Slashdot Mirror
Carbyne: a Form of Carbon Even Stronger Than Graphene
New submitter Dialecticus writes "Sebastian Anthony at ExtremeTech has written an article about research into the physical properties of carbyne, an elusive form of carbon. A new mathematical analysis by Mingjie Liu and others at Rice University suggests that carbyne may achieve double the strength of graphene, stealing its crown and becoming the strongest material known to man. 'While carbyne cannot be stretched, it can be bent into an arc or circle — and by doing so, the additional strain between the carbon atoms alters the electrical bandgap. This property could lead to some interesting uses in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). By adding different molecules to the end of a carbyne chain, such as a methylene (CH2) group, carbyne can also be twisted — much like a strand of DNA — again adding strain and modifying the electrical bandgap. By "decorating" carbyne chains with different molecules, other properties can be added, too: Tack some calcium atoms on the end, which like to mop up spare hydrogen molecules, and suddenly you have a high-density, reversible hydrogen storage sponge.
It’s also important to note that, just like graphene, carbyne is just one atom thick. This means that, for a given mass of carbyne, its surface area is relatively massive. A single gram of graphene, for example, has a surface area of about five tennis courts. This could be very important in areas such as energy storage (batteries, supercapacitors), where the surface area of the electrode is directly proportional to the energy density of the device.'"
Been hearing so many wonderful things about exotic forms of carbon but when do I get something I can buy ( at a reasonable price )?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
FTA: "A new form of carbon, dubbed carbyne"
Is there a technical reason as to why it was named so similarly to a type of firearm? Just wondering.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
...will go to whichever material can be put to practical use outside of the research lab.
Transparent Aluminum, I'm still waiting....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...How much is that in Volkswagens per story?
I'm no engineer, but I would imagine that if carbyne* can't be stretched as the summary says, that would make it a poor choice for a tether hundreds of miles long.
*Really? Someone thought that was a good name?
Is it space elevator time yet?
Perhaps not.
However, there does appear to be at least one fly in the ointment - material stability. It seems that if you have more than one strand of Carbyne that contacts another one, cross-links will form and will degrade the material’s strength. Money quote from the article; “This barrier suggests the viability of carbyne in condensed phase at room temperature on the order of days”
Can they make panties out of this stuff? Then, maybe, the panties of Hollywood stars won't disintegrate, leaving them exposed to the paparazzi. it's been a serious problem for them.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
We're still on simulated space elevators.
What I gather from the article is that it has impact strength but not much in the way of tensile strength. It appears to have a few other interesting properties though.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Because it's an alkyne of pure carbon. At least, the single/triple alternating version is.
The double/double form could be named carbene except that that name is already taken. Then again, that didn't seem to stop them here either. The better name for this material is linear acetylenic carbon. Sadly, I don't remember enough organic chemistry to know what the double/double would be called.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Sorry, here's that article on cumulenes.
(Stupid Slashdot posting delay... *grumble grumble*)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It doesn't steal the crown... ...until we can freeze Han Solo in it.
I'm holding out for carbonite.
I'm no engineer...
You should have stopped typing there. A space elevator need not stretch, and even if it did it's trivial (compared to building one in the first place) to make something that can lengthen without the constituent parts doing so. Didn't you ever see the antenna on a portable radio?
But... how about that flying car?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Why not? Even a bridge needs to have a degree of elasticity, lest it be shaken apart.
Those antennas are collapsible as a space-saving measure, not for structural reasons.
Why not? Even a bridge needs to have a degree of elasticity, lest it be shaken apart.
A bridge is fixed at both ends.
Those antennas are collapsible as a space-saving measure, not for structural reasons.
True, but my point was that you can make a structure that can stretch without needing to use materials that stretch significantly.
An straight-up Space Elevator is still way beyond us, even if we could pump out molecularly perfect nanotubes of indefinite length. But smaller tether systems are totally possible; 'stationary' and hypersonic Bolos and Skyhooks, depending on the orbital velocity and tip velocity (itself depending on tether length and rotation rate). You don't need a massive anchor site, you could fly some of the smaller ones in a single launch, and we could make some of the smaller ones with materials we already manufacture in bulk (e.g. Spectra and other tensile Aramids).
Then there are just fun things you can do, like conductive tether generators and propulsion inside a magnetosphere, or linear tether launchers.
But you're not describing a structure that stretches; you're describing one that telescopes. Not the same thing.
And while a space elevator won't be fixed at both ends the way a bridge is, it's still going to be subject to outside forces acting on it (high-speed winds in the upper atmospheres, for example). If the bridge parallel bothers you, consider a skyscraper instead - and skyscrapers also need to be elastic enough to sway a little bit.
Concrete and steel are both elastic materials, at least that is the region under which designs are usually based. Though the elasticity is on the order of 29,000 ksi for steel and 4-10 ksi (under compression) for ordinary concrete.
But you're not describing a structure that stretches; you're describing one that telescopes.
The distinction eludes me. At the micrometer scale this is pretty much how metals "stretch".
Ok so forgive me if I'm being obtuse here, but how is it possible for something bend without stretching? A curved object is not the same as a bent one- when you bend a pole, for example, one side compresses while the other stretches... as opposed to a curved object which is of uniform density throughout.
Am I missing something, or is this another case of journalists not having even a basic grasp of physics?
Perhaps a little more emphasis should be given to the fact that the compound in question has never been synthesized, despite decades of effort. And that one strand would combine explosively with a second, if two such strands could be made.
At the micrometer scale this has absolutly nothing to do with how metals stretch. Metals stretch because they are ductile.. the atoms rearrange themselves. Also, something that telescopes is not elastic. There is no restoring force that is proportional to the deformation. That makes it about useless structurally.
if you can bend it in a circle and the outer circumference doesn't become greater than the inner surface, i want to talk to you about the new laws of physics and math you just discovered.
> A bridge is fixed at both ends.
Wrong. Learn2bridges.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Normally, one could measure the inner surface and the outer and compare. You could use any unit of measurement you wanted, such as "atom lengths". For example, you could say that the inner surface is a million atoms long and the outer surface is a 1.03 million.
This stuff is one atom thick. In this case, the atoms that make up the inner surface are SAME ATOMS as the outer surface. The inside and the outside are the same side! So of course they are the same length, since they are the same atoms.
In t
I highly doubt we'll ever be able to make strands of this stuff several thousands of km long, so shorter strands will have to be combined. The epoxy or whatever is used to hold them together will undoubtedly have some stretch.
Also, carbon bonds may not be particularly stretchy, but over that kind of length even a tiny amount will add up to a decent distance. If that's not enough, use the helical form.
that will have no relevance to our daily reality for at least 5 decades, if ever. Jeez, there's been modeling that predicts allotropes of BN that beat diamond and graphene in strength for at least 15 years. Still can't buy the stuff. Whatever...wake me when I can buy a product.
the line can for a curve though, and the inner would be shorter than the outer by something involving a summation of atomic diameters.
Methylene! If they can get their hands on it that is I guess they will probably be stuck a 30 gallon drum or stopping a train, killing anyone who happens by Sorry I just couldn't resist #breakingbad
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
Surely the fact that graphene is very easily manufactured and has many obvious uses makes it a much more useful material? Just because titanium is stronger than aluminium doesn't mean we make everything out of titanium...
So sandwich or encase the Carbyne molecules, am I missing something here?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Instability in organic molecules does not neccessarily mean that it reacts with gasses in the air (namely oxygen).
It usually means that there's a more stable form it will inevitably convert to. There are countless conversion reactions in organic molecules - exposure to heat, air or light usually only fastens the process. Preventing exposure to these factors does not stop the degradation, however.
Take batteries as an example. LiIon batteries will degrade regardless of outside factors - and those are pretty much isolated systems. It's only the speed of the degradation you can influence. But rule was, whatever you do, after about three years you'd take a massive hit to the capacity of LiIon batteries.
So,
"Don't cross the streams.... that would be bad"
I may be remembering this wrong but aren't alkene and alkyne bonds less stable than regular single bonds?
They are stronger in the sense that they pull the C atoms together stronger, but from what I remember they are also much more reactive than a single bond and will tend to split and latch onto something else relatively readily...
"A single gram of graphene, for example, has a surface area of about five tennis courts. "
For those of you unfamiliar with the tenetrian sytem of measurement:
1 tennis court (singles match) = 1 TCs = 2,106 sq. ft. = 196 sq. meters (approx)
1 tennis court (doubles match) = 1 TCd = 2,808 sq. ft. = 261 sq. meters (approx)
so 5 TC is either 980 or 1,305 sq. meters depending, or a square about 33 meters on each side.
Jesus H. Christ! Just use the metric system already!
As a mechanical engineer, I have only ever needed integral calculus outside of school work (including tutoring) three times:
1. With a friend, for fun, to win a bet. Yay, free beer!
2. To answer a particular question for work. Yay, happy boss!
3. Just now, for fun, to determine the required material stiffness for a cable hanging down from geostationary orbit (i.e. a space elevator cable) to support its own weight. Yay, Science!
Calculated minimum required material stiffness for space elevator cable: 4.9x10^7 N*m/kg.
This jives with what the 10x10^7 N*m/kg quoted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator (referencing: Edwards, Bradley Carl. The NIAC Space Elevator Program. NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts). This would make perfect sense that he is assuming a safety factor of 2 (safety margin of 100%)
So, assuming that the nano-scale cross-linking issues mentioned previously in this thread do not reduce the tensile strength too much, and assuming we're okay with a safety factor of only 1.5 (50% safety margin), then we're finally in the ballpark with Carbyne having a material stiffness of about 7.5x10^7 N*m/kg.
We have the material; we can build it. So now, it's no longer a question of can the physics work, but rather a question of the political and business will to put in the engineering work to make this a reality.
Very, very cool.
Acetylene features the single & triple carbon bonds. It burns so hot because these bonds are inherently unstable. So how is it that this new substance, with these more-unstable-than-normal-carbon bonds, supposedly *stronger*?
I come here for the love
Please somebody start a kickstarter for a 2 person carbyne tent that fits in my wallet !
...and probably highly explosive.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2010/November/CarbyneOtherMythsAboutCarbon.asp