Slashdot Mirror


Plastic Made From Fruit Rivals Kevlar In Strength

jldailey618 writes "A group of scientists from Sao Paulo State University developed a way to use the nanocellulose fibers from bananas, pineapples, and other fruits to create incredibly strong, lightweight plastics. The plastic is up to four times stronger and 30 percent lighter than petroleum-based plastics, and it rivals Kevlar — the material used in bullet proof vests — in strength."

181 comments

  1. A pineapple? by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    ... Thought that one had my name on it.

    1. Re:A pineapple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      abacaxí

  2. Officer! by cvtan · · Score: 2

    The perp shot me with a gun made of pineapples, but luckily I was saved by my banana. (First or nearly first post is no guarantee of quality.)

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Officer! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Funny

      But what if he comes at you with a Pointed Stick?

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:Officer! by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      What's the matter? Fresh fruit not good enough for you?

    3. Re:Officer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Im not worried about sticks, But fruit peelers would scare the crap out of me.

    4. Re:Officer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it makes no sense to put some fruity on me pointy stikk, humie! WAAAAAGH!

    5. Re:Officer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if he comes at you with a Pointed Stick?

      Then you let loose the tiger.

    6. Re:Officer! by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      No, the ten ton weight.

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    7. Re:Officer! by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Zeus: Release the Drosophila melanogaster!

    8. Re:Officer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shot him!

    9. Re:Officer! by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      Baste yourself in teriyaki sauce and dare him to eat you.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    10. Re:Officer! by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately for the scientists at Sao Paolo State University, there's thousands of years of research in the opposing field of study.

    11. Re:Officer! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The perp shot me with a gun made of pineapples, but luckily I was saved by my banana. (First or nearly first post is no guarantee of quality.)

      I'm so glad you didn't swap those fruits. "The perp shot me with his banana..." would be a plot suitable for a porno movie.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Officer! by thomst · · Score: 1

      Is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just afraid to see me?

      --
      Check out my novel.
    13. Re:Officer! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      "Yes, yes, but it was a viciously sharp piece of mango, wasn't it? - Capt. Blackadder

    14. Re:Officer! by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      No no no, you wouldn't fear a pointed stick...you'd fear the fruit fucker! Seriously, that thing is creepy...

    15. Re:Officer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or a viciously sharp slice of mango?

  3. Well, I guess Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Really is going to become a fruit company.

    Hah.

    1. Re:Well, I guess Apple by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      That's "fruit-derived", you insensitive Claude!

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:Well, I guess Apple by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's "fruit-derived", you insensitive Claude!

      There's already a fruit doing the deriving.

      But there's no telling how much longer he'll be in the deriver's seat.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Well, I guess Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you shouldn't explain the joke, but...

      Apple = fruit = gay

    4. Re:Well, I guess Apple by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I know you shouldn't explain the joke, but...

      Apple = fruit = gay

      Yep, yep - still a fail even after explanation.

  4. What else is in it? by cromar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article says that one pound of nanocellulose can be used to produce 100 pounds of the plastic. So what else is in it? Maybe it's a journalistic error, but it would seem that that violates physical law...

    1. Re:What else is in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >> So what else is in it?

      About 99 pounds of plastic I suppose. lol

    2. Re:What else is in it? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article says that one pound of nanocellulose can be used to produce 100 pounds of the plastic. So what else is in it? Maybe it's a journalistic error, but it would seem that that violates physical law...

      Ever heard of an alloy?
      =1% is more than enough to effect a change in metals or plastics.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:What else is in it? by Evi1M4chine · · Score: 1, Funny

      You missed the question. I’ll quote Al here:

      Kelly enters in her waitress outfit and hangs up her coat.
      KELLY) Daddy, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.
      AL) Oh, Pumpkin, that can't be! The horror with the scope here [looks over at Peggy] says "Good luck's a-comin'"!
      KELLY) The Health Inspector's closing down the diner for two days.
      PEGGY) Well, that's not so bad.
      KELLY) Then they're tearing it down. [sits on couch] Can you believe it? I'm unemployed. And it's all because of those stupid raisin cookies.
      AL) What, the raisin cookies you were getting me free everyday?
      KELLY) Yeah. You know, it turns out that only half the raisins were actually raisins.
      Al looks at her.
      AL) Well, what was the other half!?
      KELLY) Oh, believe me, Daddy, you do not want to know!
      Al makes a oh-fuck-no face.
      KELLY) Oh well. I guess I'm out of a J-O-D.
      AL) Oh well, I guess you won't have enough money to move O-U-L.
      KELLY) Not necessarily. It seems that one of people at the extermination company whichdeloused me, remembered me as the Verminator a couple of years ago and want me to be their new local mascot. Now, here's the part that's important to you, Dad.
      AL)You're going to tell me what the other half of those raisins were??
      KELLY) Can't, Daddy. The guys at the Atomic Energy Commission said that mom's the word on this one. [Al makes a horrified going-crazy face] But the good news is, I'll be making more money than I did at the diner and will be able to move out sooner than I thought! Well, I better get busy. I'm under court order to burn this uniform.

      So: What are the other 99 pounds?

      --
      I must be some kind of leader... Since Slashdot is following me to the grave. ;)
    4. Re:What else is in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1 pound of nanocellulose
      99 pounds of air

    5. Re:What else is in it? by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The article says that one pound of nanocellulose can be used to produce 100 pounds of the plastic. So what else is in it? Maybe it's a journalistic error, but it would seem that that violates physical law...

      I really liked the topical Married With Children response (the other half of the raisins came from Japan?), but I think the simple answer is it's a reading comprehension, or writer overly compressing the message, issue: one pound of nanocellulose is used, but it is not the only ingredient; the important sentence ends the sixth paragraph: "These fibers can be added to other raw materials to produce reinforced plastic."

      I also really liked the linked article in the fourth paragraph, about Ford exploring nanotechnology to get their vehicles' weight down. Competition will get us to the Singularity faster!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:What else is in it? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      well you stare at a banana long enough for 1 pound of nanocellulose to come out of it, add some hot air vapor.. BOOM!!!!! 100 pounds of the plastic

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    7. Re:What else is in it? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      legitimate answer as it turns out.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    8. Re:What else is in it? by kermit1221 · · Score: 1

      ... So what else is in it? ...

      99 pounds of petroleum plastic.

    9. Re:What else is in it? by mrmeval · · Score: 2

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

      Old news. This has been known since the late 70s. It's terribly energy intensive. The material costs 30MWh to produce with some methods getting that down to 1MWh but with more complex processes.

      I don't see anything that indicates an improvement in the process in that article that would make the material more cost effective or live up to the potentials mentioned in the wikipee article. It looks like the typical article meant to gather research money and it's been picked up because of the presentation made at the chemical groups exposition.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    10. Re:What else is in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is a shift of priorities that is the news, I don't know? Sometimes(not always) the linked article has further information than what you might imagine.

    11. Re:What else is in it? by mldi · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      Old news. This has been known since the late 70s. It's terribly energy intensive. The material costs 30MWh to produce with some methods getting that down to 1MWh but with more complex processes.

      I don't see anything that indicates an improvement in the process in that article that would make the material more cost effective or live up to the potentials mentioned in the wikipee article. It looks like the typical article meant to gather research money and it's been picked up because of the presentation made at the chemical groups exposition.

      As oil prices keep increasing, alternatives like this (combined with newer tech) become much more cost-effective. My question is: do these plastics degrade faster than petroleum based plastics? I have the giant garbage islands floating in the oceans in mind here.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    12. Re:What else is in it? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      And naturally, its being recycled because of the "green" impact. However, its only 1 percent "green".

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    13. Re:What else is in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      30MWh to produce... a gram?
      A kilogram?
      A tonne?
      An imperial buttload?

    14. Re:What else is in it? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Secret sauce?

    15. Re:What else is in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's 99% kevlar.

    16. Re:What else is in it? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      It just cost a hell of a lot of energy...
      E=mc2 suggests producing a kilogram of it would require 990x(300,000,000^2)=8.9e19 joules or more than the electricity generation in the total of 2005.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    17. Re:What else is in it? by Khenke · · Score: 1

      30MWh for one gram? That's insane (bad).
      30MWh for one years production for the whole earth? That's insane (good).

      I guess it's neither (or without guessing and reading the wikipedia article it's actually per tonne), so it could be meaning anything or nothing. I hate when people throw around numbers that mean absolutely nothing.

      "It has been shown that energy consumption can be heavily decreased using these pre-treatments and Lindström and Ankerfors has reported values below 1 MWh/tonne"

      And that is not down to 1MWh/tonne but below. How much below?
      And the most important of all. How much energy is needed for petrol based alternatives (that are 30 percent lighter and three to four times stronger)?

      And yes I know not everything in the world is stated on wikipedia (even if it somethings feels like it), the article on wikipedia says nothing about it's strength as far as I can find without actually reading everything.

      And so what if it is energy intensive, if it is used in small amounts say a nano filter for bacteria who cares how much energy is needed for a ton of the material.
      It's sad that so many people on /. knows so much more than researchers around the world. I mean the world are missing so many great researchers bashing on /. instead of doing great research...

      And who cares if it has been known since the 70s? Petrol engines have been known much longer but I still get excited if it is news of say half the petrol consumption. Or less pollution and so on.

      But I can agree that the article leaves much to wish for. But let me expand some thoughts from it.

      1 to 10 in nanocellulose to plastic (guess with 9/10 of some filler or binding material like normal cellulose).
      Let's say we use 1 tonne or plastic for a car (would be much less but easy to calculate). That is (I use the lesser amount) 1MWh or electricity, or a cost of ~$15 for 1/10 tonne of nanocellulose.

      Yeah, I can see that $15 is an "terribly" amount for a whole car, not even $450 with the 30MWh/tonne...

      "I don't see anything that indicates an improvement" but I do. $15 of electricity to produce a lightweight car instead of a much higher amount of energy with aluminium. And since we don't have this in our cars today I do guess they have made an improvement if they are relative close to production, "and the researchers believe they could be widely used within a couple of years". Yeah yeah, I know take it with a grain (or a truck load) of salt...

      "typical article meant to gather research money". So what? What should they do, rob a bank? I for one like this very much and I DO hope they get a shit load of money for their research thanks to this article (if any of their claims are correct). We need more money to research.

    18. Re:What else is in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a garbage island. It's tiny flecks of plastic which sometimes are maybe dense enough to form sludge. The whole garbage-land myth is a great let down.

    19. Re:What else is in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99 pounds of kevlar.

    20. Re:What else is in it? by base_chakra · · Score: 1

      As oil prices keep increasing, alternatives like this (combined with newer tech) become much more cost-effective.

      So, as we exhaust cheap energy, it becomes more cost-effective to turn to production that consumes even more energy?

    21. Re:What else is in it? by base_chakra · · Score: 1

      It's not a garbage island. It's tiny flecks of plastic which sometimes are maybe dense enough to form sludge. The whole garbage-land myth is a great let down.

      Yeah, it's a major let down. I mean, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the size of Texas, but people can't even walk on it, and the denser debris doesn't even float. Bummer! And the smaller North Atlantic Garbage Patch is more than 3,000 miles long, but doesn't even have the decency to constitute a land bridge?! After those let downs, the Indian Ocean Garbage Patch hardly even seems worth mentioning, especially when so much trash washes onto islands anyway. Why bother looking for "garbage islands" when the garbage just comes to us?

    22. Re:What else is in it? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      I don't believe any cellulosic fiber degrades faster than petroleum based ones. Even the commercially viable ones have been pretty solid.

      That island has all the free energy you could ask for in solar. It has very little weather most of the year. You should build a flotilla to go mine it.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    23. Re:What else is in it? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      We get enough meaningless research data as it is. If it sucks up money for a useful research project it's just another leech.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    24. Re:What else is in it? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      I looked hoping there was more to it but there was not. I did find some more promising research articles but I didn't link to the pay2play sites and did not find any on the few free sites that qualified as relevant.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    25. Re:What else is in it? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Odd but even though I question some information and research on environmental issues I've never really questioned that. I've seen credible pictures and there's been at least two groups visit both sites and do surveys. I think of them as energy islands, when it becomes economical we will clean those out.

      I'm hoping the processes in development that can refine that mass with little toxic residue are available. They'll have plenty of energy.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    26. Re:What else is in it? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      The market for all it's ills is not insane unless directed to be insane by regulation, it's customers or it's megalomaniacal boss. It's difficult to have a whole organization be insane. :(

      Without that insanity it will take prices reaching nsane levels to go to nanocellulosic material for mundane items. Unfortunately they won't be mundane items any longer as people will turn to cheaper materials. Status quo.

      It's one of those remarkable products that it's nice get noticed as there are a lot of hungry entrepreneurs and under utilized scientists who might work to find a way to get the energy costs down to reasonable figures.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  5. Food Shortage by Gohtar · · Score: 1

    First it was corn, now pineapple and bananas.... Just great, hopefully no live stock live off of these fruits.

    1. Re:Food Shortage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason we invented edible oil products.
      This new tech could give a whole new meaning to "potato gun", though.

    2. Re:Food Shortage by vintagepc · · Score: 2

      And where there's no shortage, everyone gets to pay inflated prices!! Let's hope they don't catch on you can make (albeit poor) plastic from MILK!

      --
      Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
    3. Re:Food Shortage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think we eat the part of the banana with cellulose fibers in it. I presume that they come from the peel. From a pineapple, presumably from the core and those obnoxious spiky leaves. But that is admittedly a guess.

      I'm more worried about that 99 pound discrepancy.

    4. Re:Food Shortage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pineapples aren't a staple crop, so I don't think there would ever be a huge problem there. Plantains on the other hand...

    5. Re:Food Shortage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe commercial bananas have been so genetically altered from the wild tree that the banana plant is now sterile, It has to be pulled out and re-grown after each banana harvest. If this technology makes use of the leaves and stems then it sounds lik a win-win.

    6. Re:Food Shortage by mldi · · Score: 1

      Would you rather we keep ignorantly mining non-renewable materials until there's none left, at which point we'd be forced to go this way anyway?

      Seriously. Corn is actually a horrible example as there's a fuckton more efficient crops out there to be used for such a thing, but other than that, I applaud this creative use of stuff that we can grow in a relatively short amount of time.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    7. Re:Food Shortage by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Well, don't get upset yet. It isn't strength alone which makes kevlar so attractive. There are other materials which meet or exceed kevlar's strength but are not as desirable because of other traits. What makes kevlar so attractive is its strength in combination with its light weight, flexibility, and elasticity. Without that combination, kevlar wouldn't be attractive for what its most commonly used for; bullet proof vests and composite construction.

      Unless this product can truly rival kevlar, this is yet another material which has some, but not all, of kevlars properties. That makes it interesting, but not a true rival. As such, unless it can truly rival kevlar, chances are, at least for now, its not likely to strain the food supply.

  6. Banana phone by zill · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, Banana phone. (now made out of REAL bananas)

    1. Re:Banana phone by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      You bastard!

    2. Re:Banana phone by Evi1M4chine · · Score: 1

      But it’s the best. Beats the rest.
      Cellular, modular, interactivodular...

      --
      I must be some kind of leader... Since Slashdot is following me to the grave. ;)
    3. Re:Banana phone by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      It was bad enough we had EM scares from cell phones, you want to hold radiation to your head now too?

    4. Re:Banana phone by mldi · · Score: 1

      +1 Triply-relevant context

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  7. Industrial hemp by narcc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We've been able to make all sorts of materials from plant fibers for years, including plastic.

    As an added bonus, many of those materials are both incredibly strong and bio-degradable. Take a look at hemp plastic -- one of the many reasons to support industrial hemp.

    1. Re:Industrial hemp by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Nah. The US doesn't like anything dealing with pot...I mean hemp. But up here in Canada, we don't mind it a single bit. In fact I usually start my day with a couple of tablespoons of hemp hearts on my cereal or oatmeal.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Industrial hemp by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I did some work in the Philippines I had to go to a function where the president was going to attend, so went out and bought a high end barong (type of Philippine shirt). These were used in place of tuxedos (yes we wore pants too). The barong was made of banana fibre and was quite expensive (several hundred dollars at the time). I still have it. The interesting thing is that is does feel kid of plasticy and slippery. The fabric is partially see through (you wear a white tee shirt under it) and kind of stiff. Because of this, this article doesn't surprise me one bit.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    3. Re:Industrial hemp by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had a shirt made of eucalypt that was very light, plasticy feeling and hard wearing.

      The thing I found most odd about it wasn't that such a synthetic feeling fabric came from a plant, but that I live in Australia where eucalypts originate and the shirt was made in China most probably from Chinese eucalypt plantations, being the largest in the world.

      I would like to see more done with eucalypts for plastics. They are a great source of celulose and other goodies, grow quickly without needing much water and they are not a valuable food source like bananas, corn and pineapple. And there's a reason we call them gum trees.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    4. Re:Industrial hemp by narcc · · Score: 1

      Neat. I haven't heard about eucalyptus being used this way before. Thanks for that.

    5. Re:Industrial hemp by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      And there's a reason we call them gum trees.

      It's because they have no teeth. Duh.

    6. Re:Industrial hemp by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      What about all the little Koalas!?

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    7. Re:Industrial hemp by dp3n3tr8 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't look like they are using the edible parts of the plants.

      P.S. When wearing that shirt, watch out for drop-bears!

    8. Re:Industrial hemp by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's the hoop snakes you have to look out for. Drop bears have nowhere to drop from when the trees have been turned into textiles.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    9. Re:Industrial hemp by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      Koalas don't live in Chinese plantations. And they are very selective about which specific trees the eat.

      Oh yeah, and I prefer to call them hairy tree pigs. If you've ever heard them at night you'd know why.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    10. Re:Industrial hemp by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Bah. Honey Badgers are where nature really got vicious.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:Industrial hemp by david.given · · Score: 1

      My father has some socks made from bamboo fibre --- they feel like cotton, and apparently also behave like it. Given how easy bamboo is to grow (i.e., it's really hard to stop it), using it for fibre seems like a really good idea.

    12. Re:Industrial hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The barong was made of banana fibre and was quite expensive (several hundred dollars at the time).

      High-end barongs are made from piña (pineapple) cloth. The banana fabric barongs are on the lower end.

    13. Re:Industrial hemp by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      This is totally off-topic, but bamboo socks are awesome. As a clothing material it's porous, sweat-wicking, and anti-microbial (reduces odor).

    14. Re:Industrial hemp by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Im just kidding. They good to eat?

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    15. Re:Industrial hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting high. Another one of the many reasons to support industrial hemp. Even though industrial hemp doesn't have any cannabinoids. wink wink nudge nudge. We still need to support industrial hemp. And all hemp. Hemp Hemp Hemp. Dude. End the Hemp ban. Man.

    16. Re:Industrial hemp by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. I couldn't remember if it was banana or pineapple... they showed me both types at the store (it was at the Manila Hotel). It must have been pineapple as it was the more expensive of the two options they showed me. This was 12 years ago.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    17. Re:Industrial hemp by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      Never tried them but I understand blackfellas wouldn't touch them and given their diet I don't think I would either. Kangaroo, snakes, goanna, croc are all good. Possum and koala not so good.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    18. Re:Industrial hemp by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Ive had alligator and ostrich, both were pretty good. Im not sure how close alligator is to croc. Ive also had elk, deer, moose, and bison, but neither are really a big deal where Im from up near Canada since its local. Id actually like to eat alligator more often, but its sort of a swamp-dweller food down here in the south US where I live now so you only get it at some Cajun restaurants. Ive always wanted to try snake. BTW I don't know how you guys eat Vegemite. Tried it once, never again. Cheers buddy.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    19. Re:Industrial hemp by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      You about to cross a line there. Vegemite is a national hero! (The trick is to spread it thin on buttered toast or put a bit in a stew.... much like miso for the japanese) Vegemite on toast is great for a hangover.

      I would imagine Canada would be more into fatty meats being colder. Colder climates need to eat more fat. Kangaroo is really low in fat but high in iron and protein, so it suits warmer active people like myself.

      I was amazed when I spent some time in Germany and Austria how much I enjoyed eating pig. I never eat that much pig at home, but it seemed right. At home, especially Summer, 'roo is the first call for a BBQ.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    20. Re:Industrial hemp by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Canadians eat pretty much the same kinds of meat as the rest of the industrialized world. Remember, it may get cold here, but we live and work in heated buildings. It's not like we would have to travel miles on foot or horse to places anymore. And while we don't get as hot as Australia, many places in the south along the U.S. border (where 95%) of Canadians live) regularly get into the 30s C in the summer. In some places it can rise above 40 C. And you may not have noticed, but the province of Ontario extends as far south as to be below the latitude of northern California; which is why it is the most densely populated area in Canada. Ontario gets winters ranging from what Chicago gets, all the way to arctic in the far north. But summers are quite hot and very humid as it is surrounded by water (the great lakes are huge). Also, from the sounds of it, while the other fellow in the thread is in the U.S. (not Canada) it sounds from the fauna he describes that he is in the west and north like maybe Montana or Idaho, or maybe Minnesota, all of which have areas several hundred miles north of me in terms of latitude alone. Even in areas where temperatures can get extreme, most people wouldn't be able to survive without their heated homes.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  8. That's great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now Brazil can have bulletproof bandeau tops and pasties!

  9. Is that a banana in your pocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or a super-strength codpiece?

  10. Sand People by kaoshin · · Score: 1

    That small weight makes a big difference for swoop racers, but will it stop a slug from a tusken cycler rifle?

  11. Oh, great! by sanermind · · Score: 1

    Biodegradable cellulosic based car parts? I can't wait until I leave my new car out in the rain for two weeks, and fungus starts growing on my bumpers, the same as it grows on the fallen trees next to where I park.

    --

    ---
    the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
    1. Re:Oh, great! by Muros · · Score: 1

      I was thinking exactly the same thing myself. Recycleable plastics made from plants, sure. Sounds good. Rots when left lying about.... if we're talking multiple decades, again, sure. If we're talking less than 3-4 times the expected lifetime of the manufactured item, no.

    2. Re:Oh, great! by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1
      As with everything biodegradable plastics are not perfect for everything. Some things aren't supposed to get wet: the casing of my PC could be made out of it (maybe even the PCB's). My Blu-ray player could easily be made with a biodegradable casing.
      Some things could be made of materials that become biodegradable when treated with a base, like raincoats (haven't seen the materials yet).
      The article suggests cars, as you do. I do hope they do one of these options:
      1. Only on non-wet surfaces (dashboards come to mind, roofs don't)
      2. Wet surfaces are coated (remember steel rusts if you don't coat it properly. What's the practical difference with rotting plastics?)
      3. From the article: "The nanocellulose could be combined with petroleum-based plastic if a specific application required it, he says, but the resulting product would not be biodegradable." (emphasys mine)

      I believe the engineers are smart enough to solve this conundrum, since they have already solved it for steel a long time ago.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    3. Re:Oh, great! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      PLA plastic is biodegradable and waterproof. Unfortunately, it is not heat resistant in its current form.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  12. Fruit Plastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...And when the fighting's over you can relax with a lovely fruit salad.

  13. Better quiet down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The last time someone tried to compete with DuPont with a cheap and available material, they lobbied congress to ban the material, which they did.

    I for one do not wish to have bananas, pineapples, or any other fruit be classified as a schedule I controlled substance.

    1. Re:Better quiet down by quiet+down · · Score: 0

      Would you happen to know what the material is?
      I don't think the government would ban the material itself if this happened, but instead ban the finished product. Still, this seems highly unlikely

    2. Re:Better quiet down by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 5, Informative

      The material they banned was industrial hemp. They made it illegal to grow it under the guise of going after marijuana. Even though you could set an entire field of industrial hemp on fire and not get high they still managed to get it and marijuana covered under the same law and banned.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    3. Re:Better quiet down by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2

      Hemp. Not the zany stuff hippies smoke, the low THC variety that is unpleasant to smoke but produces lots of oil and fiber in a really short time with minimal resource usage.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    4. Re:Better quiet down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only does it have an extremely low THC content, but it also contains another cannabinol (I can't remember the name) that actually prevents you from getting high from THC.

      Another big argument is that if industrial hemp were to be legalized, farmers could easily conceal marijuana within industrial hemp fields. This is very far from the truth. Industrial hemp and marijuana plants will cross pollinate (even if the fields are miles apart). The cross pollination renders the marijuana completely useless as a drug. You would end up with a field of industrial hemp, and a field of marijuana that has no value on the drug market and is less useful than industrial hemp for practical purposes.

    5. Re:Better quiet down by Redlazer · · Score: 1

      Those reasons don't sound weak to you?

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    6. Re:Better quiet down by Xachariah · · Score: 1

      You don't need to worry about anything, because our government wouldn't be so silly because Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte are invested in Bananas and are just as ruthless.

      Hurray for American democracy. If you can't trust politicians to serve your best interest, at least you can trust corporations to protect themselves.

    7. Re:Better quiet down by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The material they banned was industrial hemp.

      Technically, no. Your pothead buddy claimed that DuPont got hemp banned - a favorite lie of hippies and other assorted idiots. Also, industrial hemp isn't technically banned, even in the US - you can get a permit to grow it (it's just really hard to get one).

      They made it illegal to grow it under the guise of going after marijuana. Even though you could set an entire field of industrial hemp on fire and not get high they still managed to get it and marijuana covered under the same law and banned.

      That's a bit of a red-herring. Nobody ever suggested you could smoke hemp - the issue was that hemp fields made the ideal hiding spot for pot cultivation. Right now they get hidden in corn-fields and such, but tend to be relatively easy to spot from the air; you could grow millions of dollars worth of marijuana in a hemp field, and nobody would know unless they did a detailed ground-level inspection.

      Note that I'm generally in favor of legalizing marijuana - I'm just apposed to lies and distortions.

      Not sure what planet your from, but nothing is banned.

      It's a controlled substance, hence you can get a license to grow it. Industrial hemp, or medicial marijuana. I repeat for you, a non stoner, who don't know exactly what you are talking about, NOTHING GOT BANNED.

      When they got "industrial hemp" and "medical marijuana" changed into a controlled substance, they (being the corporation who just got the chemical formula's from germany, as part of WWI reparitians.), because plastic would NOT compete with the low cost and usuablility of hemp at the time. They purposely made it seem that it was marijuana they were trying to get contolled, when it was actually hemp they wanted out of the picture.

      You an find all the info, include actual copies of official documents on how this happened here: http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

      Here's online hosting of the book: http://www.onlinepot.org/grow/jackherer.htm

      I have nothing to do with those sites or the book. I'm just an american who's tired of the lies and bullshit. And corporation being treated like they are the rich, since they rarely, and i mean, rarely get in trouble for the shit they do.

      Oh, and i like to point out, yes, it was Dupont. So those hippies and other idiots who you think lie (probably because they are stoners), aren't. In fact, your the idiot now, but then, we knew that from your post. thanks for letting me share the real story.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    8. Re:Better quiet down by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      A fairly interesting discussion of the politics surrounding the banning of hemp can be found in an early Allan Ginsberg book "The Marijuana Papers". The Congresscritter most deeply involved was a gent named Harry J. Ainslinger. If you search the Congressional Record around the 1930's or so you might be able to trace his arguments.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    9. Re:Better quiet down by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Not sure what planet your from, but nothing is banned.

      So you agree with what I said, then ask me what planet I'm from. How many bowls have you smoked today?

      They purposely made it seem that it was marijuana they were trying to get contolled, when it was actually hemp they wanted out of the picture.

      lol. Yeah. And Larry Silverstein blew up the world trade center. Have another joint!

      You an find all the info, include actual copies of official documents on how this happened here: http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/ [jackherer.com]

      Sorry, don't have time to flip through another pothead conspiracy-theory book. Feel free to paste some excerpts.

      Oh, and i like to point out, yes, it was Dupont.

      [citation needed]

      (no, not another pothead site. if you can't at least get wikipedia on your side, you should give up.)

    10. Re:Better quiet down by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Also, industrial hemp isn't technically banned, even in the US - you can get a permit to grow it (it's just really hard to get one).

      Just really, really... hard. It's not even a drug, wtf is it banned? Let's ban everything inconvenient for lobby groups under the excuse that "it can be used to grow pot", your home and lawn included. Hell, even you can be used to grow pot!

    11. Re:Better quiet down by CBravo · · Score: 1

      Can you give a reference to this 'fact'?

      --
      nosig today
    12. Re:Better quiet down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time someone tried to compete with DuPont with a cheap and available material, they lobbied congress to ban the material, which they did.

      Just out of curiosity, which material was it that DuPont got banned?

    13. Re:Better quiet down by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I for one do not wish to have bananas, pineapples, or any other fruit be classified as a schedule I controlled substance.

      Hey, didn't you know, you can get high from smoking banana peals...

    14. Re:Better quiet down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woud you be willing to share the material's name? My Google-fu is lacking.

    15. Re:Better quiet down by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      your the idiot now

      Way to totally invalidate everything you just said. *golf clap*

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:Better quiet down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.
      And it wasn't just DuPont, but DuPont in joint collaboration with Hearst (the tree mogul who likes to cut down his forests to make paper products--even though trees yield fewer reams/acre, take longer to renew, require a dirty process to do it, and do not yield a naturally acid-free product.) Go figure.

      Oh, and it doesn't just make paper and plastics. The oils can be used to make paint as well as other chemicals, in some cases better than petroleum as well.

      100 karma points if you can name the material that was slandered, renamed via a 20+-year smear campaign (thus "educating" an entire generation), and banned...

    17. Re:Better quiet down by Y2KDragon · · Score: 1

      There is a remake of a Monty Python sketch in this story, somewhere...

    18. Re:Better quiet down by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      In fact, your the idiot now

      I see this a lot nowadays; are 'smart' phones autoincorrecting this?

    19. Re:Better quiet down by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Hey, didn't you know, you can get high from smoking banana peals

      I've never known a banana to ring out with a mellifluous tone, and even if one did I doubt it would get me high.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    20. Re:Better quiet down by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      the issue was that hemp fields made the ideal hiding spot for pot cultivation.

      Not at all, you will end up with the plant getting pollinated and then they have seeds. Industrial hemp includes male plants so this would just not work.

    21. Re:Better quiet down by mhaymo · · Score: 1
    22. Re:Better quiet down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conspiracy theorists think it was hemp; they attribute hemp with miraculous qualities that corporate greed is keeping down. In reality, controlling hemp was just a stupid and unfortunate side effect of controlling marijuana. I'm in favor of legalizing both, but I find the inordinate praise slathered on hemp (like exaggerating its fiber content, etc.) to be irritating.

    23. Re:Better quiet down by petit_robert · · Score: 1

      Seconded. I heard as much from real life hippies: those near industrial hemp fields(*) pull their hair out.

      As far as the Dupont story goes, I read they got hemp banned so it would not be able to compete with coton. The latter needs a lot of various chemicals to grow, whereas hemp is naturally robust.

      (* : writing from France)

    24. Re:Better quiet down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you but I'm interested in the citation... curiosity and such.

    25. Re:Better quiet down by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      Well if all their pot is useless and they've pulled out all their hair, how do you know they are hippies? Just a thought...

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  14. Replacement parts by ashvagan · · Score: 1

    So do we replace bio-degraded parts with new ones every week?

    1. Re:Replacement parts by quiet+down · · Score: 1

      Nope. All the replacements went missing.
      *urp*

  15. Nano-sandwich by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new nano-nana overlords!

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  16. Bye-bye! by mangu · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new nano-nana overlords!

    Well, I guess it's good-bye then.

    1. Re:Bye-bye! by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it's good-bye then.

      I was thinking more along these lines instead.

      But hey, whatever fries your clams, bud!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  17. All the same, really? by macraig · · Score: 2

    Petroleum was once (partly) fruits, too, eh? It's not a bad thing if we can sidestep the tens of millions of years in between and do it without massive energies or pressures. Same thing goes for fuel, of course, but I'm not holding my breath for biofuels, yet....

    1. Re:All the same, really? by Evi1M4chine · · Score: 1

      Biofuels are about the most retarded thing, since a tricycle with four-wheel drive or a water-tight sun dial.
      Let's... now sit down and prepare yourself for that level of stupidity... take our food... put it through a expensive resource-eating process... and burn the result into highly toxic environmental pollution.
      Whoever came up with that fuckin' great idea?? It’s like a joke in which Dick Cheney is told to come up with a system that's even more stupid and evil than using fossil fuels.
      Cause you got to literally have a empty hole in your chest where your heart should be, to come up with that level of evilness!

      </Lewis Black>

      --
      I must be some kind of leader... Since Slashdot is following me to the grave. ;)
    2. Re:All the same, really? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Lewis didn't get the memo about plants that grow like crazy on non-farmable scrubland that yield 500% or more the useful alcohol of corn. Switchgrass, it's what's for dinner, if you're cattle.

    3. Re:All the same, really? by Evi1M4chine · · Score: 0

      And you didn't get the memo of those plants having 0.1% efficiency in transforming sunlight to energy. of which only a fraction ends up being fuel.

      While concentrated solar power plants have at least 100 times higher efficiency, and in deserts catch air humidity, which allows life in the humid shaded ground below them, where you could still grow those very same plants without problems (assuming you put the mirrors on pillars with big enough spacing to farm the plants). <Ricky Gervais>In the desert!! How cool is that?!</Ricky Gervais> And without the power plant causing any carbon dioxide or other toxins.

      I am absolutely sure, that it's physically impossible to not think that’s cool. ;))

      --
      I must be some kind of leader... Since Slashdot is following me to the grave. ;)
    4. Re:All the same, really? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Wrong, you're quoting the very lowest end, photosynthetic efficiency, which ranges from 0.1 to 8%, and the norm is 3% to 6%. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Efficiency Yours is higher tech solution, more effort and money and resources. Plants (the biological kind) may be inefficient, but we have lots of useless land and infinite and indefinite supply of growing plants. Pluck 'em and throw them into vat with proper micro-organisms, easy as pie.

    5. Re:All the same, really? by Evi1M4chine · · Score: 0

      Ok, did not know that. Still, 6% is far away from that of e.g. solar power towers. And as I said, you could still add plants with 6% efficiency underneath.

      Also, what exactly is your argument about high-tech? I definitely don't call a bunch of mirrors on pillars and a brick tower with some water tube and steam turbines "high tech". It's less technology than the tractor, fertilizer machine, plant grinder, countless other agricultural machinery and chemical plant that biofuel requires.
      Also, it takes less space, and it can be built in 100% dead desert where not even bacteria can survive.

      I have the feeling that you have a strong emotional drive in defending this, that in not built on reason.

      --
      I must be some kind of leader... Since Slashdot is following me to the grave. ;)
  18. The circle of life continues by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We already have fruit made from plastic. So why not make plastic from fruit? That way the circle of life continues indefinitely.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:The circle of life continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, my friend, should be modded much higher.

    2. Re:The circle of life continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OMG, I see it right now: fruit made of plastic made of fruit, marketed as "100% fruit!"

    3. Re:The circle of life continues by plover · · Score: 1

      OMG, I see it right now: fruit made of plastic made of fruit, marketed as "100% fruit!"

      See it? You can buy them in the grocery store today! They're called "fruit roll-ups" and are about the most disgusting substance ever alleged to be "food". And I think you can get them in "fun" fruit shapes to meet your other requirement.

      --
      John
  19. Strong or tough? by wagnerrp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is strong really the correct term to use here? People think of kevlar being strong because it's used to stop bullets, but they're really completely wrong. Sure, it's stronger than steel, but not as strong as fiberglass or carbon fiber. You use kevlar in armor because it is tough, toughness being defined by the area under the stress/strain curve. It can absorb more energy than any other material. If it's as strong as kevlar, well then there are plenty of other natural and synthetic fibers that are just as capable, and this is nothing impressive. If it's as tough as kevlar, well then there is something of significant interest here.

    1. Re:Strong or tough? by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      indeed, one of the reasons to use it is the low elongation at break, and the relatively high stress at breakage. Some have suggested using spider silk for bulletproof vests, and indeed it would stop the bullet... just several meters on the other side of your body. more in the introduction of my thesis http://bit.ly/gfPdDN

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    2. Re:Strong or tough? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Your link looks awfully close to an attempt at trojan injection.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    3. Re:Strong or tough? by toQDuj · · Score: 1
      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    4. Re:Strong or tough? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Look, the only reason I know the tricks is because of my rampant porn viewing. A strange link like that tends to lead to some download or infected image that maliciously affects your computer. Its easily removed often enough or avoided by not clicking "open", but you begin to filter links like that out from experience. Since most of / . users view porn as much or more often than I do, you should consider what I said as an attempt to help you be credibly heard. Any other view of what I said would be wrong.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  20. Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by dbIII · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kevlar is a very useful nylon-like polymer because it's tough. What the means is that it can absorb a lot of energy before it breaks. It can't hold up a lot of weight (so not strong) but if you hit it very hard it flexes instead of breaking. That is why it is useful in bullet proof vests because you want to spread the impact and absorb the energy before it gets to your body. Toughness is a function of how much things can stretch together with strength -eg. rubber with low strength and a lot of elongation can absorb a lot more energy than glass with high strength and nearly no elongation.
    By volume Kevlar is nowhere near as strong as mild steel so a 10mm diameter rod of the stuff is not going to be able to suspend anywhere near as much weight as a 10mm diameter rod of mild steel. It doesn't weigh much though so you might be able to make something out of 1kg of Kevlar that can take as much load as 1kg of mild steel.
    It's very strong for a plastic (think of nylon fishing line - it's like that but stronger) but plastics are not very strong materials unless you reinforce them with something that is such as glass or graphite fibre.

    1. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that kevlar and other aramid fibres are almost entirely unlike nylon or dyneema. The structure is completely different, the aramid fibres can withstand high temperatures whereas the nylon fibres cannot (different chemistry), and the manufacturing process is completely different.

      Second point: the aramid fibres have a very small elongation (strain) at break, and can hold a large amount of stress. Indeed, on a per weight basis, they are "stronger" than steel, by volume, it is not so good. However, they do not exhibit much creep (but nylon does!) and do not suffer from effects of prolonged loading.

      Lastly, they do not bend well, and they cannot handle sharp edges so well because of that. Interestingly, you can get two kinds of protective vests with different weaves: one bulletproof type and one knifeproof type. the knifeproof vest is not bulletproof and vice versa.

      You may want to consider reading the introduction to my Ph.D. thesis (or its references) on this material as it appears you may be slightly misinformed. You can get it here: http://bit.ly/gfPdDN

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    2. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by dbIII · · Score: 1

      on a per weight basis, they are "stronger" than steel, by volume

      See my post above for exactly the same thing.

    3. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by Kakari · · Score: 1

      Where does 'spectra (UHMWPE, as I understand it)' fiber fall in these? I have often heard of it referred to as artificial spider's silk and could potentially be used as a thin bullet resistant lining (i.e. you will probably have broken bones and a wound, but would still be alive). I presume you would be able to provide more information on this fiber and the validity of that claim.

    4. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by toQDuj · · Score: 0

      your post screams "dyneema", not "kevlar". That I agree with one aspect of your post does not indicate my comments are redundant.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    5. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      the UHMWPE fibres as Spectra and Dyneema are high-modulus fibres, so their strain (extension) is small when stress (load) is applied. This makes for good bulletproof material in principle. The problems with these materials are that they show creep (they gradually extend when a constant load is applied), and that their good properties reduce dramatically at elevated temperatures.

      "Spider silk" is a bit of a misnomer as spiders produce a great variety of silk threads, some have high and some low modulus. The "spokes" generally have high modulus, whereas the "rings" have low modulus and are very elastic. So in order to validate their claim, they need to identify which silk they are talking about.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    6. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I was attempting to explain it all in very general terms with materials the general public can identify and didn't expect to get labelled "misinformed" for doing so :(
      Initially I thought the redundancy showed you hadn't bothered to read the entire short post before putting me in my place. I'm probably wrong on both counts.
      Other than that, thanks for the link that supplies more detail.

    7. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by toQDuj · · Score: 2

      Sorry for sounding curt.. I guess it was the "nylon-like" mention that kickstarted my inner chemical engineer. Also I have not yet had my second coffee today, so I too realize I made a mistake when referring to "spider-silk" in another comment without indicating that spiders spin a large variety of silk.

      As for educating the public, that is a commendable goal and it seems to me like we could use some of that! I also get the impression that many believe that after they finish their education, they are no longer in need of more education and ready to educate more offspring.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    8. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by anethema · · Score: 2

      UHMWPE is used widely in bullet proof vests.

      While it does have creep, the creep really is very low, and with some jiggerpokery, can be reduced to be less than steel for much less weight, though more volume. Jiggerpokery being a bit of stretching it while heating it up. Dynex Dux is such a product, and they make standing rigging for sailboats. It ends up being much stronger than the steel you need since you size for creep, but with a bit of oversizing the creep is a good bit less than the stainless rigging it replaces.

      Dyneema SK75 is also a good bit stronger than 1x19 aircraft cable in steel, and much stronger than stainless 1x19 of equal diameter. Obviously all of these options blow steel away in strength/weight. But even per diameter it is stronger.

      The main drawback is of course the fact that they melt at low temperatures, similar to nylon ropes etc. In normal environmental conditions though all of the good stuff is retained.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    9. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot Vectran. Some liquid crystal polymers have more tensile strength than piano wire. I knitted some vectran into the fingers of my gloves to prevent them from disintegrating as quickly :D

    10. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by strack · · Score: 1

      you talk about volume to strength ratio. no one cares about that. people care about weight to strength ratio. kevlar has a specific strength 10 times higher than that of steel. so yeah. a kg of kevlar is a hell of a lot stronger than a kg of steel.

    11. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by epine · · Score: 1

      Second point: the aramid fibres have a very small elongation (strain) at break, and can hold a large amount of stress. Indeed, on a per weight basis, they are "stronger" than steel, by volume, it is not so good.

      Try a Nylon semicolon instead of the Kevlar comma. You'd already used a carborundum colon in the preceding sentence, so I know you have it in your bit kit.

      Indeed, on a per weight basis, they are "stronger" than steel; by volume, it is not so good.

    12. Re:Kevlar is not really very strong - it's tough by Kakari · · Score: 1

      Thank you both for the information!

  21. Just what we need! by Zephiris · · Score: 2

    Bullet Proof Banana Hammocks Made Out of Bananas.

    On a serious note, a lot of 'projects' seem to come out like this one, but very few ever seem to make it to commercial scale and distribution, let alone success and continued survival. "Alternative" tech never seems to sell, quite possibly because it's 'alternative', and the big boys have enough cash to make most things go away that would cut into their profits, like that pesky cold fusion.

    --

    "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
    1. Re:Just what we need! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      enough cash to make most things go away that would cut into their profits

      I'm not going to say that's never happened, but if it's cheaper and/or better than the existing products, why wouldn't the big boys take the huge PR benefit of being "renewable", save a ton on industrial-scale production, and leverage the advantages of their existing product distribution networks to make more money?

    2. Re:Just what we need! by Zephiris · · Score: 1

      Tens of billions (or more) invested into what they already have. The notion of "looking stupid" is pretty powerful as far as what companies will and won't do.
      Something has to have a lot of momentum and stick around long enough to start moving the granite boulder.

      --

      "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
    3. Re:Just what we need! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plastic Body Armor, think Star Wars.

  22. Materials science and fruitcake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a fruitcake made from this plastic! It could contain antimatter!
     

  23. Arthur C Clarke for the win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC, his space elevator book, The Fountains Of Paradise, mentioned superstrong ropes made of bananas.

  24. Avatar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one thinking this sounds very Avatar like?

  25. Gonna need new scissors. by Joe+Helfrich · · Score: 2

    As if a trip to the electronics store wasn't frustrating enough. Once they start making clamshell packaging out of this, no one will ever be able to get anything open.

    1. Re:Gonna need new scissors. by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Or you could get a new fruit knife.

  26. Problem with repurposing food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only difficulty with this development is if banana and pineapple acreage is taken out of production for food and used for these plastics instead. There's a food crisis in much of the world, and it's only been exacerbated by the diversion of corn to ethanol. Bananas and pineapples aren't staples in the same way corn is, but this would still potentially mean less food to go around.

    1. Re:Problem with repurposing food by AndOne · · Score: 2

      They're using the stems and leaves of the plants. As in the left over parts after food is processed. They can also use the plants that rot in the field or don't make the grade for edibility I'd imagine. There was word of Pepsi switching its bottling process over to use plastics made out of the leftover plant matter from their food processing plants a few weeks ago. I imagine this would be much the same and not like the corn based ethonal boondoggle.

      --
      I don't care what you say, all I need is my Wumpabet soup.
  27. PHC? by wrencherd · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this kind of plastic can be used for food storage and thereby avoid the PHC problem?

  28. "BPA" by wrencherd · · Score: 1

    Of course, I meant BPA, not PHC . . . uh-oh, I'm feeling acro-ny-mic . . .

  29. Re:Better quiet down - Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? CO2 basically is

  30. Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have just about lost an eye and bled out removing things from their sealed plastic packages. Now you're telling me they're going to be able to use plastic as strong as Kevlar? I give up.

  31. Oh great... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Now I'll need a cutting torch to get a USB thumbdrive out of its packaging.

  32. Bullet RESISTANT vest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bullet PROOF vest is a mythical item. Any of the body armor out there that begins to qualify as bullet proof, can hardly be considered a vest.

    1. Re:Bullet RESISTANT vest by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      There are no bullet proof body armors either, in the absolute sense. Name a product and i'll tell you what bullet at standard loading will penetrate it.

  33. sweet! by Innovative1 · · Score: 1

    ...but is it BPA and Phthalate free??

  34. But will it blend? by Okonomiyaki · · Score: 1

    Or if not, can you make a blender out of it?

  35. Probably bogus by Animats · · Score: 2

    These frequent "big materials breakthrough" articles really should wait until they've been reviewed in some publication that knows something about the subject, like Chemical Engineering News. The paper, "Agro-waste nanocomposites for automotive applications", presented at the American Chemical Society is available. The claims there aren't as strong as the ones in the press release. Last year, the same author presented "Agro-Wastes Nanocomposites for Medical Application". Wonder what happened to that.

    The trouble with many of these "new materials" is that they have some awful flaw. This one, for example, is "biodegradable". That means it rots. That's OK for packaging, but not for parts. Then there are basic questions, like will it tolerate water? Can it be made into thread, sheet, or film? Made at a reasonable cost?

    There's been interest in finding useful things to make out of cellulose for the last century. There's so much agricultural waste around, and it would be nice to use it for something. Most of the ideas don't work out, but people keep trying.

  36. Sounds great! by toddwv · · Score: 1

    Until we have to start paying $15.00 for a pound of bananas that is... $200.00 for a fruit cup is just too much!!

  37. nice by Thraxy · · Score: 1

    yay bulletproof cola bottles :D

  38. Using food for material goods...wtf? by Sabathius · · Score: 1

    We're having a hard time feeding the world as it is...now we want to use fruit to make plastic? This is as bad as using corn to make ethanol. I've got a better idea: how about industrial hemp, or switch-grass or something? I bet the fibers would be even stronger.

  39. How sustainable will this be? by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

    Haven't they heard about the BANANA APOCALYPSE!

  40. Kevlar is no longer used in bulletproof vests. by DrPeper · · Score: 1

    Kevlar was superceded about 10 years ago with spectra, and now spectra has become antiquated by another (stronger) fiber the name of which escapes me.

  41. strength != strength/weight as should be obvious by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I talk about strength in terms of cross sectional area because that's what strength MEANS - maximum force per unit of cross sectional area. Many people make the mistake you just did and think that kevlar, polyester, PVC, balsa wood, foam packaging etc is stronger than steel when it is not. That's why I wrote what I wrote above to try to clear up confusion like yours above.
    As an example in an aircraft they use high strength steels for landing gear parts because actual strength is more important there than strength/weight ratio. In most other parts that are under less stress strength/weight ratio matters more so lighter materials are used.
    Also if it's not aircraft or clothing usually "no one cares" much about the strength to weight ratio.

  42. microcosmic god by surd1618 · · Score: 1

    This reminded me of the story "Microcosmic God" by Theodore Sturgeon. The scientist James Kidder made super-rope from bananas: "He got to messing around with sisal fiber, found Out how to fuse it, and boomed the banana industry by producing a practically unbreakable cord from the stuff. You remember the popularizing demonstration he put on at Niagara, don't you? That business of running a line of the new cord from bank to bank over the rapids and suspending a ten-ton truck from the middle of it by razor edges resting on the cord? That's why ships now moor themselves with what looks like heaving line, no thicker than a lead pencil, that can be coiled on reels like garden hose."