/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5388345]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20846282

This graphene shit looks amazing, does anyone have any suggestions on what they can do with it?

[Anonymous No.5388355]

It would be easier to list what you can't do with it.

[Anonymous No.5388356]

Bendy phone will be the first commercial probably... stuff is crazy though.

With things like this you just cannot predict but rest assured amazing things will come.

[Anonymous No.5388358]

>>5388356
this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20526577

oo baby

[Anonymous No.5388361]

Interesting comment on article above, saying you could put it in car windscreens run a sat nav through it, so the directions would actually appear on the road as you are looking out the window.

We are finally reaching fucking future tech the jetsons used and shit.

Holy fuck imagine how we live our lives in 50 years.

[Anonymous No.5388364]

>>5388361
I'm excited about the new flavor that the Soylent Corporation just revealed.

[Anonymous No.5388366]

>>5388361

we are really excited.

[Anonymous No.5388369]

>>5388366
Who cares about shadow people.

[Anonymous No.5388370]

>tfw when you get excited about 1000 GHz graphene processors and then IBM says graphene transistors cannot be switched off and therefore are useless in making of processors

[Anonymous No.5388371]

>>5388366
they never had the ability to contribute to the world. why would they deserve our contributions.

[Anonymous No.5388374]

>>5388366
You know the high calorie energy food they send as aid? The technology for that came from NASA's space programme. Stuff like this always yields unexpected benefits.

"HURR WE SHOULDNT LEAVE THIS CAVE AND BUILD A SHELTER, WE SHOULD FOCUS ON HUNTING"

[Anonymous No.5388379]

>>5388374

Hurr we should cut all science funding and send the money to africa

[Anonymous No.5388395]

>>5388374
yes, making high-sugar protein bars or somesuch is high-tech as fuck

[Anonymous No.5388407]

>>5388395

You're right. We should have let them rot.

[Anonymous No.5388408]

>>>/pol/ on >>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.5388411]

>>5388408
>i dont like to think about this. thus its /pol/

[Anonymous No.5388413]

>>5388411

>/pol/ logic

[Anonymous No.5388415]

>>5388345

BODY ARMOUR. LAYER THIS SHIT UP AND NOTHIN WILL TOUCH YOU.
THE FUTURE OF WARFARE HAS COME

[Anonymous No.5388419]

>>5388408

Point out the /pol/ parts please

[Anonymous No.5388421]

>>5388415
What about the beauty of a rose?
Or the more subtle beauty of a simple wild flower?
Can they touch you?

[Anonymous No.5388424]

>>5388421

The graphene will interface directly to your eye bulbs allowing to only view the flowers as a collection of atoms thereby negating all poetic impulses.

[Anonymous No.5388425]

>>5388419
See
>>5388407
>>5388379
>>5388371
>>5388369

[Anonymous No.5388428]

They are already prototyping bullet-proof armor made from it
pic related

[Anonymous No.5388430]

>>5388425

This board is lost, it is bad enough that subjects that offend people are not allowed here without the community seeing /pol/ behind every comment.

ibet/pol/didthis.jpg

[Anonymous No.5388434]

>>5388428

How thick would the material have to be to stop a standard 5.56 round I wonder. I think they would also need to add a material to absorb the rounds velocity so as to reduce the shock damage.

[Anonymous No.5388440]

>>5388425
so saying (and one joking) that technology should be allowed to advance instead of trying to save people in a very noneffective way is now /pol/?

[Anonymous No.5388447]

>>5388440

everything is /pol/.

They are no different than the /pol/sters and their 'jidf'

[Anonymous No.5388450]

>>5388434
There are two components to stopping a bullet, elasticity, and hardness

the 'breaking strength' of graphine is 42 N m–1

and elasticity of 340 newtons per meter at –690 Nm–1

as such graphine by itself won;t make a extremely good bullet proof material, however layered with carbon nanotubes, to improve the lateral elasticity, it can be extremely absorptive. On the order of magnitude 25 times stronger than modern Kevlars on a weight scale, and about ~100x on a physical size scale. Of course as you say the elastic nature of the bullets ballistic absorption, means a shock absorber is required, this role can be fulfilled by the human body, receiving usually only minor bruising for low kinetic rounds, or bruising plus possible broken bones for high velocity rounds.

Placing a compressing dense foam on the reverse side, could mitigate theses threats at the expense of making it thicker and heavier..

[Anonymous No.5388449]

>>5388434

>>>/k/

see what I did there >>5388447
and why are the jidf a pol thing? fuckers be all over the news sites. also good job with the threadshitting everyone

[Anonymous No.5388459]

>>5388449

So you are saying that because the material is being highlighted for military applications, specifically body armor, that there is no information at hand as tot he thickness neded for it to do that job, and that i am cross pollinating the thread as this is magically /k/ territory? Wtf would /k/ know about this?

[Anonymous No.5388462]

>>5388450

Thankyou.

[Anonymous No.5388464]

>>5388428
Not going to lie, that shit looks BADASS imo

[Anonymous No.5388465]

Graphene has a lot of possible applications, but also a lot of potential drawbacks that would have to be worked out first. There is currently a ton of research in its infancy looking at the properties and potential uses, but the problem is the cost factor as, with current methods, graphene is expensive to produce, and is only able to be done in very small quantities. It will take time to get a reliable method of graphene production that doesn't cost a metric fuck tonne to produce.

[Anonymous No.5388491]

>>5388434
>How thick would the material have to be to stop a standard 5.56 round I wonder.

Most of the west's enemies use 7.62 caliber ammunition though. 7.62 is a standard AK round.

[Anonymous No.5388517]

People have been talking about "bendy" phones and screens. What actual benefit is there to having such a screen? Why is it advantageous for a screen or phone to be "bendy"?

[Anonymous No.5388522]

>>5388517
It won't break into pieces when you drop it to the floor.

[Anonymous No.5388606]

>>5388491

7.62x39, carries more energy from heavier projectile. Not as good at penetration.

There are also 7.62x54r used by snipers, and 7.62x51 (3.08win).

A well equipped military most likely uses a lighter intermediate cartridge such as 5.56, or 5.45x39 for former Warsaw Pact nations.

[Anonymous No.5388625]

>>5388606
Wasn't the 5.56 designed for the M16 that was made to injure instead of kill?

[Anonymous No.5388640]

>>5388625
5.56 is farr more lethal than lower velocity ammunition at close ranges 100-200m the high speed of the bullet burst your flesh and organs. 7.62 x 39 usually will pass through you at all except very close range due to its lower speed

[Anonymous No.5388641]

>>5388517
Screens are more expensive than the glass used for touch input. Break the glass, 10 bucks, break an LCD/OLED, 100+ dollars for parts alone.

[Anonymous No.5388667]

>>5388625
I remember some stories my dad told me from Vietnam, the soldiers were complaining that the smaller bullets wouldn't kill Vietnamese. But then once they actually shot some gooks in the jungle they were delighted, the small gook bodies literally exploded when hit with the high velocity ammo at close jungle fighting ranges.