Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

Nanotubes Start to Show their Promise 329

Rei writes "Researchers at the University of Texas at Dallas have developed the highest quality nanotube sheets to date (the team previously set strength records with polymer-nanotube composites). Producable at a rate comparable to commercial wool spinning, the transparent cloth has exceedingly high conductivity, flexibility, has huge surface area to volume ratios, can potentially be made into very effective OLEDs and thin-film photovoltaic cells, and outperforms even our best bulk materials (such as Mylar and Kevlar) at strength normalized to weight. It strongly absorbs microwaves for localized heating (leading to applications in seamless microwave welding of sections and even windshield warming), changes conductivity little over a wide temperature range (very useful in sensors), and is expected to be used in commercial applications very soon. The research should even be expandable to artificial muscles! To head people off, while the exact tensile strength is not listed, it sounds like it is still far from the >100 GPa needed for a space elevator. Anyways, here's to process advancements!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanotubes Start to Show their Promise

Comments Filter:
  • How about... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by markild ( 862998 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @06:03AM (#13353941)
    ...the cost?

    I know tfa says that it will be efficient, but does that take the cost into perspective? It's not unusual to hear about a new idea that is totally ground braking in several fields, then the research on the commercial fades out, because they find out that it's too pricey. A lot of products was that way in the beginning. Just look at LCD screens etc.

    Well. That being said. This sound awesome, I'd like to see it developed...
  • by Maian ( 887886 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @06:11AM (#13353955)
    Isn't this already possible with OLEDs [wikipedia.org]?
  • Also.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wpiman ( 739077 ) * on Friday August 19, 2005 @07:19AM (#13354097)
    on that page was the urine powered battery.... Now that could useful. Drink a few beers and power your laptop.
  • Stealth material? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mwilliamson ( 672411 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @07:36AM (#13354128) Homepage Journal
    If it strongly absorbs microwaves, I wonder about its potential as a radar-absorbing material for stealth military aircraft, leadfoot driver's cars, etc.
  • by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @08:11AM (#13354196)
    And it has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. It's all about the economics.

    A space elevator is going to require a truly civilisation shaking level of investment by a country. Then, once it's built that investment has to be amortized over it's lifetime, but wait, it only has two end points and it takes a certain amount of time to load and unload a vehicle of cargo and passengers, it takes a certain amount of time to travel the distance up to orbit. These two fundamental physical limitations will mean that a space elevator will never be able to pay back the investment. It's always going to be cheaper to load a cargo on top of a rocket booster and fire it up.

     
  • Sounds great... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gadgetman ( 4992 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @08:48AM (#13354323) Homepage
    If this stuff is so resilient, NASA should really research a coating of it over the Shuttle tank foam that keeps falling off.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19, 2005 @11:22AM (#13355411)
    Well, unlike the materials you mention, nanotubes consist of only one element, and a well known element at that. The only real possible danger is the asbestos danger (as in, small particles coming free and damging lungs). The possibility of this, however, seems narrow due to the chemical properties of the nanotubes. They do not stick well, unlike asbestos, and they are made purely of carbon, which, in theory, the body can absorb.

    I suppose there is the possibility of other dangers unlike any seen before, but if we halted advancement for every risk, we would not exist, as even without technology life is full of risk (some would say more without all of our technology).
  • Re:Space elevators (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jafac ( 1449 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @12:23PM (#13355904) Homepage
    I remember a meeting of the Chicago Society for Space Settlement* at the Adler Planetarium back in 1978 where space elevators were discussed. Even back then, they knew that carbon-fibers were about the only material that could potentially be strong enough.

    It's taken a very long time to get here (I was just a kid at the time), and I pretty much have always dismissed the idea of space elevators, but it's kinda neat to see that the concept is evolving along the same vein as over two decades ago.

    *(CSSS merged with the L5 society in the early 1980's.)
  • by Zordak ( 123132 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @01:07PM (#13356260) Homepage Journal
    This month's IEEE Spectrum [ieee.org] features an article [ieee.org] by Bradley Edwards who studied the near-term feasibility of a space elevator under a grant from NASA. His conclusion is that it could be accomplished in as little as 10-15 years and for as "little" as $10B (meaning little enough that there are several individuals on Earth who could fund it privately). Of course, the major technological limitation is the nanotubes. He suggests "spun" nanotubes (like yarn) or nanotube composites (and he contends that if one of these broke near the top, it would not be the end of life as we know it -- it's a ribbon that would loft gently down to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere). He even addresses storms, terrorism and space-borne threates. It's a good article and somewhat technical (written for engineers). His conclusions are quite credible, and probably more informed than your average Slashdot debate.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19, 2005 @01:56PM (#13356591)
    Even in GR, the stress-energy tensor has zero divergence.

    You are right... if your space is asymptoticaly flat. In an arbitrary space it is not necessarily true.

  • Re:Space elevators (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19, 2005 @03:06PM (#13357116)
    That's because of the way you have to sell basic research. These people probably made the stuff just because it's really cool, a common motivator in science. Now they want to tell about the result (to get new grants) and even though they'd like to just say "this is really cool" what they need to do is plug applications. (To get new grants).

    Since they're scientists at heart, and need to retain a bit of credibility they can't claim that the applications will work (they might not) and so they qualify every little statement they make. The journalist knows too little about science to correct the resulting bad writing.
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @05:30PM (#13358370) Homepage
    Edwards declares two as "preferable", one exclusively up and the other exclusively down, and provides no means for power exchange between them. He also doesn't study down climbers, which have different requirements (braking and dissipating the braking energy, plus different strains on the tether)

    There is a big difference between an up-only cable and an up-down cable - up-down allows for easy energy exchange, better utilization of cable bearing strength, and lower capital costs (than two separate cables), but needs to be a small amount larger, is slightly harder to build, and most significantly, requires many launches of small elevators instead of few launches of large elevators for effective power exchange.

    To understand why having both up and down utilize the tether better, picture the strains on each part of the tether if you have one starting at the bottom and the other starting at the top. Start the one on the top first - once it has enough acceleration to go without pulling on the tether, start the bottom one. They pass each other at a point less than 0.5g. The one that was at GEO lands on earth braking slowly while the other elevator largely drifts, and once it touches down, the Earth elevator brakes as fast as it wants to and arrives at GEO.

    You'll notice that these two elevators could be carrying a full payload, and put little more stress on the tether than just an up-only climber with equivalent payload at any given point.

    Adding in more elevators decreases this benefit somewhat (although still keeps minimal strain on the critical bottom part of the tether at any given time - it's easier to reinforce the further up you get, because reinforcements have to be supported all the way back to GEO), but allows for power transfer. With just two elevators at a time, power transfer isn't realistic (unless the tether superconducts or you can afford the mass of thousands-of-miles-long superconductor, the resistance is too great for long distance transmission; furthermore, the battery mass to store energy for several days of power accumulation is not realistic. Storing several hours worth, however, is realistic, as is transferring that much power in a couple minutes time in a "passing zone")
  • by scotty1024 ( 584849 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @11:52PM (#13360113)
    It sounds like to me they should use this stuff to wrap the foam insulation onto the space shuttle external tank so it won't fall off. Then they can think about using it for space elevators.

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Working...