In this New York Times article (free registration required) a scientist states “This is the strongest material that will ever be made”.
Is it a widely accepted fact that no substance can ever made stronger than a nanotube, even theoretically?
Of course, this is referring to just the tube itself, and not a bundle of nanotubes.
This site mentions that nanotubes are about 100 times as strong as steel at 1/6 the weight. Whether that makes them the strongest material ever I couldn’t say.
I will say that I think you need to be careful when saying ‘strongest’. Strongest how? Diamond is the hardest substance known but it is brittle. You wouldn’t make a diamond hulled battleship even if you could. Still, nanotubes do look like pretty cool things.
It’s difficult to imagine something being stronger than a nanotube, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be built.
One of the great advantages of a nanotube is that it has both great tensile strength and elastic strength. Imagine a piece of steel that you can bend in half and have snap back to form wthout a crease and you’ll get what I mean.
It is widely accepted that, at present, the nanotube has the highest tensile strength of any material yet observed. In addition, nanotubes have very interesting electrical properties, in that they can be either metallic or semiconducting depending on the size and helicity.
The problem, as alluded to in the NY Times article, is how to build something macroscopic out of nanotubes. I’ve seen calculations presented that suggest that the tensile strength of a nanotube “rope” (woven bundles of microscopic tubes) will be exponentially less than the sum of all the individual nanotubes. Unlike simple solids, like diamond or steel, nanotubes don’t automatically scale up to macroscopic sizes, so it’s hard to say whether or not they will ever replace current materials in large-scale applications. However, their potential just on the nanoscale is enormous.
The main thing I’m wondering about is what evidence or reasons there are to support Dr. David E. Luzzi’s statement that a nanotube is the storngest material that will ever be made. It’s one thing to say it the strongest material made so far, it’s quite another to say we will never make anything stronger.
I’d say he’s prone to hyperbole.
A more accurate statement will never be made!
I agree.
I am sure there have been a lot of examples in history of something being the strongest, biggest, fastest, tallest or whatever - that will ever be made, only to have that disproved in a short period of time.
I am sure the steel makers once felt the same about their product being the strongest material ever made - and for awhile it was.
For example, I think shrink wrap is the most annoying material ever made, but I am sure it is only a matter of time before they make it out of clear sheets of nanotube - thus making it even more annoying and impenetrable to boot.
I could see perhaps that some might think that nothing could be made stronger because maybe it’s been proven that this type of carbon-carbon bond is the strongest type of bond possible. I’m not saying that’s true or false, I’m just making an example.
It seems like a silly statement to me. First, nanotubes are not really a material in a macroscopic sense, as Giraffe said. Second, on a nanoscale level I’d bet that buckminsterfullerine is “stronger” because nanotubes are basically of the same chemical structure, just tube-shaped instead of spherical.
Is it a widely accepted fact that no statement can ever be more accurate than mine, even theoretically?
what about neutronium? I am guessing that it would have a far higher strength than mere nanotubes
Nope. The only thing that holds neutronium together is intense gravity. If you try to stick neutrons together in a more normal environment, it doesn’t work too well.
http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/press/Transistors/
Heres an article by IBM on nanotube transistors. Apparently they say that they have pushed carbon nanotube transistors beyond the capabilites of those made of silicon.
There is a snippet about this in the new MaximumPC. They say that they are 1000 times the strength of steel.
Hey! Are you making fun of me! I’m deeply offended! 
Actually, they tried this during the Reagan administration. The U.S.S. Sparkle was a light cruiser, but when Joan Collins tried to christen it, the champagne bottle shattered the hull.
For large-scale building construction, nanatech will be more useful in the form of tiny robots that can mold steel with some kind of honeycombed pattern, or at least can eliminate microscopic flaws that can eventually lead to failure, i.e. getting your structural members perfect the first time, then contantly maintaining them afterward. A steel I-beam is proven, inexpensive and immensely strong, and if you managed to keep out all the tiny flaws and cracks, it should last a VERY long time. I can picture steel members with a protective microscopic coating of nanotubes, but building the entire member out of carbon-60 or 70 would be prohibitively expensive.
Shalmanese didn’t say anything about the environment in which you are using the neutronium, he mearly said that neutronium is stronger than nanotubes. Granted you couldn’t use it as a building material on earth without some ridiculously strong, highly theoretical magnetic containment system, but I bet it is still inherently a much stronger material than nanotubes. Just not nearly as practical. 
-b
Actually, if you already have tiny-robot type nanotechnology, then it would likely be no more expensive building the whole ship out of carbon-60 than steel. Or rasberry jam, or whatever else you feel like making it out of. Once you have full-on nanotechnology, in theory all manufacturing costs come down to near zero.
I don’t think so. The only thing holding the neutronium together is the gravitational force applied to it. Neutronium itself is basically a fluid - it won’t hold any form, but will simply fall into the lowest gravitational potential shape it can find. It’s got phenominal density, but essentially zero structural strength. And a magnetic containment system won’t help at all, since neutrons have no charge and therefore aren’t affected by magnetic fields.
I will grant you that “magnetic” was a bad choice of words. I mearly meant that any discussion on actually using neutronium, for construction say, would be deeply theoretical, and I didn’t want to get into it.
The only thing holding nanotubes together is the electromagnetic force. Carbon atoms themselves are basically a fluid - they won’t hold any form. My point is that in the environment in which these things are usually found – earthlike for nanotubes, neutron stars for neutronium – they do have phenomenal strength. Try shooting a bullet through a neutron star and see how far that gets you.
-b