Silkworms that eat carbon nanotubes and graphene spin tougher silk | Hacker News Reader

Silkworms that eat carbon nanotubes and graphene spin tougher silk

cen.acs.org

237 pointssndean70 comments

I sense a new explanation for Spiderman's webs on the next reboot.

But seriously, are we anywhere close to using this stuff for human benefit? Or near learning how these worms do what they do? This sounds fabulously awesome.

A company called Bolt Threads raised a $50M round this year. It looks like they're going to miss their 2016 release of spider silk clothing, but it also seems like a release date and real product are right around the corner.

https://boltthreads.com/2016/05/11/bolt-raises-50-million-an...

Sort of. Spider silk is made from both a chemical process and physical manipulation by spinnerets. We can make the chemicals but they are not nearly as strong without the spinnerets thus clothing not body armor.

This sounds like the perfect opportunity for some researchers to create nanobots or something to act like spinnerettes. Wonder if there has been any such thing?

Don't forget other ventures e.g.

* http://www.spiber.se/

They already tried it with spiders: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06751.pdf/

The problem is spiders are difficult to farm, unlike silkworms.

after reading the wikis about golden orb spiders today -- this makes sense.

The guy who made that amazing garment from 1.2 million Golden Orb spiders [0] was hand harvesting the thread in a really primitive way...[1]

Humans have been harvesting silkworm thread for ages, so we probably have much better methods of mass harvest.

[0] http://i.imgur.com/y82WBEz.jpg

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u-g0OiYWOQ

Space elevator!

Monopolize space

Not saying I support the idea of monopolizing space, but whoever builds one first with that savings in price... Imagine if McDonalds found a special ingredient from space to add to their burgers and McDonalds is the one who builds a space elevator. Hahaha

Alright I'll see myself out.

cf. The Stuff!

The Right Fries haha

Silk reinforced with carbon nanotubes still isn't strong enough for a space elevator :'(

ignoring the UFO aspect of this, maybe this tech would help a 12 mile long tether from breaking as the 1996 nasa version did...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEFcSesD-w

Not on Earth certainly. But I'm pretty sure you could build a space elevator down to the Moon with this stuff.

A lunar space elevator ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator ) can be constructed out of kevlar today.

How about carbon nanotubes reinforced with carbon nanotubes?

Gluing the tubes together is one of the biggest hurdles, mainly because the individual tubes aren't long enough. If we could make 30cm-1m long tubes (of the strongest kind) we could do with essentially sparsely interlink the tubes, esentially having the nanotubes become part of the matrix. This would also give us freedom in choosing the rest of the matrix for the other properties needed.

So while not exactly nanotube reinforced nanotubes, pretty darn close :)

I think that term is called weaving

Carbon nanotube crocheting

You beat me to the Spider-Man reference.

Genuine question: Who the heck thinks "hey, let me feed graphene and carbon nano-tubes to some silkworms!!"

I am amazed that someone thought of that... :-) but what was the previous thought process that lead to this idea? Were they feeding them other materials to test out and then arrived at "How about this?" or was this the first "What if..."

> The team heated the silk fibers at 1,050 °C to carbonize the silk protein

This is suspiciously similar to the way that carbon fiber is made. It could be that they are just converting the silk into carbon fiber and the nanotubes are not an important part of the process. Then again, I only read the summary.

It seems clear even from the summary that this process was used to test the silk fibers, not to produce them. Presumably the control silk and the nanotube/graphene-fed silk were both subjected to the carbonization treatment and the then the researchers tested the conductivity of both specimens.

I wonder what effects this process has on the organism. For instance what would happen if humans ate graphene?

The good news about silkworms is that they're not in it for the long haul anyway, so as long as there are no teratogenic effects, it's all ok.

... because they're boiled alive as soon as they finish their cocoons. But maybe you mean teratogenic effects on humans?

uh... can you expand on this? What do you mean they are boiled? (ill go google - but please explain)

EDIT: oh... no thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beondegi

Not that, boiling is a step to produce silk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk#Production_process

While it's probably a negligible risk, we would breathe the dust from silk fibers if the stuff were produced in significant quantity.

We're already doing that; we produce nanoparticles of carbon from a number of industrial processes, most notably burning coal. IIRC there was an article on HN recently about finding some magnetic nanoparticles which had made their way into human brains.

Doesn't that make getting an MRI really really dangerous?

Actually IIRC the article described using MRI's to find those particles, but I don't exactly remember. Either way, no, they're just too small. What effect they have in the production of free radicals and the like though? Who knows yet.

I think nanotubes are carcinogenic

Indeed, they are:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23751780

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-heal...

The mechanism is similar to that of asbestos.

Interestingly, some groups are trying to use them as a delivery platform for cancer therapies [1], though I don't really understand how they'd compete with something biocompatible and tested like liposomes.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210734/

Unless dissolved in olive oil, then it has lifespan extending properties. https://alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/report/fullerene...

Not to defend any unsubstantiated claims, but C60 is not exactly the same as a nanotube. There doesn't seem to be evidence that C60 is toxic/carcinogenic (though not necessarily solid evidence in the other direction either): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_fullerenes#Bu...

C60 isn't toxic, in fact it is an anti-oxidant, a very strong one. Oxidative stress is sometimes desirable, though, for instance C60 is exceptional at neutralizing Nitric Oxide. You know what is one of NO's functions in the body? Erections.

After cessation, the anti-boner effects seem to disappear, though. Such a shame it even had that effect to begin with because it really made me feel more energetic and happier while allowing me to (consistently and basically within a day or two of starting to take it) do twice the reps during my workouts.

No that's C60 which is 60 carbon atoms in the shape of a geodesic dome. Carbon Nanotubes are completely different, they are long and stringy and get tangled up in cells and break them and can't be removed.

pure carbon is, counter-intuitively, carcinogenic.

Indeed, I naively assumed that being a carbon based organism, more carbon couldn't do much harm.

Carbon based expression is misleading as usual. Organic based life (i.e. based on carbon structure chemistry) is more accurate.

Cyanide is carbon based. Kills you quick. Aromatic hydrocarbons like benzene will kill you slower.

It's like the "all natural" misnomer. Coral snake venom is all natural, but I don't want any, thank you.

SO what? Most of the life on earth is still carbon-based, as in with carbons at the centre of all essential molecules in biology. What kills you is irrelevant to make that statement true or false.

Breathing pure oxygen is also harmful.

Or drinking too much water.

Everything is toxic in too large amount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

I was recently reading about the blood / kidney salt balance too. Same for pH. Interesting how our body spends time in a balancing act.

The Adam Ruins Everything segment on this was great, it takes a large deal of water to poison yourself but somehow people manage to do it because of myths about hydration.

Is force feeding graphene to silkworms unethical?

The next step is perhaps to understand how the nanotubes are incorporated and how they contribute to the strength of the silk.

Or perhaps, we start breeding silkworms for greater and greater tensile strength silk? Perhaps we could get some of nature's nano-machinery to align and interweave nanotubes in a durable matrix for us?

I wonder if the same thing would happen with the golden silk weaver spider?

This is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a while. Thanks for sharing. I can't wait to see the practical applications of this other than some of the "type" ideas we have had such as a space elevator. That is an awesome idea and kinda cool too (just so much science goes into that idea that I feel giddy because it is fun) But, I think it just is a grain of sand on the beach of possibilities.

Geez. This will make its way into the food supply.

Remember, some South Koreans (and maybe other East Asian cultures) eat silkworm pupae for food.

Cheap protein, and there's no need to waste calories in that culture.

I still remember having Beondegi in Busan,South Korea and it was perhaps the most awful-tasting food I've had. I loved everything I ate and drank in SK ... except beondegi.

ya eating crickets is also supposed to be protein dense, its good thing tho, because red meats are devastating to the eco system. Id be down to try some cricket flower cookies :D

Completely off-topic, but it's funny you mention this. A few weeks ago, I was looking at one of the stores I buy various odds and ends from that I can't find locally (fairly mainstream food-related shop that's known for selling nuts and dried fruits) and ran into cricket flour [1]. I suppose I shouldn't be overly surprised, but it's certainly unexpected. The allergy warnings are particularly interesting (shellfish).

If you're not sure about buying cricket flour, it appears they now sell orange ginger cookies made with it [2]. One of these days I might buy some. But, again, beware that people with shellfish allergies may react to crickets.

[1] https://nuts.com/cookingbaking/flours/cricket-flour.html

[2] https://nuts.com/snacks/cookies/orange-ginger-cricket-cookie...

its pricy tho, at $15/lbs it might be good as an additive, but i dont think it makes a good base for the whole cookie? Perhaps added protein to protein bars? Im gonna grab some when i find a seller that i have a gift card to.

Oops. Sorry. Get busy and forget the check replies.

I haven't used it, but yeah, it's better left as an additive, and it's definitely pricey. Adding it to protein bars is a fantastic idea. Nuts' products are a bit on the expensive end sometimes, but they sometimes carry hard to find items in bulk. (Although I'd probably avoid them for less commonly purchased items; sometimes they're stale!)

In case you haven't heard of them, https://www.exoprotein.com/ makes energy bars from cricket flour. I tried some a few years ago, I found them palatable but haven't had a desire to try them again.

CBC article I recall hearing a few years ago on that subject: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cricket-farmer-says-crop-cou...

The ratio that they give is 2:1 for feed to "meat" (hogs need 5:1, cows are 10-15:1) and for water consumption its 1/10th of traditional meats.

Glancing at the prices on Amazon for cricket flour however, its still _way_ above other protein sources in terms of cost.

There's no evidence that nanotubes wind up in the silk, and, let's be honest, can you tell the difference between the three EM panels? Is there some quantitative measure of the disorder in the first panel versus the second or third? Could you train a panel of humans (or a ConvNet) on a set of treated/untreated silkworm silk EM images and expect them to correctly bin which treatment the silk came from?

Looking at those pictures, yes.

I would need more pictures to be confident in the answer, but I think that subjectively the bottom two look more ordered (I initially thought the first was of a greater magnification) and I suspect there is some absolute measurement that can be made from the relation of the length and branching factor of the structures.

Also see http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-diox...

Is it space elevator worthy?

Silkworm son: "What's for breakfast?"

Silkworm dad: "NANOTUBES."

For some reason, attempts at humour here on HN never leave readers indifferent. I should say thank you, I was very tempted by a 'reel of transistors' version.

I'm not really addressing this to you, I just have a lot of thoughts on this.

I feel bad about the downvotes in individual cases, but the culture of easy, repetitive, or just plain bad jokes is a big part of what turned Slashdot from my favorite site into a cesspit that wasn't worth visiting, so I think they're a necessary mechanism.

The trick for this site is to make a good joke. If the topic is well-worn, it has to be a great joke. If you're not sure if it's a good joke, it probably isn't. I base this on the fact that most people simply aren't funny. There's no shame in that, it's just true.

I'm assuming the OP joke is a reference of some sort since I don't get it. A good rule of thumb is that references aren't jokes at all, they're references, so posting them here will probably get you a downvote. This is also true of puns and memes, both from broader culture and more traditional nerd quarters.

And just to be clear, I didn't downvote the OP, but I would have if it weren't already grey by the time I saw it.

Of course I understand all the good reasons you are giving, but I'd think you are taking it all too seriously.

People sometimes post bad jokes on HN for the same reason they tell them in face -- feeling lonely, sometimes desperately lonely, maybe even feeling rejected, trying to be part of it, knowing the joke is not so great but trying anyway.

And you know, if I can somehow help those people, even at risk of being biased in the wrong direction, I couldn't care less if HN becomes Shashdot. Every forum lives its life and then dies, and we all move on.

But that's me, others are entitled to other opinions.

> I feel bad about the downvotes in individual cases, but the culture of easy, repetitive, or just plain bad jokes is a big part of what turned Slashdot from my favorite site into a cesspit that wasn't worth visiting, so I think they're a necessary mechanism.

I think it was around 2000 or so that I set my Slashdot reading preferences to automod Funny posts -1. That turns +5, Funny "insensitive clod" jokes into +4s, allowing the +5 Everything-besides-Funny posts to bubble up to the top. It's features like that that make the original Slashdot discussion system still the best ever invented (well, back when the meta-moderation worked like it originally did, where you randomly approve or reject moderations, rather than re-moderating comments out-of-context, which isn't meta-moderation at all).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com