So, increase stress by a factor of eighty. Set strain to the elastic limit for diamond so we divide by ten to compensate for plastic behavior in steel and the diamond I-beam can carry a load 8 times more massive or stop a bullet that is 3 times faster. See, that was not so hard. Numbers are a good thing.
OK, so if it had infinite tensile strength, it would not work.... Please, just go look at the numbers. If you are going to coat surfaces with diamond to avoid scratches, you are getting a little circular in your argument. Numbers will settle your mind I think.
How about trying to get quantitative? How many GPa of tensile strength would diamond need to be able to carry the same load as a steel I-beam of the same volume? Is that more or less than its actual tensile strength? Don't forget that most tensile strength is reported in MPa rather than GPa.
So.... This is an issue of quality control? The idea here is to build our material essentially atom-by-atom so there may be no need for polish. Again, the difference in tensile strength is important and has quantitative implications. So, start with the tensile strength of diamond and then examine what materials in the environment might be able to induce flaws in its structure. Then you might have an argument. But, comparison to glass which is easily scratched, seems a little far fetched.
This seems to me like magical thinking. There is a measured pressure to break a material under tension regardless of its brittleness. If these are the same, the one substitutes for the other.
Now, some have pointed out energy dissipation during failure as a design plus for ductile materials, which it is in certain designs that go right to the limits such as airplane fuselages. But, even that looks like a compromise if there is a material available with an 80 times greater tensile strength. Just mount the ends in foam if you want some crumple. The advantages is reduced weight will cover the extra effort. This discussion is so non-quantitative that it seems off the rails.
All it means for a material to be brittle is that there is not a distinction between yield and ultimate strength. But, if you match the strength of the brittle material to the ultimate strength of the deformable material, you have met your design criterion. You have not understood design.
Diamonds also combust so you need to account for that as well. So, compare the tensile strength and you'll see that much less diamond can substitute for steel. This is only interesting because there is a low energy method to make lonsdaleite. This is what makes it cheaper. Construction methods will come along if this basic insight turns out to be correct. And, since the method is low energy, why not grow the stuff at the construction site?
Which is why tensile strength is the correct thing to compare. Do you really think that a diamond I-beam of the same volume, much less the same mass, could not support more weight than a steel I-beam? I mean really?
While it is true that design takes advantages of the details of steel's failure modes, it is not the case that brittleness is a problem here so long as the design accounts for this. Comparison of tensile strength is a appropriate measure.
The article mentions hexagonal diamond (lonsdaleite) as an artificial form of diamond, which it is with a very interesting low energy formation method, but it was first found in nature in the Canyon Diablo Meteorite in 1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite Pure lonsdaleite should be harder than regular diamond. I wish the article has said a little more about the crystal structure the researchers had found. That the energy required to make lonsdalite is low has interesting implications since the quantity needed to replace structural steel needs only about 1/280 of the energy needed to make the steel. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/anaximenes-way.html
Oil is used in transportation, yes, but so is electricity. There are new high speed rail lines going in that will displace some aviation and thus oil use. The plug in hybrid car and electric vehicle can displace gasoline use with electricity and likely will given the advent of 9000 cycle batteries.
But, you are incorrect about solar and wind boosting energy imports. The solar and wind energy is domestic, the question is really about who will be in a position to supply India and Africa with energy systems? Who will dominate the world market? Right now it looks as though Asia is getting ahead on this.
In this solar panel price survey, they won't list cheap Chinese panels and yet you can now find panels for under $1/Watt retail: http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm So those cheap Chinese panels must be doing something positive. On the other hand, China has to contend with rapidly advancing US thin film production: http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm so no wonder they want to make their panels cheap and match the US growth rate.
When the loans go south, the politicians who pushed for them are no longer in office. That makes this kind of thing easy compared to bank bailouts which get you party kicked out of office.
I agree that the subsidies for current nuclear power are very high but every single one of these loans will face default so we are looking at a 100% subsidy for any new nuclear power. There is just no way that any utilities are going to keep paying for the power since in will be so much more expensive than anything else. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
The astronaut Ed Lu is one of the smarter more capable people I know and I noticed recently that he has moved on to google. Perhaps this is the reason why?
The things we build with the longest planning horizon are nuclear power stations. They need that horizon because decommissioning can take such a long time. This makes nuclear power stations the projects most affected by sea level rise of all our current undertakings when sited in tidal regions. In the UK most stations are by the sea owing to lack of suitable rivers to provide cooling. Many current sites appear to have serious geological problems in the face of sea level rise detailed in this report: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-impacts-of-climate-change-on-nuclear-power-station-sites At least the UK is looking at this issue. In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to consider the problem at all yet the US has many more inland sites than the UK and could simply defer consideration of licenses in tidal areas until sea level rise is better understood.
Slashdot Mirror
So, increase stress by a factor of eighty. Set strain to the elastic limit for diamond so we divide by ten to compensate for plastic behavior in steel and the diamond I-beam can carry a load 8 times more massive or stop a bullet that is 3 times faster. See, that was not so hard. Numbers are a good thing.
You are confusing ultimate strength with yield strength I think. Really, really, really, numbers will help.
OK, so if it had infinite tensile strength, it would not work.... Please, just go look at the numbers. If you are going to coat surfaces with diamond to avoid scratches, you are getting a little circular in your argument. Numbers will settle your mind I think.
How about trying to get quantitative? How many GPa of tensile strength would diamond need to be able to carry the same load as a steel I-beam of the same volume? Is that more or less than its actual tensile strength? Don't forget that most tensile strength is reported in MPa rather than GPa.
So.... This is an issue of quality control? The idea here is to build our material essentially atom-by-atom so there may be no need for polish. Again, the difference in tensile strength is important and has quantitative implications. So, start with the tensile strength of diamond and then examine what materials in the environment might be able to induce flaws in its structure. Then you might have an argument. But, comparison to glass which is easily scratched, seems a little far fetched.
This seems to me like magical thinking. There is a measured pressure to break a material under tension regardless of its brittleness. If these are the same, the one substitutes for the other.
Now, some have pointed out energy dissipation during failure as a design plus for ductile materials, which it is in certain designs that go right to the limits such as airplane fuselages. But, even that looks like a compromise if there is a material available with an 80 times greater tensile strength. Just mount the ends in foam if you want some crumple. The advantages is reduced weight will cover the extra effort. This discussion is so non-quantitative that it seems off the rails.
I can't see how the companies that bought the stolen property can retain it. It has to be returned to the owners. Hopefully, insurance will cover it.
Forgot to add, last I checked, I could scratch concrete with a knife blade so you might have the hardness wrong there.
All it means for a material to be brittle is that there is not a distinction between yield and ultimate strength. But, if you match the strength of the brittle material to the ultimate strength of the deformable material, you have met your design criterion. You have not understood design.
Diamonds also combust so you need to account for that as well. So, compare the tensile strength and you'll see that much less diamond can substitute for steel. This is only interesting because there is a low energy method to make lonsdaleite. This is what makes it cheaper. Construction methods will come along if this basic insight turns out to be correct. And, since the method is low energy, why not grow the stuff at the construction site?
Which is why tensile strength is the correct thing to compare. Do you really think that a diamond I-beam of the same volume, much less the same mass, could not support more weight than a steel I-beam? I mean really?
Fullerite is formed from fullerene or buckyballs and is about twice as hard as diamond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#Fullerite_.28solid_state.29
While it is true that design takes advantages of the details of steel's failure modes, it is not the case that brittleness is a problem here so long as the design accounts for this. Comparison of tensile strength is a appropriate measure.
The article mentions hexagonal diamond (lonsdaleite) as an artificial form of diamond, which it is with a very interesting low energy formation method, but it was first found in nature in the Canyon Diablo Meteorite in 1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite Pure lonsdaleite should be harder than regular diamond. I wish the article has said a little more about the crystal structure the researchers had found. That the energy required to make lonsdalite is low has interesting implications since the quantity needed to replace structural steel needs only about 1/280 of the energy needed to make the steel. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/anaximenes-way.html
Oil is used in transportation, yes, but so is electricity. There are new high speed rail lines going in that will displace some aviation and thus oil use. The plug in hybrid car and electric vehicle can displace gasoline use with electricity and likely will given the advent of 9000 cycle batteries.
But, you are incorrect about solar and wind boosting energy imports. The solar and wind energy is domestic, the question is really about who will be in a position to supply India and Africa with energy systems? Who will dominate the world market? Right now it looks as though Asia is getting ahead on this.
Did you give them a call? They certainly list them: http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=kaneka_gsa60
Time to give them loan guaranties just like the nuke plants. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/31/1327238/Obama-Budget-To-Triple-Nuclear-Power-Loan-Guarantees
In this solar panel price survey, they won't list cheap Chinese panels and yet you can now find panels for under $1/Watt retail: http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm So those cheap Chinese panels must be doing something positive. On the other hand, China has to contend with rapidly advancing US thin film production: http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm so no wonder they want to make their panels cheap and match the US growth rate.
Discussed on shashdot here: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/27/1330213/NRC-Relicensing-Old-Zombie-Nuclear-Plants
When the loans go south, the politicians who pushed for them are no longer in office. That makes this kind of thing easy compared to bank bailouts which get you party kicked out of office.
I agree that the subsidies for current nuclear power are very high but every single one of these loans will face default so we are looking at a 100% subsidy for any new nuclear power. There is just no way that any utilities are going to keep paying for the power since in will be so much more expensive than anything else. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
The astronaut Ed Lu is one of the smarter more capable people I know and I noticed recently that he has moved on to google. Perhaps this is the reason why?
That report is just a staring point. There has been quite a lot of review of the issue in the UK.
This is correct http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full unless we decide to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The things we build with the longest planning horizon are nuclear power stations. They need that horizon because decommissioning can take such a long time. This makes nuclear power stations the projects most affected by sea level rise of all our current undertakings when sited in tidal regions. In the UK most stations are by the sea owing to lack of suitable rivers to provide cooling. Many current sites appear to have serious geological problems in the face of sea level rise detailed in this report: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-impacts-of-climate-change-on-nuclear-power-station-sites At least the UK is looking at this issue. In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to consider the problem at all yet the US has many more inland sites than the UK and could simply defer consideration of licenses in tidal areas until sea level rise is better understood.
I suspect the involvement of an intelligence agency and you've pointed to another possible one. There was some stolen broken hardware in Canada as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/06/break-in-targets-climate-scientist That looks like the same kind of spook work.