Berkeley Scientists Develop Self-Assembling Nanorods 43
First time accepted submitter techgeek0279 writes "Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have developed a relatively fast, easy and inexpensive technique for inducing nanorods to self-assemble into one-, two- and even three-dimensional macroscopic structures."
Re:Oh god (Score:4, Funny)
That's it, we're doomed!
Yeah, whew! I thought it said "Nanodroids" too.
Re: (Score:2)
Inevitably... (Score:1, Redundant)
I for one welcome our new nanorod overlords.
Old (Score:5, Funny)
Haven't yet worked out how to make it visible to the naked eye, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Haven't yet worked out how to make it visible to the naked eye, though.
That's what she said!
Oh the irony ... that's not irony (Score:3)
The one story where that xkcd spam bot could have been even vaguely relevant, and it doesn't post.
Self-anything materials (Score:3, Interesting)
They scare me. Not because the gray goo idea, but because I can't help but think that it could really be a problem to stabilize them once they're in the desired shape/structure. If their curing is chemical, and we do get to see some great materials, couldn't their "self-stuff" functions be triggered once they're in place inside our objects ? I RTFA, but yeah, IANAC.
OTOH, it would be cool if these materials were easier to recycle, maybe at room temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be wrong, but I do believe that was exactly the GP's concern... Say you (eventually) use this to construct a building -- having someone able to bath part of the substructure in a chemical and have it suddenly start un-structuring itself would be disastrous.
That said, I'm inclined to say the GP's concern is largely moot, people can already use chemicals to destroy buildings...
And yet they can't mass product them? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so odd about these self assembly claims is that while they do that to some extent it's rarely very reliable or significant.
Several industries want this material for use in products but they can't get the tons of the stuff required to actually go into production.
Why use carbon fiber when we can make nanotubes that are many times as strong when weaved appropriately? Well... because no one can get their hands on enough of it to bother making anything.
It's very frustrating.
I'm sure they'll crack the problem eventually, but until then I'm taking these reports with a grain of salt until I see them going into industrial production.
Re:And yet they can't mass product them? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a technology forecaster, I can personally attest to the strategy of "taking these reports with a grain of salt until I see them going into industrial production" is quite wise. While the sheer volume of work going on in nanomaterials suggests quite strongly that interesting nanomaterial innovations are in our future, the specific innovations are gated quite firmly by commercial production problems that for some specific innovations may never materialize at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not forget health consequences. I am OK with waiting some more and have time to check that we are not creating the next asbestos ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh please don't bring up that joke all over again.
That stuff has to be the most over-hyped medical hazard in US history.
Also... its likely that removing it from the space shuttle is why started to become too hazardous to fly. They were initially designed to use asbestos between the panels and the structure. That was removed and replaced with something less effective.
Anyway... this sort of material isn't something you waste putting everywhere. It's something you use when nothing else will get the job done.
We
Re: (Score:2)
just curious....
Slower than an airplane sure, but slower than air travel? Is it still slower if you add the time to check in at the airport, get x-rayed, manhandled, board, retrieve luggage, etc. ?
I don't have good estimates on travelling with luggage by train, but medium distance commuting by train on the east coast (ie manhattan to D.C.) is usually about the same time as air travel. The manhattan to DC fight is about 1 hour but travel time is between 4 and 5 hours adding the stuff at the airports. The
Re: (Score:2)
As to airplane versus airtravel... Yep... both.
First, the train isn't going straight from LA to SF. That would take it through park land and mountains. If we were really serious about a train them we'd do what the Swiss did when they wanted a train... Tunnel through. There are many such tunnels in the Rocky Mountains. Only way to get a freeway through them in many cases is to tunnel. Anyway, this train won't be doing any of that for a few reasons. One, it would spoil the area in the opinion of some. Cali ha
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I did not read the article, but that's what /. comments for, right?
Question: "while they do that to some extent it's rarely very reliable or significant". How does this compare with more ordinary self-assembly of crystals from low-molecular weight units (like NaCl, etc)?
Also, protein crystallographers were making crystals from quite large proteins since 1959, how do sizes compare? (I truly don't have any shame, may be I will read it myself after sending this)
I am always intersted in what is really n
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just be more interested in this sort of thing if they ever made something actually useful.
We've been hearing about this technology for years now. It should be finding its way into fabrication.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a running joke in Russian social networks about special feelings that Putin and Medvedev have towards nanotechnology and all things nano-, punchline being of course that it's yet another way to embezzle state budget.
Re: (Score:3)
Well even carbon fiber products like Kevlar are still higher than crap. If you want it really strong you have to put the panel in a press mold and then into an autoclave for hours.
We do need the car companies to start spending some money on how to press out lightweight and strong structures that can be made as cheap as steel. It's simple power to weight. The vehicles and the batteries need to get lighter, if we are going to see a bunch of battery powered cars everywhere or maybe the highway department could
self-assembling! (Score:1)
Call Col Jack O'Neil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
similarity to protein synthesis (Score:4, Insightful)
mRNA = "varying .. morphology of the block copolymers "
aminoacids = nanorods
Sans ribosome.
So easy (Score:2)
These energetic contributions can be easily tuned by varying the supramolecular morphology, which is accomplished simply by attaching different types of small molecules to the side chains of the block copolymers.
Sounds so easy! Why didn't I think of that?
Self-sealing stem bolts (Score:2)
two- and even three-dimensional macroscopic struct (Score:3)
"two- and even three-dimensional macroscopic structures" = different types of uniform glass-like structures with different pattern of near-order.
Another sophisticated supernanomonomers that can do that is hydrogen dioxide and carbon. Except environmental conditions (temperature, etc) here they use a chemical agent (block copolymer)
Can anybody explain what the big deal is?
Yeah, sure... (Score:2)
In Rod We Trust (Score:2)
EOM
Active paint (Score:1)