sporkme has handed us a link to a New Scientist article. The piece outlines the development of a new substance reported to be stiffer than diamond. A team of scientists from Washington, Wisconsin, and Germany combined the ceramic barium titanate and white-hot molten tin with an ultrasonic probe. The new material was, in some tests, almost 10x more resistant to bending than diamond. Composite materials researcher Mark Spearing of Southampton University comments on the result: "The material's stiffness results from the properties of the barium titanate pieces, Spearing says. As the material cools, its crystal structure changes, causing its volume to expand. 'Because they are held inside the tin matrix, strain builds up inside the barium titanate,' Spearing explains, 'at a particular temperature that energy is released to oppose a bending force.'"
Maybe this is the fabled adamantium we have been waiting for. What I want to know, is how likely is it that this stuff can be produced with any kind of industrial volume in the next 10 years.
Your car isn't made of steel any more but foldable, collapsable sections so the car takes damage instead of the people inside. Literally the materials are designed to bend at certain deceleration speeds. This goes back to the passenger compartment, where those sections suddenly become stronger. Ever notice how in a car wreck the only thing in one piece is the passenger compartment? The entire engine will go missing first.
Another good thing to look up is "crumple zones", the areas of a vehicle designed to collapse while absorbing energy. In most cars, a head-on collision is supposed to force the engine and transmission down and out the bottom (since they are too solid to crumple) and the rest of the engine compartment collapses in on itself and hopefully slows down the vehicle or the intruding object to a safer speed before the crumple zone has been totally crushed and the remaining force starts in on the passenger area.
The trunk has less to worry about, there is no massive steel (engine or transmission) to get rid of so it is just designed to crumple and absorb energy of impact.
What amazes me is how well cars survive getting T-boned. In many cases the front end of the offending car is usually totally demolished and yet the struck driver's door is only pushed in a few inches.
The tradeoff of all this is the vehicle's odds of surviving. If you are in a 52 packard you can run into a wall at 20mph and not do a whole lot besides ruin the bumper. They'll be pulling your head out of the windshield however. Try that with a Taurus and all you'll notice is the airbag, until you go looking for the front of your car and find it in the trunk. Cars used to be designed to survive accidents. Now they are designed to protect their passengers instead. People cry about how expensive it will be to fix a modern car after running into a tree, but they shut up real fast when you point out they would be in a body cast right now if it weren't for all that damage to their car.
... doesn't mean it's tougher than diamond. Any mechanical engineer will remind you that strength, stiffness, and toughness are three different properties. IIRC my materials engineering class 15 years ago, they are approximately:
strength: maximum load before failure
stiffness: resistance to deformation
toughness: tendency to avoid reduction in strength over time in the face of repeated deformation
also:
hardness: ability to resist permanent deformation, particularly vs. small surface insults like scratches and indentations.
Diamond is very strong, very stiff, and very hard but it is definitely not tough: large blocks of the stuff are fairly brittle and tend to crack and chip. In fact extremely stiff materials are often not tough because they are brittle. OP has a very screwed-up title.
From TFA, we have no idea whether or not this new material is either strong or tough or hard: only that it is extremely stiff. (cue tasteless jokes)
Toughness has both a qualitive and quantitive meaning. As someone mentioned before, it can be thought of as the amount of energy (the area under the stress-strain curve) required to fail the material. As a general rule, materials in the same class show an inverse relationship between strength and toughness.
It also has a quantitative definition that relates to crack sensitivity. Fracture toughness has a specific definition that relates to the strength of the stress singularity at a crack tip required to ma
Just because it's stiffer doesn't mean that it's harder. (god there are so many things wrong with that statement on so many levels)
Note however that we don't need a stonger abrasive material. Grinding works on the basis of extreme velocity on the part of the particles in the abrasive wheel or band to do the cutting work. Aluminum oxide would work for the purposes of grinding this material into print. Given that it's a ceramic within a tin matrix; ALO2 would do beautifully.
As for heavy cutting work, Tungsten Carbide would do just as well. I don't see anything to indicate that the material is HARDER than carbide.
And speak of the applications..........to tell you the truth there really aren't that many widespread uses for a material like this. For now, with the expense of this material that's going to stay as it is for quite a while, there are FEW cases that would warrant using this material.
"Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!" What are they going name this new SuperMaterial?? Sorry, I couldn't resist
Actually, according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] it isn't. It's the hardest natural material (which I think is what you meant, not metal). There are actually 2 known matericals that are stronger, and probably a third material after the one in this article is added to the article.
Why is it always assumed someone miss a joke when staying on topic just to give some info. I for one was happy for the information, but sure, the joke was kinda funny too. Can't we just leave it at that for once?:-p
Don't conflate hardness with strength or stiffness. Hardness is not well quantified. For hardness we refer to the Mohs scale [wikipedia.org], which will tell you which of two substances is the harder, but doesn't strictly quantify hardness. A claim that substance A is "twice" as hard as substance B probably refers to the Young's Modulus [wikipedia.org], or stiffness, rather than to hardness.
A common way to measure the Young's modulus is to support a sample of the material on two struts, and then apply pressure from above to the center of the sample. The less it bends, the higher the Young's modulus. The apparatus looks like this [doitpoms.ac.uk].
Strength is a different quantity. Strength is the amount of force needed, per unit cross-sectional area, to cause the material to fail. For tensile strength, this means pulling apart. For compressive strength, it means collapsing. A material with great tensile strength can have a great weight hung from it without snapping, and a material with great compressive strength can act as a pillar to support a great deal of weight.
The article claims nothing about the strength of this material.
True... and "toughness" is not the same as "stiffness" either. "Toughness" refers to a material's resistance to failure by fatigue (whereas "stiffness" is, as you said, resistance to bending -- Young's Modulus). They are clearly not the same thing, as there are plenty of brittle materials which are stiff yet fail quickly in fatigue.
On a related subject, do you ever wince when somebody on TV refers to something that can push harder as being more "powerful?" Or who talks about some kind of battery having
Will this material be light enough for future space exploration, such as space stations and colony materials? Or is the cost associated with making it too prohibitive? How about the melting temperature/pressure resistance for deep earth exploration?
one application i can think of for space travel is to use it in the hull of a ship to deflect particles traveling at high speeds. You could use an electrical current to heat this material to 58 degrees celsius in a short amount of time, all you would need is a method of detection that could locate the particles a few seconds before impact, and you've got a barrier 10x harder than diamond in between you and vacuum.
As far as costs go, i think NASA can afford it, isn't all the wiring on the shuttle solid go
Barium titanate is a structure called a spinel. It has oxygen ions packed in a face-centred cubic structure, with the barium and Titanium ions stuck on the holes between. Above a certain temperature, spinels are cubic. however, at lower temperatures, the structure can reduce its energy by breaking symmetry and squashing a bit down one of the cubic axes, becoming orthorhombic. This compression is not huge, but it is a lot bigger than the typical stretchings you get due to thermal expansion or mechanical stress.
Stick the spinel structure into a tin matrix and cool it. If you are ingenious about your choice of tin matrix, then the stress on the tin can actually get the spinel to change its shape in a way that opposes the bending, rather than going with it as you might expect. Tin is funny stuff - it also has a change in crystal structure on cooling from cubic to hexagonal (though at a much lower temperature) so I guess it is somehow squeezing the spinel in some anisotropic fashion and triggering the phase change.
This is ingenious stuff but it isn't really a high stiffness in the normal sense, any more then the compound pendulums you can somtimes find in grandfather clocks have a very low thermal expansion coefficient. Those have brass and steel rods which all have expansion coefficients, but they are put together in a way that makes the stotal expansion zero. Supposing you had a piezo crystal, with attached electronics that applied a voltage causing it to resist any force put upon it. You could make this infinitely stiff depending on your level of control, or even have it push pack on what is pressing on it.
So, back to your original question. It is heavy, and it only demonstrates the stiffness over a limited range. Bulk material stiffness is not usually important - you can make stiff structures like a cage of tubes by design. However, if you wanted to make some structure appear perfectly stiff, then some active control like the hypothetical piezo stuff I described earlier would probably be lighter and better. I would love to know what this ingenious stuff is for, but I don't think it is for space.
I love them almost as much as dupes.:) Material Tougher Than Diamond Developed...(in some tests), like say: "The tests were carried out at a variety of temperatures. Between 58C and 59C the samples became stiffer than diamond."
Not to knock the experiment though, it seems interesting, and I'm sure there are all sorts of new exotic materials on the horizon.
...and within that narrow temperature window, only some samples proved to be significantly stiffer than diamond. I agree - article title gets an F, but experiment maintains interesting factor.
I'm not so sure this is a particularly interesting experiment - the stiffness arises from the internal stresses in a two phase matrix rather than an intrinsic property of the material. As such this is going to have a relative small number of applications.
This specific material may have no practical applications at all. The knowledge gained from developing and studying it, however, may lead to many useful applications.
And also, hardness != either of the above, and *hardness* is the material property diamonds are known for (in addition to having a reasonably high index of refraction, although not the highest by any means.)
The most typical test of hardness is attempting to scratch a material. (To measure a material's hardness on the Mohs scale, essentially a series of scratch tests are performed, and a material's place on the Mohs scale was determined by what it could scratch vs. what would scratch it.)
I don't know about stiffness, but diamonds are definately not *tough*. As your links above show, "toughness" is resistance to fracturing under stress, and one of the ways diamonds are cut and shaped is by fracturing them along their crystal lattice planes. There are plenty of materials (Including, I believe, many plastics) that are *tougher* than diamond, but not necessarily harder. (For example, I believe ABS plastic and polycarbonate plastic are extremely tough, but neither are hard - i.e. they are VERY difficult to break via stress and impact, but scratch easily.)
Diamond is the best conductor of heat known. Given it's crystlian structure I wonder what it's thermal properites are or even it's electrical conductivity? Even if it's expensive it could be useful in applications like computer chips.
Sol: No, it's a moissanite. Lincoln: A what? Sol: A moissanite is an artificial diamond, Lincoln. Sol: It's Mickey Mouse.
Spurious.
Not genuine.
And it's worth......fuck-all.
Toughness is a measure of the amount of energy necessary to break a material. Hardness is a measure of the amount of pressure required to deform it. The two are not the same. In fact, diamond is not a particularly tough material -- which is one reason why folks are discouraged from wearing diamond jewelry when, say, rock climbing. It's easy to fracture a diamond by bashing it against something even moderately hard -- even though no mineral is harder than the diamond, good ol' granite is much tougher.
True, but Chuck Norris was forged in an immense burst of energy at the very creation of the universe. This material can be produced in a lab, unlike Chuck Norris.
There's so many ways to measure the qualities of a material, I don't think anybody would be surprised to know steel is more than 7 times denser than water. But some people would be amazed to find Mercury is almost twice as dense as steel.
This, "resistant to bending" terminology seems like a real stretch of imagination to me. When do we, as average people ever consider the force involved in -bending- a diamond? It really doesn't sound like a practical thought experiment, and therefore doesn't sound even mildly interesting.
Spider's Silk is 'stronger' than steel - we've all heard. But there's about 1000 reasons you can't build a ship, or a building or even a walking-cane out of spider's silk.
This just sounds like bad hype to me ; what I want to know, and what I think everybody wants to know is - will you be able to CUT THE DIAMOND with this material. Diamonds have been the upper-limit of our prowess with cutting-wheels ; do you have a better material for grinding and cutting? Don't confuse the issue.
Unfortunately I couldn't read the article (slashdotted? what the hell) so I'm going based on the write-up available. don't hate me if the article answers my question.
will you be able to CUT THE DIAMOND with this material
No, you will not. The material is only stiffer than diamond in a narrow temperature range. If you tried to cut with it, it would heat up and lose this stiffness.
The article does a lousy job of explaining this temperature-dependent stiffness to non-experts. From what I understand, this is how it works: one of the two components is like a framework of tinkertoys, and the other is like a bunch of water balloons filling up the gaps in the tinkertoy structure. Both the tinkertoys and the water expand as the material's temperature is increased, possibly at varying rates. In that small range at 58 degrees F, the water baloons fit very tightly in the structure. They strain the tinkertoys, but don't break them. The tinkertoys flex as they usually would because the water balloons are holding them in place, so the entire assembly is very stiff.
Once ingots of the new composite had cooled, rectangular or cylindrical samples 3 centimetres long and 2 millimetres across were tested for stiffness. The response of the samples to bending was tested by gluing one end to a strong support rod and the other to a magnet with a small mirror attached.
Rhythmic force An electromagnet was used to exert a rhythmic force on the material one hundred times per second. The resistance of the composite to the bending force - called
Diamond (hardness of 10) is the hardest naturally-occuring mineral, but it is not the hardest material. Ultrahard fullerite is close to twice as hard as diamond. Boron-carbide, tungsten-carbide and silicon-carbide (hardness of 9 each) are only marginally softer. Osmium (as well as being the most expensive metal and the densest metal) is as close to diamond as pure metals get (hardness 7), but doesn't quite cut it. (Pun intended.)
The hardest known material, at present, would be aggregated diamond nanorods. (These are apparently produced by crushing buckyballs at extreme pressures. What "Get Fuzzy" makes of this is currently unknown.)
The Wikipedia article on aggregated diamond nanorods [wikipedia.org] is a little more helpful. However, there is a non-carbon material harder than diamond (ultrahard fullerine). What we seem to be seeing is that exotic materials form at the real extremes of pressure and/or temperature - that remain stable at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures. We also know that crystals form very differently under extreme changes in pressure and/or temperature. This discovery isn't particularly earth-shattering in and of itself.
Wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Diamond is a metal?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Note to mods: Yes, this is an old joke. [wikia.com])
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Your car isn't made of steel any more but foldable, collapsable sections so the car takes damage instead of the people inside. Literally the materials are designed to bend at certain deceleration speeds. This goes back to the passenger compartment, where those sections suddenly become stronger. Ever notice how in a car wreck the only thing in one piece is the passenger compartment? The entire engine will go missing first.
Parent
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Informative)
The trunk has less to worry about, there is no massive steel (engine or transmission) to get rid of so it is just designed to crumple and absorb energy of impact.
What amazes me is how well cars survive getting T-boned. In many cases the front end of the offending car is usually totally demolished and yet the struck driver's door is only pushed in a few inches.
The tradeoff of all this is the vehicle's odds of surviving. If you are in a 52 packard you can run into a wall at 20mph and not do a whole lot besides ruin the bumper. They'll be pulling your head out of the windshield however. Try that with a Taurus and all you'll notice is the airbag, until you go looking for the front of your car and find it in the trunk. Cars used to be designed to survive accidents. Now they are designed to protect their passengers instead. People cry about how expensive it will be to fix a modern car after running into a tree, but they shut up real fast when you point out they would be in a body cast right now if it weren't for all that damage to their car.
Parent
Crumple Zones (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Informative)
steel, hardest iron (early); anything hard, adamant; white sapphire; diamond;
Parent
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
And even that... (Score:5, Informative)
strength: maximum load before failure
stiffness: resistance to deformation
toughness: tendency to avoid reduction in strength over time in the face of repeated deformation
also:
hardness: ability to resist permanent deformation, particularly vs. small surface insults like scratches and indentations.
Diamond is very strong, very stiff, and very hard but it is definitely not tough: large blocks of the stuff are fairly brittle and tend to crack and chip. In fact extremely stiff materials are often not tough because they are brittle. OP has a very screwed-up title.
From TFA, we have no idea whether or not this new material is either strong or tough or hard: only that it is extremely stiff. (cue tasteless jokes)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It also has a quantitative definition that relates to crack sensitivity. Fracture toughness has a specific definition that relates to the strength of the stress singularity at a crack tip required to ma
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Note however that we don't need a stonger abrasive material. Grinding works on the basis of extreme velocity on the part of the particles in the abrasive wheel or band to do the cutting work. Aluminum oxide would work for the purposes of grinding this material into print. Given that it's a ceramic within a tin matrix; ALO2 would do beautifully.
As for heavy cutting work, Tungsten Carbide would do just as well. I don't see anything to indicate that the material is HARDER than carbide.
And speak of the applications..........to tell you the truth there really aren't that many widespread uses for a material like this. For now, with the expense of this material that's going to stay as it is for quite a while, there are FEW cases that would warrant using this material.
Parent
Better than... (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry, I couldn't resist
Re:Better than... (Score:4, Funny)
Unobtainium?
Parent
That's impossible! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's impossible! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's impossible! (Score:5, Funny)
News for ______. Fill in the blank, and welcome.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's impossible! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's impossible! (Score:5, Informative)
A common way to measure the Young's modulus is to support a sample of the material on two struts, and then apply pressure from above to the center of the sample. The less it bends, the higher the Young's modulus. The apparatus looks like this [doitpoms.ac.uk].
Strength is a different quantity. Strength is the amount of force needed, per unit cross-sectional area, to cause the material to fail. For tensile strength, this means pulling apart. For compressive strength, it means collapsing. A material with great tensile strength can have a great weight hung from it without snapping, and a material with great compressive strength can act as a pillar to support a great deal of weight.
The article claims nothing about the strength of this material.
Parent
Toughness... (Score:3, Informative)
True... and "toughness" is not the same as "stiffness" either. "Toughness" refers to a material's resistance to failure by fatigue (whereas "stiffness" is, as you said, resistance to bending -- Young's Modulus). They are clearly not the same thing, as there are plenty of brittle materials which are stiff yet fail quickly in fatigue.
On a related subject, do you ever wince when somebody on TV refers to something that can push harder as being more "powerful?" Or who talks about some kind of battery having
Space flight (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. Here's how it works (sort of) (Score:5, Informative)
Barium titanate is a structure called a spinel. It has oxygen ions packed in a face-centred cubic structure, with the barium and Titanium ions stuck on the holes between. Above a certain temperature, spinels are cubic. however, at lower temperatures, the structure can reduce its energy by breaking symmetry and squashing a bit down one of the cubic axes, becoming orthorhombic. This compression is not huge, but it is a lot bigger than the typical stretchings you get due to thermal expansion or mechanical stress.
Stick the spinel structure into a tin matrix and cool it. If you are ingenious about your choice of tin matrix, then the stress on the tin can actually get the spinel to change its shape in a way that opposes the bending, rather than going with it as you might expect. Tin is funny stuff - it also has a change in crystal structure on cooling from cubic to hexagonal (though at a much lower temperature) so I guess it is somehow squeezing the spinel in some anisotropic fashion and triggering the phase change.
This is ingenious stuff but it isn't really a high stiffness in the normal sense, any more then the compound pendulums you can somtimes find in grandfather clocks have a very low thermal expansion coefficient. Those have brass and steel rods which all have expansion coefficients, but they are put together in a way that makes the stotal expansion zero. Supposing you had a piezo crystal, with attached electronics that applied a voltage causing it to resist any force put upon it. You could make this infinitely stiff depending on your level of control, or even have it push pack on what is pressing on it.
So, back to your original question. It is heavy, and it only demonstrates the stiffness over a limited range. Bulk material stiffness is not usually important - you can make stiff structures like a cage of tubes by design. However, if you wanted to make some structure appear perfectly stiff, then some active control like the hypothetical piezo stuff I described earlier would probably be lighter and better. I would love to know what this ingenious stuff is for, but I don't think it is for space.
Parent
Stiffer?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah misleading Slashdot article titles... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to knock the experiment though, it seems interesting, and I'm sure there are all sorts of new exotic materials on the horizon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughness [wikipedia.org] : Toughness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness [wikipedia.org] : Stiffness
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bah (Score:4, Informative)
The most typical test of hardness is attempting to scratch a material. (To measure a material's hardness on the Mohs scale, essentially a series of scratch tests are performed, and a material's place on the Mohs scale was determined by what it could scratch vs. what would scratch it.)
I don't know about stiffness, but diamonds are definately not *tough*. As your links above show, "toughness" is resistance to fracturing under stress, and one of the ways diamonds are cut and shaped is by fracturing them along their crystal lattice planes. There are plenty of materials (Including, I believe, many plastics) that are *tougher* than diamond, but not necessarily harder. (For example, I believe ABS plastic and polycarbonate plastic are extremely tough, but neither are hard - i.e. they are VERY difficult to break via stress and impact, but scratch easily.)
Parent
Stiffer than diamond? (Score:4, Funny)
Got to wonder about other properties? (Score:2)
Re:Got to wonder about other properties? (Score:4, Funny)
Sol: No, it's a moissanite.
Lincoln: A what?
Sol: A moissanite is an artificial diamond, Lincoln.
Sol: It's Mickey Mouse.
Spurious.
Not genuine.
And it's worth...
from "Snatch"
--
BMO
Parent
Hardness != toughness, get it right (Score:5, Informative)
Nope (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
resistant to bending .... (Score:5, Interesting)
This, "resistant to bending" terminology seems like a real stretch of imagination to me. When do we, as average people ever consider the force involved in -bending- a diamond? It really doesn't sound like a practical thought experiment, and therefore doesn't sound even mildly interesting.
Spider's Silk is 'stronger' than steel - we've all heard. But there's about 1000 reasons you can't build a ship, or a building or even a walking-cane out of spider's silk.
This just sounds like bad hype to me ; what I want to know, and what I think everybody wants to know is - will you be able to CUT THE DIAMOND with this material. Diamonds have been the upper-limit of our prowess with cutting-wheels ; do you have a better material for grinding and cutting? Don't confuse the issue.
Unfortunately I couldn't read the article (slashdotted? what the hell) so I'm going based on the write-up available. don't hate me if the article answers my question.
---
hate me? nahhh [douginadress.com]
Re:resistant to bending .... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you will not. The material is only stiffer than diamond in a narrow temperature range. If you tried to cut with it, it would heat up and lose this stiffness.
The article does a lousy job of explaining this temperature-dependent stiffness to non-experts. From what I understand, this is how it works: one of the two components is like a framework of tinkertoys, and the other is like a bunch of water balloons filling up the gaps in the tinkertoy structure. Both the tinkertoys and the water expand as the material's temperature is increased, possibly at varying rates. In that small range at 58 degrees F, the water baloons fit very tightly in the structure. They strain the tinkertoys, but don't break them. The tinkertoys flex as they usually would because the water balloons are holding them in place, so the entire assembly is very stiff.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:resistant to bending .... (Score:5, Interesting)
The hardest known material, at present, would be aggregated diamond nanorods. (These are apparently produced by crushing buckyballs at extreme pressures. What "Get Fuzzy" makes of this is currently unknown.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)