Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Levitating Graphene Is Fastest-Spinning Object

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the onesies-twosies dept.

Science 146

techbeat writes "A flake of exotic carbon a few atoms thick has claimed a record: the speck has been spun faster than any other object, at a clip of 60 million rotations per minute. Previously, micrometre-sized crystals have been spun at up to 30,000 rpm using an optical trap. It is thanks to graphene's amazing strength that the flakes are not pulled apart by the much higher spinning rate, says Bruce Kane at the University of Maryland in College Park. Spinning could be a way to probe the properties of graphene, or manipulate it in new ways."

cancel ×

146 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know what else spins that fast? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747742)

Your mom...on my crotch.

Re:You know what else spins that fast? (3, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748482)

at a cool million rotations per second, and given the friction coefficient of human skin is about 0.8, I'd say that you have no crotch left.

Re:You know what else spins that fast? (1)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748604)

Ah, but what if his crotch is made of graphene?

Re:You know what else spins that fast? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748730)

wouldn't work unless .... it was an oscillating electric field TRAP!

Re:You know what else spins that fast? (3, Funny)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748984)

So basically, what you're saying is that your 'mom' is a trap?

Re:You know what else spins that fast? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749060)

no, I don't believe that's the logical conclusion of this thread, but it may be that you are the original AC...

neat (4, Interesting)

Gnaythan1 (214245) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747806)

can you give it enough mass to make it into a decent flywheel?

Re:neat (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747950)

can you give it enough mass to make it into a decent flywheel?

More precisely, you mean its moment of inertia [wikipedia.org] . It'll make a decent flywheel, if it has low moment of inertia but very high velocity, since the product of these two is what counts.

In this case if you increase the mass (thereby increasing the moment of inertia) the system will just tare itself apart due to centrifugal forces. The thing here is that they could make it spin really, really fast because graphene is very light. For one it is made up of a single sheet of graphite (2D crystal) and graphite itself is made out of carbon, a relatively light element.

Re:neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748114)

No, he means the energy stored. And obviously you would increase the mass by adding more specks, not by creating a large one. So what does the math say? Could one kg of tiny spinning specks store more energy than a large one, where in each case the rpm is below the tear-itself-apart threshold?

Re:neat (2, Informative)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748300)

It doesn't matter, the maximum energy stored per mass of flywheel [wikipedia.org] is the specific tensile strength of the material. If the specks have higher specific tensile strength than the bulk, it would be more, though.

Re:neat (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748250)

Ok, I was with you until I read the word "centrifugal"... I was under the impression that science left that word behind long ago for "centripetal". At least that's what we were taught in the 80's. Has it come back in fashion to use it?

Re:neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748388)

centrifugal != centripetal. centripetal force keeps the graphene together, centrifugal force tries to break it apart.

Re:neat (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748828)

Correct equation, wrong explanation:

centrifugal == NOT REAL != REAL == centripetal

Re:neat (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749900)

That's a very inertial-frame-centric view of the Universe, but it isn't true except for very deviant definitions of "real" that also rejects relativity and implies that gravity is not "real" (for it, too, is a fictitious force, which isn't the same as saying it isn't real).

The GP is actually correct.

Re:neat (2, Funny)

N3Roaster (888781) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748616)

Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]

Re:neat (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747954)

can you give it enough mass to make it into a decent flywheel?

no problemo [nrao.edu]

Re:neat (1)

severoon (536737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748682)

Let's make it magnetic and call it a hard drive!

Re:neat (1)

wisdom_brewing (557753) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748462)

Im sure there are corpses spinning in their graves faster than this.

Can we use them as flywheels?

Reminds me ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747834)

... of trying to teach the GF to drive a stickshift back in high school. Went through a few clutches back then.

Re:Reminds me ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747926)

big blocks allow you to let the clutch out without adding very much, if at all, throttle.

Re:Reminds me ... (1, Offtopic)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748138)

The size of the engine doesn't matter, you can do the same on cars with tiny engines if you're careful. The wussiest car I ever drove was the 16v 1.2 that my instructor had, and even that was fine starting off even up up a slight slope with no throttle.

Re:Reminds me ... (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748124)

Next time you teach someone to drive a manual, don't let them touch the accelerator until they learn how to use the clutch..?

Re:Reminds me ... (5, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748814)

And avoid girlfriends who think it's OK to twist and pull the stick shift violently, whether it's ready or not. Could be indicative of future, uh, problems.

Re:Reminds me ... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748996)

This isn't as funny as it is practical. Any manual transmission car with a decent idle control system can be driven without touching the gas pedal given the clutch is used gracefully. Trying to teach someone how to drive a manual car via "gas in, clutch out" is a sure way to simultaneously fail to teach them the right way to drive, and ruin your clutch.

Re:Reminds me ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748680)

You're supposed to teach her how to drive "stick", not stickshift. You got it wrong there buddy.

Awesome (1)

NeonTiger (1674634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747836)

Could this material be used to make HYPER MEGA TERRIBLY ASTRO FAST harddisks?

Re:Awesome (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747918)

No, but it could be made to create indestructible ballet dancers.

Think of it. No more sprained ankles...no more broken toes...it would revolutionize the culture!

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747940)

No.

Time to upgrade! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747890)

60000x CD Rom drives here we come!

This is a great leap forward... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747894)

... in Dradle technology.

Re:This is a great leap forward... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748262)

<CARTMAN>
Dradle dradle dradle
It's small and made of clay
But I'm not gonna play with it
'Cause dradle's fuckin' gay.
</CARTMAN>

uhm, 30 000RPM? (3, Informative)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747922)

Summary fscked up. 30 000RPM isn't exactly much at all.

Ie. almost all RC (radio controlled) model brushless motors can do 30k RPM, and some brushed motors can do that as well...

Nevermind so many other things which do spin reaaally fast ...

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748010)

Isn't 30,000RPM where most Hondas need to be run in order to make any sort of usable power?

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (2, Funny)

Beardydog (716221) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748368)

As a CRXologist, I can confirm this.

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (1)

ELCouz (1338259) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748596)

VTEC Just Kicked In Yo bro!

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (1)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748072)

Blame New Scientist, the typo is there and was just quoted verbatim. Although there really should have been some basic sanity checking before it hit the front page (perhaps as a snarky "30,000 RPM? Really" footnote), I've long since learned not to expect such feats from the editors.

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (2, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748102)

A brushless motor is not a crystal being spun in an optical trap.

The world record for the 100m dash is 9.58 seconds. That an F16 could do it faster is irrelevant to that claim.

Of course why they chose to mention that, given it isn't using the same technique, is a mystery. But they never claimed that was some kind of general spinning speed record.

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (2, Informative)

retroStick (1040570) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748156)

It's not a typo, it's talking about rotations of a single microcrystal.
The previous article [nih.gov] that is referenced records rates of 500 rotations per second - which is 30,000rpm.

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (2, Interesting)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748238)

If only they'd thought to attach their single microcrystal to a brushless motor...

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748298)

Some turbines spin at 250,000 RPM...

Some turbos spin at upwards of 500,000 RPM...

Re:uhm, 30 000RPM? (2, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748416)

Turbos regularly go into the 100,000+ rpm [clubwrx.net] region.

30k rpm = typo (1)

wheeda (520016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747934)

They make 20k rpm hard drives. I'll bet that is a typo for 30k rpm. I'll bet it should be 30M rpm.

Re:30k rpm = typo (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747984)

or maybe 30k RPS?

Re:30k rpm = typo (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748052)

No typo. Read the original abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19424395

500 turns per second. But your HD isn't put to rotation by a light beam - that's the news of this article, not the speed.

Re:30k rpm = typo (1)

Paul Rose (771894) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748094)

Mod parent up The summary and article were correct, but a bit confusing. 30,000 RPM was the record for spinning a crystal with light, not an overall RPM record.

30k rpm seems awefully unimpressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747942)

really? only twice as fast as a 15k rpm drive when you reduce the size from inches to micrometers? learn something interesting every day.

Re:30k rpm seems awefully unimpressive (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748588)

It sounds slow, but what you don't realise is that they're scaling down that hard drive in realtime.

Video? (2, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747948)

No wait, even if we have a video that ran at one million frames per second all we would see is an immobile object. At two million frames per second we would see it move instantly by 180 degrees...

How did they calculate that 60 million rotations per minute again?

Re:Video? (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748080)

Obviously you don't observe it with a video camera! Without bother to RTFA, I'd guess something like a femtosecond laser used.

Re:Video? (2, Informative)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748116)

So after RTFA(bstract):

At micro-torr pressures, torques from circularly polarized light cause the levitated particles to rotate at frequencies >1MHz, which can be inferred from modulation of light scattering off the rotating flake when an electric field resonant with the rotation rate is applied.

Re:Video? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748112)

My guess would be that they calculate based on measuring the amount of energy input into the system and subtracting what is observed escaping.

I bet if I read TFA that would eliminate the need to make guesses, but this is slashdot.

Re:Video? (4, Interesting)

vigour (846429) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748392)

No wait, even if we have a video that ran at one million frames per second all we would see is an immobile object. At two million frames per second we would see it move instantly by 180 degrees... How did they calculate that 60 million rotations per minute again?

They shoot a laser beam through the sample, which they measure with a detector at the other side. Then they apply an electric field to the flakes at high frequency (> 1 MHz). They scan the frequency of the electric field from 4 kHz up to 3MHz. When the frequency of the electric field is the same as the frequency of the rotating flake you get a resonance [wikipedia.org] which appears as a sudden spike in the laser detector. That's how they know what the rotation rate is, and the dielectric response of graphite to an electric field is well known so they can cross check this with theory.

...and technically we do have video systems that can acquire data up to 1 peta Hz [wikipedia.org] (or if you're american you'd say 1 quadrillion Hz). Femtosecond lasers are used in chemistry for more than a decade now to image fast chemical reactions.

Hope this rambling post helps!

Re:Video? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748450)

From the abstract linked above:

At micro-torr pressures, torques from circularly polarized light cause the levitated particles to rotate at frequencies >1MHz, which can be inferred from modulation of light scattering off the rotating flake when an electric field resonant with the rotation rate is applied.

Re:Video? (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748782)

Rain Man.

Fastest spin? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747966)

A flake of exotic carbon a few atoms thick has claimed a record: the speck has been spun faster than any other object, at a clip of 60 million rotations per minute.

I don't know about that being the fastest spin. Have you seen $POLITICIAN's handling of the $RECENT_NEWS_EVENT? Ba-zing!

Re:Fastest spin? Hardly. (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748244)

You'll need some sort of robotic politician from the future to pull that off.

Oh SHI- [wikipedia.org]

Math Nerd Here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33747968)

60,000,000 RPM is (approximately) 1,000,000 per second.

No thanks necessary, you're welcome.

Re:Math Nerd Here! (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748022)

60,000,000 RPM is (approximately) 1,000 per millisecond.

No thanks necessary, you're welcome.

Seriously, we could do this all day :)

Re:Math Nerd Here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748060)

Whoooooooooooooooooosh!

Captcha: Particle

Re:Math Nerd Here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748108)

Ok, math nerd, if you're so smart, how many revolutions does that make per hour? Eh? Eh?

Re:Math Nerd Here! (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749132)

60,000,000, because after the first minute, it stops.

Niven's dream (1)

coandco (676209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747970)

So that's what a Warlock's Wheel has to be made of...

Re:Niven's dream (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749494)

And Nevinyrral's Disk [wizards.com] , as well.

I'm the general... (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33747992)

...and I say it has to spin!

Re:I'm the general... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749122)

Hee hee. Props for originality.

more funding is on the way (1)

a2wflc (705508) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748006)

politicians can't wait for this technology to become usable.

so? (0)

KnightBlade (1074408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748018)

What uses can this possibly have? The material is "exotic" so probably extremely expensive. Rotating it at tremendous speeds proves what? Yes, its strong enough, but what do we put these on display in malls? Just asking...

That is impressive but not as interesting as... (3, Funny)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748030)

...when I watched an idiot EN3 (Petty officer 3rd class) walking on a prop shaft cover (which he knew he wasn't supposed to do) while we were under way and slipping and engaging the tiny tiny tiny tiny little gear that was intended to turn the shaft in port to avoid warping. I don't remember the ratio of the gear but it was something on the order of a few hundred thousand to one (it turned the shaft once every 90 minutes or something) and when this dipstick engaged it (someone was doing maintenance on it so it was unlocked) the shaft was doing 150 rpm or so. I remember doing the math at the time and figuring out the max RPM on the gear was somewhere along the lines of 35 million plus rpm. Now, the gear didn't make it that high since it disintegrating with what sounded like a bomb going off. Thank God it was small as it blew holes through bulkheads, steel covers, blew the cover off the rocker arms on the diesel engine 20 feet away. Nobody was hurt except for some ringing ears. Ahh, those 3 years in the Navy before I go to university, what things we learned... Hehe. BTW, the 'instant petty officer' was upside down in the reduction gear lube sump the minute we got back into port as punishment (the cheng [chief engineer] had him practicing his needle-gunning skills in the bilge two hours every morning in the meantime.)

Re:That is impressive but not as interesting as... (3, Funny)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748312)

When I worked as a mechanic I once saw a crankshaft pully come off at speed. My co-worker was replacing a timing belt on an older for Escort and had a bit of trouble getting it lined up properly. When he figured it out he got all excited and hopped in the car without actually bothering to bolt the pully to the crank... so when he fired it up, and it worked, he got all excited and revved the engine a few times. This sped up the inevitable march of the pully down the end of the crank, where it ran out of room and fell off while doing about 4000rpm. It bounced twice in a shower of sparks, and the third time it "hooked up" and shot across the floor of the garage like a rocket. Needless to say, the engine died and the pully was now in more than one piece, as was the bit of wall it smashed into. My co-worker was devastated, but the rest of us were in stitches. :)

Other elements (3, Interesting)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748056)

I wonder how fast you could spin a nitrogen molecule before it falls apart? It should be calculable. Would hydrogen go even faster?

impressive record! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748070)

> claimed a record: ...a clip of 60 million rotations per minute

Wow, times change. When I was a lad, most records were only 33 1/3 RPM, although a few were 45's, 78's, or 16's as well. But millions? We had nothing like that!

They have a saying... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748088)

In Romania they have a saying: Go spinning around.

It roughly means go f*** yourself.

Is it relativistic? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748122)

The speed makes me think of what would happen to a rotating sphere that spins so fast the outer portions become relativistic and undergo both spatial and temporal changes relative to the inner core.

Re:Is it relativistic? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748270)

The speed makes me think of what would happen to a rotating sphere that spins so fast the outer portions become relativistic and undergo both spatial and temporal changes relative to the inner core.

The abstract says that the graphene is micron sized, so

v = PI*D*w

D = 1E-6
w = rotational frequency = 1E6 Hz

v = 3 m/s

Sadly, not relativistic.

It depends on what you call an object (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748166)

A gas molecule rotates if you hit it with the right microwave frequency. 'Microwave' means it will rotate in the giga-Hertz.

I don't have time now but if you google on rotation and spectroscopy ...

some neutron stars rotate near light speed (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748174)

A 10-km diameter neutron star rotating in a millisecond is moving 30,000 km per second at the surface. That is tenth light speed and relativistic effects must be considered. "Neutron star" is just a name. The actual composition may be a quark soup, i.e single mega-nucleus. The attractive strong-nuclear & gravitational forces versus the repulsive centripedal and electrostatic forces are near unimaginable.

Re:some neutron stars rotate near light speed (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748576)

Can you cite something for this? The highest spin rate I could find for a neutron star (XTE J1739-285) [wikipedia.org] is 1122 times a second and it seems that it may not even be the correct rate.

circumference = pi times diameter (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749074)

The wiki reference mentions stars 12KM in diameter and "several hundred times a second". You mentioned almost 900 times a section. I'd consider one percent light speed to be highly relativistic. Some of these numbers are as much as ten percent.

Re:some neutron stars rotate near light speed (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749370)

Your finding validates the GP's comment:

10 km diameter * PI ~= 30 km at the equator

(30 km / rotation) * (1122 rotations / second) ~= 30,000 km / second ~= 10% * c

Perhaps you were thinking of rotations per microsecond?

Re:some neutron stars rotate near light speed (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749752)

1122 times a second sounds like one rotation in something less than a millisecond, no?

shit!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748178)

Ultimate Tilt-a-Whirl (2, Funny)

decavolt (928214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748182)

Finally a material strong enough to build the ultimate Tilt-aWhirl

Re:Ultimate Tilt-a-Whirl (1)

shock1970 (1216162) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749738)

I was thinking Sit-N-Spin

Spinning microcrystals (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748188)

As noted by another poster, 30000rpm isn't a record. In my field of solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance, magic-angle spinning rotors can achieve 70kHz--or 4.2M rpm. Samples of 1-30mg of microcrystalline protein (or other sample) are spun in rotors of microliter volume using dry air : bearing gas to create a bed of air for the rotor, and a drive gas to propel the rotor. Spinning the sample suppresses anisotropic magnetic fields in the sample and simulate solution-like conditions.

Space elevator (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748206)

Would it be simpler to use a sheet of graphene to build a space elevator rather than carbon nanotubes? It certainly seems to have the tensile strength for it...

BOOORING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748316)

Wake me when they spin it 100M rpm... and make it 1m in diameter.

new hard drives? (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748390)

I can't wait for my new 60 million rpm hard drive! No I didn't RTFA, this is /. That said, I suspect translating this to an applied take a smidge longer than my life span.

This doesn't sound right. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748454)

My understanding is that it is graphite if there's more than one layer and it is only graphene when it is a single layer, which by definition is also a monatomic layer. If this is correct, then you cannot have graphene a few atoms thick. That has no meaning.

Science writing at its finest (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748608)

Sure, as many have pointed out, the 30K RPM using an optical trap might be a bit ambiguous, but this

Kane then set them spinning using a light beam that is circularly polarised, meaning it passes its momentum to objects in its path.

was really helpful - I'd always wondered what "circular polarization" meant.

Re:Science writing at its finest (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749524)

That's completely wrong, actually. Light always applies some momentum to what it hits, the difference with circular polarised light is that it imparts a spin.

Linear polarised light is the sine-wave shape you've probably seen before, circular polarised light is essentially a spiral around the direction of travel. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization [wikipedia.org]

It's used in 3D cinema glasses because there are two kinds of circular polarized light (referred to as left and right handed), which spiral opposite ways and won't go through each other's filter, and because you can rotate the filter (say, by tilting your head) without affecting the image. On the other hand shutter glasses require power (and need a high framerate projector and some kind of synchronisation) and linear polarised lenses only work if you keep your head very level.

Re:Science writing at its finest (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749784)

Perhaps the title "Science writing at its finest" was one of them "clue" thingies...

Re:Science writing at its finest (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749984)

Oh, this internet sarcasm thing. Sorry, I just thought you were stupid.

Wow. Big whoop-de-doo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748760)

three carbon atoms across, 60 million rpm.. that's what, an outside rotation velocity of about 37.5 miles per hour.

most (observed) rotations per minute, sure.. but not 'fastest spinning'

Previous Record Set by Toothbrush (1)

hsoftdev17 (1701106) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748824)

"spun at up to 30,000 rpm" ?? Am I missing something here? 30,000 rpm is achievable with a common R/C car motor or an aggressive electric toothbrush... I assume that's a typo.

Re:Previous Record Set by Toothbrush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748942)

Thanks for pointing that out - only 53 of the (currently) posted 80 comments mention their author's inability to parse simple English.

now that this is possible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33748866)

"what does it mean?!?"

Macroscopic RPM Record (2, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33748934)

"As a result, the flakes started spinning at 60 million rotations per minute, faster than any other macroscopic object."

"Previously, micrometre-sized crystals have been spun at up to 30,000 rpm"

Following through to the source of that quote:

"Their short axis follows the direction of the linear polarization of the beam. In circular or elliptic polarization, the crystals are spontaneously put in rotation with a high speed of up to 500 turns per second. It is the first time, to the best of our knowledge, that such a result is reported for particles of the size of our crystals."

So, if the 30,000 RPM crystal is interesting because it was a crystal, or because it was small, fine. But if they're saying that 30,000 RPM was interesting for large objects, ummm, turbocharger turbines spin at up to 150,000 RPM.

That said; 60 million RPM is very impressive.

Why you ask? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33749316)

Because we can!
That is and always should be enough reason.

30,000 RPM? (1)

jeepmeister (241971) | more than 3 years ago | (#33749622)

I have a Dyson vacuum cleaner with a motor that spins 3 times faster than that. WTF?

I always thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33749720)

Slashdot was read by a lot of smart people. But this article more than any other shows me it's just as retarded here as anywhere else. sigh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>