Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Ultra-Strong Nanotube Composites 29

TheMatt writes "In a story that makes you say "Cool!", Nicholas Kotov and co-workers have created a nanotube composite material six times stronger than carbon-fiber composites. Their final product is a crosslinked material which appears to be just as strong as silicon carbide and tantalum carbide!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ultra-Strong Nanotube Composites

Comments Filter:
  • Anybody have any more information or links that explain how flexible this new material is? Specifically, can it be used to make the space elevator?
    • Flexibility isn't an issue. imagine eachnanotube as a molecule. like steel or carbon, it can probably be patterened in such a way as to make it have enough flexibility.
    • Alas, there is still a long way to go before space elevators can be built.

      The strength of this material will be suffice for space "tethers" that can work as slings to catapult loads into higher orbits, or even give them escape velocity.

      Genuine space elevators require a strength several orders of magnitude greater, but the maximum strength of individual nanotubes makes it theoretically possible to get there.
      For details, see an article in American Scientist (NOT Scientific American) 5-7 years ago. It discussed the minimum strength required, and the reasons carbon nanotubes just might work.

      Ironically, Buckminster Fuller, the discoverer of Buckminsterfullerene (carbon nanotubes can be seen as tubular extensions of these molecules), was a friend of Arthur C. Clarke, the author of the first space elevator novel "The Fountains of Paradise".
      Neither Fuller nor Clarke suspected that Fuller's discovery one day might serve as the foundation to high-strenght materials that could make space elevators possible !
      Yours Birger J.
      • Ironically, Buckminster Fuller, the discoverer of Buckminsterfullerene ...

        R. Buckminster Fuller did not discover Buckminsterfullerene.
        Buckminsterfullerene was named after him because it resembles a geodesic dome, which R. Buckminster Fuller invented.
      • The Buckminsterfullerene (or buckyball) was not discovered by Buckminster Fuller. It was created by a graduate student in Dr. Richard Smalley's Lab at Rice U., after astrophysics professor Harold Kroto in the UK wanted to collaborate with him regarding the process of carbon nucleation (Smalley's experiment provided a nice approximation to deep space conditions).

        The name Buckminsterfullerene was picked because Richard Buckminster Fuller created the geodesic dome, which is essentially what a half of a buckyball looks like.

        Following the buckyball's discovery, people all over began to create other things: different-sized buckyballs, bucky-ears, bucky-heads, and the famous buckytube. The buckytube gradually became renamed "nanotube" and that's where we are today!

        JoeRobe
    • Anybody have any more information or links that explain how flexible this new material is?

      Yup. If the nanotubes are chemically bonded to the matrix, as the article suggests, and it is comprised of 50% nanotubes, it would be extremely stiff. Far stiffer than any carbon fiber composite.

      As far as flexibility of a physical shape (thread, cable) goes, anything is flexible if it is thin enough that opposite faces don't develop significant compressive/tensile stresses on bending. This is one reason why most cables are a bundle of smaller wires/threads. (Reliability is another issue, since if one goes it doesn't take the others out with it, as would happen if a cable was a solid piece of material (e.g., metal)). You can bend a multifilament line easily, whereas a solid cable of the same diameter would either be too stiff to bend easily, or would break or permanently deform as a result of the bending.

      So, tethers or cables made from these nanocomposites would most likely be multifilament, making them flexible enough to be spooled easily, while still being very strong.
  • by 0x69 ( 580798 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @04:14PM (#4448174) Journal
    Here's the closing words of the article...
    "But carbon nanotubes are still expensive to produce, and several teams are looking for production methods that would be viable on a commercial scale." ...so don't expect to see such stuff outside of small-quantity/cost-no-object uses anytime soon.

    The "as hard as some ultrahard ceramic materials used in engineering." description (also from the article) suggests that it won't be much good for space elevator cable anyway. I'd bet than an elevator cable needs to flex some under loads ranging from tidal forces to microimpacts.
    • by Charlton Heston ( 588481 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @04:24PM (#4448269) Homepage
      Hard is relative. For example, glass is quite hard and brittle, but anyone who has handled a very large pane of glass knows that there is some small amount of flexibility there. Fiber optic cables are also famous for this. Glass fibers, yet the cable has to be flexible enough to lay in a trench.

      A space elevator would be very long, and over that length it would have a lot of flexibility. I'd say that this stuff is quite promising.
      • A very good point. A better example would be steel, which can br drawn into wires and woven into extreamely flexible and durable cables. Manufacturing hundred-thousand-mile long cables of the stuff for a space elevator may not be viable based on the describtion of the manufacturing process, though... but definately a step in the right direction!

        The article lacks a lot of "crucial detail" about the material itself. Understandable, since it *is* written for the general public. Hopefully we'll see some hard engineering data for the material listed sooner or later.

        As for uses... cost never means much to the military. If testing shows it a suitable replacement for mor expensive, heavier materials (for example, aircraft skin), then we'll see an industry grow to satisfy the military demand for it, and eventualy spill over into the civilian market.

        =Smidge=
        • by Drishmung ( 458368 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @06:49PM (#4449399)
          'strong' is a much overused word, and pretty meaningless without significant qualification. Which is stronger: Balsa wood or Teak? OK, so when was the last time you made a model plane out of teak then?

          Materials have the following attributes (and others of course):

          • brittle/tough (glass vs steel)
          • elastic/inelastic (aka stiffness)
          • isotropic/anisotrpic
          • density
          • tempera ture stability
          • chemical stability (resistance to corrosion)
          • cost of raw material
          • cost of manufacture
          • hardness

          Now, stiffness is one of the important ones. High Young's modulus (stiffness) good, low Young's modulus bad. Stiff and light is better; stiff, light and tough really attracts attention.

          For a very readable introduction to this, I recommend The New Science of Strong Materials (or why you don't fall through the floor) by J.E. Gordon [nous.org.uk], also his Structures [nous.org.uk].

          • Right on. In comparison to other structural materials, glass is acually quite flexible (low modulus). Fiberglass airplanes tend to be limited by flexibility, that is, the designer has to put in enough material to prevent the wings (for example) from bending too much to prevent them from doing their aerodynamic job.

            Graphite composite structures tend to be limited by static strength (ie they will break before they deform too much) and metallics are limited by fatigue strength.

            Glass fibers actually have a very high strength but most of the time you cant use it all because of the felxibility. Graphite was going to replace aluminum in airplanes until we found out its vulnerable to impact damage (though that's changing with newer resins). Kevalar was going to change the world until we found out it has no compression strength (I once had to certify a Kevlar wing on a surveillance drone: Kevlar is like designing with chain...you can pull on it but don't push).

            I'm sure eventually the pro's and cons of this new stuff will come out. Personally I'd like to know about it's damage tolerance.

      • A space elevator would be very long, and over that length it would have a lot of flexibility.

        That may be true over the entire length of the cable, but, in all scenarios with which I am familiar, the cable must be wound on a coil small enough to fit in the cargo hold of the Space Shuttle or other spacecraft.

        Now, if there were an alternate method of deployment that did not require such a tight radius (such as orbital manufacture), this problem would not occur.

        It may also be possible to manufacture a more flexible cable by using a different polymer, different proportions, etc.
        • Now, if there were an alternate method of deployment that did not require such a tight radius (such as orbital manufacture), this problem would not occur.

          You answered your own question. Lots of people are thinking about building the thing from an asteroid. The cable grows from the asteroid until it touches the surface of the Earth. No coiling needed.

          It's not realistic to think that a rocket can launch the cable. It's going to be massive - billions of metric tons. No rocket could lift that.
    • by dnnrly ( 120163 )
      Have you seen Formula 1 racing recently? There's no such thing as too expensive to teams like Ferrari of McClaren. At first glance, this meterial could replace the carbon-fibre brake discs used at the moment (this all depends on the heat characteristics). It might also be used in their suspension systems. Anything that is lighter, is usually better! Knowing F1, even if they have to spend $10 million on a set of brake discs for the season, if it works better, they'll buy!
  • Dear god! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Snafoo ( 38566 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @04:22PM (#4448254) Homepage
    Not...tantalum carbide...?
  • by Gerry Gleason ( 609985 ) <gerry@@@geraldgleason...com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @04:36PM (#4448366)
    Obviously this is still at a research stage, but I have to wonder what will be involved in making structures out of it. The alternate dipping process sounds like a bit of a hack, but it probably can be adapted for creating macro structures. There was a time when carbon fibers were so exotic that you weren't allowed to use them in American Cup yachts, and now it's everywhere. I wonder if you could combine the two components by spraying them from seperate nozzles, or something. Then maybe you could coat a mold with the componite much like they spray chopped strand and poly resin into boat molds.

    They don't give much detail on anything. They seem to be saying the material is both strong and stiff, but you might be able to play with the properties

  • nanotubes are of course still too expensive to produce, but still, the idea to make something 6 times stronger than traditional carbon fibers just makes me really want these science-geeks figure out how to make a computer chassis out of it so i can throw it at someone at my next lan party.
  • by mstorer3772 ( 526790 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @07:41PM (#4449712) Homepage
    (or at least, "data *I* can't understand) can be found by following the "references" link at the bottome of the linked page.

    It lead me to a nature.com, where, after registering with them (and opting out of EVERYTHING, which was easy), I read the Far More Technical nature article. It went way over my head.

    WAY over:

    "
    The mechanical properties of the layered composites were tested on a custom-made thin-film tensile strength tester (McAllister) recording the displacement and applied force by using pieces cut from ((PEI/PAA)(PEI/SWNT)5)6 and ((PEI/PAA)(PEI/SWNT)5)8 freestanding films. The tester was calibrated on similar pieces made from cellulose acetate membranes and nylon threads. ((PEI/PAA)(PEI/SWNT)5)6 and ((PEI/PAA)(PEI/SWNT)5)8 samples had an average thickness, measured by TEM, of 0.75 and 1.0 m respectively.Their typical stress ( ä) versus strain ( å) curves differed quite markedly from stretching curves seen previously for SWNT composites10 and for LBL films made solely from polyelectrolytes, (PEI/PAA)40, obtained by the same assembly procedure (Fig. 4b). They displayed a characteristic wave-like pattern,a gradual increase of the d ä/d åderivative, and the complete absence of the plateau region for high strains corresponding to plastic deformations (Fig. 4a).The latter correlates well with the enhanced connectivity of SWNT with the polymer matrix (Fig. 2).
    "

    And that's the relatively clear stuff. I could actually follow some of it. Yow!
    • by florescent_beige ( 608235 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:25PM (#4454570) Journal
      The notation they are using is (resin-type/fiber-type)subscript-number-of-layers so ((PEI/PAA)(PEI/SWNT)5)8 means one layer of polyethyleneimine and polyacrylic acid followed by 5 layers of PEI and Single Wall Nano Tubes with the whole shebang repeated 8 times for a total of 48 layers.

      Checking out the stress-strain curves, the peak is around 160 MPa. A typical modern graphite composite might give you 4 or 5 times higher than that. It just goes to show that high fiber properties are just a portion of the final composite strength.

      Another thing I notice about the stress strain curves is the non-linearity. It looks like there is some internal damage maybe happening in the material before failure. This is a concern for repeated loading (fatigue).

  • umm.... strong? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:01PM (#4449797)
    ...they are far stronger and stiffer than those used to make carbon-fibre tennis-rackets...

    Yeeaaaa... Usually tennis rackets are designed to bend. They do make rackets that are intended to be stiff, but even those are supposed to bend a little...

    Also, pro players brake their rackets a lot... so do amatures... I broke about 3 "carbon-fibre" rackets just by dropping them.

    ...maybe that simile could use a little work?
  • by Noodlenose ( 537591 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:42AM (#4451391) Homepage Journal
    Cool! Would that mean you could finally wear the equivalent of a mithril-vest for slashdot: A troll - proof undergarment?

  • Has anything ever actually been made with nanotechnology in it that has actually made anyone any money? Hell, that has actually made anyone outside of R&D and Marketing any money? I am beginning to think nanotechnology is a hoax or vaporware, at least. :{)||

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Working...