backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by Lugaidster.. on Oct 24 at 1:19 PM


  (Source: NBC)

Florida State University researcher Ben Wang, who has led efforts to improve and commercialize buckypaper, paper made out of carbon nanotubes, shows off a microscopic image of the material onscreeen. His team is close to developing the world's strong material, and hope to tie the existing leader by the year's end.  (Source: AP)
New nanotube paper is expected to set the mark as the world's strongest material by the year's end, to be used in aircraft

Carbon nanotubes are one of those ubiquitous technologies that will likely see a vast array of uses in decades to come.  From cancer treatments to better electronics, there seems to be no limit to the little carbon molecules applications.  With production of nanotube sheets advancing rapidly, researchers are expanding their studies to include looking at using sheets of carbon nanotubes as a construction material.

Enter buckypaper.  Buckypaper on its own looks like a mere thin, filmy paper and looks very fragile.  However, this unassuming new paper may revolutionize the face of automobiles, aircraft, and more in years to come.

The new paper is composed of intertwined carbon nanotubes.  Thanks to nanotubes' excellent flexibility, it can bend like normal paper.  Multiple sheets can be stacked for rigidity.  However, unlike normal paper, it can be up to 500 times stronger than steel, its creators predict, while being a mere tenth of the weight.

Ben Wang, director of Florida State's High-Performance Materials Institute, has been leading the effort to develop buckypaper.  His work is based on earlier work by Robert Curl Jr. and Richard E. Smalley, Rice researchers and Nobel Prize winners, who discovered that nanotubes would stick together when dispersed in a suspension and then passed filter through a fine mesh to yield a film.  This film would be refined to become buckypaper.

Professor Wang says the key to the paper's super strength is the extremely high surface area of nanotube molecules.  He states, "If you take a gram of nanotubes, just one gram, and if you unfold every tube into a graphite sheet, you can cover about two-thirds of a football field."

Nanotubes have been used in limited quantity as a strengthener tennis racket and bicycle epoxies, but these efforts have used the tubes in a powder form.  They also only use 1 to 5 percent nanotubes, where buckypaper uses nearly 50 percent nanotubes.  Thus it’s more useful, but also more expensive.

The researchers have already created buckypaper half as strong as the best existing composite material, known as IM7, and expect to have a version of buckypaper as strong as IM7 by the year's end.  IM7 itself is significantly stronger than steel.  Professor Wang describes, "By the end of next year we should have a buckypaper composite as strong as IM7, and it's 35 percent lighter."

Florida State is spinning off a company to make commercial quantities of the nanopaper.  It plans on initially marketing the paper for aircraft electrical shielding and for military grade EMF shielding.  The paper is excellent conductor and channels harmful electricity and electrical fields away from delicate components.  It can shield four times the level mandated by a recent Air Force proposal.  Replacing typical copper shielding with the lighter buckypaper would save fuel and weight.

The team also hopes to use the material to replace the graphite cooling sheets found in laptop cases, as the buckypaper would be more effective at heat dissipation.  They're also hoping to use the material in electrodes in fuel cells, super capacitors and batteries.

The next step is to build entire airplanes, cars, and military-grade armor plating out of the paper, says Professor Wang.  The military has already expressed great interest in the latter use.  Says Professor Wang, "Our plan is perhaps in the next 12 months we'll begin maybe to have some commercial products.  Nanotubes obviously are no longer just lab wonders. They have real world potential. It's real."

While the commercial effort is just getting off the ground, the researchers' colleagues at other universities are already cheering the effort.  States Wade Adams, director of Rice's Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, "These guys have actually demonstrated materials that are capable of being used on flying systems.  Having something that you can hold in your hand is an accomplishment in nanotechnology."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't be fooled
By pauldovi on 10/22/2008 9:15:08 AM , Rating: 3
You cannot really apply a blanket statement to something like material strength. Sure it may be stronger by weight, but is it stronger by cross sectional area? What is it's E value? Is the material isotropic (unlikely)? How does the material do under fatigue? Buckling?




RE: Don't be fooled
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/22/2008 9:29:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sure it may be stronger by weight, but is it stronger by cross sectional area?


Professor Wang was referring to a steel versus buckypaper comparison with the same cross sectional area. He claims that at equivalent dimensions, buckypaper should be 500 times stronger, and ALSO a tenth as light within a couple of years.

The material is likely not isotropic as its non-crystalline, but it doesn't necessarily have to be to guarantee strength, due to its unique composition. I can't comment on fatigue/buckling, but given carbon nanotubes' excellent flexibility, if anything it should be able to bend/deform slightly without breaking, more so than steel at least.

I'm sure an experienced materials scientist like Professor Wang would not pursue buckypaper as a construction material if it did not have favorable character. Exactly how good it is remains to be seen as more experimental information on its characteristics is released, but it looks very interesting for a variety of applications.


RE: Don't be fooled
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/22/2008 9:41:16 AM , Rating: 4
but I would be willing to bet that this 500 times stronger comes from testing the strength of an individual fiber. When looking at an entire sheet of fibers, its physical properties will be much less impressive.

I'm not suggesting that this material has no value, I am just discounting the gee-whiz strength claims.


RE: Don't be fooled
By AFMatt on 10/22/2008 9:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
The 500x stronger spec is referring to the strength of multiple sheets bonded together, not individual fibers. They expect a single sheet will be about as strong as IM7 composite, which is about 33% stronger than steel.


RE: Don't be fooled
By 3DoubleD on 10/22/2008 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 5
The article states that it will be 500x stronger while weighing 10x less, which implies that cross sectional area will remain constant between the two materials. So whether or not single or multiple sheets are used, this material has the "theoretical capability" to be 500x stronger than steel.

That being said, 500x stronger than steel would be extremely amazing, even if they chose to compare their buckypaper with the weakest steel imaginable. The best carbon nanotube tensile strength measurements are less than 500x that of bulk high strength steel, so I am a bit skeptical of this number. 300 GPa is the theoretical maximum for carbon nanotubes and the highest measured is 63 GPa. A high strength steel will have a tensile strength of ~0.7 GPa, however, you can find steel wires that easily pass 2 GPa. Looking at these numbers, the claim Professor Wang is making seems far fetched at best. Even if they make buckypaper that has a tensile strength of 63 GPa (which would not happen even if every nanotube had a 63 GPa tensile strength), compared to high strength steel it is only 90x stronger. Don't get me wrong, any increase in strength over steel (or IM7) is a great step forward, but the numbers this guy is throwing around are ridiculous. The only way his numbers could make sense if he is comparing strength to weight, so a piece of buckypaper that is 50x stronger than steel, yet 10x lighter, would have a 500x larger strength to weight ratio.

quote:
Professor Wang says the key to the paper's super strength is the extremely high surface area of nanotube molecules. He states, "If you take a gram of nanotubes, just one gram, and if you unfold every tube into a graphite sheet, you can cover about two-thirds of a football field."


Professor Wang fails to use proper terminology here. A single layer of graphite is called graphene. There is no such thing as a graphite sheet. I imagine Professor Wang doesn't get to the lab as often as he used to. I'm sure he does nothing but look for grants and head the commercialization of the buckypaper his army of graduate students have worked hard to produce. That said I wouldn't put it past him to over embellish the strength numbers as I pointed out earlier.


RE: Don't be fooled
By AnnihilatorX on 10/22/2008 11:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
A single layer of graphite is called graphene

What about a sheet of graphite material? You are saying they can't exist? You are true that a sigle atomic layer of graphite is called graphene. But it doesn't mean that there cannot be a sheet of graphite made of *several* or even millions of layers (still thin in the macro world, say 1 mm) of graphite sheet.


RE: Don't be fooled
By 3DoubleD on 10/22/2008 12:25:38 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct that there is such thing as a single sheet of graphite (although this is as accurate a statement as calling a "stack of paper" a "sheet of paper" as graphene sheets in graphite are only bound together by Van der Waals forces, no chemical bonds).

However, my point was that what Professor Wang is referring to is graphene. It would not make sense to unroll carbon nanotubes and state you can cover 2/3 of a football field with an graphite sheet of unspecified thickness. Since he is highlighting the extreme surface area of the carbon nanotubes it makes sense to spread it out to its maximum area, which would be a single graphene sheet NOT a graphite sheet.


RE: Don't be fooled
By geddarkstorm on 10/22/2008 1:36:52 PM , Rating: 3
Unless he's using multi walled carbon nanotubes instead of single walled, then, since the walls aren't seperated upon unfolding (just unfolding, not stretching out) it would be a graphite sheet, not graphene.

Even so, you're splitting hairs pretty dang finely here to try to cast the doctor in a poor light. Seems very silly to me. You are not infinitely precise, nor is anyone.


RE: Don't be fooled
By 3DoubleD on 10/22/2008 1:55:35 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't have such a poor opinion of this guy if it weren't for his outlandish statements of his buckypaper strength. It is possible he is using multiwalled carbon nanotubes, but my only experience has been with single walled carbon nanotube buckypaper hence my assumption. That's not to say that you couldn't/wouldn't make buckypaper from multiwalled carbon nanotubes. So perhaps his terminology was correct and the point is moot, but I still maintain his strength statements are far fetched.


RE: Don't be fooled
By geddarkstorm on 10/22/2008 2:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. It isn't uncommon for someone to spin details to sell their research/product/ideas. Saying it's 500x stronger means he better produce some spectacular evidence soon! It's not necessarily impossible, I guess. We'll have to see - but I think your analysis of it was probably correct: 500x stronger weight ratio than steel is a much more realistic statement and within known parameters for carbon nanotubes.


RE: Don't be fooled
By foolsgambit11 on 10/22/2008 3:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
And of course, there's no way he could be simplifying his explanation for the common person to understand it. People know what graphite is. Graphene would confuse them. Perhaps he could have said, 'if you unrolled it into a single layer of graphite molecules, called graphene, it would be....' But that's not necessary for a non-technical audience like he was addressing with that comment.


RE: Don't be fooled
By 3DoubleD on 10/22/2008 4:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well on DailyTech everyone has been exposed to graphene numerous times:

http://www.dailytech.com/searchresults.aspx?keywor...

As for the general population, I wouldn't be surprised if the average American didn't even know what graphite was. If his interview/press release was meant for the general public (and his research was based on single-walled carbon nanotubes, see discussion above) than he should have said "If you unrolled a carbon nanotube you get a grahene sheet. Many graphene sheets stacked together are what make graphite, the material used in the common pencil. If all of the carbon nanotubes in the buckypaper are unrolled, the graphene sheet can cover 2/3 of a football field, a tremendous surface area for such a small piece of paper!" There is no point in misinforming people just because they are uninformed, how will they learn? Plus this knowledge will become more and more common, look at the frequency of DailyTech articles on graphene. It was also a technical topic and a technical remark (what does the "regular" person care about the surface area of a material?). He shouldn't make incorrect statements on the basis that some people might not understand. As the source of information he should say it correctly and allow either the reader/viewer to take responsibility to understand (they might learn something!) or the media to dumb it down themselves (which they do far too often). Even then, it isn't an incredibly complex idea, there is no reason to dumb it down.

The point is moot anyway if you read geddarkstorm's comments above, there is a possibility the professor was not mistaken, depending whether he was using multi-walled or single-walled nanotubes, which we don't know. His comments about the strength of the material are the real issue. I have issue with the extent that our news is dumbed down for the "common" person. Challenging people with new ideas and concepts could only make for a smarter average population. It is sad to see that the apathy of the general population drives our media to the current state it is in.


RE: Don't be fooled
By Starcub on 10/23/2008 10:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have issue with the extent that our news is dumbed down for the "common" person. Challenging people with new ideas and concepts could only make for a smarter average population. It is sad to see that the apathy of the general population drives our media to the current state it is in.

Public apathy is far too simplistic, and IMHO, insulting (nothing against you personally). Follow the money if you want to know what the corporate govt. and their media backers are up to. The powers that be have determined that there is money to be made in obfuscation, and they will pursue it even at taxpayer's expense.

This topic was recently discussed at a book review event for "The Crime of Reason and the Closing of the Scientific Mind" by Robert B. Laughlin. The event was hosted by the Cato Institute and you can view it online at: http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5153.

I found it to be an intriguing discussion. I also found the comment, made by a defender of the practice of obfuscation, about not taking ones shoes off before entering the magnetometer quite ironic. You'll have to watch the video version to understand what I'm getting at.


RE: Don't be fooled
By 3DoubleD on 10/23/2008 4:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm am definitely going to check that out. Thanks!


RE: Don't be fooled
By crimson117 on 10/24/2008 1:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People know what graphite is.

... so let's confuse them by re-using the word Graphite when we really mean Graphene.


RE: Don't be fooled
By juuvan on 10/23/2008 2:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
The strength of a carbon fibre comes from the direction of the fibres used in the composite. I woudn't be too hasty to exclude the possibility of fabric of nano wires beeing much stronger than a single wire.

Furthermore how do you define strength? Tensile strength of a single wire is near infinite but torsional or perpendicular strength isn't, if the strength is defined as the ability to resist deformation when directed force is applied.

The vowen mesh of fibres mend this property and due to the near field forces holding the fabric together it would be very very strong material. Apparently no one is capable to make such fabric yet though.


RE: Don't be fooled
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/23/2008 10:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
Testing individual fibers is the first step in evaluating the strength of a composite. This is as close to an ideal situation as one can get. The forces are not infinite, the fiber has a known cross sectional area.

When you start measuring multiple fibers, the strength goes down. (we should be using the term stress, but they didn't in the original article either) Multiple fibers aren't as dense as a single fiber, oriented as well, are embedded in a resin matrix (which is weaker than the fiber), has suffered damage from processing, etc., etc.

So the single fiber measurements are what the 'fiber' can do, not what the composite can do.


RE: Don't be fooled
By kattanna on 10/22/2008 10:58:45 AM , Rating: 4
should be

lets not forget those are the key words here...


RE: Don't be fooled
By quickk on 10/22/2008 11:12:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextThe material is likely not isotropic as its non-crystalline


What's this supposed to mean? I don't understand the point of this statement. In any case, this statement does not make any sense since crystallization usually turns something that is isotropic into something that isn't.

Consider water for example. In its liquid form, it is completely isotropic: no matter in which direction you look at, you see the same random arrangement of water molecules. When water crystallizes, it looses this symmetry. In the case of ice, the arrangement of water molecules look identical only if you look at the ice in very specific directions.


RE: Don't be fooled
By MrPoletski on 10/22/2008 1:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
the very term nano tube implies anisotropy.


RE: Don't be fooled
By Samus on 10/22/2008 3:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like a replacement for Carbon Fiber is not so far away.


RE: Don't be fooled
By juuvan on 10/23/2008 2:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
well these are sort of a carbon fibres. Just in nano scale ;)


RE: Don't be fooled
By MrPoletski on 10/23/2008 7:43:21 AM , Rating: 2
so we give it an italian twist?

Carbananno fibrene?


RE: Don't be fooled
By Amiga500 on 10/22/2008 10:03:12 AM , Rating: 3
I assume that they are comparing ultimate tensile stresses... which automatically consider area.

I would expect the Young's modulus to be ballpark with IM7.

The material will not be isotropic... but then neither is any composite laminate.

Fatigue - don't know. Buckling - buckling in composites is characterised by microbuckling within the fibre strands - so I would imagine that would continue here, and maybe be worse due imperfections having a larger effect. Although against that, redundancy is higher.


RE: Don't be fooled
By DBRfreak on 10/22/2008 1:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
Carbon composites are generally accepted to have near infinite fatigue lives due to them having little to no plastic deformation prior to failure.

As for buckling, that's not really a material property and is a characteristic of the macroscopic component's structure, moments of inertia, slenderness ratios and other such things. Consult Euler for more reading.


RE: Don't be fooled
By Jaybus on 10/22/2008 10:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention, how does it do at various temperatures? One of the big problems with the use of IM7 materials on aircraft is strength degradation due to heat damage. Buckypaper may be of great interest for aircraft, not because it is stronger than IM7, but because it may handle higher temperatures. It should dissipate heat much more rapidly than IM7 epoxies.


RE: Don't be fooled
By Meinolf on 10/22/2008 5:11:23 PM , Rating: 1
Do you think Superman and tear it?


RE: Don't be fooled
By Schrag4 on 10/23/2008 9:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
Probably, and I bet the Hulk can a T100 and tear it too. :-)


what type of strenght
By tanishalfelven on 10/22/2008 9:10:32 AM , Rating: 1
500 times stronger is what respect.




RE: what type of strenght
By goku on 10/22/2008 9:17:30 AM , Rating: 5
You can't tear up that contract you signed stipulating that you would suck your friend's balls.


RE: what type of strenght
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2008 9:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
South Park FTW.


RE: what type of strenght
By IceBreakerG on 10/22/2008 9:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
Even the court agree with that one.


RE: what type of strenght
By Don Tonino on 10/22/2008 9:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
I would say Ultimate Tensile Strenght as I don't think nanotubes show any appreciable yield deformation. I could well be stand corrected though as composites are not my field.


RE: what type of strenght
By MrBlastman on 10/22/2008 9:38:20 AM , Rating: 5
That would be one heck of a papercut... Ow!


RE: what type of strenght
By strmbkr on 10/22/2008 12:08:13 PM , Rating: 3
Evil! Kill it with Fire!


RE: what type of strenght
By mkruer on 10/22/2008 7:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
As the Black Knight would say "Its only a flesh wound" as his arm falls off.


RE: what type of strenght
By DBRfreak on 10/22/2008 1:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're correct in both counts - most carbon composites show very little yielding prior to failure, so their "strengths" are usually ultimate tensile, though in analysis it's most common to find an ultimate strain allowable rather then a tensile stress.


RE: what type of strenght
By the goat on 10/22/2008 9:27:47 AM , Rating: 1
Resistance to deformation I assume.


RE: what type of strenght
By blowfish on 10/22/2008 9:28:21 AM , Rating: 5
They probably expect to reach 500 times the specific tensile strength of steel - i.e. the strength per unit weight. Bear in mind that to big up the strength, they are no doubt comparing it to low strength low carbon steel, so it might "only" be 150 times stronger than the best steels.

What will be far more significant for mainstream usage will be the strength per dollar. It sounds expensive, so the only initial application will be for military use, where taxpayers' money is always in limitless supply.


RE: what type of strenght
By AFMatt on 10/22/2008 9:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
They are speaking of tensile strength.


RE: what type of strenght
By Souka on 10/22/2008 10:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
where does it say that?


RE: what type of strenght
By DBRfreak on 10/22/2008 1:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't, but composites have near zero compression strength (relative to their tensile strength) and limited shear capabilities.


RE: what type of strenght
By Lugaidster on 10/24/2008 1:19:24 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe Prof. Wang's ultimate goal is to build trully unbreakable katanas made out of nanotubes rather than japanese steel. I just wonder how does it compare to steel in this regard...


So.....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/22/2008 9:40:57 AM , Rating: 1
If we made phone books out of this stuff, would that mean no one could rip a page out of it?




RE: So.....
By Aeonic on 10/22/2008 9:48:29 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah.. like junk mail wasn't bad enough already.


RE: So.....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/22/2008 10:01:30 AM , Rating: 1
crap did not think about junk mail...
Well I suppose I could either try burning it or line my clothing with the junk mail and become bullet proof.
In thinking about it, a cardboard box for a home, would sound more practical... A tree falls on it and you are fine, a strong gust of wind comes by and you are mobile...


RE: So.....
By an0dize on 10/22/2008 9:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
That would be one very expensive phone book...


RE: So.....
By MrBungle123 on 10/22/2008 11:11:53 AM , Rating: 5
We'll know that this stuff is as good as they say it is when the military starts looking for origami experts to build the next generation of ships and planes.


Don't get wet!?
By pjpizza on 10/22/2008 10:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Man, this guy must be REALLY into paper airplanes...




RE: Don't get wet!?
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2008 10:38:27 AM , Rating: 5
Wouldn't you want a paper airplane you could impale someone with?


RE: Don't get wet!?
By pjpizza on 10/22/2008 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
Whoops, didn't see the picture there... Let the lashings begin...

Oops, didn't see the footer comment there...


Cancer Paper?
By gohan0032 on 10/22/2008 10:27:21 AM , Rating: 3
So I know there are studies showing that ingestion, inhalation, and/or absorption through the skin of nanotubes/buckyballs cause all sorts of health concerns (cancer and tumors being among them) . I know there are also studies saying it isn't harmful, so I don't mean to start an argument about whether or not it is harmful. But just considering the possibility, what happens when a carbon paper plane goes done and burns up; or a nanopaper lined military vehicle gets blown up? Are nanotubes released into the air? Will certain chemicals pull nanotubes out of the paper and mix it into the water? I hope conclusive research on the health effects of nanotubes and buckyballs is done before the product is too far integrated into commercial products.




RE: Cancer Paper?
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2008 10:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Everything will kill you these days.

I pay little attention to people saying that anymore.


RE: Cancer Paper?
By rdeegvainl on 10/22/2008 10:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
They will probably due what they did to us in Beaufort when the Blue Angel crashed. Have hundreds of E-3's and below stand on line, picking up every piece we can find. Walking over the same area several times. While we definitely missed the smaller pieces, should any health effects turn up, there will monetary compensation.


Rock Paper Scissors?
By werepossum on 10/22/2008 1:18:20 PM , Rating: 5
So Rock Paper Scissors will now be obsolete as paper will defeat everything.

All I know is, I'll not be crossing the buckypaper bridge anything soon. Or riding in a buckypaper plane.




RE: Rock Paper Scissors?
By TSS on 10/22/2008 4:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
naw i'd walk across a buckypaper bridge. or ride a buckypaper plane. hell, i'll even try the buckypaper ferris wheel.

i will not however, fry my eggs in a buckypaper frying pan. nor try out the all new buckypaper combustion engine. that's just asking for trouble.


Troublesome Cars
By Aikouka on 10/22/2008 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
At first, I thought about how interesting it would be to see cars with this material in the outer paneling. But then I thought about it a bit more... what would happen if a car like this collided with a "normal" car? Cars are typically designed to absorb some of the force... to buckle in a sense. But if these are stronger than the others, then you may have a problem if nanotube car meets standard car in a collision.

Personally, I'd hook up a Trans Am with this nanotube stuff and call it KITT :D.




RE: Troublesome Cars
By Ender42 on 10/22/2008 11:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
No more of a problem then say a 1950-1980's Cadillac meeting up with a 90's Toyota Tercel.

End result would be having to buff the bumper on the Cadillac/Buckypaper car, while selling the other for scrap.

I pushed the back bumper of a Tercel into it's trunk with my 81 Pontiac Land Barge and there wasn't a scratch on my car.

At least now she'll think twice before deciding to cut from the right lane into my lane and slamming on her brakes to make a left turn 50' from the intersection while going downhill in the rain at 40mph.


RE: Troublesome Cars
By fibreoptik on 10/23/2008 3:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
I LOLed =)


Dumb Questions
By paydirt on 10/22/2008 1:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
How does it hold up to water?
How does it hold up to fire?

Oooops!




RE: Dumb Questions
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/22/2008 2:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
Good with water I suspect.... Otherwise the plans to make a boat out of this stuff would be useless.


That will
By V3ctorPT on 10/22/2008 4:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
That will give a new meaning to papercut...




RE: That will
By captchaos2 on 10/22/2008 9:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no, kids can no longer tell the teacher the dog ate their homework. Instead, the dog will lose it's teeth?


By austinag on 10/22/2008 10:22:02 AM , Rating: 3
That's OK. Follow you dog around, the paper should be fine. Bring it in tomorrow.




One massive drawback...
By FaceMaster on 10/22/2008 9:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
...those paper cuts must HURT.




Construction Material?
By Ratwar on 10/22/2008 12:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
I can't really see this as a Construction Material for at least the next decade, and even then, I'd be surprised if it got into widespread use for awhile after that. Construction changes very slowly, and it is driven by cost per unit strength, not strength per unit weight.




Proprietary paper products?
By m0mentary on 10/22/2008 12:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
Does this mean we will need specific Buckypaper shredders.




Looks like this guy got trumped
By strmbkr on 10/22/2008 12:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is a scam
By Justin Case on 10/22/2008 9:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is a scam by the scissor and shredder lobby to force everyone to upgrade.




A new figure of speech
By kontorotsui on 10/23/2008 6:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
This is going to give PAPER TIGER a completely different meaning.




Is it friendly?
By BionicBigfoot on 10/23/2008 12:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
Does this have any impact on the environment? Is this paper recyclable? Does it biodegrade easily? With the huge amount of electronic devices sitting in dumps off-shore will this paper ultimately end up there as a component as well.

Not trying to be a pot stirrer. I think science is great, but we seem to get so wrapped up in the development of technology that the we disregard the consequences of it's development, or what the longterm impact might be after we create tons and tons of the stuff.




May get better.
By icecycle on 10/23/2008 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
What, about a year ago I remember seeing that buckyballs had been entangled to create a material that was 12 on the MOH scale.
Now that would be a dandy material (except remember that all of these carbon fiber thingees can be destroyed by heat.)




So um...
By InvertMe on 10/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: So um...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: So um...
By codeThug on 10/23/08, Rating: 0
"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki