New Threadlike Carbon Nanotube Fiber Unveiled

Make a white suit out of it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 04:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

They'd never allow it.

Re:Make a white suit out of it by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-14 04:57 · Score: 5, Informative

The parent is probably referring to this movie.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Coisiche · 2013-01-14 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Presumably AC is referencing the film but the vanity of people is such that if some fibre allowed permanently enduring clothes they would still want new ones; there will always be a desirable new ironic slogan for a t-shirt.
Now indestructible clothes with a programmable visual component... one would probably do me.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Joce640k · 2013-01-14 05:13 · Score: 1

if some fibre allowed permanently enduring clothes they would still want new ones; there will always be a desirable new ironic slogan for a t-shirt.
...except you wouldn't be able to print it on the shirt.

--
No sig today...
Re:Make a white suit out of it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-01-14 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are probably niche exceptions; but in most of clothing it's been quite some time since disrepair, rather than disuse, has been the driving factor behind consumption.
Even relatively easy and low-tech techniques like 'patching' and 'darning' and assorted flavors of mending have fallen out of fashion, and those aren't exactly the height of material science...
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Capt.+Skinny · 2013-01-14 05:35 · Score: 1

the vanity of people is such that if some fibre allowed permanently enduring clothes they would still want new ones
Vanity? Am I vain because I moved to another city? Or rearranged my furniture? Or painted my house a different color? Sometimes people just want a change.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Saithe · 2013-01-14 05:36 · Score: 1

Nah, make me the suit from Continuum TV-series instead, I want that tech :)
Re:Make a white suit out of it by h4rr4r · 2013-01-14 06:01 · Score: 2

Because they are a lot of work compared to getting another shirt for $5-$20. They also look like crap for the most part.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Immerman · 2013-01-14 06:44 · Score: 2

Indeed. I remember hearing that the Salvation Army has to discard something like 90% of the clothing donations they receive simply because the supply so outstrips the demand. Hopefully all that cloth gets turned into insulation or cloth paper or something instead of just ending up in a landfill somewhere. What a waste.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 06:56 · Score: 0

Change for the sake of change is vanity in the puritan sense.
Outside the realm of fundamentalist religion, I'm not sure what is vanity. Everything we do in modern capitalism is mostly for the sake of appearance and is far removed from necessity or even convenience. Half the stuff we make is crap and the other half mostly complicates our lives without added benefit other than making us look better compared to those who make less money.
So yeah, we're all vain unless living in some shed in the woods or a commune...
Re:Make a white suit out of it by mcgrew · 2013-01-14 07:05 · Score: 1

Why not? Paint won't stick to carbon fiber?

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Make a white suit out of it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-01-14 07:07 · Score: 2

There are various recycling methods, depending on how well you can separate the goods(If a given synthetic type is isolated well enough, you can melt it back to pellets, some fibers are long enough that you can shred and re-process them into rag, or industrial felt, or similar low quality fiber aggregate stuff. If you can screen enough of the synthetics out, it is probably compostable, and I'm sure that baled fabric is hardly the worst fuel that we've ever burned for energy); but it isn't exactly as clean and sustainable as recycling aluminum cans...
Re:Make a white suit out of it by maxwell+demon · 2013-01-14 08:49 · Score: 1

Clothing donations are a bad idea anyway because they destroy local markets and thus make the people in those countries poorer than they were anyway. An intelligent way to help would be to collect money and then use that to buy clothes in the very country where they are then given to the poor. This not only gives the poor immediately clothes, but in addition improves the local economy so that there will be fewer poor people in the future.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 08:58 · Score: 0

In the UK, the surplus clothing from charity shops is a vital feedstock for the paper manufacturing industry. They pay a surprisingly large amount per pound of unsorted clothes.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Immerman · 2013-01-14 10:05 · Score: 1

I was referring to the second-hand stores, which sell donations as part of the fundraising mechanism for their overseas endeavors. Honestly though I think if you're worried about destroying local markets (which is admittedly a very real problem with most traditional international aid programs) it'd probably still be better to give people clothes than food, simply because it's so much less important of an industry. I quite agree that the smart/sustainable way would be to buy food/clothing/etc locally so that the local industries and economies are strengthened and the need for aid diminishes, but so far that's mostly not what actually happens.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by cheater512 · 2013-01-14 10:06 · Score: 2

One word: Yes.
Not that it is a bad thing. Its natural to want change from time to time.
Just don't kid your self that there are practical reasons to re-paint your house a different colour.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Kjella · 2013-01-14 10:10 · Score: 1

here are probably niche exceptions; but in most of clothing it's been quite some time since disrepair, rather than disuse, has been the driving factor behind consumption. Even relatively easy and low-tech techniques like 'patching' and 'darning' and assorted flavors of mending have fallen out of fashion
Well there's two different things here, that you wouldn't mend it if was damaged isn't the same as saying you wouldn't want it to last longer, it's certainly not the same as disuse. Honestly I've had clothes that I've loved and used but when they're so worn out they'd need patching and darning I've just said okay it's time to let go and buy a new one, if they hadn't worn out I'd keep using them. Particularly darning I think has almost fallen out of the language, I practically never have to look up English words and first I had to google darning, then use google translate to even remember what it was in my language. Patched clothes I've seen, but darning... no, never except maybe in a museum. Probably because if you consider the value of time you have to be really desperate to mend a sock as I can pick up a dozen in a value pack for next to nothing.
And even patched clothes, well to be honest I've only seen them on old people or abroad in poorer countries, I would never wear one and I think any kids I have would genuinely hate it me if I forced them to wear any patched clothes to school. I mean I understand when the need would arise but there's so many other things I have that I'd easily give up so I could throw away the old sweater and buy me a new one instead. In some ways I very much respect the old people who do and like say "I don't care about your nonsense, I won't throw away a perfectly good sweater when a patch will fix it" and frugality is a underrated virtue, but to be honest I would feel it more like painting a giant neon sign on me saying "I'm poor, I can't even afford new clothes". I don't care for brand or fashion, but they should be in good condition and clean.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Capt.+Skinny · 2013-01-14 10:39 · Score: 2

I'm suddenly reminded of Mr. Gradgrind speaking to schoolchildren in Dickens' Hard Times. "You don't find that foreign birds and butterflies come and perch upon your crockery; you cannot be permitted to to paint foreign birds and butterflies upon your crockery. You never meet with quadrupeds going up and down walls; you must not have quadrupeds represented upon walls."
Re:Make a white suit out of it by reasterling · 2013-01-14 16:58 · Score: 1

I have tried shopping at several second-hand stores and have found that their prices are way to high. I have priced garments that are priced around 75% the cost of a new garment. And what they sell is often well worn clothing that was donated after the death of a loved one to clean out the closets. These clothes should be sold at pennies on the dollar to help the local poor, but instead they are treated like gold. Economically, it is better to buy the new clothes and get a lot longer use out of them, than to save a buck or two on mostly worn out, over priced, second hand garments.

--
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
Re:Make a white suit out of it by drinkypoo · 2013-01-14 22:14 · Score: 1

Hopefully all that cloth gets turned into insulation or cloth paper or something instead of just ending up in a landfill somewhere. What a waste.
It gets baled, palleted, and shipped South. Not sure what happens to it if nobody wants it in Mexico, or Panama, or where have you.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Make a white suit out of it by dbIII · 2013-01-14 22:21 · Score: 1

If they've got to cover rent they charge more. Second hand shops in industrial areas or on Church land often charge very little while others charge more.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by geekoid · 2013-01-15 05:32 · Score: 1

I live in a colder ares so I repainted my house a darker color. Please explain to me how that is vanity.
Would it be vanity if the house just needed repainting and someone other color was cheaper?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Make a white suit out of it by cheater512 · 2013-01-15 08:40 · Score: 1

That is a practical reason, just like if the paint is flaking off.
The GP's example was just changing the colour, not bringing in the valid practical reasons to repaint.
Re:Make a white suit out of it by Immerman · 2013-01-19 04:27 · Score: 1

> Economically, it is better to buy the new clothes and get a lot longer use out of them, than to save a buck or two on mostly worn out, over priced, second hand garments.
Only if you intend to wear the garments until they're worn out, which is rarely the case for most people. If you're the sort that likes to buy clothes on a regular basis, even an expensive second-hand store is likely to increase your buying power notably.
There is a wide deal-quality range in second-hand stores. If you want really good deals you need to find the gems that both carry high quality merchandise and cater to a mostly lower income clientele. Also the ones that are part of the fundraising branch for charitable organizations are much more likely to have really good prices than a for-profit store. There's also a definite treasure-hunting mindset that helps - if you're looking for something specific your "win" rate will be low, whereas if you go in with an extensive wishlist but no specific intention to buy anything then you're much more likely to find great deals.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

That's great, but by Fallingcow · 2013-01-14 04:46 · Score: 1, Funny

Where's the Processlike Carbon Nanotube Fiber?

Awesome! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-01-14 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

When do we start building the space elevator?

--

Technoli

Re:Awesome! by Hentes · 2013-01-14 05:02 · Score: 2

TFA says it's as strong as carbon fiber, which suggests that they couldn't translate the strenght of nanotubes into macroscale perfectly. Still, being able to massproduce CNTs is a huge leap forward.
Re:Awesome! by Korruptionen · 2013-01-14 05:08 · Score: 1

Exactly what I was thinking! :)
Re:Awesome! by EdZ · 2013-01-14 05:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

When do we start building the space elevator?
When we can consistently produce defect-free carbon nanotubes in much longer lengths than is currently possible. Space elevators require near the upper end of CN theoretical tensile strength.
Bolos, Skyhooks and Rotovators on the other hand...
Re:Awesome! by ShanghaiBill · 2013-01-14 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

TFA says it's as strong as carbon fiber, which suggests that they couldn't translate the strenght of nanotubes into macroscale perfectly.
The common claim that CNTs are "100 times the strength of steel" is basically baloney. Sure, they are that strong at the molecular level. But at the molecular level, even iron-iron bonds are far stronger than steel. If we ever figure out how to control the structure of materials so that the strength of individual chemical bonds is preserved in bulk materials, then we would not only have stronger carbon fibers, but we would also have stronger steel.
Re:Awesome! by vlm · 2013-01-14 05:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Build a lunar one first with off the shelf Kevlar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator#Materials

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Awesome! by crunchygranola · 2013-01-14 05:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

... If we ever figure out how to control the structure of materials so that the strength of individual chemical bonds is preserved in bulk materials, then we would not only have stronger carbon fibers, but we would also have stronger steel.
It is a special case, but we do have well know examples of how to do this. They are crystals, which are atomically ordered on the macroscale. The manifestation of the strength inherent in the carbon-carbon bond on the macroscale is what bestows upon diamonds their remarkable properties. Single crystal macroscopic parts are manufactured in metallurgy also (turbine blades).

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:Awesome! by vlm · 2013-01-14 05:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Whoops I forgot to explain why and only placed an imperial command, not sure how I got +5 unless you guys have ESP. The reason why is:
Weird design with known material = Success, mostly
Known design with weird material = Success, mostly
Weird design with weird material = Epic Fail, mostly
Figure out whats wrong with the design using "old fashioned" kevlar then once the design is all debugged whip out the magic threads and try a known good design with weird new material.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Awesome! by interkin3tic · 2013-01-14 05:59 · Score: 1

What clothing store are YOU shopping at where they have kevlar on the shelf?
Re:Awesome! by Hatta · 2013-01-14 06:00 · Score: 2

The common claim that CNTs are "100 times the strength of steel" is basically baloney.
Just wait until they perfect copper nanotubes.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Awesome! by crunchygranola · 2013-01-14 06:04 · Score: 1

Spectra would be better (check your own link), and it costs about the same. But the bulk cost of the cable is not a significant cost in this project, any more than the fuel cost is in space launches (a fact that often surprises people to learn). Raw material costs will be effectively zero compared to the flight systems that must be built and operated. Use carbon fiber - it is the best material we have that we know how to actually make in quantity (and it is actually not much more expensive than Kevlar or Spectra).

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:Awesome! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-01-14 06:14 · Score: 4, Informative

The classier fibreglass suppliers usually have Kevlar, carbon-fiber, and sometimes aramid(or various mixtures of the above) in woven sheets.
More expensive than basic fibreglass; but sometimes you just need the extra strength and/or butch aesthetics.
If your plan involves less boating and more getting shot, ballistic-grade kevlar fabrics are also pretty easily available.
Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 06:26 · Score: 0

Zylon is stronger - not sure about longevity though.
Re:Awesome! by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-01-14 06:58 · Score: 1

... If we ever figure out how to control the structure of materials so that the strength of individual chemical bonds is preserved in bulk materials, then we would not only have stronger carbon fibers, but we would also have stronger steel.
It is a special case, but we do have well know examples of how to do this. They are crystals, which are atomically ordered on the macroscale. The manifestation of the strength inherent in the carbon-carbon bond on the macroscale is what bestows upon diamonds their remarkable properties. Single crystal macroscopic parts are manufactured in metallurgy also (turbine blades).
We also have bulk commercial applications of it - nickel super-alloys are grown into very large single crystals for use in airplane propellers/turbine fans. There are no grain boundaries - it's just one big crystal.
That said, there's where the people making artificial diamonds are probably really hoping to go: single crystal diamonds grown to custom order shapes.
Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 07:13 · Score: 0

If your plan involves less boating and more getting shot, ballistic-grade kevlar fabrics are also pretty easily available.
What if my boat is getting shot at?
Re:Awesome! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-01-14 07:52 · Score: 2

You might want to spring for ballistic grade in that case(and definitely not the kind with aesthetically focused neon-dyed kevlar/carbon fiber weave, unless you are planning on blending in at an aquatic rave or something), and possibly choose a less stiff resin for your kevlar/resin composite, to reduce crack propagation and loss of hull integrity around impact sites. Some sort of layering, possibly including non-resin-impregnated multi-ply layers to contain spall and bullet fragments might also be a good plan.
Re:Awesome! by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-14 08:00 · Score: 2

Get to moon on a regular basis in current economy = Pipedream, mostly.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Awesome! by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · 2013-01-14 08:55 · Score: 1

Kevlar is aramid. It is a subset - a para-aramid - with strength and elasticity properties that exceed standard aramid. Those various fibers can also be obtained as yarns.
Re:Awesome! by Thud457 · 2013-01-14 09:30 · Score: 2

or you could just build your boat out of ice and sawdust .

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Awesome! by maratumba · 2013-01-14 09:34 · Score: 0

50 years later hopefully.
Re:Awesome! by Reverand+Dave · 2013-01-14 10:18 · Score: 1

Not to mention that a single crystal diamond wafer would be an ideal medium for semiconductor manufacture due to it's high heat resistance and general durability.

--
I got here through a series of tubes
Re:Awesome! by Twinbee · 2013-01-14 10:20 · Score: 1

Is it because of imperfections in the bulk material that make them less strong than what's apparent at the molecular level?

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 11:29 · Score: 0

How about never, since fantasy structures make no sense in the real world? There's always one like you in every thread. When reality hits you like a freight train, I want to be there and see it.
Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 11:46 · Score: 0

Add to that current physics and current technology = never, mostly.
Re:Awesome! by Sulphur · 2013-01-14 11:49 · Score: 1

Not to mention that a single crystal diamond wafer would be an ideal medium for semiconductor manufacture due to it's high heat resistance and general durability.
s/resistance/conductivity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_properties_of_diamond
Re:Awesome! by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-01-14 11:50 · Score: 1

Kevlar weave shouldn't be that difficult to source; I have a pair of jeans with large areas of Kevlar cloth reinforcement in them. Bought it at the motorcycle shop. Excellent way to avoid a bumectomy in the event of a get-off.

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:Awesome! by kurzweilfreak · 2013-01-14 17:36 · Score: 1

That... is goddamn fascinating. Thank you for teaching me something new today.

--
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Re:Awesome! by Neil+Boekend · 2013-01-14 19:43 · Score: 1

Out of the top of my head: 2 layers with rigid foam in between helps against the loss of stability when a crack does form. This guide is for a bike, but the same technique should be usable on a boat, with ballistic grade Kevlar instead of fiberglass.Also use more layers. If you plan on getting shot at a lot I'd advise a pump in the boat, because bailing is not the thing I'd want to do while getting shot at.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Awesome! by delt0r · 2013-01-14 22:35 · Score: 1

Single crystals still have dislocations. They still have macroscopic strength below bond strength.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Awesome! by delt0r · 2013-01-14 22:39 · Score: 1

Yes. Its dislocations, and grain structure in metals at least. For thermodynamic reasons there are always a few atoms misplaced, or missing. Sliding of atoms along crystal planes (can be mitigated with proper alloys and heat treatment) or movement due to dislocations happen at much lower forces than if it where "perfect" Note perfect is not possible. CNT have the dislocation problem. There has been at least one paper to suggest that it cannot have the bulk strength required for a space elevator for example.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Awesome! by delt0r · 2013-01-14 22:41 · Score: 1

You can't make them defect free for thermal dynamic reasons unless they are really really short. All a bit of radiation, like say when the cable is in space, and you get even more defects.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Awesome! by BeardedChimp · 2013-01-15 01:39 · Score: 1

From your wikipedia link:

Carbon nanotubes aren’t required to build the structure.[8] This would make it possible to build the elevator much sooner, since available carbon nanotube materials in sufficient quantities are still years away.[9]
The problem being that building a lunar base to support the space elevator is already years away.
Re:Awesome! by Reverand+Dave · 2013-01-15 04:40 · Score: 1

A very common process during semiconductor manufacture is Boron Doping using high energy electron implantation. This is also currently done in many silicone wafer manufacturing processes, pre semiconductor start. The insulation issue was already addressed before the idea of diamond wafer manufacture was though of if that is what you were getting at.

--
I got here through a series of tubes

How strong? by Covalent · 2013-01-14 04:58 · Score: 2

The conductivity issue is impressive, as TFA says that the conductivity is on par with copper and aluminum.

But if the "stronger than steel" of carbon nanotubes turns into "as strong as cotton thread" of these threads, don't expect these to replace steel cable any time soon.

Next question: Cost? Can they be made more cheaply than copper or aluminum?

--
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.

Re:How strong? by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-14 05:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Probably not... but copper and aluminium are finite resources. Sooner or later, we'll run out. Carbon, on the other hand, we have no shortage of.
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:04 · Score: 0

The cost of production doesn't really matter yet, not until we have something that we really want to use commercially. Everything is expensive to deliver in the research phase, until there is demand for it cost won't even come into play.
Re:How strong? by Nadaka · 2013-01-14 05:06 · Score: 1

It says its as strong as carbon fiber, which is a high tensile strength material, that can exceed the strength of steel
Re:How strong? by TheLink · 2013-01-14 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Another question, what happens if you expose these to a camera flash?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=camera-flash-prompts-carb
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:How strong? by kaiser423 · 2013-01-14 05:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

The article mentions that it still has incredibly high textile strength, and shows a small fiber holding up a light (not much, but still).
I think that cost would scale down well since it's very similar to other material handling.
Right now, a large part of the cost and problems with data cables are the really thin wires -- we'd like them to be thinner, but can't make them any thinner without making the cable too brittle. I purposely buy extra-thick data cables merely to reduce problems in the field due to flex. If these flex well, that's a huge boon.....but then, do these survive soldering or crimping? Or am I going to have to teach my techs to sew?
Re:How strong? by Hentes · 2013-01-14 05:12 · Score: 1

We already recycle metals, which would be much harder with carbon.
Re:How strong? by ShanghaiBill · 2013-01-14 05:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Probably not... but copper and aluminium are finite resources. Sooner or later, we'll run out. Carbon, on the other hand, we have no shortage of.
Actually, in the Earth's crust, aluminum is more common than carbon by a factor of about 200. Only oxygen and silicon are more common. Source.
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:25 · Score: 0

If you read the article published in Science, The conductivity isnt nearly as good as copper or aluminum. Its closer to tin or carbon steel. The resistance of copper at 300 K ~20nOhm*m. This stuff is closer to 125 nOhm*m. It still has an enormous number of applications but dont expect it to replace the wiring in your house to motor windings just yet.
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:26 · Score: 0

Actually, if you [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundances_of_the_elements_(data_page)]click further[/url] in that wikidia article, you'll see that carbon is overall much more abundant in the universe. Digging the earth for materials so 20th century, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djBKQNVj5Cc]Space is the Place[/url]
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:37 · Score: 1

The physical strength of the material is not quite as important as its meta properties due to its high conductivity. examples: Lithium - Air batteries (10X power desity of lithium-ion), supercapacitors , Memory Storage... and the list goes on. These types of advances will change the way we operate on a daily basis.
Re:How strong? by vlm · 2013-01-14 05:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, in the Earth's crust, aluminum is more common than carbon by a factor of about 200. Only oxygen and silicon are more common. Source.
Talk to a chemEng about the nightmare of aluminium refining. Its not just that the hall process takes a lot of electricity mostly from burning coal, but it only works with alumina. You gotta run raw bauxite thru the Bayer process which is a whole nother PITA to pre-refine it before it hits the electrochemical cells as alumina. Most bauxite comes from Australia and Brazil, and there's only a "couple centuries worth" and then thats it for bauxite, so aside from recycling it'll be back to the old days before the Hall process where Aluminum was basically a precious metal. Aluminum really is a huge unholy pain in the ass to refine into usable metal.
Its kinda like nitrogen. Plants REALLY need nitrogen. But we all live in a great seemingly infinite pool of nitrogen gas, you say so whats the problem. Yeah but biochemically its a PITA to use N2 straight outta the air, so it (mostly) doesn't happen. Leading to all kinds of chemEng foolishness with ammonia and nitrogen fixing bacteria on legumes etc etc.
Having some atoms laying around doesn't mean they're convenient to use, or practical to use, or possible to use.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:39 · Score: 1

The article mentions that it still has incredibly high textile strength
It can withstand the mightiest of fabrics?
Re:How strong? by shaitand · 2013-01-14 06:28 · Score: 1

Carbon is biodegradable and you can grow new Carbon. How do you think we recycle cotton (which is carbon)?
Re:How strong? by sl3xd · 2013-01-14 06:32 · Score: 1

There's also more Platinum than Gold in Earth's Crust. Platinum is considerably more valuable than Gold, and more useful as well. One would think that we would be mining/smelting far more Platinum, but no, Gold production is 14x that of Platinum.
There's a real difference between the abundance of a material in Earth's crust, and the ability to obtain useful quantities of it. Until we develop the technology to "crack" planets and refine the contents wholesale, relative amounts of an element in the crust is meaningless.
Even after we've developed planet-cracking technology, I doubt we'd use it on Earth. The alt.pave.the.earth crowd may like the idea, though.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:How strong? by crunchygranola · 2013-01-14 06:35 · Score: 3, Informative

You have to take standard resource reserve estimates with a grain of salt. Unless they specifically analyze unconventional resources, and all resources at multiple price points above the present market price, you are getting an extremely conservative lower bound estimate on the real resources.
It would be remarkable if the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust (8.2%) would be so "limited in distribution". Bauxite is around 40% aluminum, a modest 5-fold enrichment over the crustal average, there are vast quantities of material (e.g. aluminum clays like kaolin) that are nearly as high, and a commercial production process is already being brought to market: http://www.ammg.com.au/download/IndMin%20-%20Meckering%20making%20alumina%20from%20kaolin%20-%20Sept%2012.pdf . In two hundred years exploiting other aluminum resources won't be a problem.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:How strong? by Grishnakh · 2013-01-14 06:57 · Score: 1

You can't grow new carbon; like any other element, it can't be changed without some nuclear fission or fusion process, or radioactive decay. We "recycle" carbon because it's present in the soil and the atmosphere, and living processes (like cotton crops) re-order these hydrocarbons into new forms (leaves, stems, roots, cotton balls, etc.), with the aid of solar energy.
Re:How strong? by Grishnakh · 2013-01-14 07:00 · Score: 1

Is it though? The earth's "crust" is actually a really thick layer, and we haven't even managed to drill through it yet. Here on top of the crust, the concentration of materials is rather different than it is several miles down. The soil that you walk on every day likely has a lot of carbon in it, a lot more than it does aluminum (unless you're walking on the beach, in which case it's mostly silicon you're walking on). Also important to us is what's in the atmosphere; CO2 is a significant portion of the atmosphere after all. This is important because that's where plants get a lot (probably most) of their carbon from.
Re:How strong? by Grishnakh · 2013-01-14 07:05 · Score: 2

It seems to me that if a civilization develops "planet-cracking" technology, and the ability to go to other planets to use such technology for harvesting materials, that same civilization should have the technical ability to simply synthesize whatever materials they need through nuclear fission/fusion processes. The energy to do this is extremely abundant; all they have to do is collect it from a nearby star (they can probably just harvest the hydrogen and helium from that star too, to use to create the elements they need, rather than bothering with planets which have a tiny fraction of the total mass in any star system). If you're at the point where you can travel to different star systems and "crack" planets, you should be at the point where you can just harvest stars directly.
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 07:09 · Score: 0

Yes aluminum is common in soil but concentrations that make it economically possible to mine are rare. Then there is the issue of the energy used to separate aluminum from its ore. On the other hand carbon is at hand and easy to harvest.
The same statement is often made about lithium. It is common enough but rare in concentrations sufficient to allow mining.
Re:How strong? by Immerman · 2013-01-14 07:17 · Score: 2

While carbon molecules tend to be highly biodegradable, Carbon nanotubes aren't, any more than diamond is, it all comes down to the chemical structure. In fact buckyballs, a spherical carbon molecule very similar to nanotubes, has been shown to be a potent environmental toxin in quantity - it's small enough to be readily absorbed by cells, but it doesn't get broken down and eventually clogs up the "machinery" to the point that the cell dies, at which point it and it's toxic payload get consumed by something else, and the cycle continues indefinitely. That's my biggest worry with carbon nanotubes - the things are very rare in nature, very stable, and we have no idea what the long-term environmental effects might be of discarding megatons of them into the environment. For cloth it depends on how readily individual nanotubes can work free from the fiber. If it's not that difficult we'll be spreading the stuff everywhere, on the other hand if it *is* difficult then it may just be that some guy in a few hundred years will be digging up perfectly good indestructible clothing from the landfill.
And no, we can't produce carbon, we produce carbon-rich materials from readily available environmental carbon (mostly atmospheric CO2 if we're getting it from plants, otherwise mostly oil). There's a fixed amount of carbon in the world - much greater than of any metal, but still fixed. The only way to produce more of *any* element is via fusion or fission, and our expertise in either of those technologies is still on the level of making mud pies - it'll be a long time before we can harness elemental transmutation as an industrial process.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 08:01 · Score: 0

The conductivity issue is impressive, as TFA says that the conductivity is on par with copper and aluminum.
Eh? "On a par"?
Since Aluminium is only 60% as conductive as cooper, I'm not sure that statement makes sense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_wire_and_cable#Electrical_conductivity
Re:How strong? by Hentes · 2013-01-14 08:24 · Score: 1

Carbon is biodegradable
And metals rust, yet this has nothing to do with recycling. If anything, being vulnerable to corrosion is a disadvantage.

How do you think we recycle cotton (which is carbon)
No, it's cellulose.
Re:How strong? by fnj · 2013-01-14 08:25 · Score: 2

There's a fixed amount of carbon in the world - much greater than of any metal, but still fixed.
Incorrect as to the amount, actually (see Table 3). Carbon is WAY down the list.
31.9% of earth's mass is iron
27.9% oxygen
16.1% silicon
15.4% magnesium
(we're already up to 91.3%)
(10 others left out; none of them over 2% each)
0.073% carbon
There is more titanium and more cobalt than there is carbon!
Re:How strong? by kmahan · 2013-01-14 08:28 · Score: 1

No flash photography allowed close to the space elevator.

--
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Re:How strong? by fnj · 2013-01-14 08:36 · Score: 1

These are not resource reserve estimates. They are estimates of the abundance of various ELEMENTS, a large part of the total for most of them being tied up in various chemical compounds. They are of scientific interest and make no claim to quantify the ease of isolation, extraction and purification.
Re:How strong? by fnj · 2013-01-14 08:40 · Score: 1

You could as well support that MR-16 light with a pair of fine cotton threads. What you couldn't do is POWER it via the threads, as you can with these new type threads.
Re:How strong? by maxwell+demon · 2013-01-14 08:57 · Score: 2

What about thunderstorms?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:How strong? by Immerman · 2013-01-14 10:18 · Score: 1

Interesting, though I'd suggest for at least the next extended time period the composition of the mantle and core (the vast majority of the Earth) is largely irrelevant as a resource, it's only the stuff in the crust and atmosphere that is accessible. Still looks like the crust is similar, once you factor for atomic mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elemental_abundances.svg
So I suppose it's really just a matter of carbon being really *accessible*, and recycling carbon is likely to become an issue fairly quickly if we start sequestering large quantities in biologically inaccessible forms. Hmm, that doesn't actually bode well since things would have to be pretty bad before the price of biochar goes up significantly. Hopefully it'll actually be easy to recycle nanotubes, perhaps that indestructible shirt will simply dissolve into a mass of nanotubes again in the same acid that they used to spin them into fibers in the first place.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 10:20 · Score: 1

Not allowed either.
Re:How strong? by slew · 2013-01-14 10:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Talk to a chemEng about the nightmare of aluminium refining.
The process of making this fiber is to dissolve CNTs in a super-acid and then wet-spinning them into threads. Apparently the key to this process is the same one use to make Twaron.
I'm not sure how this process has been adapted to make CNT fibres, but at least in the case of Twaron and Kevlar, dissolving the polymers in normal acids for powderization is a problem so they use a special patented process to do this which consists of NMP and some other stuff. Then they have to wet-spin it into threads from a solution that's pretty much 100% acid (according to the wikipedia, they dissolve the polymer powder by mixing it with frozen 100% sulfuric acid in powder form and gently heating it).
On the surface, it sounds to me that this is a similar level of PITA as refining aluminum...
Re:How strong? by fnj · 2013-01-14 10:44 · Score: 1

It blew the hell out of me when I found out.
Re:How strong? by tragedy · 2013-01-14 11:01 · Score: 1

The question is, can we get enough chrome to chrome the moon?
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 11:46 · Score: 0

We aren't going to run out of metals. In fact (and I can provide hard numbers if you wish), the amount of metal available without recycling is increasing each year.
Re:How strong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 11:54 · Score: 0

How do you "run out" of metals but not carbon? Are people throwing metals into black holes or something? No one told me!
Did you know there is exactly the same amount of copper on the Earth as a hundred years ago? (Minus the minuscule amounts in the LEMs, satellites and probes.) So you just recycle it, a process that we know already works in great quantities and no magical materials or delusional technologies required.
What is it with you techno-doomsday types? You invent a doomsday that doesn't exist ("run out" of metals! OMG! PANIC!) then suggest completely ridiculous sci-fi Star Trek nonsense as *the* solution.
You know what else goes around proclaiming doomsday but they have the answer?
Religion.
Re:How strong? by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-01-14 11:55 · Score: 1

... it'll be a long time before we can harness elemental transmutation as an industrial process.
It's one hell of an excellent long-term goal to pursue, though, isn't it?

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:How strong? by delt0r · 2013-01-14 22:47 · Score: 1

Aluminium smelters don't run on coal because its too expensive. Aluminum is almost exclusively produced with hydro in locations where there is cheap hydro, ore is shipped to those locations. Well that was the case at least until the Chinese came up with a gigaton of C02 a day process...

If Aluminum was so difficult it would cost more (its pretty cheap really). Its not in fact harder than many common materials.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:How strong? by Smidge204 · 2013-01-15 02:08 · Score: 1

Recycling is great, but that doesn't help if the amount of copper/aluminum in use is ever increasing, since you're still liable to run out regardless of how much unused material is recycled.
=Smidge=

Re:"100 times the strength" by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-14 04:59 · Score: 5, Funny

They gave a line made of CNT to birds to see if they were able to carry a coconut with it.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Journalists are scienticians by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

The hollow tubes of pure carbon, which are nearly as wide as a strand of DNA, are about 100 times stronger than steel

Why not use units here? I have no fucking clue how wide a strand of DNA is. And which strength are we talking about? Tensile? Sheer?

Re:Journalists are scienticians by mark-t · 2013-01-14 05:31 · Score: 4, Informative

A strand of DNA is about 2 nanometers wide... does that help?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Journalists are scienticians by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:32 · Score: 0

Why not use units here? I have no fucking clue how wide a strand of DNA is.
About 2 nanometers is the answer. Does that really help? Do you really grasp how big a nanometer is?

And which strength are we talking about? Tensile? Sheer?
Odor. :-P
Re:Journalists are scienticians by hotdiggity · 2013-01-14 05:43 · Score: 2

And which strength are we talking about? Tensile? Sheer?

The latter, I think. Sheer Fucking Strength!
Although, come to think of it, it might be shear strength as well.
Re:Journalists are scienticians by interkin3tic · 2013-01-14 06:06 · Score: 1

20 angstroms. But that number means nothing to me or anyone else who doesn't regularly work with things that small. It's good journalism to write things your audience can actually relate to and not throw meaningless numbers at them, at least when it's journalism for a general audience.
Re:Journalists are scienticians by shaitand · 2013-01-14 06:32 · Score: 1

It's better journalism to give both. "The strands are about 2 nanometers wide or about the width of a strand of DNA." Either just means really small to most people but for those who aren't most people you've provided the important piece of information.
Re:Journalists are scienticians by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 06:45 · Score: 0

DNA is helix of pairs of amino acids stacked together. Each amino acid consists of no more than a dozen atoms. Pairs of amino acids bind together in peptide bonds releasing water. Each amino acid is no more than a dozen atoms. So a single strand of DNA is maybe 20 atoms wide. Depending on the way you represent them, they are like little miniature Feynmann diagrams. Chemical structure.
Amino Acid Chart.
Once they start weaving and interlocking these strands into larger structures like steel cable assemblies, then you'll have your space elevator.
Re:Journalists are scienticians by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 07:08 · Score: 0

Pairs of aminoacids? No more than a dozen atoms? Where did you study biochemistry?
Proteins are made from aminoacids. DNA is made of hidrogen-bonded purine and pyrimidines stacked together with two backbones of phosphates. Each "floor" has a purine, a pyrimidine and two phosphates. Adenine (the letter "A") has 15 atoms, its complement Thymine also has 15 atoms, and the two phosphates have 4 atoms each.
I know reading wikipedia before posting is frowned upon here, but heck...
Re:Journalists are scienticians by squiggleslash · 2013-01-14 08:39 · Score: 1

Angstoms eh? What's that in Libraries of Congress? I assume it's not as big as a small car?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Journalists are scienticians by maxwell+demon · 2013-01-14 09:01 · Score: 1

Do you really grasp how big a nanometer is?
About ten atoms.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

far below the strength of aerospace carbon fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:01 · Score: 4, Informative

The published ultimate tensile strengths of the CNT fibers in this work is well below that of aerospace-grade carbon fiber. They have a big gap to bridge before the CNTs can be of any use for building airplanes, let alone space elevators. Not saying that it can't be accomplished, but that this not yet a major breakthrough.

Re:far below the strength of aerospace carbon fibe by gl4ss · 2013-01-14 05:03 · Score: 1

The published ultimate tensile strengths of the CNT fibers in this work is well below that of aerospace-grade carbon fiber. They have a big gap to bridge before the CNTs can be of any use for building airplanes, let alone space elevators. Not saying that it can't be accomplished, but that this not yet a major breakthrough.

I'm more interested in if this is cheap or not in mass quantities and practical to be used for wires..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Dammit by Joshua+Fan · 2013-01-14 05:05 · Score: 3, Funny

Now I can't buy any cables till they replace them with this. Damn you, technology.

Re:Dammit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:23 · Score: 1

Just wait until the complaining when they release the new IPhone cable and mini connector made of this stuff.
Re:Dammit by fahrbot-bot · 2013-01-14 06:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Now I can't buy any cables till they replace them with this. Damn you, technology.
Don't worry, I'm sure Monster will be selling gold-plated versions of these, at a reasonable price, soon.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Dammit by alexander_686 · 2013-01-14 08:10 · Score: 1

Don’t worry – I am sure Monster Audio cables is working on the problem as we speak.
Re:Dammit by slew · 2013-01-14 10:31 · Score: 1

Now I can't buy any cables till they replace them with this. Damn you, technology.
Don't worry, I'm sure Monster will be selling gold-plated versions of these, at a reasonable price, soon.
Or perhaps they'll be selling gold cables with CNT fiber wrapped around it (depending on which material is cheaper)...

the real roadblock by slashmydots · 2013-01-14 05:06 · Score: 0, Troll

They seem to suggest a generic reason for carbon nanotubes being perpetual vaporware for that long. I think it's primarily California deciding it definitely maybe causes cancer and preemptively banning it from just about anything.

Re:the real roadblock by crunchygranola · 2013-01-14 07:01 · Score: 3, Informative

The extent of nano-tube regulation in California was passing a bill (AB289) that authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control to request information on environmental and health impacts from nanotube manufacturers and importers. It was authorized to collect information from the industry to use in evaluating hazards and risks (a process completed in 2009).
That's it.
No ban. Not even any regulation at all, whatsoever.
And it seems perfectly reasonable for the DTSC to collect such information. It is not as if completely novel materials, to which humans and other living things have never before been exposed, have never shown any harmful effects.
The California hating automatic reflex - much easier than taking the trouble to actually learn things.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:the real roadblock by delt0r · 2013-01-14 22:55 · Score: 1

Asbestos is in fact a nano fiber with the damage being done mechanically. We do have a precedent that airborne CNT could be really really bad for you.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Monster Cable by SomewhatRandom · 2013-01-14 05:14 · Score: 2

I don't even want to know how much Monster would charge for a cable made with this stuff!

If you have to ask... you can't afford it.

Re:Monster Cable by JeanCroix · 2013-01-14 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

The question isn't whether this stuff is strong enough or conductive enough, it's whether it's expensive enough to be used in Monster cables.
Re:Monster Cable by Immerman · 2013-01-14 07:23 · Score: 1

That's crazy talk! If the material were actually expensive it would cut into the outrageous profit margins. A little gold-plating on the connectors is only permissible because the actual quantities used are miniscule, and the marketing value is substantial.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Monster Cable by JeanCroix · 2013-01-14 08:17 · Score: 1

Good point. Make that the perception of expensive enough.

Re:"100 times the strength" by Squiddie · 2013-01-14 05:18 · Score: 1

Bench Press

*cough* by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-nanotube-danger

dangerous? by aahpandasrun · 2013-01-14 05:24 · Score: 1

Isn't it true that they found Carbon Nanotubes to be as dangerous as Asbestos?

Pronunciation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:27 · Score: 1

I just wanna know - how do you pronounce "CNT"?

Re:Pronunciation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:31 · Score: 0

The same way they say your name.
Re:Pronunciation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:44 · Score: 0

Why are you talking to yourself?
Re:Pronunciation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 06:13 · Score: 0

Nobody else listens.
Re:Pronunciation by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-01-14 07:29 · Score: 1

The same way they say your name.
You need new glasses; "Anonymous Coward" and "Immanuel Kant" are superficially similar, but on closer inspection, you can spot the differences.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:"100 times the strength" by i+kan+reed · 2013-01-14 05:27 · Score: 1

For a threadlike substance? It couldn't possibly be tensile strength. Nah, it has to be one of those far less frequently used, unmeasurable-in-this-case values like toughness.

move aside, optic fiber! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:29 · Score: 0

How small diameter coaxial cable can be made from this material? Can we make waveguides from it?

Re:move aside, optic fiber! by vlm · 2013-01-14 05:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Single mode optical fiber is a waveguide already. Think about it...
I would have to think for awhile about the velocity of propagation. I think Vp would be higher for a hollow (vacuum) carbon nanotube optical fiber which might be an advantage.
I know its barely theoretically possible to make a hollow titanium sphere that is strong enough to hold a vacuum, barely, so it'll float, but not engineering practical to make it. I wonder if you could make a CNT tube that would float in the air. That would certainly reduce optical fiber costs, if you only needed a tower/pole at each end of the run, plus or minus wind forces I guess. If nothing else I think CNT optical fiber would be lighter than glass fiber, for aerospace or whatever. Pity its flammable.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by MartinSchou · 2013-01-14 07:26 · Score: 1

I know its barely theoretically possible to make a hollow titanium sphere that is strong enough to hold a vacuum
Wait, we can make submarines that withstand 1,000 atmospheres, but we can't make spheres that can withstand 1?
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 08:02 · Score: 0

I know its barely theoretically possible to make a hollow titanium sphere that is strong enough to hold a vacuum
Wait, we can make submarines that withstand 1,000 atmospheres, but we can't make spheres that can withstand 1?
You have to make a vacuum-filled titanium sphere as thin as possible while still withstanding 1 atmosphere in order for it to be light enough to float in air. The constraint is much easier for a submarine since it only has to float in (much denser) water.
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by Lithdren · 2013-01-14 08:07 · Score: 1

Correct.
In the first case, you just make it thicker/stronger. In the later case, the problem is you need to make it thinner. Much thinner.
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by marcosdumay · 2013-01-14 08:48 · Score: 1

It must be quite a big sphere and have very thin walls to float in the air.

--
Rethinking email
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by fnj · 2013-01-14 08:50 · Score: 1

I know its barely theoretically possible to make a hollow titanium sphere that is strong enough to hold a vacuum, barely, so it'll float
Assuming you're talking about a spherical shell of titanium, evacuated inside, the whole with a mass no greater than the mass of air displaced, and which can withstand an external absolute pressure of one atmosphere, no it is not possible. Decidedly not.
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by morethanapapercert · 2013-01-14 08:58 · Score: 2

Making a rigid sphere to resist 1 atm differential is easy, the problem is making such a sphere that, when containing a vacuum, is light enough to weigh less then the total weight of air that the sphere displaces. If you can make such a rigid yet light container, you have the potential to create balloons with greater lift capacity than hydrogen filled gas-bags.
What vlm was saying is that the low weight and high strength of titanium makes it feasible (on paper) to create a thin foil sphere of titanium that encloses a vacuum, but such a structure would be so close to failure that it wouldn't be practical to construct it, even the lightest touch would cause the sphere to collapse.
(it occurs to me that even if you *could* build such a structure, it wouldn't contain a vacuum for very long anyway, as hydrogen and possibly helium would migrate through the foil and fill the void, negating any increase in lift the vacuum had provided)

--
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by fnj · 2013-01-14 09:09 · Score: 1

The statement was poorly worded. What is not possible is making an evacuated spherical shell of any available engineering material, with a mass no greater than the mass of the air displaced, strong enough not to collapse under atmospheric pressure.
I'll give you a hint. For any available engineering material, the shell would have to be so thin in order to be buoyant, that it would it would instantly crumple due to lack of structural stability.
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by slew · 2013-01-14 10:41 · Score: 1

Of course you could just fill the interior with something slightly more dense than a vacuum and reduce the constraint as required. For instance balloons filled with helium float just fine in the air.
In both cases (vaccum and helium filled), you have to worry about outside air diffusing inside over time. I imagine this is much more difficult of an engineering problem that needs to be solved before this would even be remotely practical. My guess is that this forces the walls to be thicker than the minimum structurally required thickness which makes the weight go up and introduces the complication of pumping out the interior and the structural stresses that that would impose.
Re:move aside, optic fiber! by strack · 2013-01-14 15:36 · Score: 1

ok. first thing. any vacuum "balloon" probably wouldnt be a sphere. it would probably be a regular tetrahedron with titanium spokes emanating from center and ending at the corners, and the sides would bow in under the load of the atmospheric pressure, and carbon fibre would reinforce the sides.

Is it safe? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 05:36 · Score: 0

I hope that nanotechnology is not a new asbestos. Ultrasmall long fibers and all.

Re:"100 times the strength" by Samantha+Wright · 2013-01-14 05:46 · Score: 2

Aha, but toughness / 5.4620008x10^17 = tensile strength. I know this because 5.4620008x10^17 is the total force of the bomb dropped at Hiroshima, divided by the area of a football field. Toughness thus joins the league of questionable made-for-TV units of measurement.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Re:far below the strength of aerospace carbon fibe by vlm · 2013-01-14 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm more interested in if this is cheap or not in mass quantities and practical to be used for wires..

The meth head copper thieves are not going to be happy when this stuff gets deployed.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Nanotubes! by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-01-14 06:28 · Score: 1

They can do just about everything*!

* Including leasurely strolling thru the blood / brain barrier, but we don't need no steeking regulations!

Nice acronym by Russ1642 · 2013-01-14 06:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Are these going to be called CNT Hairs?

Re:Nice acronym by Bodhammer · 2013-01-14 06:40 · Score: 1

Are they red?

--
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Re:Nice acronym by bughunter · 2013-01-14 06:42 · Score: 1

Only if they're unaligned.
Carbon Unaligned NanoTubes.

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:Nice acronym by oodaloop · 2013-01-14 07:25 · Score: 1

What makes it really weird is when they're on buckyballs.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.

Re:"100 times the strength" by Muad'Dave · 2013-01-14 06:35 · Score: 1

There is a real quantity called Toughness.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

Re:"100 times the strength" by thisisfutile · 2013-01-14 06:54 · Score: 0

BRAVO! Well placed! LOL!

dont see this being viable for some time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 07:03 · Score: 0

i think before this product ever makes it into a production facility that they will just add carbon nanotubes to the resin used in making the composite parts(fyi don't get the resin on your hands, it will be there for awhile unlike your standard epoxy resin), and while carbon fiber may not be as strong as steel, it more than makes up for it in weight

Anti-Tazer Suit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 07:06 · Score: 0

Cops will start arresting people for wearing the wrong clothes, once anti-tazer suits are made out of this material.

Re:"100 times the strength" by i+kan+reed · 2013-01-14 07:49 · Score: 1

Yes. There is. You can't measure it for thread.

Re:far below the strength of aerospace carbon fibe by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-14 08:22 · Score: 1

The meth head copper thieves are not going to be happy when this stuff gets deployed.

Just tell them it's charcoal and watch every barbeque in suburbia get cleaned out.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:far below the strength of aerospace carbon fibe by fnj · 2013-01-14 08:46 · Score: 1

If you don't mind, what is the figure in GPa? Because I don't find any article with the specifics which is not behind a fucking paywall.

Re:Make a white suit out of it -- Or... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 08:49 · Score: 1

Or.... we could just outlaw the stuff.

Since, it may cause cancer worse than asbestos. Cells, in your body, try to ingest these long tubes, and like a long straw in your soft drink, your cells can not fit the entire length, puncturing a hole, straight into a cell, allowing foreign bodies in, and maybe worse, allowing the inner workings of the cell to leak out.

http://www.mesothelioma.com/mesothelioma/risk-factors/nanotubes/

teh ice-ice nine baby scenario by Thud457 · 2013-01-14 09:32 · Score: 1

I hope these eggheads don't accidentally the whole biosphere into carbon nanotubes. That would be bad. And zombies.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:"100 times the strength" by TeknoHog · 2013-01-14 09:38 · Score: 1

African or European birds?

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.

Actual Properties by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-14 09:51 · Score: 0

Since the linked article kind of sucks I have found the actual fiber properties from the paper for those who are interested. Tensile strength is 1 (0.2) GPa, tensile modulus is 120 (50) GPa, and density is 1.3 (0.1) g/cm^3. Not bad .... but not unheard of either. Steel is about 0.2 GPa, 210 GPa, and 8 g/cm^3 for reference.

Re:far below the strength of aerospace carbon fibe by slew · 2013-01-14 10:29 · Score: 1

You assume that the price will be lower than copper. Since they are likely to price this as a premium product (lower-weight, more flexible), initially, the price per meter may well be higher than the copper wire it replaces...

Diamond Processors by caspy7 · 2013-01-14 11:07 · Score: 1

There was a group trying to grow diamonds for processors, but they closed up shop. Dunno if it was issues with refining the process or De Beers pushed them out somehow.

Re:"100 times the strength" by Dozy+Lizard · 2013-01-14 12:08 · Score: 1

Why can't you measure it? It's true that standard methods for bulk materials - pendulums and standard shape test samples can't be used, but that just means a new test procedure. Toughness is the energy required to break the thread, tensile strength is the force to break it. Toughness is the area under the stress/strain curve up to failure (or perhaps up to the yield point). In anycase the GP is slightly misleading. Toughness is not an exotic kind of strength.

a long time coming by Goldsmith · 2013-01-14 18:19 · Score: 1

Kudos to Pasquali for continuing Smalley's work and getting this far.

Slashdot first covered his group back in 2003
http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/12/09/2359259/first-pure-nanotube-fibers-made

I'm glad he's continued to work at this.

Re:"100 times the strength" by dbIII · 2013-01-14 22:25 · Score: 1

Toughness is typically the area underneath a stress vs strain curve produced by a tensile test. Another way is to hit the material with a large swinging hammer to see how much energy is absorbed. You'll get different answers each way but they are related.

It's a size, shape and breakdown issue by dbIII · 2013-01-14 22:54 · Score: 1

If the the fibres end up the same size and shape so they get stuck in the lungs, if they have sharp edges on the break, are harder than skin and don't break down in the body then they'll be as dangerous as asbestos fibres. Of course everyone involved with research into fibres, powders and pretty well everything nanoscale over the last 40 years would be no more likely to forget that fact if it was tatooed onto the back of their hands, so a hell of a lot of effort will go into reducing the risks before this stuff gets into general use.

New aged programming by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-15 01:26 · Score: 0

The brain plays tricks when reading the title.

I read it thinking that Apple had just unveiled a new type of parallel programming paradigm "thread like". This is neither parallel instruction or serial instruction but compromising both! Of course this revolutionary technique is implemented in their new networking library stack "nanotube fiber" that is based on the Carbon framework.

I'll go make myself a cup of Java now.

Re:"100 times the strength" by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-15 01:39 · Score: 1

I don't know that!

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Re:"100 times the strength" by Dabido · 2013-01-15 19:49 · Score: 1

I find that story hard to swallow!

--
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)

Re: New Threadlike Carbon Nanotube Fiber Unveiled by megahurts.gr · 2013-01-16 02:51 · Score: 1

Tickets to the space elevator.
When will I be able to buy one?

--
This guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inacurate. (from THHGTTG)

Slashdot Mirror

New Threadlike Carbon Nanotube Fiber Unveiled

171 comments