×

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!

Graphene Super Paper Is 10x Stronger Than Steel

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the is-there-anything-it-can't-do dept.

Australia 244

Elliot Chang writes "The University of Technology in Sydney recently unveiled a new type of graphene nano paper that is ten times stronger than a sheet of steel. Composed of processed and pressed graphite, the material is as thin as a sheet of paper yet incredible durable — this strength and thinness gives it remarkable applications in many industries, and it is completely recyclable to boot."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

244 comments

The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (4, Funny)

billyea (2029384) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893304)

Apparently the pencil is now mightier than the sword.

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893488)

I always hate "stronger". What does it mean? Tensile strength? Compression? What metric are they claiming "10 times stronger".

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893534)

But that would be proper syense. Don't do syence. makes me brain hurt!

OR couldn't agree more.

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893554)

Someone needs to read the article, but in case you can't for some weird reason...

"it’s two times as hard, six times lighter and ten times higher in tensile strength"

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893686)

Then put it in the summary. When I see such a liteweight summary in scientifc terms, I don't bother to read on. I get innudated with tons of "information" and can only be arsed to read on if I have confidence in the value of what I am going to read.

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894376)

Exactly how I felt. I read a summary that says "such and such is 10x stronger!!1". I ask stronger than what and how? (We got the what, but not the how.) So, I'm thinking, "If I read this article, is it going to be an advert piece with no details? I'm not going to waste my time to find out."

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893748)

but something that thin, I wonder what the shearing force it can withstand is.

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893834)

Shearing force is basically just tensile force acting on a very short segment of the material.

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893914)

but that "very short segment" part truly matters.

I'm a decently strong guy, but I can't rip apart even a fairly thin sheet of something like aluminum (no, not aluminum foil, real sheet metal). I can cut through it with ease with even a moderate pair of scissors though.

Those terms are meaningless (5, Interesting)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893796)

"it’s two times as hard, six times lighter and ten times higher in tensile strength"

Well, to the materials scientists I work with, those words sound like advertising more than useful information.

Two times as hard as steel. Steel in what condition? There is a very wide variety of steel alloys, and these can be heat treated to be as whatever hardness is necessary. Find a piece of mild steel (the kind of stuff you might find at the hardware store) and try to scratch it with something hard. You can scratch it pretty easily, but try again on a piece of stainless steel cutlery and you'll probably find it quite a bit more difficult. Both are steel.

Six times lighter. Per unit volume? Ok, but how do the other characteristics compare given the same volume? Or given the same weight? The article doesn't give any real detail or any frame of reference.

Ten times higher in tensile strength - again, if you want to compare to steel you need to give the alloy grade (grade refers to composition, not quality), and the heat treatment - anyone who's bought nuts and bolts at the hardware store has noticed that these metal items are available in different strength grades even within the same basic metal family.

Those claims sound just like those given for aluminum - it's lighter (per unit volume), stronger (per unit weight), etc. But, in service, where toughness (ie. impact resistance, the ability to deform plastically before fracturing, etc), steel beats aluminum hands down.

Not that I'm a big fan of steel or anything, it's just that these comparisons are often incomplete and therefore meaningless. It's too bad the article writer didn't include any actual mechanical property values.

Superman! Faster, longitudinally, than a speeding (5, Funny)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893804)

bullet, if the bullet is fired from a WWII period carbine with standard powder load. More powerful than a locomotive, specifically an R100 with a half-load of diesel traveling on level ground, with standard moisture conditions. Able to leap tall buildings, that is any vertical structure with a height of 2,000 meters or less, in a single bound, a bound beind defined as a vertical motion impelled by a single push of the foot against the earth, being level with the first floor of the building's entrance, and also considering stable wind conditions, standard humidity, temperature, and pressure, and no precipitation.

Re:Superman! Faster, longitudinally, than a speedi (1)

Labcoat Samurai (1517479) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894474)

Able to leap tall buildings, that is any vertical structure with a height of 2,000 meters or less

Not much of a limitation. That's more than twice the height of the Burj Khalifa.

Re:Superman! Faster, longitudinally, than a speedi (1)

bjohnso5 (1476817) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894606)

I'm glad someone finally put all that ambiguity about Superman's actual abilities to bed. My hat is off to you, sir!

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (1)

damnfuct (861910) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893634)

Maybe it withstands advanced torture techniques better than steel does.

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893944)

When I read the subject of your post, my next thought was "Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound..."

Re:The Strength of Compressed Graphite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893952)

Apparently the pencil is now mightier than the sword.

and the paper is now stronger than the pencil

Apple iPad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893328)

will not use this. You heard it here first, folks!

paper airplane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893332)

now paper airplane takes on all kinds of new meanings...

Rate of degrading? (3, Interesting)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893372)

My understanding is that pure carbon things sublimate into CO2 over time (including diamonds) when exposed to oxygen.

Just out of curiosity, anyone have an idea about the life of these sorts of materials? I'd think that a very thin, sublimating material with large surface area wouldn't last very long.

Re:Rate of degrading? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893532)

Not generally. It sublimates at 3915K, the highest of all elements. Additionally, it's very non-reactive in most forms around standard temperature and pressure. Stable carbon forms do *not* oxidize easily.

Re:Rate of degrading? (2)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893574)

Would it be impossible to coat it with some kind of varnish? Say, like they already do to avoid metal sheets from oxidizing...

Re:Rate of degrading? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893672)

I'd guess that since the carbon atoms are strongly bound to each other in rings, that the sublimation process would be strongest where the rings were incomplete; at the edges of the "paper". In other words, it would be the length of the perimeter that matters, not the surface area.

Also, this may be ten times stronger than steel, but it is still carbon, which makes it ten times more combustible than steel as well.

Re:Rate of degrading? (4, Insightful)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893770)

Also, this may be ten times stronger than steel, but it is still carbon, which makes it ten times more combustible than steel as well.

Sort of like diamonds are ten times more combustible than steel wool.

I don't think it's quite that simple...

Re:Rate of degrading? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893774)

So you wouldn't want to build an airplane or a building out of it... but useful in undersea and outer space applications I bet.

Re:Rate of degrading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893846)

My understanding is that pure carbon things sublimate into CO2 over time (including diamonds) when exposed to oxygen.

Sublimation is only a state change. I'm not saying that what you're describing doesn't happen, I'm just saying, the transformation of C to CO2 is usually called "oxidization" or even just "burning".

Re:Rate of degrading? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893998)

My understanding is that pure carbon things sublimate into CO2 over time.

{img src="Inigo Montoya.gif"}

#1 excuse gone.. (3, Funny)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893378)

No chance your dog eats your homework now.

Re:#1 excuse gone.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893632)

He can't tear it with his teeth, but he could still swallow it.
How are you going to get your homework out of the dog?

Re:#1 excuse gone.. (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893658)

Nah, better yet... the dog ate my homework AND I had to take him to the vet because he was not crapping!

Recyclable? (1)

neoevans (179332) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893380)

Steel is the most recycled material on the planet. It is also plenty strong for most applications. So my question is, how much does this super-nano-paper cost? That will be key in its success.

Re:Recyclable? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893898)

Graphite is one of cheaper forms of carbon to obtain.
Graphene is created by stripping thin layers off graphite.
Of course to combine them into something of reasonable strength, you need lots and lots of layers. Still, at industry scale, this can be probably made quite cheap, especially that the raw material is cheaper than steel, and the processing does not involve energies required to melt steel.
Still, that's a lot of graphene layers, so even if unit cost of adding a layer is low, the whole may cost quite a bit. OTOH, unlike steel (which HAS to be heated to melting temperature), this process can be optimized ad nauseam, a joule here, half a joule there, and in the end made very cheap.

Starts expensive, gets cheaper (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893904)

Steel is the most recycled material on the planet. It is also plenty strong for most applications. So my question is, how much does this super-nano-paper cost? That will be key in its success.

Steel was once incredibly expensive, a rarity only kings/warlords possessed. Aluminum was once so expensive it was mainly used in the luxury goods of the rich. I think the key to success is usefulness. Cost has more to do with how quickly that success occurs.

Another vapor product. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893386)

Never see it in our lifetimes. Press release from the University is just for publicity, grant funding, likely.

"Ten times stronger than steel" (3, Interesting)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893390)

Note that this only refers to tensile strength. [xkcd.com]

Re:"Ten times stronger than steel" (4, Funny)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893596)

God, is there an internet rule that states that for any reasonably technical topic that there will be an xkcd comic for it? =)

Re:"Ten times stronger than steel" (4, Funny)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893734)

God, is there an internet rule that states that for any reasonably technical topic that there will be an xkcd comic for it? =)

There is now...

Re:"Ten times stronger than steel" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35894022)

God, is there an internet rule that states that for any reasonably technical topic that there will be an xkcd comic for it? =)

More notably, there is a /. rule that some xkcd fanboi / karma whore will have to link it.

My only question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893396)

My only question: Will my Dixon Ticonderoga #2 write on it?

Tensile strength is ten times stronger. (3, Informative)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893420)

Here [aip.org] is the stress strain graph.

Re:Tensile strength is ten times stronger. (4, Informative)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893452)

Re:Tensile strength is ten times stronger. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893744)

if you want to pay for it.

Re:Tensile strength is ten times stronger. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893824)

Access to this article requires a subscription or AIP Article Pack, or rent it for $3.99

Re:Tensile strength is ten times stronger. (1)

wiggles (30088) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893520)

For those of us not in the materials field, can you provide a short explanation?

Re:Tensile strength is ten times stronger. (2)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893690)

For measuring the strength of materials, the stress strain curve shows the amount of stress as a function of strain. Essentially, it shows how much force per cross sectional area (pressure) the material can handle as it stretches. This isn't quite as simple as it sounds because the cross sectional area decreases as a function of strain too. This is known as Poisson's ratio. Here is the wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Tensile strength is ten times stronger. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893746)

its a graph of how much force causes how much stretching of a sample of the material. The end of the line is when it snaps. The area under the linear part of the curve is related to how much energy the material can store in tension, and the highest point basically the tensile strength. Brittle materials are pretty much linear. Ductile materials have a more curvy graph that has a peak, after which the material starts to permanently deform and the force actually decreases as it stretches further since it gets thinner.

10x Stronger than X property??? (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893422)

10x stronger than steel in what aspect? Malleability, ductilibility, toughness, or all the above?

Re:10x Stronger than X property??? (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893640)

It's ten times stronger in the only way that matters: odour production. Why they didn't just say it was ten times as pungent as steel I don't know.

Re:10x Stronger than X property??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893678)

This is the second time I am doing this here, but .... FROM THE ARTICLE:

"it’s two times as hard, six times lighter and ten times higher in tensile strength"

Re:10x Stronger than X property??? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894500)

And just like before you were asked to clarify based on what type of alloy and grade of steel.

Since we do not FTFM! (1)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893712)

"Graphene offers many advantages over steel â" itâ(TM)s two times as hard, six times lighter and ten times higher in tensile strength." -- Ya, right from the Article.

Re:10x Stronger than X property??? (2)

theIsovist (1348209) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893732)

Exactly! This is a common problem with anything from Inhabitat. They repost content without any details backing up claims such as "X is 10 times stronger than Y, this is a huge breakthrough!" Beyond this, the facts they post are often out of context, and occasionally flat out wrong (view most anything they post about space). I do admit that sometimes the articles they link to have the same levels of actual content, but why should we post a blog that's never anything more than a poor repost of another blog?

This pains me to say as I used to be a big fan of Inhabitat when they first started. I even won a contest of theirs years back. As it stands, though, their content has no purpose here on slashdot.

Re:10x Stronger than X property??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35894258)

I think they could do without 'fans' that don't even read their articles. It's in the fucking article! It probably took longer to type that out then it would have taken to read it!

or I just got trolled 10x harder.

Re:10x Stronger than X property??? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894600)

FTFA:
"Graphene offers many advantages over steel â" itâ(TM)s two times as hard, six times lighter and ten times higher in tensile strength."

Re:10x Stronger than X property??? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893786)

When they're comparing graphene to steel, they always mean tensile strength. Hope this helps.

Uh so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893430)

Strength is just one of many properties.
Stiffness and toughness are very important.

Glass is a great material, it's stiff, and strong, but isn't very tough.
Plastics can be extremely strong and tough, but might not be very stiff.

Then you have to consider design flexibility, repairability too.

Cost is also an issue, for manufacture, and for repair.

I wonder what advantages this paper has over other composite materials (glass, aluminum, boron) or even existing carbon products

from the is-there-anything-it-can't-do dept... (2)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893432)

Can it give Superman a paper cut?

Re:from the is-there-anything-it-can't-do dept... (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893504)

Yes, but not Chuck Norris.

Re:from the is-there-anything-it-can't-do dept... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894628)

Bruce Lee is dead and he can STILL kick Chuck Norris's* ass from beyond the grave.

*What the rule for the possive plural when someones name ends in S?

Re:from the is-there-anything-it-can't-do dept... (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893750)

I was wondering if it would be strong enough to hold Gort. After all, "KL93" was also supposed to be stronger than steel.

Re:from the is-there-anything-it-can't-do dept... (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893772)

I want to know if a Ginsu knife will cut it and a tomato with the same ease.

[Gee, I'm old... now get off my lawn!]

How does this compare to aluminium? (1)

martijnd (148684) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893434)

Aluminium is 3x lighter than steel.

If this material is 10x lighter than steel we would be able to build among others much lighter aircraft.

Of course, I hope we don't have to glue the plane together from A4 sized pieces of "paper".

Re:How does this compare to aluminium? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893492)

Before you going making planes out of it, find out how it handles repeated stresses. No need to build more 737s that have moon-roofs.

Re:How does this compare to aluminium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893620)

Pfft. I've been making airplanes out of paper since 1st grade.

Re:How does this compare to aluminium? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893828)

As someone pointed out earlier, it is still carbon. Building a plane out of coal will make for interesting-to-contain fires at disaster sites after crashes.

Re:How does this compare to aluminium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35894514)

Guess what. Aluminum and kerosene burn too.

Re:How does this compare to aluminium? (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894114)

glue the plane together from A4 sized pieces of "paper"

Haven't you heard of Origami?

Re:How does this compare to aluminium? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894234)

There is more to a material than it's tensile strength. Failure modes, amount of plasticity before failure, compressive strength and many other factors are important.

For example, one of the reasons high strength concrete isn't used very often is that it's failure mode is instantaneous (rather dramatic too) rather than crumbly. As a result there is no warning when it fails whereas regular concrete begins to crumble and drop debris, a very visible and noticeable sign of failure allowing time to evacuate.

So when someone says X material is ten time stronger than steel the next question should be is what one way is better and in what other ways is it worse. Just as an example, steel has tremendous tensile and compressive strength. If this has no compressive strength it's uses are highly restricted

Space goats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893496)

Could this finally be the answer to economical production of space goats? Traditional materials used for the space goat's electronic brain have either been prohibitively expensive, in short supply, or simply not strong enough to survive in the harsh environs of outer space. This seems to have all three bases covered! Hopefully this means that true, space faring, robotic goats will be something that we see in our generation's lifetime, and the dreams of our ancestors will come true. I, for one, look forward to a future of space-goatin'.

Re:Space goats? (0)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893684)

Of course mechanoid cosmic caprines have been an area of intense ongoing research at NASA and complementary foreign agencies over the years. But just because an entire nation wills something to happen doesn't mean it is likely, or even possible. We'll have to wait and see if these advances in material science hold promise for this most urgent of potential breakthroughs.

The implications of this are staggering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893528)

Millions of games of rock-paper-scissors will need to be replayed.

Re:The implications of this are staggering (3, Interesting)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893864)

actually, if you think about it, this FINALLY makes the game make sense.

who knows what the shearing force resistance of this new stuff is, common scissors may still be able to cut through it. on the other hand, there is finally a good reason why your average rock can't just rip through the center of it, which was always the weak point of the traditional rock-paper-scissors. there was never a good reason that paper could withstand rock. if there was, any houses at the base of mountains or volcanoes would be made out of paper.

a statement without context (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893530)

has no meaning

spider silk is also stronger than steel. meaning what? give us the actual conditions under which the statement is rendered, and stop pushing the science lite for idiots

Now, make it transparent... (2)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893564)

If they could not make it transparent, it would be really revolutionary. Considering it's "just" carbon, it does have that potential...

This can probably be improved further (3, Interesting)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893592)

As somebody working with graphene and having read the paper; IMHO this can be improved even further by improving the micro-structure of the material (less defects). Less defects could prolly be achieved by annealing at a higher temperature (in vacuum or argon). Also irradiation with high energy ions could be useful in improving the interlocking of the graphene layers.
Of course higher annealing temperature would make the material more expensive.

Re:This can probably be improved further (0)

Evildonald (983517) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893676)

*dubious*

I can't believe any scientific statement that includes the word "prolly".

'Stronger' is a prett general term (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893638)

Malleability, Ductility, Tensile strength, Hardness, Abrasion resistance, Brittleness, Thermal conductivity, Thermal coefficient of expansion... they mention some of these, but the list goes on quite a ways.

It might be nice and light and easy to cover an airplane with, but if the plane hits a pebble on takeoff will it shatter a wing because it's really brittle? If same plane soaks up a bunch of rays sitting on the tarmac in 110F deg heat, does the stuff expand by a factor of 10? Likewise, when it gets to 40,000 feet does the stuff contract by the same amount? Another issue is shipping the stuff from Australia to wherever.. what kind of carbon footprint comes with the manufacting process and shipping it? Is adopting this stuff mainstream going to heat the planet even more?

I'm sure the stuff is made of awesome , but just sayin... it would be nice to see a little more in-depth info.

Re:'Stronger' is a prett general term (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894222)

Don't forget electrical conductivity. Get struck by lightning, or have an arc burn a hole in it when a breaker fails and then what happens?

Statistical Failure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35893728)

As a material scientist there are several things about this article that should immediately set off the hype alarm.

1. Graphene is a single sheet of carbon -> this material starts off as graphite, and ends up as graphite. Despite the fancy processing and techniques they have devised, the sample is the thickness of paper, not the thickness of a monolayer of carbon atoms.

2. Failure is a statistical process. Although you can make a sample with great properties, when you scale up to the size of a structural component for a car or a building you will find that the strength decreases dramatically. Imagine the material as a sheet of linked chains. When one chain breaks the ones around it are under more stress and are more likely to break. With a large sheet, you are likely to have an area where several chains are broken together and this crack will propagate throughout the composite. The main thing holding back carbon nanotubes (and carbon graphite sheets) is not cost, it's this statistical failure problem.

Until you see a Weibull plot showing applied load versus probability of failure, don't invest too heavily in structural nanomaterials. Carbon fiber is still king of composites.

Re:Statistical Failure (2)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893926)

Graphene is a single sheet of carbon -> this material starts off as graphite, and ends up as graphite. Despite the fancy processing and techniques they have devised, the sample is the thickness of paper, not the thickness of a monolayer of carbon atoms.

The thing here is that the graphene layers are interconnected by covalent bonds. This improves the mechanical properties because the graphene planes can not slip and slide on each other as a result of strain on the sample.

Now (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893760)

All some bright fool needs to do is figure out a way to glue it together like cardboard, and we'll never be able to get our parcels open!

as thin as a sheet of paper (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893768)

...but 10X stronger than a sheet of steel. If these can be used as stationery, gone forever is the excuse: "the dog ate my homework"

Wet Paper Bag (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893810)

Finally -- the answer to those tough guys who say that I can't punch my way out of a wet paper bag!

Who can't punch their way out of a wet paper bag now, tough guy?

Housing? (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 2 years ago | (#35893982)

Obviously if it can be made durable enough it might be a wonderful housing material. A cardboard like wall of this stuff might mean the end of wind storms destroying walls and roofs. It also sounds rather ideal for car and truck skins. And a new trombone made of this stuff might also be very interesting. Trurning a 2.5 lb. musical instrument into a three oz. instrument that resist destruction would be a blessing.

Re:Housing? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894364)

Tensile strength of the material isn't what destroys homes in wind storms. It's the horizontal force applied by the wind which shears the structural material from it's fasteners (in this case the plywood shears the nails). For roofs there are two failure modes, either the roof decking has enough uplift to pull the roofing nails or the entire roof truss is sheared off the wall connections.

Having a material with ten times the tensile strength of steel isn't going to stop wind from tearing walls and roofs off unless it's used to make the nails.

hazmat? (1)

eagl (86459) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894104)

Sounds like it has great physical properties, but what about potential hazards? What happens when it burns or is crushed/shredded? Does it burn violently or excessively hot (or cold)? Is the smoke toxic? In mutilated form, does it release toxic or otherwise hazardous particles? Can you handle it with bare hands, and can you handle a torn edge with bare hands? Can it be disposed of normally? What about resistance to solvents and/or petroleum?

If the stuff is hazardous, then it's going to have some severe limits in practical use. The risk of hazardous exposure is going to have to be weighed against the benefits for every application, and hopefully we don't see irresponsible use of a new technology just because it's new. Some of the abuses we see of carbon fiber and li-po batteries in applications that routinely expect to get damaged are examples we shouldn't follow, if this stuff is dangerous when damaged or burned.

Bicycles? (1)

AntEater (16627) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894256)

How long until we see bicycle frames manufactured out of graphene? Stronger and lighter than steel? If it has reasonable durability and flex qualities then I'm looking forward to it.

Coming too a bookstore near you... (1)

srbell (164773) | more than 2 years ago | (#35894496)

Kit plane in a book! The instruction manual doubles as the airframe construction material!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...