Cleavage plane: Difference between revisions
Intentional breaking points |
|||
| 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 [[ | 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> | ||
Latest revision as of 09:18, 15 August 2026
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 metamaterials
(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:
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.
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.
See: Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis
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 periodic systematic pattern.
See: Checkerboard compound
Quasiamorphous and quasicrystalling structures:
Fancy stuff to look at eventually.
Obviously avoid gems with really pronounced cleavage planes.
Some 2D materials like e.g. single 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.
Applications of cleavage planes
Seamless covalent cleaving
See main page: Seamless covalent cleaving
A potentially very useful application of cleavage planes.
Breaking off a newly mechanosynthesized part from an identical base material that
unlike any other chemical element base material is perfectly lattice matched
One may want acute angle concave nooks at the base
for intentional stress concentration at the base.
Intentional breaking points
Pretty much the same but in finished systems. This will leave open radicals so
if the broken interface shall still remain straighforwardly reversible by seamless covalent welding without any cleaup
then the broken open structure need to remain sealed.
The vacuum sealing at a slightly or much larger size scale can add some complications.
Does it stretch/expand. Overload from just within should be avoidable.
Cleaning of air exposed surfaces:
Plucking off chemisorbed gas molecules like oxygen, water, CO2
is more difficult than mass mechanosynthesis of standard parts.
As every surface contamination is random and different a scan and a custom removal process is needed.
This needs a much bigger programmable processing cell than an
open loop control hard-coded single task mechanosynthetic cell on an assembly line
as expectably present in an advanced on chip gemstone based nanofactories.
Though one-off custom surface cleanup is still much easier than
full on reverse mechanosynthesis of any random material (to repair or "ingest") where
★ thermochemical dissolution methods are more appropriate
★ higher quantities may be resent
Likely better alternative:
Usually non-bonding form closure sterically interlocking reversible intentional breaking points mechanisms
that start to be present a bit higher up in size scales should be sufficient FAPP.
This could be like panic snap inspired mechanism that activate on overload stretching a very hard force sensing spring.
Why all that effort?
Reason for going through the design effort of reversible intentional breaking points mechanisms include:
★ prevention of spill of non-degradable diamondoid nano-materials into the environment.
★ an early conscious continuous effort in making recycling more viable from the beginning
– to prevent a larger needed effort later to prevent absurd scale landfills in an gem-gum waste crisis scenario
– even very chap can mean something is not done if there are ways to do it even cheaper, scale makes the difference matter