Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Large Sheets of Carbon Nanotubes Produced

Posted by Soulskill on Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:05 PM
from the series-of-nanotubes dept.
Science Hardware
StCredZero brings news that scientists have developed sheets of nanotubes that measure up to three feet by six feet, and they promise "slabs 100 square feet in area as soon as this summer." The developers see uses for the sheets in electromagnetic shields and airplane construction, and according to the Next Big Future blog, the sheets could also impact the development of solar sails. "The sheets, which the company can produce on its single machine at a rate of one per day, are composed of a series of nanotubes each about a millimeter long, overlapping each other randomly to form a thin mat. The tensile strength of the mat ranges from 200 to 500 megapascals--a measure of how tough it is to break. A sheet of aluminum of equivalent thickness, for comparison, has a strength of 500 megapascals. If Nanocomp takes further steps to align the nanotubes, the strength jumps to 1,200 megapascals."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Large Sheets of Carbon Nanotubes Produced by StCredZero (169093)
[+] Nanotubes "As Deadly as Asbestos" 180 comments
Stony Stevenson writes "Certain carbon nanotubes may be as hazardous to humans as asbestos. A paper to be published in Nature Nanotechnology suggests that inhaling certain types of nanotubes can lead to the formation of mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer commonly caused by exposure to asbestos. "This is a wakeup call for nanotechnology in general and carbon nanotubes in particular," said Andrew Maynard, co-author of the report and chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies." I'm really hoping that those medical face masks get popular again. That's a look that should really be cyclic, like bell-bottoms and thongs. Update: 05/21 19:18 GMT by T : See also this page at the Nanotechnology Project, which features a link to video commentary from Andrew Maynard, the researcher mentioned in the above-linked article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Large Sheets of Carbon Nanotubes Produced 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Ballistic carbon computing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Prysorra (1040518) on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:09PM (#22616020)
    Rudimentary quantum computing can be done with the ballistic nature of how electrons flow through a sheet of graphene, or in this case, a carbon nanotube. Expect to see computing related articles.

    If you don't understand what it mean to say that electrons move in a "ballistic" manner through these nanotubes, imagine that cool trick your math teach showed you in high school with marbles and pegs making a bell curve. Now imagine being able to change the outcome by removing a lot of peg, and then making your computer understand the results.

  • Forget electromagnetic shielding (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:14PM (#22616052) Homepage Journal
    If this stuff is as strong as aluminum, why aren't we using it to actually build things like cars and buildings?

    Has anyone leaked the details of how their process works beyond the little 'teaser' in the article? Could it be scaled down to personal size? Im thinking it would be great to add their process to a home 3D printer.

    • Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dreamchaser (49529) on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:33PM (#22616142) Homepage Journal
      If this stuff is as strong as aluminum, why aren't we using it to actually build things like cars and buildings?

      Because they are just learning how to create and manipulate such materials? Your question is like a bronze age smith who knows that small bits of iron can be found and worked saying "How come we haven't replaced bronze with this stuff yet?" It's an engineering challenge is all. As production techniques improve it will be easier and cheaper to make.

      Also, note that it's just the tensile strength that is comparable to aluminum. They said nothing about it's shear strength or rigidity.
      • Exactly. They can produce 1, 3 foot by 6 foot sheets per day. Granted they could create more machines, and have more companies producing it, but at current rates, it would take far too long to produce anywhere near the necessary amount to be able to use this in commercial applications.
      • or it's fatigue characteristics.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Azarael (896715)
      The property mentioned in the article is only covers one property of the material. Different types of Carbon Fiber are already being used for sports car bodies, bicycles and countless other things. In the case of bicycles, yes carbon fiber allows you to create a light frame, but from what I understand, aluminum frames are still stiffer, more shock absorbent, more durable and most importantly, more cost effective. Until carbon materials can match aluminum in these properties, and in cost effectiveness, alumi

      • Re:Forget electromagnetic shielding (Score:5, Informative)

        by kuhneng (241514) on Sunday March 02 2008, @01:20PM (#22616418) Homepage
        For bikes, aluminum frames are certainly stiffer, but they're substantially less shock absorbing.

        One of the reasons carbon fiber is used is the ability to choose different properties on different axes. Many cyclists want a frame that absorbs road vibration (longitudinally flexible) while being as stiff as possible laterally to transmit pedaling force efficiently and maneuver aggressively.

  • Does Ted Stevens know about this? (Score:4, Funny)

    by longacre (1090157) * on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:20PM (#22616080) Homepage
    Conceivably now a big truck AND the Internet could be fabricated out of a series of tubes [youtube.com]!

    • Conceivably now a big truck AND the Internet could be fabricated out of a series of tubes!
      And shielding to protect us from simile overload!
  • Do we really want an airplane that will explode if some coherent light hits it?
    • It seems you're correct correct [udel.edu]- do you suppose they've gotten around this?
    • First off, they don't explode all at once, they explode tube by tube and the explosions are very small. It takes a fairly powerful direct laser strike to cause this to happen. I.E. a hand-held laser pointed at a plane will be about as useful as shooting a BB gun at it.

      Second... I guess you've never heard of... paint.

      And finally... not all carbon nanotubes are created equally.

      FUD.

  • Availibility (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UDGags (756537) on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:33PM (#22616138)
    (First off I work in this area) I know one we have tried purchasing these sheets in the past a couple time and have not been able to. They might be able to make them but the availability is still very low for any research or products.

  • i want one (Score:5, Funny)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:34PM (#22616148)
    to replace my tinfoil hat...

  • MacBook (Score:3, Funny)

    by ack_call (870944) on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:52PM (#22616264)
    I want my next MacBook to be made out of this stuff.

  • I'm much more excited about the possibilities for hydrogen storage rather than new construction material.

    Poke around a bit and see what I mean. [google.com]

  • A sheet of aluminum of equivalent thickness, for comparison, has a strength of 500 megapascals.
    Thickness, yes, but what about mass?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wizardforce (1005805)
      density of carbon nanotubes: 2.6 grams/cm^3 density of aluminum: ~2.7 grams/cm^3 mass=density*volume and assuming the shapes are the same and thickness is the same, so is the volume and in this case nanotubes are slightly less dense than aluminum therfore less mass, and therefore lighter.
  • From TFA:

    A computer controlling about 30 different parameters in the process--including temperature, temperature gradient, gas flow rates, and the chemistry of the mix--allows the builders to control the properties of the tubes.

    A genetic algorithm [wikipedia.org] is a great way to optimize a set of parameters. If they can find a way to test parameter sets quickly this would be a great opportunity to use a GA to find the best parameters, especially given that there's so many of them.

  • Will it blend? (Score:3, Funny)

    by imbaczek (690596) <imbaczek AT poczta DOT fm> on Sunday March 02 2008, @02:21PM (#22616760) Journal

    Determining the toxicity of carbon nanotubes has been one of the most pressing questions in Nanotechnology. Results from various scientific tests on cells have so far proven confusing, with some results indicating it to be highly toxic and others showing no signs of toxicity. This is primarily because of difficulties arising in spotting the nanotubes entering the cells from other carbon-based cell structures such as membranes. A recent research led by Alexandra Porter from the University of Cambridge shows once they are inside the cell, they accumulate in the cytoplasm and cause cell death.
    Carbon nanosmoke. Don't breathe this!

    (source: wikipedia [wikipedia.org].)
    • It depends a lot on the properties of the material. For example, while aluminum sheets are made of microscopic crystals, there is little danger of breathing significant amounts of aluminum unless you spend a lot of work processing it into a fine powder first. These sheets may be the same way. Who knows? We don't.

  • insufficient for space elevator (Score:4, Informative)

    by nguy (1207026) on Sunday March 02 2008, @02:57PM (#22616988)
    So this is 1-2GPa tensile strength. We need about 60-100GPa tensile strength for a space elevator.
    • and it's within 2 orders of magnitude to get there. Not too bad. Shouldn't be too hard to engineer, or tweak it to get there.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by MiniMike (234881)
      Probably much lighter than aluminum, for the same strength.

      The question I have is, how strong could it be for the same weight? Off to rtfa...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Toe, The (545098)
      Besides having very different properties [wikipedia.org] from aluminum, and besides the last sentence stating that they can be upped to 1,200 megapascals; this could be considered a proof of concept. Excuse the tautology, but: as technologies develop, they improve.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CastrTroy (595695)
      One good reason is that aluminum is a limited resource. Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years ( source [amazon.com]). That may seem like quite a long time, but it probably wouldn't hurt to start investigating alternatives before we run out.
      • Is that a good reason? What limited resource are they using to make these sheets?

      • Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Informative)

        by chill (34294) on Sunday March 02 2008, @12:54PM (#22616272) Homepage Journal
        One good reason is that aluminum is a limited resource. Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years ( source).

        I don't have a copy of that book, so can't read it in context, but I still have to call bullshit on this.

        Aluminum (Aluminium for you Brits) is the most abundant metal [jlab.org] in the Earth's crust. While smelting it is energy intensive, recycling it is significantly less so [alcoa.com]. There is so much that has already been used, and available for recycling, I can't see us running out in the next couple of centuries, if ever.
        • Yeah, not only is it abundant, but all the aluminum that gets used is still here - we're not transmuting it into lead or firing it into the sun. We'd never run out of stuff to recycle even if it wasn't so common.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by kylegordon (159137)
          Aluminium for you Brits

          Yes, sadly we weren't subjected to the spelling errors of a certain Mr Hall...

          • Re:Awesome... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by c6gunner (950153) on Sunday March 02 2008, @02:07PM (#22616680)
            I'm not sure who Mr. Hall is, or what he has to do with naming conventions and misspellings, but the original name for Aluminum was "Alumium", which got changed to "Aluminum", before going through a final contortion to become "Aluminium". All three versions were created by Sir Humphry Davy, a British chemist, and the process took roughly 5 years so some confusion over the "proper" spelling is understandable. The usage of Aluminum over Aluminium in the US seems largely due to the fact that Websters Dictionary stuck with his second version of the word.

          • As with so many things... (Score:4, Funny)

            by absurdist (758409) on Sunday March 02 2008, @02:52PM (#22616952)
            ...you Brits invented the language.

            We Americans perfected it.

            *ducks*

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/elabund.html [gsu.edu]

        Aluminum makes up 8% of the Earth's crust. The earth's composition of carbon appears to be much lower, the same page shows it's 0.03% of the earth's total weight. That doesn't say much of how easy it is to collect either resource, but abundance doesn't seem to be the answer. I think it's the strength-to-weight ratio that makes carbon nanotube materials interesting, but it's still pretty expensive to make.

      • Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years

        What the hell are you talking about? Aluminum is likely the most recycled metal on the planet. Why would we "run out" of something we re-use, and is the most abundant metal in the earths crust? It might get more expensive.. but we won't "run out".
      • Bauxite isn't even a mineral. It's just a common industrial name for a kind of rock that includes a variety of minerals and is the most efficient way to produce aluminum using existing technologies. Any clay soil contains large quantities of aluminum. When the great clay shortage hits, I'm sure we'll have plenty of advance notice.

        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by Gravatron (716477)
          I fail to see how scientists studying this are effective scientists studying agriculture tech, or people studying how to best end the violence that consumes most of the third world in some fashion.
        • If we feed them, then there will be even more demand for amluminum. That sounds like a bad idea.
    • Aluminum is heavier and less abundant than carbon is, and I suspect these sheets are flexible whereas aluminum is rigid. Also, as someone else pointed out, for the same weight these sheets would be many times stronger than aluminum.
    • Because aluminum weighs twice as much?

      rj
    • so basically it will have to compete with Balsa wood and Stika Spruce.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Naughty Bob (1004174)
      Pure aluminum is soft, aircraft grade aluminum (and virtually all aluminum used in the real world) is alloyed with other elements, greatly increasing its strength.

      Here's [azom.com] a breakdown of the composition of Aluminum Alloy 6061 to give you an idea...

      • Re:Mistake in Article? (Score:5, Informative)

        by zippthorne (748122) on Sunday March 02 2008, @01:49PM (#22616586) Journal
        tensile strength != toughness. And, unfortunately, aluminum is not particularly ductile. At least, not when compared to, say, steel.

        But aluminum does have a very good strength to weight ratio. Also, it doesn't rust. Instead it forms an oxide layer which prevents further oxidation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aug24 (38229)
      I am not a Material Scientist (but IAAPhysicist so here's my guess).

      The nanotubes are short and straight. Tensile failures will be 'between nanotubes' not 'of nanotubes'.

      As the tubes get longer and better aligned, you'll be absolutely right. (You may be absolutely right already of course...)

      Justin.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.