Slashdot Mirror
MIT Unveils New Material That's Strongest and Lightest On Earth (futurism.com)
A team of MIT researchers have created the world's strongest and lightest material known to man using graphene. Futurism reports: Graphene, which was heretofore, the strongest material known to man, is made from an extremely thin sheet of carbon atoms arranged in two dimensions. But there's one drawback: while notable for its thinness and unique electrical properties, it's very difficult to create useful, three-dimensional materials out of graphene. Now, a team of MIT researchers discovered that taking small flakes of graphene and fusing them following a mesh-like structure not only retains the material's strength, but the graphene also remains porous. Based on experiments conducted on 3D printed models, researchers have determined that this new material, with its distinct geometry, is actually stronger than graphene -- making it 10 times stronger than steel, with only five percent of its density. The discovery of a material that is extremely strong but exceptionally lightweight will have numerous applications. As MIT reports: "The new findings show that the crucial aspect of the new 3-D forms has more to do with their unusual geometrical configuration than with the material itself, which suggests that similar strong, lightweight materials could be made from a variety of materials by creating similar geometric features."
Claiming it can replace steel means it has not only better tensile strength, but also compressive strength, low brittleness, and similar ductility and hardness.
Glass is stronger than steel, in one direction only. It's not used in structural engineering though. Steel is just so versatile that so far not any material has matched it.
But, impressive research and I hope they keep going with it.
Unobtainium?
Rearden metal?
Will it be actually available or so expensive it might as well not exist? Imagine the fuel savings on a drone, jet fighter made of this stuff.
I was confused when I read this news report. Here is MIT's release: https://news.mit.edu/2017/3-d-... Is the pink stuff actually printed graphene, or is it just plastic printed in the 3d structure of the graphene form so that they could do a macroscopic mechanical test?
I doubt *any* material will completely replace steel. The particular properties of steel, it's strength combined with easy machining and reasonable cost will always be right for some applications, much as brass is still used. Steel didn't completely replace brass, carbon fiber didn't completely replace steel, and this new material won't completely replace any of it's predecessors.
However, steel allowed us to make things that couldn't be made with brass, carbon fiber works better than steel for some things, and this new material will be the best choice for some things.
There are very few application where carbon fiber is better than steel, because it lacks most of the properties of steel. It's not elastic, it's not machinable, it's brittle, it doesn't wear well. There seems to be no replacement for steel used structurally (including this stuff), for tool steel, for anything that needs to flex a bit in normal use, etc.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Imagine a net (block?) of this material. IF (and it's a very big if) it could be made large enough IN SPACE, then it could "capture" (by absorbing the impact) space junk. It might need to be hooked up to a low thrust but high efficiency ion drive to compensate for the slow loss of momentum from the impact; it needs to stay in orbit (and to change orbits if it's going after multiple large pieces).
Of course, as mentioned, the real key is can they manufacture the graphene pieces AND put them together in the 3D structure IN SPACE. Being able to create this material out of a (solid?) block of carbon (graphite) is probably essential. Otherwise the density of the structure might be too low to be launched from earth; the low density which might make it ideal for many applications on earth would be a hindrance if it required a huge fairing for the launch vehicle (imagine a blimp on top of a rocket). However, this low density is critical for its success as a space "sponge", it would allow a small mass to subtend a very large volume; essential if we're ever going to clean up the many many small fragments of space junk (and not just the big ones).
Of course, IF they can make this in space there are many space construction applications which could be practical. Would it dramatically reduce the cost of an "O'Neil space cylinder" for example? The greatly reduced mass requirements coupled with the (hopefully) greatly reduced launch costs from reusable launchers (go Space-X!) might allow really large structures to be built. (I guess you'd still need "soil" and volatiles from asteroid or lunar mining).
(A similar solution would be to use in space produced aerogels. The problems of making aerogels in space if they require supercritical carbon dioxide as a working fluid may be too great though.)
Just an early morning rant here in Vietnam, probably had too much coffee.
The material in question is graphene, which they did not create or unveil.
The structure in question is theoretical, and they have not made it nor do they have any real plans or methodology to do so.
They made a mathematical model and then 3D printed a PLASTIC model in the same shape.
They then crushed the plastic model and noted that it was pretty strong given its density, just as they predict a graphene structure in the same shape to be.
They're not creating the graphene structure, and a macro version of the structure in plastic may or may not exhibit similar properties as a true version made of ultra thin graphene.
https://youtu.be/VIcZdc42F0g
I'm all for improved materials, but let's not make shit up, futurism.com .
But there must be a more creative use for it than attaching price tags to merchandise.
Here's the most relevant bit:
The team was able to compress small flakes of graphene using a combination of heat and pressure. This process produced a strong, stable structure whose form resembles that of some corals and microscopic creatures called diatoms. These shapes, which have an enormous surface area in proportion to their volume, proved to be remarkably strong. “Once we created these 3-D structures, we wanted to see what’s the limit — what’s the strongest possible material we can produce,” says Qin. To do that, they created a variety of 3-D models and then subjected them to various tests. In computational simulations, which mimic the loading conditions in the tensile and compression tests performed in a tensile loading machine, “one of our samples has 5 percent the density of steel, but 10 times the strength,” Qin says.
The video is about testing 3D plastic models. Exactly what they have achieved is unclear to me. Do they have plastic in a configuration 10 times the strength of steel? Did they 3D print in steel, but didn't show it in the video? Did they extrapolate from a plastic model to say that if they'd made it of steel it would be 10 times the strength of steel? Did they use a computer model to say that if they could make the optimal graphine configuration it would be 10 times strength of steel?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
But I'm still holding out for scrith.
-- Alastair
The 2021 America's Cup.
This years boats are all graphite hulls.
Something stronger, lighter, cost not a major problem.
Could be interesting.
Steel has many conveniences that will likely keep it around for a very long time as a general purpose construction material. But I also suspect that for any specific application it will be radically outperformed by a custom-build structure from micro- and nano-engineered materials such as these. The price of course will be a key differentiator for most applications, and perhaps ease of recycling. So it may be a long time before they become desirable outside of particularly high performance applications.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
According the the article they only have a theoretical model for the material and the claim that it is the strongest material known seems to be based solely 3D printed models agreeing with a computational model of the material. This is no grounds whatsoever to claim that this is the "worlds strongest material". It's a promising start which might lead to that but until you have actually built the material and measured its properties you cannot claim the discovery.
We did not claim the Higgs discovery in the 1960s based on Higgs' theory we needed to wait until there was experimental evidence showing it was correct. The same applies here: there is no guarantee that some effect they have not modelled is important and means the material does not behave as they expect it to. A macroscopic plastic model is not guaranteed to behave the same due to the larger quantum mechanical effects at smaller scales. In fact so far they do not even know yet whether it is possible to build the material - so lets cut the hype and have them make their claim when they actually have the material in hand and confirmed it really does perform as they predict.
What is brass used for anymore, other than pure decorative?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Er, are you joking? Bullet casings? How many hundreds of millions of those are made every year???
my 3d printer's nozzle is brass. So are some motor/generator brushes. It has its uses.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Brass is considered where you want better corrosion resistance than steel (plumbing fittings), shine (visible hardware, knobs), lighter weight (musical instruments) or a softer material (non-scratching, non-sparking tools), or a bit of self-lubrication (locks and keys).
I have many hobbies and most end up using brass for something. I do electronics, where brass terminals are used for connections. I do model aircraft, which use brass rods because they are lighter than steel. I do pyrotechnics, where steel is forbidden due to sparks. Very often, if steel isn't a good choice for any reason, brass is a likely alternative.
Of course that doesn't mean brass is *better* than steel. Often you want the harder metal. Each has their own uses.
This was just a numerical modeling study, with an added experiment using cheap 3D printing and cheap plastic filament to create a theoretical structure - the structure that could, mayhaps, be one day produced with graphene, if and when they figure out how to shape graphene the same way.
The submitter is clueless, the Slashdot editors are clueless, and sadly, most posters are clueless as well.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
> because it lacks most of the properties of steel. It's not elastic, it's not machinable, it's brittle, it doesn't wear well.
Maching carbon fiber is a bit different from machining carbon steel, just like machining stainless steel is a bit different. It most certainly is machined. Actually in some ways the machining of carbon fiber is very similar to stainless steel.
Carbon fiber is slightly MORE elastic than steel. The modulus of elasticity is about 150Gpa with steels ranging about 150-180Gpa.
"Brittleness" (KIc) can't be directly compared since carbon fiber is a composite, but generally cracking is localized - it's not particularly brittle.
"Doesn't wear well" isn't scientifically confined, so I can't give hard numbers for that. We can note that the two major typesnof fiber tows and the many available resins allow a designer to choose the wear properties appropriate for the application.
The big advantage steel has over carbon fiber is cost. While the cost of carbon fiber has reduced significantly in the last ten years, it's still $10/pound in quanity. That definitely matters if you need thousands of pounds of it. It's not too significant if you need less than a pound of material for something you're already spending $30+ on.
That should say:
180-200 for steel, 150 for carbon fiber.
Anyway the elasticity is similar.
So it was 10 years ago, so it will be in 10 years time.
2) How long will it be before this stuff is commercially available?
Often engineers seem to find inspiration in the natural world. Could this be inspired in the bone matrix? Looks like it to me. If it is, it'd be nice and interesting if they were up front about it.
Spectacularly wrong. Carbon fiber is about as brittle as china. It has very little toughness.
It's a bit depressing to see this volley continue back and forth with no one mentioning the fact that the "carbon fiber" you're referring to is... plastic. Plastic with carbon fibers added to strengthen it, just like fiberglass refers to plastic with glass fibers added to strengthen it.
From this, there are two key points to make in this debate that so far haven't been made:
1. The properties of carbon fiber depend largely on the properties of the material its being added to. There are a wide variety of polymers out there and, in principle, you could probably put it in concrete, or maybe even a cold-forged metal.
2. The parallels between carbon fiber and whatever this new material is are inconsequential if the new material is something that can be used directly and not as an additive.
The article is shockingly unhelpful in clarifying this second point, and it even cryptically adds that the geometrical techniques here could be used directly with non-carbon materials, which doesn't make a lot of sense given the unique molecular geometric properties of graphene (clearly show in illustrations in the article) are dependent on the chemical properties of carbon.
Steel has one other really important quality: It is cheap.
The world price for bulk mild steel is about 30 cents / kg.
Low friction stuff like bearings and gears, especially with oil-impregnated brass. It has plenty of naval applications still due to corrosion resistance and more esoteric industrial applications because of resistance to chlorine. It is also anti-microbial, which is good for self-sanitizing surfaces while being easier to work with than pure copper.
Could we make one out of this material?
What is brass used for anymore, other than pure decorative?
Pasta dies.
Brass dies are used on pasta extruders because they can handle higher extrusion pressures than plastic dies, which makes for denser dried pasta and they impart a roughness to the surface of the pasta that helps sauce adhere to it better.
Also, there's this whole family of musical instruments that started out being made of brass, and as far as I'm aware, it's still a common ingredient for them.
This is pure carbon which is really NOT something you want to build any kind of structure out of if its likely ever to come near a naked flame or source of heat. It'll have to be impregnated into something else as with carbon fibre which will almost certainly reduce its strength it its even possible.
Also becuse of the copper in it brass has antiseptic properies. Something the victorians discovered by chance which is why hospitals used to have brass door knobs and handles all over the place. Of course these days stainless steel is used along with a boatload of disinfectant. Medicine sometimes regresses unfortunately.
There are very few application where carbon fiber is better than steel, because it lacks most of the properties of steel.
There are lots of applications where carbon fiber is a superior material to steel. The reverse is also true. Your statement is a tautology. You're saying steel is better because it has the properties of steel. Each material has advantages and drawbacks, both physical and economic.
It's not elastic, it's not machinable, it's brittle, it doesn't wear well.
You use carbon fiber in applications where high rigidity and strength to weight is needed. For these applications it is often vastly superior to steel. Saying it isn't machinable is kind of misleading because it presumes that machinability is an inherent advantage when in fact it actually can be wasteful or unnecessary in many circumstances. Carbon fiber reinforced polymers are created using completely different processes more akin to molding or laminating than machining. You're comparing apples to oranges.
There seems to be no replacement for steel used structurally (including this stuff), for tool steel, for anything that needs to flex a bit in normal use, etc.
There are plenty of replacement manterials for most of those applications. The reason they typically aren't used is economics. Aluminum for example can be used for many of the same applications as steel but most of the time it is slightly more expensive. Tungsten carbide can make a better cutting tool than steel in many cases but again, cost comes into play. Steel's advantage is more in its economy than in its specific properties for many applications. We don't use steel in car bodies because it's the best material available but because it is a good material that is comparatively inexpensive. We don't use steel for machine tools because it is the best material for those but because it is a good material and is comparatively inexpensive to the alternatives.
This is pure carbon which is really NOT something you want to build any kind of structure out of if its likely ever to come near a naked flame or source of heat
When was the last time you lit a diamond on fire? Pure carbon burns at 4890F. For comparison steel melts at around 2750F.
Don't confuse carbon with carbon based products like coal. Coal is a composite material that has oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and nitrogen. It's no where close to being pure carbon.
Have you ever gotten a Torch and Oxygen anywhere near a Carbon Block?
You get exciting results with putting a torch and oxygen anywhere near most materials. Not really sure what you are proving here.
Could we make one out of this material?
Sigh... Please stop. Yes a space elevator is a cool idea. It will not happen in your lifetime if indeed it ever does. Probably not in the lifetime of your great, great grandchildren either. If we ever do get some material than makes building one actually feasible I assure you that it will make the news because that would be a genuinely big deal. No need to keep asking every time someone comes out with a modestly stronger new material.
If we do someday build one, Earth is probably not the first place we would do it. Honestly we're more likely to build one on Mars or the Moon first because we don't need materials anywhere near as strong. Plus when the first one fails, having it fail in a place like Mars where it wouldn't immediately become a WMD would be a good idea. You don't test bed that sort of stuff over major population centers.
Science magazines and even magazines like Popular Science, have gone over the electrical and mechanical properties of graphene. I don't get what's new.
I hate it when stupid scientists do theoretical work, or these ghastly numerical computations. Oh god, the humanity when a university press department tries to make it accessible to the general population. Those fools! To think such excitement and conversation over such petty research! Those assholes! They've got nothing on me, I'm out here on the internet sharing my bravely sharing my unsolicited and unqualified hyper critical attitude!
Wait a minute. We didn't invoke you. No one mentioned any files or things remotely resembling files.
Begone!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That's true, the epoxy resin most commonly used with carbon fiber is quite brittle. I was thinking of some CF I've broken. I'm not sure what the polymer is, but I know vinyl and polyester can be used, along with other polymers. There are two main types of carbon fibers, turbostratic and graphitic, and many types of weaves and layup methods. So there are a lot of combinations with different properties. Some common combinations are quite brittle. If you want a different failure mode, you can have it.
I admittedly don't know much about how this applies to carbon fiber or graphene, but it needs to be 'repairable'. You can weld steel, to either repair it or join it to more steel, to the point it is as strong or even stronger than the original (with bracing and whatnot). Anything that would replace steel would need this characteristic.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Stop what? Stop dreaming? Stop striving for a better world? Stop hoping we will find something that will truly advance us as a species?
Stop asking questions with obvious answers. When space elevators become a realistic prospect I assure you we will all know about it. Right now what you are asking is basically the equivalent of asking if some new material would let of build a warp drive. The answer is either "no" or "not anytime soon".
Believe me, I want a space elevator as much as you do. But be realistic about what it will take to build one.
then I will believe.
On an aircraft, model or otherwise, it's not "weight per volume" (density) that matters, but "weight per strength" (specific strength). I care about the weight of a wire that is strong enough, not the weight of a wire of a certain diameter.
Brass is lower weight for the same strength than common steel. (Though not drastically so.)
Economics is rather central to construction.
Economics is central to everything. Steel is a very useful and cost effective material for a lot of purposes. It's not the perfect material for every use nor is it necessarily the best for many applications. I cannot imagine steel not being hugely important but let's not pretend it's the perfect material for every use.
Steel remains the best material for car frames, because of the way it deforms and then fails under stress - elastically at low energy, consuming a lot of the energy of a collision at high energy.
Aluminum body frames are becoming increasingly common as they are lighter for the same performance. Steel is easier to bend and shape and repair and it is cheaper but in many vehicles where performance or fuel economy are paramount aluminum can be a better choice. Aluminum has been used for space frames for a very long time. Race cars haven't used steel frames for ages.
Machine tools are all about cost of operation Tool steel usually wins, but of course there are applications where it just doesn't work.
Tool steel wins except when it doesn't. Lots of machine tools use other materials because steel isn't always the best choice or even a practical choice. There is a reason carbide tools are as popular as they are and it's not because people are willing to waste money.
People fetishize fancy materials that, frankly, aren't good for much beyond having higher numbers on paper.
Not when they actually have to pay for them. Seriously, steel is a great material and it's going to continue to be vital but it's not the best choice in a great many cases. Same as any other material.
It's also dense, A kg of steel is not a lot of steel.
Nullius in verba
Walmart has automatic doors.
Why can't hospitals?
MIT is an academic institution. People have to publish to get degrees.
Academics have to publish papers in scientific journals not press releases with unscientific claims. You don't see this sort of thing coming from the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford and yet they are academic institutions which usually rank higher than MIT. If you are truly doing world-leading science you don't need to hype it, just publicize it, because the work speaks for itself. Over hyped claims like this makes you look like you are desperate for attention and undermines the impact of the real result if they ever do manage to create this material and it performs as expected.
I always think of Plasteel whenever I hear about this.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Why? At 10x the strength, and 1/20th the density, the breakeven point would be $60,000/ton to get equal strength for equal cost. That will still probably not be achievable any time soon, but you also have the added benefit of your structure weighing 1/200th of what it would have if made from steel, a huge benefit for anything that needs to be accelerated, or to support it's own weight.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A completely unrelated structure. Foams can indeed be quite strong. So can aerogels. Neither share the specific geometric structure discovered here, which seems to have very impressive mechanical properties.
Your comment is rather like someone disparaging arches because we already know how to build bridges with ropes and long straight beams.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Look at the video in the article... read the first half. It's the shape they made, not some new fancy material, that is of most interest. The shape is basically a solid "spring", but much more complex.
Your reason for rejecting my idea can be boiled down to "because it's a non-zero amount of effort" so perhaps you disagree with the idea of making anything better.