Carbon Nanotube Abrams

>>32748255
What's your quota, a shitpost a day?

>>32748320
yes.

>>32748320
this is 4chan get used to it.

we are, you wont hear about 'til 2030 tho

>>32748255
aren't they flammable? and from what i have seen, nanotubes are used more in soft armor than hard as they don't have much rigidity

>>32748601
no, and carbon nanotubes are one of the most rigid materials

>>32748255
>carbon nanotube m1 rolls up to battle
>penetrated by everything under the sun
>retards wonder why, carbon nanotubes are stronger than steel!
>told by metallurgists and engineers that strong doesn't mean shit if it's brittle as fuck.

Why the fuck do you think we don't use diamonds in more applications? Because you can break them with a steel hammer.

>>32748621
They are fucking flamabel
750℃ in the air and 2300℃ in vacuum
Idk if a molotov would be enough but Mg- or P- or thermit-granades would burn your armor.... so what is your point?

CNTs will definitely be a feature of modern armour, longtitudinally the things are almost indestructible, just gotta sandwich that shit between ceramics or something

>>32748647
lol carbon nanotubes aren't crystals dumbass

>>32748255
The feeling I'm getting is that nanotubes are often somewhat over-hyped. Looking at what they can realistically deliver instead of massively overblown claims form tabloid media based on already tarted up grant requests may reduce the hurry to deploy them.

One thing for example is that these fibres are extremely slick. Basically nothing will stick to them ever. So if we do what we usually do with fibres and use them as reinforcement in a composite we'd get a pull-out strength of roughly nothing, and with that the fibres no longer reinforce anything, they weaken it.

The trick to making things stick to those fibres is to introduce flaws in the atomic lattice that the surrounding can grab on to. But those flaws are also weak points, so to get a touch of their magnificent theoretical properties we must first butcher those properties.

Supposedly there's been some success in making use of nanofibres along with small "nanosheets" and diamond nanoparticles within an IIRC amorphous matrix (a plastic? can't recall) to create a pretty nice material. Supposedly all the various nano-bits end up locking each other in place, and probably fixing some of the more unfortunate eccentricities of the amorphous matrix in the process.

Now making all of that happen in an alloy that's suitable for use as armour, well, that's another issue. It probably took some work getting all of those nano-bits to show up in there, simply pouring a mixture of extremely fine carbon particles into molten steel is, politely put, unlikely to work. And if we do need an amorphous metal as well for the matrix then there's the problem that the bulk amorphous metal alloys require large amounts of very specific alloying elements, making fine control of their properties a nightmare almost as bad as paying for it all.

An interesting field of research for sure, but probably one quite far from being put into use.

Alternatively, bainitic steel contains plenty of nanoscale ferrite crystal plates.

>>32748255

people are under the impression that the entire tank is made of carbon nanotubes,its only 25mm sandwiched between chobam armor.

>>32748647
>Why the fuck do you think we don't use diamonds in more applications? Because you can break them with a steel hammer.

actually we use diamon analogues called SiC and B4C and Al2O3.

>>32748743
People are under the impression that you're a moron

>>32748601
The thought of soft armour made from fibres that are a bugger to keep in place and like asbestos in your lungs doesn't really appeal to me, but perhaps someone managed to solve that. Possibly with a waiver.

>>32748621
One of the fibres may perhaps be extremely rigid given its thickness, but that thickness is measured in nanometres. The difference in stiffness between a thin steel wire and a steel prybar isn't due to alloy or heat treatment, it's almost solely due to the thickness. And once we make things you can see with your unaided eye, the stiffness is likely to depend on how we gathered the fibres together, and what other materials we put into the composite.

>>32748707
Many materials which people don't think of as crystals in their everyday lives are crystals when you go take a look at how the atoms are arranged (in an ordered, repeating pattern). This includes almost all metals around us. It also includes graphite, graphene (single atomic layers of the graphite crystal) and nanotubes (graphene tubes).

>>32748696
The problem is to make the fibres stay in place and resist with that strength when hit instead of just slipping out of the ceramic/metallic/whatever matrix and letting the penetrator pass.

File: 40min_gamma.jpg (410KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1280x1024px

>>32748769
Every ceramic is a diamond analogue? Seems a bit broad to me, sodium as an analogue for steel or cooper based alloys seems a bit iffy, especially for the radiators.

And it's quite possible that those ceramics are used instead of diamond not because of cost, but because they simply perform better than diamond would, or at least anything diamond based we can actually manufacture.

>>32748729

Carbon nanotubes are amazing. The problem is that they are shit for armour.

If you are building a house? Carbon nanotube frame work and supports would save shitloads of shipping weight and be better than wood. Cost more atm but they are great for that. Same as if you used them for tents and such.

They are useless for armour though because you want force displacement and absorption and nanotubes don't do that. They aren't designed to do that. It's why you need a thick as fuck vest as well as the carbon nanotube inserts to do have your intestines blow out of your ass.

The nanotubes MIGHT work as a composite insert to replace D.U in tanks but I doubt it.

File: armour for dummies.jpg (49KB, 581x515px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 581x515px

>>32748729
>Now making all of that happen in an alloy that's suitable for use as armour

u r dumb

>>32748782
>The problem is to make the fibres stay in place and resist with that strength when hit instead of just slipping out of the ceramic/metallic/whatever matrix and letting the penetrator pass.

their use would follow the regular pattern of how composite armour is made since the days of Combination K: pic related. just instead of epoxy you'd want to use a non newtonian fluid.

>>32748805
>Every ceramic is a diamond analogue?

Didn't say that - but SiC is, it's used literally in jewelery as a replacement for diamond.
.

>>32748812

Plus nanotubes have a problem with heat in general. It causes the strength to degrade.

>>32748830
A reinforcing fibre can help stop a crack that propagates perpendicular to it by simply holding the two sides of the matrix material together. But to do this, it and the matrix material must be able to grab on to each other, or it'll simply slide out of its hole as the crack widens.

So, have they actually tested the setup you're showing and found that they can make everythign lock up to such a degree with it that the pull out strength issue is overcome, or are you simply assuming the old solution will work for radically different materials and problems?

File: 1485016995011.png (2MB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1063px

>>32748974
the "slipperynees" works in this setup's favour because every layer of the folded "blanket" works like a layer of armour in pic related, imparting shear force to the LRP. the non newtonian STF would provide a mostly rigid matrix momentarily in which then the fibers could and would slide through, "strangling" the LRP in directions which even could be modified and optimized depending on the weave..

Important fun fact for those passing by: carbon nanotubes are super bad for you. Like asbestos.

>>32748255
Worthless with the new graphene kinetic penetrators

>>32748774
You're going to have to back that accusation up, otherwise you look like a total cunt, mate.