Atom-Thick Balloon Inflated 120
Anonymous Cow writes "Researchers have inflated gas-filled balloons of graphene, the atom-thick carbon material being used to make super-small transistors. Apart from giving them a valid claim to be in the Guinness Book of Records, it could apparently be handy for weighing microscopic objects. 'The sheets were used to seal microscopic wells made in a layer of silica glass, forming a kind of drum head. The membranes were held in place only by the van der Waals forces that make things sticky at microscopic scales. The wells varied from 1 to 100 square micrometers in area and 250 nanometers to 3 micrometers deep.'"
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Just Friggin Great!
Now my kid's going to want one of THESE tied to her wrist!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(((pop))) (Score:4, Funny)
This will immediately lead to a companion record for the world's quietest popping sound when one of them has a weak point.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Prick? (Score:1, Interesting)
Do we have an atom thick needle to prick it?
Re:Prick? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I think they've just upped the ante... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think they've just upped the ante... (Score:5, Funny)
At last, life-size balloon bacteria!
Re: (Score:2)
Or the world's smallest water balloon splash.
consumer uses (Score:5, Insightful)
this will be the thinnest condom ever!
Re:consumer uses (Score:4, Insightful)
this will be the thinnest condom ever!
That's not as daft as you might think, for many people the stated reason for not using condoms is lack of sensitivity caused by their thickness.
Were there a way to reduce thickness to this extent, there would be a huge amount of money to be made.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Were there a way to reduce thickness to this extent, there would be a huge amount of money to be made.
In lawsuits when they break. One atom thick? That's makes for some pretty sharp edges of busted condom to have in sensitive places for both parties.
Re:consumer uses (Score:4, Informative)
At that level I think you'll find that connection strength is somewhat strong.
Re:consumer uses (Score:5, Informative)
Re:consumer uses (Score:5, Funny)
What! Who let the physicists in?
Listen you, this is the internets, we can't be dealing with your smug 'fundamental laws of the universe' stuff.
If it don't explode, or have boobies, it ain't interesting, YOU GOT THAT!!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:consumer uses (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to construct an elegant and incisive rebuttal to your comment, but your use of the term 'graphene monolayer' confused me, and I find myself resorting to a response of lower intellectual calibre.
To whit
"So's your face"
I am reliably informed that this always works, therefore I win..
Re: (Score:1)
"So's your face"
That's what your mom said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Soft silicon is often used for sex toys, and when very clean and dry they are also very sticky. As soon as you add a few drops of lubricant, that stickiness vanishes. I'd imagine that it would be the same with a graphene condom. Van der Waals forces don't have much range, so a few microns layering of Glycerin should make that a none issue.
Is there any reason why van der Waals forces would be any strong f
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your extremely well-informed comment. I'm sure we can rely on your expertise in the future should the subject of graphene condoms and sex toys in general arise.
By the way, this is Slashdot so how DID you acquire your intimate knowledge?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a physicist or whatever engineer that deals with sharp edges of materials, but doesn't the material have to be hard (or have some other property) in order to pose a risk for cutting. For example when a piece of latex, the edges of broken part would be "sharp" (very thin) but since the material is flimsy it would bend before causing damage to other materials. I guess my point is there is a different between thin and sharp.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not to say a 1-atom-thick anything will cut, but just because it's thin and flimsy doesn't meant it's harmless. I do think you're on to something with the difference between thin and sharp...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right. There is difference between thin and sharp, at least in the context you are putting it in. In Geology it would not matter how thin the edge is of a rock. If it was lower on the Moh's scale than the other material, it would not cut it.
As for the poster that mentioned paper, well the edge of piece of paper is probably harder than human skin.
Re: (Score:2)
Since graphene is the sheet form of graphite, and graphite is less than one on the Moh's scale, cutting shouldn't be an issue. But if the graphene condom is made flawlessly, it should never break because it will be the strongest material ever made. [technologyreview.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And thanks to the current thread subject, I just got the horrible thought of a long paper cut on my glans penis. Ouch!
Re: (Score:2)
As for the poster that mentioned paper, well the edge of piece of paper is probably harder than human skin.
Auch!
That's it, I will never use a paper condom again!
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're right -- paper is made from wood, so paper is probably about as hard as wood. When it is so thin, it bends easily, but that doesn't change its 'hardness'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not as daft as you might think, for many people the stated reason for not using condoms is lack of sensitivity caused by their thickness.
Were there a way to reduce thickness to this extent, there would be a huge amount of money to be made.
You're 100% right & I knew that as I posted- it's a common topic with me & gf since she (understandably) isn't too cool with hormone-based contraceptives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For many women, it helps regulate what can be a very erratic menstrual cycle. Some women also experience a lightening of the cycle because the pill evens out their hormones. At the time, it was also by far the most effective method of birth control, as the proper use of the pill is much more common than proper use of condoms and even when it's not quite properly used, it's still much more effective than no condom at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I never quite understood how "the pill" got so popular to begin with. Messing with your hormones is not a good idea. When so many other good methods exist, it's a miracle that women actually want to take medication, and mess with their bodies, to prevent having kids.
All methods have their issues:
IUDs- near impossible to convince a doctor to give you unless you are married and have had children already (chance of damaging the uterus)
Tubal ligation- Most doctors will not perform on a nulparous woman. Expensive.
Diaphragms/caps/sponges- difficult to insert, messy (some require lots of spermicide), lack of spontaneity, not as effective as IUDs and hormonal BC
Condoms- perceived loss of sensation, sometimes ill-fitting, chance of breakage, sensitivities to ingredient
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course if you don't want pills because you don't think they're safe, then IMHO it does not make much sense to want an IUD if doctors don't think they're safe enough for you...
Of course there can be other reasons for not wanting pills than just "safety", in which case above does not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
"nulliparous": A woman who has never given birth.
Re: (Score:1)
The pill gives women direct control over their own fertility. It is relatively cheap and easy and effective, and non invasive. What else has all those attributes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, the Pill really hit it's stride in the late 60's when it seemed like chemistry had the answers to most of life's ills.* Doctors were prescribing incredible numbers of new medications for problems that used to be considered part of life's burdens. Stressed out trying to keep
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, abstaining from sex is an ideal solution.
No it's not, it's far from ideal. Abstaining from sex completely has a lot of side effects, including reduced pleasure in life, which can lead to higher stress levels or reduced happiness. Also it can lead to difficulties in having a healthy, stable relationship, which again can have negative social and emotional effects.
Re: (Score:1)
And people wonder why you're A) single or B)in a lousy relationship with someone as bitter as you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One common technique is called the "Scotch tape method," in which a piece of tape is used to peel graphene flakes off of a chunk of graphite, which is essentially a stack of graphene sheets
not sure how to make that into a functioning prophylactic, but the methods and materials to make graphene are readily available.
Re: (Score:1)
this balloon was used to contain gas, not liquid.
Re: (Score:2)
But because the one-atom-thick condom doesn't strech I see a few complications in putting it on, and also later when you... you know... when the volcano erupts, so to speak.
Re:consumer uses (Score:5, Funny)
1 to 100 square micrometers in area and 250 nanometers to 3 micrometers deep
I'm sure it'll be perfect for you.
Re: (Score:2)
this will be the thinnest condom ever!
Ahh and being made of graphite, it will be perfect for guys with pencil dicks.. :-P
...sticky at microscopic scales (Score:4, Funny)
Your girlfriend is skeptical you were ever wearing an "atom-thick condom" to begin with.
Dora the explorer! (Score:2, Funny)
using sticky tape to peel layers from a chunk of graphite.
The author must have small kids, or eclectic tastes in television shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Arrrrrgh! We be using duck tape f'er that!
If it sounds like tape and walks like a role ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good work correcting him unnecessarily [ducttapeguys.com].
And it's roll.
Just wait until they fill them with helium. (Score:1)
Wait a minute (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, the membrane is one atom thick. Now said membrane is holding in a gas of atoms. Since atoms are mostly empty space, why doesn't the gas atoms pass through the membrane?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then bad things happen when the Polarity gets reversed.
At least according to any buzzword-compliant Sci-Fi show.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Think of it this way: a lawnmower is mostly empty space. Care to stick your hand in one?
In the Bohr model you can think of it as the electrons zipping around and eventually coming within the zone populated by the electrons in membrane. Remember, the electron has an area of influence considerably bigger than the electron itself. And the entire outer surface of an atom/molecule is coated with electrons in a cloud much larger than the n, so the net effect is of a negative charge (unless some electrons are missing, in which case you get chemical reactions). Those negative charges repel.
What's actually going on is much weirder and more complex; the electron is kind of "smeared out" rather than zipping from place to place. But you get the gist.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I do this every time I change the blade. What is so hard about that?
Wait... did you mean when it is on?
Lefty, is that you?
Re: (Score:1)
I will be leaving that as an exercise to the student, I want all of you to go home and try sticking your hand into the lawnmower both while the blade is spinning and when it is not. I then want you to compose a short essay on the relative differences and merits of both methods. Mor this assignment I will make an exception and allow a dictated or recorded response rather and a typed one.
Bubble Wrap (Score:5, Funny)
This is great, we now have the capacity to create bubble wrap, suitable for packing/protecting nanobots.
Awesome stuff folks.
Impemeable to gases (Score:5, Informative)
The linked article claims the graphene is impermeable to gases, but didn't say exactly which gases. This article says that even the smallest gases can't get through, not even helium: http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2008/August/8/92805.aspx [photonics.com]
The Hydrogen economy crowd will love this (Score:2)
So as I understand it, one of the big issues with hydrogen as a fuel is that it leaks really easily...
So we line the tank with this stuff and the H2 gas won't escape anywhere except the valve.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how hydrogen bonding would work with this. Graphene honeycomb materials may even be able to improve the density of compressed hydrogen, which would get us past one of the hurdles of using hydrogen gas. Of course, you also have to have a technique to release the gas, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, yes, but I chose to paraphrase a different part of the article, since it emphasized the surprising impermeability to helium. Either way the conclusion is the same, and that information was not mentioned in the link in the /. summary.
Perhaps "standard" was included to exclude gases that would react with graphene, as I suspect fluorine would.
Richard Branson (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as they figure out how the consumer can put one on.
Re: (Score:1)
Just don't use a broken one, the atom thick edges could lead to a rather unfortunate trip to the emergency room and an emergency addadictomy procedure.
now- make me a balloon that is a single molecule.. (Score:2)
and suck out all the air (vaccuum) it should lift better than ANYTHING
-- imagine not the lifting power of helium or hydrogen, but the lifting power of vaccuum...
Re: (Score:2)
...............
As it's quitting time, I really don't feel like explaining how very wrong that is. I'm sure someone else will.
Re: (Score:2)
As it's quitting time, I really don't feel like explaining how very wrong that is. I'm sure someone else will.
Actually, he is completely right. Buoyancy comes from density differences, and nothing ;-), so there is nothing in there able to counteract the
is less dense than a vacuum - so if you manage to enclose a notable volume of vacuum,
this thing would be a great lifting body. Unfortunately, vacuum has a rather low intrinsic
pressure (yes, that's an understatement...
atmospheric pressure. And no material would be solid enough to be built around a vacuum. So such
a "balloon" would just be crushed and never lift a
Re: (Score:2)
what is the strength of a covalent bond?
a single enclosed molecule might be strong enough...
Re: (Score:2)
So such
a "balloon" would just be crushed and never lift a bit.
Yeah... my point, kind of.
Re: (Score:2)
Well please explain how it is wrong. I have always heard that it is correct, if not nearly impossible to achieve.
As I understand it, the whole reason a helium filled balloon floats is that the weight of the helium and the balloon is less than the same volume of air it is displacing. Hence, it floats.
If you were to continue taking out helium atoms of the balloon the difference in the weight would be greater, and the balloon would float "better". That is not normally possible though, since the balloon defl
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that a vacuum-filled wouldn't be buoyant, it's that it'd be instantly crushed. As it has no mass, it has no ability to withstand the crushing pressure of the atmosphere. As far as I know, there is no material strong enough to withstand that pressure without weighing enough to negate any buoyancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Misplaced "balloon". I'm getting sloppy...
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so if the balloon was reinforced to the point it would not be crushed, it would work?
In that case a balloon is probably not a good name. More like a reinforced sphere or something similar. According to the article the material is strong enough though to withstand the pressures while being light enough to not negate any buoyancy. Now I don't know how easily you could reinforce it with the same material without adding to much weight.
It's interesting though. Thanks for the reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so if the balloon was reinforced to the point it would not be crushed, it would work?
No, because then it'd be heavier than air. Unless you found some new reinforcing material that doesn't presently exist, at least. This stuff isn't rigid, so it would just collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
You really did not answer my question at all. I asked if it was reinforced in such a way as to not add too much weight would it float if it maintained a vacuum. The only thing you just said was that it could not be done with current materials. With respect, you cannot answer a hypothetical question by saying the situation could not exist in the first place. That is why it is hypothetical.
What I am really trying to get at it here, which is what the other poster wa
Re: (Score:2)
It would. We can't make such a container, but in the hypothetical situation where we could, it would float.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a balloon could work given a thin enough atmosphere though.
Re: (Score:2)
What temperature did they do this at? (Score:2)
What would make these more useful would be ... (Score:2)
... how much water [wikipedia.org] you can get into one of them.
I first thought the headline . . . (Score:1)
Answer this (Score:2)
All right, clever people of Slashdot, answer me this:
If instead of making a balloon out of this atom-thick material you simply made a large sheet (say, the size of a sheet of A4 paper) could a person fold this super-thin sheet in half more than twelve times? That's the current record [pomonahistorical.org], shattering the previously accepted limit of eight folds [queensu.ca].*
* Regarding the latter link: I know. (Ouch! My eyes!)
Is a vacuum ballon possible using this. (Score:1)
It's something I was thinking about a long time ago.
If you could make a spherical geodesic frame out of carbon fiber, or some other super strong and light composite. Then you stretch a lightweight gasproof skin over it and extract the air through a valve. If a vacuum ballon with a 2 meter diameter could be made that weighed less than 5kg, it would float on air. The materials to do this weren't available before, but graphene might change that.
I dunno exactly what use it would be, but I'm sure the Vatican cou
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon fiber and this atom-thick graphene are good under tension but they will collapse under compression. You wouldn't be able to put a vacuum inside any such contraption because the atmosphere outside would crush it.
End of a war (Score:2)
Imagine a few thousand of these balloons being sucked into the engines of a microscopic space fleet. We win!
Continued Research (Score:2)
I love nanotechnology (Score:2)
From TFA: "mechanical exfoliation" - using sticky tape to peel layers from a chunk of graphite.
I used to work in micromechanics, which was all about clean rooms and keeping things dust-free. Now I work in nanotechnology, and I see and use a lot of things like mentioned above. Nanotechnology works with things that are so small you often don't need a clean room anymore. Counterintuitive, but true.
ULTIMATE Solar Sail material? (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I the only one to instantly think upon seeing this article that this may be the perfect Solar Sail material? IF they can make this on a LARGE scale (meters or kilometers square), it has got to have close to the lowest weight to surface area ratio of any possible material. Even if it is not reflective ("carbon black"?), it would still work by adsorbing photons (it would still gain momentum). Heating may be a problem but it should also radiate heat equally well.
Micrometeorites and high energy particles would surely put many nano-micro sized holes in it but that should only decrease the efficiency slightly. The overall structure should stay intact even with many many holes because of the immense tensile strength; the article said it could handle several atmosphere's of pressure.
So could this be the ultimate solar sail material (perhaps with a spray on coating of aluminum atoms if the reflectivity is worth the added weight)? With a rigging of carbon nano-tubes it makes theoretical solar sail designs so efficient that perhaps interstellar journeys are practical!