Slashdot Mirror


Large Sheets of Carbon Nanotubes Produced

StCredZero brings news that scientists have developed sheets of nanotubes that measure up to three feet by six feet, and they promise "slabs 100 square feet in area as soon as this summer." The developers see uses for the sheets in electromagnetic shields and airplane construction, and according to the Next Big Future blog, the sheets could also impact the development of solar sails. "The sheets, which the company can produce on its single machine at a rate of one per day, are composed of a series of nanotubes each about a millimeter long, overlapping each other randomly to form a thin mat. The tensile strength of the mat ranges from 200 to 500 megapascals--a measure of how tough it is to break. A sheet of aluminum of equivalent thickness, for comparison, has a strength of 500 megapascals. If Nanocomp takes further steps to align the nanotubes, the strength jumps to 1,200 megapascals."

155 comments

  1. Awesome... by JoeInnes · · Score: 1

    But why not just use aluminium?

    1. Re:Awesome... by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably much lighter than aluminum, for the same strength.

      The question I have is, how strong could it be for the same weight? Off to rtfa...

    2. Re:Awesome... by Toe,+The · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides having very different properties from aluminum, and besides the last sentence stating that they can be upped to 1,200 megapascals; this could be considered a proof of concept. Excuse the tautology, but: as technologies develop, they improve.

    3. Re:Awesome... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      One good reason is that aluminum is a limited resource. Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years ( source). That may seem like quite a long time, but it probably wouldn't hurt to start investigating alternatives before we run out.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Awesome... by xant · · Score: 1

      Is that a good reason? What limited resource are they using to make these sheets?

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    5. Re:Awesome... by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1

      Aluminum is heavier and less abundant than carbon is, and I suspect these sheets are flexible whereas aluminum is rigid. Also, as someone else pointed out, for the same weight these sheets would be many times stronger than aluminum.

    6. Re:Awesome... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Because aluminum weighs twice as much?

      rj

    7. Re:Awesome... by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe the carbon nanotube sheets are made out of, oh, I don't know, carbon? Seems to me there's no shortage of that stuff..

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:Awesome... by JoeInnes · · Score: 0

      Forgive me for being dubious about your source, but aluminium is not exactly rare, and that book doesn't exactly look like a huge seller. And actually, I'd argue that while aluminium is still plentiful, maybe we could look to feeding the third world, rather than trying to find a substance that will let us stick a whole bunch of crap up in space. *shrug* maybe I'm just a crazy left-wing nut though.

    9. Re:Awesome... by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

      One good reason is that aluminum is a limited resource. Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years ( source).

      I don't have a copy of that book, so can't read it in context, but I still have to call bullshit on this.

      Aluminum (Aluminium for you Brits) is the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust. While smelting it is energy intensive, recycling it is significantly less so. There is so much that has already been used, and available for recycling, I can't see us running out in the next couple of centuries, if ever.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re:Awesome... by Gravatron · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I fail to see how scientists studying this are effective scientists studying agriculture tech, or people studying how to best end the violence that consumes most of the third world in some fashion.

    11. Re:Awesome... by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Funny

      People. Carbon nanotubes are made out of people.

      !

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    12. Re:Awesome... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/elabund.html

      Aluminum makes up 8% of the Earth's crust. The earth's composition of carbon appears to be much lower, the same page shows it's 0.03% of the earth's total weight. That doesn't say much of how easy it is to collect either resource, but abundance doesn't seem to be the answer. I think it's the strength-to-weight ratio that makes carbon nanotube materials interesting, but it's still pretty expensive to make.

    13. Re:Awesome... by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Funny

      If we feed them, then there will be even more demand for amluminum. That sounds like a bad idea.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    14. Re:Awesome... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      People. Carbon nanotubes are made out of people.


      And animals and plants and ... uhhh... well, there's a WHOLE lot of stuff on this planet that consists primarily of carbon. Except you. We're pretty sure you came from another planet, though.
    15. Re:Awesome... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years

      What the hell are you talking about? Aluminum is likely the most recycled metal on the planet. Why would we "run out" of something we re-use, and is the most abundant metal in the earths crust? It might get more expensive.. but we won't "run out".

      --
      AccountKiller
    16. Re:Awesome... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      People. Carbon nanotubes are made out of people.

      Oh, come on. Am I the only one that picked up on the Soylent Green reference?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    17. Re:Awesome... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not only is it abundant, but all the aluminum that gets used is still here - we're not transmuting it into lead or firing it into the sun. We'd never run out of stuff to recycle even if it wasn't so common.

    18. Re:Awesome... by kylegordon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aluminium for you Brits

      Yes, sadly we weren't subjected to the spelling errors of a certain Mr Hall...

    19. Re:Awesome... by bigdavesmith · · Score: 1

      If we ever run out of carbon...

      You may have a point though. I'd like to see a comparison of all of the materials/chemicals/energy that go into making a sheet of this, versus an equivalent amount of carbon fiber, or aluminum. I doubt it's as environmentally cool as I'm imagining it is.

    20. Re:Awesome... by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure who Mr. Hall is, or what he has to do with naming conventions and misspellings, but the original name for Aluminum was "Alumium", which got changed to "Aluminum", before going through a final contortion to become "Aluminium". All three versions were created by Sir Humphry Davy, a British chemist, and the process took roughly 5 years so some confusion over the "proper" spelling is understandable. The usage of Aluminum over Aluminium in the US seems largely due to the fact that Websters Dictionary stuck with his second version of the word.

    21. Re:Awesome... by jcaldwel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure who Mr. Hall is, or what he has to do with naming conventions and misspellings
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martin_Hall
    22. Re:Awesome... by brusk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, AND they'll want to use aluminum foil to cover the leftovers.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    23. Re:Awesome... by malakai · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. Am I the only one that picked up on the Soylent Green reference?

      no.
      you're not.
      we all got it, and thought it funny (thus the rating).

      We didn't feel a need to comment on it. We were just rolling with the deadpan nature of the comment. Which made it even more funny. Funny like your tights Captain Obvious.

    24. Re:Awesome... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Aluminum (Aluminium for you Brits) Actually in EUnified Ingleesh version 1.0 a compromise spelling has been standardised, Aluminiminmum and will be added to dictionaries on both sides of the atlantic. However, to be compatible with current Unified English 0.9 dictionaries you should probably use Aluminiminimium for a decade or so.
      --
      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;
    25. Re:Awesome... by Daath · · Score: 1

      Websters used aluminium. Hall used "aluminum" in some advertising, and it stuck, apparently. See the etymology on wikipedia...

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    26. Re:Awesome... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, there is 76e18 kg of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and crust. Aluminium, is roughly 8% of the crust. Just taking the lithosphere, that's 8% of 1.4e23 kg, or 1.12e22 kg. So there's 150 or so times more aluminium than carbon by weight. However, this is highly misleading, because: - Al needs to be refined, whereas the C doesn't so much. - A significant portion of the Al is in rock. Not ore, solid rock. Some of it is in oxide crystals, which you know better as gemstones. If you had a large pile of rubies or emeralds, would you try to extract the Aluminium from sapphire or ruby from it on a commercial scale? No, didn't think so. - Al is twice as heavy per Mol than C. - We use carbon for a lot more (e.g. fuel). - You need less C to make a woven nanotube sheet than the equivalent Al.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    27. Re:Awesome... by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Alumina is a limited resource. Aluminium is 8% of the goddamn crust, so "run out" is a question of how hard it is to extract and how worth it that is. Remember that aluminium used to be a precious metal until the electrolytic process was discovered; if there's enough money in it, it'll be extracted.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    28. Re:Awesome... by dwater · · Score: 1

      Probably much lighter than aluminum, for the same strength.

      The question I have is, how strong could it be for the same weight? Off to rtfa... Yeah, an obvious omission from the summary. This is all I could get from a cursory look at the fa :

      "
      It's the light weight of carbon nanotube wires--only about 20 percent of the weight of the same volume of copper wire--that could make them especially attractive for the aerospace industry.
      "

      but that's in a discussion of using them for wires...can't be bothered to look more closely.
      --
      Max.
    29. Re:Awesome... by trewornan · · Score: 1

      Oh no . . . if we start using carbon we'll end up with global cooling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

    30. Re:Awesome... by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      Because "science" is a monolithic bloc that can't walk and chew gum at the same time, right?

      (Really, this sounds like people who were complaining about Pluto's demotion because "all those scientists should have been curing cancer instead.")

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    31. Re:Awesome... by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1

      I will accept your source at face value; however, carbon is the 6th most abundant element in the Universe. ;-)

    32. Re:Awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe we could look to feeding the third world
      No thanks, I'd rather there be less people on this planet.
    33. Re:Awesome... by JoeInnes · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm not saying science can't walk and chew gum at the same time, I'm talking about the MONEY that's being invested into science should be lower, and the rest should be used to sort out the problems we've caused.

    34. Re:Awesome... by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you're totally wrong. Go try and buy some carbon fiber, I dare you. You won't find any. My decease friend Alex was working on P motor rockets and could not find enough carbon to make the rocket bodies for love or money. See there's this thing called the Dreamliner made by these people at Boeing and it has pretty much sucked all the carbon out of the planet while giggling at Airbus' aluminum wiring harnesses.

    35. Re:Awesome... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Without wanting to feed a troll, kick back some time, clear your mind of any preconceived notions and start thinking up funky things one might be able to do with a material such as this that is both extremely strong and extremely light.

      I'll start you off with one, bulletproof suits for everyone!

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    36. Re:Awesome... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      OTOH, this would make a wickedly light version of a tinfoil hat...

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    37. Re:Awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I agree. I wish these poor starving people in 3rd world countries would stop having babies they have no means of feeding. Some how "Lets have more babies" doesn't logical follow from "I'm starving" in my mind. If you live in a country that barely has food, you shouldn't sitting around having more babies. Natural disasters are different.

    38. Re:Awesome... by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      One good reason is that aluminum is a limited resource.

      Uhhmmm... Aluminium is ( by a considerable margin) the most abundant metal on Earth, and the third most abundant element on Earth after oxygen and silicon. It makes up 8% or the mass of the Earth's crust. We're not going to run out any time soon.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    39. Re:Awesome... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      You mean, why not use _transparant_ aluminium ? After all, that can be designed and produced using 1986 material.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    40. Re:Awesome... by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      http://www.acp-composites.com/ACP-CAT.HTM
      what exactly were you looking for?

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    41. Re:Awesome... by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      now _that's_ funny.

    42. Re:Awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOOOOSH!

    43. Re:Awesome... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, Mr. Friendly, at the time I commented the OP was rated +1, and I thought it was worth more.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    44. Re:Awesome... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      umm aluminum is the most common metal on earth... the only things more common on earth are Oxygen and silicon. there is less carbon than aluminum man... your book says '200 years left' what a shoddy scientist, that's just the projected lifespan of the mines we are operating, there is WAY more aluminum out there way more... because of how light aluminum is it's almost all in the crust. so it's all fairly accessible as deep mining techniques are improved there are countless deposits of aluminum around the world and under the oceans, endless endless amounts of the stuff.

      the problem is it takes a lot of electricity to make it, we might not have the energy in 200 years to keep making aluminum. 8.13% of the earth's crust is aluminum. not bauxite, aluminum, it is in the bauxite, but the percentage number is only the amount of aluminum in the bauxite.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

    45. Re:Awesome... by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, so you're assuming that money spent on science is ipso facto not being spent on trying to solve the world's problems. That's at least as broken a line of reasoning.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
  2. Ballistic carbon computing by Prysorra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Rudimentary quantum computing can be done with the ballistic nature of how electrons flow through a sheet of graphene, or in this case, a carbon nanotube. Expect to see computing related articles.

    If you don't understand what it mean to say that electrons move in a "ballistic" manner through these nanotubes, imagine that cool trick your math teach showed you in high school with marbles and pegs making a bell curve. Now imagine being able to change the outcome by removing a lot of peg, and then making your computer understand the results.

    1. Re:Ballistic carbon computing by hughperkins · · Score: 3, Informative
  3. Mistake in Article? by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

    So, on average even aluminum is stronger than this material? Aluminum is a very soft metal. It must be a mistake in the article...

    1. Re:Mistake in Article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps aluminum is soft among metals and ceramics, but a large sheet of carbon with this kind of tensile strength is pretty novel.

    2. Re:Mistake in Article? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      so basically it will have to compete with Balsa wood and Stika Spruce.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Mistake in Article? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pure aluminum is soft, aircraft grade aluminum (and virtually all aluminum used in the real world) is alloyed with other elements, greatly increasing its strength.

      Here's a breakdown of the composition of Aluminum Alloy 6061 to give you an idea...

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    4. Re:Mistake in Article? by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      tensile strength != toughness. And, unfortunately, aluminum is not particularly ductile. At least, not when compared to, say, steel.

      But aluminum does have a very good strength to weight ratio. Also, it doesn't rust. Instead it forms an oxide layer which prevents further oxidation.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Mistake in Article? by JLF65 · · Score: 1

      Uh... rust is just the oxide layer on the boundary of the metal. So saying aluminum doesn't rust, it just oxidizes, is contradicting yourself. :)

    6. Re:Mistake in Article? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      What aluminum doesn't do, but steel does, is rust through. Iron rust exposes more iron to the air, and eventually you've got a nice pile of barn pigment. Note that progress in alloys has developed mixtures that are resistant to this.

      Aluminum however just forms that oxide layer, then it stops. A thin layer of oxide prevents any further oxidation (at least until you scratch it, or go hella crazy with the polishing compound.)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  4. Series of Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    composed of a series of nanotubes

    Wait, hold on... I thought we were talking about the internet... ?

    1. Re:Series of Tubes by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Wait, hold on... I thought we were talking about the internet... ?

      We are. An Internet for bacteria.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Series of Tubes by westcoast+philly · · Score: 1

      no... the NANOnet. It's a nanoseries of nanotubes.
      just make sure they don't get nano-clogged.

  5. Forget electromagnetic shielding by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this stuff is as strong as aluminum, why aren't we using it to actually build things like cars and buildings?

    Has anyone leaked the details of how their process works beyond the little 'teaser' in the article? Could it be scaled down to personal size? Im thinking it would be great to add their process to a home 3D printer.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If this stuff is as strong as aluminum, why aren't we using it to actually build things like cars and buildings?

      Because they are just learning how to create and manipulate such materials? Your question is like a bronze age smith who knows that small bits of iron can be found and worked saying "How come we haven't replaced bronze with this stuff yet?" It's an engineering challenge is all. As production techniques improve it will be easier and cheaper to make.

      Also, note that it's just the tensile strength that is comparable to aluminum. They said nothing about it's shear strength or rigidity.

    2. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They can produce 1, 3 foot by 6 foot sheets per day. Granted they could create more machines, and have more companies producing it, but at current rates, it would take far too long to produce anywhere near the necessary amount to be able to use this in commercial applications.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by Azarael · · Score: 2, Informative

      The property mentioned in the article is only covers one property of the material. Different types of Carbon Fiber are already being used for sports car bodies, bicycles and countless other things. In the case of bicycles, yes carbon fiber allows you to create a light frame, but from what I understand, aluminum frames are still stiffer, more shock absorbent, more durable and most importantly, more cost effective. Until carbon materials can match aluminum in these properties, and in cost effectiveness, aluminum isn't going anywhere.

    4. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      or it's fatigue characteristics.

      --
      Deleted
    5. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by kuhneng · · Score: 4, Informative

      For bikes, aluminum frames are certainly stiffer, but they're substantially less shock absorbing.

      One of the reasons carbon fiber is used is the ability to choose different properties on different axes. Many cyclists want a frame that absorbs road vibration (longitudinally flexible) while being as stiff as possible laterally to transmit pedaling force efficiently and maneuver aggressively.

    6. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by hughperkins · · Score: 1

      Currently, the main target uses are electrical. From the article:

      "So what do you do with the stuff once you've made it? Antoinette says the sheets would be particularly good for shielding electronic components from electromagnetic interference. He's talked to manufacturers of cell phones and PDAs who are looking at the material as something they could use to build handsets that are less vulnerable to the noise from stray transmissions. It might also make a nice housing for a computer, with aligned nanotubes acting as an antenna for wireless connections and randomly oriented nanotubes protecting the computer from electrical surges, while the material also dissipates heat from the processor."

    7. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by FIT_Entry1 · · Score: 0

      It relies on the Van der Waals force I believe.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

    8. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      This is probably a stupid question on my part no doubt, but why would we want cars to be made of harder materials than they are already?

      Wouldn't a safer car be one that's so soft that even if it hits you it's like a pillow hitting you? Meaning the least hard possible is preferable?

    9. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by trewornan · · Score: 1

      Which raises the interesting question of how flammable this stuff is (or maybe it's inflammmable).

    10. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      This is probably a stupid question on my part no doubt, but why would we want cars to be made of harder materials than they are already?

      Wouldn't a safer car be one that's so soft that even if it hits you it's like a pillow hitting you? Meaning the least hard possible is preferable?


      You can afford to sacrifice strength in the skin of a car, but you can't so much when you're dealing with something like its engine which is less forgiving with that sort of thing. A car with all the give of Tupperware would be fine if that was the part that hit you, but that does make it easier for you to get force-fed a carburator, which would be somewhat inconvenient.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    11. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by bughunter · · Score: 1
      It doesn't matter what we do with it...

      As long as we make a lot of it, and use it to sequester atmospheric carbon (from CO2 and CH4, natch, yielding 2 H2O).

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    12. Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Depends on the aluminum frame: did you ever ride an old Vitus 979 or Alan? Not stiff.
      Stiffness is dependent on the modulus of elasticity and the cube of the tube diameter (basically.) Gary Klein figured out that large, thin-wall aluminum would allow you to build a frame that retained the stiffness of steel while lowering the weight, by vastly increasing the diameter of the tube. Since aluminum has a similar *specific* modulus of elasticity of steel (the modulus divided by the density) but has a lower density, it does well with this. Magnesium would be even better, and beryllium, which has an anomalously high specific modulus of elasticity, would be fabulous. (The only frames I've ever seen made of beryllium were done by the old American Bicycle Company and cost on the order of $20k each.)

      Personally, I think the old Italian bikes had it right: soft fork, short stiff frame, so the fork soaks up the front wheel vibration, which is harsher than the rear wheel since it's in front of the center of mass. I love my Cannondale but after a couple hours I think I'm going to pee blood, while my old steel Gios is still comfortable after a 200 km ride.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  6. Does Ted Stevens know about this? by longacre · · Score: 3, Funny

    Conceivably now a big truck AND the Internet could be fabricated out of a series of tubes!

    1. Re:Does Ted Stevens know about this? by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Conceivably now a big truck AND the Internet could be fabricated out of a series of tubes!
      And shielding to protect us from simile overload!
    2. Re:Does Ted Stevens know about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was not funny.

    3. Re:Does Ted Stevens know about this? by longacre · · Score: 1

      Didn't mean to offend you, Senator.

  7. Tagged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriesofnanotubes

  8. Didn't nanotubes explode with flash photography? by tassii · · Score: 1

    Do we really want an airplane that will explode if some coherent light hits it?

    --
    "I drank what?" - Socrates
  9. Availibility by UDGags · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (First off I work in this area) I know one we have tried purchasing these sheets in the past a couple time and have not been able to. They might be able to make them but the availability is still very low for any research or products.

  10. i want one by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Funny

    to replace my tinfoil hat...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  11. Price tag ?? by nicolas.bouthors · · Score: 1

    I didn't see any price tag in the article. Everything depends now on that I guess. If it comes cheap then horray, to infinity and beyond we go !

  12. MacBook by ack_call · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want my next MacBook to be made out of this stuff.

    1. Re:MacBook by garlicbready · · Score: 1

      How about a flying car, with an embedded macbook all made of this stuff?

      bah where's my orbital elevator damnit!

    2. Re:MacBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A beowulf cluster of flying cars with embedded macbooks made of carbon nanotubes.

    3. Re:MacBook by StarReaver · · Score: 0

      Apple has found a new way to keep us from reaching the innards of an iPod...

  13. Hydrogen storage by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    I'm much more excited about the possibilities for hydrogen storage rather than new construction material.

    Poke around a bit and see what I mean.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Hydrogen storage by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      hydrogen wont do consumers much good unless someone finds a way to extract it economically enough and in mass quantities to replace gasoline (for automobiles)...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  14. Re:Didn't nanotubes explode with flash photography by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems you're correct correct- do you suppose they've gotten around this?

  15. mass by overcaffein8d · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A sheet of aluminum of equivalent thickness, for comparison, has a strength of 500 megapascals. Thickness, yes, but what about mass?
    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    1. Re:mass by kryten_nl · · Score: 1

      Indeed. When comparing materials based on the maximum tensile stress (pulling), knowing the thickness is about as useful as knowing what the tester had for breakfast. Stress is defined as {force}/{cross-sectional area}.

      Btw having read the article, I can definitely say that, in a company of engineers the interviewer has managed to find the one person fluent in marketing-speak.

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    2. Re:mass by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      density of carbon nanotubes: 2.6 grams/cm^3 density of aluminum: ~2.7 grams/cm^3 mass=density*volume and assuming the shapes are the same and thickness is the same, so is the volume and in this case nanotubes are slightly less dense than aluminum therfore less mass, and therefore lighter.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:mass by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      hmm, if I compare how carbon fibre (with considerable lower mass needed for similar strength) has remained a premium product whereas in the same time aluminium has become more of a commodity in e.g. the automotive field, I wonder if this small difference in density will be worth the effort. Maybe when it will become possible to create complete parts made out of correctly aligned tubes in one go it will see an application. Or in special situations, how good can it resist sheering/grinding? Still, you need a manufacturing process with reproducible quality to be able to test these things, so we'll find out soon enough.

      In any case, expect this stuff to become a hit in the premium bike/automotive/sailing/fishing market, any of those hobbies were materials are often chosen mostly because you can brag about it to your fellow hobbyists.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  16. I see a great application for genetic algorithms by greg_barton · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    A computer controlling about 30 different parameters in the process--including temperature, temperature gradient, gas flow rates, and the chemistry of the mix--allows the builders to control the properties of the tubes.

    A genetic algorithm is a great way to optimize a set of parameters. If they can find a way to test parameter sets quickly this would be a great opportunity to use a GA to find the best parameters, especially given that there's so many of them.
  17. Aluminum is plentiful, you're thinking bauxite. by ahfoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bauxite isn't even a mineral. It's just a common industrial name for a kind of rock that includes a variety of minerals and is the most efficient way to produce aluminum using existing technologies. Any clay soil contains large quantities of aluminum. When the great clay shortage hits, I'm sure we'll have plenty of advance notice.

  18. Re:Didn't nanotubes explode with flash photography by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Informative

    First off, they don't explode all at once, they explode tube by tube and the explosions are very small. It takes a fairly powerful direct laser strike to cause this to happen. I.E. a hand-held laser pointed at a plane will be about as useful as shooting a BB gun at it.

    Second... I guess you've never heard of... paint.

    And finally... not all carbon nanotubes are created equally.

    FUD.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  19. Gettin close! by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    They beat us to physics, but if we can finish the space elevator we still have a chance! :p

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  20. It's a series of tubes... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    If they make the tubes longer, the tensile strength could go WAY up from there...

  21. Will it blend? by imbaczek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Determining the toxicity of carbon nanotubes has been one of the most pressing questions in Nanotechnology. Results from various scientific tests on cells have so far proven confusing, with some results indicating it to be highly toxic and others showing no signs of toxicity. This is primarily because of difficulties arising in spotting the nanotubes entering the cells from other carbon-based cell structures such as membranes. A recent research led by Alexandra Porter from the University of Cambridge shows once they are inside the cell, they accumulate in the cytoplasm and cause cell death.
    Carbon nanosmoke. Don't breathe this!

    (source: wikipedia.)
  22. Re:Space elevator? by Torvaun · · Score: 1

    No. CNTs are only strong in one direction, and you need at least two directions for a space elevator. If you tried, it would crumple or fall over.

    --
    I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  23. Not necessarily relevant by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It depends a lot on the properties of the material. For example, while aluminum sheets are made of microscopic crystals, there is little danger of breathing significant amounts of aluminum unless you spend a lot of work processing it into a fine powder first. These sheets may be the same way. Who knows? We don't.

  24. Not necessarily by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    First off, they might only have great tensile strength in one direction, but in this case they are randomly oriented. So the measured tensile strength of the sheet should apply in any direction. But that is probably not relevant to a space elevator anyway, because:

    A space elevator does not "stand" on the ground, bearing all that weight. Rather, the space end is at sufficient distance to PULL it up (considerably higher than synchronous-orbit height). The elevator is under tension, not compression. And the vast majority of that tension is in one direction!

    1. Re:Not necessarily by ruinevil · · Score: 1

      Pull it up towards what? Gravity is the attraction between two points in mass. If there is no closer or heavier body of mass, the weight will still be towards the earth, though it will be weaker at the top.

    2. Re:Not necessarily by Nullav · · Score: 1

      With the planet spinning, wouldn't the elevator be more or less slung outwards, in effect 'pulling' it at the area least influenced by the Earth's gravity?

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  25. As with so many things... by absurdist · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...you Brits invented the language.

    We Americans perfected it.

    *ducks*

    1. Re:As with so many things... by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      ...you Brits invented the language.
      We Americans perfected it.
      *ducks*

      s/perfected/never learned/

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    2. Re:As with so many things... by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      We British invented the language.

      You Americans perverted it.

      --
      Goten Xiao
    3. Re:As with so many things... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      As a native English speaker that is neither British nor American, I should point out that no-one speaks English "correctly" since we don't have a formal definition for our language (unlike many other languages, especially in Europe).

      The history of English is also so incredibly strange that only a madman would consider it a sensible language to use at all, given the choice between it and almost anything else. It's a Germanic language (possibly even fair to say "Old Germanic DIALECT") that was heavily perverted by the old/middle French language immediately following the Norman invasion of England and then to resolve the many discrepancies that arose from that got twisted even more.
      I don't think it's fair to say that the British "invented" the language - it's more that they just happened to be the ones that were there and speaking it without very much thought in to what was going on (which really, is how most languages develop). Certainly no-one deliberately took the local Germanic language and the ruling Francophonic language and then cleverly merged the two - it just sort of globbed together in to the hideous thing that we have now.

      Ever noticed that we have two or more words for almost every noun and verb in our language? And in some cases we have words for a product of something being totally unrelated to the something itself (such as animal/meat, where generally speaking the animal is Germanic origin (e.g. "Cow") and the meat is French origin (e.g. "Beef")). This whole mess comes from an upper class speaking a sort of French dialect with the lower class speaking a sort of Germanic dialect and then a slow and painful fusing of the two.
      And on top of that, we have so many defective verbs ("shall" anyone?), broken plurals ("data", "agenda" etc) and confusing cases ("I saw a man eating shark" - is the shark a man-eater, or is it a man that is consuming shark meat?) that it's a strange wonder anyone that didn't grow up with it can handle it at all.
      And don't even get me started on the many regional dialects that we have and many refuse to admit. Even aside from the accent, I think many Americans would have a lot of trouble with Scottish English, and I know that Australians have a hard time with some New Zealand phrases, despite being close neighbours.

      And then our spelling! Oh woe for the poor people that are forced to learn it. English spelling began to become somewhat standardised at a time that we had a different pronunciation for many of our words (early Middle English), and thus the spelling we use now barely matches how we actually say the words (The thought of a bough through a cough is rough, although I have had enough!)

      Ah yes, I am a native English speaker, and I am quite happy to say that it is the least sensible language I know! (I also speak Dutch, German, French and a smattering of several other languages (Japanese, Maori, Tongan), all of which have their deficiencies, but are all FAR "cleaner" than English)

      Right, there's my TOTALLY off-topic rant. Mods: please don't be too harsh on me!

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    4. Re:As with so many things... by JoeInnes · · Score: 1

      Such as, say, Rugby? You take a perfectly good sport, give people armour, require a pause between EACH phase, and make it so dull as to be unwatchable. That, and for example, tea? Take a perfectly good drink, swap milk for cream, and put in twenty odd sugars. The only thing you do better than us is war, and that's purely because you've got more resources to throw at it... We should come over there and sort you out ;o)

    5. Re:As with so many things... by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

      "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." James D. Nicoll

    6. Re:As with so many things... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ...you Brits invented the language.

      We Americans destroyed it.
      You misspelled something, not hard to understand why, with American schooling being what it is.
      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  26. Hmmmm. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    So, we have to have a way to produce h2 economically, which is normally just stripping it from natural gas and then releasing CO2. Assuming that we can find a cheap way to split water (which we do not have yet), then you have the issue of conversion. Assume a ICE for this. Basically, you have the same damnable low efficency of a gas or diesel ICE. Of course, we can do Fuel cells, but they are expensive and require constant maintenence. All in all, by the time that these systems come about, The world will be on electric cars and trucks. As it is, white star, the volt, and hopefully a GM adopted version of Telsa will be making the rounds by 2010. At that point, few will want something as inefficient as hydrogen.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  27. insufficient for space elevator by nguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    So this is 1-2GPa tensile strength. We need about 60-100GPa tensile strength for a space elevator.

    1. Re:insufficient for space elevator by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      Space elevators are still out until a cable made out of a continuous single fiber of nanotubes can be fabricated, then woven into a braid capable of withstanding the extreme environment of near-space and space itself. We're not talking a regular 5-strand weave here folks, this new weave will need to be able to resolve any problems by itself. If that cable fails, we're talking 200+ miles of weighty fiber and payload coming down onto the ground at terminal velocity. Even with the light weight to length ratio, we're talking metric tons of fiber impacting the ground at 80MPH.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    2. Re:insufficient for space elevator by chaim79 · · Score: 1

      In the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanly Robinson that exact thing happened. The space elevator was actually designed to use a small moon as the counterweight (instead of simply using the weight of the elevator itself), in a revolt they blew up the connection between the moon and the elevator, sending the moon out into space and causing the elevator to come down. The length of the elevator was still sufficient to wrap around mars 2x and was effected by the spin of the planet into incredible speed and force. I don't know what sources were used in the writing of that event but it sounds like if there is a failure of the elevator it may not fall straight down but start falling in a line... and doing some major damage.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    3. Re:insufficient for space elevator by nguy · · Score: 1

      That's pure fiction, and bad fiction at that. It doesn't matter how you slice it or dice it, the change in angular momentum depends on the mass and the distance, and while a space elevator has a significant mass, it's negligible compared to the planet. And it wouldn't do much damage while falling either: most of it would burn up.

  28. Tensile strength likely to be wrong by PeterPiper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I strongly suspect that the tensile strength quoted is actually a typo by the reporter. Either that or he got his facts seriously wrong. It is unfathomable to me how a sheet of carbon nanotubes would be LESS strong than an equivalent sheet of aluminum. And any company that created such a wimpy sheet of nanotubes sure wouldn't be boasting about it.

    --
    Peter
    1. Re:Tensile strength likely to be wrong by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

      They're not boasting about how strong it is, they are boasting about creating a sheet large enough to be practical of a very promising material. The first cars were slower than horses, people boasted about them anyway.

    2. Re:Tensile strength likely to be wrong by aug24 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not a Material Scientist (but IAAPhysicist so here's my guess).

      The nanotubes are short and straight. Tensile failures will be 'between nanotubes' not 'of nanotubes'.

      As the tubes get longer and better aligned, you'll be absolutely right. (You may be absolutely right already of course...)

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  29. it's a start by spineboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and it's within 2 orders of magnitude to get there. Not too bad. Shouldn't be too hard to engineer, or tweak it to get there.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  30. Re:I see a great application for genetic algorithm by brusk · · Score: 1

    It would be IF they could accurately predict the outcome of a given formulation. But that assumption may not hold if our knowledge of these materials' properties is insufficient.

    --
    .sig withheld by request
  31. Re:Space elevator? by ruinevil · · Score: 1

    If you can make CNT sheets with the CNT aligned in one uniform direction, you could alternate the orientation of the sheets and glue them together ala plywood.

  32. Duh by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Pulled up toward the mass well above the synchronous orbit altitude, by centrifugal force, not gravitational force.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Duh by trewornan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're wasting your time trying to explain a space elevator to someone who's this ignorant.

  33. 300-500, but 1200 down the road by shornby · · Score: 1

    Yes, aluminum is readily available, but this carbon-based material will reach 1200 soon, which means (probably) that it will reach 3000 shortly... Assuming they get funding. Also, what about the weight difference? Do we have details on that? Aluminum isn't heavy, but probably heavier than this type of material. Since weight is one of the most critical aspects related to space travel (COST!), this could be huge if the weight is a small percentage of aluminum. Then again, what about Kevlar? S

    1. Re:300-500, but 1200 down the road by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Talk to me when it's OVER NINE THOUSAND!

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:300-500, but 1200 down the road by shornby · · Score: 1

      9000 what?

  34. Too early for a price... by argent · · Score: 1

    At one sheet per day, in a startup? Figure the annual burn of the company and divide by 365.

    1. Re:Too early for a price... by epine · · Score: 1

      One sheet *per machine* per day. Does the FA say they have only one machine?

      Most software startups have a lot less than one sheet per day to show for themselves during the pilot phase, unless you're counting bug reports, incomplete features, or functionality postponements.

    2. Re:Too early for a price... by argent · · Score: 1

      I think I should have included a smiley or something. What's the smiley for "irony"?

      The point is that they haven't found out, yet, how far it can be practically scaled up or how strong they can make it. Any number you come up with could easily be off by five decimal orders of magnitude.

  35. sheets of stuff by cynvision · · Score: 1

    This takes me back to the Star Trek movie with the whales. I hear "carbon" and think "black" like some of the bubbly experiments my science teacher showed. How possible is it for this stuff to be transparent/translucent? Is this the science that is the RL equivalent of the Star Trek fictional "transparent aluminum?" Simply in 40 years the "base" cutting edge technology went from super metals to super microfibers.

    --
    "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
    1. Re:sheets of stuff by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I hear "carbon" and think "black" like some of the bubbly experiments my science teacher showed.

      Carbon is black when it's in the form of graphite, like in a pencil, or in a lump of coal. When it's in the form of diamond, it's transparent.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:sheets of stuff by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Is this the science that is the RL equivalent of the Star Trek fictional "transparent aluminum? Answer = No because Transparent Aluminum already exists.
      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    3. Re:sheets of stuff by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Bad Ettiqute but Transparent Aluminum cost is 8x that of Armored Glass but it's still being developed by Military Interests as it's stronger/lighter then Armored Glass in Aircraft and should soon make its way into ground vehicles (think Hummers/armored cars).

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  36. Re:Space elevator? by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

    also what about the next step after the plywood type of cnt-sheets, woven cnts.

  37. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These tube thingys are made of something they call " Carbon ", am I right?
    And they may be made stronger than that " Aluminum " stuff?

    So... if they make beer cans from these, are we going to have to use those " Glass " beer bottles when nobody can open the cans?

    Also, if they are made of this " Carbon " stuff, where are they going to get a clean source of " Carbon "?
    If I understand the media reports, we ( humans ) are just storing a whole lot of it in the air all around the planet ( with some of that " Oxygen " stuff).

    So.. if I patent the idea of collecting this " Carbon Oxygen Oxygen " from the air in any fashion whatsoever, I can sue every plant in the world for infringement, and make the worlds governments pay me?
    ( Well the PLANTS don't have money you silly people, so Somebody will have to pay the money. Unless money really DOES grow on trees.)

    ( now why would i be posting anonymously? hmmmm )

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ( now why would i be posting anonymously? hmmmm ) Because you're batshit loco?
  38. ok... by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

    > If Nanocomp takes further steps to align the nanotubes, the strength jumps to 1,200 megapascals."
    anyone who knows how much we need for our space elevator???

    --
    if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  39. Re:Didn't nanotubes explode with flash photography by trewornan · · Score: 1

    Well you could paint it.

  40. Making this much nanotube material... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    ...is very important because it paves the way to make highly-advanced products that use carbon nanotubes.

    The best example of this are supercapacitor batteries that use carbon nanotubes to dramatically increase the storage capacity of the battery itself. That could make it possible for real plug-in hybrid vehicles with extremely long range or even the possibility by 2020 of a fully-electric vehicle that could seat 4-5 passenger comfortably yet have a range of around 400 km with charging times essentially the same as the time needed to fill a 16-20 gallon fuel tank on a medium-sized family car! :-)

    1. Re:Making this much nanotube material... by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      "[..] charging times essentially the same as the time needed to fill a 16-20 gallon fuel tank on a medium-sized family car"

      I am not an electrical expert at all.. but wouldn't such charging times require huge amounts of current to go through the charging wire?

      A supercapacitor is very nice.. but I would tend to say that having a large 'tank' and being able to fill it quickly are two different things.

      Anyone who can expand a bit on this?

  41. Heavier? I think not. by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I think you will find carbon is actually a little more dense than aluminium, and the numbers quoted are not compelling since heat treatable aluminium alloys are much stronger than the native metal. As for rigidity, you have somehow managed to get to be old enough to post on Slashdot without ever seeing aluminium baking foil.

    The truth is, wonder materials that are not yet in real production never actually turn out to be that wonderful. Aluminium has not replaced cast iron in many applications. Cars and ships continue to be made of mild steel. Titanium has not replaced aluminium in aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing are struggling to make large composite airframes and wings.

    When I hear a technology being touted as useful for some application that does not yet exist (such as solar sails) my bullshit detector switches up 6 ranges and still goes into overload. If a new technology does not offer significant benefits on an established volume engineering problem, it will fail to get traction.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  42. How to reduce aluminium to a fine powder by patio11 · · Score: 1

    >>
    For example, while aluminum sheets are made of microscopic crystals, there is little danger of breathing significant amounts of aluminum unless you spend a lot of work processing it into a fine powder first.
    >>

    Step one: reduce the aluminium sheets until they fit in a BlendTec blender.
    Step two: turn blender on.
    Step three: dump out on table, being careful to avoid aluminium nanosmoke.
    Step four: play annoying end of video sound.

  43. Very Strong Aluminium by impactor · · Score: 1

    Just thought id point out aluminium doesn't have an ultimate tensile strength of 500 MPa. Depending on heat treatment, you might be lucky to get 500 MPa, but usually it's close to 200-300 MPa.