strongest material tested

[dragon]

While this pretty cool it seems like its a little misleading, after all aren't there different types of strength and this only tested one type.

Materials scientists have been singing graphene's praises since it was first isolated in 2005. The one-atom-thick sheets of carbon conduct electrons better than silicon and have been made into fast, low-power transistors. Now, for the first time, researchers have measured the intrinsic strength of graphene, and they've confirmed it to be the strongest material ever tested. The finding provides good evidence that graphene transistors could take the heat in future ultrafast microprocessors.

Jeffrey Kysar and James Hone, mechanical-engineering professors at Columbia University, tested graphene's strength at the atomic level by measuring the force that it took to break it. They carved one-micrometer-wide holes into a silicon wafer, placed a perfect sample of graphene over each hole, and then indented the graphene with a sharp probe made of diamond. Such measurements had never been taken before because they must be performed on perfect samples of graphene, with no tears or missing atoms, say Kysar and Hone.

Hone compares his test to stretching a piece of plastic wrap over the top of a coffee cup, and measuring the force that it takes to puncture it with a pencil. If he could get a large enough piece of the material to lay over the top of a coffee cup, he says, graphene would be strong enough to support the weight of a car balanced atop the pencil.

It's unlikely that graphene's incredible strength will be put to use in such a task. At the macroscopic level of coffee cups and cars, "any material will be full of cracks and flaws," says Kysar. It's at the level of such cracks and flaws that airplane wings and bridge supports fail. "Only a tiny sample can be perfect and superstrong," says Hone.
However, the measurements are yet another demonstration of the remarkable properties of graphene. "We knew graphene was the strongest material; this work confirms it," says Konstantin Novoselov, a fellow at the University of Manchester, who was the first to isolate two-dimensional sheets of the material.

The material's strength is particularly good news for those in the semiconductor industry who hope to make computers faster by developing microprocessors that use graphene transistors. "The main liability concerning the microprocessing industry is strain," says Julia Greer, a materials scientist at Caltech. Not only must the materials used to make transistors have good electrical properties, but they must also be able to survive the stresses of manufacturing processes and the heat generated by repeated operations. The processes used to pattern metal electrical connections onto microprocessors, for example, exert stresses that can cause chips to fail. And, says Greer, the main obstacle to making faster microprocessors is that "the heat is too much for materials to take." Based on measurements of its strength, graphene transistors could take the heat.

Graphene is the basic building block of several other three-dimensional nanostructures made up of carbon, including nanotubes and buckyballs, hollow soccer-ball-shaped molecules. "In theory, a nanotube is rolled-up graphene, so it should have the same strength," says Hone. In reality, however, most nanotubes have tiny flaws--an atom missing here or there. "When you pull on a nanotube," says Hone, it breaks at any site where there's a defect.

The mechanical strength of graphene on the nanoscale could prove useful for applications other than in transistors for microprocessors. The material could, for example, serve as a durable, mechanically operated electrical switch for communications devices including cell phones and advanced radar, says Kysar.

Although most research on nanomaterials has focused on their electrical, optical, and chemical properties, "mechanical properties control more than it might appear," says Greer. Existing databases of materials' strength don't account for differences in strength at the nanoscale. But now, at least, researchers testing the strength of nanomaterials will have a record to shoot for.

strong stuff

[PeZook]

You know, carbon is an awesome element.

You can burn it for heat, you can use its oxides to terraform planets ; You can make it into diamonds for cutting and grinding and shiny jewelry, you can make superstrong materials out of it and draw pretty pictures with it.

Carbon is, like, the best element ever

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is there a correlation between heat tolerance and molecular bond strength? I'm not fully acquainted with the Chemistry and I never heard of an absolute correlation. Diamond for example can be cracked, but it has high heat tolerance.

[Revy]

Carbon is indeed a very cool element. Doesn't cobalt make for some seriously hard stuff as well though? And niobium is one of my favourite elements, they use it in superconductors, aircraft parts and jewellery, amongst other things. I heard a while back about amorphous steel, which was supposed to be set to revoloutionize the steel industry. It was lighter and stronger than regular steel, and someone came up with an easy way of making it by chucking some minor little used element into the steel while it's smelting, and it makes the metal stay in a liquid sort of state akin to glass.

I wish I could study materials science properly, it always amazes me that there's so many different uses for all those elements that you never really think about.

[Eris]

You know, carbon is an awesome element.

You can burn it for heat, you can use its oxides to terraform planets ; You can make it into diamonds for cutting and grinding and shiny jewelry, you can make superstrong materials out of it and draw pretty pictures with it.

Carbon is, like, the best element ever

Even more than that. It's the basis of just about all of our life. There is nothing quite as amazing and versatile carbon, light-weight, yet capable of bearing those four bonds of pure wicked cool that let it do damn near anything. I do believe I speak for all of us here when I say: Suck it, silicon-based life forms!

[Darth Wong]

Interestingly enough, the researchers pointed out the big problem with all of the "nano super material" wanking that I keep hearing: "carbon nanotubes" and other bullshit is never going to replace steel because it's ridiculous to rely on something that has to be physically flawless in order to achieve its rated strength. Even if you use some nanowank to make it without flaws in a laboratory, it will rapidly pick up flaws in the real world.

I think a lot of these new experimental materials are neat, and maybe they'll find exotic and unusual applications. But they're not going to be a better steel than steel, which is how most sci-fi geeks tend to view them.

[Starglider]

Interestingly enough, the researchers pointed out the big problem with all of the "nano super material" wanking that I keep hearing: "carbon nanotubes" and other bullshit is never going to replace steel because it's ridiculous to rely on something that has to be physically flawless in order to achieve its rated strength.

That's true for solid cystaline blocks of material. However AFAIK most of these proposed nanostructured materials are not intended to be used as crystalline blocks; they're intended to be bundled, woven or interlocked structures, often composited with other materials. I am certainly not a materials expert, but I know people who do work in this area and from what I gather it's equivalent to the difference between glass and fibreglass. Glass isn't structurally useful in solid sheets, but it combined with early plastics to produce a useful new material.

In particular I'm not aware of any reason why carbon nanotubes are more vulnerable to fatigue than steel. Defects will destroy individual tubes, but I'm not aware of any cascade failure mechanism that would take out a whole bundle (unless its already at its tensile limit in which case it will snap like any other cable).

[Darth Wong]

That's true for solid cystaline blocks of material. However AFAIK most of these proposed nanostructured materials are not intended to be used as crystalline blocks; they're intended to be bundled, woven or interlocked structures, often composited with other materials. I am certainly not a materials expert, but I know people who do work in this area and from what I gather it's equivalent to the difference between glass and fibreglass. Glass isn't structurally useful in solid sheets, but it combined with early plastics to produce a useful new material.

I never said they were useless; I said they would find exotic applications, which is probably what they will do. But they can't replace steel, ie- they aren't a "better steel than steel", which is what most of the sci-fi wankers think. The fact that they're basically pure-tension members is already a major limiting factor.

In particular I'm not aware of any reason why carbon nanotubes are more vulnerable to fatigue than steel. Defects will destroy individual tubes, but I'm not aware of any cascade failure mechanism that would take out a whole bundle (unless its already at its tensile limit in which case it will snap like any other cable).

You don't need a "cascade failure". You just need wear and tear. Cables tend to suffer a lot of abuse. Now mind you, if they're whiskers used to reinforce some kind of substrate that's a different matter because they're somewhat protected and they still provide some reinforcement even if they're broken in places, so that's the kind of application where they could really shine. As I said, I'm just pointing out that they're not a replacement for steel, and I'm tired of seeing sci-fi fans act as if they are.

[Starglider]

As I said, I'm just pointing out that they're not a replacement for steel, and I'm tired of seeing sci-fi fans act as if they are.

Nothing that's yet been made, even in minute quantities, is a plausible replacement for steel as a general structural material.

That said, 'never going to replace steel' is a very strong qualifier - you're literally saying that in all the millenia to come, it's impossible that anything better would ever be invented. Even for materials science, a relatively predictable field, surely we're not close enough to the limits of the physically possible to make that statement? There are theoretical materials (like a 3d lattice of nanotube rings - currently at the very early proof of concept stage) and theoretical production methods for them that do meet the bill of replacing steel (more strength for less mass and energy) - and as long as those theoretical possibilities aren't completely discredited, I wouldn't say 'never'.

Your point still stands though as applied to sci-fi authors who grab an assortment buzzwords out of popular science articles, then act like this is a reasonable basis for a future society. They do this for all classes of technology but I suppose it's particularly blatant and annoying for materials. I suppose it's appropriate that your favorite sci-fi universe builds everything out of 'durasteel'.

[Darth Wong]

Nothing that's yet been made, even in minute quantities, is a plausible replacement for steel as a general structural material.

That said, 'never going to replace steel' is a very strong qualifier - you're literally saying that in all the millenia to come, it's impossible that anything better would ever be invented.

No I'm not. I'm saying that these particular much-ballyhooed materials, all of which are pure-tension based materials which cannot tolerate flaws, will never replace steel. Having said that, I do seriously doubt that any material will ever be a better steel than steel. To use an analogy, even thousands of years after discovering elemental copper, we still have plenty of applications where it's is the best material for the job. It's ancient and left behind in many ways, yet still widespread and indispensable.

Even for materials science, a relatively predictable field, surely we're not close enough to the limits of the physically possible to make that statement? There are theoretical materials (like a 3d lattice of nanotube rings - currently at the very early proof of concept stage) and theoretical production methods for them that do meet the bill of replacing steel (more strength for less mass and energy) - and as long as those theoretical possibilities aren't completely discredited, I wouldn't say 'never'.

To be honest, this reminds me of the people who say "you can't completely rule out <insert name of pseudoscience or mysticism idea here>". They're right in the sense that you technically can't say never, but that's a pretty unreasonable standard. We're still basically limited to using materials whose innate properties are useful to us; when we try to use precisely micro-manufactured structure to produce the desired results, we end up with materials that are very good, but only in very narrow applications and (in many cases) artificial operating conditions. That's not to say it's not worthwhile research; these materials do often perform very well in their particular applications. But this idea that we'll have some kind of revolution and overturn all of the old rules ... well, it sounds like wankery. I'll believe it when I see it.

Your point still stands though as applied to sci-fi authors who grab an assortment buzzwords out of popular science articles, then act like this is a reasonable basis for a future society. They do this for all classes of technology but I suppose it's particularly blatant and annoying for materials. I suppose it's appropriate that your favorite sci-fi universe builds everything out of 'durasteel'.

I think the sci-fi material bug that annoys me the most is the organo-wankery, but now that "carbon nanotubes" are all the rage, I expect to see more of that in future.

[Starglider]

No I'm not. I'm saying that these particular much-ballyhooed materials, all of which are pure-tension based materials which cannot tolerate flaws, will never replace steel.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I suppose I reacted defensively to 'bullshit' mentioned in the same paragraph as difficult and valuable scientific work - but you actually meant the people who misrepresent it.

Having said that, I do seriously doubt that any material will ever be a better steel than steel. To use an analogy, even thousands of years after discovering elemental copper, we still have plenty of applications where it's is the best material for the job.

Copper alloy used to be the primary structural material. It isn't any more. The primary useful property of copper is its conductivity, which is harder to finesse with fancy structure than strength. Though even here, nanotubes might take over for cabling, if we find a way to make them cheaply enough. I don't know of anything superior to copper for thermal conductivity that doesn't suffer from brittleness issues, but my knowledge of this field is fairly superficial, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something out there that fits the bill in principle.

It's ancient and left behind in many ways, yet still widespread and indispensable.

Certainly it's hard to imagine a technological civilisation that doesn't make significant use of iron alloys. But I could see steel eventually being knocked off its pedestal as the most popular material for machines and vehicles. It's versatile and relatively simple to make, but infrastructure cost and complexity tends to amortise over time, while the energy and mass cost doesn't (if anything, in the near future we will be much more sensitive to shipping weights and energy costs).

To be honest, this reminds me of the people who say "you can't completely rule out <insert name of pseudoscience or mysticism idea here>". They're right in the sense that you technically can't say never, but that's a pretty unreasonable standard.

I know what you mean, but I think there's a real difference between leading researchers saying 'here's a neat experiment, if we could somehow scale it up it should lead to X', and cranks going on about how they proved the possibility of antigravity via their own cosmology invented from first principles.

I think the sci-fi material bug that annoys me the most is the organo-wankery, but now that "carbon nanotubes" are all the rage, I expect to see more of that in future.

At least carbon nanotubes do have exciting real world applications, even though they're further off than the PR makes out. 'Organic technology' was just something pulled out of writers asses - the closest reality is ever likely to get is genetically engineered crops and bacteria.

[Starglider]

Though even here, nanotubes might take over for cabling.

Sorry, better link. These are things I've heard nano research people talking about enthusiastically, but I have to google for relevant papers, since I don't remember any of their sources.

[Darth Wong]

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I suppose I reacted defensively to 'bullshit' mentioned in the same paragraph as difficult and valuable scientific work - but you actually meant the people who misrepresent it.

Yeah, I might have been unclear there.

Copper alloy used to be the primary structural material. It isn't any more.

Whoa, when was copper a primary structural material? In the ancient era, the primary structural material was stone, not copper. When a more lightweight material was needed, they invented bricks. I've never heard of copper being used as a primary structural material.

Certainly it's hard to imagine a technological civilisation that doesn't make significant use of iron alloys. But I could see steel eventually being knocked off its pedestal as the most popular material for machines and vehicles. It's versatile and relatively simple to make, but infrastructure cost and complexity tends to amortise over time, while the energy and mass cost doesn't (if anything, in the near future we will be much more sensitive to shipping weights and energy costs).

Yes, but flexibility of use and insensitivity to abuse are huge factors in favour of steel, and those are pretty serious failings of a lot of the more exotic materials. We've long had plenty of materials which can beat steel in one category or another, but we've never had something which matched its versatility and could stand up as well to our own carelessness.

I know what you mean, but I think there's a real difference between leading researchers saying 'here's a neat experiment, if we could somehow scale it up it should lead to X', and cranks going on about how they proved the possibility of antigravity via their own cosmology invented from first principles.

Well, I think the problem is not so much researchers saying "Hey, we might be able to achieve X" as it is a matter of laypeople saying "Hey, I read on the Internet that someone made something stronger than steel. Maybe in the future ... <insert wankery here>." The researchers know enough to speculate about realistic applications; the wankers don't.

At least carbon nanotubes do have exciting real world applications, even though they're further off than the PR makes out. 'Organic technology' was just something pulled out of writers asses - the closest reality is ever likely to get is genetically engineered crops and bacteria.

True enough; hopefully the organo-wanker period will start dying down.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think one thing that gets ignored by a lot of people, is that a lot of composites happen to be quite flammable. I wonder what will happen if one of the aircraft made of that stuff burns mid air.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

Yes, but flexibility of use and insensitivity to abuse are huge factors in favour of steel, and those are pretty serious failings of a lot of the more exotic materials. We've long had plenty of materials which can beat steel in one category or another, but we've never had something which matched its versatility and could stand up as well to our own carelessness.

Indeed. Just watch an F1 race and then a NASCAR race. When F1 cars hit something, they tend break and shatter their carbon fiber. Any contact is a big deal in F1. NASCAR cars hit the wall and each other all the time, and the metal frames and bodies simply bend instead of breaking.

[ANGELUS]

You know, carbon is an awesome element.

You can burn it for heat, you can use its oxides to terraform planets ; You can make it into diamonds for cutting and grinding and shiny jewelry, you can make superstrong materials out of it and draw pretty pictures with it.

Carbon is, like, the best element ever

And we are composed by it!

[Revy]

Which begs the question - why don't they make breast implants out of carbon instead of silicon? Or am I just being woefully ignorant?

[loomer]

It's quite hard to make an appealing texture and consistency of carbon (which we can get on an industrial scale like, three ways. One involves burning shit. One involves oil. And the other doesn't exist and is just thrown in there because cracking diamonds to make breast implants is just so COOL.). Silicone (not silicon, the raw element) is easier to work with in that regard.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Indeed. Just watch an F1 race and then a NASCAR race. When F1 cars hit something, they tend break and shatter their carbon fiber. Any contact is a big deal in F1. NASCAR cars hit the wall and each other all the time, and the metal frames and bodies simply bend instead of breaking.

Well, the trouble is that we are dealing with different definitions of strength here. Whereas carbon shows incredible intermolecular/tensile strength, this strength does not lend itself to rigidity which is what it lacks vis-a-vis to steel.

[madd0ct0r]

gah. Carbon fibres in this scenario are rigid - thats why they snap.

Steel is much more malleable and can a large amount of plastic deformation before failing. It is not the strength of intermolecular bonds, it is how the intermolecular structure behaves underdeformation.


I remember seeing a demonstration of a poylmer rope based off spider silk, it performed very well.

[Eleas]

Whoa, when was copper a primary structural material? In the ancient era, the primary structural material was stone, not copper. When a more lightweight material was needed, they invented bricks. I've never heard of copper being used as a primary structural material.

While this is not precisely the same thing, fairly old methods seem to have existed that used metals for added structural strength. There was a method of strengthening dry-stone walls during antiquity by cutting grooves through a series of stone blocks. The grooves were filled with molten copper or bronze, which was then allowed to harden.

(Possibly due to week Google-fu, I found only one reference, however. Perhaps the more historically savvy people on the board may be able to verify, but the technique appears sound enough.)

[Timotheus]

To be honest, this reminds me of the people who say "you can't completely rule out <insert name of pseudoscience or mysticism idea here>".

The Agent Moulder effect. Where every episode was explained due to some radical new bullshit research he had just read about in Bull Scientific Monthly.

We all know steel will one day be replaced, by tritanium and neutronium of course.

[J]

Which begs the question - why don't they make breast implants out of carbon instead of silicon? Or am I just being woefully ignorant?

Well...breasts which feel like a lump of coal are not exactly desirable...

[Revy]

Well...breasts which feel like a lump of coal are not exactly desirable...

Perhaps not, but;

(which we can get on an industrial scale like, three ways. One involves burning shit. One involves oil. And the other doesn't exist and is just thrown in there because cracking diamonds to make breast implants is just so COOL.)

Diamond breasts sound awesome Well if Cohen the barbarian can have diamond dentures, why not?

Incidentally, aren't human breats naturally made out of carbon? Seeing as humans are carbon based lifeforms? I mean my body doesn't feel like a lump of coal, despite being composed of carbon. It's a very versatile element.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

Incidentally, aren't human breats naturally made out of carbon? Seeing as humans are carbon based lifeforms? I mean my body doesn't feel like a lump of coal, despite being composed of carbon. It's a very versatile element.

Not pure carbon, but organic compounds which contain carbon. Putting an element in a compound changes it's properties. Silver nitrate won't kill vampires or werewolves like silver, regardless of what they say in the movies.