title.

    From TFA, we have no idea whether or not this new material is either strong or tough or hard: only that it is extremely stiff. (cue tasteless jokes)

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    1. Re:And even that... by florescent_beige · · Score: 2, Informative

      Toughness has both a qualitive and quantitive meaning. As someone mentioned before, it can be thought of as the amount of energy (the area under the stress-strain curve) required to fail the material. As a general rule, materials in the same class show an inverse relationship between strength and toughness.

      It also has a quantitative definition that relates to crack sensitivity. Fracture toughness has a specific definition that relates to the strength of the stress singularity at a crack tip required to make the crack propogate unstably (i.e. break.)

      The magnitude of the stress singularity is called the stress intensity K and its units are ksi*inches^.5 (MPa*m^.5). It varies with the applied stress and the geometry and size of the crack.

      Stress intensity is the whole basis of fracture mechanics, which is a fairly new discipline only understood since about the 1950's. If you know the fracture toughness of a material you can calculate how big a crack any given thing made out of that material can withstand under a given load. Thats why planes are safe, they are designed to withstand cracks that can be easily found during inspection. Pressure vessels are designed to stand big enough cracks that they will start to leak before then burst so the problem becomes evident before they go boom. This kind of analysis is called damage tolerance.

      It's also used to predict how fast cracks will grow under cyclic load. By testing you can develop the so called da/dN vs delta K curves that let u predict how long, for example, and airplane can fly before a crack that can't be found by inspection grows to a size that can be found. That tells you how often you should go look.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  16. Re:Wait a minute by v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another good thing to look up is "crumple zones", the areas of a vehicle designed to collapse while absorbing energy. In most cars, a head-on collision is supposed to force the engine and transmission down and out the bottom (since they are too solid to crumple) and the rest of the engine compartment collapses in on itself and hopefully slows down the vehicle or the intruding object to a safer speed before the crumple zone has been totally crushed and the remaining force starts in on the passenger area.

    The trunk has less to worry about, there is no massive steel (engine or transmission) to get rid of so it is just designed to crumple and absorb energy of impact.

    What amazes me is how well cars survive getting T-boned. In many cases the front end of the offending car is usually totally demolished and yet the struck driver's door is only pushed in a few inches.

    The tradeoff of all this is the vehicle's odds of surviving. If you are in a 52 packard you can run into a wall at 20mph and not do a whole lot besides ruin the bumper. They'll be pulling your head out of the windshield however. Try that with a Taurus and all you'll notice is the airbag, until you go looking for the front of your car and find it in the trunk. Cars used to be designed to survive accidents. Now they are designed to protect their passengers instead. People cry about how expensive it will be to fix a modern car after running into a tree, but they shut up real fast when you point out they would be in a body cast right now if it weren't for all that damage to their car.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.