New Threadlike Carbon Nanotube Fiber Unveiled

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Threadlike Carbon Nanotube Fiber Unveiled

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 14, 2013 @04:42AM from the threads-that-bind dept.

Zothecula writes "At about 100 times the strength of steel and a sixth the weight, with impressive electrical conductive properties, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have promised much since their discovery in 1991. The problem has been translating their impressive nanoscale properties into real-world applications on the macro scale. Researchers have now unveiled a new CNT fiber that conducts heat and electricity like a metal wire, is very strong like carbon fiber, and is flexible like a textile thread."

48 of 171 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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

They'd never allow it.
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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...
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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...
7. 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.
8. 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."
Awesome! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-01-14 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

When do we start building the space elevator?

--

Technoli
1. 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.
2. 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...
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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!
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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!
11. 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
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.
1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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!
10. 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.
11. 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:"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?
1. 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'
2. 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.
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.
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.
1. 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. . . .
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.
1. 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:"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: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: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
Nice acronym by Russ1642 · 2013-01-14 06:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Are these going to be called CNT Hairs?
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: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