Slashdot Mirror


New "Metallic Wood" Is As Strong As Titanium But Much Lighter (dwell.com)

Titanium "has long been touted as the metal of the future," writes Dwell, "due to its strength, rust resistance, and amazing lightness." But can careful atom-stacking lead to something better?

An anonymous reader writes: Researchers have discovered a way to create a new "metallic wood" material that is as strong as titanium, but five times lighter, reports Dwell. "So far, the researchers have built a sheet of nickel with nanoscale pores that is almost 70 percent empty space... It was created by building tiny plastic spheres, suspending them in water, allowing the water to evaporate, and then electroplating the spheres with nickel. Researchers then dissolved the plastic spheres, producing an incredibly strong, porous metal that floats on water."
Researchers are also considering the possibility of filling its empty space with an energy-storing material. "For example, a prosthetic leg made from this material and infused with anode and cathode materials, could also be a battery."

93 comments

  1. wait this is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have been assured by the ingravs that such materials can only be made in space by giant rockets and type-a square-jawed men in test pilot suits

    1. Re:wait this is impossible by chris+summers · · Score: 0

      i have been assured by the ingravs that such materials can only be made in space by giant rockets and type-a square-jawed men in test pilot suits Aren't they too busy chasing teen-aged girls in leotards that call them Coach to do something like this?

  2. Hyperion Tree Ships coming by known_coward_69 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just need to make some FTL engines

    1. Re:Hyperion Tree Ships coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This helps us get closer to mecha first, since energy storage is the biggest problem with that. Now, you might be wondering what we need giant robots for, but I counter by asking what DON'T we need giant robots for? Hm? Exactly.

  3. not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "But can careful atom-stacking lead to something better? " - OBVIOUSLY? Regardless of any other factor of course. Aligned structures >strength> unaligned random structures. This isn't rocket science, this is a basic crystal lattice.
       

    1. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    2. Re: not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alternatively started, the right is way too invested in the status quo to entertain the idea of alternatives #buggywhip

    3. Re: not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude what are you a soothsayer? Or is there a really boring alternative explanation?

    4. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      You were doing great until you misused the word crystal. Come on, this isn't something hard like rocket surgery, or brain science.

    5. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you just don't understand the actual definition of a crystal lattice or how it applies in atomic-deposition structure.

    6. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite as good
      As Metallica wood.

    7. Re: not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right doesn't like the status quo either, That's why they are on a never ending quest to make it even crappier.

    8. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    9. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      This sounds like a new type of syntactic foam.

      An obvious application is in aviation and aerospace.

    10. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were doing fine until you became a gayass. Come on, this isn't 5 digit faggot shit.

    11. Re:not a difficult question or surprising result by TAW_Sr · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you use a lot of homosexual terms to insult people. Is there something you want to tell the class?

  4. More like a sponge than wood by divide+overflow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Metal sponges are already a thing, only difference between this material and existing metal sponges is the pore size and creation method. This method described is somewhat similar to the way that aerogels are produced. These metal sponges aren't like wood...wood is a composite that derives much of its strength from its fibrous grain.

    1. Re:More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's just a different grain structure. Wood is organically deposited along sap channels. Metal foams are sprayed all at once without that structure development. Micro-deposition into a synthetic grain structure could be much stronger.

      A composite in a metallic-crystalline structure that self-aligns into a rigid-yet-ductile form at a certain temp/pressure/catalyst, etc, that's the grail. It follows that atomic deposition is going to make stronger bonds than macro-deposits.

    2. Re:More like a sponge than wood by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

      Correct, and furthers my point that describing it as "metallic wood" is both misleading and inaccurate.

    3. Re:More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is any limited description used for shorthand reference. "Particle board" "Engineered lumber" "Science fiction" - you can say that about anything. Metallic wood at least somewhat describes the material / grain structure sought.

      I don't see why that would be a big point in a world of phrases that are less than 100% accurate.

    4. Re:More like a sponge than wood by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      More like a sponge than wood

      Yeah, no shit. What's wood-like about it? So it has pores. My ass has pores.

    5. Re:More like a sponge than wood by denzacar · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair "New "Metallic Ass" Is As Strong As Titanium But Much Lighter" simply doesn't have quite the same sound to it.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    6. Re: More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Particle board ... board made from particles. Engineered hardwood ... deliberate marketing deception, but is engineered and has hard wood. Metallic wood is metal, but not at all wood.

    7. Re:More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bender disagrees.

    8. Re: More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, no, particle board is not made of "particles" nor is it a "board", it's a pressed woodchip loaf without the structure of a board. Engineered LUMBER is the term, which is a double misnomer. Metallic wood is metal with wood-application structures to replace regular wood with metal.

      Sorry you want to pick some nits but not others, it just doesn't work that way.

    9. Re:More like a sponge than wood by gravewax · · Score: 2

      A metallic sponge would better describe its composition or metallic foam.

    10. Re:More like a sponge than wood by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      If they can figure out how to get the air out of the pockets we might be able to make floating (in the air) cities.

    11. Re: More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. What is a board? Particle board is a board in the same way that a whiteboard is a board. Did you know that chalk boards pre date plywood and are also boards?

    12. Re: More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Particle board is a board in the same way that a whiteboard is a board." - Ok. I'll let your bored ass have that one, trolling accepted.

    13. Re: More like a sponge than wood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, as a structural engineer, I love that you people try to sound like experts in everything.

  5. Isn't Nickel biologically toxic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I might be wrong but I was pretty sure Nickel is one of those materials you don't want internally ingested or used in a biological capacity. Same sort of situation as Silicone. It's fine when it's enclosed, but as soon as it leaks into your body, you are FUCKED.

    1. Re:Isn't Nickel biologically toxic? by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

      Nobody actually suggested using nickel internally...they mentioned its possible use when constructing an artificial leg. Presumably it would be used inside the prosthesis, not within the body or in direct contact with it.

    2. Re:Isn't Nickel biologically toxic? by Psion · · Score: 1

      Nickel is an essential nutrient. Without it, you'd be quite dead. Large quantities of it may be dangerous, but as Paracelsus pointed out: "It's the dose that makes the poison", and that's pretty much true of everything that's good for you.

    3. Re: Isn't Nickel biologically toxic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am hearing you do not want to sit still for that. To be avoided at all times

    4. Re:Isn't Nickel biologically toxic? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Informative

      I took the trouble to actually look at some internet sources on nickel. It's common in foods, and people typically ingest about 200 micrograms a day, probably a lot more than is needed and a lot less than is toxic. Knowledge of the human biological use of nickel is still rather sparse, but it appears to help the body absorb iron and create prolactin, among other things.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  6. "Five times lighter"cathode by Bradmont · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When did measures like "five times lighter" and "100 times smaller" become accepted? Comparisons don't work that way...

    1. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Of course comparisons like that are fine provided you provide the scope and denote the units in question... maybe not the most useful units but it's a summarizing sentence, not a scientific formula.

      I know, you're being pedantic about the %/negative thing but still. A poorly written comparison may be easily misunderstood without being "wrong"

    2. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. There are a couple of clues why it doesn't work. First, "five times" and "100 times" means you're multiplying something. Second, "times lighter" means you're multiplying how light it is. You can measure how heavy something is, but how do you measure how light it is? "Five times lighter" means to measure how light it is by 5.

      The only type of scenario where this makes any sense is when comparing 3 things. For example:
      * box A weighs 100kg
      * box B weighs 80kg
      * box C weighs 60kg
      Box B is 20kg lighter than box A, and box C is 40kg lighter than box A, so box C is 2 times lighter than box B is, compared to box A.

    3. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. There are a couple of clues why it doesn't work. First, "five times" and "100 times" means you're multiplying something. Second, "times lighter" means you're multiplying how light it is. You can measure how heavy something is, but how do you measure how light it is? "Five times lighter" means to multiply how light it is by 5.

      The only type of scenario where this makes any sense is when comparing 3 things. For example:
      * box A weighs 100kg
      * box B weighs 80kg
      * box C weighs 60kg
      Box B is 20kg lighter than box A, and box C is 40kg lighter than box A, so box C is 2 times lighter than box B is, compared to box A.

    4. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by gumpish · · Score: 1

      This bugs me as well.

      "10 times slower"
      "Twice as cold"
      "20% thinner"

      It's all nonsense. The marketing types sure didn't help when they decided to start saying shit like "This laptop is just 0.75 inches thin."

    5. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's emotionally charged language that conveys the feeling of great accomplishment better than "80% lighter" or "99% smaller." It serves the social function of language better by influencing the general audience more.

    6. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course it makes sense: 5 times lighter means it's clearly negative 4 times the density of titanium. And if it costs 3 times less, hell, they'll pay you twice the cost of titanium to take it off their hands!

    7. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      80% lighter or 80% off is a thing. It too depends on multiplcation but it seems to make sense.

    8. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      That would be 0.8 times lighter, which does make sense.
      Incidentally that is probably what the authors of TFA tried to say when they said 5 times lighter.

    9. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, when did we start needing to add three punctuation marks instead of one???

    10. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that would imply a/0.8 which is 1.25 times the a. Now 80% lighter is a vector expression. It has a direction and the result of 0.2 times the original amount over the unit vector. This way the "5 times lighter than a" does make sense in its common meaning of a/5.

    11. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong in principle with "20% thinner"; it means the original thickness reduced by 20%, or 80% as thick.

      I agree that the other examples are nonsense, though. "Five times lighter" would be a negative weight (the original weight minus five times the original weight), and the same goes for "10 times slower". Unless they've figured out anti-gravity or time travel...

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    12. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Journalists are seldom drained in maths, mechanics or physics. Just think how many articles on the electricity industry describe a power station's capacity in 'megawatts per day,' or the ill-defined unit of 'enough power for 100,000 houses.'

    13. Re: "Five times lighter"cathode by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You can measure how heavy something is, but how do you measure how light it is?

      By means of an inverse, obviously. Funny how English-speaking people here are the only ones having comprehension problems with this. Somehow, everyone else grasps the concept readily.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re: "Five times lighter"cathode by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Of course they work this way just fine. Why wouldn't they?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they do, and they are easier for most people to understand.

      If my backpack weighs 400g and yours is twice as light, yours weighs* 200g.
      If it's twice as heavy, it weighs 800g.
      If it's half as heavy, it's 200g.
      Admittedly, it'd be weird to say that it was "half as light".

      * yes, mass!=weight, move along.

    16. Re: "Five times lighter"cathode by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I agree that the other examples are nonsense, though. "Five times lighter" would be a negative weight (the original weight minus five times the original weight)

      Why the hell would it mean anything else than weight diminished by a factor of five? Even just common sense tells you it can't possibly be negative weight anyway, since there's no such thing. I swear you Americans are just trolling the rest of the world with this shit, since nobody else has any comprehension problems with that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re: "Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 times heavier = multiply by 5
      5 times lighter = multiply by 1/5

      If you can't figure simple math like that out, you shouldn't be posting on /. It's inane arguments like this that make Slashdot 5 times less interesting to read than it used to be.

    18. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Challenge accepted!

      * Box D weighs 1Kg

      Therefore box D is 100 times lighter than box A, 80 times lighter than box B, and 60 times lighter than box C.

      I don't have a problem with that.

    19. Re:"Five times lighter"cathode by Muros · · Score: 1

      Wrong. D is 0.99 times lighter than A, 0.9875 times lighter than B, and 0.9833 times lighter than C.

      Disagree? Then use unambiguous language.

    20. Re: "Five times lighter"cathode by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Why ... would it mean anything else than weight diminished by a factor of five?

      Because if they'd meant that they would have said either "80% lighter than" or "one-fifth as heavy as". Phrases of the form "X times less than Y" (including "lighter than", "smaller than", etc.) are a literal translation of the formula "Y - (X * Y)" into natural language.

      Unless perhaps you're defining "lightness" idiosyncratically as the reciprocal of weight, in which case "5 times lighter" really would equal "one-fifth as heavy". That's the difference between "X times as conductive" and "X times as resistive", because conductivity is defined as the reciprocal of resistance. Approximately no one actually thinks of "lightness" that way, however. (Quick check: Does "20% lighter" mean subtracting 20% of the weight, or adding 20% to the reciprocal of the weight? 80% as heavy, or 83% as heavy? Most would say the former.)

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  7. Battery prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...a prosthetic leg... could also be a battery."

    Just what we need, prosthetic legs spontaneously catching on fire.

    1. Re:Battery prosthetics by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

      Just what we need, prosthetic legs spontaneously catching on fire.

      We TOTALLY need that. Think of the youtube videos....

    2. Re: Battery prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds just about right

    3. Re:Battery prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those sounds like the next generation of explosives.

    4. Re:Battery prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with no headphone jack to compensate.

  8. Metallic Foam is ... by pz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Metallic foam is already well understood.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.tms.org/pubs/journ...

    (see especially Figure 4 on that page which REALLY looks like metallic wood; the stuff in the article doesn't so much)

    What makes the the linked article interesting is the novel manufacturing method.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Metallic Foam is ... by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. They are both interesting and informative.

  9. Strong yes. But probably brittle too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the old layman confusion between the multiple definitions of strength again.

    In this case, it’s probably like with aerogel: Yes, it can support a much higher weight. But it will also break like the lightest meringue you can think of, if you try to break it apart.

    Also, to float, the bubbles must be closed. Otherwise it would flood. So if it is closed, the plastic will still be in there.

    1. Re:Strong yes. But probably brittle too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so brittle, I think, because the spherical voids would probably make it hard for very small cracks (lengths on the order of void diameter) to propagate very far. What might happen instead is that It might be easier to chip off small pieces, on the scale of the void size, than to start a crack.

      However, if a larger crack does form, it would probably propagate through the material.

  10. Arm and a Leg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the cost of the Apple phone getting so high I'd need a prosthetic limb, and somewhere for extra battery.

  11. Crynet nanosuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...here we come! Let's just fill those pores with helium and make it extra lightweight!

  12. Cool by chaboud · · Score: 1

    This looks like the micro/nano version of making a pseudo-foam metal by casting in salts and later dissolving the salts.

    Laminated between sheets of metal, I'd expect this to kick ass.

  13. this might actually be real by cats-paw · · Score: 1

    I can't remember the last time one of these sorts of PR articles from a University research lab actually made me think it might mean something.

    The idea behind this is solid (BTW, is this comparable in a general way to aerogels ?), it's a matter of finding a scalable manufacturing method.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
    1. Re:this might actually be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a matter of finding a scalable manufacturing method.

      Or an application where people are willing to pay a lot for small quantities.
      Not everything has to be scalable to be useful.

  14. Sir, put down the exploding runaway thermal event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    metallic wood prosthetic leg!

  15. The slide was piranha cleaned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The glass slide with a gold film was cut into smaller samples, piranha cleaned for ten minutes,

    Can someone explain this to me?

    1. Re: The slide was piranha cleaned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piranha solution: sulfuric acid plus hydrogen peroxide.

  16. Metallica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of the music potential

  17. Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds more durable and non-biodegradable than regular plastic.

    Can't wait till our oceans are filled with this crap!

  18. But it would be even stronger if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they used titanium instead of nickel?

    1. Re:But it would be even stronger if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or depleted uranium.

  19. Expensive by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    I skimmed the second citation. I may have missed a critical portion, but it looks like they're using a nickel-rhenium alloy. Rhenium is rare in the earth (about 1 part per billion) and not cheap.

    They're not going to be using this stuff to make car bodies or skyscrapers.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I skimmed the second citation. I may have missed a critical portion, but it looks like they're using a nickel-rhenium alloy. Rhenium is rare in the earth (about 1 part per billion) and not cheap.

      They're not going to be using this stuff to make car bodies or skyscrapers.

      Sounds like the manufacturing method is a bigger hindrance to be fair.
      The summary indicates that they are aiming for active prosthetics rather than skyscrapers.

  20. Nickel is poison by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    How about a prostetic leg made out of nickel?
    It will last forever, but if you are not already allergic, you will be in a couple of weeks. Of course you can use it for misiles, drones and what have you, as long as it ends up behind enemy lines. Perhaps a stainless steel variant would be a great idea.

  21. Metallic Wood As Strong As Titanium by rv6502 · · Score: 1

    I'm stealing that title for my Robocop fanfic.

    On a more serious note: won't the tiny plastic spheres embedded in the electroplated metals be a giant source of microplastics and turn into an environmental disaster during the recycling process?

  22. "hardly" impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's no Raney nickel

    1. Re:"hardly" impressive by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, do you have a background in O-Chem?

  23. That does not seem scalable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they could achieve scale at a reasonable cost that would be awesome, but it sounds like a small scale specialty material mostly. The process they used sounds more interesting than the actual application, but showing it works with titanium straight off the bat seems smart. What else can that process make?
     

  24. Finally..... by drew_92123 · · Score: 1

    The perfect material for ultra light ultralights.... imagine how much less they'll weight....

  25. Light strong material used as a battery by Residentcur · · Score: 1

    At the more raucous parties back in the day, we'd joke about someone's leg being on fire and then douse it with whatever beverage we were drinking. If this material were used for prosthetic purposes, the gag could become reality. A lithium fueled amputation wouldn't be pleasant, though, I'd expect.

  26. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be "as strong as steel" and "lighter than titanium"?

    AFAIK, Titanium is "as strong as steel but much lighter" . . .