We got the relatively recent carbon nanotubes with a strength ratio (that's still increasing)
It's not increasing; strength is a material property that's fixed under given conditions. Also, what do you mean by "strength ratio" because that isn't a technical measurement. The closest thing I can relate it to is specific strength and that's not stated as a dimensionless ratio (to the contrary, units are typically stated in kN m/kg). CNT typically have specific strengths on the order of 45000 kN m/kg. For comparison, carbon fibers have a specific strength around 2500 kN m/kg. But specific strength can be a misleading measure, since it's the ratio of strength to density, so a material with a larger specific strength doesn't necessarily have a larger strength.
Granted CNTs are significantly stronger than most materials (under tension), a meaningless 25 million to 1 ratio is misleading. Compared to Kevlar, the tensile strength of CNTs is between 3-40 times greater (there's a large variation in measured strengths of CNTs).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Sorry I have no idea where the hell I read 25,000,000, I think it was more like 25,000 and that was a year or two ago.
48,000 kN·m·kg−1
Though if you still apply this strength for armor for a tank and you are virtually invincible to most weapons except maybe a nuclear missile at relatively close-maybe medium range (though the radiation would kill you anyways).
Though if you still apply this strength for armor for a tank and you are virtually invincible to most weapons except maybe a nuclear missile at relatively close-maybe medium range (though the radiation would kill you anyways).
Which completely ignores that it's a tensile strength and that explosions and impacts generate tremendous stresses in materials. This is one of the problems I have with CNTs. They're way over hyped to people who don't understand materials science (which is most people). They're not a magic bullet that satisfy all of our material needs. There's a lot more to materials than their ultimate tensile strength.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
It's not increasing; strength is a material property that's fixed under given conditions. Also, what do you mean by "strength ratio" because that isn't a technical measurement. The closest thing I can relate it to is specific strength and that's not stated as a dimensionless ratio (to the contrary, units are typically stated in kN m/kg). CNT typically have specific strengths on the order of 45000 kN m/kg. For comparison, carbon fibers have a specific strength around 2500 kN m/kg. But specific strength can be a misleading measure, since it's the ratio of strength to density, so a material with a larger specific strength doesn't necessarily have a larger strength.
Granted CNTs are significantly stronger than most materials (under tension), a meaningless 25 million to 1 ratio is misleading. Compared to Kevlar, the tensile strength of CNTs is between 3-40 times greater (there's a large variation in measured strengths of CNTs).
Though if you still apply this strength for armor for a tank and you are virtually invincible to most weapons except maybe a nuclear missile at relatively close-maybe medium range (though the radiation would kill you anyways).
Which completely ignores that it's a tensile strength and that explosions and impacts generate tremendous stresses in materials. This is one of the problems I have with CNTs. They're way over hyped to people who don't understand materials science (which is most people). They're not a magic bullet that satisfy all of our material needs. There's a lot more to materials than their ultimate tensile strength.