Buckypaper — Out of the Lab, Into the Market 125
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.'"
maybe (Score:5, Funny)
My plan is perhaps in the next 12 months I'll begin maybe to believe this is something more than vaporware.
Re: (Score:1)
See also this sentence from TFA
"important progress that may soon turn hype into reality."
Still, good stuff.
Homer:"Hmmm, buckypaper..."
Polybathroomfloorine. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Paper Bicycle (Score:2)
I hope they make a paper bicycle like the one in Virtual Light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paper Bicycle (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly. It's like carbon fiber, except electrically conductive and much, much stronger, and contains 50% or more actual carbon instead of the 1-5% that carbon fiber compositions currently contain (from TFA).
So, pretty much not like carbon fiber at all except that it contains carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
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'.
Re: (Score:2)
Newspaper can be laid up just like fiberglass and is surprisingly strong. I've heard of people building racing shells out of newspaper and shellac resin for the binder. It wouldn't compare with fiberglass and epoxy resin or even polyester but it certainly would be much cheaper to purchase, so it might be stronger per dollar than fiberglass
Mr. 9/11 (Score:2)
I know one thing: it makes proposing crashing paper airplanes into Rudy Guliani sound a tad more threatening than intended.
very informative article (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:very informative article (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:very informative article (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:very informative article (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Schrodinger's bullshit.
Smells like shit, AND has a the sharp, rich aroma of pure vanilla.
Re: (Score:2)
well that will either be very good or very bad at mitgating lightning stikes if they ever make a tether for a space elevator out of this stuff.
Is even that strength to weight enough for a tether?
Re: (Score:2)
ALways the same (Score:1, Interesting)
I have yet to read about some invention that doesn't have some military tie-in. It seems like we don't invent things for any other purpose anymore. Is the US military really that underpowered? I doubt it.
Re:Always the same (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Always the same (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, it's all about sex. Invasion is always about stealing resources [wikipedia.org] to make a particular leader [wikipedia.org] more powerful (and thus more likely [wikipedia.org] to reproduce [wikipedia.org]).
It's also a great way to acquire distant territory to which you ship off excess kids. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> In the larger view, did we ever? Two things have spurred most advances in human
> history... War and sex.
War is about sex (as are all power games) and has had a net retarding effect on technological progress. While it has had an accellerating effect in some areas it has always more than made up for it by retarding progress in others. Every innovation credtited to war would eventually have occured anyway and for every such innovation there are many others that war delayed.
As for sex spurring advance
already on the market (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:already on the market (Score:4, Funny)
OK, guys it's Friday, so lay off the Troll moderation, but picture this:
"Hello, I'm Dick Smalley, and I specialize in production of small things!"
Re: (Score:2)
It would get a Funny if I had Mod points today.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod it +1 Troll, because trolls have small dicks.
And... what? You think that is a good thing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just the way it is. From my (academic) point of view, it's very nice that one of the major nanotech companies was founded by an academic, is run by academics and treats their academic research partners well.
We've been through ~20 years of unsuccessful carbon nanotube startups and failed projects from large corporations, it's time for us to produce something useful. Frankly, there are a few more patent trolls that need to be bought out before we're able to do that.
Buckypaper + Gekco Grip = (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Put that on gloves, and I'm going cliff climbing!
Re: (Score:2)
Conductive? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay. And if some of the electronics fail you have to replace the hull or cut a piece out.
Re: (Score:2)
"Build the body of the aircraft, then simply add more layers to the inside for circuitry."
Or simply disconnect the bad circuit panel and simply lay another one right over the top.
Re: (Score:1)
WTF is buckypaper?
lowest form of paper. (Score:5, Informative)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gY3jWGn-XBc_Hu-NXj5YYubxQlPAD93SBGCO0 [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Its the next big thing.
Ultimate toilet paper... (Score:2)
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?
Re:Ultimate toilet paper... (Score:4, Funny)
survive a photographer's flash [sciencedirect.com]
Re:lowest form of joke (Score:5, Informative)
potential applications of buckypaper listed on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
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.
Interesting Caveats (Score:4, Funny)
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:
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:2)
seriously, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that this will have long term affects similar to asbestos. It's not the chemical that's the problem but the super small, non-destructible particles that damage the fine internal tissues. They already had this problem using buckeyballs to deliver meds. I'd expect the raw fibers during processing will need to be tightly controlled. Wrapped up in epoxy it will be fine for normal use as long as it doesn't break... but if airplane wings break the passengers have bigger
Re: (Score:2)
seriously, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that this will have long term affects similar to asbestos. It's not the chemical that's the problem but the super small, non-destructible particles that damage the fine internal tissues. They already had this problem using buckeyballs to deliver meds. I'd expect the raw fibers during processing will need to be tightly controlled. Wrapped up in epoxy it will be fine for normal use as long as it doesn't break... but if airplane wings break the passengers have bigger problems.
Got a reference? If so, that's a highly mod-up-worthy fact.
Still, the amount of actual bucky-carbon that would be exposed by a crack or fracture when suspended in epoxy resin would be much lower than the common asbestos materials formerly used in construction. Asbestos is still used in high-performance brake pads because of the low exposure-to-benefit ratio. Many highly caustic materials are in common use on that basis. Hell, botulinum toxin (active ingredient in Botox) is the most toxic protein ever di
Re: (Score:2)
Been done, dude. You completely ripped off the "Happy Fun Ball" bit from TV. That's called "plagiarism". While I appreciate the humor, I got the impression you were trying to pass it off as your own. Shame.
Dude, follow the link in the first line. I didn't hide the reference, just hoping people would catch the reference mid-way. Best SNL fake commercial since the Bassmatic 76 - "wow, that's terrific bass!" No disrespect for defending it though :)
Apologies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
But you probably do need a license to burn that stump sitting in your yard.
Re: (Score:2)
there are different types/degrees of regulation. you don't need a license to drink a beer, but you do need a license to dispense it in a commercial establishment.
likewise, you don't need a license to sell or produce food products, but they're still regulated by the FDA. i think the OP voices some legitimate concerns. just look at the condition of food and drug safety before the FDA was formed. and it is possible for ordinarily safe chemicals to become hazardous to one's health if manufactured in the nano sc
Re: (Score:2)
you don't need a license to sell or produce food products
How are things in Luna City ?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need a license to light up my barbecue, turn on my furnace
I see you either:
A- Don't live in California.
B- Don't follow the letter of the law too closely.
Re: (Score:1)
>Fire wasn't regulated either, at it could burn down whole forests!
Fires don't burn down forests.
Squirrels on fire burn down forests. :)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/14/state/n100513D39.DTL [sfgate.com]
Re:Oh wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
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.
No. Science is not very effective at considering consequences. A market based approach is far superior.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think modern science isn't highly politicized based on intended audience, you aren't keeping up with civilization (since the greeks at the least).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing the point of your comment. Re-read the article or even the summary. Buckypaper is being treated as a product that's being marketed by a scientific study funded by a military contractor. There is no line between science and market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
English semantics often suck. I'm not sure that there is a term for how science is done now. Nothing is purely "scientific method" anymore as characterizations are inherently subjective. Uncertainty and unknowns are more and more prevalent and less and less tested (or testable) for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes just look at the banking sector....oh wait....
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Considering the consequences _is_ part of modern science. How is the scientific method relevant to the consideration of promoting a scientific discovery (as safe or useful) in context? Just promoting the benefits without giving any caveats is simply irresponsible and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I hadn't run out of mod points yesterday.
Clear thinking, well expressed.
Re:Oh wonderful (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"BTW buckyballs and carbon nanotubes occur naturally in soot. You might want to look into outlawing fire."
Too late
You can't generally use a wood burning stove at many times of the year here because of the ..umm... particulates emitted !?!
((hmm, time to update Firefox dictionary. It has buckboards but not buckyballs,lol))
No... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
DDT is not the evil it was portrayed to be. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby dub thee "+10 Fear Monger"
Re:Oh wonderful (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Harmless? That article refers to INDOOR USE... not the indiscriminate spraying that happened decades ago. DDT has its uses, but it is hardly harmless.
Please think (Score:2)
it is hardly harmless.
The same can be said for any chemical, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly harmless?
Care to cite any references that haven't been proven incorrect or politically motivated [junkscience.com]?
Re:Another DDT? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not harmless... it's harmless to people...
Which is it? What you're not realizing is that anything can be harmful, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.
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:2)
So I should start taking asbestos supplements?
Actually, that would probably be harmless - you're ingesting it, not inhaling it. In any case, I never said to do that.
Also, inhaling minute amounts of asbestos would be harmless; inhaling too much over long periods is bad though. If it's kept wet, it would be much safer, however we'll never know what possible advances can be made with it because it's been made illegal.
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.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit (Score:2)
DDT does not build up in animal tissue. DDT is not harmful to humans. DDT would save tons of lives.
This is the most ignorant spew I've read on slashdot in years. Go read the Wikipedia article.
It accumulates in fatty tissue. It's found in the tissue of many adults today- despite having been banned FORTY YEARS AGO. That say something to you, asshole? Second: studies found proof that DDT and derivatives cause diabetes. Notice when diabetes became a big problem? Mmmm hmm, the last fifty or so year
Re: (Score:2)
Shitipedia.
Everything I stated is factual, and is supported by numerous studies from the past decade.
You've just proved you're an idiot by talking about diabetes. Correlation != causation.
Besides, DDT was banned, why the diabetes NOW? Explain diabetes in children, for example.
Go research (hint, wikipedia doesn't count) the 1981 spill in Tirana (Albania), for example.
You are a fucking tool if you use shitipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What's so bad about DDT? It's one of the safest pesticides there is for indoor use. Irrational fear of DDT has caused millions to die from malaria, a disease that once was all most eradicated.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Except, you ignorant fucktard, DDT is still in use in places where the risk of malaria is higher than the risks from DDT. But don't let me get in the way of your mindless knucle-dragging hippie-bashing with niggling little facts.
I am not saying ban them. Don't make shit up. They simply need to be regulated as their own chemicals, as all existing chemicals are before they reach the market. The governments of the world haven't caught up with the fact nanomaterials are different from macromaterials. Thats all.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
But is it inherently different than having a tree on your property fall and damage neighbor's property... it's your tree, and your responsibility, even if the government just a month before sent out an arborist who declared the tree healthy and sound?
A tree falling is generally considered an act of god, but the specifics of a situation can vary wildly from area to area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what insurance is for (Score:2)
But, what if you had an asthmatic child, and your neighbor, with permits and all the other blessing from the governmental authorities, had a large brush-pile fire, and the wind happened to blow the smoke at your house for several hours, and the resulting smoke caused your child to have a severe asthma reaction? Who's at fault, then?
The neighbor, but the neighbor's insurer will pick it up.
Re: (Score:1)
So what language did you feed it?