Carbon Nanotubes Harder Than Diamond 297
purduephotog writes "CDAC has announced the formation of a new form of hexagonal packed carbon similiar to diamond. Carbon nanotubes are compressed at 75 GPa and quenched. The new material is conclusively different via Raman Spectroscopy and both cracked and indented the diamond anvil used in its creation. CDAC is also known to have created via CVD the hardest diamond to date."
But the real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
If this is harder than diamond then either the scale will have to be scaled to make this the new 10 or this will be set as some value greater than 10 depending on its relative hardness.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:2, Informative)
You mean like 11? As you said, the Mohs scale assigns ordinal values to make relative comparisons, not absolute ones. For a scale which makes absolute comparisons between the standard minerals see this website [galleries.com].
Re:But the real question is... (Score:2)
"Oh, I see, and mostly, the amps go up to ten?"
"Exactly."
"Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?"
"Well, it's one louder, isn't it?"
"One louder."
"Why don't you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top number, and make that a little louder?"
"These go to eleven."
Re:But the real question is... (Score:2)
man that'd be crazy [fiftyfly.mine.nu]!
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
First off, the "diamond anvil" is a DAC: Diamond Anvil Cell. It's not an anvil in the typical sense. What you have is a stepping-down system of applying pressure. You have steel apply pressure to a very hard material, such as tungsten carbide, which then applies the pressure to a diamond (incredibly hard), which applies the pressure to whatever you're trying to compress. This means you can have a large area of steel on which to apply pressure, transferring it to a small area of tungsten carbide, transferring it to a tiny area of diamond. DACs are nifty
Secondly, what they've done here had been theorized years ago; I had been trying to convince Highlift (and later, Liftport) to put more research on this front. The concept of coming up with a nanotube epoxy that is as strong as the individual tubes is a bit far-fetched, but it was known that SWNTs, under pressure, can merge:
http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/staff/taner/nanotube/i
While carbon sp3 bonds are strong, sp2 bonds are stronger. Nanotubes use only sp2 bonds; diamonds only sp3. In the pressure-induced interlinking, depending on the types of tubes involved, different sp2 bonds will be replaced with sp3, merging the tubes. While this weakens their overall strength, they adhere to each other far, far more strongly than they normallly would from mere van der waals force alone.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Won't that just leave you with a series of bisected samples, each harder than the last?
No, due to the cell geometry. The face contacting the softer material is large, and the face contacting the harder material is smaller. As force is constant (not pressure), you end up with less pressure on the weaker face, and more (though hopefully less than your intermediate material's inelastic deformation pressure) on the harder face.
This lets you apply huge pressures to a very small sample, between two diamond faces. My understanding is that they handle the edges by using a metal gasket, which is allowed to deform inelastically to transfer force to a side housing with more surface area (think "o-ring seal").
Diamond anvil cells were big news when they came out because they were so _small_. You could hold them in-hand or put them on a lab bench and apply pressure by turning screws, whereas past high-pressure machines had been huge monstrosities. And with the diamond anvils as windows, you can even to spectrographic measurements of samples as they're being compressed (though the diamond's absorption bands interfere, and the faces can warp under very high pressure). Very nifty gadgets.
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Explanation of Raman spectroscopy (Score:5, Informative)
I realize you are kidding... here is what Raman really is... (give or take a few details ;p)
Spectroscopy: study of quantities of light at various wavelengths (or frequencies). Useful because matter interacts with light, so by measuring light passing through unknown matter, you figure out what its passing through.
Raman spectroscopy, is a branch where one looks at the wavelength shift occurring as light passes through a sample. A bit like doppler radar involves a shift of frequency (although it's not a shift due to the movement of molecues, but rather due to energy differences in orbitals as they move/distort).
The cool thing about Raman is that you just need a single wavelength of excitation, meaning you can build a spectrometer with a single laser diode. Then you filter off the laser line, and presto, the only light left will be the spectrum of interest.
Caveats: low intensity, frequency shift is very small, you still need a monochromator. Advantages: you get information that isn't available in standard IR & UV-vis spectra, the spectra are excitation freuency independant (not entirely true), by taking advantage of resonances it's possible to get REALLY intense spectra (resonance Raman and SERS).
Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy (Score:5, Funny)
Ramen spectroscopy, on the other hand, is applying a single frequency, usually 2.5GHz, to the ramen which is in a water solution, for about 3 minutes. The analysis is rather straightfoward, but you should blow on it otherwise it might scald your measuring equipment.
Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy (Score:2)
Re:Explanation of Raman spectroscopy (Score:2)
Sorry. Raman's dead.
Is it really that hard (Score:4, Insightful)
Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.
Re:Is it really that hard (Score:3, Interesting)
Or Central Processing Unit?
Its CVD. Like CAD or CNC.
Acronyms stop being acronyms if the majority of peoply using them dont even know the original meaning without thinking a moment.
Re:Is it really that hard (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it really that hard (Score:2, Insightful)
CVP (Chemical Vapor Deposition)
I'm not sure if this is the case with Chemical Vapor Deposition or not but my point stands.
Re:Is it really that hard (Score:2)
Just run all text through a filter to insert these HTML definitions for people who want them
Re:Is it really that hard (Score:5, Funny)
Now, in order to read the article text in the proceedings of the national academies of science you'll apparently have to clink on a link with the name "WANG_PNAS.pdf" and I'm just not feeling that daring while I'm still at work on a Friday afternoon
Re:Is it really that hard (Score:2, Funny)
You mean "OADL, you know."
New Acronym (Score:2)
OOADL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Acronyms... (Score:2)
Re:Acronyms... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Acronyms... (Score:2, Funny)
I'd think if you know the individual words... (Score:2)
I mean Chemical Vapor Deposition.
Some compound, in vapor form, gets deposited on some surface. Sounds pretty simple.
Sure it don't make me no expert, but it gives me a heck of a lot more information than "CVD" does. (which sounds as much like a venereal disease as a fabrication method)
Re:Is it really that hard (Score:2, Interesting)
for example:
Oh my god(OMG) it's 6:30pm on a friday. Why am I still here. OMG my boss just gave me more stuff to do.
Somehow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Somehow (Score:2, Insightful)
Just so happened... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Somehow (Score:2)
Re:Somehow (Score:2)
Re:Somehow (Score:4, Funny)
Gotta boil 'em (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, they're always tough until you boil them for 3 minutes. This is nothing new.
Possible uses? (Score:5, Interesting)
This might be good for new machining tools?
I wonder what the optical properties are, and what the maximum size of these is?
Re: Possible uses? (Score:3, Interesting)
Look elsewhere - no sig to be found here.
Re: Possible uses? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Possible uses? (Score:2)
Re: Possible uses? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cryogenic treating is nothing new. Top automotive racers have been freezing engine parts for over a decade now. Aeronautical companies have been doing it for longer. Did you just spend a lot of money on a special silk piece of clothing for your girl? Have it treated too. You'd be surprised how long silk will last, or how much stronger it will be after treatment. Tired of sharpening lawn mower blades? Did you buy your kid some expensive plastic toy you know he/she will destroy within a week? Damn near everything can be treated. Metals, fibers, and plastics (and other polymer compounds) are incredibly resilient afterwards.
Re: Possible uses? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually forget I said that...um, I have something to take care of brb (be right back).
Re: Possible uses? (Score:3, Insightful)
The same reason that every company (that I know of) which makes 100 year incandescent light bulbs goes belly up. Anyone who has toured Edison's home has probably seen the light bulbs that he made which are still in use with no modifications or reconstruction. The term "engineered lifetime" is nothing new. Any old timer should be able to tell you stories of people making the news or
Re: Possible uses? (Score:2)
It is - that's where the "cryo" comes from...
Re:Possible uses? (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, 75 GPa being required to form the material is pretty high. Anyone know what type of SWNTs they used? Most, from the studies that I've seen, shouldn't need that kind of pressure. I came up with a general design previously for a press that could produce a high tensile strength fiber from CNTs, but I doubt it could handle 75 GPa.
Not going to be cost efficient (Score:2)
Must we mention diamonds???? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh well, there is usually at least a sexual favor in there somewhere as well. Here's to hoping!!!
Juvenile Humor Alert (Score:2, Funny)
Carbon on carbon violence (Score:5, Funny)
And thus, the student overtakes the master.
Re:Carbon on carbon violence (Score:2)
"Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful than you could imagine . . .""
Re:Carbon on carbon violence (Score:3, Funny)
Don't forget you still have to slay the dragon and sleep with Violet.
Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:5, Interesting)
Going up!
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
"Imagine a space elevator made of this!"
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
Wow that's awesome (Score:2)
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:5, Informative)
space [elevator] fanboyism (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeesh. No. There are just a few other problems, as with all ideas hatched by Scifi authors (who need to do little more than make something plausible on the most abstract level. Scifi authors almost always get it WRONG- we don't all use jetpacks and atomic cars to get to work, now do we? No 'death rays'- hell, we haven't even gotten speech recognition down, really).
I know some -other- fanboy will link to a FAQ that "answers"
Re:space [elevator] fanboyism (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/tubes3/600-nl-807.jpg [sphere.bc.ca]
http://www.ti.com/corp/graphics/press/image/on_lin e/transistor.jpg [ti.com]
http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/resources/cisnews/v2i2/i lliac/Chip_Ant.jpg [uoregon.edu]
Re:space [elevator] fanboyism (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of down to earth problems involving high loads and other stressors on cables. How do you make the SF bay area bridge safer against earthquakes? (or against sabotage?). How do we scale up the design of that suspension bridge to get multi-mile spans in the Florida keys or elsewhere? Is it possible to build such a bridge across the Gibraltar istmus?
Can we make a cable that's strong and waterproof enough to safety retrofit earthenware dams all around the mouth of the Mississippi region, and do it cheaply? Is there something that could help stabilize really tall free standing radio masts in central Russia, and is thermally less expansive than steel cable, or better yet electrically non-conductive? What design changes could have kept the WTC standing for at least a few additional hours, and what sort of materials would they require?
The thing is, if we get good answers to even some of these questions, they are likely in this case to point us towards towards space program uses as well. The problems you cite will apply to every use, not just a space elevator. Someone will be looking into using these fibers for zeppelin fabric to build really large gasbags and set up a major freight hauling system across the Mediterranian sea, and someone else will raise the issues of safety, location or insurance just like you have here.
Half the reason so many engineers want to build really big projects like space elevators is to show all the people who toss out bullet comments just like yours for every new project, space or earth, military or peaceful, that big things can still be done. You're doing it about space. Someone else will do it about any new idea that could alleviate poverty, or clean up the environment, or somehow improve someone's quality of life. So nothing will change. Thank goodness its all perfect now.
Re:space [elevator] fanboyism (Score:2)
Thank you - it's about time.
I'm as excited as any geek to have humans galavanting among the stars, but I don't feel it's going to happen, or that it even should happen, without sound economic principles. Wasting precious resources on symbolic efforts like the ISS & the space shuttle is not going to speed our return to the heavens.
When I was young and I read all about the moon program I was so excited to think that Mars must be ri
Re:space [elevator] fanboyism (Score:3, Insightful)
Launching things into space is not relatively easy and not pretty ho-hum. In fact, the one remaining super power in this world does not even have the capability to launch people into space anymore! (the fact that efforts are under way to restore shuttle services does not change the current state of affairs)
Energy costs _are_ a major factor, not just for the launch but throughout the entire space industry. Since launching is hideously expe
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
http://www.liftport.com/carbon.php [liftport.com]
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
Here I'll nip it in the bud:
Those "in the know" claim an earth-based elevator will not do that. It will be too thin to do any damage because it would fragment and burn up in the thick terran atmosphere.
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
Enough nanobot and space elevator garbage. Please! Unless we are specifically talking about science fiction. It's making me sick! When it comes to nanobots and space elevators, the abyss between available technology and implementation is larger than anything else I've ever seen. I'd be surprised if we had these things in a 100 years, let alone 10. We might as well talk about teleportation whenever a new property of light is discovered, or jacking-in whenever a new feature
Re:Space Elevator, here we come! (Score:2)
compressive strenth != Youngs Modulous (Score:4, Informative)
Keep in mind the compressive strength of a material is not the same as the strenth in tension. Not only that material like this has pretty much no elastic properties. ie, thats why you can easily shatter a diamond even though it's so strong
Chew on this... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Chew on this... (Score:5, Informative)
And oh, Raman's work also explained why the sky is blue, incidentally
the harder they come (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminder : Space elevator (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Reminder : Space elevator (Score:2)
Speaking of diamonds... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speaking of diamonds... (Score:2)
> If synthetic diamonds could change anything, they would be illegal!
Voting, when used intelligently, can change lots of thing and it is still legal (probably because most people don't).
Gimme! (Score:3, Funny)
background (Score:5, Informative)
full citation SYNTHESIS AND DESIGN OF SUPERHARD MATERIALS; J Haines, JM Léger, G Bocquillon
Annual Review of Materials Research, Vol. 31: 1-23
How much will this one cost me? (Score:2, Funny)
Harder than diamond? (Score:3, Informative)
That would change Mohs hardness scale [galleries.com] if it were harder.
Re:Harder than diamond? (Score:2)
Yeah. Now it goes to eleven.
Re:Harder than diamond? (Score:2)
Nice catch [spinaltapfan.com]!
And best of all! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And best of all! (Score:5, Funny)
This could affect the diamond market... (Score:4, Informative)
You see, nowadays, when you want to facet a gemstone into the shapes most people have come to expect in jewelry, one has to use abrasives to put the faces in the stone. Usually Silicon Carbide grit (9.5 hardness, usually for softer stones) or diamond (10 hardness, for harder stuff) on a spinning disk to grind into the stone. But this doesn't work for all gemstones, notably diamond. Trying to facet a diamond with diamond grit on a lap (the disk) will just cut gouges into your lap. They are not cheap.
So diamonds still have to be done the hard way: roughly shaping the stone by cleaving, then using 2 diamonds, one of poor quality, to rub the faces into the good diamond. If this stuff can be synthesized in different grits (particle sizes) for fairly cheap, then it can be used to facet diamonds with machinery rather than by hand. Much of a diamonds (and most other stones) value is actually from the labor put into faceting it. This is especially so for smaller stones. How cheap? Well, currently lapidaries are paying for synthetic diamond grit...
cheap space launches (Score:5, Interesting)
For humans, J. Storrs-Hall (of sci.nanotech fame) proposed a space railway [imm.org] that could be built sooner and more cheaply than a space elevator. It's a linear induction motor laid along a 300km-long track, 100km above the ground, where the atmosphere is thin enough to take a few orbits to decay your orbit. You drive your spaceship up a ramp to one end, and the motor accelerates you along the railway at about 10G for about 90 seconds, putting you in a slightly elliptical orbit with an apogee on the other side of the Earth. When you hit apogee, you do a burn to get into a higher orbit.
Relatively little radiation because you cross the Van Allen belts much faster. You get to LEO without burning any of your own fuel, which is a big energy win. The railway is low enough that orbits still decay slowly, so there's no space junk to worry about at that altitude.
The structure is a collection of A-frames, built like a radio tower. Like the space elevator, only a tiny fraction of the height is subjected to significant weather. The structure is under compression, not tension, which widens the choice of materials. According to Storrs-Hall, existing synthetic diamond [wikipedia.org] would be suitable.
Re:cheap space launches (Score:3, Informative)
Um, what? LEO is generally considered to be below 500km or so; the inner Van Allen belts start at 650km. Exactly what problem are you trying to solve?
I agree that for interplanetary stuff you may want something faster than the space
Re:cheap space launches (Score:2)
When you ascend the space elevator, you go 200 MPH and you spend about a week getting to GEO. If you're at LEO, you've got a horizontal velocity component of about 90,000 times that much. When you do the burn at apogee, you can do a big enough burn to cross the Van Allen belts in a half-orbit. The Apollo astronauts crossed the belts in a few hours, getting about 1% of a lethal dose. Presumably the same should be possible when la
Re:cheap space launches (Score:2)
Ramans do everything in threes (Score:5, Funny)
I'm expecting 2 more dupes of this article.
Re:Ramans do everything in threes (Score:2)
So do I observe the spectrum before adding the little flavor packet to the noodles, or after?
Other uses? (Score:2)
I am a student, so I don't know much about this, but surely there have to be applications for super strong materials etc.
calculated hardness (Score:2)
If so, do we already know what the hardest *possible* material would be? (Assuming regular atoms, not neutronium.)
Re:reagenced carbon stronger than diamond ? (Score:2, Funny)
Reminds me of (Score:2)
ah simple times....
Re:Kimberlites (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:similar to a diamond? (Score:2)
Re:Umm (Score:2)
Re:Umm (Score:2)
Re:Umm (Score:2)
Also, copper in your (<24 Karat, you cheapskate) wife's ring is what is making her finger green.
Re:Umm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Next Bond Film (Score:2, Informative)
And they never were. Diamonds burn and don't even leave ash, they turn to CO2. This was known to the Romans. DeBeers was irresponsible by claiming that diamonds last forever. Diamond combusts at 1320 degrees. Jewelers coat diamonds to seal out oxygen when soldering.
Diamond is overrated. Graphite is more stable. Cubic Zirconia requires much higher temperatures to combust. For industrial applications, synthetic diamonds are generally superior. If you're bu