Slashdot Mirror


Buckypaper — Out of the Lab, Into the Market

doomsdaywire writes "Buckypaper isn't exactly news to anyone here. However, this article quotes Ben Wang, director of Florida State's High-Performance Materials Institute, saying, 'Our plan is perhaps in the next 12 months we'll begin maybe to have some commercial products.' The article continues: '"If this thing goes into production, this very well could be a very, very game-changing or revolutionary technology to the aerospace business," said Les Kramer, chief technologist for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which is helping fund the Florida State research. ... The long-range goal is to build planes, automobiles and other things with buckypaper composites. The military also is looking at it for use in armor plating and stealth technology.'"

125 comments

  1. Re:lowest form of joke by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

    news, read? /. ???
    WTF is buckypaper?

    --
    Go go Gadget Nailgun!
  2. The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The President has been in strict opposition to the use of buckypaper in aerospace applications, especially in the construction of the next Air Force 1. He noted "the buck stops here."

    1. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad he won't be president for much longer.

    2. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still have enough time for a Constitutional amendment to make him President-for-life! Who's with me?

    3. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad he won't be president for much longer.

      You are magnificently retarded. Have you figured out why yet?

  3. maybe by cheebie · · Score: 4, Funny

    My plan is perhaps in the next 12 months I'll begin maybe to believe this is something more than vaporware.

    1. Re:maybe by MRe_nl · · Score: 0

      See also this sentence from TFA
      "important progress that may soon turn hype into reality."
      Still, good stuff.
      Homer:"Hmmm, buckypaper..."

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't be vaporware, it is made of tubes!

  4. lowest form of paper. by Ostracus · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:lowest form of paper. by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      From that link:

      "These guys have actually demonstrated materials that are capable of being used on flying systems," said Adams, director of Rice's Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology. "Having something that you can hold in your hand is an accomplishment in nanotechnology."

      I don't know about that, I'd say they're doing nanotechnology wrong if you can hold it in your hand and see it.

    2. Re:lowest form of paper. by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      Nanotechnology.

      Its the next big thing.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  5. Oh wonderful by damburger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Nanotech. A whole new zoo of materials, significantly different in their properties from the same stuff in macro form, but that isn't in itself regulated.

    This could turn into another DDT

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Oh wonderful by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Oh wonderful by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrible, isn't it? People doing things without permission! Unregulated activity! We must bring this irresponsible "scientific research" under government control! After all, we know that government can be trusted to never do anything irresponsible such as, oh, I don't know, maybe spraying crowds of people with poison gas or setting off nuclear explosives in the atmosphere? And no government would ever enslave large numbers of young men and send them off to try to kill young men similarly enslaved by another government. No. Let's have government control everything. We know we can trust them, after all. Just look at history.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Oh wonderful by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!

      "Fire engulfed the forest, boiled into the night, then neatly put itself out, as all unscheduled fires over a certain size are now required to do by law." -- Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless", Chapter 11.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Oh wonderful by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I hereby dub thee "+10 Fear Monger"

    5. Re:Oh wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you have them in compounds of macro size, all is well. All their properties will be very similar to "normal" macro-sized material, or let's say, adhere to laws observed in macros-sized particles.
      But if individual particles are smaller than dust particles, they might kill you.
      Do nasty stuff inside your lungs, cause incendiary reactions, etc.

      Captcha: portions.
      lol.

    6. Re:Oh wonderful by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Success is not defined by possibilities but by acceptable consequences. I see no consequences (like what happens when you aspirate bits of charred buckypaper) and therefore I say those developing are irresponsible. Lots of that going around.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    7. Re:Oh wonderful by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually it may be that we've learned our lesson. Even though nanotechnology is still a very nascent field, serious efforts are already underway to measure the health effects and safety concerns for these kinds of materials. For instance, in the United States, NIOSH (a branch of the CDC tasked with evaluating work-related risks) has an effort underway to quantify the effects of nano-materials on people (link). There are similar efforts worldwide for this "NanoEHS" issue (e.g. this).

      Only time will tell, of course. But as someone working in the broad field of "nano", I can say that health, safety, and environmental impact are already a part of our research plans. There are considerable efforts to make sure we understand the impact of these materials before sending them to market. Also, since we are the ones working with these materials daily, we are certainly concerned with any possible toxicity.

      Mistakes may still be made (e.g. a product released ends up having an unforeseen interaction with some other material/drug/etc.), but presently it seems that agencies are being appropriately proactive in terms of assessing risk before commercialization is even a serious consideration.

    8. Re:Oh wonderful by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually fire is regulated in a lot of places. i just recently got back from Yosemite and they have strict regulations in the park about where you can or can't start fires.

      you can't just start fires anywhere you want. arson is still a crime AFAIK.

    9. Re:Oh wonderful by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So we should all just squat in the mud until the sun goes out, living in grass huts and eating windfalls (but only in the manner of our grandfathers: Don't you dare do anything new.)

      If you believe that carbon nanotubes are dangerous get some (they are available for sale) and demonstrate their hazardous nature in controlled experiments. BTW buckyballs and carbon nanotubes occur naturally in soot. You might want to look into outlawing fire.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    10. Re:Oh wonderful by damburger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Except, you ignorant fucktard, DDT is still in use in places where the risk of malaria is higher than the risks from DDT. But don't let me get in the way of your mindless knucle-dragging hippie-bashing with niggling little facts.

      I am not saying ban them. Don't make shit up. They simply need to be regulated as their own chemicals, as all existing chemicals are before they reach the market. The governments of the world haven't caught up with the fact nanomaterials are different from macromaterials. Thats all. No need to whip out your right-wing talking points.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    11. Re:Oh wonderful by damburger · · Score: 0

      Retard. As if businesses aren't even more irresponsible.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    12. Re:Oh wonderful by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Whatever that means. You're not even talking about the same thing.

      What's worse you advocate (the equivalent of) Joe Schmo trying to prove that a wooden heart valve can be made to be as durable as a porcine by conducting his own experiments on dogs or that it's adviseable for him to try to show that cyanide can make a perfectly acceptable fuel source by building test engines and driving around the neighborhood? Just wow.

      One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution. You might want to get out of the mud.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    13. Re:Oh wonderful by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While it is true that it is illegal to set other people's property on fire without their permission, I don't need a license to light up my barbecue, turn on my furnace, or use my acetylene torch (and the latter, correctly adjusted, can generate quite a few buckyballs and nanotubes).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    14. Re:Oh wonderful by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      They simply need to be regulated as their own chemicals, as all existing chemicals are before they reach the market.

      So if I'm on a desert island, I'm not allowed to try to make fire with plant oils, because there's no government around to tell me it's ok? Nonsense. Regulations such as this are unjustifiable rights violations. If someone pollutes your property, you can sue for compensation and they will be forced to stop, but you cannot justify your "preemptive lawsuit".

    15. Re:Oh wonderful by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      That's an argument for regulation of the government too... as indeed many sane countries do.

      Lack of regulation is just anarchy. People only like it when they feel they can make the most of it and "win" at the expense of others.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    16. Re:Oh wonderful by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean the stuff that was damaging the Peregrine Falcon's eggs, and was later banned, only to have us find out that the eggs became even softer AFTER the ban? The eggs were soft because of PCB.

      Bird populations were INCREASING before the ban, and decreased right after the ban.

      DDT does not build up in animal tissue.

      DDT is not harmful to humans.

      DDT would save tons of lives.

    17. Re:Oh wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should all just squat in the mud until the sun goes out, living in grass huts and eating windfalls (but only in the manner of our grandfathers: Don't you dare do anything new.)

      Straw man arguments are lies.

    18. Re:Oh wonderful by swimin · · Score: 1

      But you probably do need a license to burn that stump sitting in your yard.

    19. Re:Oh wonderful by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Hmm... there is a case right now of an organic produce farmer who sued his neighboring conventional farmer due to pesticide drift onto his organic fields, thus threatening the organicness of his enterprise. He sued, and won a $1 million award. The conventional farmer is not too happy, especially since he applied the pesticides in a legal fashion, conforming to the rules and regulations at the time, which were not in question...

      It was interesting reading this in last week's Capital Press...

      Not sure how I feel about this. It raises all sorts of issues, like "well, X was there before Y", etc.

      But, what if you had an asthmatic child, and your neighbor, with permits and all the other blessing from the governmental authorities, had a large brush-pile fire, and the wind happened to blow the smoke at your house for several hours, and the resulting smoke caused your child to have a severe asthma reaction? Who's at fault, then?

      But is it inherently different than having a tree on your property fall and damage neighbor's property... it's your tree, and your responsibility, even if the government just a month before sent out an arborist who declared the tree healthy and sound?
       

    20. Re:Oh wonderful by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it in Stephenson's "Diamond Age" that all nanotech had to be chemically inert and had to decompose within a limited time period?

      --
      We are all just people.
    21. Re:Oh wonderful by mike.rimov · · Score: 1

      >Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!

      Fires don't burn down forests.

      Squirrels on fire burn down forests. :)

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/14/state/n100513D39.DTL

    22. Re:Oh wonderful by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This stuff is great but it needs to be carefully regulated so we don't end up with an asbestosis-like problem down the road.

      Government regulation is a good thing, when it comes to things like OSHA and the FDA. I don't think that the capitalist free market will put worker safety first when it comes to manufacturing a hazardous product (Bhopal, anyone), so its up to our governments to protect us from overzealous exploitation of wonderful new things.

      Maybe nanotubes are not hazardous, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

    23. Re:Oh wonderful by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      there are different types/degrees of regulation. you don't need a license to drink a beer, but you do need a license to dispense it in a commercial establishment.

      likewise, you don't need a license to sell or produce food products, but they're still regulated by the FDA. i think the OP voices some legitimate concerns. just look at the condition of food and drug safety before the FDA was formed. and it is possible for ordinarily safe chemicals to become hazardous to one's health if manufactured in the nano scale.

      it's no reason to ban all nanotechnology, but perhaps the government needs to initiate some research into the safety of nanomaterials.

    24. Re:Oh wonderful by hurfy · · Score: 1

      "BTW buckyballs and carbon nanotubes occur naturally in soot. You might want to look into outlawing fire."

      Too late

      You can't generally use a wood burning stove at many times of the year here because of the ..umm... particulates emitted !?!

      ((hmm, time to update Firefox dictionary. It has buckboards but not buckyballs,lol))

    25. Re:Oh wonderful by budgenator · · Score: 1

      What's so bad about DDT? It's one of the safest pesticides there is for indoor use. Irrational fear of DDT has caused millions to die from malaria, a disease that once was all most eradicated.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    26. Re:Oh wonderful by budgenator · · Score: 1

      But is it inherently different than having a tree on your property fall and damage neighbor's property... it's your tree, and your responsibility, even if the government just a month before sent out an arborist who declared the tree healthy and sound?

      A tree falling is generally considered an act of god, but the specifics of a situation can vary wildly from area to area.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    27. Re:Oh wonderful by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      I think in all of these cases, it depends on you showing evidence that you reasonably tried to prevent any rights violations from occurring. You may still have to pay damages, depending on the severity of your negligence (e.g. if the tree that fell was one for which you had sawed almost completely through the trunk, and then let it sit there waiting for the slightest breeze to push it over). If you planted your garden on your property boundary, and then flooded it in pesticide without putting underground boundaries/drainage in place, you should likewise be seen as negligent if damages occurred on the neighbor's property.

    28. Re:Oh wonderful by khallow · · Score: 1

      One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution. You might want to get out of the mud.

      No. Science is not very effective at considering consequences. A market based approach is far superior.

    29. Re:Oh wonderful by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      I don't need a license to light up my barbecue, turn on my furnace
       

      I see you either:

      A- Don't live in California.

      B- Don't follow the letter of the law too closely.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    30. Re:Oh wonderful by ElectricRook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution.

      No... Considering the consequences is _not_ part of the scientific method.

      While considering the consequences is a vital step. Consequences falls under the category of value judgments, and are part of the political method.

      It is vital that politics be kept out of the scientific method. If we allow the scientific method to be polluted by politics, Science will not be able to help us solve problems. Look at what happened to Mr Galileo Galilei in the era when politics controlled science.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    31. Re:Oh wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "You mean the stuff that was damaging the Peregrine Falcon's eggs, and was later banned, only to have us find out that the eggs became even softer AFTER the ban?"

      DDT and its byproducts persist in the environment for *years*, and they would persist in the fatty tissues of any falcon for the rest of their lives, continuing to affect egg shell thickness long after it stopped getting introduced into the environment and their food. A lag between a ban on the use of DDT and the return of peregrine falcon eggshell thickness is entirely expected. (Also, the ban occurred in the U.S. initially, but DDT was still being used in Mexico where many of the birds winter -- so they were still getting exposed).

      While it is true that careful and targeted use of DDT to protect humans from malaria can save lives, it is also true that widespread use did seriously affect peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and several other bird populations. In parts of the world with heavy DDT use they almost went extinct (while populations elsewhere were unaffected). Strangely enough, these populations have recovered subsequent to the ban. There is a strong negative correlation between eggshell thickness and DDT/DDE concentrations. It has taken decades to improve because the stuff is so persistent in the environment and in animal tissues.

      I wouldn't be surprised if PCBs and other organochlorines are an issue too, but to discount the effect of DDT/DDE is to ignore an awful lot of evidence. The introduction to this paper provides some of the background (the first page is accessible for free). To suggest that there's no connection to DDT/DDE is pretty ridiculous.

      The whole point is: we don't HAVE to kill off whole other species in the process of saving humans if we use it properly (i.e. sparingly and carefully targeted).

    32. Re:Oh wonderful by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Considering the consequences _is_ part of modern science. How is the scientific method relevant to the consideration of promoting a scientific discovery (as safe or useful) in context? Just promoting the benefits without giving any caveats is simply irresponsible and wrong.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    33. Re:Oh wonderful by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Shades of gray tend to produce arbitrary boundaries.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    34. Re:Oh wonderful by MadUndergrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution. You might want to get out of the mud.

      One of the tenants of modern science is a real dick. Not only has he failed to pay his rent on time once this year, but he doesn't do jack shit to keep the place clean. It's a filthy mess. Modern science should just evict his ass.

    35. Re:Oh wonderful by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      If you think modern science isn't highly politicized based on intended audience, you aren't keeping up with civilization (since the greeks at the least).

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    36. Re:Oh wonderful by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing the point of your comment. I say nothing about policized science. I'm just saying that markets are far better at determining consequences than modern science is. Once you include the political side, the gap grows wider.

    37. Re:Oh wonderful by damburger · · Score: 1

      I'm aware that there is more awareness of potential hazards this time round than there was when petroleum chemistry first took off, but it doesn't for the moment seem to be keeping pace with the enthusiasm of commercial chemists who have in a very short space of time got a load of cool new materials to play with and, in some cases, are refusing to see any downside.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    38. Re:Oh wonderful by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing the point of your comment. Re-read the article or even the summary. Buckypaper is being treated as a product that's being marketed by a scientific study funded by a military contractor. There is no line between science and market.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    39. Re:Oh wonderful by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yes just look at the banking sector....oh wait....

    40. Re:Oh wonderful by wurp · · Score: 1

      I wish I hadn't run out of mod points yesterday.

      Clear thinking, well expressed.

    41. Re:Oh wonderful by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes, good example. Banking would absolutely suck with a scientific approach.

    42. Re:Oh wonderful by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm reading all your comments in this thread and I think I understand what you are saying. Here's my take. You refer to "modern science" on several occasions. I gather this is the collective R&D process including its impact on environment and human health. My take is that labeling this "modern science" is in error. A better term is "innovation". That's because you are including numerous other disciplines like engineering and marketing. Science, modern or otherwise discovers knowledge. Considering and using the consequences of the knowledge is not scientific research, modern or otherwise.

    43. Re:Oh wonderful by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      English semantics often suck. I'm not sure that there is a term for how science is done now. Nothing is purely "scientific method" anymore as characterizations are inherently subjective. Uncertainty and unknowns are more and more prevalent and less and less tested (or testable) for whatever reason.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    44. Re:Oh wonderful by emilper · · Score: 1

      you don't need a license to sell or produce food products

      How are things in Luna City ?

  6. Polybathroomfloorine. by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

    If a sphere that looks like a geodesic dome is bucminsterfullerine, then a tube that looks like a roll of fake PVC tiling should be called polybathroomfloorine. Except James Blish used that for a graphite-like chemical explosive already.

  7. Paper Bicycle by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    I hope they make a paper bicycle like the one in Virtual Light.

    1. Re:Paper Bicycle by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You can get carbon fiber bike frames now. Bucky paper just seems a new angle on carbon fiber.

    2. Re:Paper Bicycle by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      You can make an bike out of ordinary paper. I have a pen made of tightly-wrapped paper, its indestructible (well, I'm sure it isn't, but its very strong stuff). A paper bike is certainly feasible, if the paper core of the bike was suitably 'carbon wrapped'.

    3. Re:Paper Bicycle by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly. It's like carbon fiber, except electrically conductive and much, much stronger, and contains 50% or more actual carbon instead of the 1-5% that carbon fiber compositions currently contain (from TFA).

      So, pretty much not like carbon fiber at all except that it contains carbon.

    4. Re:Paper Bicycle by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Newspaper can be laid up just like fiberglass and is surprisingly strong. I've heard of people building racing shells out of newspaper and shellac resin for the binder. It wouldn't compare with fiberglass and epoxy resin or even polyester but it certainly would be much cheaper to purchase, so it might be stronger per dollar than fiberglass

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  8. very informative article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to the article, buckypaper "conducts electricity like copper or silicon." So it's either a conductor or an insulator.

    The article smells like roses or shit.

    1. Re:very informative article by Obyron · · Score: 3, Funny

      Clearly this is a quantum material.

      --
      --Obyron
    2. Re:very informative article by Samizdata · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or not.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    3. Re:very informative article by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article, buckypaper "conducts electricity like copper or silicon." So it's either a conductor or an insulator. The article smells like roses or shit.

      Actually, carbon nanotubes can be either metallic or semiconducting, depending on the type. (Different "types" have a different arrangement of the graphene hexagons with respect to the tube axis: zigzag, armchair, or chiral.) So it is in fact correct to say that carbon nanotubes are either conductors or semiconductors.

      Buckypaper is made of nanotubes, so it will be conducting or semiconducting depending on its composition. Most nanotube production techniques create a mixture of tube types, so most samples of buckypaper will be a mixture of metallic and semiconducting components. The final electrical properties will then of course depend on the relative inclusion of the various types. (As well as other things, like alignment of the tubes, and interactions or bridging between tubes.) This is a virtue of buckypaper, in fact, since (in principle) we can tune the electrical properties as required for a particular application (while maintaining nearly the same mechanical performance).

      (I agree that the article is poorly worded. The sentence is technically correct, but that's probably an accident.)

    4. Re:very informative article by BrentH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or both.

    5. Re:very informative article by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Schrodinger's bullshit.

      Smells like shit, AND has a the sharp, rich aroma of pure vanilla.

    6. Re:very informative article by Original+Replica · · Score: 1
      According to the article, buckypaper "conducts electricity like copper or silicon." So it's either a conductor or an insulator.

      well that will either be very good or very bad at mitgating lightning stikes if they ever make a tether for a space elevator out of this stuff.

      According to the article, buckypaper "conducts electricity like copper or silicon." So it's either a conductor or an insulator.

      Is even that strength to weight enough for a tether?

      --
      We are all just people.
    7. Re:very informative article by Original+Replica · · Score: 1
      arrgh second quote was supposed to be

      Buckypaper is 10 times lighter but potentially 500 times stronger than steel when sheets of it are stacked and pressed together to form a composite.

      --
      We are all just people.
    8. Re:very informative article by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      FFS, somebody open the damn box !

  9. ALways the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have yet to read about some invention that doesn't have some military tie-in. It seems like we don't invent things for any other purpose anymore. Is the US military really that underpowered? I doubt it.

    1. Re:Always the same by Kemanorel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the larger view, did we ever? Two things have spurred most advances in human history... War and sex. Of the two, war has been the dominant force for the large bulk of it. Even vaccines have war uses. If your army is immune to some biological agent and your enemy's is not, you can then use that agent as a weapon (unless you're playing by some arbitrary set of rules such as the Geneva Conventions - Note: I make no claim as to whether the GCs are positive or negative, but they are pretty arbitrary.). Even vaccines for chronic diseases such as polio help one's army by increasing the numbers of able-bodied workers and soldiers and decreasing the numbers of those who need support.

      So what if it is developed for military purposes? It will trickle to the private sector soon enough, just as GPS, the Internet, and carbon-fiber composites have.

      --
      Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
    2. Re:Always the same by shogarth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, it's all about sex. Invasion is always about stealing resources to make a particular leader more powerful (and thus more likely to reproduce).

      It's also a great way to acquire distant territory to which you ship off excess kids.

    3. Re:Always the same by thefekete · · Score: 1

      Two things have spurred most advances in human history... War and sex.

      Ok, I understand the military applications of bp. However, I'm a little confused as to the later...

      --
      The cool things is to have windows that bounce up and down like a good tits.
    4. Re:Always the same by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > In the larger view, did we ever? Two things have spurred most advances in human
      > history... War and sex.

      War is about sex (as are all power games) and has had a net retarding effect on technological progress. While it has had an accellerating effect in some areas it has always more than made up for it by retarding progress in others. Every innovation credtited to war would eventually have occured anyway and for every such innovation there are many others that war delayed.

      As for sex spurring advances, well, it is often said that porn drives the Internet.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  10. already on the market by Goldsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want, you can get nanotubes (in multiple forms, including buckypaper) from Unidym. This is the company which was founded by Richard Smalley. They've spent the last decade basically buying up patents and companies working with carbon nanotubes (in addition to doing their own research). If the Florida State guys have anything which isn't already covered by a Unidym patent, they'll just get bought up, or brought in, or something like that. Unidym seems to like collecting academic research partners.

    1. Re:already on the market by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 3, Funny

      OK, guys it's Friday, so lay off the Troll moderation, but picture this:

      "Hello, I'm Dick Smalley, and I specialize in production of small things!"

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:already on the market by Kemanorel · · Score: 1

      It would get a Funny if I had Mod points today.

      --
      Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
    3. Re:already on the market by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'd mod it +1 Troll, because trolls have small dicks.

    4. Re:already on the market by jagdish · · Score: 1

      However, this article quotes Ben Wang, director of Florida State's High-Performance Materials Institute..

      And I'm Ben Wang.

  11. Buckypaper + Gekco Grip = by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

    The eternal sticky note!

    Never fades, can hold-up over 200lbs.

    now, make the buckypaper into touch-sensitive photovoltaic e-buckypaper with a GB of memory or so and you have the perfect notekeeping device.

    1. Re:Buckypaper + Gekco Grip = by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Put that on gloves, and I'm going cliff climbing!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Buckypaper + Gekco Grip = by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Make spaceship hulls. Sell it through my company General Products.

  12. Mr. 9/11 by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    I know one thing: it makes proposing crashing paper airplanes into Rudy Guliani sound a tad more threatening than intended.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  13. Re:lowest form of joke by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Informative

    potential applications of buckypaper listed on Wikipedia:

    • If exposed to an electric charge, buckypaper could be used to illuminate computer and television screens. It could be more energy-efficient, lighter, and could allow for a more uniform level of brightness than current cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) technology.
    • Since carbon nanotubes are one of the most thermally conductive materials known, buckypaper lends itself to the development of heat sinks that would allow computers and other electronic equipment to disperse heat more efficiently than is currently possible. This, in turn, could lead to even greater advances in electronic miniaturization.
    • Because carbon nanotubes have an unusually high current-carrying capacity, a buckypaper film could be applied to the exteriors of airplanes. Lightning strikes then could flow around the plane and dissipate without causing damage.
    • Films also could protect electronic circuits and devices within airplanes from electromagnetic interference, which can damage equipment and alter settings. Similarly, such films could allow military aircraft to shield their electromagnetic "signatures", which can be detected via radar.
    • Buckypaper could act as a filter membrane to trap microparticles in air or fluid. Because the nanotubes in buckypaper are insoluble and can be functionalized with a variety of functional groups, they can selectively remove compounds or can act as a sensor.
    • Produced in high enough quantities and at an economically viable price, buckypaper composites could serve as an effective armor plating.
    • Buckypaper can be used to grow biological tissue, such as nerve cells. Buckypaper can be electrified or functionalized to encourage growth of specific types of cells.
    • The Poisson's ratio for carbon nanotube buckypaper can be controlled and has exhibited auxetic behaviour, capable of use as artificial muscles.

    seems to me it would be easier to produce buckypaper in the quantities required for use as a new type of electronic display or chemical filter than it would be to build an entire plane out of it.

  14. Another DDT? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This could turn into another DDT

    If by "another DDT", you mean, "another intergovernmental ban on a harmless product with great potential due to pressure from environmental hysteria, then I agree with you.

    1. Re:Another DDT? by Cheesemaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Harmless? That article refers to INDOOR USE... not the indiscriminate spraying that happened decades ago. DDT has its uses, but it is hardly harmless.

    2. Re:Another DDT? by frieko · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not harmless, nor does the article you linked suggest that. What it says is the WHO has decided it's harmless to people and that its benefits justify all the dead birds.

    3. Re:Another DDT? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      It's not harmless... it's harmless to people...

      Which is it? What you're not realizing is that anything can be harmful, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.

    4. Re:Another DDT? by frieko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is it?

      Uh.. Both. DDT is "not harmless" because it harms birds. DDT is "harmless to people" because it is... harmless to people. (practically)

      What you're not realizing is that anything can be harmful, even water

      I'm fully aware that water can be harmful. But thanks for insulting my intelligence.

      everything can be useful in the right dose.

      So I should start taking asbestos supplements? What's the useful dose?

    5. Re:Another DDT? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      So I should start taking asbestos supplements?

      Actually, that would probably be harmless - you're ingesting it, not inhaling it. In any case, I never said to do that.

      Also, inhaling minute amounts of asbestos would be harmless; inhaling too much over long periods is bad though. If it's kept wet, it would be much safer, however we'll never know what possible advances can be made with it because it's been made illegal.

    6. Re:Another DDT? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Hardly harmless?

      Care to cite any references that haven't been proven incorrect or politically motivated?

    7. Re:Another DDT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wish pete townsend would keep his nose out of this shit.

    8. Re:Another DDT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I would consider a site put together by Steven Milloy as very trustworthy... (and yes, I get the irony of linking to Wikipedia here)

    9. Re:Another DDT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's harmless to birds EXCEPT when it's massively overused by farmers.

  15. Ultimate toilet paper... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Bucky paper cleans like no other and leaves a starfish you could eat your dinner off.

    Seriously, is there anything carbon nanotubes can't do?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Ultimate toilet paper... by budgenator · · Score: 3, Funny

      survive a photographer's flash

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  16. Fishing rods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space elevator? New types of vehicle construction? Hah. Fishing rods.

    Google up some results for 'IM7', one of the current strongest epoxy graphite composite materials. Exclude 'altec' from your search results, unless you're interested in speakers. What is IM7 used for? Fishing rods.

    It's Dick Cheney's connections to the defense industry that has helped the fishing rod manufacturers get early access to such technology, I'm telling ya! The first journalist to conclusively shed some light on this shadowy connection will win a Pulitzer for sure!

  17. Interesting Caveats by dontmakemethink · · Score: 3, Funny

    There is an unusual set of warnings being distributed with Buckypaper:

    Caution: Buckypaper may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.

    Buckypaper contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

    Do not use Buckypaper on concrete.

    Discontinue use of Buckypaper if any of the following occurs:

    • itching
    • vertigo
    • dizziness
    • tingling in extremities
    • loss of balance or coordination
    • slurred speech
    • temporary blindness
    • profuse sweating
    • or heart palpitations

    If Buckypaper begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.

    Buckypaper may stick to certain types of skin.

    When not in use, Buckypaper should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of Buckypaper, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its namesake, Buckminster Fuller, of any and all liability.

    Ingredients of Buckypaper include an unknown glowing green substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.

    Buckypaper has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.

    Do not taunt Buckypaper.

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
    1. Re:Interesting Caveats by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      seriously, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that this will have long term affects similar to asbestos. It's not the chemical that's the problem but the super small, non-destructible particles that damage the fine internal tissues. They already had this problem using buckeyballs to deliver meds. I'd expect the raw fibers during processing will need to be tightly controlled. Wrapped up in epoxy it will be fine for normal use as long as it doesn't break... but if airplane wings break the passengers have bigger problems.

    2. Re:Interesting Caveats by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      seriously, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that this will have long term affects similar to asbestos. It's not the chemical that's the problem but the super small, non-destructible particles that damage the fine internal tissues. They already had this problem using buckeyballs to deliver meds. I'd expect the raw fibers during processing will need to be tightly controlled. Wrapped up in epoxy it will be fine for normal use as long as it doesn't break... but if airplane wings break the passengers have bigger problems.

      Got a reference? If so, that's a highly mod-up-worthy fact.

      Still, the amount of actual bucky-carbon that would be exposed by a crack or fracture when suspended in epoxy resin would be much lower than the common asbestos materials formerly used in construction. Asbestos is still used in high-performance brake pads because of the low exposure-to-benefit ratio. Many highly caustic materials are in common use on that basis. Hell, botulinum toxin (active ingredient in Botox) is the most toxic protein ever discovered - one gram can kill 7 million people - and millions routinely inject it into their faces.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
  18. Please think by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

    it is hardly harmless.

    The same can be said for any chemical, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.

  19. Re:PGnaa by PenGun · · Score: 1

    So what language did you feed it?

  20. Asbestos of the 21st century? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause last time a material changed the world so much it didn't work out so well.

  21. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    DDT does not build up in animal tissue. DDT is not harmful to humans. DDT would save tons of lives.

    This is the most ignorant spew I've read on slashdot in years. Go read the Wikipedia article.

    It accumulates in fatty tissue. It's found in the tissue of many adults today- despite having been banned FORTY YEARS AGO. That say something to you, asshole? Second: studies found proof that DDT and derivatives cause diabetes. Notice when diabetes became a big problem? Mmmm hmm, the last fifty or so years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health

    Read the PAGES of studies showing all sorts of health effects.

    1. Re:Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Shitipedia.

      Everything I stated is factual, and is supported by numerous studies from the past decade.

      You've just proved you're an idiot by talking about diabetes. Correlation != causation.
      Besides, DDT was banned, why the diabetes NOW? Explain diabetes in children, for example.

      Go research (hint, wikipedia doesn't count) the 1981 spill in Tirana (Albania), for example.

      You are a fucking tool if you use shitipedia.

  22. No... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    If I understood his statements properly, I think he meant we should nuke the government.

  23. DDT is not the evil it was portrayed to be. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Given more modern research and research methods, some governments are considering re-approving the use of DDT. Responsibly used (which it was not in the past), it could be very beneficial to the overall environment.

  24. And... what? You think that is a good thing? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Do you somehow think that somebody buying up anything having to do with micro carbon structures is a good thing? That's about as good as having a name like Dick Smalley. (I know it was said elsewhere, but that is like a target painted on somebody saying "kick me". I would have changed my name while still an infant.)

    1. Re:And... what? You think that is a good thing? by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      It's just the way it is. From my (academic) point of view, it's very nice that one of the major nanotech companies was founded by an academic, is run by academics and treats their academic research partners well.

      We've been through ~20 years of unsuccessful carbon nanotube startups and failed projects from large corporations, it's time for us to produce something useful. Frankly, there are a few more patent trolls that need to be bought out before we're able to do that.

  25. Aw, come on... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

    Been done, dude. You completely ripped off the "Happy Fun Ball" bit from TV. That's called "plagiarism".

    While I appreciate the humor, I got the impression you were trying to pass it off as your own. Shame.

    1. Re:Aw, come on... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Been done, dude. You completely ripped off the "Happy Fun Ball" bit from TV. That's called "plagiarism". While I appreciate the humor, I got the impression you were trying to pass it off as your own. Shame.

      Dude, follow the link in the first line. I didn't hide the reference, just hoping people would catch the reference mid-way. Best SNL fake commercial since the Bassmatic 76 - "wow, that's terrific bass!" No disrespect for defending it though :)

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
  26. Conductive? by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whoa. Didn't know that.

    Soon as I read "airplane" and "conductive" in the same article ideas started coming to me.

    Umm.........lessee......If you alternated NON-conductive layers in with the Buckypaper composite body of the aircraft, one could theoretically design/build-in all the electronic circuitry right into the structural body. Printed circuits inside the walls of the aircraft, essentially. Save even more weight, not to mention cost, when you could toss all that copper/silver currently used for wiring.

    Build the body of the aircraft, then simply add more layers to the inside for circuitry.

    1. Re:Conductive? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Yay. And if some of the electronics fail you have to replace the hull or cut a piece out.

    2. Re:Conductive? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "Build the body of the aircraft, then simply add more layers to the inside for circuitry."

      Or simply disconnect the bad circuit panel and simply lay another one right over the top.

    3. Re:Conductive? by Anonymatt · · Score: 1

      If the whole thing's made of a material with dynamically manageable properties, you never have to worry about wires and such getting cut. You only have to worry about disappearing bandwidth as the area of this material is reduced, which would be a moot point, as far as aeronautics are concerned, I guess.

  27. Re:PGnaa by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

    Managerese

  28. That's what insurance is for by tepples · · Score: 1

    But, what if you had an asthmatic child, and your neighbor, with permits and all the other blessing from the governmental authorities, had a large brush-pile fire, and the wind happened to blow the smoke at your house for several hours, and the resulting smoke caused your child to have a severe asthma reaction? Who's at fault, then?

    The neighbor, but the neighbor's insurer will pick it up.

  29. Apologies by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I did not notice the link the first time around. I retract my criticism.