digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Boron nanotubes could outperform carbon

technology.newscientist.com — Carbon may be losing its monopoly over the nanoworld. According to the latest calculations, tubes built out of the element boron could have many of the same properties as carbon nanotubes. And for some electronic applications, they should even be better than carbon.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • weirdralph, on 01/04/2008, -3/+29Poor carbon... it just can't seem to catch a break these days.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 01/04/2008, -4/+8Hey, don't be such a boron! Who woulda thunk it?
    • weirdralph, on 01/04/2008, -2/+10Boron is making very small tubicles for benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan!
    • yesimahuman, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1I'm high and that's funny
  • scabbers, on 01/04/2008, -8/+3Could maybe could jet pack la la la
  • bury, on 01/04/2008, -5/+2I'm not sure if it matters on the nano-scale, but carbon is much more plentiful and easier to obtain. Although, using nano amounts of boron might not be a significant increase in cost.
    • stklaw, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7"Although, using nano amounts of boron might not be a significant increase in cost."
      You fail at logical thinking 101.
      • bury, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1How so? If boron is used in nanodevices as opposed to carbon, the very small amounts of boron may mean that, despite its limited availability, it may not be prohibitively more expensive than carbon. On the whole, the total amount of boron used may not increase worldwide demand enough to outstrip supply.
        • stklaw, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Sure, making a single nanotube would take nano amounts of boron.
          But making a ton of nanotubes would take a ton of boron.

          I don't know which costs more but when you talk about lots of it, the number will get big.
  • ripple123, on 01/04/2008, -3/+3Cause everyone loves - Molten Boron!
  • bimtott, on 01/04/2008, -2/+13Only problem with this:
    Carbon is everywhere. Boron is not.
    • Ramble, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Availability is not the problem, the manufacturing is. Even today it is still difficult to get good quality nanotubes.
    • chrisp9446, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Manufacturing is the problem today, but they WILL get easier to manufacture with time, and availability will become the limiting factor for cost...
    • Buelldozer, on 01/05/2008, -0/+10Now if they could create, and use, MORON nanotubes we'd be set! Moron's are in good supply everywhere!
      • manitoba98xp, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Morons*

        Don't use apostrophes to pluralize, please!
  • bluerei, on 01/04/2008, -5/+3The same boron that started the chain reaction at Chernobyl! It's a trap!
    • sanman, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3What we need is to use the boron in such nanotubes for fusion! Aneutronic fusion ftw!
      • bluerei, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0As long as it's not made by the Russians, I'm all for it.
    • viggenguy, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1and the same boron (boric acid) used to absorb radiation from said exploded reactor
  • bencefeher, on 01/04/2008, -1/+23Man those were some of the worst first comments ever. I can't believe I read them.
  • latrosicarius, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Other elements can be stronger... silicon for instance. But carbon is lighter by far, and beats all in strength per weight.

    You could build the space shuttle out of carbon nanotubes and it would weigh as much as a car.
    • TheKrillr, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2You could build the space shuttle out of straws, and it would be lighter than it is now... but that doesn't mean it would function.
      • latrosicarius, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2Oh, my bad... I didn't realize that straws had applicability in the field of industry for forming the skin and structural components of a spacecraft. Apparently, I'm not watching enough Cartoon Network or I would know this fact.
        • TheKrillr, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1my point is that your wouldnt be able to build a functioning space shuttle out of just carbon.
    • senoryoshio, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6I believe an inanimate carbon rod saved the space shuttle once. Could boron do that?
  • superstewy, on 01/04/2008, -8/+2what a boron story...yawn
  • TremorX, on 01/05/2008, -3/+2Will these new tubes help when my assistant sends me an internet?
  • sdpdt, on 01/05/2008, -4/+1Boron chemistry is nearly as fascinating as carbon chemistry. Interesting.
  • rhedwolf, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3The 'Fifth Element'! I knew scientists would begin to understand its power one day.
  • 0crabby0, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
    And Boron 11 = Win
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
  • ChileanGoD, on 01/05/2008, -3/+5CA-CA-CA-CARBONBREAKER!...
  • MorpheousMarty, on 01/05/2008, -3/+2Nobody does it like Molten Boron
  • anononon, on 01/05/2008, -4/+1I am Mork from Ork. Nanotube nanotube.
  • crapmatic, on 01/05/2008, -3/+1I wondered what's new on the vaporware front.
  • noseeme, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1DID SOMEONE SAY BISMUTH? HOLY *****, WHAT ABOUT BISMUTH. BISMUTH IS ***** AMAZING, AND IT'S ALWAYS STARTING *****.
  • jpfed, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1But you know what would be *even better* than boron? Beryllium. Think about it.
    • tehbored, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Is there some sort of pun that I'm not getting, or are you just referring to its position on the periodic table?
  • antechinus, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Just what the world needs, boron nano particles to poison us all.
  • tehbored, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1This is interesting news, but carbon nanotubes are also known for their amazing strength. I wonder if the boron ones can match that.
  • tsbardella, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3says Ni. He said Ni
  • ayeroxor, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Here's a (noob?) chemistry question... According to the pic in TFA, the Boron atoms have 4 or 6 connections. How is this possible when Boron only has 3 electrons in its outer shell? I forget how many max electrons there can be in this shell, but I assume this and electron sharing has something to do with it. Thx in advance for helping me brush up. Been a while since Chem 101.

    Ref:
    http://www.micromountain.com/sci_diagrams/at_struc ...
    http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/covalent. ... search for Boron
    • DemonWasp, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2You'd be right if you stuck to the simplistic 8-atoms-per-shell theory, but once you get into Quantum Orbitals, this makes a lot more sense. The practical upshot is that you can get some "expanded" octets, allowing for more bonds. The same theory can also explain why some noble gases (notably Xe) can be found as diatomic molecules, and why some of the halogen gases (notably Iodine), which usually only form one bond, can be found forming several bonds.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.