Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech Surprise: Shooting Lasers at Buckyballs Makes Them Bigger
SchrodingerZ writes "Since 1985, scientists have been trying to determine how Buckyballs (scientifically named Buckminsterfullerene) are created. They are molecules with the formula C60 (a fullerene) that forms a hexagonal sphere of interlocking carbon atoms. 'But how these often highly symmetric, beautiful molecules with extremely fascinating properties form in the first place has been a mystery.' For over three decades the creation of these molecules have baffled the scientific community. Recently researchers at Florida State University, in cooperation with MagLab, have looked deeper into the creation process and determined their origin. It was already known the the process for buckyball creation was under highly energetic conditions over an instant, 'We started with a paste of pre-existing fullerene molecules mixed with carbon and helium, shot it with a laser, and instead of destroying the fullerenes we were surprised to find they'd actually grown.' The fullerenes were able to absorb and incorporate carbon from the surrounding gas. This study will help to illuminate the path towards carbon nanotechnology and extraterrestrial environmental studies, due to buckyball's abundance in extrasolar clouds."
While reading the first sentence, for one moment I thought it was going to end like this:
Since 1985, scientists have been trying to determine how Buckyballs (scientifically named Buckminsterfullerene ) are useful.
I knew mankind would find a solution for the so-called "global warming" problem. Since buckyballs absorb carbon when lasers are shot at them, all we need to do is sprinkle buckyballs into the ocean. Then it's just a matter of finding some fish or other marine animal to equip with laser beams to activate them, at which point all the excess carbon dioxide will be incorporated into the buckyballs. Voila! I'll be patenting this idea when my lawyer gets into his office on Monday morning.
and CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray.
Corrective eye surgery, along with many other types of keyhole surgery.
Laser Welding
LIDAR
Laser Printers
Laser cutting and engraving
and, ofcourse, the Laser Harp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_harp
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Sorry, my post is slightly off-topic, but I found this remarkably interesting.
Britannica: Blunt text, almost no pictures, broken into 5 pages, the last two of which are junk. Surrounded by links that claim to be "relevant" (the 3 links on some dudes that are probably working on the topic are, I would say, quite irrelevant if someone wants to learn more on fullerenes and the ones on "carbon" and "cluster" are way too elementary to be of any use) and massive header/footer with yet more junk links. No citations in the article, the "Bibliography" section only lets you submit a publication for consideration without providing any information on what has already been considered and their "Citations" section is about how to cite their own article!
The Wikipedia article on the other hand, is on a single page, with lots of pictures, one of which is animated. There is a far more granular Table of Contents than in Britannica, with a discreet pane on "Nanomaterials" high up (offering elementary knowledge, even a "in popular culture" link) and a footer on "Allotropes of carbon" (offering more in-depth information). Translations in 30+ languages are to be found on the left. And there are 58 citations, a discussion page, 5 "further reading" links that are actually relevant and 10 or so external links, which can be directly translated into traffic that Wikipedia is generously streaming to 3rd party cites.
I have taken Wikipedia for granted for so long. I am SO donating next time.
Well, it is over three decades for small units of ten.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
You're still missing one: lasers can be used to calibrate sarcasm detectors to sub-micron accuracy.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
"For over three decades the creation of these molecules have baffled the scientific community."
Statements like this are rather disingenuous to the scientific community and fail to accurately depict the scientific process. Certainly there are a large number of "baffling" topics under investigation, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize the investigators as being "baffled". The overuse of this word in the context of science reporting seems to imply inept bumbling rather than the actual methodical (and occasionally inspired) process of scientific investigation (observe->hypothesize->predict->experiment->evaluate->refine). Certainly, many hypotheses are created, tested and found wanting for any number of reasons, but the very fact that an hypothesis has been falsified or found to be incomplete adds to our knowledge of what isn't so, and narrows the field of possible explanations.
Certainly, some instances (such as the summary blurb above) can be explained away as laziness in reporting and the desire to reach the lowest common denominator. However, this popular media representation of "baffled" scientists is easily hijacked for the mis-characterization of inconvenient findings by politically, financially or ideologically motivated groups. Couple with the joyful glee with which young earth creationists, ufologists, ghost hunters, psi investigators, AGW denialists and other pseudo- or anti-science proponents claim that science is "baffled" by (or worse, suppressing) their various claims, it is no wonder that a frighteningly large number of people have little understanding of the scientific method, little trust in the scientific enterprise, little appreciation of the degree to which their lives have been improved by science and almost no concept of the time and effort required to move from an observation to a consistent theory to explain it or a practical application of a discovered principle. Scientific literacy seems to be trending sharply downward (at least here in the US, but probably many other countries as well), and the general population is less and less equipped for critically evaluating the endless stream of claims and counter-claims that appear in the marketplace of ideas. Perpetuating the baffled scientist meme is not particularly helpful in combating this trend.
Granted, this article is a single example, and the case is rather benign, but I am increasingly dismayed by the inaccurate use of "baffled" in science reporting and felt I had to make my case. Perhaps a better statement would have been "The creation of these molecules has been a topic of intense investigation by the scientific community since their discovery in 1985"
Just let me be the first to say:
Evil begets evil, Mr President.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife