Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Berkeley Scientists Develop Self-Assembling Nanorods

Posted by samzenpus on from the out-of-the-lab dept.

First time accepted submitter techgeek0279 writes "Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have developed a relatively fast, easy and inexpensive technique for inducing nanorods to self-assemble into one-, two- and even three-dimensional macroscopic structures."

43 comments

  1. Oh god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    That's it, we're doomed!

    1. Re:Oh god by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's it, we're doomed!

      Yeah, whew! I thought it said "Nanodroids" too.

    2. Re:Oh god by houghi · · Score: 1

      No, those are developed at the University of Pennsylvania:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4

      So we are indeed doomed.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Oh god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple would never allow that to exist.

    4. Re:Oh god by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 0

      Or maybe not, according to this obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/865/

  2. N B 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    in before grey goo

  3. Inevitably... by pr100 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I for one welcome our new nanorod overlords.

  4. Old by goldaryn · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been turning a nanorod into a three dimensional structure for years.

    Haven't yet worked out how to make it visible to the naked eye, though.

    1. Re:Old by macraig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haven't yet worked out how to make it visible to the naked eye, though.

      That's what she said!

  5. no worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    hope they'll run out of IP addresses before they run over the world :D

  6. Self-anything materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They scare me. Not because the gray goo idea, but because I can't help but think that it could really be a problem to stabilize them once they're in the desired shape/structure. If their curing is chemical, and we do get to see some great materials, couldn't their "self-stuff" functions be triggered once they're in place inside our objects ? I RTFA, but yeah, IANAC.

    OTOH, it would be cool if these materials were easier to recycle, maybe at room temperature.

    1. Re:Self-anything materials by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like they are stable once removed from the substrate. They talk about using "energenic contributions" (?) to guide the assembly process. So even if it were possible to trigger self-assembly mechanism outside that environment, you'd have to re-energize them in a similar fashion, or you'd just get some random clumping of ... junk.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:Self-anything materials by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Could be wrong, but I do believe that was exactly the GP's concern... Say you (eventually) use this to construct a building -- having someone able to bath part of the substructure in a chemical and have it suddenly start un-structuring itself would be disastrous.

      That said, I'm inclined to say the GP's concern is largely moot, people can already use chemicals to destroy buildings...

  7. Oh the irony ... that's not irony by sakdoctor · · Score: 2

    The one story where that xkcd spam bot could have been even vaguely relevant, and it doesn't post.

  8. And yet they can't mass product them? by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's so odd about these self assembly claims is that while they do that to some extent it's rarely very reliable or significant.

    Several industries want this material for use in products but they can't get the tons of the stuff required to actually go into production.

    Why use carbon fiber when we can make nanotubes that are many times as strong when weaved appropriately? Well... because no one can get their hands on enough of it to bother making anything.

    It's very frustrating.

    I'm sure they'll crack the problem eventually, but until then I'm taking these reports with a grain of salt until I see them going into industrial production.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is brand new and it takes YEARS for any tech which only exists in the lab to reach commercial applications. While I agree any new thing like this has to be taken with a grain of salt, you shouldn't immediately disregard it either.

    2. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by Courageous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a technology forecaster, I can personally attest to the strategy of "taking these reports with a grain of salt until I see them going into industrial production" is quite wise. While the sheer volume of work going on in nanomaterials suggests quite strongly that interesting nanomaterial innovations are in our future, the specific innovations are gated quite firmly by commercial production problems that for some specific innovations may never materialize at all.

    3. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      Do not forget health consequences. I am OK with waiting some more and have time to check that we are not creating the next asbestos ...

    4. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I admit I did not read the article, but that's what /. comments for, right?

      Question: "while they do that to some extent it's rarely very reliable or significant". How does this compare with more ordinary self-assembly of crystals from low-molecular weight units (like NaCl, etc)?

      Also, protein crystallographers were making crystals from quite large proteins since 1959, how do sizes compare? (I truly don't have any shame, may be I will read it myself after sending this)

      I am always intersted in what is really new in research, not just TIL part. The delta from previous cutting edge, not from my ignoramus state.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by Karmashock · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh please don't bring up that joke all over again.

      That stuff has to be the most over-hyped medical hazard in US history.

      Also... its likely that removing it from the space shuttle is why started to become too hazardous to fly. They were initially designed to use asbestos between the panels and the structure. That was removed and replaced with something less effective.

      Anyway... this sort of material isn't something you waste putting everywhere. It's something you use when nothing else will get the job done.

      We also desperately need a replacement for asbestos that is cost effective and at least as good at containing heat.

      I'm tired of environmental and health concerns forcing us BACK in time. Nuclear power plants are being shut down and there is nothing to replace them but coal. Coal is being shut down and there is nothing to replace them but hydro power. Many of the wonder materials we've discovered over the years have health concerns and so we ban them and replace them with inferior substitutes.

      Right now the State of California in which I live is trying to build a "high speed rail" system from Los Angeles to San Francisco which will be SLOWER then an airplane, cost more then an airplane, and go to fewer places then an airplane. Does that stop them from building it even with the state going broke?

      Not long ago we had a big solar power plant we were building shut down because it infringed on the habitat of a local lizard. I mean... are you f'ing kidding me? There is no where on earth you can build where something like that won't happen. So by that genius logic we can never build anything ever again anywhere.

      Sorry I'm ranting here... I'm annoyed by all the Luddites.

      Know what the first person to discover fire said?

      Ouch.

      Imagine if some group of jackasses at the time had said "oh fire is dangerous, you shouldn't use that. And it's a threat to the environment. And the smoke will give people cancer... etc"... If the alternative is worse then it doesn't matter.

      Fire for all it's threats will keep you warm. It will cook your food. It will clear land. It will keep most dangerous predators away. Fire is awesome.

      Likewise, there are a lot of technologies and materials and forces that have negative effects. But if we're careful about it and the pros outweigh the cons then we should do it.

      Lets say a few thousand people in the US get cancer every year as result of asbestos exposure. Bad right? Okay, what if in the process we save a few tens of thousands of people from burning to death?

      Choices. Now if I can get the best of both worlds, fine. But if I have to let tens of thousands die to save a few thousand then that's stupid.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2

      Well even carbon fiber products like Kevlar are still higher than crap. If you want it really strong you have to put the panel in a press mold and then into an autoclave for hours.

      We do need the car companies to start spending some money on how to press out lightweight and strong structures that can be made as cheap as steel. It's simple power to weight. The vehicles and the batteries need to get lighter, if we are going to see a bunch of battery powered cars everywhere or maybe the highway department could have a mass project to put induction wires under the roads. The battery could be a lot lighter then.

      But like everyone else has said, not much of this nano stuff has made it to market except in some high priced bullet resistant vest that may or may not be stronger than Kevlar or Spectra. If we could just make a long enough nano fiber, then it can be woven and made into things. An inch or two is all the length I have seen for sale and you can't buy a lot for any price.

    7. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I'd just be more interested in this sort of thing if they ever made something actually useful.

      We've been hearing about this technology for years now. It should be finding its way into fabrication.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by number6x · · Score: 1

      just curious....

      Slower than an airplane sure, but slower than air travel? Is it still slower if you add the time to check in at the airport, get x-rayed, manhandled, board, retrieve luggage, etc. ?

      I don't have good estimates on travelling with luggage by train, but medium distance commuting by train on the east coast (ie manhattan to D.C.) is usually about the same time as air travel. The manhattan to DC fight is about 1 hour but travel time is between 4 and 5 hours adding the stuff at the airports. The acella train is 3 hours and the regular runs are 3.5 hours. Total train travel is usually 4 to 4.5 hours

      The train costs more, but is much less hassle. Orders of magnitude less.

      Bus is a little longer, but incredibly cheap.

      Distances between population centers, and population density of those centers are different out West, so I'm curious about the hassle at airports. If air travel is low hassle, the train will offer no benefits whatsoever. Except for companies that have contracts to get paid tax dollars to do stuff. That could be the deciding factor.

    9. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to airplane versus airtravel... Yep... both.

      First, the train isn't going straight from LA to SF. That would take it through park land and mountains. If we were really serious about a train them we'd do what the Swiss did when they wanted a train... Tunnel through. There are many such tunnels in the Rocky Mountains. Only way to get a freeway through them in many cases is to tunnel. Anyway, this train won't be doing any of that for a few reasons. One, it would spoil the area in the opinion of some. Cali has some of the most extreme NIYBism you'll find anywhere in the world. Second, it would make the whole thing more expensive and the cost of the project without doing this has already TRIPLED. If we then tunneled it would probably take the tripled costs and quadruple them. Third, there are no population centers in that area. They do actually want the train to be able to stop somewhere besides LA and SF. But if it goes through the mountains then that will be about it. Etc.

      Second, the train is going to stop at various places along the way. Stopping means decelerating, not moving for a while, and then accelerating. That process radically slows the total travel time of the train. A plane from LA to SF does not stop.

      Third, the check in process for domestic flights from LA to SF is not a big deal. The biggest problem is the security and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a security scan on the high speed train. I don't know if it will be as extreme but it's likely to be annoying.

      Oh and because you're apparently waving on this issue. The ticket price for the train is between 60-70 USD for one way. Airplanes are 50 dollars one way. And that's not counting the cost of building the track or maintaining the track. That's just what it costs to run the train. And worse still that price assumes 60 million passengers a year. Want to guess how often government projections are accurate about things like this? Expect the figures to be off by about 30 percent at least which means either the ticket price will have to go up by 30 percent or more likely the train will have to be further subsidized by the government.

      The whole plan is idiotic. And I don't mind stupid plans. My problem is with the government enacting a stupid plan with my money. If some private collection of investors want to get together and build this thing then have fun. It's their money to waste. But they're effectively beggaring the richest state in the union for nothing and tying future generations to continue to maintain the tracks if only to disguise the fact that it was all a massive waste.

      As to Manhattan to DC... that's a much shorter distance between SF and LA. And you have a direct line between both places and there isn't a mountain range between the two cities.

      The real problem in any case is that airport security is too slow. Building a train doesn't solve that problem. What happens if a terrorist blows himself up on a train. Then they'll ask you to take your shoes off before getting on the train and whatever speed benefits you think you got are gone. Its all about the security gate. And in any case, there's no way any islamic terrorist is going to take over a US plane probably for the next 30 years or ever again. The reality is that the pilots on those planes LET the terrorists have control because they thought the worst that would happen is that the plane would fly to some foreign airport, there would be some sort of hostage negotiation, everyone would eat pizza brought in, and everyone would be released before or after the terrorists were shot in the head by snipers. Instead, the planes were flown into the sides of buildings. No pilot is going to surrender the cockpit under those terms and the passengers likewise won't submit to terrorists with box cutters. What made 9/11 work was that no one knew what the terrorists were going to do with control of the plane. That had never been done before. The fourth plane didn't crash into the white house because the passengers were informed by cell phone that the fi

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:And yet they can't mass product them? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      It's a running joke in Russian social networks about special feelings that Putin and Medvedev have towards nanotechnology and all things nano-, punchline being of course that it's yet another way to embezzle state budget.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  9. self-assembling! by Ries · · Score: 1

    Self-assembling! It's a new dawn for IKEA furniture!

  10. Call Col Jack O'Neil by Starfleet+Command · · Score: 2

    Looks we got some replicators ahead.....

    1. Re:Call Col Jack O'Neil by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our self-assembling nanorod overlords. (Gotta be better than our current idiot overlords...)

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  11. One dimensional?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is a 1 or 2d structure?!? How is that even possible, it doesn't make any sense...

    1. Re:One dimensional?!? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      they only mean having a pattern that extends and repeats in 1 or 2 dimensions, not growing into the 2nd or 3rd. this is regardless of fact it is of course made of three dimensional components.

  12. similarity to protein synthesis by mapkinase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    mRNA = "varying .. morphology of the block copolymers "
    aminoacids = nanorods

    Sans ribosome.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  13. So easy by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    These energetic contributions can be easily tuned by varying the supramolecular morphology, which is accomplished simply by attaching different types of small molecules to the side chains of the block copolymers.

    Sounds so easy! Why didn't I think of that?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  14. Self-sealing stem bolts by jemtallon · · Score: 1

    Now if only we can trade them for some yamok sauce...

  15. two- and even three-dimensional macroscopic struct by mapkinase · · Score: 2

    "two- and even three-dimensional macroscopic structures" = different types of uniform glass-like structures with different pattern of near-order.

    Another sophisticated supernanomonomers that can do that is hydrogen dioxide and carbon. Except environmental conditions (temperature, etc) here they use a chemical agent (block copolymer)

    Can anybody explain what the big deal is?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  16. Re:two- and even three-dimensional macroscopic str by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are making two-dimensional structures out of three-dimensional objects. Clearly they've found a way to shave it down to an infintesimally thin sheet that isn't torn to shreds by any three-dimensional objects passing through it.

  17. Yeah, sure... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    Widgets that build things out of themselves. What could possibly go wrong? Just tell me that they're working on a "disassembler ray" gizmo too.

  18. In Rod We Trust by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    EOM

  19. Active paint by tylorsama · · Score: 1

    We've got a lot of confusion here. If I'm interpreting their work correctly, it's a precursor technology required for industrial production of active paint. The first application to be targeted would be paint-on solar cells, followed fairly quickly by paints that change colors with the flip of a switch, and culminating in paint-on displays. The same technology would apply to textiles as well, making those color changing video clothes from the sci-fi films. Not the self-cleaning ones though. Self-cleaning nanoparticles would etch their polymers fairly quickly. I am a chemist, though I'm not intimately familiar with Dr. Ting Xu's work or motivations.