Supplier of High Performance Carbon Nanotubes to the World!
281.647.3776


Grading of Fullerene Carbon Nanotubes
in Composite Applications (Intro)


“…a buckytube…a hollow graphitic tube…you could imagine it getting infinitely long, it could be a fiber…think of these tubes as being pipes in a nanometer architecture…we could make who knows what, catalytic reaction centers, photosynthetic centers, semiconducting devices, a whole range of technology…waiting for us on the nanometer scale…” Rick Smalley, 19921


The visionary statement above was made a full year before the back-to-back publications of Ijima2 and Bethune3 showing the first Transmission Electron Micrograph (“TEM”) images of single walled nanotubes (“SWNTs”). However, the age of fullerenes actually began in 1985 with the discovery of C-60, the molecule officially called “buckminsterfullerene” by the American Chemical Society, and “buckyballs” by the discoverers.4 We are in the fourth year of the third decade of the fullerene revolution. This is an important fact because history teaches us that it takes decades for scientific discoveries to “pay off” by creating profitable industries. Many of us believe that this third decade will mark the emergence of a profitable industry based on commercially successful applications of fullerene nanotubes.


One of the challenges of realizing the full capabilities of fullerene carbon nanotubes is that their performance in any given application can vary by the “grade” of the material. Therefore, creating a proper and cost-effective characterization, or grading, system of fullerene nanotubes is critical for the future success of this material.


For example, Unidym, a nanotech company based in Menlo Park, California, works closely with select customers to accelerate the development of unique grades of fullerenes that have been optimized for their specific applications through quick feedback loops. Figure 1 illustrates an example of an anonymous customer who used three different grades of fullerene nanotubes and achieved composite toughening results with a carbon fiber reinforced thermoset composite. The test materials were subjected to repeated high-severity impact events.


Figure 1
Durability Tests

The data shows the critical importance of grade choice. For example, with the use of “trial grade 1” material, the durability worsened; however, “trial grade 3” showed a 45% improvement in durability when compared to the control part, which had no fullerene nanotubes in the matrix. It is notable that the nanotube loading was only 0.4 weight percent.