> While composites might seem like a futuristic technology, in many ways, they hark back to millions of years of human and even pre-human material technology. Wood, after all, is the original composite material, as it’s composed of long and short fibers glued together by other substances—much like modern synthetic composites are often made up of carbon fiber held together by epoxy resins. Wood was a chief enabler of the success of our species, and it exhibits many of the advantages and disadvantages of composites.
Not to nitpick too much, but while wood is "technically" a composite material made up of fiber embedded in lignin, I don't think it's very useful to include it under the broad category of composite materials. Engineered woods like plywood and cross-laminated timber definitely are, but it's more useful to classify regular wood as an organic raw material rather than a composite.
The first composite material humans had any experience with was probably silcrete. It's naturally occurring but ancient humans figured out how to strengthen it by heat treating it in a fire (80-160 kYa). The first time humans intentionally made a composite material is adobe/mudbrick (11 kYa), wattle and daub (6 kYa), plywood in Mesopotamia (5.4 kYa), cob (4 kYa), and finally Romans developed something resembling concrete (I dont remember kYa).
Wood was a chief enabler of the success of our species
Wood was the chief enabler of trees. Trees have to be big, strong, lightweight, and bendable. Homogeneous materials won't work for that application. You need a composite. So evolution invented one.
Even more amazing: Trees 3D print themselves out of carbon dioxide.
> Not to nitpick too much, but while wood is "technically" a composite material made up of fiber embedded in lignin, I don't think it's very useful to include it under the broad category of composite materials. Engineered woods like plywood and cross-laminated timber definitely are, but it's more useful to classify regular wood as an organic raw material rather than a composite.
Why would defining it as a raw material be "more useful"? Why is defining it as a composite "less useful"?
I disagree. In advanced materials, we analyze materials categorically. In this instance, the way we would calculate the structure of wood is based on its isotropy, or more simply, its symmetry of strength and stiffness. The way wood behaves anisotropically means its structure is calculated the same way as most other composites. Composite Laminate Theory is the primary way that structure behavior is calculated for both wood laminates and carbon fiber laminates. We squarely categorize it in the same bin as carbon fiber, but that's just one perspective from one discipline, so take it as you will.
I don't know how I escaped learning about silcrete so far, being interested in both geology and primitive technology. Thanks for the tip! For anyone that curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silcrete
I think it's actually very fair to count wood as a composite. Composite is the concept, and wood happens to be a natural occurrence of the concept. Keeping it qualified as a composite also helps expand the mind: composites don't need to manufactured how we're typically manufacturing it in the present. When you think of wood as a composite, it's an opportunity for ah-ha moments in students.
> and finally Romans developed something resembling concrete (I dont remember kYa).
About 2 kYa, give or take a couple of centuries.
And it was actual concrete, rather than something resembling concrete. In fact, better than the concrete we were making a hundred years ago, and better than most of our concrete fifty years ago.
Roman aqueducts and bridges are still standing 2000 years later. Not sure I'd put money on the same being true of our stuff.
Kinda feels like you're missing the point of the quoted sentence. That is, it's not that wood is actually a composite material as we define it now, but that wood has the characteristics of a composite, i.e. different substances intertwined in a way to give better properties than any individual material alone, and going with the theme of the article, this is a direct contrast to materials like steel or plastic.
One of my biggest everyday QoL upgrade is men's casual pants finally getting elastane.
E: not just elastane but performance fabrics from athleisure in general, good moisture/odour/temperature control, easy to maintain etc. Some people like break in into their cotton/denim classics, but performance fabrics tend to not need break in in at all.
I'm glad there's more choice but I wish my favorite Levi's still had a 100% cotton option. After years of easy jean shopping I now have to find another brand.
Interesting that you should say that, because I'm of the exact opposite opinion. In fact, the omnipresence of elastane in pants has been a big QoL downgrade for me.
complete disaster. terrible for your skin, feels gross, falls apart, and cannot be repaired. meanwhile my cotton pants that have been repaired many times are still treasured wardrobe items almost 10 years on.
> One of my biggest everyday QoL upgrade is men's casual pants finally getting elastane.
I don't know if it's elastane but I've definitely seen QoL improvements in clothing compared to 35 years ago (back when I was a teenagers).
Underwear are soooo soft. And they fit perfectly. Same for t-shirts. Same for socks.
I don't know what makes some clothes so comfy (and requiring no ironing either btw) but there's "something" that makes lots of clothes simply better nowadays.
And they last too: I'm the kind of person who hates shopping (which drives my wife mad) so when I find something I like, I'll buy three or five of them (which drives my wife even madder). I've got some pieces I have since years and years (that one is nearly divorce reason ;) Sometimes I find a five years old picture and think: "Oh I already had that thing back then!?".
A swing and a miss. The future of materials is going back to plant fiber; wood, hemp, etc. There will be plenty of fancy composite materials for specialty applications; but our world has been made out of plastic for generations now and updated, improved plant fiber materials will replace it as the affordable, more sustainable, and equally functional alternative.
It's been amazing to see how it's affected sailing and other water sports over the past 2-3 of decades. Cuben fiber sails, Carbon-fiber hulls, hydrofoils on everything; something happened and then inflatable paddle boards were everywhere.
I would have been interested in the recycling aspect of these materials. We already struggle with plastic and PFAS, should this not be discussed before there's another problem?
Interesting article, if on the advertising side of things. I've done some hobby work with some basic composites and they're really neat to play with. Even so, I itch at the idea of bolts made out of composites; there are plastics and resins that don't creep under some conditions, but I wonder if the space magic they're describing actually...works.
Probably not great for the environment though, with plastic microfibers washing into our oceans and DWR coatings being toxic and leaching into waterways.
Compared to, say, what they climbed Everest with originally, yeah, our gear today is lighter, cheaper, more effective, but also more environmentally impactful and much less degradable.
It's all just byproducts of the oil industry. We're a lot more comfortable now, but it didn't come free.
To write this whole article and not even mention circular production practices (eg full lifestyle resource management) and our resource constrained planetary context seems arrogant and stupid and undermines any heady excitement for this “progression”. What a junk article.
> All of that is possible because composites, while they have their challenges, are often able to perform just as well as high-strength metal parts, but with a fraction of the weight.
That's what Rush (who perished in the Titan submersible) also thought....
The problem here is that the OP's statement is correct, if you qualify it more: if the composite material is appropriate for the application, and properly designed for it, it can perform just as well. If the composite material is a stupid choice for the application for various reasons, and being touted by a guy who thinks safety standards are dumb, then you get OceanGate.
Still, you have a good point: in engineering (and especially safety-critical projects), you can't just throw some composite material in there willy-nilly and expect it to work out great. OceanGate was a great example of some really stupid and reckless engineering.
Hence the inclusion of the word "often" in the original sentence. There are many different types of strength - just from the get-go using carbon fiber in a sub is insane because (even ignoring the interface problem with different materials) carbon fiber is known for its strength in tension, not so much its strength in compression.
from what I understand it's because it's a lot more expensive than its alternatives.
Like yes, for a bunch of structures you can neatly automate it (see most rocket production), but the shapes of (current) cars don't easily offer themselves to similar options. Automation is possible but would probably be finicky and require a lot of space and energy (for the heating).
but someone else please jump in if you know better/more.
Because it doesn't make a lot of sense to invest heavily into saving 100kg on the frame and then adding a 500kg battery. The i3 had a small, lighter battery and an extender.
So there are modern efforts to replace LP compressor blades of LM1500's (industrial conversions of J79's) to save weight and improve efficiency. Carbon fiber blades weigh a fraction of what metal ones do. Also, with computational fluid dynamics, new blade designs can be evolved and optimized for a specific power-band. For static applications, the risks of using more delicate materials can be tolerable if the efficiency in ROI exceeds service costs. There's a YT channel in Canada covering this development.
It's always fun to read an article like this, spot the "this is a press release" tone, and then spot which company had it placed in the WSJ. Along with a quote from the CEO. It's basically free advertising.
hoppyhoppy2|1 year ago
ranger_danger|1 year ago
throwup238|1 year ago
Not to nitpick too much, but while wood is "technically" a composite material made up of fiber embedded in lignin, I don't think it's very useful to include it under the broad category of composite materials. Engineered woods like plywood and cross-laminated timber definitely are, but it's more useful to classify regular wood as an organic raw material rather than a composite.
The first composite material humans had any experience with was probably silcrete. It's naturally occurring but ancient humans figured out how to strengthen it by heat treating it in a fire (80-160 kYa). The first time humans intentionally made a composite material is adobe/mudbrick (11 kYa), wattle and daub (6 kYa), plywood in Mesopotamia (5.4 kYa), cob (4 kYa), and finally Romans developed something resembling concrete (I dont remember kYa).
dreamcompiler|1 year ago
Wood was the chief enabler of trees. Trees have to be big, strong, lightweight, and bendable. Homogeneous materials won't work for that application. You need a composite. So evolution invented one.
Even more amazing: Trees 3D print themselves out of carbon dioxide.
slabity|1 year ago
Why would defining it as a raw material be "more useful"? Why is defining it as a composite "less useful"?
2four2|1 year ago
andrewflnr|1 year ago
AYBABTME|1 year ago
marcus_holmes|1 year ago
About 2 kYa, give or take a couple of centuries.
And it was actual concrete, rather than something resembling concrete. In fact, better than the concrete we were making a hundred years ago, and better than most of our concrete fifty years ago.
Roman aqueducts and bridges are still standing 2000 years later. Not sure I'd put money on the same being true of our stuff.
aardvarkr|1 year ago
hn_throwaway_99|1 year ago
aranchelk|1 year ago
> Modern composites, starting with Bakelite
AFAIK Bakelite is a resin, not a composite.
No mention of fiberglass, which had been used for many decades before carbon fiber went into widespread use.
> composites—which are amalgamations of a variety of fibers, embedded in a variety of plastics
Steel reinforced concrete is a composite and doesn’t fit this definition.
nyanpasu64|1 year ago
> Because molded Bakelite incorporated fillers to give it strength, it tended to be made in concealing dark colors.[9]
bboygravity|1 year ago
tlb|1 year ago
hyperbolablabla|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
maxglute|1 year ago
E: not just elastane but performance fabrics from athleisure in general, good moisture/odour/temperature control, easy to maintain etc. Some people like break in into their cotton/denim classics, but performance fabrics tend to not need break in in at all.
weightedreply|1 year ago
lancebeet|1 year ago
thr33|1 year ago
TacticalCoder|1 year ago
I don't know if it's elastane but I've definitely seen QoL improvements in clothing compared to 35 years ago (back when I was a teenagers).
Underwear are soooo soft. And they fit perfectly. Same for t-shirts. Same for socks.
I don't know what makes some clothes so comfy (and requiring no ironing either btw) but there's "something" that makes lots of clothes simply better nowadays.
And they last too: I'm the kind of person who hates shopping (which drives my wife mad) so when I find something I like, I'll buy three or five of them (which drives my wife even madder). I've got some pieces I have since years and years (that one is nearly divorce reason ;) Sometimes I find a five years old picture and think: "Oh I already had that thing back then!?".
Yeah, many clothes are just simply better now.
frithsun|1 year ago
lukan|1 year ago
There are a lot of "specialty applications" I think, where plant based material is not ideal. Otherwise I agree.
AYBABTME|1 year ago
Are we talking far-tech where plants and other biome actors are engineered to produce materials in a particular shape and manner?
dzhiurgis|1 year ago
inasio|1 year ago
throwaway920102|1 year ago
karmakurtisaani|1 year ago
__MatrixMan__|1 year ago
eropple|1 year ago
ghaff|1 year ago
solardev|1 year ago
Compared to, say, what they climbed Everest with originally, yeah, our gear today is lighter, cheaper, more effective, but also more environmentally impactful and much less degradable.
It's all just byproducts of the oil industry. We're a lot more comfortable now, but it didn't come free.
dyauspitr|1 year ago
hoseja|1 year ago
evolve2k|1 year ago
griftrejection|1 year ago
[deleted]
1024core|1 year ago
That's what Rush (who perished in the Titan submersible) also thought....
shiroiushi|1 year ago
Still, you have a good point: in engineering (and especially safety-critical projects), you can't just throw some composite material in there willy-nilly and expect it to work out great. OceanGate was a great example of some really stupid and reckless engineering.
hn_throwaway_99|1 year ago
talldayo|1 year ago
kart23|1 year ago
The BMW i3 had a carbon fiber frame and was still reasonably priced back in 2013, yet no other normal cars seem to have went this way.
daviddumenil|1 year ago
Something the article completely sidesteps when talking about metals versus composites :-)
Cost versus steel may well have been a factor as well.
fkarg|1 year ago
Like yes, for a bunch of structures you can neatly automate it (see most rocket production), but the shapes of (current) cars don't easily offer themselves to similar options. Automation is possible but would probably be finicky and require a lot of space and energy (for the heating).
but someone else please jump in if you know better/more.
floxy|1 year ago
https://aptera.us/cpc-group-agreement/
tpm|1 year ago
banish-m4|1 year ago
kazinator|1 year ago
Next-to-fucking-impossible-to-recycle composites.
Anotheroneagain|1 year ago
tpm|1 year ago
jillesvangurp|1 year ago
joshu|1 year ago
fifteen1506|1 year ago
hoppyhoppy2|1 year ago
pjc50|1 year ago
signatoremo|1 year ago
cal85|1 year ago