Melamine is cheap as hell. The lab apparatus they used is expensive but this process is really scalable.
A stack of alternating graphene and layers of this material would be interesting - we're starting to get into mass produced molecular level materials engineering.
Comparing with abstract steel is kind of useless as the strength of common steel varies by factor of 3. If one compare the cheapest steel and exotic alloys (that are often only produced in Sweden and may cost more than silver), then the difference is at least a factor of 20.
> They also found that its yield strength, or how much force it takes to break the material, is twice that of steel, even though the material has only about one-sixth the density of steel.
> Under the right conditions, these monomers can grow in two dimensions, forming disks. These disks stack on top of each other, held together by hydrogen bonds between the layers, which make the structure very stable and strong
Sounds like they could just layer it to create very strong lightweight structures.
The world should absolutely solve the micro plastics issue, but the world should absolutely not stop developing new plastics or finding new uses for plastics until that problem is solved.
There should be more research into the impact of micro plastic particles. That doesn't mean we should stop research into new applications. These things can, and should, happen in parallel.
THIS ^^^. My concerns are less and less about preserving my phone and more and more about preserving my planet. Show me a phone that can be completely recycled instead of giving me the illusion that it won't break because of x or y. Eventually it's going to be to sluggish for modern applications (because of its cpu or because of its battery).
I have a growing pile of now useless phones even at my house that I never broke because I take care of my investments.
And while I wouldn't expect a company to search out "right" solutions, I would hope that MIT as an educational institution could see beyond money and at least get in front of where the hockey puck should be, and not where it's tended to go (I'm speaking of sustainable profits on a planet in which we can live vs just amazing profits on an uninhabitable planet).
Was it clear to anyone in what way it's stronger than steel? The article mostly talks about applications where it's used as a coating. At the same time it says the sheets can be layered and create very strong bonds. Why can't I make the entire object out of this polymer? Is it hard to tear but not very rigid/too floppy? It sounded like it won't bust the bank either.
“The researchers found that the new material’s elastic modulus — a measure of how much force it takes to deform a material — is between four and six times greater than that of bulletproof glass. They also found that its yield strength, or how much force it takes to break the material, is twice that of steel, even though the material has only about one-sixth the density of steel.”
The planar sheet structure is compared to linear polymer strands, not to a 3 dimensional cube polymer.
The strength advantage would be more like layers of carbon fiber cloth compared to loose fiberglass fibers. Even with the same resin the sheets have a significant advantage structurally.
>The new material is a two-dimensional polymer that self-assembles into sheets, unlike all other polymers, which form one-dimensional, spaghetti-like chains. Until now, scientists had believed it was impossible to induce polymers to form 2D sheets.
This looks very interesting, in particular that it can be made gas-tight:
> "Another key feature of 2DPA-1 is that it is impermeable to gases. While other polymers are made from coiled chains with gaps that allow gases to seep through, the new material is made from monomers that lock together like LEGOs, and molecules cannot get between them."
However, this is yet another example of how excessive corporatization of academia can block the adoption and spread of new technologies created with taxpayer funds:
> "The research was funded by the Center for Enhanced Nanofluidic Transport (CENT) an Energy Frontier Research Center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Army Research Laboratory."
> "The researchers have filed for two patents on the process they used to generate the material..."
So, who gets access to these patents? It should be the case that MIT be required to license these patents to any American citizen who is interested, non-exclusively, for free, as it was American taxpayers who financed this project.
Similarly, the actual paper is hidden behind a paywall at Nature, so independent researchers without an institutional affiliation have no access to the details without paying ridiculous fees; the paper wasn't uploaded to arxiv and isn't yet on sci-hub, and why not? So some publishers can extract fees for their decrepit business model?
Sci-hub_se does at least have copies of some of the references cited in the paper, if you search for this one you'll get the background (2009):
"Two-Dimensional Polymers: Just a Dream of Synthetic Chemists?"
> "The fact that one can now isolate and investigate the
natural 2D polymer graphene begs the question as to whether
such intriguing structures could also be synthesized. [5] This
question is not limited to whether one can synthesize
graphene—this would be just one target of the entire family
of 2D polymers, although admittedly an especially compli-
cated and challenging one. It is meant much more general in
the sense: Can one provide reliable and broadly applicable
concepts to tackle the synthetic and analytical issues associ-
ated with the creation of polymers which meet the structural
characteristics of graphene (that is, one repeating unit thick,
covalently bonded, and long-range order). Clearly, this would
constitute a substantial advance for chemistry in particular,
and the molecular sciences in general"
Bahy-Dole Act and DoD Federal Acquisition Regs. are the answer to your question about "who gets access to these patents" and should be the focus of reform if you find them inadequate. Outside my area of the law, but my understanding is prior to Bahy-Dole, it was common for the Gov. to take title to patents arising from Gov. funded research, and that this was seen as a disincentive to commercializing the technology. So Bahy-Dole adjusted the balance, with certain lesser rights (like march in rights and a license) going to the government to try to drive more commercialization of the technology that was invented under Gov. contracts.
> for free, as it was American taxpayers who financed this project.
Just because something was financed by taxpayer money does not mean it should be free. It is definitely not a rule or how things work. Although I am curious what are the disadvantages of making it free, I bet there are some, even if lightweight.
I feel like I’ve been hearing about Materials of this type for years and have never seen anything practical built with it. How about they make a phone with this already?
cbracketdash|3 years ago
Dlanv|3 years ago
robbedpeter|3 years ago
A stack of alternating graphene and layers of this material would be interesting - we're starting to get into mass produced molecular level materials engineering.
high_byte|3 years ago
_0w8t|3 years ago
alex_young|3 years ago
> Under the right conditions, these monomers can grow in two dimensions, forming disks. These disks stack on top of each other, held together by hydrogen bonds between the layers, which make the structure very stable and strong
Sounds like they could just layer it to create very strong lightweight structures.
kazinator|3 years ago
ARandomerDude|3 years ago
Dlanv|3 years ago
devenson|3 years ago
MeteorMarc|3 years ago
loudmax|3 years ago
There should be more research into the impact of micro plastic particles. That doesn't mean we should stop research into new applications. These things can, and should, happen in parallel.
alanwreath|3 years ago
I have a growing pile of now useless phones even at my house that I never broke because I take care of my investments.
And while I wouldn't expect a company to search out "right" solutions, I would hope that MIT as an educational institution could see beyond money and at least get in front of where the hockey puck should be, and not where it's tended to go (I'm speaking of sustainable profits on a planet in which we can live vs just amazing profits on an uninhabitable planet).
ajmurmann|3 years ago
oxfeed65261|3 years ago
Emphasis added.
Karliss|3 years ago
elif|3 years ago
The strength advantage would be more like layers of carbon fiber cloth compared to loose fiberglass fibers. Even with the same resin the sheets have a significant advantage structurally.
AussieWog93|3 years ago
>The new material is a two-dimensional polymer that self-assembles into sheets, unlike all other polymers, which form one-dimensional, spaghetti-like chains. Until now, scientists had believed it was impossible to induce polymers to form 2D sheets.
ie: the existing polymers use 1D chains, not 3D.
Gatsky|3 years ago
photochemsyn|3 years ago
> "Another key feature of 2DPA-1 is that it is impermeable to gases. While other polymers are made from coiled chains with gaps that allow gases to seep through, the new material is made from monomers that lock together like LEGOs, and molecules cannot get between them."
However, this is yet another example of how excessive corporatization of academia can block the adoption and spread of new technologies created with taxpayer funds:
> "The research was funded by the Center for Enhanced Nanofluidic Transport (CENT) an Energy Frontier Research Center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Army Research Laboratory."
> "The researchers have filed for two patents on the process they used to generate the material..."
So, who gets access to these patents? It should be the case that MIT be required to license these patents to any American citizen who is interested, non-exclusively, for free, as it was American taxpayers who financed this project.
Similarly, the actual paper is hidden behind a paywall at Nature, so independent researchers without an institutional affiliation have no access to the details without paying ridiculous fees; the paper wasn't uploaded to arxiv and isn't yet on sci-hub, and why not? So some publishers can extract fees for their decrepit business model?
Sci-hub_se does at least have copies of some of the references cited in the paper, if you search for this one you'll get the background (2009): "Two-Dimensional Polymers: Just a Dream of Synthetic Chemists?"
> "The fact that one can now isolate and investigate the natural 2D polymer graphene begs the question as to whether such intriguing structures could also be synthesized. [5] This question is not limited to whether one can synthesize graphene—this would be just one target of the entire family of 2D polymers, although admittedly an especially compli- cated and challenging one. It is meant much more general in the sense: Can one provide reliable and broadly applicable concepts to tackle the synthetic and analytical issues associ- ated with the creation of polymers which meet the structural characteristics of graphene (that is, one repeating unit thick, covalently bonded, and long-range order). Clearly, this would constitute a substantial advance for chemistry in particular, and the molecular sciences in general"
josaka|3 years ago
kukx|3 years ago
Just because something was financed by taxpayer money does not mean it should be free. It is definitely not a rule or how things work. Although I am curious what are the disadvantages of making it free, I bet there are some, even if lightweight.
crate_barre|3 years ago
cendyne|3 years ago
throwaway1777|3 years ago
riazrizvi|3 years ago
vermilingua|3 years ago
dccoolgai|3 years ago
mrcartmeneses|3 years ago
alanwreath|3 years ago
redleggedfrog|3 years ago
[deleted]
zeroping|3 years ago