Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanotube Muscles Are Strong As Steel, Light As Air

Posted by Soulskill on from the we-have-the-technology dept.

Al writes "Scientists from the University of Texas at Dallas have created nanotube-based artificial muscles that are light as air and work even under extreme temperatures. The 'muscles' expand width-wise by about 200 percent when a voltage is applied, but are stronger than steel lengthwise. The nanotubes within the fiber naturally stick together. Applying a voltage makes them obtain a charge and repel one another. The researchers created them by stretching bundles of entangled carbon nanotubes into long threads. Several cool videos show the strange stuff in action. Some experts, including one from NASA, believe that the nanotube muscles' ability to withstand extreme heat and cold could make them suitable shape-shifting materials for future space missions."

103 comments

  1. Now available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nanotube p33n extentions

  2. w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    First comment!

    1. Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      w00t, first to fail!

    2. Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Your mom failed when she didn't abort you ;)

  3. One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: -1, Troll

    . . . why can't these scientists just devote their work to curing the common cold or the flu?

    Although, their work seems to be pretty fun and cool, so who am I to complain?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by FreeFull · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe because they're not biologists.

      --
      No ascii art.
    2. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moreover, why are you posting on slashdot rather than curing the flu?

    3. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by anss123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why can't these scientists just devote their work to curing the common cold or the flu?

      How will our immune system end up looking without a frequent visitor to give it a work out?

    4. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First, we can do both. Second, we NEED ROBOTICS. The west can NOT compete economically against other nations UNLESS we give up our standard of living. The simple fact is, that America made great gains against old Europe by creating automated machinery as well as having lower costs energy coupled with EUs many nations desire to invade each other and lose their status via wars. That is what made us what we were 10 years ago (W and the neo-cons, and I am starting to think Obama and the dems, have been giving it away to china). The ONLY way to move forward is to have robotics, automated machines, and LOW COSTS ENERGY, coupled with expansion (meaning off this rock). By doing robots like this, we can send them to the moon before we get there and have them building permanent structures for us. As to biological research, that goes on.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by BobisOnlyBob · · Score: 1

      Okay then, why can't these scientists devote their work to curing every symptom of the common cold or flu?

      (The immune system still gets a workout, we just don't have to feel like shit while it does.)

    6. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I applaud your courage and drive, yet I would abhor a future where any sovereign nation laid claim upon the moon or the stars. Before we set afoot in the galaxy, we should become an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. Naturally, all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more pressing matters.

    7. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      screw your symptoms... why not cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes, MS, addiction, disease and death?

    8. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      why can't these scientists just devote their work to curing the common cold or the flu?

      How will our immune system end up looking without a frequent visitor to give it a work out?

      or better: "Because you haven't donated enough money to them"

      GP probably thinks the government (IE, you) should pay for it.

    9. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Oh, shut up Dennis. It isn't your turn until a week next Monday.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    10. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by catmistake · · Score: 1

      This is my dream. [...]
        This is the place where robots meet.
      Look, you can see them here as slaves. Through logic.
      And this man on the hill comes free them. Do you
      know who he is? The man in
      the dream is you.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    11. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's some physics here too to worry about.

      Stronger has two meanings. One is the breaking strength of something. e.g. when does the rope break? that's meaning #1.

      Now if you are lifting an object, doing work, the more you can lift, and the faster you can left it relate to a second kind of strength.

      YOu could have a carbon muscle that had a tensile breaking strength stronger than steel,that was weaker than biological muscle when it came to doing work.

      Imagine all these carbon fibers in friction with each other as they jostle and slide to repel. That creates heat. every calorie of that heat is one calorie of pulling work that the muscle cannot do given an initial fixed energy input.

      will it scale? don't know but it sounds great for the nanoscale where that sort of consideration is irrelevant?

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    12. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by pescina · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe because they're not biologists.

      Maybe they have a PhD in Creationism.

    13. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by Ashriel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I apologize for going way off topic here, but I want to address your root cause assumptions. You apparently think that our current economic state is a result of a couple administration's worth of bad policy makers, but in fact this is something the country as a whole has been working towards since WWII.

      After the second great war, this country was pretty much the only industrialized nation to survive unscathed, this much is true - and it led to artificially increasing wages, because we pretty much had a world-wide monopoly on production. This in turn led to a couple of very prosperous decades for the U.S. - the 50's and 60's. During the 70's, however, things began to turn around:

      • In late 1970/early 1971, domestic oil production peaked and began to decline, while demand continued to increase.
      • The other nations involved in WWII had recovered, and were able to produce high-quality goods at lower prices.
      • The need for lower costs to compete caused U.S. companies to seek workers elsewhere - preferably in pre-industrial fascist states that were able to prevent the workers from organizing and demanding better treatment.
      • This in turn led to a decline of production work in the U.S., and ever since then we've been moving from an industrial economy to a service economy, with lower real wages and very little in valuable exports.

      Since the 1970's, our economy has been undergoing a massive shift in the way we do business at home; rather than saving to buy, Americans now buy on credit. Our nation, by maintaining an enormous, advanced military since WWII, coupled with a decline in real wages (and therefore taxable income), has been deficit spending the entire time (actually, the U.S. has been in the red since 1830).

      What you see as recent events are simply the ongoing crisis coming to a head. To borrow an apt metaphor, the U.S. sits on a house of credit cards, and there's no way go but down from this perch.

      Robotics and space travel are very neat, I agree - but they aren't going to help us. There are only two ways out of this - quickly reverting back to a production economy , or declining into a pre-industrial nation and trying to make our way back from there (Obama, at least, seems to understand this; whether he can do anything about it remains to be seen).

      I applaud the idea of low-cost energy, and in fact there seems to be a lot of people around the world that think free energy is currently possible, but as long as there's a profit to be made from inefficient, high cost energy, there will be no change. Thankfully, with worldwide oil production now peaking (if not already in decline), oil is going to become very expensive very soon, and will become very scarce thereafter - many of us may actually live to see the end of oil. This will drive the business world into alternative energies, but even then there'll be food shortages (it takes 10 calories of oil to get 1 calorie of food to your grocer).

      And I completely disagree with expansion as a solution to anything. What we need is population reduction, and I'm so very happy that this is now happening in the U.S. (population growth is now at 95% the rate of replenishment). Once we can get the population down to the point where there's not enough people to go around, then we can begin building robotic factories.

    14. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like mine. I never get laid.

    15. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      Because these are physicists who specialize in carbon nanotubes?

      Why the special hatred for the sniffles, anyways? Colds suck but they're not that bad.

    16. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      My question is HOW they are comparing them to steel. Same strength as a piece of steel of comparable size/weight/diamater/thickness/etc. Also, there are MANY types of steel: stainless/raw/heat-treated/hardened/etc.

      I can make clay much stronger than steel if you use a strand (think hair-sized) of steel and a piece of clay a meter thick!

    17. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by trenobus · · Score: 1

      I agree that we need to get back to a production economy, but I don't see why it shouldn't be built on robotic factories. It does imply that the masses would need to have an ownership stake in the factories, which sounds like a supposedly debunked economic theory. But if robots can manufacture things more efficiently, wouldn't it make more sense to modify our economic system to take advantage of it?

      The other thing we need to do economically is to create pervasive incentives for sustainability, and not just with regard to energy. Corporations which focus on quarterly profits are leading us (have led us?) over a cliff.

      I would like to see a lot more economists thinking outside the box of the ideologies of the twentieth century. I can't imagine that information theory and the internet don't have something new to teach us about economics. My second worst fear for the current crisis is that we somehow manage to go back to business as usual (the worst fear being total collapse of civilization). I voted for change, and damnit, I want change!

    18. Re:One step closer to "The Terminator" . . . by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Once we can get the population down to the point where there's not enough people to go around, then we can begin building robotic factories.

      Sorry, I'm not going to wait for your "population fantasy" to come to fruition. I'm building automated factories now.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  4. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    I for one welcome our new nanotube-based, artificially muscular overlords.

  5. Humanoid ambassadors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    ... suitable shape-shifting materials for future space missions

    So the human race gets to produce our own shape-shifting females now?

    Imagine the positions they can get into!

  6. Little bit hyped. by zymano · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Article -

    However, electroactive polymers generate up to eight times as much force per unit area as the nanotube sheets. "For artificial muscle, you need a large change in force coupled with a large change in length," Hunter says.

    Polymer actuators also need just a few volts to contract. The ribbons, in contrast, require three to five kilovolts, which Hunter says is too high for use in humans and higher than ideal for robotics.

    1. Re:Little bit hyped. by GreenTech11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point, but I am sure that they can shrink those energy requirements... Didn't computers use to be the size of a room and take up a hell of a lot of energy....

      --
      Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
    2. Re:Little bit hyped. by Instine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you're right that this will never produce the forces required for most 'muscle' purposes.
      However if it holds its charge it could be very exciting in terms of capacitance!
      I've been playing with synthetic muscles, and I believe magnatism id the only likely way forward. But that Nanotubes are the solution. Esspecially if submerged in ferro fluids, or paramagnetic liquids (e.g. liquid oxygen, though that would not be great re safety). I've already had a bash at simply using thin wire: see vid of lego coil maker and seen here for brief comments.

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    3. Re:Little bit hyped. by wrencherd · · Score: 1

      trying to recreate muscular movement seems more similar to using amplification of low signal levels to drive loudspeakers than to reducing thousands of pcb's to a few ic's to make a pc

    4. Re:Little bit hyped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's energy that's the concern as much as voltage (since voltage is only one component of energy, the others being current and time). You don't want something that runs on a voltage level that requires heavy insulation and a great number of safety procedures.

    5. Re:Little bit hyped. by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Your magnetic field strength will be limited. What use is a robotic hand that can't use metal tools?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:Little bit hyped. by osvenskan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've been playing with synthetic muscles

      Is that you, Barry Bonds?

    7. Re:Little bit hyped. by owndao · · Score: 1

      It appears to me that the fibers are repelled from one another by their electric fields just like some person with long hair touching a high-voltage, low current source like a Van de Graaf generator. Some equations that might be of interest are:

      force x distance = work so yes, in order to perform work a muscle must be capable of applying a force over a distance. Either the force or the distance can be large as long as the sum of their product over the distance moved ends up large. The electric field force is also the strongest macroscopic force that we can easily control.

      electrostatic force is given by Coulomb's Law force = k(q1 x q2)/(d^2) where q1 and q2 are point charges, k is a constant that varies as the stuff between the charges (air,vacuum,etc.) changes, and d is the distance between them. If both q1 and q2 are the same sign then the scalar force between them is repulsive

      In the videos it appears as if the fibers are given the same charge so that they repel one another. When the charge is allowed to drain the fibers fall back together. It appears that there is a current limiting resistor in the circuit in at least one of the videos. This leads me to believe that the fibers conduct somewhat. It must be minimal otherwise the attractive force of the magnetic field generated by the current flow in each fiber would, according to Lorentz, attract one another. Since the fibers while similarly charged repel one another friction would be reduced greatly since the fibers must touch in order for frictional forces to come into play. The vector form of these equations is a bit more complex and get more so when you are talking about two line-sources of charge rather than point sources.

      It's been awhile since I played with Maxwell's equations but I think that I got that all correct. I sometimes would rather figure it out than read the articles! ;)

      --
      Be as you would have the world become.
  7. Truly muscle-like, or something else? by macraig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What wasn't apparent to me is whether these "muscles" are exerting force along the axis of their attachment points; are they pulling against the "bones" to which they're attached as they expand laterally, perpendicular to the axis of attachment?

    If they're not, I don't see how these structures can be described as muscles.

    1. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by ortholattice · · Score: 5, Informative

      What wasn't apparent to me is whether these "muscles" are exerting force along the axis of their attachment points; are they pulling against the "bones" to which they're attached as they expand laterally, perpendicular to the axis of attachment?

      All three articles are confusing and lacking information needed to make any sort of meaningful conclusion. It seems the people writing them don't bother to think, but just string together random fact snippets that sound cool and generate hype.

      One puzzle is that on the one hand, "carbon nanotubes are highly conductive", yet on the other hand need "three to five kilovolts" to contract. If the resistance were say one ohm, that would be 9 to 25 megawatts of power! A robot with 50 muscles might consume the entire output of a power plant, not to mention burn up instantly.

      They also confuse the force exerted lengthwise (large) and the force exerted width wise (possibly very small, since it seems to be due to electrostatic repulsion - the videos do not show the width-wise force being measured or demonstrated).

      Possibly the 1% lengthwise contraction could be amplified, to say 30% by wrapping it around a set of 30 pulleys.

    2. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the resistance were say one ohm, that would be 9 to 25 megawatts of power!

      Yeah, that's why it's likely that the resistance is one ohm or more, like it's typical with those voltages. Hint: if you pull a number out of your ass, results like this make a good sanity check for your number rather than the tech.

    3. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking current. These are static charges, I believe.

    4. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by juiceboxfan · · Score: 1

      You're thinking current. These are static charges, I believe.

      How do you hold a static charge across a conductor?
      If it conducts then there has to be current, what with ohm's law and all.

      But, yeah, there must be something missing in TFA (assuming; since I didn't read it;-) as trying to drop even something less than a volt through a nano-tube would probably vaporize it.

    5. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by Quothz · · Score: 1

      What wasn't apparent to me is whether these "muscles" are exerting force along the axis of their attachment points

      Plenty of force, but not much distance:

      The hardness comes in because this material is inelastic along its length. Whenever the material stretches in width or thickness, it contracts in length, but only by a few percent. It can't stretch in length because it's extremely rigid in that axis and can generate an isometric stress (isometric means without changing shape) of 3.2 MPa, which is 32 times more than the sustainable maximum for skeletal muscles.

    6. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Single wall carbon nanotubes can be coated with various chemicals (I forget the details), to make them act as batteries/capacitors. When you charge the nanotubes they also change shape at a molecular level. This helps with the power requirements, since at least some of the energy would be recovered as well.

      I can't be sure, but this is how I've always assumed artificial muscles would be made if they used nanotubes.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    7. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by vix86 · · Score: 1

      I looked at the actual article in Science magazine and there were a number of formulas mentioned for showing the amount of energy that has to be applied to this. I'm not a physicist so some of these don't make much sense to me, but maybe it'll interest someone.

      The article mentions that Epsilon_w (Strain?)= the change in Width / initial Width_0. The change in E_w increases quadratically(V^2) with voltage applied, but at higher voltages the increase in E_w increases with V^(2/3). They mentioned that to get a 14% actuation with a Length/Width=13.9, they need to apply 260V.

    8. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by macraig · · Score: 1

      Ah... so then in practical use as "muscles" this material would have to be attached MUCH closer to the joint than would a human muscle, and perhaps the joints would have to sized disproportionately; attaching it closer to the joint effectively amplifies the effect of its more limited degree of elasticity. I think.

    9. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you hold a static charge across a conductor?

      You hold the entire conductor at one voltage. Current is based on voltage difference, not static voltage. Honestly, this is just a example of how to charged plates repeal each other and very boring.

    10. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by owndao · · Score: 1

      I believe that the fibers are repelling one another as I stated above. Other evidence that they pull while puffed out is that their relaxed state they appear to not repel one another as is shown when the long strands are pulled from the spool. Ever stacked a bunch of disk magnets? they tend to want to form a rod and are very difficult to pull apart lengthwise but bend easily. I suspect the stacked carbon rings behave similarly.

      --
      Be as you would have the world become.
    11. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by owndao · · Score: 1

      "One puzzle is that on the one hand, "carbon nanotubes are highly conductive", yet on the other hand need "three to five kilovolts" to contract. If the resistance were say one ohm, that would be 9 to 25 megawatts of power! A robot with 50 muscles might consume the entire output of a power plant, not to mention burn up instantly."

      That assumes that there is no imaginary component involved. I think that the should have a non-zero self-inductance similar to a wire so high AC voltage would not conduct as readily at high frequencies. As a plus the current that does flow would be confined to the outer surfaces of the tubes due to the skin effect.

      --
      Be as you would have the world become.
    12. Re:Truly muscle-like, or something else? by macraig · · Score: 1

      That's a good analogy, if true. It won't matter much beyond the curiosity value of it, of course, until I can buy my first affordable nanotube exosuit.

  8. Human body uses? by anilg · · Score: 1

    Very interesting technology.. but the article doesnt talk about how it can be used for artificial limbs (the 'muscle' in the name).

    It would make for more flexible artificial arms than the current available robotic limbs, given the flexible nature of the nanotubes. Not to mention very powerful.

    --
    http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
    1. Re:Human body uses? by oneirophrenos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Real muscles contract by myofilaments sliding past each other, shortening the overall length of the muscle. In this case no sliding past occurs, and the overall length of the nanotube "muscle" doesn't diminish, so I can't see how this technology could be used to replace actual muscles.

    2. Re:Human body uses? by ardor · · Score: 1

      Easy: replace the entire arm.
      Though it would look weird when your arm has "made in china" written on it.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    3. Re:Human body uses? by vikstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Real muscles contract by myofilaments sliding past each other, shortening the overall length of the muscle. In this case no sliding past occurs, and the overall length of the nanotube "muscle" doesn't diminish, so I can't see how this technology could be used to replace actual muscles.

      It can be used to replace muscles due to something called Poisson's ratio, which is very high for the nanotube muscle. This effectively does allow it too shorten the overall length.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
  9. Ooooo! by downix · · Score: 1

    Where's my Battlemech?

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Ooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should wait for the triple strength stuff... it lets you do double damage in melee combat!

      Yeah... Triple strength, double damage..... I still haven't figured that one out.

    2. Re:Ooooo! by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      You can have your battlemech after I get my battlemech. I put down a deposit for my battlemaster last week.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    3. Re:Ooooo! by pandafs2 · · Score: 1

      Same thought.

  10. A Space mission? by Fri13 · · Score: 1

    Why almost everything is needed to aim for space or war? Okay, those two areas has most of the money for development. But be a real, this kind technology could help humans. Old people, paralyzed people and those who has lost their limb.

    And think how much this would help in the situations where you can have a "suit" like for construction sites etc, helping for heavy lifting. I believe many is now thinking "Crysis nanosuite" but it would not be a far away from truth what to get, not just for wars but for in real life usage where extra strength is needed. Like rescue people if they need to lift heavy rocks etc.

    The problem actually might be the electricity. Thats why this cant be used as military situations because all what you need to do, is shoot a electricity slug to soldiers who wear them, and they die right away because the suite would just squeeze them.

       

    1. Re:A Space mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are comparing space and war? Space technology helps humans. In some cases it may only pay off in the far future, or only pays in knowledge of the universe (if you don't think that's a worthy goal, go back to Westboro), but there is plenty of space tech that's fundamental to the modern life. Satellites of all kinds, without them forget about communications, weather satellites, geologic survey satellites, etc.

    2. Re:A Space mission? by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Space technology helps humans. But you do not need to move all technology to space first before it can help humans on earth.

      Lots of different kind things is invented in space. And some only in space. But same thing is for war. Somethings are only invented on war times, like nuclear power.

      We could just focus these developments for daily usage, without need to spend so much money and time to fight each other or dream how to help to build a "camp" on the Mars etc.

      In this case, why this technology should only be used for space technology when there is more need on earth?

      Military and Space R&D are both as important for human kind, but that does not mean those technologies should only be used for those areas or allow them to be used in normal life later when they are "old technology".

      Usually people only think that military technology is just weapons, armors, vehicles etc. There comes lots of other inventions what were not predicted.

      We already have technology to build machines, computers and daily stuff so tough, that they would not brake for many years or what you could fix your self easily. But still we can not get those because it would drive most of the companies out of the business because no one would like to buy anymore their products what wont last.

    3. Re:A Space mission? by emilper · · Score: 1

      Let it to the army ... imagine hordes of grumpy old senile gramps walking through walls in their armored ('cause you'll need armor with muscle strength * 32) power suits, squishing unruly babies and going to vote ...

  11. Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact that it is "strong as steel" and "light as air" seems to me like it could be made into a (very) big net that, when launched into orbit could capture space junk. Hopefully the fact that it stretches 200% could mean that it would have enough elasticity to absorb some of the kinetic energy of the space junk.

    As long as the space junk didn't make holes in it, it would slow the junk enough so that they would fall out of orbit quickly. (Maybe the impact of a lot of junk would require periodic re-boosting of the net, I don't know.)

    Another idea would be to use AEROGELS. This super lightweight material has already been proven to slow down hyper velocity objects (admittedly just particles) in the spacecraft "Stardust". The main problem with aerogels would be launching it into orbit, although it is very light the necessary volume required would be huge. However, if it could be manufactured in space then just a small amount of raw material could make a gigantic volume of the stuff.

    1. Re:Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by spazdor · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the net is light as air, then how exactly is it going to absorb the junk's momentum?

      More reasonable guess: space junk hits net and continues along its previous trajectory, but now with a virtually massless net trailing from it.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    2. Re:Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The net, overall will be very large and weigh thousands of kilograms or more and will definitely absorb the smaller fragments with impunity These little fragments could otherwise be the hardest to "catch" in a reasonable fashion because they are so numerous and multiplying the quickest after every collision. Also, if you slowly spin the net, it will remain open and not wad up.

      You are right about the really large "fragments" (boosters, complete satellites) however they are relatively few in number and could possibly be dealt with in a more individual fashion. I'm thinking the net will be used to get the millions of smaller items. Anyway wasn't there some Japanese anime about a space trash man who's job was to get those bigger objects?

    3. Re:Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by Quantos · · Score: 1

      Anyway wasn't there some Japanese anime about a space trash man who's job was to get those bigger objects?

      He only collects the animated junk...

      --
      Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
    4. Re:Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by lattyware · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Anime was called Planetes, and was a good series.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    5. Re:Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More reasonable guess: space junk hits net and continues along its previous trajectory, but now with a virtually massless net trailing from it.

      ...Or given the speed most "space junk" travels, it'll just:
      - make a nice hole in the net
      - explode into even more, smaller, and harder to track objects
      - and keep going

      "Stronger than steel" doesnt mean anything at 16000mph

    6. Re:Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by wisebabo · · Score: 1

      Who knows? I don't, I'm neither a physicist nor do I know anything about the material's properties (or whether they can be improved upon sufficiently). I wish someone more qualified would point out the "holes" in my suggestion!

      What about my aerogel idea? Again, if you could put a really huge block of it in space (it would have to be able to be manufactured there) wouldn't that work as well or better?

    7. Re:Make a BIG lightweight net, capture space junk by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Screw that. I want my memory cloth Batman cape!

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  12. it's said the greatest fear of the so-called rich, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    is that one day the so-called poor would rise up & eat them.

    WE (which negates blaming anybody) bought everything that they said/made, mostly on credit. we also mortgaged our futures buying their worthless payper. we also subsidized their greed/fear/ego based life0cidal 'lifestyles' & ambitions, perhaps to make up for the perceived shortcomings of our own.

    our only purpose here is to care for each other. failing that (& who doesn't?), we're just passing through being distracted by the illusionary trappings of man'kind'.

    there's no need to confuse/compare 'religion' with being a spiritual being. the lights are coming up all over now.

  13. iWant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least when my natural muscles start degenerating...

    [..] require three to five kilovolts, which Hunter says is too high for use in humans and higher than ideal for robotics [..]

    Aawww... too bad.

    1. Re:iWant! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      A static charge from your clothing will easily give you three to five kilovolts.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:iWant! by PPH · · Score: 1

      A static charge from your clothing will easily give you three to five kilovolts.

      So friction from my clothing could cause such a muscle to expand? I think I invented this back in high school.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Close to a Space Elevator by distantbody · · Score: 1

    I see the threads aren't perfect individual nanotubes, but still, good enough for a tether maybe?

    1. Re:Close to a Space Elevator by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      I see the threads aren't perfect individual nanotubes, but still, good enough for a tether maybe?

      Yeah I had visions of vehicles being pushed up a space elevator by peristalsis.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Close to a Space Elevator by spazdor · · Score: 1

      That's kinda gross, and also maybe a good idea.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    3. Re:Close to a Space Elevator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Behold the hideous space-bowel.

    4. Re:Close to a Space Elevator by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      Wait 'till it sits on a giant space jar!

  15. So.... by 800DeadCCs · · Score: 1

    How long until it's in hobbyist hands?

    I want one of these: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Marauder

    Failing that, how about http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Turkina or http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dire_Wolf_(Daishi)
    But a http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Locust or http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kit_Fox_(Uller) would be fun too.

    Any way, new toys for robotics are always fun.

  16. so... by cronco · · Score: 1

    This means i could... like... get a nano-internet jammed in my arm or leg?

  17. ...static electricity, or something else? by Mirar · · Score: 1

    Hair also repels one another when given a voltage:
    http://images.google.com/images?q=hair%20static%20electricity

    How is this different, and how will it make a muscle? It didn't seem to make anything shorter in the direction where it's actually strong.

  18. So where is my BATTLEMECH by Delifisek · · Score: 1

    Story look like Battletech Myomer development

    http://star-league.org/myomer.html

    --
    [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
    1. Re:So where is my BATTLEMECH by Team503 · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it.

  19. Interesting application by Archimonde · · Score: 1

    Now instead of rogue nasa 100K floating toolboxes, we can have rogue 10M floating toolboxes! Great, I'll enjoy the all those cool I-can't-reach-it-is-floating-away videos;)

    --
    Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
  20. one step closer by shuntthepirate · · Score: 1

    seems like all the pieces to a crysis nano suit are coming together, invisibility and strength in japan, armor in us :/

  21. ...and probably as healthy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...as asbestos when inhaled...

    1. Re:...and probably as healthy... by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      The artificial muscle was not designed for rapid continual surface abrasion. Not without a proper external protective sheath.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  22. One step closer to making the Nano Suit a reality by andrewbwn · · Score: 1

    Maximum strength!

  23. What is strength? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pure tungsten is about eight times as strong as mild steel -- the stuff that your car, refrigerator, and computer case are made of -- in terms of tensile strength. It's also very tolerant of high temperatures.

    But because of its brittleness, it's useless as a structural material. Why do these articles always refer to strength, without describing what kind of strength that is? Tensile, compression, shear, torsional, etc.

    1. Re:What is strength? by Ghubi · · Score: 1

      My computer case is made of aluminum and plastic you insensitive clod!

  24. Solar Sails instead? by drawlight · · Score: 1

    How about using that net for solar sails? Maybe take advantage of the material to provide solar energy to the spacecraft (the material is supposed to be conductive)?

  25. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AntiHero here, my take, Of course, they're just getting around to releasing technology they had forty years ago. Boring.

    War is gay. Lets come together as human beings and end all armies, abolish them.

  26. Strong as steel, light as air... by Phizzle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    usefull like fiberglass and asbestos! How about learning from the mistakes of the past and focusing on growing actual muscles instead?

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  27. Carbon nanotubes kicks ass! by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

    Now literally!

  28. Came here for this... by MarbleMunkey · · Score: 1

    Left happy.
    I used to be a huge Battletech fan before they jumped the shark with the 'invading aliens' story ark.. Sorry, but the Clans were more than enough.

  29. *not* stronger than steel by societyofrobots · · Score: 1

    The writer confuses 'stronger' with 'higher strength to weight ratio'. Steel is still stronger. And since this is an artificial muscle, 'tensile strength' as a material property has nothing to do with muscle force.

    Carbon nanotubes are only strong with tensile forces. Compression and lateral forces causes them to quickly buckle and bend.

    That being said, 2x extension change is pretty impressive!

  30. Battletech Anyone? by pvjr · · Score: 1

    Myelon Fibers?

  31. Another bad materials science article by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the article: The new actuators, on the other hand, expand by up to 200 percent but generate small forces per unit area, making them less than ideal for many applications, including robotics.

    What is it with these crap materials science articles? We keep seeing articles about some new material with interesting properties, but not good enough to be useful, touted as a major breakthrough expected to show up in products Real Soon Now. This crap keeps showing up in MIT Technology Review and in Science, which used to be respected publications. It's fine to publish the materials-science results, but not with the press-release hype.

    The "robot muscle" problem is well known, and many attempts have been made to address it. There's no good equivalent of biological muscles. There are several materials that are promising in theory, but not useful in practice. Electrorheological fluids have been tried, but none of them work well enough. Shape-memory alloys used to have a fan club, but they don't change shape by much, and the electrical power inputs are high for the mechanical energy out, because the power is used to heat up the material and cause a phase change.

    Robots still use pneumatics, hydraulics, and electric motors, with the occasional magnetic-particle clutch.

  32. Imagine the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only can yo make a fantastic penis extender, but with the right computer control you can actually have the implant provide its own pistoning motion! Fat guys and heart patients everywhere, rejoice! The era of low-exertion fscking has arrived!!!!!!!

  33. Non-sequitur club by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The 'muscles' expand width-wise by about 200 percent when a voltage is applied, but are stronger than steel lengthwise.

    We don't make sense, but we sure like pizza!

    I know this is Slashdot, and everyone's busy scripting a botnet or something - but why do so many submissions fail to demonstrate even basic English competency? This is a mistake the average fourth grader wouldn't make. Plus - shouldn't the "editors", oh I don't know, edit these submissions?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Non-sequitur club by cathector · · Score: 1

      i'm not sure i see the problem w/ that sentence. i agree the semantics are fuzzy, but the sentence structure seems fine. you mean the apples-to-oranges comparison of expansion in one dimension and "strength" in another ?

  34. How can something that looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a blob of jelly make that thing go? You're going to need micro-gears and some sort of pulley that does what a muscle does.

  35. The Six Million Dollar Man by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they're more interested in making profitable penis enhancement products: "The bionic erection is now possible, beating viagra for strength and endurance. Get yours for just $5,999,999.95 - order now, while supplies last".

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  36. You think they're cool now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait till you see these nanotube muscles go on nanotube steroids.

  37. Don't understand how this is usable by adyroman · · Score: 0

    The 'muscles' expand width-wise by about 200 percent when a voltage is applied, but are stronger than steel lengthwise.

    So how does it help that the 'muscles' expand width-wise? Shouldn't the 'muscles' expand or contract length-wise, while being strong _also_ length-wise so that they'd be usable? If real muscles expanded width-wise without contracting length-wise as I've seen in the videos, they'd be pretty useless I would think.

  38. Overlords by Naatach · · Score: 1

    Well, I for one welcome our new Carbon Nanotube strong-arm robotic overlords.

    --
    There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.