• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Ribbon to Space

SkepticJ said:
Well, we might not even attempt to make a space elevator until nanites are made that will build it without the carbon lattice flaws.

Doesn't matter; the flaws will appear anyway after a time. A perfect structure is thermodynamically unstable.

I know you're crazy about nanotubes, but the most interesting potential uses for them involve the electronic structure and the way you can contain other atoms inside them, rather than the physical engineering capabilities.
 
Matabiri said:
Doesn't matter; the flaws will appear anyway after a time. A perfect structure is thermodynamically unstable.

I know you're crazy about nanotubes, but the most interesting potential uses for them involve the electronic structure and the way you can contain other atoms inside them, rather than the physical engineering capabilities.


Yeah those are neat to but there's just something neat about super strong buildings. I'll be morose for who knows how long now.:( Could you explain this thermodynamic instability? Is it basically entropy? One problem a cnt ribbon would have is O1 in the upper atmosphere. Not sure what kind of damage it'd cause but oxidation from these reactive atoms cause damage to craft in low earth orbit over time.
 
SkepticJ said:
Could you explain this thermodynamic instability? Is it basically entropy?

Basically, yeah. The configurational entropy of a crystal is derived from an expression of the form

(X ln(X) + (1-X) ln(1-X))

where X is the fractional concentration of the base element (in this case carbon), and (1-X) is the fractional concentration of impurities, including vacancies (missing atoms). A crystal is thermodynamically stable at local minima in this curve.

If you differentiate this equation, you find that at the points X=1 (pure crystal) and X=0 (pure impurity), the gradient is always infinite - that is, these points are never stable. You can engineer the relevant energies to make the stable point very close to X=1, but never actually force it to be at the pure crystal.

This mean that small crystals with few overall atoms can be made perfectly, but as the number of atoms increases it becomes far more likely that stacking errors will form, with a likelihood which is a function of

exp(-Q/kT)

where Q is the energy required to remove an atom from the lattice, k is Boltzmann's constant, and T is the temperature. Even if Q is very high, with 5x10^22 atoms in every gram of nanotube, the chance of having vacancies approaches 1 very rapidly as you reach macroscale lengths.

(More on this at http://www.matter.org.uk/matscicdrom/manual/po.html - the discussion is for metals, but applies to all crystals.)
 
Above the atmosphere, damage would also be done by micrometeors. To me, this seems more significant than oxidation damage and bond breaking due to entropy.
 
CurtC said:
Above the atmosphere, damage would also be done by micrometeors. To me, this seems more significant than oxidation damage and bond breaking due to entropy.

Pah! An engineering difficulty, not a physical limitation.
 
CurtC said:
Above the atmosphere, damage would also be done by micrometeors. To me, this seems more significant than oxidation damage and bond breaking due to entropy.

Very very good point. At meteoric speeds a pencil eraser size rock hitting something is like a powerful pipe bomb going off. KE=1/2 times M times V squared.
 
Matabiri said:
For super-buildings, have a look at the Taipei tower:
http://architecture.about.com/cs/greatbuildings/p/taipeitower.htm

Apparently the 800-tonne weight hanging around the 88th floor (to provide earthquake stability) is quite a sight.

Looks kind of like one of my favorite plants, bamboo. I think a slightly conical building a few miles high made from cnt composite members, polycarbonate/glass/aerogel windows etc. would be much better. Why? Because the frequency that the building would vibrate at would be much less than the ground shaking in the strongest earthquake, making it immune to these due both to its super strength members, clading and it just can't shake to pieces like much shorter buildings. I'm still not seeing the entropy problem though. Any ordered matter will fall apart eventually won't it? Why is atomic flaws happening after many years a problem for this space ribbon? Please forgive my lack of complex material science knowledge.
 
SkepticJ said:
Any ordered matter will fall apart eventually won't it? Why is atomic flaws happening after many years a problem for this space ribbon? Please forgive my lack of complex material science knowledge.

This isn't a long time-scale thing in an entropy-always-increases way. Basically, when an ordered phase forms, it does so because the free energy of that phase is lower than the phase it's forming from (this is, essentially, the energy of crystallisation in freezing, for example). The phase will configure itself to lower its overall free energy, given the temperature, the pressure, and the chemical composition*. The free energy is calculated from two functions - the enthalpy, and the entropy. The entropy is a configurational energy term.

Essentially, it is always energetically desirable, due to the entropy, to have a few defects in an ordered structure. The equilibrium concentration of those defects can be calculated, and it is likely that thermal equilibrium (i.e. some defects) would be reached from a perfect original crystal over a timescale of few years, even for a very stable structure such as carbon nanotubes.

It's probable, though, that if manufacture can be made cheap enough, and nanotubes can be made long enough, that they'll make stronger composites than carbon fibre - but they won't be orders of magnitude stronger, due to these missing carbon atoms. Your graph compares a theoretically perfect macromolecule to an engineering material - it's no wonder the apparent difference is so striking.

Hope that helps - unless you're familiar with the thermodynamic basics I've quite possibly flubbed explaining it well, though.

(* This is a simplification; there are metastable phases, for example, and transformations can be thermodynamically desirable but kinetically impossible if the temperature is dropped sharply (in glasses, for example), but it'll do for now.)
 
CurtC said:
Above the atmosphere, damage would also be done by micrometeors. To me, this seems more significant than oxidation damage and bond breaking due to entropy.

You should see what nanometeors can do! ;)
 
I'm' not a materials scientist, but I suspect that rather then a monolithic structure , something like the ribbon would be a composite with different materials complimenting the others characteristics. I.E. Stretchability, torsional flexibility, high tensile strength, weight Etc.

As an interesting footnote rather then see the conductivity of carbon fiber or nanotubes as a negative , the ribbon could be used as a generator using the electrical potential difference between top and bottom and also the path thru charged space. Good old Maxwell.

Lightning is natures attempt to equalize the potential between earth and sky. Since the difference can be anywhere from 10's to 100's of millions of volts the ability to couple such a wide range would require a significant engineering effort. If I'm not too addled the current "sink" would also produce a neutral or charge free zone around the structure and actually help prevent lightning discharges.

Since some have discussed entropy and nano technology it's seems relevant to mention one of the latest efforts in material science is self-healing structures. I'm not sure where the idea rests today but the approaches seem novel and realizable.

http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?2377
 
Matabiri said:
This isn't a long time-scale thing in an entropy-always-increases way. Basically, when an ordered phase forms, it does so because the free energy of that phase is lower than the phase it's forming from (this is, essentially, the energy of crystallisation in freezing, for example). The phase will configure itself to lower its overall free energy, given the temperature, the pressure, and the chemical composition*. The free energy is calculated from two functions - the enthalpy, and the entropy. The entropy is a configurational energy term.

Essentially, it is always energetically desirable, due to the entropy, to have a few defects in an ordered structure. The equilibrium concentration of those defects can be calculated, and it is likely that thermal equilibrium (i.e. some defects) would be reached from a perfect original crystal over a timescale of few years, even for a very stable structure such as carbon nanotubes.

It's probable, though, that if manufacture can be made cheap enough, and nanotubes can be made long enough, that they'll make stronger composites than carbon fibre - but they won't be orders of magnitude stronger, due to these missing carbon atoms. Your graph compares a theoretically perfect macromolecule to an engineering material - it's no wonder the apparent difference is so striking.

Hope that helps - unless you're familiar with the thermodynamic basics I've quite possibly flubbed explaining it well, though.


It'd have been nice if NASA.gov would have talked about this before they got my hopes up a few years back.:( Nasa is generally a bastion of not blowing the significance of things out of proportion and blowing smoke so I came to trust them. Thought the uber material was just a few decades away. Garrrrrr the trust is tainted and I'm p*ssed!:mad:
 
SkepticJ said:
It'd have been nice if NASA.gov would have talked about this before they got my hopes up a few years back.:( Nasa is generally a bastion of not blowing the significance of things out of proportion and blowing smoke so I came to trust them. Thought the uber material was just a few decades away. Garrrrrr the trust is tainted and I'm p*ssed!:mad:

There, there, SkepticJ. NASA is not trying to decieve you personally. The world of research is a constant game of making your investors and grant providers believe that the next huge money-making breakthrough is only a breath away. :D ;)
 
Bruce in re Your sig line about Your pride in Your offspring, just remember.
It's better to be a parent then obscure.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Bruce in re Your sig line about Your pride in Your offspring, just remember.
It's better to be a parent then obscure.

huh?
 
Bruce said:
There, there, SkepticJ. NASA is not trying to decieve you personally. The world of research is a constant game of making your investors and grant providers believe that the next huge money-making breakthrough is only a breath away. :D ;)

But when you've spent hundreds of hours drawing, working math problems, writing down and daydreaming new ideas under the false impression that this material will allow them to actually work you can understand the magnitude of my let down. Damn.
 
See Electrodynamic Tethers in Space in the Aug 2004 Scientific American for an interesting discussion of this topic. Unfortunately, the SciAm website no longer allows you to view articles without paying for them...
 
Question for the materials people here...

Are carbon strings possible? Basically C=C=C=C=...

Rather than four or three bonds, if you have only two it would seem the tensile strength would go up even more, even if you're basically left with atomic string.
 

Back
Top Bottom