Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Buckyballs Allow High-Temperature Superconduction 13

Posted by timothy from the just-passing-through dept.
dr. loser writes: "Bell Labs researchers have announced the discovery of high temperature superconductivity in a crystal composed of C60 (buckyballs) and other molecules (e.g. chloroform) used as spacers. These samples are field-effect transistor style devices. The superconducting transition is seen at 117 K. This is a big deal because this is the first non-copper-oxide compound to superconduct above 77 K, the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. This means there's probably more than one mechanism that can cause high temperature superconductivity, raising hopes for eventual room temperature superconductivity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Buckyballs Allow High-Temperature Superconduction More

Buckyballs Allow High-Temperature Superconduction

Comments Filter:
  • Seems they try everything with them. Low friction bearings? Buckyballs. Finding ancient gasses? look inside buckyballs.

    Whats next? Fish n chips "Do you want bucky with them?"
  • First of all, the article made no mention of thermal conductivity. This is vital to superconductors in that high thermal conductivity allows it to be cooled easier (heat flows into and out of it at a faster rate).

    Also, how easy are these to shape? It would seem to me that eventually they would be able to form this kind of thing into any shape mold that they wanted, being as the constituant parts are very very small, and pretty much independent until they are set as a crystal.

    Also, how well made were these crystals? If they were better crystalized, might the transition temperature go up even more?

    I know it's a lot to expect from Yahoo news, but I really want to know!

    • I'm no expert but...

      There is a reason you often hear about C60 and C70 sized buckyballs; their shape is easier to form than others. So it is impossible (as far as I know) now to just create a bucky-wire; ie. a linear arrangement that could be used as a
      so-called molecular wire. The only thing I have seen approximating this is a tube containing a series of C82 buckyballs which contain a caged metal ion.

      As far as extending these buckyballs goes, their ordered synthesis has not been completed by anyone. Some are trying, but it is VERY difficult to make such a uniform, purely carbon structure by synthetic methods. People report the "synthesis" of these buckyballs rather simply, but all they really do is vaporize graphite and collect the carbon vapour under an inert gas. This is not really a synthesis, because they have little to no control over the products of the "reaction". So despite what people say about the ease of synthesis, it is very difficult to shape fullerenes to your liking.

      I don't think I can help you about the crystal question. It would stand to reason that adding too much CHCl3/CHBr3 would solvate the crystal, and removing it would leave you with pure C60 crystals, so what they have might be the best they will get. Do with what you will. with that speculation.
  • Can this be made into really long wires? So that we can transmit power/communications by this?

    Just wondering...

  • Can't see anything in nature or the xxx.lanl.gov archives. Am I being dumb?
    • The actual scientific paper is only available through [sciencemag.org]
      Science magazine's online section right now.
      That's subscription only, unfortunately. The print version will appear in Science in a few weeks.


      The reason there's no preprint circulating is that Science (and Nature) are notoriously draconian about that sort of thing. Papers are embargoed until the date of publication.


      A real paper does exist, though - I've got it right in front of me.

  • If you need chloroform and bromoform to make this work, the question here is how do you make the end products safe enough for people to use? If you search Google for "chloroform toxicity [google.com]" you'll find (amongst other things), a fact sheet [epa.gov] from the Environmental Protection Agency [epa.gov] (EPA) detailing the effects of exposure to chloroform by humans and animals. Likewise, if you search for "bromoform toxicity [google.com]", you'll find a paper from the Center for Disease Control [cdc.gov] (CDC) that explains the effects of exposure to bromoform.

    If I was a regular person on the street, I would be seriously concerned that superconducting wires (for example) that were being used in my home contained chemicals that have proven to be carcinogenic to animals (chloroform has been classified by the EPA as Group B2, a probable human carcinogen of low carcinogenic hazard) and have nasty long-term effects such liver damage (both chloroform and bromoform are known to have such effects). I would be concerned for my safety and the safety of others who live in the house. What about leakage, or if the wires break? How do we dispose of these things in the future? It's not like we can just throw them away. Even if the solution were to be in crystalline form, it still doesn't answer questions about exposure to hazards like extreme temperatures, fire and explosions. The bottom line is that we seriously need to consider other options before even thinking about employing this solution.

    • The alternatives are, let's see, Bismuth-strontium-calcium-copper-oxide, or perhaps one of the mercury intercalated copper oxides, or yttrium-barium-copper oxide. Hmmm. Bismuth, mercury, barium are all pretty toxic. I was in a lab where they were working with thalium superconducting compounds, and one day some clueless undergrad dropped a chunk and spread it around - thalium is among the worst of the heavy metals... At least with the organics theres a hope that some chemists will come up with non-toxic versions that work as well. But we don't have a candidate high-Tc superconductor around right now that you would actually want to eat dinner off of.
    • I find myself being a little non-chalant about this sort of stuff, but if you look up chemical safety data for nearly any chemical, they will tell you they are potent, dangerous chemicals. I am not proposing that they are lying, or that you are wrong in being cautious, but I assure you that you are exposing yourself to more nasty stuff everyday than you realize. As well, the other reply about the danger of current superconductors is also valid.

      Finally, read the following:

      SECTION 3. - - - - - - - - - - HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION - - - - - - - - -
      LABEL PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
      FLAMMABLE (USA)
      HIGHLY FLAMMABLE (EU)
      IRRITANT
      IRRITATING TO EYES, RESPIRATORY SYSTEM AND SKIN.
      TARGET ORGAN(S):
      NERVES
      LIVER
      KEEP AWAY FROM SOURCES OF IGNITION - NO SMOKING.
      IN CASE OF CONTACT WITH EYES, RINSE IMMEDIATELY WITH PLENTY OF
      WATER AND SEEK MEDICAL ADVICE.
      WEAR SUITABLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING.

      This is an excerpt from the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) provided by Sigma-Aldrich describing ethanol. Ethanol, for the organically-challenged, is common alcohol which most of us drink in our beers and liquors. Be careful what you read.

      If you go to the correct sites, you would be convinced that VX (nerve gas) and water (water!) are very similar. Examples: Will suffocate if inhaled. Harmful in large quantities. etc...
  • Most of the comments thus far seem to be concerned with the feasability of this becoming a deployable technology.

    Remember, as the original article submitter pointed out, the nifty thing is it shows there is another mechanism for finding higher temperature superconductors besides the copper-oxide ceramics previously discovered.

    Of course, I've always valued myself more as theorist than producer. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close