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.'"
news, read? /. ???
WTF is buckypaper?
Go go Gadget Nailgun!
My plan is perhaps in the next 12 months I'll begin maybe to believe this is something more than vaporware.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gY3jWGn-XBc_Hu-NXj5YYubxQlPAD93SBGCO0
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
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.
I hope they make a paper bicycle like the one in Virtual Light.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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?
I hereby dub thee "+10 Fear Monger"
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?
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.
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.
potential applications of buckypaper listed on Wikipedia:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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...
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.
But you probably do need a license to burn that stump sitting in your yard.
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...
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?
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.
>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
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.
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.
"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))
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
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:
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what language did you feed it?
"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).
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.
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.
Please help metamoderate.
If I understood his statements properly, I think he meant we should nuke the government.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Yes just look at the banking sector....oh wait....
Managerese
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.
I wish I hadn't run out of mod points yesterday.
Clear thinking, well expressed.
Yes, good example. Banking would absolutely suck with a scientific approach.
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.
I did not notice the link the first time around. I retract my criticism.
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.
you don't need a license to sell or produce food products
How are things in Luna City ?