Cleavage plane - Revision history

Apm: /* Intentional breaking points */

2026-08-15T07:18:56Z

Intentional breaking points

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 15 August 2026
Line 68:		Line 68:
	'''Cleaning of air exposed surfaces:''' <br>		'''Cleaning of air exposed surfaces:''' <br>
	Plucking off chemisorbed gas molecules like oxygen, water, CO<sub>2</sub> <br>		Plucking off chemisorbed gas molecules like oxygen, water, CO<sub>2</sub> <br>
	is more difficult than mass [[~~mechanosysnthesis~~]] of standard parts. <br>		is more difficult than mass [[mechanosynthesis]] of standard parts. <br>
	As every surface contamination is random and different a scan and a custom removal process is needed. <br>		As every surface contamination is random and different a scan and a custom removal process is needed. <br>
	This needs a much bigger programmable processing cell than an <br>		This needs a much bigger programmable processing cell than an <br>

Apm: Intentional breaking points

2026-08-15T07:18:29Z

Intentional breaking points

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 but ~100x weaker than covalent. <br>
-== Application of cleavage planes: Seamless covalent cleaving ==
+== Applications of cleavage planes ==
 See main page: [[Seamless covalent cleaving]]
@@ Line 55: / Line 57: @@
 One may want acute angle concave nooks at the base  <br>
 for intentional stress concentration at the base.  <br>
 == Related ==

Apm: added section == Seamless covalent cleaving ==

2026-08-15T06:40:48Z

added section == Seamless covalent cleaving ==

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 These are still not weak from a breaking marcoscale parts by human hands perspective <br>
 but ~100x weaker than covalent. <br>
 == Related ==

Apm: added image

2026-08-15T06:34:41Z

added image

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 15 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Stub}}~~		[[file:Custom_stress_strain_curve.svg\|thumb\|500px\|'''Not to scale, just conceptual!''' Despite cleavage planes being the weakest direction, with [[gemstone based metamaterial]]s out of interlocking mostly flawless [[crystolecules]] one still gets far superior toughness to any [[materials available today]]. Plus it is easy to interlock parts in different crystal directions making strength less anisosptropic and more averaged out. More details to this graphic are present on the page [[emulated elasticity]].]]

	Q: Doesn't the presence of cleavage planes mean products out of nanoscale gemstones break easily? <br>		Q: Doesn't the presence of cleavage planes mean products out of nanoscale gemstones break easily? <br>

Apm: Apm moved page Cleavage planes to Cleavage plane: plural => singular

2026-08-15T06:21:33Z

Apm moved page Cleavage planes to Cleavage plane: plural => singular

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:21, 15 August 2026
(No difference)

Apm: /* Related */

2026-08-13T07:00:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 13 August 2026
Line 50:		Line 50:
	* [[Superelasticity]]		* [[Superelasticity]]
	* [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]		* [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]
			----
			* [[In place assembly]]

Apm: /* Approaches to mitigate for cleavage planes */ expanded on first point with analogy to wood-grain & FFF inter-layer adhesion

2026-08-13T06:59:34Z

Approaches to mitigate for cleavage planes: expanded on first point with analogy to wood-grain & FFF inter-layer adhesion

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 13 August 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:

	'''Interlocking nano-gemstone [[crystolecules]] in different crystal orientations:''' <br>		'''Interlocking nano-gemstone [[crystolecules]] in different crystal orientations:''' <br>
	(very much like FFF/FDM 3D printed parts ~~ofteh~~ have a weaker inter layer ~~direction adn wood has~~ a ~~grain~~. <br>		Design methodologies following ancient ones used in woodworking where wood has not one but two weak directions. Woodgrain.
			More recent very much like design methodologies for FFF/FDM 3D printed parts as these often have one particularly weaker direction due to imperfect inter-layer-adhesion. <br>
			<small>Side-note: Post assembly of 3D printed parts is still quite underused despite quite a number of benefits including more isotropic and thus overall strength.</small> <br>
			See: [[Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis]]<br>

	'''Varying stacking order:''' <br>		'''Varying stacking order:''' <br>
	ABCABC is cubic ABAB is less isotropic hexagonal with a only one major axis insterad of four. <br>		ABCABC is cubic ABAB is less isotropic hexagonal with a only one major axis insterad of four. <br>
	Other stacking patterns are possible too (this happens naturally in [[moissanite]] (SiC)) <br>		Other stacking patterns are possible too (this happens naturally in [[moissanite]] (SiC)) <br>
	but one would likely want to make it in some less or more ~~preiodic~~ systematic pattern. <br>		but one would likely want to make it in some less or more periodic systematic pattern. <br>
	See: [[Checkerboard compound]] <br>		See: [[Checkerboard compound]] <br>

Line 37:		Line 40:
	Fancy stuff to look at eventually. <br>		Fancy stuff to look at eventually. <br>

	Obviously avoid ~~ges~~ with ~~greally~~ pronounced ~~cleabvage~~ planes. <br>		Obviously avoid gems with really pronounced cleavage planes. <br>
	Some 2D materials like e.g. ~~slingle~~ crystalline graphite (aka HOPG) <br>		Some 2D materials like e.g. single crystalline graphite (aka HOPG) <br>
	have just mere vdW bonds in one direction. <br>		have just mere vdW bonds in one direction. <br>
	These are still not weak from a breaking marcoscale parts by human hands perspective <br>		These are still not weak from a breaking marcoscale parts by human hands perspective <br>

Apm: basic page

2026-08-13T06:45:16Z

basic page

New page

{{Stub}}

Q: Doesn't the presence of cleavage planes mean products out of nanoscale gemstones break easily? 

A: No, not really. 
Brittleness of macroscale gemstones is mainly a result of the unavoidable presence of defects (internal and on surface) 
and continuous covalent connectivity leading to stress concentrations inducing fractures that unboundedly propagate 
to a full break long (easily >99%) before the theoretical limit is reached. 
Thereby massively reducing toughness. 

Interlocking nanoscale gemstones like in [[gemstone based metamaterial]]s 
(will) remove that massive reduction. Even if the many of the cleavage planes are aligned. 
★ by stopping fractures at the next very nearby non-bonded interface interlock and 
★ by most [[crystolecules]] having no internal or external defects 
… particularly no stress concentrating surface divest to get a cleavage plane started. 

== Cleaving planes as only a concern for the very highest performance applications ==

Cleavage planes in gemstones like diamond and are still well above 50% of the maximum ultimate tensile strength 
which is still enormous and sufficient for almost all except the most extreme applications. 

Plus there are a number more and less straightforward ways to improve on that 
in the rare cases it is really needed. E.g.: 

=== Approaches to mitigate for cleavage planes ===

'''Interlocking nano-gemstone [[crystolecules]] in different crystal orientations:''' 
(very much like FFF/FDM 3D printed parts ofteh have a weaker inter layer direction adn wood has a grain. 

'''Varying stacking order:''' 
ABCABC is cubic ABAB is less isotropic hexagonal with a only one major axis insterad of four. 
Other stacking patterns are possible too (this happens naturally in [[moissanite]] (SiC)) 
but one would likely want to make it in some less or more preiodic systematic pattern. 
See: [[Checkerboard compound]] 

'''[[Quasiamorphous]] and [[quasicrystalling structures]]''': 
Fancy stuff to look at eventually. 

Obviously avoid ges with greally pronounced cleabvage planes. 
Some 2D materials like e.g. slingle crystalline graphite (aka HOPG) 
have just mere vdW bonds in one direction. 
These are still not weak from a breaking marcoscale parts by human hands perspective 
but ~100x weaker than covalent. 

== Related ==

* [[Superelasticity]]
* [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]