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!

Diamond Nanotubes Created

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the work-faster-to-get-my-space-elevator dept.

Science 129

raxxy writes to tell us that researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne Nation Laboratory have taken the next step in nano development. Combining the process for 'growing' diamonds and the latest in carbon nanotubes has given birth to a diamond-nanotube composite. From the article: "Diamond has its drawbacks, however. Diamond is a brittle material and is normally not electrically conducting. Nanotubes, on the other hand, are incredibly strong and are also great electrical conductors, but harnessing these attributes into real materials has proved elusive. By integrating these two novel forms of carbon together at the nanoscale a new material is produced that combines the material properties of both diamond and nanotubes."

cancel ×

129 comments

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

Yay, more nanotechnology (1)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473301)

Soon we're going to need a seperate category on /. for this. Maybe we can change the font from Times New Roman to something "nano". Although if the /. eds can't do it for the frontpage, what can they do it for? Interesting stuff though.

Re:Yay, more nanotechnology (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473339)

Maybe we can change the font from Times New Roman to something "nano".

FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="0.0000000000001"

HTH.

Re:Yay, more nanotechnology (1)

floamy (608691) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473529)

The font isn't set to Times New Roman anywhere. It lets your browser decide. Maybe you should stop complaining and figure out how to operate the perferences panel of your browser?

Re:Yay, more nanotechnology (1)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473655)

I figured that. But I can't be bothered changing the font to Times New Roman rel -2pt just for /. And is it really going to kill slashcode to have font-family: sans-serif; in the CSS?

Of course it is, /. is OSS.

You knew it was coming... (2, Interesting)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473305)

Can this be used in the space elevator? Tensile pressure and all?

Re:You knew it was coming... (DUPE!) (2, Informative)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473402)

Well if this is the same material that was reported about a week ago everywhere else (and probably /.) [slashdot.org] it's not strong enough for the space elevator (Aggregated diamond nanorods have a modulus of 491 gigapascals (GPa), compared with 442 GPa for conventional diamond.)

Re:You knew it was coming... (2, Informative)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473434)

Just to give some background on what this is all about, here's an article on their predecessors, carbon nanotubes [wikipedia.org] . Remember diamond is just a carbon matrix in a particular arrangement. Carbon nanotubes form sp2 bonds; presumably these diamond nanotubes form sp3 bonds, although it's not clear to me how you'd create a tube with that geometry.

Re:You knew it was coming... (1)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473525)

Why not just use nanotubes? They have enough tensile strength, at least.

Space elevator (0, Flamebait)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473534)

The space elevator is a fantasy. Theoretically possible some day, but the technical hurdles combined with the inherent drawbacks of the technology mean it will NEVER be put into practice... at least not on Earth.

Now, all this nanotechnology WILL likely translate into stronger, lighter, more durable space craft. If the production methods can bring nanotechnology to a reasonable price, then, some day, my grandkids might get to buy a ticket to Mars.

Nanotechnology will never give us the space elvator, even if it make it technically possible.

Re:Space elevator (1)

Taladar (717494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473693)

Now, all this nanotechnology WILL likely translate into stronger, lighter, more durable space craft.
Unless you can make fuel from nanotubes this is bullshit as the main weight of a spacecraft is the fuel and even though the other 5-10% or so might be reduced by the use of lighter materials this won't help us to improve the performance of current spacecrafts by orders of magnitude (which would be necessary to allow spaceflight for normal everyday people like flight is today).

Re:Space elevator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473747)

We could build a lunar space elevator now. We have the material (kevlar) and we can mass produce it in the levels we'd need. All that is required is the will to do it, and a small portion of the US military budget (approximately 1/10000th of it).

Re:Space elevator (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473884)

It's the same as any high risk high cost project, you just gotta find the right sucker, err, investor. Look at the launch loop. Could be done with today's technology (in fact, 20 year old technology) and needs no major breakthroughs.. so where is it? On the drawing board.

Re:Space elevator (4, Funny)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473922)

The space elevator is a fantasy (etc.)

Good thing you're so much smarter than all them fancy-pants scientists and engineers with their high-falutin' PhD's and book-learnin' working on that damn-fool idea! If they just listen to you, they'll stop wasting their time!

Re:Space elevator (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473981)

That makes me wonder...

Where do they get them fancy pants anyway?

Re:Space elevator (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474134)

They get 'em at them-there fancy schools when they get too big for their britches, of course!

meanwhile (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473310)

This first post was made on an experimental computer powered by diamond nanotubes.

Re:meanwhile (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473338)

This first post was made on an experimental computer powered by diamond nanotubes.

Connected via dialup to teh intorweb. You fail it, Ensign Closet Case!

ah yes, (1, Funny)

SamAdam3d (818241) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473313)

everyone's tubes keep getting longer and harder all the time.

Re:ah yes, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473952)

even your nano tube eh

How can you make 20 years salary last forever... (2, Funny)

inkdesign (7389) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473317)

With a diamond-nanotube composite ring.

I don't know... (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473384)

"Diamond-Nanotube Composites Are Forever" just doesn't sound like a catchy slogan. Or Kanye West song, for that matter.

Re:How can you make 20 years salary last forever.. (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473438)


Maybe she'll settle for a tubular zirconia.

I think the important question (1)

UndyingShadow (867720) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473318)

I think the important question here is...how will this help us make better moon lasers?

Re:I think the important question (1)

headzoo (912218) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473474)

That question never seems to come up for some reason. Go figure.

Re:I think the important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473560)

Too bad nobody gets the Austin Powers humor reference.
This should be modded as FUNNY.

Re:I think the important question (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13474070)

Except the fact that it's not funny. We've all seen that movie. It was funny when he did it, not when you did it.

dupe, or perhaps not? (2, Interesting)

eobanb (823187) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473319)

This seems very similar to this article [slashdot.org] from just a few days ago, yet I don't think they're the same thing. I'd be interested in seeing a direct comparison of the nanorods and the diamond nanotubes.

Re:dupe, or perhaps not? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473640)

When a nanorod and a nanotube love each other very much....

Re:dupe, or perhaps not? (1)

}InFuZeD{ (52430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473721)

I believe the nanorods were supposed to be stronger than diamond. The nanotubes seem to be similar to diamonds, only very good conductors as well.

I don't think they're dupes, but who knows.

Re:dupe, or perhaps not? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474559)

Here's some comparison on TFA's:

Nanorods article:
Physicists in Germany have created a material that is harder than diamond. Natalia Dubrovinskaia and colleagues at the University of Bayreuth made the new material by subjecting carbon-60 molecules to immense pressures.

Diamond Nanotubes:
Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory...

and:

The new hybrid material was created using Ultrananocrystalline(TM) diamond (UNCD(TM) ), a novel form of carbon developed at Argonne. The researchers made the two materials - ultrananocrystalline diamond and carbon nanotubes - grow simultaneously into dense thin films.

So, in summary:
* Diamond nanorods: Germany - UNCD (TM) : U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory
* Diamond nanorods: Compressing C60 (buckyballs) - UNCD: grow diamond and nanotubes into dense thin films.

Nope... they're not the same.

Look out for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473324)

Composites! Where the composite material is equal to or greater than the sum of its parts!

Wow!! (5, Funny)

ki4iib (902605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473326)

Dude! Diamonds AND nanotubes!!! That's like, pirates AND ninjas!!!!!

Re:Wow!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473354)

Ninja wizards!

Which is cooler? (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473863)

Diamond nanotubes, or nanotube diamonds? Sort like pirate ghosts, or ghost pirates; or pirate ninjas vs. ninja pirates?

Re:Wow!! (1)

c4ffeine (705293) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474419)

Irish Ninja Vikings.

Need I say any more?

Neal Stephenson (1)

msgyrd (891916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473351)

Is this the coming of The Diamond Age? I can't wait for the diamond to lose it's monatary value.

Re:Neal Stephenson (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473462)

I can't wait for the diamond to lose it's monatary value.

Actually, the best way for diamomd to lose its value is to convince enough people there is no significant difference between a manufactured and a natural diamond. The value of a natural diamond is based on how few flaws there are (fewer->more value). Yet, the odd thing is, how you tell a manufactured diamond from a natural one is the manufactured ones often don't have flaws.

Re:Neal Stephenson (2, Informative)

binarybum (468664) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473528)

err, no it's not. the refractive index is how you tell real diamonds from manufactured ones.

Re:Neal Stephenson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473742)

Come again? The refractive index of fake diamond gems, such as cubic zerconia (spelling?) is different from diamonds.

I don't see how a synthetic diamond (read not dug from the ground) would differ in the refractive index of a "real" one. Is the molecular composition or carbon structure somehow different?

Re:Neal Stephenson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473746)

Only with the old fashioned fake diamonds. We can make REAL fake diamonds now.

Re:Neal Stephenson (2, Informative)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474200)

Manufactured diamonds are real diamonds, so they have the same refractive index, and density, as natural diamonds. The more usual term for them is synthetic diamonds, and they can be distinguished by their trace elements and by the nature of inclusions (flaws). For instance, high pressure synthetic diamonds have iron inclusions that are not found in natural diamonds.

It is an open question whether the new vapor deposition diamonds will continue to be identified, though for now they can.

Re:Neal Stephenson (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473533)

Is this the coming of The Diamond Age?

It was a great title, but the book was really about nanotech, and we are a long way from Stephensons view of the future.

One thing which does come to mind is the armies of atmospheric war nanobots in the book. They filled the air and clogged peoples lungs with particles.

This sounds a lot like the atmosphere of modern China, to me.

Re:Neal Stephenson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473777)

Diamonds don't have much value. Any monetary value attributed to diamonds are artificially created by the De Beers Diamond cartel by withholding 90% of the diamonds they mine and storing them away. The value of diamonds had dropped precipitously until De Beers took control. Recently, they may be experiencing problems with their cartel. http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch91.asp [mises.org]

Re:Neal Stephenson (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474308)

Diamonds won't lose their monetary value. Lab-grown diamonds have inclusions that are never seen in nature, so you will always be able to tell them apart, thus making a difference between the real, expensive diamonds and the lab-grown, cheap ones.

Thus, we result in... (5, Funny)

Trip Ericson (864747) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473353)

Dinotubes.

Thank you, I'll be here all next week.

What better way to spend 99999months salary? (5, Funny)

Thedeviluno (903528) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473359)

This is a nano diamond ring, you cant see it but will you marry me?

Re:What better way to spend 99999months salary? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473559)

Of course, honey! It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion with the lotion! I mean, in the ocaen! Oh, wait, you meant the stone in the ring.

Re:What better way to spend 99999months salary? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473761)

"This is a nano diamond ring, you cant see it but will you marry me?"

First they joke about making me into a purse, then they joke about making me into a ring. Well, I'm not telling you all my middle name!

Re:What better way to spend 99999months salary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13474188)

And here I thought your nick was a reference to your small, leathery cock.

great news for some women (-1, Offtopic)

future assassin (639396) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473361)

No more sucking cock for diamonds. Now you can just suck a diamond nano tube.

Tubes (0)

drsquare (530038) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473364)

Can these be used for making a space elevator? If so, why hasn't one been made? We could attach one from the Earth to the Moon. A really strong one, what would that do? We could then go on trips to the Moon.

I know the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the Moon don't quite work like that, but with modern technology that could be solved, either by altering the rotation of the Earth or the orbit of the Moon. Or a moving elevator that goes along on a track so it keeps in line with the Moon.

Re:Tubes (1)

Toba82 (871257) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473387)

You seem to have confused modern technology with science fiction. No more TV for you.

Re:Tubes (1)

jonr (1130) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473515)

Science fiction? More like Science gibberish.

Re:Tubes (5, Funny)

ectizen (128686) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473394)

with modern technology that could be solved, either by altering the rotation of the Earth or the orbit of the Moon


I am intrigued by your notions of "modern technology" and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Tubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473409)

I think we should go with the altering the rotation of the earth thing. We can get superman to do it by flying really fast in the opposite direction and the crew of the enterprise can deal with the resulting temporal distortions. The Reticulons can reseed the planet with life after the resulting mass die off. All in all I think the Moonevator project will be totally sweet.

Re:Tubes (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473441)

> Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?

Why is it that your own sig seems so contradictory to your message? Or is it the your way of acknowledging that you only are a karma whore, well aware that there is no sense in what you write?

Re:Tubes (0, Offtopic)

drsquare (530038) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473472)

To be fair I don't know much about carbon nanodiamonds, and I'm very drunk, I can't be a karma whore cos I'm banned from getting karma by Zork.

Re:Tubes (1)

mikael (484) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473480)

Because it is people who persevere to turn their dreams into reality are the one who advance knowledge and civilisation, and that it's the people who say that things will never work or catch on are the ones who hold civilisation back.

People said that trains could never travel more than 30 miles because all the air would be pushed to the back of the carriage.

People said that airplanes could never travel faster than the speed of sound because the vibrations would pull the machine apart.

Re:Tubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473854)

Well, I'm here to say that we are never going to alter the rotation of the earth or the moon's orbit until they match. N. e. v. e. r.

And if we ever get the technology to make those changes (a big if), we certainly would be beyond the point where we would need to run a string between the two orbs just to travel between them.

(If you're patient though, mother nature will eventually do the job after a few billion more years of tidal interactions.)

Re:Tubes (1)

Bill Walker (835082) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473478)

There's an old Dilbert cartoon mocking this idea (no link b/c Scott Adams doesn't keep up older comics). Connecting the Earth and the Moon would eliminate the tides, destroying multiple animal habitats, killing Mt. Saint Michel's tourist business, and ending surfing as we know it.

Re:Tubes (1)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473849)

would eliminate the tides,.....and ending surfing as we know it.

Erm, eh, no actually, it wouldn't. Surfable waves (with rare exceptions like the pororoca) [boreriders.com] , are created by the WIND. Tide only comes in to play insofar as the depth of the water changes, and thus changes the aspect of the way the (wind-generated) waves break.

Re:Tubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473492)

I know the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the Moon don't quite work like that, but with modern technology that could be solved, either by altering the rotation of the Earth or the orbit of the Moon. Or a moving elevator that goes along on a track so it keeps in line with the Moon.

Nonsense! With truely modern technology, we would just change the values of G, c and/or pi.

Re:Tubes (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473791)

Nonsense! With truely modern technology, we would just change the values of G, c and/or pi.

Thank fuck for that. Increase c to make travel go faster, increase G on Mars and the Moon for better gravity. I don't know how we could increase pi, are you sure that's possible?

Re:Tubes (4, Funny)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473955)

don't know how we could increase pi, are you sure that's possible?

Why hell, I bet I could increase pi up to a couple of hundred if I felt like taking the time to do it right. Just go ahead and insert those diameters in the circumference and then pin them off and then just beat the living hell out of the remainder of whatever diameter is still hanging out there until it by god just goes on in. With a big enough beater, and enought time, and who knows, maybe a torch kit or something, I'm pretty sure I could work things out to get pi to most any old number you might want.

Re:Tubes (1)

EnderWigginsXenocide (852478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473513)

I know the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the Moon don't quite work like that, but with modern technology that could be solved, either by altering the rotation of the Earth or the orbit of the Moon. Or a moving elevator that goes along on a track so it keeps in line with the Moon.

Dude, you missed your time traveler convention. [mit.edu]

The future wants you back.

Re:Tubes (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473790)

"I know the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the Moon don't quite work like that, but with modern technology that could be solved..."

Modern technology can't even produce a toupee that doesn't get big laughs.

nano this, nano that, but no REAL nano products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473368)


plenty of nanovapor though

or perhaps they are so small nobody can see these so called "amazing applications that will revolutionize life as we know it"

still no cure for cancer

Re:nano this, nano that, but no REAL nano products (4, Insightful)

MAdMaxOr (834679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473414)

I happen to love how chemistry has been rebranded as nanotechnology. My favorite example is stain-resistant Dockers [cnn.com] .

Re:nano this, nano that, but no REAL nano products (2, Insightful)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473468)

Still no cure for cancer from nanotechnology is kind of saying "still no intelligent machines" about computers in the 1960s. And, yeah, we still have no intelligent machines in any relevant sense 40 years later. That doesn't mean that computer technology "hasn't delivered". If you are only happy when you go up in the space elevator and get your cancer cured by nanites during the 15 minutes it will take you to reach LEO, you are sure to be disappointed.

Think of any applications tagged with a "nano" word in its marketing right now as about as what a transistor radio was in the 1950s. It's good pieces of technology, it's technical advances, but it's not that revolutionary. We might not reach any really revolutionary stage during our lifetimes, but I would say it's far more likely that we actually manage to fullfil one or two of the farfetched dreams, and a lot of the more mundane ones.

Re:nano this, nano that, but no REAL nano products (1)

UnapprovedThought (814205) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473564)

Still no cure for cancer from nanotechnology is kind of saying "still no intelligent machines" about computers in the 1960s. And, yeah, we still have no intelligent machines in any relevant sense 40 years later

Given what it seems they would actually be used for, it's probably better that way.

Maybe I (for one) am just a little dismayed today, but even this development seems more suited to creating a better truncheon than anything else.

Important Dates (1)

nich0las (912051) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473375)

Everyone mark your calendar. This is the first day that history will show. The production of electric nano tubes will be the beginning of the brains for the robots that will come and take our pills when we're geriatrics!

Re:Important Dates (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473390)

There is no such thing as a definite beginning... Unless you want to start with "BANG! SSSSSSsssss..."

From TFA (2, Informative)

woah (781250) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473377)

...but harnessing these attributes into real materials has proved elusive.

not so [slashdot.org] elusive [worldchanging.com] it would seem.

Question on behalf of the females (1)

NoMoreBS (894632) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473379)

"Yes, ok so it's really useful, but does it look any good in earrings?"

I'm unimpressed. (4, Interesting)

MAdMaxOr (834679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473398)

Congratulations. You can do vapor deposition of diamonds, and you can do vapor deposition of carbon nanotubes. So can everyone else. You can do them both at the same time? Interesting. Too bad you can't control the process beyond the ratio of nanotube to diamond.

What about average tube length? Alignment? Bonding with the diamond? Anything beyond what you'd get if you mixed extremely fine diamond powder and nanotube powder, mixed and compressed? Guess not.

However "Ultrananocrystalline(tm)" sure sounds cool. Maybe the innovation is in the buzzword.

IHABSCP (I have a B.S. Computational Physics)

Re:I'm unimpressed. (5, Insightful)

sld126 (667783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473651)

Step one. See if you can do it.
Step two. See if you can control it.

Each step is significant. Computational Physics isn't quite like REAL physics, is it? It's easier to do something on a computer than in real life.

Re:I'm unimpressed. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473888)

Each step is significant.
Absolutely correct. Even if sometimes it seems obvious or of little interest.
Computational Physics isn't quite like REAL physics, is it? It's easier to do something on a computer than in real life.
On the contrary. It depends which approximations are taken for the model. In nanoscale materials modeling it typically holds that the simpler the model, the less accurate and the less predictive it will be. Obviously, more complex models are usually more accurate but take longer to calculate. As for this particular case, it is quite difficult to realistically map out process parameters.

Re:I'm unimpressed. (0)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474087)


Each step is significant. Computational Physics isn't quite like REAL physics, is it? It's easier to do something on a computer than in real life.

Yeah, but much more temporarily important is to be able to do a "Booyah, In your FACE!". That always wins.

ULTRANANOCRYSTALLINE!!! (3, Insightful)

fossa (212602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473446)

Ok, seriously, who thought up the name "ultrananocrystalline" ?

This article is a bit confusing. First, of course, diamond is carbon. Solid carbon exists in two forms: diamond and graphite. The carbon bonds in the diamond structure are tetragonal (I think, been a while since chemistry), each carbon being bonded to four others. In the graphite structure, each carbon is bonded to three other co-planar carbons (trigonal planar?). I believe pi bonds form above and below the plane, adding some stability.

With the graphite form, all you can get is planes, tubes, or balls. Graphite is slippery because the intraplanar bonds are strong but the interplanar bonds are weak. The intraplanar grahpite bonds are stronger than the diamond bonds in fact, which is why nanotubes are so strong. With the diamond form, you can only get solid crystalline structures.

The headline is wrong (no surpirse). These are not "diamond nanotubes", but some sort of composite of (presumably) "ultranano" diamond particles and carbon nanotubes. The article doesn't go into much detail, and I don't care to delve any deeper at this point.

Heirarchy of Modifiers (3, Funny)

fossa (212602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473484)

(Off topic reply to myself...)

Speaking of "Ultranano", I think we need some sort of official ranking of these types of modifiers. Based on my experience in a retail store stocking hair gel, I've come up with the following heirarchy (as applied to hair gel hold strength):

  1. Ultimate Extreme
  2. Mega Mega
  3. Ultra
  4. Mega
  5. Super

Please make additions or corrections to this list. I think this should become an ISO standard or something.

Re:Heirarchy of Modifiers (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473493)

Atto
Femto
Pico
Nano
Micro
Milli
One
Kilo
Mega
Giga
Tera
Peta
Exa
Yota

Just adopt SI :-)

Re:Heirarchy of Modifiers (2, Funny)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473629)

instead of mega mega, i think ultra mega, and then super ultra mega. There is more words, so it has to be more better! :)


(bad grammer is intentional)

Re:Heirarchy of Modifiers (1)

clem (5683) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473943)

I believe Sun Microsystems has already copyrighted this list for the naming their upcoming line of Sparc servers. I can't wait for the Ultimate Mega Ultra Sparcs to be released next year.

Re:Heirarchy of Modifiers (1)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474691)

Heathen! How could you forget "hyper"?

goS4t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13473543)

Diamond nanotube cartel? (2, Interesting)

JourneyExpertApe (906162) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473784)

Will these be controlled by an evil diamond nanotube cartel in order to drive up their prices 1000-fold? And then will they bribe their way out of an anti-trust case?

Re:Diamond nanotube cartel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13474094)

No, but there will be paranoids ready to accuse them of such..

Big on blah-blah; skimpy on results ... (1)

fygment (444210) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473918)

... in that they have achieved a combination (not with diamond but an alternative form of carbon) but don't really say what the properties are. Diamonds are brittle but hard. Carbon nanotubes exihibit high tensile strength. So the new material is a brittle, unscratchable sheet with high tensile strength? You might assume so, except that the article talks about "... use in low-friction, wear-resistant coatings, catalyst supports for fuel cells, high-voltage electronics, low-power, high-bandwidth radio frequency microelectromechanical/nanoelectromechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS), thermionic energy generation, low-energy consumption flat panel displays and hydrogen storage." and "...interesting electronic and photonic transport properties". Either, someone is trying to generate some funding by using "nanotubes" and "diamonds" in the same article or this is one poorly written release.

Transcript of discovery (5, Funny)

mpn14tech (716482) | more than 8 years ago | (#13473919)

First Scientist: Hey! You got nanotubes in my diamonds! Second Scientist: Hey! You got diamonds in my nanotubes!

Combining properties? (1)

Transcendent (204992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474039)

Diamond is a brittle material and is normally not electrically conducting. Nanotubes, on the other hand, are incredibly strong and are also great electrical conductors... a new material is produced that combines the material properties of both diamond and nanotubes.

So we have brittle, less conductive nanotubes? I don't get the advantage here...

Re:Combining properties? (1)

nutznboltz (473437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474275)

No, the point is that normal diamonds are poor conductors but if you restructure them into nanotubes then they would be great conductors.

Re:Combining properties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13474324)

They're both carbon. What you said makes little sense.

The real answer is that it's diamond-coated nanotubes, essentially. At least that is their goal. Right now they don't have the technique perfect, so it's nothing useful at the moment.

Sarcastic reply without reading TFA (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474603)

No, the point is that normal diamonds are poor conductors but if you restructure them into nanotubes then they would be great conductors.

But since the Nanotubes are already great conductors with high tensile strength you would do this because...?

The original post had a humorous point, that the article summary lists only negative properties for diamonds and the declares wonder and happiness at getting nanotubes to take on these properties. While I'm sure the end result has some very nice properties it would have been pleasing to hear about them in the article summary too.

Drawbacks (2, Funny)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474080)

>Diamond has its drawbacks, however. Diamond is a
>brittle material and is normally not electrically
>conducting.

You know, for all that diamonds don't conduct electricity and such, women still go crazy for 'em.

Women!

I just love /. headlines (2, Funny)

zanderredux (564003) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474143)

By integrating these two novel forms of carbon together at the nanoscale a new material is produced that
combines the material properties of both diamond and nanotubes.

So... is it like tieing a piece of bread with butter on it to the back of a cat?

We all know that bread with butter always falls with the butter face down and that the cat always falls on its paws, so one will cancel the other and the cat will be able to defy gravity, being suspended in mid-air?

Why this technology is essential (2, Informative)

nutznboltz (473437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474265)

Existing transmission lines are a huge waste of energy. They hold back conversion from fossile fuels to solar and wind by limiting the distance electricity can be effectively sent. Copper is too soft and heavy so aluminum transmission lines are built but there is too much resistance so transmission distance is cut back.

With nanotubes, near-superconducting transmission lines could be built which would enable cloudly areas to reap the benefits of solar electric power from deserts and wind power from the plains.

References:
http://smalley.rice.edu/ [rice.edu] (see associated video lecture.)

re: (2, Funny)

swatthatfly (808033) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474274)

"Diamond has its drawbacks, however. Diamond is a brittle material and is normally not electrically conducting. Nanotubes, on the other hand, are incredibly strong and are also great electrical conductors, but harnessing these attributes into real materials has proved elusive. "

Looks like they take two great technologies and put them together to get one mediocre result.

Composites, man, composites (1)

IdahoEv (195056) | more than 8 years ago | (#13474719)

Ever heard of carbon-fiber composites? Strong and light but fairly brittle fibers embedded in a flexible, resilient, but low tensile strength epoxy matrix. And the combination is wicked cool stuff. The matrix balances the load between all the fibers nicely, and prevents any one fiber from bending to the shatter point. The fibers themselves make the composite incredibly strong for its weight.

Silicon carbide grains (hard, rigid) embedded in a block of aluminum (soft, flexible) is another composite with fantastic combined properties. Makes for nice structural members that need to survive a lot of abrasion.

So maybe we can now make diamond-coated nanotubes, giving us an insulated conductor (what a concept), that's super abrasion- and corrosion-resistant to boot. Or use nanotubes for their mechanical strength, but the integrated diamond improves the wear resistance of the cable you're using for lifts to orbit.
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>