Slashdot Mirror


Graphene May Top Kevlar As a Bullet-Stopping Material

The Royal Society of Chemistry reports that U.S. researchers Edwin Thomas and Jae-Hwang Lee have been testing the strength of graphene mesh in one role it's probably destined to appear in down the road: as ballistic shielding material. From the article: We cannot use conventional techniques such as a gun barrel or gunpowder [on this scale],’ explains Lee. ‘Instead we used a laser to accelerate a microscale silica bullet [at the multilayer graphene target].’ The bullet was propelled into stacked graphene sheets at supersonic speeds of up to 2000mph by the gases produced by laser pulses rapidly evaporating a gold film. The team calculated the energy difference of the bullet before and after to determine the energy absorbed. Neil Bourne, director of the National Centre for Matter under Extreme Conditions in the UK, who was not involved in the research, described the technique as ‘very exciting’. ‘They have taken a standard laboratory ballistics configuration and demonstrated its utility on microscopic scales,’ he says. Graphene was able to absorb up to 0.92MJ/kg of ballistic energy in the test, with cracks forming around the impact zone. By comparison, steel targets only absorbed up to 0.08MJ/kg at the same speed.

129 comments

  1. Way ahead of you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I've strapped a 3D printer on my back, if someone shoots at me I just say "3D printer! Body armor!" and it 3D prints a shell of graphene all around my body!

    Yeah boy! It's the future and the game has changed!!!!

    1. Re:Way ahead of you! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You know? really... You should not have been modded down. This is a load of crap. Fire a bullet at the stuff, and then tell us if this shit works. The theoreticals and 'calculations' are bullshit until then.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Way ahead of you! by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I wanna print up one of those laser guns that fires a microscale silica bullet at up to 2000 m.p.h.
      Duck season bears on and I'm tired of the same ol' choked 12 ga.
      I'd boost the laser power and cook the duck before it hits the ground.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:Way ahead of you! by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      I've strapped a 3D printer on my back, if someone shoots at me I just say "3D printer! Body armor!" and it 3D prints a shell of graphene all around my body!

      Yeah boy! It's the future and the game has changed!!!!

      underrated

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  2. for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every day I'm seeing something about how they can pump the stuff out of a damn DVD burner and how it is great at being a capacitor and all this other stuff.

    And yet nothing that contains this technology.

    WHY?

    It is really fucking annoying to be told all these things are happening and then have no way to access any of it.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the problem lies in you get media coverage on the basic research and the release of a product but no media coverage on the years of development and implementation research in order to get from A to B. It's not sexy enough for media coverage.

    2. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by DavenH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are a hundred steps in between the lab and the open market. You need a lot of funding, development and approval of patents, the approval from applicable government agencies, prototyping, mass production, marketing, and then if all that is successful, market penetration. This doesn't happen in a year. Hopefully it's highly profitable too, or its time on the market will be short-lived.

    3. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have some bad news for you, it's always been that way. Go find some magazines from the 1960s: Oh we'd be commuting to the Moon and taking vacations on Mars! We'd pass by the orbital factories making ball bearings from asteroids for the Jupiter Mining Corporation!

      Yeah.... Fantasies are one thing, reality is quite another.

    4. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      There may be a hundred steps, but you named some that aren't necessary such as "development and approval of patents, approval of government agencies."

      You want to make something out of (name any substance)? There are only a few special cases where any government approval is required, and patents are NEVER required.

    5. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Because graphene products are dangerous if inhaled. That's the long and the short version. It's not ready for public consumption.

    6. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      And this stuff and nonsense about aeroplanes! For ten years now they've claimed breakthrough after breakthrough vis-a-vis powered flight and yet here we are in the fine year 1914 and they still have nothing to show us but more of their ramshackle prototypes! Where are the great flying ships they keep promising to take us round the world in a week's time? The bloody Hun had the good sense to invest in dirigibles; there's a technology that's going places—aha!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    7. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you nerds always use grade-school fallacies? Does your silly example mean that any prediction at all can come true?

    8. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by DavenH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You want to make something out of (name any substance)? There are only a few special cases where any government approval is required, and patents are NEVER required.

      If you want any capital to operate with, you need security in the profitability of producing it. Patents are this security, and so are always necessary unless you want to throw money away. So no, you don't want to leave out steps that will quickly leave your company bankrupt. And all business sectors have codes, standards, and regulations by which you need to abide.

    9. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      I agree. We've been hearing about the miraculous strength to weight, low-calorie sweetening, non-stick and other properties of graphene for decades. Yet bridges are still built of steel, bullet-resistant vests are still Kevlar. Seems like it works great at lab / microscale but does not scale-up nicely to commercial applications. Can someone who actually knows what they are talking about (I know, I know; I'm on /., silly me) clue us in on what the difficulties are with commercializing graphene?

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    10. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      the Wright brothers went out of their way to put on displays for people. They went on tours and everything.

      It doesn't take this long to bring something into production. It has been over 10 years.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So they can't have graphine capacitors because they're afraid I'll break them open and snort them?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You say this like there aren't hundreds of companies that would throw money at these people as well as loan them their armies of lawyers if there was money to be made.

      No, there is something else going on here. It isn't the funding or the law. There has to be a problem with the product.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    13. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      The point being that the tech is hyped and isn't giving the full story.

      Which is what I'm implying in the first place.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter... it's been ten years. We should have seen a product by now.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but airplanes were no more than experiments until more than a decade after the first powered flight, when WWI spurred refinement and mass production. Graphene has also been displayed and demonstrated, but not mass produced.

      2D structures like Graphene are a new class of materials, and that takes time. Plastics were discovered decades before any practical product was made. Petroleum was known for millenia before we had a clue what it was capable of. Metals too. Spend some time on Wikipedia and learn how long it took to bring any material or technology to widespread use.

      Yes, I know: We live in the Internet age now, and you can become a YouTube celebrity overnight, so come on already. Alas, you can't expect science to keep pace with 21st century ADHD.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    16. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah obviously graphene (my chosen spelling, arbitrarily better than graphine) capacitors are ready for public consumption, you're right.

      Now all you have to do is make them better than conventional capacitors for the same price and without additional limitations. Go.

    17. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      We develop lots of technologies all the time that go from the lab and into the open market in less time then this.

      OK, name a few that have the same complexity as manufacturing and using graphene.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    18. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      10 years ago they were saying at least 10 years. Most of the big sexy breakthroughs have been in the last few years, and almost all of those are fairly fundamental and not at all close to being products. There are already high quality flexible display prototypes being shown at Japanese conventions. Right now I don't think anybody needs a flexible screen badly enough to pay the "prototype-adopter" prices. Give it a couple more years and they'll have something ready for "early" adopters.

    19. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      I think you're confusing "products" or "implementations" with "technologies." The only "technologies" that went quickly from discovery to a product were the bag clip and the slap-chop. Everything else took decades, you just didn't learn about it so you don't know about it. You hear the pre-release hype on the boob tube and then six months later you see the ad for the product. Z0MG they build stuffs so fast nowz!

    20. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      10 years ago they had been saying 10 years already.

      I question the new information of this research. if they had managed to test it at a bigger scale, it might have some value - like a lot of value, on microscopic scale the strength and structure has been known for a long time now?

      as for flexible displays have existed for a long while now. nobody has come up with any uses for them though, mostly because while they're flexible they are not like cloth at all. (furthermore, how do flexible oled displays depend on or be related to graphene?)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    21. Re: for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to bet that the problem is that all proposed applications

    22. Re: for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to bet that the problem is that all the applications are *improvements* to already existing technologies, which means graphene need to compete with technologies with decades of optimization on their side...

    23. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10 years ago they had been saying 10 years already.

      We seem to have come to the root of the problem. When they say, "at least 10 years" and establish a minimum bound, you hear "10 years" and take it is a maximum.

      R&D people do not promise to turn new technologies into products inside of a fixed time period. And when the say "at least 10 years" they're establishing a precision of a decade. It isn't a prediction at all, but if you wanted to translate it into one it would be something like "10-30 years" not "within 10 years."

    24. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Yes. But market forces block most implementations, because ignorant salespeople gotta get paid first. Engineers who might want to work on these things have to code intrusive sound popup ads so some stupid boss can go to a country club. He can pay for bodyguards, he makes more money from finance than r&d.

      To get faster development, give everyone a choice of working on their own ideas, or going into the market. Hold challenges to stimulate the type of disruptive thinking that came up with, say, graphene, and how to overcome remaining barriers to ease of production or use. Entrepreneurial private firms can compete too, or do what they do today, unmolested.

    25. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      they made graphine in a DVD burner... so... how hard can it be.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    26. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Additional limitations are not a problem and nor is a lower cost. We have many products on the market that have pros and cons as well as high relative costs.

      Take batteries. Every battery chemistry has pros and cons. Lead Acid batteries are still superior for many applications and are by far the cheapest. They are also more easily maintained and generally last a lot longer if they're deep cycle batteries.

      The Lithium ion batteries have pros and cons as well... they have higher energy density then their peers making them superior for mobile applications but they are quite a bit more expensive.

      In regards to capacitors, simply put your product on the market. Unless it is inferior in all ways to all other products on the market then it will have a use where that pro outweighs the cons. However, it is inferior in all ways then what precisely is the point.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    27. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 0, Troll

      A new drug going through the FDA takes less time then this...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    28. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and here I was thinking that plastics had use cases right out of the door. that is, within a year of them having figured out to industrially produce the stuff - and many plastics and plastic like products having been made for a purpose already known.

      celluloid("man made" plastic) was in the market in little under a decade(from a commercial venture). more importantly than that, it had practical uses to show the day it was announced, nylon was first synthesized in 1935 and women were wearing it in 1940. graphene was announced with all sorts of magical potential applications, yet trying to find a practical application demonstrator seems futile.

      so we have only lab experiments showing that it matches the theory that was known beforehand(and some new findings, but not many). but not inanimate carbon stick made of the material to show that it can scale to something, no car coated with it for demonstration or anything similar. no pieces big enough and many enough to laminate into something to stop a real bullet(in which case the forces might propagate differently - did someone do the math how many layers-layers that need to be laid on something to keep them as such, it would need to stop a real bullet?).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    29. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      It doesn't take this long to bring something into production.

      And you know this... how?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Let's just call thing by their name. The statist fallacies behind the precautionary principle are more and more withholding tech...

    31. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The silly example looks like it is there to show that prediction is hard and that what initially looks like a good prediction can look silly after a while.

    32. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet nothing that contains this technology.

      Well, I do have quite a few pencils on my desk right now that make good use of (liberal amounts of) graphene. This is happening NOW! Actually, been happening for a few centuries already.

    33. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Apparently getting it to scale without unacceptably high defect levels has proven to be extremely hairy. What I do find somewhat curious, though, is that there appears to be very little, if any, use of the small bits that they can make in some sort of composite application. I'm not sure if that's down to price or if it simply isn't that much better than generic carbon fiber unless you can produce relatively large, relatively high quality, sheets of the stuff.

    34. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Manufacturing at scale is a big problem

      http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files...

      The stuff is still monumentally more expensive than its competition, even with the price dropping fast, because it's new and we haven't figured out how to scale it yet. The stuff coming out of your dvd burner is not the high quality stuff, and low quality graphene is worse than non-graphene alternatives at most things.

      Its use in electronics is also inhibited by the lack of bandgap, which people are looking into: http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.... It's just another material, and pricing will dictate its use vs. less effective but still perfectly viable alternatives. While its new, this has an odd chicken-and-egg supply-and-demand relationship.

    35. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's made on a computer. In Belgium.

      While we're here, you could learn the difference between "then" and "than" (see your other post).

      Maybe that way you'll look a little less like an ignorant shitbrained armchair expert.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      the Wright brothers went out of their way to put on displays for people. They went on tours and everything.

      Sound strategy. If you didn't actually invent it, then PR by the truckload is the next best thing. See also: Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Isn't it clear that he has a PhD in physics and several years of experience building industrial plants with his bare hands and the force of his will?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by M8e · · Score: 1

      I don't they are meant to be consumed. But eating them would probably be less harmful than inhaling them.

    39. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are these evil market forces run by bean counters the reason why we don't have the underwater cities and nuclear powered flying cars that were predicted in the 50's and 60's? Most of these future technologies fail because they are actually bad ideas or they make assumptions that existing high technology can scale to the point to make the prediction come true.

      Sure, we can make small personal sized submarines out of titanium and acrylic, but to suggest we can scale it to make it economical to build a city underwater via mass production is ludicrous. And another question is does the technology actually solve a problem that makes it worthwhile to invest in and does it introduce even more problems than it solves. How many people actually want to live underwater? I think most people would find it inconvenient, expensive, dangerous, and lacks any practical benefit compared to a land based city.

      These same reasons are why the future tech of flying cars and personal sized nuclear reactors never materialized.

    40. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      10 years ago they had been saying 10 years already.

      No they hadn't. The "scotch-tape technique" was what suddenly made graphene the new wonder material that could be produced relatively cheaply. It was invented in 2004 - just about 10 years ago.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    41. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "announced with all sorts of magical potential applications, yet trying to find a practical application demonstrator seems futile."

      Sort of like private manned space "whatever" (tourism/exploration/colonization, your pick!)

    42. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, historical fact? And .. how do *you* know that it doesn't??

    43. Re: for all this talk... where is it? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Good call on the pernicious effect of the precautionary principle, though its a lot more about hipster primitivism than statism.

    44. Re: for all this talk... where is it? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it's the people who can make billions marketing near- term technology X who can invest his F-U money in speculative technology Y. Space applications beyond Earth orbit, after years of languishing, are benefiting from this effect.

    45. Re: for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it takes the combination of statism and hipster primitivism to allow the precautionary principle to be pernicious. Absent the involvement of the power of the state, hipster primitivism is insufficiently powerful to delay development.

    46. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Mixing up then and than is usually a simple typo. And as both are legal english words they are not red underlined ... so get over it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    47. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The key question is: WHY?
      Why would anyone want to replace Kevlar ? Working technology, the whole production line from creating raw Kevlar to materials used in clothing and finally crafting the clothing does already exist!
      So, what would be the benefit except spending lots of money in replacing a production line/industry with another one?
      Oh, at some point ... perhaps, perhaps not ... graphene might be cheaper ... obviously we are not at that point yet!
      I doubt we even have a process creating graphene in such quantities that it is even possible to replace Kevlar 'in theory', not talking about costs and manufacturing problems at all ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      That's why the particular bit of research in TFA is really important, there is now proof of a military application for graphene - which means the US will throw money it the problem of making it in bulk.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    49. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The wright brothers did invent the first powered flight airplane.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    50. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Price is not the only variable.If it is better at ANYTHING then someone will use it because there are situations where being better at a specific thing makes it better indifferent to price differences.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    51. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      we should have seen something... we've seen nothing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    52. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by russotto · · Score: 1

      File it with flying cars, fusion power (or thorium cycle or pebble bed or whatever nuclear power suits your fancy), batteries or caps with extremely high (approaching that of liquid chemical fuels) energy and power density, practical large-scale solar power, and a cure for the common cold as stuff we'll always talk about but never ever get.

    53. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty weak attempt at imitating a misogynist, junior. You're not the clever subversive you want to think you are.

    54. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      largely the point of my post... If I'm promised jet packs... I want to see jet packs on the market within 10 years. If I don't... then I'm assuming the first prediction of jetpacks was crap. And what is more, every subsequent promise of jetpacks is ignored until such time as I actually see the fucking things for sale and they preform to a reasonable approximation of spec.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    55. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They didn't, but it's often claimed they did. They were just the first to publicize their offering. Many people around the world had been playing with heavier-than-air powered flying machines.

    56. Re:for all this talk... where is it? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sure sure... no one ever invents anything because someone somewhere else was JUST about to come forward. By this logic, the Allies didn't develop the atomic bomb first because the Nazis were working on it too.

      At some point you have to draw a line and say "that guy invented it"... if you want to say in addition to that "lots of people were close to the same thing"... that's fine. But they didn't get there first. The Wright brothers did.

      Here you're going to get snarky which is a giant waste of both our time. They went down in the history books at the guys that did it. Suck it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  3. Best Bullet Stopping Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The safety.

  4. Best Bullet Stopping Methodology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education.

    1. Re:Best Bullet Stopping Methodology by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Shooting first.

    2. Re:Best Bullet Stopping Methodology by Code+Herder · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how being a well educated corpse will have helped ;)

  5. Re: What the best-dressed thugs will wear next yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your attempt to act like the way you "think" an outspoken right leaner would is comically sad. Don't you have another journalist to sign up for, to receive your marching orders?

  6. sane units - FYI by Orgasmatron · · Score: 3, Informative

    No one but a reporter talks about bullets in miles per hour. 2000 MPH is about 3000 feet per second.

    A typical handgun bullet (9mm, 45 ACP, etc) is going to be around 1000 to 1500 fps. Shoulder arms (223, 308, 30-06, etc) tend towards the 2500-3000 fps range.

    The MJ/kg figures refer to Specific kinetic energy. To convert it to foot-pounds, you need to multiply it by the mass of the projectile to find the energy in joules, then multiply by 0.73756 (or do the dimensional analysis the hard way).

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:sane units - FYI by Velocir · · Score: 0

      Foot-pounds are not exactly sane. I can look at MJ/kg and know that it means megajoules per kilogram. Foot-pounds? How many stomps does it take? Oh, you have to multiply by some weird decimal. That makes total sense.

    2. Re:sane units - FYI by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No one but a reporter talks about bullets in miles per hour. 2000 MPH is about 3000 feet per second.

      2933 feet, 4 inches per second. Exactly. 15 MPH = 22 FPS.

    3. Re:sane units - FYI by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Informative

      A Joule is equal to one newton-meter (or metre if you're so inclined). Force times distance.

      Foot-pounds are the same: Force times distance (well, distance times force). The confusion comes from pound in this case referring to "pound-force" or lbf, a unit equal to one pound times g.

      J/kg is a different measure, the specific kinetic energy of an object; the amount of energy per unit mass. The imperial equivalent would be ft*lbf / lb (foot * pound-force / pound)

      Metric: J/kg = N*m/kg = (kg * m/s^2 * m)/kg = m/s^2 * m = m^2/s^2

      Imperial: lbf*ft/lb = lb*g*ft/lb = g*ft = ~32.174 * ft/s^2 * ft = ~32.174*ft^2/s^2

      As you can see, the choice of g rather than 1 ft/s^2 was unfortunate, but otherwise the systems are equivalent.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:sane units - FYI by Kjella · · Score: 2

      2933 feet, 4 inches per second. Exactly. 15 MPH = 22 FPS.

      You're probably the kind of guy who translates "I ran a mile yesterday" to "I ran 1609 meters yesterday", it's theoretically correct but in practice probably silly and wrong unless it was a one mile run at a race track. If it was a jogging trip it was an approximation and could just as easily be 1500 meters or 1700 meters, you're over-specifying the precision. In this case 3000 fps is the same level of approximation as 2000 MPH, which is actually much less misleading.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:sane units - FYI by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      it's theoretically correct

      No, the precision disagrees and so it is neither theoretically or actually correct.

    6. Re: sane units - FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you use energy rather than specific energy to measure the properties of the bullet stopping material?? Supposedly the concentration of energy matters...

    7. Re:sane units - FYI by sexconker · · Score: 1

      A mile is a discreet unit equal to 5280 feet. 2000 MPH is exactly 10560000 feet per hour, regardless of how many significant figures you think "2000 MPH" has. (Hint: It has 4. Zeros are significant. If they aren't, you're not supposed to write them.) An hour is equal to 3600 seconds, regardless of whether you write it as 3.6 x 10^3 s or 3600 seconds or 1 hour or .001 khour. Or do you believe an hour is 3 kilo seconds?

      Unit conversion does not involve significant figures unless the conversion factor itself is expressed to a specific significance. 15 MPH is EXACTLY 22 FPS.
      You do not perform truncating due to significant figures during calculations not involving other significant figures. Truncation is to be performed after all calculation.

      Further, if you performed truncating due to significant figures in my calculation (2000 * 22 FPS / 15 MPH) you would end up with 2933 feet.
      If you wanted to claim "2000 MPH" really meant "between 2000 and 3000 MPH" then it should have been written as "2x10^3 MPH or 2 kMPH)

    8. Re: sane units - FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rounding, dear boy. An hour is 4 kiloseconds.

    9. Re:sane units - FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one but an American uses feet per second.

    10. Re:sane units - FYI by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      A mile is a discreet unit

      I assume you mean a statute mile.

      The nautical ones are far from it, getting drunk and singing bawdy songs, mooning nuns ...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:sane units - FYI by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Hint: It has 4. Zeros are significant. If they aren't, you're not supposed to write them. [..] If you wanted to claim "2000 MPH" really meant "between 2000 and 3000 MPH" then it should have been written as "2x10^3 MPH or 2 kMPH

      Your proposed nomenclature is practically not in use. Very few people would understand it.

      2000MPH has one significant digit unless you can deduce from context that it was measured more precisely.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    12. Re:sane units - FYI by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. 2000 MPH has one sig fig. Intermediate zeros (2001) and trailing zeros to the right of the decimal (2000.0) are significant but trailing zeros to the left of the decimal are not unless somebody changed introductory Physics since the 90's.

      Of course if you want to be unambiguous you should write 2.000 x 10^3 or 2 x 10^3 so we can distinguish between 4 vs 1 sig fig. By moving the trailing zeros to the right of the decimal we've declared them significant. But it is utterly wrong to assuume that 2000 has four sigfigs. It has one unless the precision is specified elsewhere. By "utterly wrong" I mean "you will get points off in high school physics" wrong. That's straight out of the basics of the first sig figs lesson.

    13. Re:sane units - FYI by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      2000MPH has 4 significant digits. Or do you think it is the same as 2MPH or 20MPH?
      Furthermore the term 'significant' is only relevant behind the decimal point.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:sane units - FYI by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously believe that an article which mentions 2000MPH in general means 2000MPH +/- 0.5MPH? If so, I am not sure how to convince you otherwise.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    15. Re:sane units - FYI by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with the question about significancy :)
      Yes, I believe it is 'in general' +/- 5 or ten. What else should it be? +/- 500? If so he had written 1500 - 2500 ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:sane units - FYI by amorsen · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with the question about significancy :)

      That is what significancy is! What else would it be?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    17. Re:sane units - FYI by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      In case anyone was wondering, shooting is essentially an American hobby, so basically all ballistic information you'll find will be in feet per second and foot-pounds.

      Regardless of your feelings about American units of measure, if you want to compare these numbers to the tables in reloading handbooks, to the numbers on a box of ammo, or to the advertisements in magazines, you'll need to convert one or the other. Makes much more sense to convert the numbers from the article to the system used by the largest shooting culture than to convert thousands of existing tables into SI.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    18. Re:sane units - FYI by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Significancy reffers to the diggits behind the decimal point. All digits before it are significant by default. Otherwise one would write it different. Or use language to emphasize error margines (like 'about' or 'around' or 'approximately'), or use special outdated notations where you e.g. write a dot on top of the last significant digit or underline it. As long as one simply writes: 2000km/h everything is significant, just like as in 375km/h (speed of the TGV from Karlsruhe to Paris e.g. at least its speedo meter says so)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  7. Silica? by Isomorphic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One wonders how graphene fares against bullets made from graphene.

    1. Re:Silica? by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Graphene has a lot of strength in a sheet, but it is soft and floppy. A graphene bullet would just be a carbon bullet. A graphene-coated bullet would be similar to a teflon coated bullet, but not as good and a lot more expensive.

    2. Re:Silica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphite isn't dense enough to make a half decent bullet. Maybe just as a core surrounded by a heavy metal though.

    3. Re:Silica? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Well, graphene seems to possess all of the properties of a silver bullet, it can filter water, store energy, cure cancer, establish world peace, so I would say a bullet and bulletproof vest out of this stuff will have to both, kill and save from being killed, generating enough uncertainty field, which would cause a temporal rip in the non graphene fabric of the Universe and taking the world back in time before the experiment takes place. Actually we are already in the 26th iteration of this loop. The interesting thing is that if you wrap yourself in a graphene sheet, you will stay anr not move back in time with everybody else, but the probabilistic shift of the Universe can cause you to jump into different parts of space without any speed limits, since I have a graphene sheet, I have already travelled to 15 differrent galaxies this way (the other times I was simply moved from the computer to the couch, to kitchen and to a girl's shower room, I am recording these important observations on my graphene based videocamera.

    4. Re:Silica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, then what about a diamond-tipped uranium bullet?

    5. Re:Silica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've seen a case where the bullet was stopped by a ballistic plate but the impact force ruptured the guys intestines. Having a bone break from a non-penetration happens more often than one might think.

      If the material can absorb that impact shock to the tissue while offering higher levels of protection, it's a godsend.

      Until the industry leaps to fill the gap for Level VI penetrating ammunition at least.

    6. Re: Silica? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Ammo that only ISIS will be able to afford.

    7. Re:Silica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad the graphene didn't move you back to a point in time before you watched the first youtube video that turned you in to a religious fanatic, that would have been of great value to slashdot!

    8. Re: Silica? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      This is how we get ants.

  8. Re:insane units - FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For sane units, 2000 mph ~= 900 m/s.

    p.s. I'm an American, and I only use mph for driving speeds.

  9. Graphene's a thing that everyone needs! by RevWaldo · · Score: 2

    Graphene's a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!
    It's a shirt, it's a sock, it's a glove, it's a hat!
    But it has other uses. Yes, far beyond that!
    You can use it for carpets. For pillows! For sheets!
    Or curtains! Or covers for bicycle seats!

    Out of the old physics lab
    Comes some more graphene
    Answering humanity's
    Each and every need

    Everybody do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do
    Needs graphene!

    It isn't just a tanning vest
    Use it for a hammock
    When you need rest
    It's a toothbrush holder
    For your weekend guest
    Your canary will love it,
    It's a lovely nest
    Try it in soup-
    It adds great zest
    It'll cure those
    Backache pains in your chest

    Everybody do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do
    Needs graphene!

    You'll be amazed
    you'll be nonplussed
    It tastes like bread
    without the crust
    Grooms your hair
    when it gets mussed
    Rids your home of dismal dust
    It's a natural, it's a must
    Eliminates carburetor rust

    Everybody do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do
    Needs graphene!

    It's super duper hooper hyper
    Makes a perfect windshield wiper
    Foolproof trap to catch a viper
    we've no complaints from any griper
    Papa smokes 'em in his piper
    Baby says "boy, what a diaper!"

    Everybody do-do-do-do-do-do
    Everybody do-do-do-do-do-do
    Everybody do-do-do-do needs graphene!!


    .

    1. Re:Graphene's a thing that everyone needs! by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      Just curious, what's the source of that little song there?

    2. Re:Graphene's a thing that everyone needs! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2
      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Graphene's a thing that everyone needs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need a graphene thneed...

  10. Re:insane units - FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For sane units, 2000 mph ~= 900 m/s.

    p.s. I'm an American, and I only use mph for driving speeds.

    Thank you for bringing some much needed dimensional perspective because I can't understand a friggin' thing the GP wrote.

    Can someone provide a car analogy with the equivalent number of Libraries of Congress?

  11. Will properties scale up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the properties of graphene will remain the same when scaled up to normal size.

  12. cracks forming around the impact zone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said.

    1. Re:cracks forming around the impact zone.. by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      So what, Kevlar is also damaged when stopping bullets? The goal here is not perfection but to improve on the status quo.

      Until energy force fields come along improvements will only be incremental. If graphene is cheaper, lighter or stronger it could supplant Kevlar.

  13. Who cares, what about motorcycle gear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about bullets. I mean how often does the average person encounter bullets impacting their body? The real question is: Will this be any better than the Kevlar and leather motorcycle gear we have?

  14. microscopic guys by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    Microscopic guys wrapped in microscopic graphene body armour,
    protected from microscopic bullets.

    It's the way of the future man.

    I want some of what he's smoking.

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:microscopic guys by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our newly armoured paramecium strike forces.

  15. Re:Excellent! by x0ra · · Score: 1

    I'd much prefer a soft armor capable of stopping a .308WIN at 50 yards..

  16. Graphene: easy to use, hard to produce by tulcod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Essentially, right now it is really really difficult to work with graphene on an industrial scale.

    If you want to work with it in the lab, you get yourself some graphite (essentially pencil lead), some scotch tape, some solvents and you're done. It is dirt cheap and, given a good microscope and a steady hand, not too difficult to work with.

    But of course this is no way to work with it on any larger scale. You want to be able to produce a certain amount of it, reliably and precisely. No flaws in the graphene crystal. No multi-layer graphene (which in fact is one of the toughest things to avoid).

    This is all really difficult right now.

    The situation was similar for transistors, if you recall: the first solid-state transistor was invented in 1947 (by 1956 Nobel prize winners John Bardeen, Walter Brattain and William Shockley), but it took until the 1960s for ICs to take off (Jack Kilby, 2000 Nobel prize winner, is usually pointed out as the culprit). It took until 2004 (!) for the first single-layer graphene to be isolated (by 2010 Nobel prize winners Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov). So expect the first industrial application of graphene somewhere around the end of this decade, and some patent wars around 2019-2025, and then a Nobel prize for the inventor of whatever industrial process we will be using, around 2040.

    1. Re:Graphene: easy to use, hard to produce by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      How many things are on the market that are hand made? Buy a nice sports car and you might get a hand woven interior.

      If you need human labor to work with this stuff then it exists.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Graphene: easy to use, hard to produce by radtea · · Score: 1

      The situation was similar for transistors, if you recall: the first solid-state transistor was invented in 1947...

      Actually, the situation was very different for the transistor. The 1947 invention was the point-contact transistor. The bipolar junction silicon transistor was invented in 1954 and the first commercial transistor radio was released the same year (both by TI): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So less than 7 years from "it's possible" to the first release of perhaps the most famous application.

      Microchips, which you mention for some reason, are irrelevant: the impact of the transistor was huge long before microchips became relevant.

      Graphene, by contrast, is a decade past discovery. Ten years ago we were told two things about graphene:

      1) no one knows how to produce it in bulk

      2) if we could produce it in bulk there would be awesome things that could be done with it.

      Continuing to publish stories a decade later that amplify the awesome things that could be done with it, when there has apparently been little or no progress in its mass production, is some combination of boring/frustrating/stupid. We don't really need to be continually told, "The list of things you can't yet to do with graphene, and won't ever be able to do with graphene in the foreseeable future, continues to lengthen."

      It just isn't interesting to tell these stories. Come back and talk about graphene when there is progress on mass production. That is interesting. Adding to the already long list of things that will never be made out of it because no one can figure out how to mass produce it is not.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  17. Sane units - foot-pound force? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    From Imperial to S.I. and then back out again is sane units? Didn't you guys throw the British out so you didn't have to Chain yourselves in Knots?

  18. I wonder by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    Kevlar tactical vests, being essentially a ballistic, polymer weave, have a shelf life of only about 3-5 years or so before they lose their power to slow and stop bullets. Apparently the strength of the polymer degrades over time, especially with repeat exposure so heat and UV. I would be curious if the graphene-based body armor is stronger and with a longer shelf life.

    1. Re:I wonder by denzacar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kevlar tactical vests, being essentially a ballistic, polymer weave, have a shelf life of only about 3-5 years or so before they lose their power to slow and stop bullets.

      No they don't.

      They are GIVEN a shelf life of 3-5 years based on lab tests interpreted in such a way that the continuous chain of procurement of such vests by the police and the military is maintained AND so the producers of said vests could cover their asses in court in case it's needed.
      "See, your honor, evidence shows that the officer Smith exposed his vest to higher temperature and UV light than what is written on the label. Ergo, it is his fault that high velocity round our client's vest wasn't ever designed for, not to say that it isn't the greatest vest out there, wasn't stopped by the said vest which is still a perfectly safe vest if you buy it brand new every 3-5 years."

      Back in reality, you'd need to either soak it in strong acid or expose it to direct UV for hundreds of hours for the fibers to lose a significant part of their tensile strength i.e. bullet stopping abilities.
      450 hours of direct UV will degrade 4500 denier kevlar to ~65% and 1500 denier kevlar to ~35%.
      900 hours will knock it further to ~48% and ~23%, respectfully.

      Even then, that only means that the TOP LAYER is degraded. Kevlar is not transparent. It degrades because it absorbs UV light.
      And that's IF it was worn on top of other clothes, without any kind of a liner or protective or decorative impregnation.
      I.e. If police were running around in banana-yellow ponchos for protection from bullets.

      It's in the specs and real-life tests by people who are re-selling USED police kevlar vests confirm it.

      It's plastic. The stuff that will take millions of years to degrade out of the ecosystem.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you can keep your vest for longer. I replace mine every 3 years. Not going to let some nigger end my life.

  19. Audio, obviously by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    They prevent phase distortion of asymmetric transients, which gives a more robust stereo footprint.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Slightly off-topic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The bullet was propelled into stacked graphene sheets at supersonic speeds of up to 2000mph by the gases produced by laser pulses rapidly evaporating a gold film"

    This sounds expensive. I wonder why gold was the "propellant" of choice.

    WTF Captcha: "retriers" - since when are words that aren't even recognized by webster being used? I had to use the MP3 option just to figure it out.
    (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retriers)

  21. Futurologists are worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When someone is predicting something to occur 10 years in the future, then claim that the time frame they are predicting is actually 10 to infinity years in the future, they are completely fucking lying about knowing whats going to be happening 10 years out and their predictions are completely useless. Futurologists are full of shit. The ones that do get it right only do so at a rate slightly higher than pure chance. You might as well ask an astrologer for their technology predictions. Statistically the will be equal in the accuracy of their predictions.

    1. Re:Futurologists are worthless by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      But they weren't predicting anything. They talk about their discovery and reporters want to ask about products, and they say, "oh, it will be at least 10 years before this makes it into a product." There is no actual prediction there. When I hear actual predictions they're usually more like "10-30 years." 10 years is enough time for all sorts of things to fall together. And if it isn't a product in 30 years, maybe it never will be.

  22. "on this scale" by citizenr · · Score: 2

    >We cannot use conventional techniques such as a gun barrel or gunpowder [on this scale]

    this means they essentially made bulletproof vest for a LEGO figurine, or a green army men

    > 2000mph by the gases produced by laser pulses rapidly evaporating a gold film

    yep, it will work great next time someone wants to shoot a speck of DUST at you

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  23. Re:Talk About 5pm Shadow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dare you to make less sense.

  24. Probably be easier... by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 1

    Just go straight to the Ell Donsaii author and ask him how he feels about the technological potential of carbon.

    (for the humor impaired, I'm kidding. Ell Donsaii novels are like soap operas for nerds, kind of like "so bad, they're good" movies. I recommend reading the first book to see if you like it, and I believe the first book is free as an e-book on Kindle. It's not until a couple books later that you get into the really scifi stuff.)

  25. Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope nobody invents quantum-tunneling bullets.

  26. Infographic of Graphene Bullet Experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found a cool infographic of the experiment: http://drawscience.blogspot.com/2014/11/graphene-is-new-kevlar.html