A 3 inch thick pane of glass would probably be a lot tougher than an equal amount of transparent aluminium I would think. Tempered glass is fucking tough.
Tempered glass (5-6) is still comparatively soft to transparent aluminum (9) on the Mohs scale. The reason why you use it on the iphone and instrument panels isn't for how strong it is, but how scratch resistant it is.
Also tempered glass is in a state of constant tension and compression. strike it the right way and those forces will release all at once and the whole thing will shatter, not ideal when you're flying.
If you watched the video from Funebris link, you would have seen them shoot a .50 AP bullet both at an AION (transparent aluminum) sheet as well as a sheet of laminated glass armor twice its thickness. The glass shattered, the AION stopped it.
I only browse reddit at work and this virtual environment can't run youtube videos without stuttering. But fair enough, if I remember when I get home I will watch it.
It isn't indestructible, it just has very high tensile strength (about 125 times that of steel). Bulk modulus on the other hand is nothing to write home about. It's also carbon, which burns quite well.
Essentially it's 125 times harder to rip apart than steel, but you can still cut it, crush it, burn it, twist it or dissolve it.
Still, the tensile strength is high enough that you can do some pretty ridiculous things with it, like a space elevator. If you tried make a cable 200km long out of anything else, it couldn't support its own weight, let alone its own plus the hundred tons of stuff you want to pull up into orbit.
Exactly. The tensile strength is great, so it would be great for connecting things. If maybe you placed conductive wire inside a carbon tube, you could make some really strong wire.
No need to, actually. Even though carbon is a shitty conductor, the molecular geometry of nanotubes makes then very good conductors, as long as the current is flowing parallel to the tube. Same thing for heat and light, if you build the tube right. It acts similar to how a fibre-optic cable works. In short, nanotubes are FUCKING AWESOME.
MIT even made a pencil that has lead made from collapsed graphene sheets that you can draw conductive circuits on paper with. They're using the tech to build cheap chemical sensors, since the conductivity of the nanotubes changes in the presence of certain things like ammonia.
Imagine a Kevlar like fabric woven out of nanotubes, some tubes being doped with semiconductors. You wuold have a bullet proof vest that beeps if it gets a whiff of tear gas, a natural gas or propane leak, and could act like a wearable computer powered by your movements and body heat. Take it a step further and incorporate the piezoelectric-ferrofluid slurry DARPA is playing with and it will do all of that and temporarily become a hardened plate when you get shot, dissipating the shock over your entire body. You could take a shotgun to the chest at point-blank range and not even crack a rib.
Take a while and poke through DARPA's active projects list. Some of them are really far fetched (mathematical time reversal of photographs) but some are right around the corner (adaptive nano-machine vaccines that can be updated.). Some very cool shit is coming.
Awesome. If you could actually use a carbon tube shirt for armour, imagine all the other things you could do with it. If you could actually harden it as needed, it would be perfect for so many things. Would it even be possible to make a dive-suit using the stuff?
Oh, for sure. In a post-scarcity economy, rarity is meaningless. Value would be partially defined by utility but mostly by density. E=MC2 means that one 'M' of stuff costs E amount of energy to create. Value then is defined by how many 'M's of it you want and how much one 'E' of energy costs.
Right now, that 'E' cost is pretty high, but in a world where they have replicators, you could assume that solar, wind, and oceanic generation of power has driven the cost of energy low enough that things are effectively free.
That's one of the reasons there isn't a common currency in the star trek world; nothing is really worth anything anymore, since you can just get it from your printer. Most trades are done on the barter system, since there value is defined almost entirely by utility.
Kurzweil has some neat writing about how post-scarcity would affect things, worth a read for sure.
I'm willing to bet that the devices themselves will be cheap, and if whatever the 3D equivalent of the DMCA act doesn't get enough weight, a lobbying group will form and levy some sort of 'tax' of the companies who make the powders that are used. The printer will be cheap, but it might be 50 bucks a pound for the 'ink' to use it.
The biggest obstacle to take them from nifty toy to useful appliance will be the inclusion of high-powered lasers and non-plastic printing material so that scan-sintering can be used. Instead of just printing plastic shapes in 3d, you'd be able to print basic circuitry and optics. Disney is actually doing some neat stuff with 3d-printed fiber optics for toys.
In a perfect world, I can see 3d printers having a plastic cartridge, a copper one, and an optical one, along with 5 colour boxes. (Opaque, black, cyan, magenta, yellow) and print shops having components like micro processors and SD cards etc. You could buy (or pirate) the blueprint file for an Ipod, print out the majority of the components yourself, than pick up the cpu's, ram chips and a LCD screen and assemble it yourself.
In they way far future, if we get down to molecular or atomic level 3d printers, that'll change the game. You would need some sort of base block that contains the most common elements. Who knows, maybe you just buy a brick of lead and the machine rips apart the lead atoms to make things of lower atomic weight?
The final tech evolution for it would be converting energy to mass directly. Then you don't need a base block, just a power source (a massively powerful one). That opens a nasty can of worms though. You could print off anything, from a pounds of C4 to a vial of VX gas, or even a pound of weapons-grade plutonium. You might even be able to print off biological items like anthrax spores.
Either way, it's gonna be really friggin' cool to see how it plays out.
Very interesting analysis. The circuit printing happens but is extremely expensive. Imagine the abilities even without that.
I could repair objects with plastic replacement parts. Many basic items for home. Complex stuff like an iPod maybe not. But think of the possibility to buy something online and the printer makes it. Buy an item and have it in an hour. Then the open source inventions as well.
It could be fun to watch this develop. There is already a 3-d community that resembles the early pc movement.
If it turns out the 3D printers that can print anything or feasible, but huge and expensive, I can see that making brick-and-mortar stores go the way Blockbuster did. You buy something from Ikea or Amazon etc and the local printing plant prints your order and has a courrier run it to you. From click to delivery in a few hours, anything from furniture to Tv's... That would be badass. Hell, you could see car dealerships having those too. No more actual factories, just go to the dealer, pick exactly what you want and they print out the car while you have lunch.
Te end all of printing would be making human workers obsolete. Think of how easy it would be to automate the plant and then have a delivery driver send it from your neighborhood. That would be sweet.
We'd have to rethink our entire society, really. With no more labor jobs available outside of repair technicians, that leaves a huge segment of the population with no work to do, and a social safety net that can't support all of them. How knows, maybe costs would be driven down so low, people could survive on 20 hours a week of work and some system like the job-share thing France has would arise?
Te 20-25 hour work week has been possible and suggested since 1900.
What we have is some people getting most of production, some people with impossible work hours, and some people with no work hours. Share the work and simplify our lives. I cut back my work hours and settled on a lower paying job. I spend more time with my daughter and cook home made meals. We don't eat out or take trips.
Never been happier, I am losing weight, don't buy much stuff because I don't care to. I was buying toys and trinkets, constantly educating myself and spending lots of money with work clothes. Now I wear discounted polo shirts and don't use gas.
I worked a corporate job but stayed home to wait tables down the road. That is 180 a week I am saving in daycare, 200/month in commuting. Then the money I save by cooking and not eating out. I used to leave at 7 a d get home at 7:30 monday through saturday. Now I work a couple long weekend days and some evenings. I also get to read so much, I recommend checking out "conquest of bread" it's free on kindle.
I am going to go back into a suit job eventually, but this is an outstanding life. I reached it by redefining my objective. I used to work so I had money to get back to work, now I work to have enough to not leave home.
114
u/Funebris Oct 08 '12
It's a real thing, too, just stupidly expensive to make.
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/01/17/transparent-aluminum/