Slashdot Mirror
Yale-Led Team Solves Half-Century Carbon-Crystal Mystery
slew writes "Unlike its more famous carbon cousins: diamonds and fullerenes, you've probably never heard of M-Carbon, but this form of compressed graphite which is as hard as diamonds has baffled researcher for half a century. Over the past few years, many theoretical computations have suggested at least a dozen different crystal structures for this phase of carbon, but new experiments showed that only one crystal structure fits the data: M-carbon."
Nice of TFS to not link to anything describing M-carbon.
Maybe this will help. Maybe it was "common knowledge", but I personally hadn't heard of the stuff till now.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Though he has been baffled, his name has not been released.
and M-Carbon can be the new Gorilla Glass. Needs a practical industrial process to make it economical, but the raw materials and process energy are cheap enough.
How 'tough' is this M-carbon in comparison to diamond? Actual diamond is very hard, but its toughness is only average, and hence quite brittle like glass.
If it's tough and hard, we could be onto a winner.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
"theoretical computations" Good day.
I read the godawful article.
First it says that this state was theoretical - meaning that we know the crystal structure, because the crystal structure is the theory.
Then it says they made some. Ok, so they confirmed the theory, right? And that's what's new?
Then it says the structure has been mysterious for fifty years, as though they had made some experimentally, but had no theory to describe it.
So which is it? Is the theory new, and the material has been around all along, or is the material new and the crystal structure has been known all along?
And after all this nonsense, they never once actually tell you anything about the crystal structure. What was the theory? Is there no theory? Is it all a scam?
The post basically says "M-Carbon is strange, and the only possible explanation for its structure is: M-Carbon." Either we're having some problems with sentence structure or today is Tautology Day and no one told me.
This is really badly written. It's missing several obvious and important pieces of data.
For example, what was the experiment they did in which they damaged diamond? The way it's described “Our study shows that M-carbon is extremely incompressible and hard, rivaling the extreme properties of diamond so much that it damages diamond,”, it sounds like the very existence of the material damages all diamond everywhere.
And what the heck is the crystal structure anyway? I know what the atomic arrangement of graphite is, and I know what the atomic arrangement of diamond is, but what the heck is 'M-Carbon'? How are the atoms arranged there? The article gives no clue.
And lastly, the article hints that after M-Carbon (whatever that is) has been created with extreme pressure, it stays that way even after the pressure is released. But it doesn't outright actually say it anywhere. Does it?
Three important and obvious questions that the article totally fails to address. All the while tossing around fluff data that's vaguely interesting, but ultimately not important, or tantalizing hints at important things, but no followup. It's annoying. The writer responsible for this piece ought to be given some obnoxious and menial task and then let out to re-write the piece periodically, repeating until it's actually halfway decent.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
So diamonds aren't the hardest metal?
can be found here http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120719/srep00520/full/srep00520.html (OPEN ACCESS).
So the blurb starts out by describing this stuff as M-Carbon, then goes on at the end to say they've discovered it's made out of.... M-Carbon!
What exactly was this stuff called _before_ they (theoretically) discovered it's made out of M-Carbon? Did the researchers just go around saying "Hey, you want to do some tests today on that carbon stuff that's as hard as diamonds but is produced at room temperatures under high pressure instead of both high pressure and high temperatures"? Seems like a mouthful.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I know everyone on /. loves being a critic, but here's some info about M-Carbon for the people who were interested in more than pointing out how lame the linked article was.
It seems that the anisotropy does give a lower compressibility, but not dramatically more as in graphite (weaker plane compressibility is 2.7% of the stronger plane). It's also clear that the diamond in the diamond anvil cell used to make this is damaged by the material. The picture in the Yale News article is the damaged anvil, not the M-carbon. In SEM images, it doesn't look like graphite at all, but more like fused grains. Characterization and proof of structure is done by X-ray diffraction, a standard materials science method, using synchrotrons, which are giant particle accelerators, namely ALS at LBL and APS at Argonne.
Carbon is such a useful material, the Australian government has just introduced Carbon Tacks!
Of the crystaline structure of M-Carbon can be seen in this article http://rdmag.com/News/2012/06/Materials-Researchers-Establish-Structure-Of-A-New-Superhard-Form-Of-Carbon/
My other signature is a car
Next stop, transparent aluminum.
“It’s not the strongest material ever made, but it’s certainly one of the best with a combination of strength and toughness.”
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion