Nanotech Surprise: Shooting Lasers at Buckyballs Makes Them Bigger 74
SchrodingerZ writes "Since 1985, scientists have been trying to determine how Buckyballs (scientifically named Buckminsterfullerene) are created. They are molecules with the formula C60 (a fullerene) that forms a hexagonal sphere of interlocking carbon atoms. 'But how these often highly symmetric, beautiful molecules with extremely fascinating properties form in the first place has been a mystery.' For over three decades the creation of these molecules have baffled the scientific community. Recently researchers at Florida State University, in cooperation with MagLab, have looked deeper into the creation process and determined their origin. It was already known the the process for buckyball creation was under highly energetic conditions over an instant, 'We started with a paste of pre-existing fullerene molecules mixed with carbon and helium, shot it with a laser, and instead of destroying the fullerenes we were surprised to find they'd actually grown.' The fullerenes were able to absorb and incorporate carbon from the surrounding gas. This study will help to illuminate the path towards carbon nanotechnology and extraterrestrial environmental studies, due to buckyball's abundance in extrasolar clouds."
Re: (Score:2)
"Doesn't that mean there's no reason to go into space to mine space-fullerene?"
There might be one - low spatial concentration.
For one moment there (Score:5, Funny)
While reading the first sentence, for one moment I thought it was going to end like this:
Since 1985, scientists have been trying to determine how Buckyballs (scientifically named Buckminsterfullerene ) are useful.
Re:For one moment there (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They probably don't have an use in this precise moment.
You can shoot lasers at them and they grow! How can that not be a use?
Re:For one moment there (Score:5, Funny)
They probably don't have an use in this precise moment.
You can shoot lasers at them and they grow! How can that not be a use?
Calm down. It won't work on your little penis.
Re:For one moment there (Score:4, Funny)
No, but now we know what will happen when Buckzilla attacks and we attempt to use directed energy weapons against him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot about the primary function of lasers in the modern era, cat entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Laser Utility (Score:5, Informative)
and CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray.
Corrective eye surgery, along with many other types of keyhole surgery.
Laser Welding
LIDAR
Laser Printers
Laser cutting and engraving
and, ofcourse, the Laser Harp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_harp [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Laser ranging
Ignition in modern engines
Point to point communication
Missile guidance systems
Re:Laser Utility (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You're still missing one: lasers can be used to calibrate sarcasm detectors to sub-micron accuracy.
Oh yeah, that would really be useful.
Re: (Score:1)
You, sir, owe me a new monitor.
The sarcasm detector was 95% to completion in analyzing your post before it (the monitor) caught on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Researching them have led us to nanotubes, for example.
Re:For one moment there (Score:4, Funny)
You can use them for a nano-bot soccer team.
Wait, what? (Score:1)
We are the speculative baseless articles I can use to troll around!? Give them back!!!
Kidding!!! Kidding!! Please please read this as a joke!!!!!
Global warming no longer a problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we might want to read through the "potential for buckyballs to cause cancer" papers before we charge full-speed ahead on that one. Interdisciplinary thinking and all that.
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
You can't let something like "increased risk of cancer" stand in the way of sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool! (Score:2)
Temporal Distortion (Score:1)
Re:Temporal Distortion (Score:5, Funny)
what's with the Britannica link? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, my post is slightly off-topic, but I found this remarkably interesting.
Britannica: Blunt text, almost no pictures, broken into 5 pages, the last two of which are junk. Surrounded by links that claim to be "relevant" (the 3 links on some dudes that are probably working on the topic are, I would say, quite irrelevant if someone wants to learn more on fullerenes and the ones on "carbon" and "cluster" are way too elementary to be of any use) and massive header/footer with yet more junk links. No citations in the article, the "Bibliography" section only lets you submit a publication for consideration without providing any information on what has already been considered and their "Citations" section is about how to cite their own article!
The Wikipedia article on the other hand, is on a single page, with lots of pictures, one of which is animated. There is a far more granular Table of Contents than in Britannica, with a discreet pane on "Nanomaterials" high up (offering elementary knowledge, even a "in popular culture" link) and a footer on "Allotropes of carbon" (offering more in-depth information). Translations in 30+ languages are to be found on the left. And there are 58 citations, a discussion page, 5 "further reading" links that are actually relevant and 10 or so external links, which can be directly translated into traffic that Wikipedia is generously streaming to 3rd party cites.
I have taken Wikipedia for granted for so long. I am SO donating next time.
Re: (Score:1)
Why wait to donate to Wikipedia (actually, the Wikinedia Foundation)? You can give at any time, and don't need to wait for the annoying text at the head of every article (LOL). Although I'm retired, I've given $100/year for the past several years. It's given me at least a $100 in useful information each year. I've also contributed a few articles, although I'm not a fanatic about it; and I corrected a few errors and some kiddie vandalism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You missed:
The Britannica article was edited by David R.M. Walton (Emeritus Reader in Chemistry and Director, Fullerene Science Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton, England) and Harold W. Kroto (Professor of Chemistry, University of Sussex, Brighton, England. Winner of 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry - and specifically awarded it for his part in discovering fullerene i.e. the subject of the article).
The Wikipedia article was edited by whoever happened to pop along at the time. Ideally those people will ha
Re: (Score:1)
"edited by" does not mean "created by". For all you know, some $10 an hour worker wrote the article and then asked those two scientists to check whether it was factually correct.
You say that as if the advantage of having two experts check whether an article is correct is a minor issue.
Re: (Score:3)
"edited by" does not mean "created by". For all you know, some $10 an hour worker wrote the article and then asked those two scientists to check whether it was factually correct.
You say that as if the advantage of having two experts check whether an article is correct is a minor issue.
whatever it is, britannica sucks. I was unable to verify if the kids version on britannica was more useful for general populace than the full version, because it needs a registration. the full one didn't. it's just not good encyclopedia material, if it was edited it was edited badly(I mean formatting, inserting the pictures and so forth and the fact that it's 5 pages but 2 last pages are nothing, seems like it could have been written over a decade ago too).
and actually, a 3rd persons view on the subject wou
Re: (Score:2)
So my view, as a third person, is more "valuable" for most people, without them knowing whether anything I say on the matter is true or not? Especially if I provide pictures?
Pictures are especially relevant in today's day and age as most of the current generation of people are very visual, growing up with not just television but video games and more. I'm not exactly a spring chicken here, and I grew up with television myself, where you need to go back to my father (who was born just prior to World War II) who remembers as a kid listening to the serial radio shows that were common before television.
Besides, even very abstract thinking can have graphs, charts, or other visual ai
Re:what's with the Britannica link? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet the experts neglected putting up pictures showing e.g. how this material actually looks like, although, I am sure, their hard drives must be full of data. And I'm totally not interested in the soccer ball structure, this is the first thing you will see anywhere (just make a Google image-search). The Wikipedia article promptly displays a picture of C60 in crystalline form, a picture of C60 in solution and a SEM picture of fullerite. All pictures I can use in my own works, provided that I follow the instructions of their very permissive licenses. And if I want to be scientific about it, I can always follow the pictures back to the source and cite that directly. And don't even get me started on the Wikipedia article on "Buckminsterfullerene" which offers even more data, including CAS number, and material properties in the "infobox" that has its own citations (a lot of which are also found in my own bookmarks anyway). I'll take rich, traceable information over the dry words of some expert any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said that Wikipedia is the ultimate source of information. But it has become a pretty damn good starting point, especially when compared to other encyclopedias. "Authoritative" sources are rarely encyclopedic. When the information you need becomes more specific, then you start looking in e.g. peer reviewed journals etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just saying...
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, my post is slightly off-topic, but I found this remarkably interesting.
Britannica: Blunt text, almost no pictures, broken into 5 pages, the last two of which are junk. Surrounded by links that claim to be "relevant" (the 3 links on some dudes that are probably working on the topic are, I would say, quite irrelevant if someone wants to learn more on fullerenes and the ones on "carbon" and "cluster" are way too elementary to be of any use) and massive header/footer with yet more junk links. No citations in the article, the "Bibliography" section only lets you submit a publication for consideration without providing any information on what has already been considered and their "Citations" section is about how to cite their own article!
The Wikipedia article on the other hand, is on a single page, with lots of pictures, one of which is animated. There is a far more granular Table of Contents than in Britannica, with a discreet pane on "Nanomaterials" high up (offering elementary knowledge, even a "in popular culture" link) and a footer on "Allotropes of carbon" (offering more in-depth information). Translations in 30+ languages are to be found on the left. And there are 58 citations, a discussion page, 5 "further reading" links that are actually relevant and 10 or so external links, which can be directly translated into traffic that Wikipedia is generously streaming to 3rd party cites.
I have taken Wikipedia for granted for so long. I am SO donating next time.
What is the point of debating which has prettier content? You shouldn't rely on a single source and ESPECIALLY not wikipedia by itself. It doesn't matter if it's your first or second, or last stop, just don't make wikipedia your only stop PLEASE. It needs editors, not anonymous ones, and with intimate familiarity of the subject matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Shooting lasers at anything is awesome (Score:2)
What if you keep shooting lasers at 'em will they keep growing? I'll find out, get me a laser and some of these buckyball things.
When you have a laser, everything looks like a buckyball.
Re: (Score:1)
1) Go to your nearest big box retailer.
2) Buy Soccer ball and a laser pointer.
3) ????
4) Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
buckyBALLS Enlargenhent (Score:1, Funny)
THE FIRST ALL-IN-ONE
Male Performance Enhancer AND BuckyBALLS Enlargement
WITH THE TRADEMARKED SWEDISH INGREDIENT CRETIN-MAKER
LASER tecnology, as seen on TV.
http://www.BuckyPerformance.com
CLIHCK HERE TO FIND OUT HOW TO RECEIVE YOUR FREE 1
MONTH SUPPY WITH THIS INTRODUCTORY OFFER!!
In the words of Google Translate... (Score:1)
Buckyball growth (Score:3)
This could revolutionize the production of ultra-useful carbon allotropes.
I just heard the scream of ten thousand nerds ... (Score:2)
Huh? I don't get it. (Score:2)
But I thought Carbon was 12. So, if it's a hexagon, wouldn't it be C72?
Re: (Score:3)
Slightly OT (Score:3, Insightful)
Statements like this are rather disingenuous to the scientific community and fail to accurately depict the scientific process. Certainly there are a large number of "baffling" topics under investigation, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize the investigators as being "baffled". The overuse of this word in the context of science reporting seems to imply inept bumbling rather than the actual methodical (and occasionally inspired) process of scientific investigation (observe->hypothesize->predict->experiment->evaluate->refine). Certainly, many hypotheses are created, tested and found wanting for any number of reasons, but the very fact that an hypothesis has been falsified or found to be incomplete adds to our knowledge of what isn't so, and narrows the field of possible explanations.
Certainly, some instances (such as the summary blurb above) can be explained away as laziness in reporting and the desire to reach the lowest common denominator. However, this popular media representation of "baffled" scientists is easily hijacked for the mis-characterization of inconvenient findings by politically, financially or ideologically motivated groups. Couple with the joyful glee with which young earth creationists, ufologists, ghost hunters, psi investigators, AGW denialists and other pseudo- or anti-science proponents claim that science is "baffled" by (or worse, suppressing) their various claims, it is no wonder that a frighteningly large number of people have little understanding of the scientific method, little trust in the scientific enterprise, little appreciation of the degree to which their lives have been improved by science and almost no concept of the time and effort required to move from an observation to a consistent theory to explain it or a practical application of a discovered principle. Scientific literacy seems to be trending sharply downward (at least here in the US, but probably many other countries as well), and the general population is less and less equipped for critically evaluating the endless stream of claims and counter-claims that appear in the marketplace of ideas. Perpetuating the baffled scientist meme is not particularly helpful in combating this trend.
Granted, this article is a single example, and the case is rather benign, but I am increasingly dismayed by the inaccurate use of "baffled" in science reporting and felt I had to make my case. Perhaps a better statement would have been "The creation of these molecules has been a topic of intense investigation by the scientific community since their discovery in 1985"
Obligatory Doctor Who observation (Score:1)
Shooting it makes it bigger? (Score:4, Funny)
Just let me be the first to say:
Evil begets evil, Mr President.