Slashdot Mirror
The World's Longest Carbon Nanotube
Roland Piquepaille writes "As you probably know, carbon nanotubes have very interesting mechanical, electrical and optical properties. The problem, currently, is that they're too small (relatively speaking) to be of much use. Now, researchers at the University of Cincinnati (UC) have developed a process to build extremely long aligned carbon nanotube arrays. They've been able to produce 18-mm-long carbon nanotubes which might be spun into nanofibers. Such electrically conductive fibers could one day replace copper wires. The researchers say their nanofibers could be used for applications such as nanomedicine, aerospace and electronics."
So perhaps the internet will indeed become a series of tubes?
Voila! No more global warming!
8-)}
"Extremely long"?
Perhaps 18 mm stands for... 18 million miles?
Nano nano nano.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Did I get it right in the subject line? Apparently all Slashdotters are supposed to hate this Roland guy, right? God, I just want so desperately to be loved...
18mm? Can be spun together into longer fibers? Get me to space.
Forget space. I just want my flying car they promised me ten years ago.
Apart from more tubes for the interwebs, I would imagine that 18mm is also long enough to make carbon fibre products that are lighter and stronger than what is currently available. I wonder if an America's Cup or F1 winner will one day be built from nanotubes?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
18 millimetres? Great, only 99,999.999982 km to go!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
... do you think they could be compensating for something?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Now we're going to get spam advertising ways to lengthen our nanotubes...
Might we not make single-stage-to-orbit vehicles which so drastically reduce the price of launch costs that building a space elevator is not only possible, but unnecessary?
The problem with rockets has never been the mass of the rocket, but the mass of the fuel. There's only so much oomph you can get out of a million litres of hydrogen and oxygen chemically, and it's only marginally more than the power it takes to lift a million litres off the surface and into space. Sure, a lighter fuel tank, and lighter payload will help, but not significantly.
No, if we want cheap access to space, we either go nuclear, or build some sort of space elevator. While we may just be at the threshold of being able to make materials with the tensile strength needed for a beanstalk, we have the tech to make gas core nuclear rockets right now.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Although the PR person who wrote this obviously thinks this is a major breakthrough, these guys are using a method which was originally invented by Japanese researchers three years ago (google for "CNT super growth"). The Japanese guys have since focused on getting the fastest growth rate possible (I think it's about 0.2mm/min... if you want to figure out how many, many years it would take to grow a space elevator). There are lots of people working on improving this growth method, 18mm arrays may be the longest, but it seems to be in the same range as other people working on the "super growth" method. That doesn't diminish this research, rather it means that this method is very likely to work in the long run for industrial scale growth of nanotubes for materials (more simply, it's easily reproducible, and people want "nano-enhanced" golf clubs).
Isolated nanotubes have been grown longer than this (I've grown isolated nanotubes longer than this, and I'm not a growth specialist), as have bundles of nanotubes. This is the longest array of pure, aligned, continuous nanotubes.
It's not about the fuel prices. Never has been, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Propellant is cheap, it's the vehicle that's expensive. Elon Musk of SpaceX was recently quoted as saying propellant costs are comparable to the accounting errors.
Remember that the space elevator has to supply all the energy to the payload too, but it has to get it in a much more expensive form -- like electricity beamed from the ground by lasers or some such. Rockets aren't actually all that energy inefficient in comparison.
I used to be a huge fan of the space elevator idea, but then I started looking what those same materials do to rockets. SSTO is just the start. And remember, those materials will change rockets long before they make a space elevator.
Of course, I am a rocket engineer, so I might be a little biased, but I've also examined the problem in some detail :)
People don't seem to get this somehow. Yes, mass ratio matters. A lot. Let's look at LOX+Kerosene, a very typical combination in many ways. You get an ISP of about 3000 m/s in a medium-high performance vacuum engine (the case for most of the way to orbit). LEO takes about 9000 m/s of delta-v by the time you account for aerodynamic and gravity losses. That means the mass ratio of your rocket needs to be about e^(9000/3000) = e^3 = 20. So 5% of your rocket makes it to orbit. Yup, that sucks. LOX costs about $0.07/lb in bulk, kerosene about $0.30. So propellant costs are about $0.15/lb for propellant, or $3/lb of orbited mass.
Now lets look at the space elevator. Climbing to geosynchronous orbit is equivalent to about 8000 m/s of delta-v (roughly... don't have the exact number off hand and I don't feel like calculating it). From 1/2M*v^2, that's 32MJ/kg. That's about the energy you get from burning 6 kg of LOX-kerosene. So from an energy equivalence standpoint, you're using 6 kg of propellant worth of energy instead of 19 -- a factor of 3 improvement.
The problem with the space elevator is twofold. First, the required *form* of the energy is different. You can't just use cheap hydrocarbon fuels -- you have to convert it to electricity, and then get that electricity up to the elevator either by beaming it or along wires, and neither option is efficient in the slightest. In fact, by the time you turn the hydrocarbon fuel into electricity and then get it to the elevator car, you're under 50% efficient; being as high as 30% would take a lot of work and be quite impressive. But the rocket was 30% efficient! Space elevators are *not* particularly more efficient than rockets.
The second problem is the infrastructure of the space elevator -- the required capital investment for a certain payload rate (kg delivered per day) is higher than for the rocket (we won't even discuss non-reusable rockets). Even if you got the space elevator more energy-efficient than the rocket, this fact combined with the slower transit time, the geosynchronous orbit as the only one available, and the more complicated technological requirements, the rockets win.
Yes, the space elevator tech is harder. The ribbon itself and the beamed power are the obvious examples, but there are others. For example, the tires on the car that work against the ribbon -- you need tires that run at about Mach 3 and are good for 27000 miles. That's not even remotely easy. You need motors that have higher power to weight ratios than currently exist. Etc, etc, etc. Rockets, in comparison, are easy. Especially if you have space-elevator class building materials available -- at that point you can do SSTO with pressure fed rockets, and get rid of the pumps altogether -- the pumps being the hardest part of rocket engine development by far in a conventional design.
When people say that for space elevators you only have to provide the energy to climb up, and aren't wasting the energy carrying propellant, they often forget that it's actually a *lot* of energy to climb up, and that rockets are actually remarkably good at converting available chemical energy into exhaust kinetic energy -- some are better than 80% efficient by that metric.