Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Quantum Wires

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:20 AM
from the i'll-believe-it-when-they're-conducting-my-mojo dept.
Silverlancer writes "Room temperature superconductors have often been a hallmark of far-future science fiction. But fortunately for us, they're here today, according to MIT's Technology Review. Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the buckyball, is currently heading a project to produce a prototype carbon nanotube superconductor. They've already produced some wires up to 100 meters long--the only thing left to do is figure out how to produce only a certain type of nanotube, the "5,5 armchair nanotube," that conducts so well that it can be considered a superconductor."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Armchair... (Score:5, Funny)

    by isny (681711) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:23AM (#12261929) Homepage
    I'm sure that in the next 5 minutes, the "5,5 armchair nanotube" will be criticized by the armchair physicists, the Slashdot equivalent of the armchair quarterback.
    • Re:Armchair... (Score:5, Informative)

      by mikael (484) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:59AM (#12262156)
      And just in case anyone wants to know what exactly, a 5,5 armchair nanotube looks like, there are some images of models here [wisc.edu].
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:59AM (#12262528)
        And just in case anyone wants to know what exactly, a 5,5 armchair nanotube looks like, there are some images of models here.

        They appear somewhat larger than I expected. Are they being held by nanohands, or is there still a couple of years worth of work ahead trying to miniaturize them?

      • by deglr6328 (150198) on Sunday April 17 2005, @01:30PM (#12263095)
        here is a pic for those too lazy to click the link ---> .
  • by mrRay720 (874710) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:24AM (#12261937)
    100 times stronger than a normal conductor, and able to carry a thousand volts in a sinlge bound!

    That out the way, this is great news. There are so many useful scientific applications for superconducting wires that this is really cool news, once you get over the ethical dilemma caused by the fact that they are making them by *cloning* the orginals. It's ok to clone wires but not people? Hypocrites.
  • by Flywheels of Fire (836557) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:24AM (#12261938) Homepage
    Interestingly,Dr. Smalley [mithuro.com] talked about armchair nanotube technology at the senate Oversight hearing on sustainable, low emission, electricity generation Full Committee Hearing almost one year ago. The full text is here. [mithuro.com]
  • by DmitryProletariat (876610) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:31AM (#12261987)
    Superconductivity will be a great boon to efficient power distribution. By spreading efficiency across the grid we'll see greater centralization of power, which can only lead to capitalist tyranny. Thus, be wary of Superconductivity. For while the Luddites were a conservative force against change, so too could they have weaved these carbon nanotubes into power cables capable of suppressing all revolutionary thought. Worldwide!

    In short, not all new technologies will help bring about the worker paradise. Scientist and their capitalist pig ways!!! Soon the proletariat will rise and all you carbon nanotube superconductor makers will find yourselves up against a brick wall...

    *bang!*

  • by DanielMarkham (765899) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:35AM (#12262012) Homepage
    Seems like from one direction optical computing is advancing, from another we're working towards room-temperature superconductors.

    So what's the future look like? Quantum processors with superconducting and optical connections? I wonder how these various technologies will actually be deployed?
  • by bawol (626115) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:35AM (#12262015)
    While the effects are still debated, would this have any effect on radiation given off from high tension power lines? Would the electricity be carried at a higher or lower frequency?
    • by totoanihilation (782326) on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:02AM (#12262173)
      At same voltage and current, the electromagnetic radiation should stay the same. The advantage of reduced resistance though come in two points:

      1. Lower losses in cables, so less power needs to be transmitted
      2. Lower resistance means we can pump more power into them. This becomes handy in electromagnetics (example: maglev trains). Less energy is wasted in heat, and less cooling is required.
    • by MoralHazard (447833) on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:19AM (#12262293)
      I assume you're talking about the different effects of resistance on AC and DC currents: as electricity travels through a conventional conductor, the resistance of the conductor gives up some of the electrical power as heat (as Ohm's law describes). That's why we use high-voltage AC to distribute electric power, and even higher-voltage AC to transmit power over long distances--by transmitting at high AC voltages, you don't lose quite as much power as you otherwise would.

      So if you could replace vast swaths of conventional copper electric transmission and distribution lines with superconductors, you could theoretically switch to DC power in these applications, which would have some interesting effects on the rest of the electrical distribution system.

      Strict DC voltage on the power lines would virtually eliminate the EM radiation. You would still get some EM when you turned things on or off, or if the amount of power the line carries changed at all, but there would be a HELL of a lot less.

      Lower voltages could be used, which would be safer (less chance of electrocuting people), and connectors (plugs, receptacles) designed with lowe voltages in mind would be cheaper to produce and certify.

      Also, many devices in the home (especially computer equipment, or anything with circuit logic in it) need to convert the 110V AC current into much lower-voltage DC (2-5V DC, usually) to operate chip logic. This in generally an inefficient process, with a lot of power given up in the transformers and inverters to heat. Granted, you'd have to redesign all the home devices that currently use AC power directly (mostly lights and appliances) to run on DC, it could be done.

      Really, the only problem would be the massive costs of switching over from one standard to another. All of those applicances and such would become useless on the new standard, which means everybody has to go out and buy new stuff. If you tried to switch the distribution over to DC in one go, I can see a lot of people having a lot of problems with it. And it wouldn't be practical to change the distribution bit-by-bit, either.

      If you just wanted to change the transmission side, and leave the consumer out of it entirely, you'd have to replace a lot of power generation infrastructure. This could be done more slowly, I'd imagine, but it would still be expensive.

      But then again, there's nothing that prevents you from continuing to run AC current on superconducting wires. That's probably what will happen, because it's the cheapest option.

      I don't see anyone caring too much about interference from power lines in the 60Hz frequency band, anyway--not like we use those frequencies for anything.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:35AM (#12262019)
    Superconducting wires are "here today", the only left to do is to make super conducting wires.

    In other news, I am now a billionaire with a super model trophy wife. The only thing left is for me to get a lot of money and a hot wife.
  • by Al+Clocker (687416) on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:36AM (#12262025)
    The article says that there is "almost no loss of energy." But real superconductors truly have zero resistance. Once you start a current in a superconducting loop it runs for years without decreasing. AFAIK a decrease has never been observed. The article is unclear about whether this actually is a super-conductor or not. Does anyone know for a fact?
    • by fearofcarpet (654438) on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:12AM (#12262234)

      No. Superconductors must be able to form so-called Cooper Pairs in order for electrons to move in the coherent manner in which no energy is lost. I gather the rules are a little different at really small scales where tunneling becomes a much bigger issue and some of the energy relationships are backwards, but the principle is still the same; if electrons bang into something they lose energy.

      Metallic carbon nanotubes, to the best of my knowledge, cannot be made crystalline (perfectly regular) over large enough domains for this to happen thus there is "minimal energy loss" and they are really just very, very, very low resistance conductors (you can tell the difference by looking at the temperature dependance of the resistance).

      The thing is, unless you want to build a mag-lev train, you don't really need a perfect super conductor. Right now the conductivities of the metals used in electronis are around 10^6 - 10^10 (inverse ohms per centimeter) and you can put your hand on your computer case to see just how much energy is dissipated as heat. If you increased those conductivities (with metallic carbon nanotubes for example) then your heat sink shrinks and your clock cycles come up... Assuming we can wire teeny tiny circuits with nanotubes. More importantly, you can drive portable electronics with less power, and thus smaller batteries.

      BTW (regarding the very first post), some of the Slashdot Armchair Scientists (there are other sciences besides physics too you know) out here in computer land have Masters and PhDs and have published or worked in the field. Some of us have even met and/or worked with the people mentioned in the articles. I wouldn't be so quick to push aside honest criticism, afterall that is what scientists are trained to do - be skeptical :)

    • by triplepoint217 (876727) on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:49AM (#12262481)
      Carbon nanotubes are not superconductors. In an ideal (the kind they are trying to build), they have a resistance that is independent of length, however it is not zero like in actual superconductors. The resistance of an individual nanotube is about 20 kOhms, but because they are so small an array of a large number of them in parallel can have a small resistance, and still not be very large. Because the restance does not increase for longer tubes, they are similar to a superconductor, and would be useful for transmitting power over long distances. However, the physics behind the conduction is different.

  • So much work (and funding) is being poured into finding alternative energy sources, I wonder how much the discovery of a scaleable, inexpensive, widely deployable (as in converting the world's energy grid) superconducting power distribution system has been quantified.

    I do understand that this isn't that, and that there are a million barriers to be overcome, and that fossil fuels need a replacement Real Soon Now, but I do wonder if anyone knows of any studies out there trying sort out how much energy is currently lost in the distribution of consumer power, and how much less we'd need to generate if a practical superconducting solution is found.

    Factoring in a reasonable probability of success in both sides, it would be interesting to see whether the potential cost/benefit of investments in finding superconducting solutions all the way to the last mile might be as or more efficient in the long run than funding research in new power sources.

    I know, it shouldn't be either or in any case, but it's just a thought...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2005, @10:41AM (#12262056)
    The armchair nanotube is great for those lazy electrons who put up a lot of resistance to doing work.
    So if that electron in your life is giving you heat about the pressure they are under this new product from LazyBoy is the perfect gift for them!
  • by joostje (126457) on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:04AM (#12262191)
    conducts so well that it can be considered a superconductor

    The most essential thing about a superconductor isn't the zero resistance, but the meissner effect [gsu.edu]. So if they manage to create wires with near-zero resistance, they will not have created `near-superconductors'.

    For energy transportation and storage it doesn't matter all that much, cause zero resistance (even without superconductivity) would make energy transportation and storage better

  • LEDs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Interrupt18 (839674) on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:06AM (#12262203)
    There was a discussion [slashdot.org] yesterday about using LEDs to replace incandescent lights. One thing that came up was the power losses associated with stepping down the mains voltage to voltages required by LEDs.

    Even if the carbon nanotubes are not technically superconductors, if their resistance is much lower than copper they might be ideal for low voltage home wiring. You could step the mains down to 5 or 12 volts in a central location in your house, and power the all your low voltage electronics without having to worry about I^2R losses.
  • by dr. loser (238229) on Sunday April 17 2005, @02:02PM (#12263317)
    I'm at Rice University, and I can tell you what the real situation is. Smalley has DARPA and NASA money to try to do something he calls continued growth: to take an existing carbon nanotube, and increase its length in a gas-phase chemical vapor deposition process. They are having limited success. Don't go buying your space-elevator stock yet.

    Separately, Smalley and collaborators have been working on spinning fibers from ropes of nanotubes (basically short (less than 1 micron) tubes bundled together by van der waals forces). Those are the fibers that can be meters long. These fibers do not consist of meter-long tubes!

    Finally, metallic nanotubes are not room temperature superconductors. In fact, they are not even ballistic over length scales larger than a micron. Smalley's habit of implying otherwise is really annoying to any physicist who knows anything about these systems.

    Now, a long fiber of only metallic nanotubes would still have conductivity better than copper at much less the weight, and would therefore be very important industrially if it could be made economically. There is a huge difference between that and having no electrical resistance, though.