Will 2-D tin be the next super material?

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-11-d-tin-super-material.html

by hythloday • 13 years ago

54 32 13 years ago

m.phys.org

TeMPOraL• 13 years ago

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

Sharlin• 13 years 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• 13 years 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?

jbattle• 13 years ago

What about a composite of 100(?) layers of this separated by proper insulation? Hypothetically, the insulation itself could be quite thin as well

deletes• 13 years ago

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

atrus• 13 years ago

But the addition of the Florine raised the operating temperature. The tin itself can still be constructed and tested.

moocowduckquack7• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

Someone• 13 years ago

Maybe, but that 'fluorine' part is cause for concern (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_won...: "The latest addition to the long list of chemicals that I never hope to encounter takes us back to the wonderful world of fluorine chemistry. I'm always struck by how much work has taken place in that field, how long ago some of it was first done, and how many violently hideous compounds have been carefully studied.")

There may be a perfectly harmless way to make this at industrial scale, but I would not bet on it.

pistle• 13 years ago

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

SeanLuke• 13 years ago

Headline is misleading.

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

tokenadult• 13 years 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

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/is-it-...

[3] 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

"Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet."

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

"Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ (press release),

http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ (video),

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien... (paper).

"PhysOrg: just say no."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888

"The physorg article summary is wrong, I think."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857

"Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong."

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

"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

"Physorg? Ugh.

"Didn't even bother click, came here to read comments instead.

"Can HN please ban Physorg like everyone else?"

leeoniya• 13 years ago

No. [1] (pardon the snark)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

Will 2-D tin be the next super material?

Related Stories