Slashdot Mirror


Engineers Create World's Lightest Material

ackthpt writes "A team of engineers claims to have created the world's lightest material. Made from a lattice of hollow metallic tubes, the material is less dense than aerogels and metallic foams, yet retains strength due to the small size of the lattice structure (abstract). The material's density is 0.9 milligrams per cubic centimeter. Among other things, it's potentially useful for insulation, battery electrodes, and sound dampening."

177 comments

  1. So... by Kaenneth · · Score: 5, Funny

    A Series of Tubes, eh?

    1. Re:So... by Bob-taro · · Score: 5, Funny

      A Series of Tubes, eh?

      Jen: "It's so light!"

      Moss: "Of course, Jen. The internet doesn't weigh anything!"

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is more like a big truck.

      Err, wait.

      Nope, tubes it is.

  2. Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    0.9mg/cm^3 is 0.9kg/m^3, i.e. lighter than air (1.2kg/m^3). I call shenanigans.

    1. Re:Unlikely by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      The AC beat me to it. I was going to post that this stuff should float in a normal Earth atmosphere. If true, this would be an amazing breakthrough, but my skeptic's glasses are on right now.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.9mg/cm^3 is 0.9kg/m^3, i.e. lighter than air (1.2kg/m^3). I call shenanigans.

      Duh. They make it on the ceiling!

    3. Re:Unlikely by Tatarize · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're obviously going to have tared the measuring against air. Making it .9mg above the weight of the air. But, if there is no air, it would weight .9.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    4. Re:Unlikely by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some Aerogels can already float in air, but most of those are incredibly fragile.

    5. Re:Unlikely by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that is the case, then aerogel wins
      aerogel is 1.9mg/cm^3 in a normal atmosphere, only 0.7mg above the weight of the air.

      Can someone settle the discrepency beside speculating like we are?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    6. Re:Unlikely by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      It's 99.99% open volume. Sounds feasible to me.

    7. Re:Unlikely by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      Got a link? The lightest materials I can find are about 50% more dense than air. I am really curious about stuff like this, so wold like to read more...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:Unlikely by Rhaban · · Score: 2

      the tubes are filled with air, so you must take into account the weight of the air. total should be close to 2.1kg/m.
      the material isn't really this light in itself. It's like making a 1m box with paper and claiming it weights ten g/m.

    9. Re:Unlikely by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Well, when it's in the atmosphere it's filled with air.

    10. Re:Unlikely by Zerth · · Score: 5, Informative
    11. Re:Unlikely by Jeng · · Score: 5, Informative

      I normally don't link videos, but in this case it makes sense.

      I think this is what he is talking about.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoCAxS4vqwQ

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    12. Re:Unlikely by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      That would mean it's 99.99% filled with air, no? Which means it's .9 + .99*weightOfAir...

    13. Re:Unlikely by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I am now more confused as aerogel is lighter than than sans air. But I appreciate the link.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    14. Re:Unlikely by Zerth · · Score: 4, Informative

      The trick is to purge the CO2 with helium or hydrogen after you've finished the supercritical drying.

    15. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue the comments from people who do not understand the difference between weight and mass.

    16. Re:Unlikely by IronOxen · · Score: 2

      If it is lighter than air per cm^3 then make it in a vacuum and lets build a flying saucer

    17. Re:Unlikely by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      0.9mg/cm^3 is 0.9kg/m^3, i.e. lighter than air (1.2kg/m^3). I call shenanigans.

      It was pointed out that the value 0.9 for density does not include the air. This makes sense because then we would need to know the exact composition of the air used so we could get an accurate measurement of the material. All that said, however, "lighter than air" has no relevance with respect to density.

    18. Re:Unlikely by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      At least you were smart enough to stay AC. Weight and mass are irrelevant to this conversation. Thanks for playing though.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    19. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So if you make a ball of that material, put a thin air-tight hull on the outside (doesn't have to be very strong because it is supported by the material) and evacuate it, would you then get a vacuum balloon? Or would the material not stand the pressure (or stand it, but get compressed so much that the density goes above air density anyway)?

    20. Re:Unlikely by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The lightest Aerogel when evacuated has a density of ~1mg/cm^3

      It is porous, and when air is allowed into its structure to goes up to 1.9mg/cm^3.

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

      It doesn't have the strength to resist 1 atmosphere of pressure when sealed. But helium can be used to equalize the pressure and the material will float in air.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoCAxS4vqwQ

    21. Re:Unlikely by colsandurz45 · · Score: 1

      0.9mg/cm^3

      mg/cm^3 are the dumbest units, why not g/m^3?

    22. Re:Unlikely by sam0vi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is just my guess, but that is probably its density in a vacuum. When exposed to atmosphere, air goes through the cavities, filling then up, thus increasing its density. Something like calculating the density of a sponge in an underwater environment. My 2 cents.

      --
      When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
    23. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math fail.

      1 mg/cm^3 is 1000 g/m^3

    24. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the air is not trapped in the material and not counted against its weight, then obviously it shouldn't be counted against its volume either. Otherwise I can easily make a balloon which is "less dense" than this material by weighing only the hull and dividing by the volume of the enclosed air. I

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

      Math fail.

      1 mg/cm^3 is 1000 g/m^3

      and 1000g = 1kg

      meaning .9mg/cm^3 = .9kg/m^3

      Did I just get trolled, or did you really call "math fail" on somebody and not even understand what kilo- means?

    26. Re:Unlikely by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So they aren't measuring the volume properly. They are measuring the bounding box, and not doing an Archimedes-style immerse-it-in-a-fluid-and-measure-the-displacement volume measurement. If they did that, I'm sure the density would be the same as the metal from which it is made.

      But if you're going to cheat, and measure the volume of the envelope, then I'm sure I've got a lighter than air tent. And what about all those air supported sports domes? Zepplins and hot air balloons? Been there. Done that.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    27. Re:Unlikely by ukemike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      0.9mg/cm^3 is 0.9kg/m^3, i.e. lighter than air (1.2kg/m^3). I call shenanigans.

      Yes, and if you wrapped an impermeable skin around it and evacuated the air using the lattice material as a support for the skin then it probably would float (assuming that the skin didn't tip the balance of the stuff into being too dense and assuming the material was strong enough to resist collapse from the atmospheric pressure). BUT it is a lattice material and the spaces in between the hollow metallic tubes are typically, brace yourself... full of air! So on it's own it does not float.

      It's amazing to me that the parent got modded insightful. Sure he can google the density of air, but clearly he couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag.

      --
      -- QED
    28. Re:Unlikely by fnj · · Score: 1

      Uh ... highly conveniently, they are the same number, friend. 0.9 mg/cm^3 = 0.9 g/m^3.

    29. Re:Unlikely by fnj · · Score: 1

      Oops, meant to say that 0.8 mg/cm^3 is 0.9 kg/m^3. Oh hell. It's still the same number when you choose the right units :-)

    30. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what else floats when you fill it with helium?

    31. Re:Unlikely by fnj · · Score: 1

      0.8, 0.9, who's counting. More caffeine. Must hit the right keys.

    32. Re:Unlikely by fnj · · Score: 1

      No, you wouldn't get a vacuum balloon. Not one that works. The material would instantly collapse. It's not strong enough to resist the atmosphere, by a wide margin.

    33. Re:Unlikely by Bengie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could be a weight vs mass issue. Even though they're using grams, they may be making it laymen and treating it like a weight.

      So it has a "weight" of 0.9kg/m^3 when including buoyancy from our atmosphere.

      When most people put something on a scale and sees 1KG, they don't think.. "ooops, forgot to compensate for the volume of air it displaces"

      But you do bring up a good point that I would love to have answered.

    34. Re:Unlikely by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Aerogels are alerady known to be lighter than air, they couldn't break the record being heavier.

      That density is estimated for the material on vaccum.

    35. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soooooo......

      They will float when filled with heli?

      I ve a couple of those incredible solids right there....

    36. Re:Unlikely by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add that it may be permeable, allowing air to entire its structure, so even if it was weighed in a vacuum as below that of air, it may gain mass when subjected to an atmosphere, but the mass of the atmosphere would mostly cancel out leaving about the same weight.. all depending on its structure.

    37. Re:Unlikely by necro81 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The AC beat me to it. I was going to post that this stuff should float in a normal Earth atmosphere. If true, this would be an amazing breakthrough, but my skeptic's glasses are on right now.

      Well, no: the material itself if still made of metal, and the metal has a density greater than atmosphere, and the atmosphere pervades through it (it's an open cell lattice). In order for it to float in air, you would need to enclose it (i.e., put a skin around it) and remove the air from the interior volume. The material needs to displace the air. The same could be said for boats: they float on water only when the hull has the water removed. Once the water gets inside the hull, you face the fact that the boat is made of metal and will sink. The buoyancy in air or water is based on displacing the fluid by something of lesser density. For a floating boat, replacing water with air. For a chunk of this foam, replacing air with helium, vacuum, etc.

    38. Re:Unlikely by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      0.9mg/cm^3 is 0.9kg/m^3, i.e. lighter than air (1.2kg/m^3). I call shenanigans.

      A lattice of metal bars can be "lighter than water" and still not float, because of water intrusion into the spaces.

      If this material's structure is fine enough to prevent, or slow, air infiltration into the spaces, it could indeed float in air. If it can't, it could still be evacuated in a vacuum chamber and then wrapped in a balloon skin.

      Party balloons that float for years... probably a bit expensive for that application.

    39. Re:Unlikely by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I have ADD.. sorry..

      Another thing I thought of.

      If one to place a decently large volume this stuff in a vacuum, foil wrap it and expose it to atmosphere, would it float? If it truly has a density less than our atmosphere, then enough volume to compensate for the extra mass of the seal over the surface would allow it to float.

    40. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The interesting question is whether, unlike aerogels, this can be evacuated, sealed, and withstand atmospheric pressure. Aerogels are too weak, and will collapse -- you have to fill them with 1atm of He or such to make them float. if this is strong enough for reasonable size pieces to withstand 1 atm with an internal vacuum, it could mean bag-of-floaty-gravel airships!

      (I'm sure it isn't strong enough, but pardon my fantasizing...)

    41. Re:Unlikely by polymeris · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be "the world's lightest material" if it was heavier than air. OTOH, it still isn't. It is heavier than many other gases. Or do materials only include solids, now?

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

      You seem like a really nice guy. *hug!*

    43. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If this is true, I can finally wear my brass goggles and top hat while riding in the above mentioned airship.

    44. Re:Unlikely by bogd · · Score: 2

      By your standards, bread is the same density as dough, and swiss cheese the same density as... regular cheese :) Face it - sometimes the holes in the structure of the material are relevant, and will affect the overall density (and the fact that they are uniformly distributed is relevant, which excludes your tent). Even ice has a lower density than water because of "tiny holes" in its structures (actually, these "holes" are increased spaces between the atoms making up the ice).

    45. Re:Unlikely by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      But by your logic the helium balloon has lower density than this newfangled material.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    46. Re:Unlikely by optimism · · Score: 1

      I remember a middle-school science experiment many many years ago.

      We heated an empty 1-gallon steel fuel can over a bunsen burner, then screwed on the cap, and turned off the heat.

      As the can cooled, the internal pressure of the heated air inside dropped, and atmospheric pressure started to crush the can. By the end of the class period, it was a crumpled mess.

      Rule of thumb: If an NFL linebacker can crush a container by standing on it, then the atmosphere alone will crush that container when it is "full" of vacuum.

      And the steel can that we used in that experiment was ~100 times stronger than a foil-wrapped aero-lattice.

    47. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem like a terrific guy. *prostate exam!*

    48. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A duck! ...Very small rocks!?

    49. Re:Unlikely by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Because it's porous air will occupy the gaps in this substance. But if you sealed off the surface and sucked all the air out then yes it would probably float. Ie, imagine a zeppelin without the skin.

    50. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been returning to this thread periodically ever since I posted about you being a nice guy (because it's clear that you are indeed fnj, Anonymous Coward).

      Thank you for responding.

    51. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bread!

    52. Re:Unlikely by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Take a 5-gram balloon.

      Blow it up to 6 liters.

      Now it's 0.83 mg/cm^3.

      How hard is that?

    53. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The structural features of this material are on orders up to the millimetre scale. You could make a wall out of this stuff. You can't carve a wall out of "helium balloon".
      Likening a porous lattice material like this to an helium balloon is like comparing a polymer to a tangled ball of yarn. Having a material with a property is different from having an object with that property.

    54. Re:Unlikely by EdIII · · Score: 2

      That's exactly what I was thinking. If this material still retains enough strength to resist the crushing force of air at sea level when wrapped and a vacuum inside, it has some very interesting applications. That's a pretty big accomplishment of course, and I am skeptical. The skin around this would have to be very light and strong. Easier said than done.

      If true, you could have airships that don't rely on gases lighter than air to float. Which is a good thing, since Helium is running out.

    55. Re:Unlikely by definate · · Score: 1

      CHURCHES! CHURCHES!

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    56. Re:Unlikely by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      This is great! We just solved a whole bunch of our country's problems!

      We make planes out of this lighter-than-air material, and now we don't need engines or fuel. We can just hire a dozen dudes to give the thing a really hefty push in the right direction. We cut down on foreign dependence AND create jobs! AWESOME!

    57. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Density isn't the same thing as weight.

    58. Re:Unlikely by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      You can also put on your robe and wizard hat.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    59. Re:Unlikely by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      We make planes out of this lighter-than-air material, and now we don't need engines or fuel.

      If the payload were also lighter than air, then you wouldn't need to use engines to provide lift, but you would still need to provide thrust to overcome drag, to accelerate and decelerate the loads (vehicle load and payload), and to steer.

      Well done. You've re-invented the airship. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing!)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    60. Re:Unlikely by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      This is why calling this material a "solid" seems disingenuous. It seems someone (quite possibly the writer and not the researchers) is accidentally or deliberately confusing "rigid" and "solid" to mislead people into thinking this is more useful than it actually is. This is a shame, because it looks like such lattices will prove plenty useful with the characteristics they DO have. They just won't be buoyant in air.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    61. Re:Unlikely by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      NASA, is that you?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    62. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helium may be running out, but there is no shortage of Hydrogen.

    63. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive my poor math, but .9mg/cm3 is multiplied by (100)^3 and divided by 1000 to get 90kg/m3, not 0.9kg/m3.

  3. Hello, Computer... by milbournosphere · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I guess Scotty and the rest of the crew finally got here. Watch the sky for Klingon warbirds and flying whales!

    1. Re:Hello, Computer... by impaledsunset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, Scotty gave us transparent aluminium, i.e. the thinnest transparent material. Not the lightest material. Light and thin aren't the same thing yet, at least not before a few coordinate system transformations.

    2. Re:Hello, Computer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There be trolls here!

    3. Re:Hello, Computer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you will find it was a Klingon Bird of Prey.

      (I'd have to get out the über-geek books to be sure, but I my memory suggests that it was a D12 class)

  4. This is getting ridiculous... by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and slightly convenient, too.

    Week before it was the blackest material ever.
    Last week it was the slipperiest.
    This week it's the lightest.

    What's on for next week? Heaviest? Densest? Whitest? Most beige?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by P-niiice · · Score: 5, Funny

      sleepiest, dopiest, bashfulest

    2. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We've already found the densest thing in the universe. A slashdot thread argument between unity100 and roman_mir about the role of government in the market.

    3. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hoping for softest.

    4. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      The most resistant to vibrations.

      The most able to transfer thermal energy.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    5. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Least controversial" would be a fun twist. It'd only remain in that state for as long as the information was kept private. The moment that it leaks to the Internet, it loses its state of least controversial.

    6. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's on for next week? Heaviest? Densest? Whitest?"

      You're predicting an article about Fat Bastard?

    7. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of which would be interesting. Some of us like science and engineering.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Tomato42 · · Score: 1

      thermal superconductor would be quite nice...

    9. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "scientists create most beige material yet"
      I would love that article

    10. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Subtext:

      "Scientific community indifferent."

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    11. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's on for next week? Heaviest? Densest? Whitest? Most beige?

      A team of engineers claims to have created Dellium, the world's most beige material...

    12. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Saw one only like a week ago that was the "stickiest", and a robot who used it to climb walls like a gecko.

    13. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by dorianh49 · · Score: 1

      Michael Dell sells company, house, and family and goes all in to invest in said material.

      --
      Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
    14. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you read it?

    15. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grumpiest and dociest also.

    16. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC you just won yourself an internet.

  5. But how cheap can they get it? by Chelmet · · Score: 2

    I understand it'll be horribly expensive right now and that production prices will drop, but cheap enough for the likes of insulation? Or are we talking space station stuff here?

    1. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you want superlight insulation, you can already buy Aerogel in bulk quantities. It's not exactly cheap, but it's not completely outrageous either.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      As long as it is cheaper that aerogels then it is a significant achievement in material science.

      If it costs more than aerogels to produce then it is just another nice research project.

      Most probably we are talking space station stuff here, the question is whether it will be used on Earth.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by Jeng · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The cnet article someone else linked has a lot more information.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57327382-264/breakthrough-material-is-barely-more-than-air/?part=rss&subj=crave&tag=title

      It looks like this will be significantly cheaper to produce than aerogels and sturdier.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      I understand it'll be horribly expensive right now and that production prices will drop, but cheap enough for the likes of insulation?

      Or are we talking space station stuff here?

      They say it's a good insulator, but I don't understand why -- the picture makes it appear that there are significant holes throughout the material - seemingly enough to allow convective heat losses? I can believe that the metal is too thin for much conduction, but I don't see why convection is not an issue? Seems like Aerogel would make a better insulator.

    5. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You slap some paper on both the inner and outer side and you solve that problem ASAP.

    6. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air is a really good insulator. thats how double paned glass and fiberglass insulation work

    7. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      You slap some paper on both the inner and outer side and you solve that problem ASAP.

      Paper may air from outside getting inside your insulator, but what stops internal convection between the paper surfaces?

    8. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine structure means slow flows -- you won't get much convection. Same as fiberglass insulation -- there's plenty of air, and it can get around, but it's very slow.

    9. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Fine structure means slow flows -- you won't get much convection. Same as fiberglass insulation -- there's plenty of air, and it can get around, but it's very slow.

      The structure may be fine, but in looking at the pictures (which admittedly aren't detailed enough to clearly see the structure, and it's hard to say if the internal structure differs from the visible outer structure), it looks like the gaps between the tubing might be a few mm wide, seems like plenty of room to allow for convective airflows.

      If this nano-structure left nano-sized holes, then that'd be a different story, but these are definitely macro-size gaps.

    10. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by benthurston27 · · Score: 1

      Well to stop convective you could just sandwich it between two layers of plastic, right?

    11. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also make your own

      http://benkrasnow.blogspot.com/2011/11/making-silica-aerogel-at-home.html

    12. Re:But how cheap can they get it? by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

      Convective heat transfer depends on having enough space for the fluid to circulate easily. Every fiber is surrounded by a static boundary layer. Every boundary layer has an adjacent layer where flow is restricted.

      It will be a good insulator for the same reason that spun fiberglass is a good insulator,

      Note that recently,(a few years) FG insulation has been downgraded, particularly as a ceiling insulation, for high differential temperatures. Turns out that once you get a differential of about 100F across a standard ceiling, you start to get slow convection in the glass. The effective R value is cut in half.

      Anyone who has done a reno that included the outer skin will have found dirty fiberglass at the walls base. The wall acts as a column sucking air in at the bottom, and releasing it at the top. This is why detailing that housewrap and that plastic liner is important. Mind you, screw it up one way (house wrap well done, vapour barrier sloppy) and the walls rot from condensed moisture. Screw it up the other way, and you lose energy efficiency. This is why Tyvek is slightly permiable.

      --
      Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
  6. Re:AMERICAN Engineers by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 0

    The US is a cheap imitation of European civilisation without all the R&D costs to recoup. (amirite? Europeans mod up and Americans mod down, because moderation is a way of showing whether you agree.)

    I don't see why China can't follow the example.

  7. I like it but by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Informative

    Would it be feasible to replace drywall. It sounds like a better insulator than drywall, not to mention its sound dampening effects. What would be the effects of dust from it on the lungs? Will it suffer the same fate as Asbestos?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:I like it but by Jeng · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Due to its expense I can't see this being used as a drywall replacement. Drywall is used to due to how cheap it is, not because it is the best at its job.

      If it was used in the same fashion as drywall then the actual lattice would be covered by a paper layer and then acoustic mud, just like drywall.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:I like it but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What?! Your comment does not compute. Thats like saying NASA just built this new rocket, I bet it would work great to heat my house with it!

      Drywall's sole purpose is to be a flat surface (ie: a wall) for painting and as a fire resistant to give occupants of buildings slightly more time to get out. Hence the reason they often use double or triple layers of drywall between shared walls. It offers virtually no insulation value whatsoever, which is why its paired with actual insulation on exterior walls.

      This material doesn't share [b]any[/b] of those properties in a practical sense. Its obviously porous and would be impractical to paint, not to mention it would probably cost thousands of times more than drywall and be much more difficult to work with.

    3. Re:I like it but by fnj · · Score: 0

      It's also so incredibly flimsy you can rip it apart with your finger without trying. You couldn't even tickle the wall with a feather without destroying it.

    4. Re:I like it but by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      bummer. The cost of insulation + noise dampening + assisting the stability of the structure + being the surface object for the walls + potentially eliminating the need for studs all replace by one item that is also light -- adding some relief to homes with peer and beam type foundation -- seemed like a good idea. I went off to check out some prices. Foam injected insulation is about $700/ bd ft, performs well as an insulator, noise dampener, and helps the stability of the structure but you still need studs and drywall. Drywall is cheap as the dirt it is made out of $6.'ish. So this stuff would have to be no more than $150 if you still used studs. It could be as expensive as $300 if you didn't use studs except for areas with windows and doors.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    5. Re:I like it but by Shimbo · · Score: 2

      No, you'ld have ninjas bursting through it all the time.

    6. Re:I like it but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, about as feasible as using commonplace fiberglass insulation as a replacement for drywall.
      (I'm guessing you meant to say fiberglass insulation, not drywall.)

    7. Re:I like it but by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Nothin stops the ninjas!

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    8. Re:I like it but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps RTFA instead of spreading ignorance. It indicates this stuff is stronger than Aerogel. There's pictures of a square inch of aerogel not being crushed by a 10 pound weight sitting on it. As the article states, when you start getting down to nano sized structures, it tends to get stronger, not weaker.

  8. Cosplayers rejoice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My first consideration after reading the article is 'now all those Cloud cosplayers can finally carry durable swords'.

    That does assume the costs get low enough, but a sturdy replica giant sword at less than 10kg would improve many such costumes.

    1. Re:Cosplayers rejoice by Rhacman · · Score: 1

      It might even be possible to do that victory sword spin he likes to do so much. I'd have to wonder though if something that big made out of that material wouldn't just bend like a wet noodle.

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    2. Re:Cosplayers rejoice by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The next goal: Ryumon Hozukimaru.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  9. Not that unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caltech is more than likely to make serious breakthroughs.

  10. But is it easier to make? by squidflakes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem with aerogels is that they can be very finicky during production, and unless you make them hydrophobic (or is it hydrophillic?) they can start to dissolve from as little as a single drop of sweat.

    Some friends and I got some lab equipment during a "Lost Our Grant" sale, which included a high-pressure autoclave. We thought making aerogel would be a hoot, but damn is that stuff difficult to produce. It is relatively cheap, but during the supercritical drying phase, you'd best not bump the autoclave, and you better have mixed everything right. That stuff is like the comedy souffle of the future.

    Anyway, the novelty wears off after you've played with the stuff for 20 minutes. The novelty of watching the cat bat it around takes about an hour.

    1. Re:But is it easier to make? by Jeng · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Someone linked a cnet article with more information including how it is produced.

      From reading it it sounds like it will be easier to produce, but I really don't know a damn thing on this subject.

      What's your take?
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57327382-264/breakthrough-material-is-barely-more-than-air/?part=rss&subj=crave&tag=title

      The lattice is constructed through several steps, Carter said. First, lasers beam ultraviolet light into a reservoir of a resin that forms polymer fibers when the light hits it. The fibers follow the path the light takes, and using multiple beams creates multiple interconnected fibers.

      Next, the rest of the resin is washed away, the polymer fibers are coated with a very thin layer of nickel, and the polymer fibers are then dissolved, leaving only the metal lattice.

      The dimensions of the lattice can be adjusted by changing the properties of a perforated mask through which the ultraviolet line is beamed, the paper said.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:But is it easier to make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. 3D printing generate a micro structure which is then plated with nickle.
      2. When it is done, dissolve the structure.
      3. ???
      4. Profit

    3. Re:But is it easier to make? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're imagining 3D printers printing at that resolution, why not just also pretend we can print with nickel?

    4. Re:But is it easier to make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The novelty of watching the cat bat it around takes about an hour.

      A search of youtube pulls up nothing?!?! I had long thought we had video documentation of every possible cat behavior...

      Now I'm picturing all sorts of potential videos: "A better mousetrap using magnetic field attenuation between two neodymium supermagnets", "Cat takes bath in non-Newtonian fluid", "Bug zapper/railgun hybrid", "Cat on a Van de Graaff Generator"

    5. Re:But is it easier to make? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      The ultraviolet laser in to polymer IS 3D printing using the same exact process that the first 3D printers used. It isn't the extrusion type that the Maker folks are bashing together in their garages, but you can rent time on a machine with that level precision. Heck a couple of SIGGRAPHs ago you could bring a 3D model in one of several formats and they would print it for you as a demo.

    6. Re:But is it easier to make? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Humm... as has already been mentioned below, they use the volumetric printers that do everything with lasers and polyester resin then vapor deposit the nickel.

      I don't have one of those printers but I know where I could rent time on one. I don't have the skills in Maya or AUTOCAD to make the shape they describe, but I imagine someone proficient in that software could hack something together. The vapor depositing of the nickel would be a pain. The only metal deposit work I've done has been with gold on samples for SEMs and TEMs and I know that nickel has a higher melting point.

      One thing I'm noticing though is that all of these barriers are skill related. I would imagine a good industrial process engineer could figure out a really nifty way to do this stuff on a large scale. The vapor deposit process, I imagine, is well understood and we have tons of consumer electronic products that use it. Large scale 3D printing might be a bit trickier.

      Once that part gets licked, it seems like this material would be a heck of a lot easier to make then aerogel. As your aerogel block gets larger, the more time you have to spend on all parts of the process. A bigger block takes longer to wash and age, and has to be in supercritical drying for a more significant period. Otherwise, your gel is cloudy and dense and that's not why you're making aerogel in the first place!

    7. Re:But is it easier to make? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Someone linked a cnet article with more information including how it is produced.

      From reading it it sounds like it will be easier to produce, but I really don't know a damn thing on this subject.

      What's your take?
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57327382-264/breakthrough-material-is-barely-more-than-air/?part=rss&subj=crave&tag=title

      The lattice is constructed through several steps, Carter said. First, lasers beam ultraviolet light into a reservoir of a resin that forms polymer fibers when the light hits it. The fibers follow the path the light takes, and using multiple beams creates multiple interconnected fibers.

      Next, the rest of the resin is washed away, the polymer fibers are coated with a very thin layer of nickel, and the polymer fibers are then dissolved, leaving only the metal lattice.

      The dimensions of the lattice can be adjusted by changing the properties of a perforated mask through which the ultraviolet line is beamed, the paper said.

      That's difficult. UV lasers are a pain because air absorbs UV somewhat well, and UV-transparent lenses aren't cheap. (A lot of intermolecular bonds have energies in the same range as UV photons, so they're not only opaque but also break apart when hit by UV -- hence DNA damage, for instance.) All the UV lasers I've worked with used fluorine gas, which was always exciting to work with, although there are some very fussy, expensive, low-efficiency frequency-doubling systems that can produce UV.

      The other drag is coating extremely convoluted surfaces with a thin film of nickel. Physical vapor deposition, where you just boil the nickel and let it drift in and stick, isn't going to get all the inner recesses, and the outer areas where the vapor hits first is going to be much more heavily plated than inner areas, so they're probably doing chemical vapor deposition or the like -- or some strange nickel tetracarbonyl complex -- to infiltrate the stuff and then crash out the nickel on the surfaces. Totally cool but not stuff you want to play with at home unless you're an expert or enjoy having nickel-plated lungs.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    8. Re:But is it easier to make? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didn't see that. The method they used here, this "self-propagating photopolymer waveguide prototyping" (mouthful), appears to be a kind of light-hardens-media 3D printing using collimated UV light and a photo mask. It's not actually laser light, but it's a related technique.

      I guess I was suggesting another kind of 3D printing, the selective sintering.

      Anyway, since this SPPWP technique is already 3D printing, GGP is being redundant.

      The abstract has some cool pictures of the polymer matrix.

      Speaking of small scale precision, I just read about a "2-photon" technique:

      Finally, ultra-small features may be made by the 3D microfabrication technique of 2-photon photopolymerization. In this approach, the desired 3D object is traced out in a block of gel by a focused laser. The gel is cured to a solid only in the places where the laser was focused, due to the nonlinear nature of photoexcitation, and then the remaining gel is washed away. Feature sizes of under 100 nm are easily produced, as well as complex structures such as moving and interlocked parts.

  11. Heck... by srussia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    0.9mg/cm^3 is 0.9kg/m^3, i.e. lighter than air (1.2kg/m^3). I call shenanigans.

    The freaking Universe has a density of 9.9x10^-27 kg/m^3

    Make of that what you will!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Heck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The universe is floating in our atmosphere!

  12. This opens up a whole lot of new possibilities... by BagOCrap · · Score: 1

    In jokes regarding being lightheaded.

    --
    -- Chaos, panic, pandemonium... My job here is done!
  13. Re:AMERICAN Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is exactly why we need SOPA. Innovation like this would not be possible anymore if we let rogue foreigners pirate our IP. Please help reelect such fine representatives such as the bill's introducer Lamar Smith (R) and true patriot co-sponsors such as Bob Goodlatte (R), Dennis R. Ross (R), Elton Gallegy (R), Marsha Blackburn (R), Mary Bono Mack (R), Steve Chabot (R), Timothy Griffin (R), Lee Terry (R), Mark Amodei (R), John Carter (R), Peter King (R), Thomas Marino (R), Alan Nunnelee (R), Steve Scalise (R). Bring back home the $135 billion bring stolen from this country by pirates and counterfeiters.

  14. Re:AMERICAN Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA was founded before, and had a large hand in the industrialization of the world, and has furthermore had a large hand in the development of the technology we all use on a daily basis.

    your point is invalid.

  15. Re:AMERICAN Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheap? We're paying for it in Baptists. Please take them back.

  16. Here's my post on this from Thursday by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess the editors didn't appreciate my flights of fancy!

    wisebabo writes
    "Wow, so here's something that beats even aerogel (which I understand is 99.9% empty space; this new material made from metal, is 99.99% empty space!)!

    Anyway, in typical slashdot.fashion, knowing nothing about its mechanical properties (other than the article says it could be a good insulator or sound absorber) not to mention knowing nothing about how it is made or what it costs, let me propose two applications:

    1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!

    2) Find a way to make this from its raw materials in a vacuum and in zero-g (hopefully it won't require a large amount of super-critical fluids like liquid CO2 that aerogels do). Launch a not-too-heavy manufacturing plant into LEO and make a (VERY) big cube or sphere of this stuff. Voila! Just like aerogels, you'll have a material that'll be perfect for capturing or at least slowing down all the hypervelocity space junk just like the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes did. This'll be perfect for getting all the tiny particles and "flakes" that are too small to chase down, zap with a laser or perhaps even track via telescope or radar. Because it's very light, it'll be economical to launch something very big. (Best to attach an ion engine or some low thrust, high efficiency engine to change/maintain orbit).

    2b) Oh well, as long as we're dreaming; if you can make this in space, it'd be perfect for making heat shields that weigh almost nothing (and are very very compact to launch because you're just launching the raw materials right?). Could be useful for any probe that's heading to any planet with an atmosphere or reentry to earth. Good for BIG solar shields (a la the movie "Sunshine") also.

    2c) Okay, last one, I promise. If it deforms in a predictable manner, how about using it as an "airbag" replacement? After the (huge) heat shield has done it's work, the space probe could be cushioned upon impact with something stronger than an airbag without being prohibitively heavy. (Won't have to use that crazy "sky crane" like they're going to try with the MSL).

    Anyway, here's to totally uninformed speculation!"

    1. Re:Here's my post on this from Thursday by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!

      U jelly, groundfags? *trollface*

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Here's my post on this from Thursday by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!

      While I love the idea, I don't think this stuff will work for that. People have been talking about making vacuum-filled structures for years, and all the numbers I've seen (and I've done these calculations myself) say that using a skin made of the material with the best strength-to-weight ratio we have, no matter how large the internal enclosure (up to at least a couple of kilometers in diameter) the material's tensile strength will be exceeded well before you get the entire structure's density below that of air. It'll crush like a pop can. (Awesome demo: put a liter of water in a 55 gallon steel drum, heat the bottom up until the water boils for a minute, stick the cap back in and tighten down firmly, and give a lecture about vacuum and density. When that drum cools and collapses it makes a sound like nothing I've ever heard, and scares the daylights out of everyone in the lecture hall.) They don't seem to be claiming this stuff has higher tensile strength than carbon fiber, unfortunately. Also hey cool Wikipedia's article on specific strength lists the length of cable that could be made without breaking under its own weight out of various materials, which data I've never seen gathered in one place before.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    3. Re:Here's my post on this from Thursday by wisebabo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info; not knowing where to look (and not having a background in structural engineering) I was wondering if you calculated the feasibility of using aerogels or this new substance? I mean if you think about it, isn't this structure just like a kilometers large structure but reduced in every dimension by a thousand or so? (The metal "beams" are just nanometers thick).

      But I know I'm being very optimistic. I, in fact, just saw a video where this substance was easily deformed so maybe its strength ain't so great. :(

    4. Re:Here's my post on this from Thursday by benthurston27 · · Score: 1

      If you just enlarged this structure in every direction a thousand fold it wouldn't support it's own weight because the volume and thus the weight of the beams is going up cubically while the lengths only go up linearly. This is the explanation I've heard for why you couldn't have an ant the size of a dinosaur the spindly legs only work at very small sizes.

    5. Re:Here's my post on this from Thursday by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      We don't know its strength per unit weight: a house is easily deformed if you moosh it with a bulldozer, after all. If stuff that only weighs a milligram can support a gram of weight, that's pretty good. That's why mechanical engineers talk about specific strength: the strength (in this case how much stress you can put on it before it permanently deforms) divided by its density.

      Add to that, that the geometry of an item has a lot to do with how it reacts to stress. An I-beam holds weight almost as well as a solid block of the same material, but for a tenth the weight. So you might be able to do some really spectacular stuff with this material sandwiched between two layers of carbon fiber, because the resultant chunk of material would act like it was made of solid carbon fiber -- which is to say, ludicrously strong -- but have very little weight. That's a lot harder to predict without messing with the stuff.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  17. Again? by bittles · · Score: 1

    Again?

  18. Re:AMERICAN Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its sponsored by republitards you know its fucked up.

  19. It may be the world's lightest material... by ToiletBomber · · Score: 1, Redundant

    But can it run Linux?

    1. Re:It may be the world's lightest material... by EmagGeek · · Score: 0

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of them!

  20. Floating furniture? by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's a repost of my post I submitted yesterday (don't know why they rejected it, probably thought I was too hair brained).

    Anyway, here are some applications for a lighter than air substance!

    wisebabo writes
    "Wow, so here's something that beats even aerogel (which I understand is 99.9% empty space; this new material made from metal, is 99.99% empty space!)!

    Anyway, in typical slashdot.fashion, knowing nothing about its mechanical properties (other than the article says it could be a good insulator or sound absorber) not to mention knowing nothing about how it is made or what it costs, let me propose two applications:

    1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!

    2) Find a way to make this from its raw materials in a vacuum and in zero-g (hopefully it won't require a large amount of super-critical fluids like liquid CO2 that aerogels do). Launch a not-too-heavy manufacturing plant into LEO and make a (VERY) big cube or sphere of this stuff. Voila! Just like aerogels, you'll have a material that'll be perfect for capturing or at least slowing down all the hypervelocity space junk just like the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes did. This'll be perfect for getting all the tiny particles and "flakes" that are too small to chase down, zap with a laser or perhaps even track via telescope or radar. Because it's very light, it'll be economical to launch something very big. (Best to attach an ion engine or some low thrust, high efficiency engine to change/maintain orbit).

    2b) Oh well, as long as we're dreaming; if you can make this in space, it'd be perfect for making heat shields that weigh almost nothing (and are very very compact to launch because you're just launching the raw materials right?). Could be useful for any probe that's heading to any planet with an atmosphere or reentry to earth. Good for BIG solar shields (a la the movie "Sunshine") also.

    2c) Okay, last one, I promise. If it deforms in a predictable manner, how about using it as an "airbag" replacement? After the (huge) heat shield has done it's work, the space probe could be cushioned upon impact with something stronger than an airbag without being prohibitively heavy. (Won't have to use that crazy "sky crane" like they're going to try with the MSL).

    Anyway, here's to totally uninformed speculation!"

    1. Re:Floating furniture? by fnj · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Re (1): it won't work. The material would instantly collapse from the atmospheric pressure.

    2. Re:Floating furniture? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Not if the surface can stand up to 1atm which isn't exactly an impossible task.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  21. But can you... by DC2088 · · Score: 0

    ... use it to build a reliable sentry?

  22. Re:AMERICAN Engineers by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    All of these heinous copyright bills have either been introduced or heavily co-sponsored by republicans. The DMCA, for example, was introduced by Republican Howard Coble and 6 of the 9 co-sponsors being republicans, too. The notion that only the Democrats are the lackeys of the copyright lobby just doesn't match reality. Both sides are equally to blame since both overwhelmingly support this shit.

  23. Lighter than a supertanker! by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    "The resulting material has a density of 0.9 milligrams per cubic centimetre. By comparison the density of silica aerogels - the world's lightest solid materials - is only as low as 1.0mg per cubic cm. The metallic micro-lattices have the edge because they consist of 99.99% air and of 0.01% solids."

    1 mg/cm3
    1 g/dm3
    1 kg/m3

    Wikipedia: "Seawise Giant, later Happy Giant, Jahre Viking, and Knock Nevis, was a ULCC supertanker and the longest ship ever built, and possessed the greatest deadweight tonnage ever recorded. Fully laden, her displacement was 657,019 tonnes (646,642 long tons; 724,239 short tons), the heaviest ship of any kind, and with a draft of 24.6 m (81 ft), she was incapable of navigating the English Channel, the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal."

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

    "Tonnage: 260,941 GT
    214,793 NT
    Displacement: 81,879 long tons light ship
    646,642 long tons full load
    Length: 458.45 m (1,504.10 ft)
    Beam: 68.8 m (225.72 ft)
    Draught: 24.611 m (80.74 ft)
    Depth: 29.8 m (97.77 ft)
    Propulsion: Steam Turbine
    Speed: 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph)
    Capacity: 564,763 DWT"

    458x30x688=9453120 m3

    646642000/9453120 = 68.4 kg/m3

    So, it has a lower density than a supertanker!

  24. Electrical properties? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    it's potentially useful for insulation, battery electrodes

    Sounds like a neat trick if you can do it.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  25. Re:AMERICAN Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Protect American innovation and free spirit. Defeat this piece of shit bill.

  26. It's not the "lightest" substance by digitig · · Score: 1

    It's not the "lightest substance". It might be the least dense (important distinction). And it might not be, because I would have thought that gaseous helium would be less dense. Perhaps they mean "least dense solid"?

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    1. Re:It's not the "lightest" substance by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      You must have Asperger's syndrome? When normal human beings with ordinary cognitive capabilities say "light" about some indefinitely quantified material, they are in fact referring to density. For instance "air is lighter than water". Of course they don't mean that the entire Earth's atmosphere is lighter than a drop of water.

      We now return you to your regularly scheduled rhythmical pounding of your back against the chair and whimpering.

    2. Re:It's not the "lightest" substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaseous hydrogen is less dense than gaseous helium (2 g/mol H2 v. 4 g/mol He, the volumes are about the same).

      But yeah, "least dense solid" is much more accurate than "world's lightest material".

  27. Don't they mean "least dense?" by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Forgive me if this is redundant, but isn't lightness or heaviness dependent upon the mass of something and the strength of the gravitational field it happens to be shitting in?

    g/cc is not a unit of weight, right?

    1. Re:Don't they mean "least dense?" by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      The least dense solid is going to also be the lightest solid in any given near-constant gravitational field, such as any given location on the surface of the planet Earth at a scale that humans will typically work with.

    2. Re:Don't they mean "least dense?" by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      This is not a universally true statement. A specimen of the least dense solid will certainly be heavier than a specimen of the more dense solid if its volume is more than x times larger than that of the greater, where x is the ratio of the density of the greater to the density of the lesser.

  28. Upsidaisium! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Call Rocky and Bullwinkle. We must protect this precious resource from Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale, lest they steal it.

    On a more serious note, what's the mass of this stuff needed to fill a Volkswagen?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Upsidaisium! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Sorry they are currently stuck in a time loop from computer chips that turn back time when they are destroyed.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101500/

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Upsidaisium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too lazy to log in, but the answer is roughly 2.1 kg, assuming you meant a Volkswagen Beetle.

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

      Random ballpark, since I can't be arsed enough to google search the volume of a volkswagon, but it comes to around 2 pounds per cubic meter, so probably about 5 pounds worth.

      Keep in mind it's not exactly weak and smashable. The article says it's stronger than Aerogel, and I've seen pics of Aerogel cubes supporting 10 pound weights without crushing.

      The article indicates that when you start making things out of nano sized structures, they start getting stronger, not weaker.

  29. It exists in nature already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is called "Kim Kardashian's Brain".

    1. Re:It exists in nature already by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 0

      No, that denser than uranium.

  30. Sound Dampening? by davegravy · · Score: 1

    Among other things, it's potentially useful for insulation, battery electrodes, and sound dampening

    Super-low-density materials don't generally lend themselves well to this - this would be a truly exceptional material if it makes a good acoustic absorber.

    1. Re:Sound Dampening? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      It makes sense due to its high porosity. The lattice should break up the sound waves really well while also not supplying a surface that the sound waves could reflect off of.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  31. Potentially useful by PPH · · Score: 2

    You can make Slashdot articles out of it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. If I mail it, does the post office owe me money? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Even if they don't, if it's lighter than air AND strong it might make some nice postage-saving packing material.

    Just be careful when you open it. If you thought picking up Styrofoam peanuts off the floor was messy, just try cleaning up the ceiling!

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  33. Lighter than air - should fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Air has 1.2 mg per cm^2 , so this structure with 0.9 is lighter and should fly by itself !!!

  34. Well actually... by bigkahunah · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:Well actually... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      They forgot all the fiber, routers, modems, computers, servers. What, those aren't part of the internet?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  35. Crap by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I was hoping it had great thermal conductivity.

    But noooo. It has to be light and insulating.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  36. Ultra Light Metal? by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    What, more than "Carrie" from Europe's "Final Countdown" album?

  37. There is one drawback with very thin metal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Metal that thin burns really great in an atmosphere. You can see for yourself, take a tiny bit of steel wool and set it on fire in your sink. You can even light it with a 9 volt battery. Cool way to start a camp fire when you are camping.

  38. Neither of cited applications... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

    requires it to be strong, nor particularly light. How about lighter road bike frames (which is the first application that I care about :D)?

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.