Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Buckypaper — Out of the Lab, Into the Market

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Oct 17, 2008 04:25 PM
from the now-roll-it-into-a-ball-to-blow-my-mind dept.
doomsdaywire writes "Buckypaper isn't exactly news to anyone here. However, this article quotes Ben Wang, director of Florida State's High-Performance Materials Institute, saying, 'Our plan is perhaps in the next 12 months we'll begin maybe to have some commercial products.' The article continues: '"If this thing goes into production, this very well could be a very, very game-changing or revolutionary technology to the aerospace business," said Les Kramer, chief technologist for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which is helping fund the Florida State research. ... The long-range goal is to build planes, automobiles and other things with buckypaper composites. The military also is looking at it for use in armor plating and stealth technology.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • maybe (Score:5, Funny)

    by cheebie (459397) on Friday October 17 2008, @04:31PM (#25418605)

    My plan is perhaps in the next 12 months I'll begin maybe to believe this is something more than vaporware.

  • If a sphere that looks like a geodesic dome is bucminsterfullerine, then a tube that looks like a roll of fake PVC tiling should be called polybathroomfloorine. Except James Blish used that for a graphite-like chemical explosive already.

  • I hope they make a paper bicycle like the one in Virtual Light.

    • You can get carbon fiber bike frames now. Bucky paper just seems a new angle on carbon fiber.
    • You can make an bike out of ordinary paper. I have a pen made of tightly-wrapped paper, its indestructible (well, I'm sure it isn't, but its very strong stuff). A paper bike is certainly feasible, if the paper core of the bike was suitably 'carbon wrapped'.

    • I know one thing: it makes proposing crashing paper airplanes into Rudy Guliani sound a tad more threatening than intended.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2008, @04:45PM (#25418819)

    According to the article, buckypaper "conducts electricity like copper or silicon." So it's either a conductor or an insulator.

    The article smells like roses or shit.

    • by Obyron (615547) on Friday October 17 2008, @04:47PM (#25418855)
      Clearly this is a quantum material.
    • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Friday October 17 2008, @05:06PM (#25419069)

      According to the article, buckypaper "conducts electricity like copper or silicon." So it's either a conductor or an insulator. The article smells like roses or shit.

      Actually, carbon nanotubes [wikipedia.org] can be either metallic or semiconducting, depending on the type. (Different "types" have a different arrangement of the graphene hexagons with respect to the tube axis: zigzag, armchair, or chiral.) So it is in fact correct to say that carbon nanotubes are either conductors or semiconductors.

      Buckypaper [wikipedia.org] is made of nanotubes, so it will be conducting or semiconducting depending on its composition. Most nanotube production techniques create a mixture of tube types, so most samples of buckypaper will be a mixture of metallic and semiconducting components. The final electrical properties will then of course depend on the relative inclusion of the various types. (As well as other things, like alignment of the tubes, and interactions or bridging between tubes.) This is a virtue of buckypaper, in fact, since (in principle) we can tune the electrical properties as required for a particular application (while maintaining nearly the same mechanical performance).

      (I agree that the article is poorly worded. The sentence is technically correct, but that's probably an accident.)

    • Schrodinger's bullshit.

      Smells like shit, AND has a the sharp, rich aroma of pure vanilla.

  • by Goldsmith (561202) on Friday October 17 2008, @04:49PM (#25418877)

    If you want, you can get nanotubes (in multiple forms, including buckypaper) from Unidym [unidym.com]. This is the company which was founded by Richard Smalley. They've spent the last decade basically buying up patents and companies working with carbon nanotubes (in addition to doing their own research). If the Florida State guys have anything which isn't already covered by a Unidym patent, they'll just get bought up, or brought in, or something like that. Unidym seems to like collecting academic research partners.

  • The eternal sticky note!

    Never fades, can hold-up over 200lbs.

    now, make the buckypaper into touch-sensitive photovoltaic e-buckypaper with a GB of memory or so and you have the perfect notekeeping device.

  • Conductive? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anachragnome (1008495) on Saturday October 18 2008, @02:27AM (#25422555)

    Whoa. Didn't know that.

    Soon as I read "airplane" and "conductive" in the same article ideas started coming to me.

    Umm.........lessee......If you alternated NON-conductive layers in with the Buckypaper composite body of the aircraft, one could theoretically design/build-in all the electronic circuitry right into the structural body. Printed circuits inside the walls of the aircraft, essentially. Save even more weight, not to mention cost, when you could toss all that copper/silver currently used for wiring.

    Build the body of the aircraft, then simply add more layers to the inside for circuitry.

        • From that link:

          "These guys have actually demonstrated materials that are capable of being used on flying systems," said Adams, director of Rice's Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology. "Having something that you can hold in your hand is an accomplishment in nanotechnology."

          I don't know about that, I'd say they're doing nanotechnology wrong if you can hold it in your hand and see it.

        • Bucky paper cleans like no other and leaves a starfish you could eat your dinner off.

          Seriously, is there anything carbon nanotubes can't do?

      • by lysergic.acid (845423) on Friday October 17 2008, @05:22PM (#25419285) Homepage

        potential applications of buckypaper listed on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

        • If exposed to an electric charge, buckypaper could be used to illuminate computer and television screens. It could be more energy-efficient, lighter, and could allow for a more uniform level of brightness than current cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) technology.
        • Since carbon nanotubes are one of the most thermally conductive materials known, buckypaper lends itself to the development of heat sinks that would allow computers and other electronic equipment to disperse heat more efficiently than is currently possible. This, in turn, could lead to even greater advances in electronic miniaturization.
        • Because carbon nanotubes have an unusually high current-carrying capacity, a buckypaper film could be applied to the exteriors of airplanes. Lightning strikes then could flow around the plane and dissipate without causing damage.
        • Films also could protect electronic circuits and devices within airplanes from electromagnetic interference, which can damage equipment and alter settings. Similarly, such films could allow military aircraft to shield their electromagnetic "signatures", which can be detected via radar.
        • Buckypaper could act as a filter membrane to trap microparticles in air or fluid. Because the nanotubes in buckypaper are insoluble and can be functionalized with a variety of functional groups, they can selectively remove compounds or can act as a sensor.
        • Produced in high enough quantities and at an economically viable price, buckypaper composites could serve as an effective armor plating.
        • Buckypaper can be used to grow biological tissue, such as nerve cells. Buckypaper can be electrified or functionalized to encourage growth of specific types of cells.
        • The Poisson's ratio for carbon nanotube buckypaper can be controlled and has exhibited auxetic behaviour, capable of use as artificial muscles.

        seems to me it would be easier to produce buckypaper in the quantities required for use as a new type of electronic display or chemical filter than it would be to build an entire plane out of it.

        • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Friday October 17 2008, @07:22PM (#25420481)

          There is an unusual set of warnings being distributed with Buckypaper [jt.org]:

          Caution: Buckypaper may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.

          Buckypaper contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

          Do not use Buckypaper on concrete.

          Discontinue use of Buckypaper if any of the following occurs:

          • itching
          • vertigo
          • dizziness
          • tingling in extremities
          • loss of balance or coordination
          • slurred speech
          • temporary blindness
          • profuse sweating
          • or heart palpitations

          If Buckypaper begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.

          Buckypaper may stick to certain types of skin.

          When not in use, Buckypaper should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of Buckypaper, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its namesake, Buckminster Fuller, of any and all liability.

          Ingredients of Buckypaper include an unknown glowing green substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.

          Buckypaper has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.

          Do not taunt Buckypaper.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!

      • Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!

        "Fire engulfed the forest, boiled into the night, then neatly put itself out, as all unscheduled fires over a certain size are now required to do by law." -- Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless", Chapter 11.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        actually fire is regulated in a lot of places. i just recently got back from Yosemite and they have strict regulations in the park about where you can or can't start fires.

        you can't just start fires anywhere you want. arson is still a crime AFAIK.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          While it is true that it is illegal to set other people's property on fire without their permission, I don't need a license to light up my barbecue, turn on my furnace, or use my acetylene torch (and the latter, correctly adjusted, can generate quite a few buckyballs and nanotubes).

    • Re:Oh wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Hasler (414242) on Friday October 17 2008, @05:04PM (#25419045)
      Terrible, isn't it? People doing things without permission! Unregulated activity! We must bring this irresponsible "scientific research" under government control! After all, we know that government can be trusted to never do anything irresponsible such as, oh, I don't know, maybe spraying crowds of people with poison gas or setting off nuclear explosives in the atmosphere? And no government would ever enslave large numbers of young men and send them off to try to kill young men similarly enslaved by another government. No. Let's have government control everything. We know we can trust them, after all. Just look at history.
      • Success is not defined by possibilities but by acceptable consequences. I see no consequences (like what happens when you aspirate bits of charred buckypaper) and therefore I say those developing are irresponsible. Lots of that going around.

        • Re:Oh wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)

          by John Hasler (414242) on Friday October 17 2008, @05:34PM (#25419441)

          So we should all just squat in the mud until the sun goes out, living in grass huts and eating windfalls (but only in the manner of our grandfathers: Don't you dare do anything new.)

          If you believe that carbon nanotubes are dangerous get some (they are available for sale) and demonstrate their hazardous nature in controlled experiments. BTW buckyballs and carbon nanotubes occur naturally in soot. You might want to look into outlawing fire.

          • Whatever that means. You're not even talking about the same thing.

            What's worse you advocate (the equivalent of) Joe Schmo trying to prove that a wooden heart valve can be made to be as durable as a porcine by conducting his own experiments on dogs or that it's adviseable for him to try to show that cyanide can make a perfectly acceptable fuel source by building test engines and driving around the neighborhood? Just wow.

            One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing ever

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution.

              No... Considering the consequences is _not_ part of the scientific method.

              While considering the consequences is a vital step. Consequences falls under the category of value judgments, and are part of the political method.

              It is vital that politics be kept out of the scientific method. If we allow the scientific method to be polluted by politics, Science will

            • by MadUndergrad (950779) on Saturday October 18 2008, @12:29AM (#25422201)

              One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution. You might want to get out of the mud.

              One of the tenants of modern science is a real dick. Not only has he failed to pay his rent on time once this year, but he doesn't do jack shit to keep the place clean. It's a filthy mess. Modern science should just evict his ass.

      • That's an argument for regulation of the government too... as indeed many sane countries do.

        Lack of regulation is just anarchy. People only like it when they feel they can make the most of it and "win" at the expense of others.

    • I hereby dub thee "+10 Fear Monger"

    • Re:Oh wonderful (Score:5, Informative)

      by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Friday October 17 2008, @05:20PM (#25419235)
      Actually it may be that we've learned our lesson. Even though nanotechnology is still a very nascent field, serious efforts are already underway to measure the health effects and safety concerns for these kinds of materials. For instance, in the United States, NIOSH (a branch of the CDC tasked with evaluating work-related risks) has an effort underway to quantify the effects of nano-materials on people (link [cdc.gov]). There are similar efforts worldwide for this "NanoEHS" issue (e.g. this [nanoehsalliance.org]).

      Only time will tell, of course. But as someone working in the broad field of "nano", I can say that health, safety, and environmental impact are already a part of our research plans. There are considerable efforts to make sure we understand the impact of these materials before sending them to market. Also, since we are the ones working with these materials daily, we are certainly concerned with any possible toxicity.

      Mistakes may still be made (e.g. a product released ends up having an unforeseen interaction with some other material/drug/etc.), but presently it seems that agencies are being appropriately proactive in terms of assessing risk before commercialization is even a serious consideration.
    • Another DDT? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Friday October 17 2008, @05:38PM (#25419493)

      This could turn into another DDT

      If by "another DDT", you mean, "another intergovernmental ban on a harmless product with great potential [bbc.co.uk] due to pressure from environmental hysteria, then I agree with you.

      • Re:Another DDT? (Score:4, Informative)

        by frieko (855745) on Friday October 17 2008, @06:31PM (#25420041)
        It's not harmless, nor does the article you linked suggest that. What it says is the WHO has decided it's harmless to people and that its benefits justify all the dead birds.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Which is it?

            Uh.. Both. DDT is "not harmless" because it harms birds. DDT is "harmless to people" because it is... harmless to people. (practically)

            What you're not realizing is that anything can be harmful, even water

            I'm fully aware that water can be harmful. But thanks for insulting my intelligence.

            everything can be useful in the right dose.

            So I should start taking asbestos supplements? What's the useful dose?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      You mean the stuff that was damaging the Peregrine Falcon's eggs, and was later banned, only to have us find out that the eggs became even softer AFTER the ban? The eggs were soft because of PCB.

      Bird populations were INCREASING before the ban, and decreased right after the ban.

      DDT does not build up in animal tissue.

      DDT is not harmful to humans.

      DDT would save tons of lives.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This stuff is great but it needs to be carefully regulated so we don't end up with an asbestosis-like problem down the road.

      Government regulation is a good thing, when it comes to things like OSHA and the FDA. I don't think that the capitalist free market will put worker safety first when it comes to manufacturing a hazardous product (Bhopal, anyone), so its up to our governments to protect us from overzealous exploitation of wonderful new things.

      Maybe nanotubes are not hazardous, but I'd rather be safe th

        • They simply need to be regulated as their own chemicals, as all existing chemicals are before they reach the market.

          So if I'm on a desert island, I'm not allowed to try to make fire with plant oils, because there's no government around to tell me it's ok? Nonsense. Regulations such as this are unjustifiable rights violations. If someone pollutes your property, you can sue for compensation and they will be forced to stop, but you cannot justify your "preemptive lawsuit".

          • Hmm... there is a case right now of an organic produce farmer who sued his neighboring conventional farmer due to pesticide drift onto his organic fields, thus threatening the organicness of his enterprise. He sued, and won a $1 million award. The conventional farmer is not too happy, especially since he applied the pesticides in a legal fashion, conforming to the rules and regulations at the time, which were not in question...

            It was interesting reading this in last week's Capital Press...

            Not sure how I fee

    • Re:Always the same (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kemanorel (127835) on Friday October 17 2008, @05:04PM (#25419031)

      In the larger view, did we ever? Two things have spurred most advances in human history... War and sex. Of the two, war has been the dominant force for the large bulk of it. Even vaccines have war uses. If your army is immune to some biological agent and your enemy's is not, you can then use that agent as a weapon (unless you're playing by some arbitrary set of rules such as the Geneva Conventions - Note: I make no claim as to whether the GCs are positive or negative, but they are pretty arbitrary.). Even vaccines for chronic diseases such as polio help one's army by increasing the numbers of able-bodied workers and soldiers and decreasing the numbers of those who need support.

      So what if it is developed for military purposes? It will trickle to the private sector soon enough, just as GPS, the Internet, and carbon-fiber composites have.