Scientists from the US Department of Energy have succeeded in mimicking the structure of mother-of-pearl (the mother-of-pearl, a type of clam inside which pearls are formed) to create what may be the hardest ceramic material ever produced.
Biomimetics – technological inventions inspired by nature – is one of the hottest ideas in science even though it has yet to produce many practical advances. It's time for a change - scientists from the US Department of Energy have succeeded in mimicking the structure of mother of pearl (the mother-of-pearl clam, a type of clam inside which pearls are formed) to create what may be the hardest ceramic material ever produced.
By controlled freezing of aluminum oxide (alumina) suspensions in water and the addition of a well-known polymer, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), a team of researchers was able to produce ceramic materials three hundred times stronger than their individual components. The head of the research team is Robert Ritchie from the Department of Engineering and Materials Science at the University of California, Berkeley.
"We imitated the natural hardening mechanisms to create hybrids of alumina based on ice molds to obtain a hard and durable material at the level of aluminum alloys," says the researcher. "We believe that these model materials will be able to be used in the identification of main structural characteristics that will guide the ideas of the future synthesis of light-weight, non-biological structural materials, inspired by nature, with unique strength and hardness."
The mother of pearl, or mother-of-pearl, the inner part of clams, snails and certain other molluscs, is known both for its iridescent beauty and for its great hardness. The pearl consists of ninety-five percent of aragonite, a hard but brittle mineral of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and the rest consists of soft organic compounds. However, the oyster itself can be 3000 times (in terms of energy) more fracture resistant than aragonite. No man-made material excels in its performance, in relation to the materials that make it up, by such a large gap. The problem was that the great hardness of the oyster stems from an architectural structure that varies over a range of lengths from nanometers to micrometers. Human engineering has not yet succeeded in replicating this variation in length measurements.
However, about two years ago, Berkeley Lab researchers Tomsia and Saiz found a way to improve the hardness of bone components using a processing method that involves freezing seawater. This method led to obtaining ceramic materials that were four times stronger than artificial bones. When seawater freezes, ice crystals form a scaffolding system of thin layers. These layers are pure ice, because during their formation various impurities, such as salt and microorganisms, are removed and trapped in the spaces between the layers. The resulting structure is roughly similar to that of oysters.
"Since sea water is able to freeze like layered materials, we let nature lead the process in which we were able to cast ceramic materials in freezing and obtain an imitation of the natural oyster," said researcher Tomsia.
In this recent study, researcher Ritchie, along with the other two scientists, refined the freeze-casting method and applied it to alumina/PMMA hybrid materials to obtain wide-pore ceramic scaffolds that closely resembled the microstructures of the natural oyster.
In order to succeed in this, they initially used directed freezing to promote the creation of thin layers (lamellae) of ice which were used as templates for the preparation of layered alumina scaffolds. After removing the ice, the spaces between the alumina layers were filled with polymer.
"The explanation for the hardness of materials lies in their ability to dissipate strain energy," the researcher points out. "Filling the spaces between the alumina layers with polymer allows the hard alumina layers to slide over each other, to a relatively small extent, when external pressure is applied to them, thus they manage to dissipate the strain energy. The polymer is used as a lubricant, similar to the oil in car engines."
In addition to creating the layered scaffolds, the team was also able to prepare clam-like structures of brick and cement with a high alumina content. They did this by controlled melting of the scaffolds in the direction perpendicular to the layers and then by gluing (sintering, a process of heating a material at a temperature that is slightly below the melting point in order to create one solid block) to the alumina bricks in order to promote their compaction and create ceramic bridges between the individual bricks.
"Using this method, we were able to create complex structures in which the thickness of the layers can be adjusted, their macroscopic directionality controlled, the chemistry and hardness of the interlayer interfaces changed, and a given density of inorganic bridges obtained, all in a wide range of sizes."
For the future preparation of ceramic materials with even greater hardness, the researcher says that his team must improve the ratio of the ceramic material/polymer in their compositions. The alumina/PMMA hybrid material contained only about eighty-five percent alumina. The researchers are interested in increasing the alumina content even further and reducing the thickness of the layers. They also want to replace the PMMA polymer with a better polymer and eventually replace the entire polymer with metal.
Says the lead researcher, "The polymer is only able to assist in the sliding of the layers one on top of the other and not take on part of the energy effort. Filling the spaces between the ceramic layers will provide us with a lubricant that can also bear part of the effort itself. This will improve the strength and hardness of the final material.”
Such future materials will be light-weight, strong and rigid and can be used in energy and transportation applications, adds the researcher.
14 תגובות
Bezalel:
Do you mean the one who created the rabbit and didn't know it didn't cause rumination or the one who made the holocaust possible?
In quantum wave or particle is there an explanation??? And in any case it is accepted as a fact that the Creator is the reality!!!
"biologist"
Do you want me to copy your comment between quotation marks and ask after it what it belongs to?
As far as I'm concerned, you've completely switched to the exhaustion method and I can't find room for a response.
Michael-"You simply choose to define science through a play on words and not as it is.
The experiment is by its very definition something that refers to the future while the science that deals with the past is by its very definition something that deals with the past." - So the claim of common origin cannot be disproved. The theory is not scientific.
There is no overlap between the two and the only thing that can be demanded of a scientific theory in relation to the past is that it predict things that will take place in the future." - Intelligent planning also predicts many things that turned out to be true. Evolution, on the other hand, received a number of refutations of prophecies that were disproved. Want an example?
"The theory of the origin of species is like this and it predicts that the species will continue to evolve (proven by experiment)" - macroevolution or a new gene complex was never predicted.
that there will be intermediate formations - or as people like you like to call them - missing links (proven by experiment)" - intermediate formations are the desired assumptions.
"That there will be structural uniformity and certain organs that will change their function between different species (proven by experiment),"-uniformity and homology is also compatible with the intelligent design. Since it is one creator.
"Let there be a factor that contains the hereditary information (proven by experiment),"-what is the connection to the development of complexity from simplicity?
"Therefore the theory of evolution is a scientific theory - the most scientific that a previously discussed theory can be." - Intelligent design is also scientific.
"The method you proposed to disprove creationism cannot disprove anything, and its entire function is to serve a basic lack of understanding of the term "scientific theory." - It actually can. Because that's the only way you can prove that complexity does not require intelligence.
You offer us a creator who has always existed. One that existed even before the big bang. One that is actually God, so I suggest you admit it first.
This is not an explanation." - What does this argument have to do with the argument that man needs a creator?
"biologist"
You simply choose to define science through word play and not as it is.
The experiment is by definition something that refers to the future while the science that deals with the past is by definition something that deals with the past.
There is no overlap between the two and the only thing that can be required of a scientific theory in relation to the past is that it predicts things that will take place in the future.
The theory of the origin of species is like this and it predicts that species will continue to evolve (experimentally proven) that there will be intermediate formations - or as people like you like to call them - missing links (experimentally proven) that there will be structural uniformity and certain organs that will change their function between different species (experimentally proven) that there will be A factor that contains the hereditary information (proven in an experiment), that this factor will be subject to random mutations (proven in an experiment) and more and more (I hope you might still understand but I'm pretty sure you won't admit it).
Therefore, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory - the most scientific that a previously discussed theory can be.
And in relation to Bor - tell me: how do you define complexity? Why are you only talking about biological systems? I repeat - the method you proposed to disprove creationism cannot disprove anything and its entire function is to serve a basic lack of understanding of the term "scientific theory".
You offer us a creator who has always existed. One that existed even before the big bang. One that is actually God, so I suggest you admit it first.
This is not an explanation.
An explanation should explain what is not understood using what is understood. Not through something incomprehensible and certainly not through himself.
If to explain the origin of life you claim that life (and even more complex life!) has always existed then you are simply ignoring the question.
I've said it before so here I am saying it again.
Michael - The impossibility of refuting theories that discuss the past is built into the meaning of the word "past" and if some creationist is willing to see something as a refutation of creationism, it only shows another aspect of his illogicality." - Then evolution cannot be disproved. It is not scientific. And Dembaski provided the test.
Do you really think that the possibility of something being created naturally negates the possibility that it was created artificially?
Haven't you seen a hole in the ground in your life?" - I wasn't talking about a hole but about complex biological systems
"What refutes our creation is simple logic:
If an intelligent being is necessary to create life, then such an existence is also necessary to create the Creator." - Only if the Creator himself has a beginning. Can you prove this?
It is - as you have probably heard a thousand times in a theory that explains nothing.
Since even after hearing it so many times you don't understand the matter, there is no point in arguing with you" - then you have no answer to my question.
"biologist"
I have no intention of giving up logic in favor of baseless statements.
It is also not possible to prove that we were here a second ago and that we were not created right now with the collection of memories implanted in our minds along with a whole world that matches them.
I allow you to adopt this hypothesis as well.
The impossibility of refuting theories that discuss the past is built into the meaning of the word "past" and if any creationist is willing to see something as a refutation of creationism, this only shows another aspect of his lack of logic.
Do you really think that the possibility of something being created naturally negates the possibility that it was created artificially?
Have you never seen a hole in the ground?
You only make this strange claim to convince us that creationism is science.
Let go of nonsense.
What refutes our creation is simple logic:
If an intelligent being is necessary to create life, then such an existence is also necessary to create the Creator. It is - as you have probably heard a thousand times in a theory that explains nothing.
Since even after hearing it so many times you don't understand the matter, there is no point in arguing with you.
For Michael - it is not possible to disprove the claim of common origin, for example. This is because it is not possible to apply a laboratory test for this. According to Dembsky (one of the founders of intelligent design), a disproving test for intelligent design would be if they succeed in showing that complex biological systems are capable of being created without an intentional factor. Take the Shoton for example Bacterial - it can be simplified to the minimum - the tail of the rod + a mechanism for its action + a hinge + the holder of the rod. From all the evolutionist articles, I did not see how a possible development was settled for this mechanism. They only found a system with a certain homology (type 3 secretory) that has nothing to do with movement. More A mechanism is, for example, a pathway for converting ATP to ADP, which includes several necessary steps.
"biologist"
All believers, wherever they are, see every fact as a reinforcement of their claim.
This is the essence of faith.
This is of course in polar contrast to the scientific approach which also knows how to rule out theories based on the results of the experiment.
A sentence that can strengthen the intelligent design approach - "No man-made material exceeds its performance, in relation to the materials that make it up, by such a large gap. The problem was that the great hardness of the oyster stems from an architectural structure"
I'm already waiting for these new ceramic materials to go into mass production, become cheaper and then be able to fix my teeth cheaply. 😉
The plastic material used is the starting material for production
Perspex, I think that if they use the same technique in the materials
Other plastics (more advanced?) - it is possible to arrive
for much better results.
an impressive achievement,
Science fiction once again materializing in real life?
In the excellent book "Baz and Nyala" structures based on the structure of the oysters are described.
I have come across the phrase "biomimetics" several times on this site.
In my opinion it should be called biomimetic because the origin of the second part of the word is the word Mime which means "to imitate"