Stronger-than-steel fibre spun from wood | Hacker News Reader

Stronger-than-steel fibre spun from wood

kth.se

A while back I read an article about how this [1] was going to replace plastic in the near future. It seems that since that time it has downgraded to improving the material properties of plastics. The best part is that you can make this stuff out of sawdust. Hopefully the research mention in tfa will open up more uses for otherwise 'useless' waist from industrial processes. Unfortunately there is no information on how long the base fibres need to be to make this stuff. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocellulose

“The new technology promises not only biodegradable structural materials but soft natural textiles that could be substituted for cotton, which is widely believed to be close to reaching peak cultivation.”

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044876/

First time I've heard of "peak cotton". While I'm sure this wood texture could supplement cotton, I can't believe that trees would grow fast or efficiently enough to replace cotton.

If all cotton production stopped tomorrow, it would take some 50 years before the world runs out of t-shirts. A completely unsubstantiated number, but seriously, we make way more clothes than we actually need, so there is room for improvement there.

Something out the ays material science gets reported is broken. It's hard to distinguish between things that are theoretically possible and those that are in production now. Cost of production is also an issue.

Can we make a pencil out of this stuff. What would it cost?

This is true of pretty much all science reporting (at least, on things that are claimed to have some practical benefit).

I think that the science reporters figure that if they simply report on every successful test, regardless of how far it is from being practical, eventually they will be the ones to have broken the news on "the next big thing".

How would you prevent rot?

Keep it dry. Coat it with something waterproof and it should last.

How old is the oldest wood structure?

From the wikipedia page on Hōryū-ji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-ji):

``... The original temple, named by modern historians and archaeologists Wakakusa-garan (若草伽藍), was lost, probably burned to the ground after being hit by lightning in 670. The temple was reconstructed but slightly reoriented in a northwest position, which is believed to have been completed by around 711. The temple was repaired and reassembled in the early twelfth century, in 1374, and 1603. ... The five-story pagoda, located in Sai-in area, stands at 32.45 meters in height (122 feet) and is approximately 20X20 in width and is one of the oldest wooden buildings in the world. The wood used in the center pillar of the pagoda is estimated through a dendrochronological analysis to have been felled in 594.''

No doubt some other buildings may be older.

In summary: really frickin old... :]

Depends what you mean by ‘structure’. If you mean extant building then Hōryū-ji[1] has a claim. If you widen your definition then there’s structures like Woodhenge[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-ji [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhenge

> Depends what you mean by ‘structure’

If you want to be specific, then I mean where wood is kept under significant tension load.

So I guess woodhenge doesn't count since that's compression load. (Only tension load actually stresses the wood fibers in a way that's comparable with the product discussed in the article.)

Does a pyramid count as a structure by your definition then?

Don't get caught up by the word "structure". It's just a simple term I used for the purpose.

The actual subject here is the tension load, the word "structure" is just the most convenient term for it.

(But in any case a hollow pyramid would certainly be under tension. You would need an arch if you wanted pure compression.)

The problem with the other responses is the original concern was rot. Poorly installed wood will only survive a decade or two at most, often much less. Properly installed wood will never rot. Its not an inherent quality of wood to always rot. The discussion topics are revolving around historical wood structures having failed due to generic building lifetime issues like fire, warfare, mostly economic obsolescence, poor or no maintenance, nothing to do with the material itself.

If wood becomes even more in demand, will we plant more trees then we kill? We humans are already destroying our forests as it is.

Plantation timber is a pretty eco-friendly material, and can be cheaper than wild timber (especially if you are in a jurisdiction that has carbon accounting).

Possibly, but that won't help the flora or fauna since young, planted forests have completely different ecosystems than the rainforests we're tearing down. Arguably it won't help co2 emissions much either since old forests capture enormous amounts of carbon in the ground, which planted forests don't.

While I agree that tree plantations aren't as biodiverse as natural forests, I had been lead to believe that young, fast growing trees sucked in more carbon than mature, stable forests.

Do you have any citations for why forests are better, CO2-wise? My google search results turned up a mixed bag.

Bamboo, we need to start using bamboo.

Bamboo has some uses, but it doesn't replace even a fraction of what wood is used for.

I guessing the point was we need to go down the path of finding ways to use bamboo instead of wood. Bamboo grows significantly faster than wood and is amazingly strong. If the materials sciences guys could find ways to process bamboo like this is would be a much more sustainable path.

> We humans are already destroying our forests as it is.

Not for wood. Forests for wood are actually larger than in the past. When forests are cleared it's for farmland, so this won't make any difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com