11 ms·

Will 2-D tin be the next super material?

54 points by hythloday 13y ago

TeMPOraL 13y ago
Could this material be used for "heavy" stuff, like power transmission or lifting trains, and not only electronics?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Sharlin 13y ago
  The square-cube law would probably end up being a problem - there's only so much current that can flow through a one- or two-dimensional conductor even with zero resistance.
  - benjamincburns 13y ago
    By ohm's law, zero resistance means infinite current. I don't know anything about super conductors, but I thought that was the appeal? If not, what replaces ohms law in a superconductor? Or, put differently, how is the current limit defined?
    - XorNot 13y ago
      The critical current does. Superconductivity is eventually destroyed by magnetic fields, so all superconductors can only carry so much current before they quench and become regular conductors. But this isn't a superconductor - it's a ballistic conductor. The idea is that it'll ballistically transport electrons with certain energy levels, which is functionally superconductivity (they don't lose energy to the conductor itself). But, since only electrons with a certain energy can enter in the first place, and since the energy levels are defined as a Boltzmann distribution, they still have a resistance which is proportional to the band of electron energies which cannot enter. So at RT it's great for a CPU, where the problem is you don't want heat being created on the die itself. But it doesn't allow you to do long-distance transmission like we'd like to with regular superconductors (since it would still have a resistance), and the mono-monolecular nature implies it wouldn't scale anyway.
      - Florin_Andrei 13y ago
        Sounds like whatever "resistance" they may have, is all at the interface.
      - hythloday 13y ago
        Thanks so much for this comment - when reading the article I noticed it carefully circumlocuted "superconductivity", and was curious what the difference was. This perfectly explains it (and goes into further interesting detail), which is exactly what I wanted.
    - powertower 13y ago
      By the speed of light and the carrying capacity of the electron "channels".
    - colanderman 13y ago
      Ohm's law only applies to linear components, of which exactly 0 exist in nature. Everything approximates linearity to varying degrees – resistors approximate it over a wide range of currents (up until they melt); MOSFETs approximate it until they reach saturation; diodes approximate it only infinitesmally.
  - jbattle 13y ago
    What about a composite of 100(?) layers of this separated by proper insulation? Hypothetically, the insulation itself could be quite thin as well
    - regularfry 13y ago
      It's a density argument.
deletes 13y ago
That is all nice, but still theoretical. Good luck constructing material made with flourine in a very specific way.
- atrus 13y ago
  But the addition of the Florine raised the operating temperature. The tin itself can still be constructed and tested.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  We can push single atoms around in the lab, so I don't think there will be too many problems in testing this experimentally.
  - JulianMorrison 13y ago
    Heard from someone who has done that kind of thing: it's really hard, it mostly fails. When you see the pretty images, they are the results of months of frustrating, mostly-failure lab work. Surfaces are hard, because everything affects everything, and changes ripple around moving the stuff you just placed.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Is really hard, but there are experts who specialise in really hard things. My point was that it is not harder than many other hard things that people regularly accomplish.
      - EdwardCoffin 13y ago
        Do you actually have concrete evidence that the hardness of this particular thing is similarly difficult to these other hard things that are regularly accomplished, or is this just "hard things are the same as other things also termed hard"? My impression is that pushing atoms around and getting them to actually stay where they have been pushed are different things.
pistle 13y ago
As freely as cars on a freeway? I want better for my electrons.
SeanLuke 13y ago
Headline is misleading. The magic phrase in the article is "could be".
tokenadult 13y ago
The Physical Review Letters abstract[1] (kindly included as a link in the recycled press release[2] kindly submitted here) may lead to more information about this preliminary finding. Research lab press releases are a known part of the Science News Cycle[3] and are at best just a teaser to get actual working scientists to read the peer-reviewed journal publications to see how much those really say. There is such a visceral reaction to PhysOrg as a press-release recycling service here on Hacker News that I will, not meaning to put down the kind person who submitted this link, post some previous Hacker News comments about PhysOrg as a source below the references for this comment. It will be interesting to see what comes of this preliminary research report. [1] http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i13/e136804 http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i13/e136804 [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/is-it-journalism-or-just-a-repackaged-press-release-heres-a-tool-to-help-you-find-out/275206/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/is-it-... [3] http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 SOMEWHAT LONG FAQ ON PhysOrg AS A SOURCE: PhysOrg appears to have been banned as a site to submit from by Reddit. I learned from other participants here on HN that there are better sites to submit from. Comments about PhysOrg: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 "Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 "I viscerally distrust anything from physorg.com. Anyone have a better option?" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 "Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam: http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ (press release), http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ (video), http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1116.pdf http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien... (paper). "PhysOrg: just say no." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 "The physorg article summary is wrong, I think." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 "Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 "And note that the gravity lamp was announced on physorg.com, famous for how wrong it is about science topics." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 "I try and debunk/explain [shady] biological science news wherever possible here. In fact, it's typically my only contribution, but one I feel is highly important. "Your perpetual (and totally correct) crusade against PhysOrg reminds me there are others doing the same, and for that I thank you." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 "Physorg? Ugh. "Didn't even bother click, came here to read comments instead. "Can HN please ban Physorg like everyone else?"
leeoniya 13y ago
No. [1] (pardon the snark) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

54 points by hythloday 13y ago

TeMPOraL 13y ago

Could this material be used for "heavy" stuff, like power transmission or lifting trains, and not only electronics?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Sharlin 13y ago
The square-cube law would probably end up being a problem - there's only so much current that can flow through a one- or two-dimensional conductor even with zero resistance.
- benjamincburns 13y ago
  By ohm's law, zero resistance means infinite current. I don't know anything about super conductors, but I thought that was the appeal? If not, what replaces ohms law in a superconductor? Or, put differently, how is the current limit defined?
  - XorNot 13y ago
    The critical current does. Superconductivity is eventually destroyed by magnetic fields, so all superconductors can only carry so much current before they quench and become regular conductors. But this isn't a superconductor - it's a ballistic conductor. The idea is that it'll ballistically transport electrons with certain energy levels, which is functionally superconductivity (they don't lose energy to the conductor itself). But, since only electrons with a certain energy can enter in the first place, and since the energy levels are defined as a Boltzmann distribution, they still have a resistance which is proportional to the band of electron energies which cannot enter. So at RT it's great for a CPU, where the problem is you don't want heat being created on the die itself. But it doesn't allow you to do long-distance transmission like we'd like to with regular superconductors (since it would still have a resistance), and the mono-monolecular nature implies it wouldn't scale anyway.
    - Florin_Andrei 13y ago
      Sounds like whatever "resistance" they may have, is all at the interface.
    - hythloday 13y ago
      Thanks so much for this comment - when reading the article I noticed it carefully circumlocuted "superconductivity", and was curious what the difference was. This perfectly explains it (and goes into further interesting detail), which is exactly what I wanted.
  - powertower 13y ago
    By the speed of light and the carrying capacity of the electron "channels".
  - colanderman 13y ago
    Ohm's law only applies to linear components, of which exactly 0 exist in nature. Everything approximates linearity to varying degrees – resistors approximate it over a wide range of currents (up until they melt); MOSFETs approximate it until they reach saturation; diodes approximate it only infinitesmally.
- jbattle 13y ago
  What about a composite of 100(?) layers of this separated by proper insulation? Hypothetically, the insulation itself could be quite thin as well
  - regularfry 13y ago
    It's a density argument.

deletes 13y ago

That is all nice, but still theoretical. Good luck constructing material made with flourine in a very specific way.

atrus 13y ago
But the addition of the Florine raised the operating temperature. The tin itself can still be constructed and tested.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
We can push single atoms around in the lab, so I don't think there will be too many problems in testing this experimentally.
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  Heard from someone who has done that kind of thing: it's really hard, it mostly fails. When you see the pretty images, they are the results of months of frustrating, mostly-failure lab work. Surfaces are hard, because everything affects everything, and changes ripple around moving the stuff you just placed.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Is really hard, but there are experts who specialise in really hard things. My point was that it is not harder than many other hard things that people regularly accomplish.
    - EdwardCoffin 13y ago
      Do you actually have concrete evidence that the hardness of this particular thing is similarly difficult to these other hard things that are regularly accomplished, or is this just "hard things are the same as other things also termed hard"? My impression is that pushing atoms around and getting them to actually stay where they have been pushed are different things.

pistle 13y ago

As freely as cars on a freeway? I want better for my electrons.

SeanLuke 13y ago

Headline is misleading. The magic phrase in the article is "could be".

tokenadult 13y ago

The Physical Review Letters abstract[1] (kindly included as a link in the recycled press release[2] kindly submitted here) may lead to more information about this preliminary finding. Research lab press releases are a known part of the Science News Cycle[3] and are at best just a teaser to get actual working scientists to read the peer-reviewed journal publications to see how much those really say. There is such a visceral reaction to PhysOrg as a press-release recycling service here on Hacker News that I will, not meaning to put down the kind person who submitted this link, post some previous Hacker News comments about PhysOrg as a source below the references for this comment. It will be interesting to see what comes of this preliminary research report. [1] http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i13/e136804 http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i13/e136804 [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/is-it-journalism-or-just-a-repackaged-press-release-heres-a-tool-to-help-you-find-out/275206/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/is-it-... [3] http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 SOMEWHAT LONG FAQ ON PhysOrg AS A SOURCE: PhysOrg appears to have been banned as a site to submit from by Reddit. I learned from other participants here on HN that there are better sites to submit from. Comments about PhysOrg: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 "Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 "I viscerally distrust anything from physorg.com. Anyone have a better option?" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 "Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam: http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ (press release), http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ (video), http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1116.pdf http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien... (paper). "PhysOrg: just say no." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 "The physorg article summary is wrong, I think." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 "Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 "And note that the gravity lamp was announced on physorg.com, famous for how wrong it is about science topics." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 "I try and debunk/explain [shady] biological science news wherever possible here. In fact, it's typically my only contribution, but one I feel is highly important. "Your perpetual (and totally correct) crusade against PhysOrg reminds me there are others doing the same, and for that I thank you." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 "Physorg? Ugh. "Didn't even bother click, came here to read comments instead. "Can HN please ban Physorg like everyone else?"

leeoniya 13y ago

No. [1] (pardon the snark) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines