Graphene Spun Into Meter-Long Fibers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Graphene Spun Into Meter-Long Fibers

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 6, 2011 @09:42AM from the incremental-progress dept.

ananyo writes "Nano-sized flakes of graphene oxide can be spun into graphene fibers several meters long, researchers in China have shown. The strong, flexible fibers, which can be tied in knots or woven into conductive mats, could be the key to deploying graphene in real-world devices such as flexible batteries."

124 of 159 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Costs by bobwrit · 2011-12-06 09:46 · Score: 2

Are still high.... Give it a few years and it may be cheaper.

--
-- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
1. Re:Costs by bmo · 2011-12-06 10:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >High cost
  FTFA
  "Carbon fibre is made by a high-temperature treatment. Our fibres are made just by spinning a water-based solution â" it is quite green and quite easy," says Gao.
  Easy means cheap. And that's what's really ground-breaking about this.
  --
  BMO
2. Re:Costs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Are still high.... Give it a few years and it may be cheaper.
  It is cheap. It is extremely cheap for cases where the alternatives are unusable.
3. Re:Costs by somersault · 2011-12-06 11:10 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's pretty easy to snort coke laced with platinum from a diamod encrusted hooker's ass.. but it ain't cheap, let me tell you
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
4. Re:Costs by tmosley · 2011-12-06 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't easy to make the coke or the platinum, or to pry the diamonds from the hands of the diamond cartel.
5. Re:Costs by wagnerrp · 2011-12-06 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  or to pry the diamonds from the hands of the diamond cartel.
  If you're not too picky on origin, it's easier to grow artificial ones.
Great news by geekoid · 2011-12-06 09:51 · Score: 1

This has been a sticking point for a lot of uses.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:Great news by tsa · 2011-12-06 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, like the space elevator! I'd love to see one of those be built, but that will probably only happen in my dreams in my life.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
2. Re:Great news by tmosley · 2011-12-06 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Better dreams than cheap travel throughout the solar system?
  
  I guess you want him to dream about warp drives and molecular replicators.
3. Re:Great news by geekoid · 2011-12-06 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  The Space elevator will never happen.
  Never Happen.
  Many, many technical issues aside, the risk is too damn high.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Great news by wagnerrp · 2011-12-06 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why need it be risky? As with all other things, use redundancy. Redundant cables mean no single failure will drop the elevator car. Multiple parallel cars mean loss of an entire strand won't trash the whole system, and new spools can be carried up to drop another elevator. You wouldn't be traveling at orbital velocity, so re-entry wouldn't need much in the way of shielding. One rocket burst to kick the elevator clear of the falling cable, followed by parachutes, and retro-rockets for final landing would be plenty reliable for emergency use.
  There have been concerns of damage done by a falling cable, but that's not an insurmountable issue. By necessity, the cable will have to be a thin, wide film. On things such films do is fall very slowly. Charges placed at periodic intervals, keyed off cable tension, could fragment the cable into sufficiently short segments that they would slow down in the atmosphere and impact with minimal damage. Have the primary station at geostationary, such that in a worst case scenario, it could survive on its own for a while. Allow the counterbalance to be scuttled. If sufficiently close to geostationary, it could be recaptured with minimal fuel costs, and used again once the new elevator is dropped.
5. Re:Great news by Jeremi · 2011-12-06 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Many, many technical issues aside, the risk is too damn high.
  The risk of what, exactly?
  If you mean the risk of such a structure being impossible to ever build in real life, then I agree. But still we can dream... :)
  If you mean the risk of the cable breaking, sure that's a risk, and a break would probably cost you your expensive space elevator... but that's hardly different from current technology, where a malfunction will cost you your expensive rocket.
  Or if you mean the risk of the cable breaking and causing mass destruction on the ground... then you are wrong. A broken cable will not cause much (if any) damage to the ground, because it has so little mass and such a low terminal velocity.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
6. Re:Great news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. What's so great about a deadly, hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with a few dead frozen rocks floating around in it? Oh, OK, there's also two HOT dead rocks. Wow. What's so so great about spending months inside a cramped tin can, where even a tiny malfunction means death, so you can wear a spacesuit while your body disintegrates from zero-g and cosmic rays? You truly are mentally deranged, and unable to grasp what you are actually talking about.
7. Re:Great news by swamp_ig · 2011-12-06 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  What's long and stiff and takes me out of this world?
  A space elevator!
8. Re:Great news by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-07 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  A couple of the frozen rocks in our solar system have water below the ice and quite likely contain multicellular life.
  Besides, don't you think the cheap and eco-friendly satellite launches that would be possible with a space elevator would be a good thing?
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
9. Re:Great news by ResidentSourcerer · 2011-12-07 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  The numbers I've seen are not exactly low mass. The geosync point of the cable is tens to hundreds of meters in diameter. It's moving at roughly 2000 mph relative to the surface point below it.
  Severing the elevator at that point would be very bad.
  To prevent this from being a 'lash of fire' along the equator, you would have to break it up into chunks small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. This would require, what, football sized chunks? Unlike a space craft the chunks are very strong, so they are unlikely to fragment from aerodynamic stress, but will simple have to ablate.
  Severing at various points could allow you to salvage much of it, and minimize the amount that will enter the atmosphere. E.g. a point half way up still has enough velocity to stay out of the earth's atmosphere. If built on the west side of the Pacific, you might be able to get away with just killing a lot of fish.
  
  --
  Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
10. Re:Great news by tmosley · 2011-12-07 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  How does I mined infinite riches of solar system?
Space elevator coming next? by n1ywb · 2011-12-06 09:52 · Score: 1

Is the magic missing technology required to construct a functional space elevator?

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
1. Re:Space elevator coming next? by masternerdguy · 2011-12-06 09:54 · Score: 2
  
  The only magic missing from that project is money.
  
  --
  To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
2. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Nadaka · 2011-12-06 09:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  not yet. I RTFA.
  There are mechanical defects in the graphene strand that make it weaker than traditional carbon fiber.
  They are going to need to be able to generate nearly perfect strands before that becomes an option.
3. Re:Space elevator coming next? by BradleyUffner · 2011-12-06 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Is the magic missing technology required to construct a functional space elevator?
  Of all the things needed to make a space elevator, the only thing missing is the magic. And pretty much everything else.
  Don't expect to see one in your lifetime, or probably even your children's lifetime. It's just way too impractical.
4. Re:Space elevator coming next? by LifesABeach · 2011-12-06 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't a cataylst be created that would "mend" a carbon fiber?
5. Re:Space elevator coming next? by rwa2 · 2011-12-06 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Eek! And they also tied it into a square knot! Couldn't they at least have had the decency to tie it into a more secure figure-8 knot?!
6. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Raul654 · 2011-12-06 10:05 · Score: 2
  
  You're thinking of carbon nanotubes, not graphene. Graphene is a layer of carbon only a few atoms thick, which (like carbon nanotubes) is electrically conductive, and (unlike carbon nanotubes) is also transparent. So if they can iron out the manufacturing issues, they can create transparent panels (like glass) that are electrically conduct. This has all kinds of useful applications for display panels (transparent ipads, anyone?), windows that function as TVs, monitors, solar energy collectors, etc.
  
  --
  
  To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
  --E.C. Stanton
7. Re:Space elevator coming next? by TWX · 2011-12-06 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  They are going to need to be able to generate nearly perfect strands before that becomes an option.
  I guess we're safe from China beating us in the Space Elevator race then... Based on my experiences with Chinese-made goods their quality control will never be up to the task.
  At least all those batteries that the e-bike people order that keep coming inadequately packaged and deformed will be able to handle if the graphene can be deformed safely... *grin*
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
8. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wierd_w · 2011-12-06 10:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Whenever I see "space elevator!" Mentioned, this course of action plays out in my head:
  A space elevator/orbital tether needs to be at the rotational equator. This means central or south america, or africa. (Islands would lack the strong continental plate foundations to hold the tether to the earth.)
  The tether itself will be many kilometers long. It has to extend all the way, vertically, into low earth orbit.
  The tether, if made of a conductive material like graphene, would become super charged with high voltages just from the air currents whorling around it. (Don't believe me, run a kite on copper wire and attach a volt meter between it and the ground. Remember that the kite string is orders of magnitude shorter than an orbital tether.) In addition to this constant charging, you have the high energy disturbances of the ionosphere to deal with. I suppose this could make the tether into a fantastic dc powerplant, but it would also make putting a carriage on the tether much more difficult.
  Then you have the political problems.... look at the shit that happens with selecting where to hold the olypic games. Imagine the politics involved in breaking soil on an orbital tether.
  And then, finally, what happens if there is an accident? Many kilometers of highly energized, and kinetically taught razorwire with toughness surpassing all other construction materials whipping round the planet sounds pretty dangerous to me.
  Really, the logistics of such a project just don't make for a plausible project, barring some kind of officious one world government that doesn't brook dissent.
9. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And then, finally, what happens if there is an accident? Many kilometers of highly energized, and kinetically taught razorwire with toughness surpassing all other construction materials whipping round the planet sounds pretty dangerous to me.
  I don't have the link handy, but someone actually did the math on this. Due to the mass vs. surface area (and how much energy will be lost to air resistance), the cord will land softly along the surface of the earth from the anchor to the breakpoint. The greater danger will be had by the station at the top of the cord, but there are ways to stabilize the rotation it would suffer.
10. Re:Space elevator coming next? by amRadioHed · 2011-12-06 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Carbon nanotubes are just rolled up graphene. I'm sure a single nanotube would be almost as transparent as a single layer of graphene.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
11. Re:Space elevator coming next? by John.P.Jones · 2011-12-06 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking about how the energy of chemical rockets is just barely sufficient (given fuel mass) to make chemical rockets that can escape Earth's gravity well. I'm not sure of the exact headroom but my understanding is that it is fairly tight. From what I have read on the strength of nanotubes, they too are theoretically just strong enough to barely make a space elevator a possibility (if we could manage to weave them into a macro-fiber without significant losses.) If this turns out to be the case I wonder if there is a connection between these two methods and the strength of chemical bonds to overcome the gravitational potential of our planet. Need it be so that these two very different ways of utilizing bond strength achieve a similar maximum gravitational field that they can overcome?
  Going further, obviously the strength of a planet's gravity is important for the development of life, it may be that it is required for the development of intelligent life that the planet's gravity be close to this value (earth's gravity).
12. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Doubting+Thomas · 2011-12-06 10:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  ... and a material of the necessary tensile strength. If we had that, then the money probably wouldn't be that hard to get.
  But as someone else replied, apparently this ain't it. Or at least, not yet. A pity, really. I was hoping the same thing.
  
  --
  Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
13. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Baloroth · 2011-12-06 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  The potential difference between the top and bottom could potentially be used to power the elevator in the first place. It wouldn't be a problem for the carriage because of physics. You know how birds aren't electrocuted when they stand on high-voltage power lines? The carriage won't have a potential difference across it, so I don't think it will be a problem. So long as the tether has someplace to discharged continuously I don't see it being a major problem.
  Also, nothing (probably) would stop you from just attaching the tether to a location in the middle of the ocean. A few hundred/ thousand extra feet won't make a difference. Politics might be an issue, but probably not much more than any major project. An accident, of course, would be an issue. Safety measures would have to be installed.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
14. Re:Space elevator coming next? by kybur · 2011-12-06 10:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A space elevator can't just go to LEO, it's got to go all the way to geosynchronous orbit (42,000 kilometers up) and then past that for a counterweight.
  If we only had to go to LEO, we'd probably have done it already.
  Also, there are a ton of satellites in LEO, and most of them are likely to hit the tether at some point. It is just a matter of time (and not as much time as you'd think -- you'd probably have a near miss every couple weeks).
15. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Doubting+Thomas · 2011-12-06 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Not so sure about the anchor point bit, but the rest seems true.
  One of the proposals terminates the cable at a boat. I dunno how they keep the thing from being pulled downwind (other than "because it's in the doldrums"), but the tension on the cable only needs to exceed the weight of the cars, the freight, and the safety margin. If you put too much tension on the cable, you'll snap it. If you're trying to hoist an island off its foundations, that would definitely be 'too much tension'.
  
  --
  Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
16. Re:Space elevator coming next? by tsa · 2011-12-06 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  If politics is an issue you can always bring peace with some bombs before you start building.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
17. Re:Space elevator coming next? by HornWumpus · 2011-12-06 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Chemical rockets efficiency is all about the nozzle and reaction mass velocity. Which are all about the materials used to make the nozzle. (Simplification of course, chamber pressure also matters.)
  There are no 'laws of physics' that prevent us from building a chemical rocket that can go single stage to orbit. Their are not materials to build the nozzle, yet.
  Finally we still don't know how to make the theoretically best fuel for rockets outside the lab (metallic/monatomic Hydrogen). Even in the lab we make it for nanoseconds.
  You sound like an IDer desperately looking for more 'evidence' that 'god did it'.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
18. Re:Space elevator coming next? by rgbatduke · 2011-12-06 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Don't try to bring sanity into this! This is Big Science. Great Science Fiction novels portray it. They can't be f-ing out of their minds apeshit berserk, surely!
  
  And seriously, do not try to put any actual physics or arithmetic or above all, economics into it. They'll hunt you down like a dog if you do...
  
  rgb (and yes, I'm an avid SF reader, from Brin to Cordwainer Smith to Niven -- but just because they write cool stories doesn't make the idea feasible or even physically correct, see e.g. Ringworld and the gravitational instability problem.)
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
19. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wierd_w · 2011-12-06 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I was thinking more like this:
  Say you send a 100 ton payload up the tether. After a certain point on the ascent, you stop trolling up the fiber, and actually have to start applying breaks on it, because the centrifugal force (please, I know the difference between it and centrepital force. The former is a pseudo force, yes, but still real.) Acting on the carriage will be correlated with the inertial mass of the carriage, the rate of rotation, and the radal distance from the center of rotation, in relation to the gravitational force. At some point centrifugal forces will overcome gravity, and this will pull the tether very tight.
  The problem is not with lifting the island, but with tearing the anchor of the tether out of the ground.
20. Re:Space elevator coming next? by cdcoulon · 2011-12-06 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  >>>They are going to need to be able to generate nearly perfect strands before that becomes an option. that depends on the strength required by the tether, which is tied to other engineering puzzles - no pun intended - it might be that far from perfect is perfect for the job
21. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Nefarious+Wheel · 2011-12-06 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  ...A space elevator/orbital tether needs to be at the rotational equator.
  
  No, it doesn't. If not on the equator, it will simply be a bit longer, and appear to go up at an angle. This might not be a bad thing either, as it's generally easier to push things up a ramp than lift them straight up.
  
  The tether, if made of a conductive material like graphene, would become super charged with high voltages just from the air currents whorling around it. ...
  You say that like it's a bad thing. Golly, all of those oil-free volts going to waste. And it wouldn't be all that difficult to run the car, you just gradually raise the charge on the vehicle (and the inhabitants) to the same charge as the cable before launch. Have a look at what high-wire linesmen are doing today.
  
  And then, finally, what happens if there is an accident? Many kilometers of highly energized, and kinetically taught razorwire with toughness surpassing all other construction materials whipping round the planet sounds pretty dangerous to me.
  If it breaks, you snap it loose from the base and let the lower part fly upwards. A solution can be engineered
  
  Really, the logistics of such a project just don't make for a plausible project, barring some kind of officious one world government that doesn't brook dissent.
  This ain't your lawn, and I ain't getting off it.
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
22. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell this absolutly clueless post got modded to +5 Informative is beyond me:
  
  (Islands would lack the strong continental plate foundations to hold the tether to the earth.)
  You're serously suggesting a space elevator could lift ENTIRE Islands into space. A small Island has a mass of at least 1 billion metric tons.
  
  The tether itself will be many kilometers long. It has to extend all the way, vertically, into low earth orbit.
  At least 40000km.
  
  The tether, if made of a conductive material like graphene, would become super charged with high voltages just from the air currents whorling around it.
  The theter is only a tiny bit in the troposphere. But you miss the electrical elephant in the room: The Van Allens Belt.
  
  Really, the logistics of such a project just don't make for a plausible project, barring some kind of officious one world government that doesn't brook dissent.
  Really logistics will kill a space elevator? What about the the material that doesn't exists for the tether. Or the climber no one knows how to power und how to attach to the cable. Or the counterweight, catching an NEO doesn't sound easy. Or thether vibrations. Or tether maintanance. Or construction cost, which are easly in the TRILLIONS.Or ...
  But you worry about logistics.
23. Re:Space elevator coming next? by JSG · 2011-12-06 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Given the length of this thing and its sheer mass, I don't think that the relatively short depth of the sea is likely to make much difference.
  Granted that the water will get in the way somewhat. However the construction team that puts up (drops down?) a space elevator link are probably not going to find that a problem.
  I suggest that the whole equator is fair game.
  Cheers
  Jon
24. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Em+Adespoton · 2011-12-06 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  This would be for the communications link embedded within the space elevator cables.
25. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wierd_w · 2011-12-06 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not on equator:
  If it isn't on the equator, it will have an impact on the earth's axial tilt. This is a bad thing. Look up precession to see why. A space elevator would most certainly be a long term investment, and building such an investment in such a location pretty much garantees local dependence on the investment economically, and a strong disincentive to terminate the investment when problems eventually begin to manifest. See, eg, current problems with fossil fuels.
  Charged cable == bad?
  This admittedly is a design consideration, but we are talking voltages here that make high voltage transfer lines look like wire on christmas lights. The cable will present with a very strong static charge, which while not going anywhere without a drain, can saturate electronics that make use of a floating ground. This is why it poses a problem to the carriage. It's an electronics fault, not an electrocution risk.
  Accident:
  I wasn't referring to a line breakage type accident. That would just have cable fall lifelessly to the ground, and launch the transfer station in geo orbit out into space. (Especially if it was full of cargo).
  I was referring to what happens if the station on the end of the tether loses ballistic control, and suddenly becomes a huge, high speed tetherball. (For instance, something big, like a spaceship runs into it, or somebody suddenly releases a bunch of cargo, creating thrust against the station.) The station falling to earth would be bad enough. Falling to earth while being swung hard on a several hundred kilometer lever with several tons of kinetic energy behind it? Even worse.
  Not your lawn:
  I happen to live on this planet, than you. Please don't blow it up or make it uninhabitable. Thanks.
26. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wierd_w · 2011-12-06 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't referring to tether breakage.
  I was referring to what happens when something big (like an orbital cargo tug) fails to dock smoothly with the transfer station, causing the station to lose ballistic control, and get punted like a tetherball into the planet's surface.
  The cable will remain taught in this catastrophe, and won't just float down nicely.
27. Re:Space elevator coming next? by ceoyoyo · 2011-12-06 12:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Your head unfortunately doesn't have a good handle on space elevators.
  A space elevator doesn't HAVE to be right at the equator, although that's the easiest way. The equator doesn't go through central America.
  Islands are perfectly fine. A space elevator doesn't pull on the ground station much. If it did, your ground station would certainly fail before "strong continental plate foundations" were an asset. Actually, an artificial, mobile sea platform may be a good idea because you can move it around to tow the tether a bit if you need it to dodge some space junk.
  Space elevators don't go to low earth orbit. They MUST go somewhat past geosynchronous orbit. Geosynch is actually the MIDDLE of the tether unless you weight the space end of it, say by attaching it to an asteroid.
  Have you ever seen a bird sitting on a power line? Not that it really matters anyway, you can get some high voltages from voltage differentials in the atmosphere (friction with the wind is probably a negligible contribution) but not much current. If somehow you did manage to get a decent amount of current, you'd use it as a power plant.
  The olympics are contentious because there is only one. And even so, we manage to find a place to put them every two years, don't we? A space elevator would probably be built by a group of countries, like CERN or some of the other large projects. Fights over the location would probably be considerably simplified because no large industrial nation would be a suitable host. Instead it would probably end up somewhere like French Guiana where the European Space Agency already has their launch facilities, BTW.
  If the tether were to break, most of the lower end would probably burn up in the atmosphere. The rest would land fairly softly. The thing is LIGHT remember.
  Given an appropriate material, a space elevator will get built. Various plans put it well within the reach of private enterprise if no governments get around to doing it.
28. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wierd_w · 2011-12-06 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  The charge problem is one of a saturated floating ground on the carriage's electronics, not an electrocution hazard. :)
29. Re:Space elevator coming next? by tmosley · 2011-12-06 12:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I don't think you understand the amount of force that would be required to do that. Maybe if the tether got hit by an asteroid the size of Dallas. Nevermind that in the event of such a catastrophe, they could simply cut the cable at the base, and the whole thing goes flying out into space. There would be plenty of time, as it would easily take weeks to fall.
  
  Also, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the space elevator concept by claiming the fiber needs to extend to low earth orbit. It doesn't. It has to go to GEOSTATIONARY orbit. If you don't know the difference, Geostationary is MUCH further away, and that is the MINIMUM distance. In reality, it needs to extend beyond it to keep the tether taught.
30. Re:Space elevator coming next? by tmosley · 2011-12-06 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Something tells me that no-one is going to care about LEO once the cost to GSO is dramatically reduced by the space elevator.
31. Re:Space elevator coming next? by tmosley · 2011-12-06 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  lol, sure, a few hundred billion tons going up a space elevator over the course of human habitation is going to have an effect on the tilt of the Earth, which weights ~6E+24 kilos.
  
  Christ, and ant just crawled across my foot and sent me spinning into the wall. That impact sent me flying into space!
32. Re:Space elevator coming next? by tmosley · 2011-12-06 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I didn't know Lord Haldane was still alive.
  
  "The aeroplane will never fly." -- Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907
33. Re:Space elevator coming next? by amRadioHed · 2011-12-06 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's like saying graphene is just a slice of graphite (since small amounts of graphene can be made by cleaving graphite)...
  I think it would be more accurate to say that graphite is layered graphene, but that is what it is. Is it not?
  
  CNTs aren't currently made by rolling up graphene and many of the specific properties of CNTs are because of *how* they are rolled (specifically the n,m chiral values and the diameter)...
  Steel pipes aren't made by rolling up steel plates, and a steel pipes diameter comes from its shape. A steel pipe also has properties that a steel pipe doesn't, but they're still the same material.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
34. Re:Space elevator coming next? by geekoid · 2011-12-06 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, lets but a super strong cable that can go around the globe 3 times and use it to tie a rock to the planet. What could [possible go wrong?
  I prefer not to have thing that can annihilate civilization as we know it just hanging around.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
35. Re:Space elevator coming next? by evil_aaronm · 2011-12-06 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  > barring some kind of officious one world government that doesn't brook dissent
  Welcome to America!
36. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wisty · 2011-12-06 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  > Or what happens when the weight on the end returns to earth after moving away from the initial breaking.
  There's another, much bigger weight up there. It's called the moon. Do you worry about what happens when *it* comes crashing down too?
37. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wagnerrp · 2011-12-06 14:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Three times? No. By pure coincidence, geostationary orbit is just under one circumference, 89% of one to be exact. In a worst case scenario, that 22kmi comes crashing down, and doesn't quite wrap around the world once, while the counterweight gets flung out into space. You could actually cut the cable somewhere around 15kmi, and the remainder would be going fast enough to remain in orbit. Send some robot to spool it up to reduce the navigation hazard, and then collect it later. By necessity, such a thing would be placed on the equator, so between South America (Equador, Columbia, Northern Brazil), Sub-Saharan Africa, and Indonesia, pick two out of three to hit. You could place scuttling charges on that section of cable every couple miles, such that the cable harmlessly falls down much as long party streamers. The worst damage it would cause would be shorting out any electrical lines it managed to cross.
38. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Thing+1 · 2011-12-06 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Which means building the space elevator is urgent; why put more debris in LEO than we absolutely need to?
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
39. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Thing+1 · 2011-12-06 14:39 · Score: 2
  
  A steel pipe also has properties that a steel pipe doesn't, but they're still the same material.
  You just blew my ... parser.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
40. Re:Space elevator coming next? by shentino · 2011-12-06 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  And some fuck could always bring pruning shears.
41. Re:Space elevator coming next? by shentino · 2011-12-06 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  If the counterweight drifts or is flung into space I hope it has reentry rockets.
42. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Takionbrst · 2011-12-06 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not only the fact that you do induce a voltage along the length of the tether-- think about the dynamics induced by the air currents. Anyone who has taken an introductory physics course knows that driven strings exhibit some pretty complex dynamics. It's entirely likely that you couldn't stabilize the tether, that some sort of instability would take hold and snap the damn thing. Incidentally, this is similar to the problems prohibiting viable tokamaks. You start out with what seems like a reasonable stable electron distribution (that is, reasonably close to an equilibrium solution), but small perturbations tend to grow pretty quickly and before you know it you've collided with the chamber wall.
43. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Issarlk · 2011-12-06 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  > there's absolutely nothing in space* that could possibly justify this "cheap access"
  
  Hello ?! Earth to Anonymous, earth to anonymous. Have you seen rockets bring things from space back to earth in the past 50 years? No? I thought so.
  The money is in putting things INTO space ; so it's actually convenient that it's so empty.
44. Re:Space elevator coming next? by amRadioHed · 2011-12-06 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, yeah. s/pipe/plate/
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
45. Re:Space elevator coming next? by ppanon · 2011-12-06 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Equatorial weather above the ocean tends to get much more interesting than it does above ground, for many months of the year. The type of storm that helped set the conditions for the crash of Air France Flight 447 is pretty common. Sure the cable would be pretty resistant, but the cars are going to have a nice sail area. You also would probably prefer to use beamed power to improve the mass ratio on the cars. The latter would be harder if you've got heavy cloud cover for a good deal of the year.
  The political situation in most of equatorial Africa is pretty crazy. If you have the capital to build a space elevator, maybe you could negotiate to buy IlhÃ©u das Rolas from Sao TomÃ© to ensure political stability. However, it looks like that wouldn't solve the weather issue. With Indonesia you have frequent precipitation and cloud cover with a peaceful democratic political structure only very recently. Kenya seems to be the most stable equatorial East African country and it's amazing that it has managed to remain so despite political upheavals. However it has neighbours like Somalia and Uganda, who might find the elevator a tempting target. An alternative might be to locate on the Andean highlands in Ecuador, although that country has had its own political stability challenges, as well as Columbia and Peru for neighbours.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
46. Re:Space elevator coming next? by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-07 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if any Caribbean islands would be close enough, I'm sure Trinidad or Barbados (where the experimental space launch guns were built) would be happy to accept a launch facility.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
47. Re:Space elevator coming next? by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-07 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  You're serously suggesting a space elevator could lift ENTIRE Islands into space. A small Island has a mass of at least 1 billion metric tons.
  That's not required, just the chunk of ground the cable is attached to, if that bit of ground is weak enough. You're using Katamari Damacy physics.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
48. Re:Space elevator coming next? by RivenAleem · 2011-12-07 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's okay, last I checked, China had all the money.
49. Re:Space elevator coming next? by RivenAleem · 2011-12-07 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sticking to using Centri***al in all discussion, where * denotes a wildcard character.
50. Re:Space elevator coming next? by painandgreed · 2011-12-07 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind that there's absolutely nothing in space* that could possibly justify this "cheap access" you Space Nutters masturbate over,...
  You mean besides effectively limitless energy? A space elevator would also provide a nice cable to the ground to transport it. Then there is access to satellites as space based communications and research aren't going away. If it becomes cheap enough, it could certainly break into what are already billion dollar markets.
  But why am I replying to you? You're just an Anonymous Troll.
51. Re:Space elevator coming next? by wagnerrp · 2011-12-07 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Bold words from an Anonymous Coward. The simple fact is that all this fear mongering about collapsing needs to be prefaced by the fact that were dealing with some magic material that can be woven into paper thin ribbons, tens of thousands of miles long, with a tensile strength several times that of carbon fiber. If you can build such a material, all of those safety concerns really aren't that tough to deal with. Now calling me a Space Nutter would imply I think were going to have the breakthrough tomorrow, and start building within five years. I doubt that's going to happen for another hundred, after we're all dead, and no one is left to care about your pithy insult.
52. Re:Space elevator coming next? by Doubting+Thomas · 2011-12-07 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I was replying to your assertion that islands couldn't make a suitable terminus. As I pointed out, the cable will tear long before that.
  And even if we made the cable out of diamond, we don't know how to make an anchor so strong that it can lift an island. So if the cable didn't tear, you'd just rip the anchor out of the ground and it would float away...
  
  --
  Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
53. Re:Space elevator coming next? by BradleyUffner · 2011-12-07 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I didn't know Lord Haldane was still alive.
  "The aeroplane will never fly." -- Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907
  I didn't say it'll never happen, just that you shouldn't expect it in your lifetime. Every space elevator plan I have ever seen involves going out and capturing an asteroid to use on the orbital side of the tether. We can barely haul our asses to the moon and back. I'll expect this to happen right after flying cars become street legal.
54. Re:Space elevator coming next? by ppanon · 2011-12-08 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  No, they're all way too far north. You really need to be on the equator for a space elevator or you're going to have huge shear stresses at your attachment point. The cable also initially will climb at minimum at whatever angle corresponds to your latitude, which means extra climbing in atmosphere for the cars while fighting air friction. You would actually need extra length and counterweight (and tensile strength) to hold it down so it would be that straight. In practice you would have much less tension and it would initially bend at a much stronger angle like one end of a suspension bridge cable. That would add even more time spend in atmosphere and complicate the climbing mechanism and cab because they then need to deal with a shifting orientation for the cable and/or cargo.
  Brazil would probably be more than happy to host it near Macapa, but that's tropical rainforest with monsoon weather (hence why the drier high Andes in Ecuador would be preferred). If you're going to spend that much money to build something, you're going to want to be able to run it all the time.
  Of course if you do have one built, say in Ecuador, you would use any unbooked car time slots to ferry up the materials to build a second one (say in Kenya, Gabon, or Ileu das Rohas) so that you have redundancy in case of a disaster as well as shipping convenience for both American and European clients/suppliers.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
55. Re:Space elevator coming next? by cdcoulon · 2011-12-15 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  nah, we can haul our asses to the moon and back - we just don't have a good reason to go there.
  wikipedia:
  Some day, the platinum, cobalt and other valuable elements from asteroids may even be returned to Earth for profit. At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than 20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.[1][2] In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium and tungsten that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.[3][4][5] This is because, while asteroids and the Earth congealed from the same starting materials, Earth's massive gravity pulled all such siderophilic (iron loving) elements into the planet's core during its molten youth more than four billion years ago[6]. Initially, this left the crust utterly depleted of such valuable elements[7]. Asteroid impacts re-infused the depleted crust with metals.
56. Re:Space elevator coming next? by cdcoulon · 2011-12-15 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  i've been wondering about this as well - the issue with fiber material as i understand is that it has to be strong enough that it won't snap under the range of pressures that it will be under in construction and operation, but also light enough that it won't collapse under its own weight.
  I've also read about tapering so that thickness of the cable increases towards the middle, where stress will be greatest, but also where weight will be be diminished with gravity.
  What I wonder is if it would be possible to overcome some of the strength and weight issues by weaving the strands of fiber around a tube shape, and filling the tube with gas so that the weight, to a significant height in the atmosphere, would be negated by the volume of low density gas- basically creating a multi-stage ballon for the part that hangs in the atmosphere.
  It seems like this would provide some stability and safety at the ground level, and would balance out some of the pressure and weight issues. Since the thickness of the fiber would be tapered already towards teh top, it seems that using gas balloons in the lower parts could provide and effective stabilizing force to the bottom, allowing for a uniform thickness, and with the possibility of using a slightly weaker fiber as well.
Space elevator? by wisebabo · 2011-12-06 09:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry, but that's the first thing I think of when a new super material is described.
I can't think of any other technology that, barring a really huge breakthrough (like anti-gravity) would truly make space travel a practical reality for millions. Even Arthur C. Clarke in his "Fountains of Paradise" book alluded to this saying that the supposedly hyper-efficient rockets of the future would create so much environmental damage (pollution, sonic booms) that really heavy traffic couldn't be sustained.
Maybe if we had cold fusion (or something like it like muon catalyzed fusion or zero-point energy) space travel on a large scale would be practical but these "breakthroughs" might be just as far (or impossibly far!) away.
By the way, did anyone see the developments (at MIT?) where they showed a nano structured "tape" able to support the weight of a full grown man with only a few inches of surface area? And it was able to be re-used thousands of times before using its grip? Perhaps the space elevator could be made of material structured this way, I mean if that thing is ever going to be built it will essentially be a gigantic 23,000 mile long SINGLE MOLECULE anyway so nano structuring should be almost trivial!
1. Re:Space elevator? by wisebabo · 2011-12-06 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I'm not an engineer or a materials scientist! And I did say "almost"! ;)
2. Re:Space elevator? by F34nor · 2011-12-06 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  See "Space Fountain." Build-able with current technology. Basically use a particle accelerator to provide lift to the building, at the top have a turnbuckle that sends them back to the accelerator, rinse and repeat. Like trying to raise a full fire hose in the air vs. a tape measure.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain
3. Re:Space elevator? by cdcoulon · 2011-12-06 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  well... everything is *almost* trivial, if that's any comfort
4. Re:Space elevator? by sexconker · 2011-12-06 10:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain
  Space boner. Look at the picture and read the first paragraph. It's a space boner.
5. Re:Space elevator? by amRadioHed · 2011-12-06 10:34 · Score: 2
  
  Seems we are missing the almost limitless, cheap power that would be needed to maintain such a thing. That doesn't sound to me like it is any less impractical or far-fetched then a space elevator.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
6. Re:Space elevator? by MozeeToby · 2011-12-06 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Or indeed the Launch Loop, Skyhook, or Laser Propulsion. There are several ideas on how to get us to orbit on the cheap. Personally, I'd love to see more interest in 'Dynamic' structures like the space fountain or launch loop. I'd love to see competitions a la the space elevator competitions, something like building a dynamic bridge over a 10 meter gap that can be walked over.
7. Re:Space elevator? by LifesABeach · 2011-12-06 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  I agreed all the way till, "...so nano structuring should be almost trivial!"
  
  Ouch! But I could be wrong, could you point to us your web page of similar trivialities with nano structuring? I think that's were I have some questions.
8. Re:Space elevator? by cdcoulon · 2011-12-06 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  this. i don't know why we don't develop magnetic rail launch - just for putting matter in space it seems like the most efficient method.
9. Re:Space elevator? by Thing+1 · 2011-12-06 14:26 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but only because that cute chick contributed 18,000 edits...
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
10. Re:Space elevator? by Neil+Boekend · 2011-12-06 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  One of the problems with any method that imparts something near escape velocity (11,000 km/s) to an object from ground is the air density at ground level. You don't only have to have escape velocity, but also the speed to overcome friction (wich is immense at the beginning). The heat generated by this friction is another problem.
  On the moon this isn't as much of a problem, since there is no air.
  While creating a vacuum tube big enough to reach out of the atmosphere is interresting I'd advise a space elevator.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
11. Re:Space elevator? by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-07 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Forget heat, what about the acceleration? You'd be squished into a layer of red goo on the spaceship floor by the 10-zillion G force.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
12. Re:Space elevator? by F34nor · 2011-12-08 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Wow you are totally wrong! You see there already is 'a almost limitless, cheap power' source called the FUCKING sun. 1200 watts per square meter on earth x 144% or about 17280/ meter sq. in space and 24 hrs per day.
  Do we currently launch stuff into space with chemical rockets? Yes. Do we have cyclotrons? Yes. Is a physical structure more efficient than chemical rockets? Yes ($10,000/lbs vs. ?$100/lbs. to orbit est.)
  So if we want stuff in space ( a totally impractical idea in and of itself ) than we should use something that is cheap, robust, and reusable. Practical also means it is build-able with current tech. Impractical is relying on non-existent tech like a pair of 24,000 km long nano-tech fibers or chemical rocket. Did you know that Saturn rocket put out as much energy as the rest of the planet combined on its launch? One planetary output of power to get two tiny boxes of meat and metal to the moon.
  You need to learn what "perfect is the enemy of the good" means.
13. Re:Space elevator? by F34nor · 2011-12-08 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The best I have ever seen is the ocean mounted gas gun. I saw it one time on the interest in an alternate launch vehicle web site. and I have never been able to find it again. Basically just a long tube in the ocean with valves, you sink one end and open a valve, sea water rushes in the bottom compresses the air and forces it up toward the surface, then POP! out goes the cork at a velocity that can reach orbit. Not good for people but great for payloads like water/fuel.
14. Re:Space elevator? by amRadioHed · 2011-12-08 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Did you know that Saturn rocket put out as much energy as the rest of the planet combined on its launch?
  I did not. And what large percentage of the earth's energy output would be needed to keep a large space platform, and cargo floating over the earth? If it was so cheap and easy to get that much energy from solar, we would already be running everything from solar power. We're not.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
15. Re:Space elevator? by cdcoulon · 2011-12-15 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  depends on the length - if velocity could be reached by gradually accelerating in on a circular track you'd be ok.
  I wonder if it's more complex to build than the Large Hadron Collider - i don't think it should be. definitely not as complicated as teh space elevator.
the nanostructure is porous by wierd_w · 2011-12-06 09:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

To me, this suggests a couple more interesting applications:
Battery electrode
Supercapacitor dielectric
Chemical sensor
Nanofiltration
Lightweight structural blocks/foams (this is essentially a spun aerogel with a water solvent...)
Carbon wire (copper is expensive)
I am sure there are others.
1. Re:the nanostructure is porous by Mr.+Underbridge · 2011-12-06 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  I can attest that it's being researched for numbers 1-3. Numbers 4-5 are likely but outside my field. #6 is currently unlikely as graphene is a helluvalot more expensive than copper.
Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:00 · Score: 5, Funny

No, it's a graphene fiber, not an ass-fiber. Didn't you even read the summary?
Really? Pollution from rockets?... by arcite · 2011-12-06 10:02 · Score: 1

Compared to airplane travel, would several hundred rocket launches a year really contribute that much more pollution?
1. Re:Really? Pollution from rockets?... by wisebabo · 2011-12-06 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Again, I'm just paraphrasing from his book (but I think I'm remembering it correctly). It was a scene where they were pitching the idea of the space elevator and talking about the fact that the (unspecified) rockets of he future would be producing unacceptable environmental damage.
  In his defense I think he was talking about "astronomical" (ha ha) levels of space traffic, something we can only hope for in our wildest dreams of a true space faring civilization with millions going to space DAILY. But who knows? He's dead. :(
2. Re:Really? Pollution from rockets?... by 0123456 · 2011-12-06 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Compared to airplane travel, would several hundred rocket launches a year really contribute that much more pollution?
  Gaseous-core nuclear rockets are pretty polluting. LOX/LH2 not so much.
3. Re:Really? Pollution from rockets?... by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-07 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Rockets are certainly much dirtier than commercial jet engines so they're not directly comparable. Every little bit helps, and a space elevator would be cheaper too, so it's a win/win.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
factually correct, yet of no use at all... by Thud457 · 2011-12-06 10:17 · Score: 1

The science is there, it's just a simple matter of engineering.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:factually correct, yet of no use at all... by newcastlejon · 2011-12-06 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  ...a simple matter of engineering.
  Frankly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Space elevator: Forms of Carbon by BoRegardless · 2011-12-06 10:20 · Score: 2

Carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes and graphene fiber are all different forms with different properties.
Re:Nice by Baloroth · 2011-12-06 10:21 · Score: 5, Funny

My ass-fibers are graphene, you insensitive clod!

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Knot identification fail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:36 · Score: 2, Informative

That's an overhand knot, not a square knot. If you want to join two like-sized ropes use the square knot; neither the overhand nor the figure-8 can do that.
You're right that the figure-8 is better than the overhand in most ways.
1. Re:Knot identification fail by SgtXaos · 2011-12-07 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's an overhand knot, not a square knot. If you want to join two like-sized ropes use the square knot; neither the overhand nor the figure-8 can do that.
  You're right that the figure-8 is better than the overhand in most ways.
  A square knot is properly used only as a binding knot. It can collapse and fail when placed under strain. If you want to joint two ropes (or glorious miracle graphene cables) use one of the interlocked overhand bends, such as the Carrick bend, the Zeppelin bend, or the Ashley bend.
  
  --
  -- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
Re:China? wha? by Nadaka · 2011-12-06 10:43 · Score: 4, Informative

I RTFA. It actually mentions that the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology where this was done is actually in, who would have guessed it, South Korea! and not China.
Re:China? wha? by Nadaka · 2011-12-06 10:46 · Score: 2

Edit: damn you slashodot for no edit feature. The research was at both South Korea and Singapore, so china is almost but not quite correct.
So, as a knitter... by rootchick · 2011-12-06 11:04 · Score: 2

my first thought was how soon will graphene yarn become available?
1. Re:So, as a knitter... by Nefarious+Wheel · 2011-12-06 11:39 · Score: 2
  
  Forget chain maille! Knit me a jumper out of this.
  Maybe we can breed up a special brand of sheep...
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Interesting correlation! by wisebabo · 2011-12-06 11:06 · Score: 1

Interesting correlation! Maybe it also plays a role as to whether or planet is suitable for life, a lot weaker and we'd lose too much of our atmosphere to space. A lot stronger and we'd end up a gas giant. But these might be pretty broad limits.
However, once life gets started, I'm not sure that the strength of gravity is tied closely to the development of life (life evolved into quite complex forms in the oceans). As far as INTELLIGENT life, I also am not sure if there's any correlation. Perhaps our ancestors evolved exceedingly good hand eye manipulative skills while swinging from branch to branch; I'm not sure how making gravity weaker (or stronger!) would make this better or worse.
So, too bad we didn't evolve on an exo-moon like Titan (or "Pandora") where getting to space would be much easier (low gravity, dense atmosphere). Or too bad we didn't evolve on a world that was subject to lots of radiation from the local star (no magnetic field?), then nuclear rockets would be very appealing because we'd be immune to high levels of radiation!
Re:Nice by djh2400 · 2011-12-06 11:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Relevant xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/37/
Shades of "The Windup Girl" by tsotha · 2011-12-06 11:50 · Score: 1

"Carbon fibre is made by a high-temperature treatment. Our fibres are made just by spinning a water-based solution â" it is quite green and quite easy,"
We should make kink-springs out of this stuff, since gene-hacked algae can be dangerous if the tanks are contaminated.
1. Re:Shades of "The Windup Girl" by Jeremi · 2011-12-06 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  We should make kink-springs out of this stuff, since gene-hacked algae can be dangerous if the tanks are contaminated.
  IIRC the real hazard was the overworked wooly mammoths running amok and trampling people. Why nobody bothered to simply set up some solar panels instead, I'll never know.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Nice by tmosley · 2011-12-06 12:12 · Score: 1

ITT people posting as anonymous talking about other people's insecurities.
I predict cancer by OrangeTide · 2011-12-06 12:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

I expect the effect of graphene on the human body to be similar to asbestos. So expect increased cancer rates, Asbestosis, and other health problems from people who work with it as a raw material.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Re:I predict cancer by Twinbee · 2011-12-06 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Graphite can be 'peeled' to make graphene so easily that I doubt it could be *that* bad.
  
  --
  Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
2. Re:I predict cancer by sgt101 · 2011-12-06 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you expect this : have you done phage tests? Do you have information on the stability of the reduced material with respect to physical disruption?
  
  --
  --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
3. Re:I predict cancer by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-07 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Aw damn I was just thinking about graphene car body panels :-(
  I wonder if a few layers of clearcoat would safely seal it in? Just hold your breath if you get in an accident :-P
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Nice by shentino · 2011-12-06 12:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Can you please explain to me what the hell a butt hurt-troll is?
not graphene by Goldsmith · 2011-12-06 13:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Graphene oxide and graphene are two different materials. As different as iron and rust, particularly in electrical properties.
This deliberate misleading of people outside the field by nanotechnology researchers is a major problem and has been for several years.
Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 14:28 · Score: 1

Does anyone else shave their ass-fibers? The graphene dulls my razors too quickly.
Definitely is graphene by Olorion · 2011-12-06 14:40 · Score: 2

RTFA. Graphene oxide is an intermediate stage. From the article: " A final chemical reduction treatment turns the long strings of graphene oxide back into graphene."
So the final product is definitely graphene.
1. Re:Definitely is graphene by Goldsmith · 2011-12-06 18:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wait, I just told you the guys writing about graphene oxide are misleading you, and your response is that I should read their article? Think about that for a minute.
  I am a graphene researcher. I've published my own papers on these materials. I've done my own measurements. The resistance, carrier mobility, noise power and chemical reactivity of reduced graphene oxide is not the same as graphene. That's what their data says too, the press release text from Nature doesn't matter.
2. Re:Definitely is graphene by Olorion · 2011-12-06 20:19 · Score: 2
  
  No, the one being misleading was you. You wrote: "Graphene oxide and graphene are two different materials. As different as iron and rust, particularly in electrical properties."
  The Nature news article says explicitly that the Zhen and Chao material is "conductive"; graphene oxide is an insulator. So the new material, however imperfectly reduced, is undeniably closer to graphene than to graphene oxide. It's definitely closer to iron than to rust, to use your analogy.
  Implying otherwise, as you have done twice, is deceptive.
Re:China? wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 15:47 · Score: 2, Funny

That's only true if you think Canada and Mexico are 'almost' the USA.
sometimes lack of evidence is evidence itself by OrangeTide · 2011-12-07 06:31 · Score: 1

This is my point exactly, the information simply does not exist, it's as if someone didn't even bother to look into the possibility. I'd rather the consequences were determined up front, instead of waiting for a few workers get injured or sick to provide evidence to support such an investigation. There is already quite a bit of question concerning the safety of Fullerenes (buckyballs, carbon nanotubes, etc). I would rather err on the side of caution, as an otherwise harmless material such as graphite, is manipulated into new and exciting forms. But how can you make an easy buck if you're cautious? It's more profitable to assume something is safe and ignore the possibilities.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire