For example, the Victor Thruster K 8000 has multi layered graphene on its frame. It is said that one gram of graphene can bear five tons of weight. Clearly we cannot create a force that much with our bare hands even if we try. Is this then the end of racket breaking, at least at the frame before they come out with full graphene racket? Do someone care to test this theory?
It can bear 5 tones of weight as long as the weights are placed in the right position. I guess it's similar to carbon fiber; strong in some directions, weak in others.
Huh? Isn't multi layered graphene just Graphit? Graphene is a single layer material, it is the only single layer material that can exist on earth.
This has been mentioned elsewhere. You're assuming that graphite is pure graphene put in to layers. This isn't the case, as you have structural anomalies, even if you wouldn't have chemical anomalies.
I don't get why there should be any major structural anomalies since the graphene layers are very stable. You got any source for that? If you just have a few layers of graphene you call it "multi-layer" graphene because it still has kind of the properties of graphene but weaker. If you have more than a few it's just graphite.
At the atomic scale, any structural anomaly is major. Take a metal of your choice, for example. A model of a metal without any structural anomalies would show the metal to be 10 times stronger than reality. The fact is that small (atomic-level) exclusions are responsible for this big discrepancy between theory and reality. More detail goes on to explain why inclusions in metal make it stronger, but you should go take some science classes if you're really interested. Of course, you could also test the strength of a pile of graphene and compare it to a lump of graphite. Or you could consult wikipedia, or numerous other electronic or printed sources. Graphene made quite a stir, winning a Nobel Prize, so there'll be plenty of materials to consult.
I'm quite familiar with solid state physics. My question was rather why there should be any faults in the structure of the graphite planes but there are none in graphene. Since the interaction between two planes is very little this does not make much sense to me.
If you read the wikipedia page on graphene, you'll see that two separate layers can have very tangible effects on each other. And there are faults in graphite because that is reality and there aren't in graphene because that's its definition. Introduce faults in graphene and it is no longer graphene. Remove all faults from graphite and you have graphene. Instead of complaining to me, I suggest you educate yourself with the enormous amounts of knowledge available on the repository known as the internet.
All these structures are in theory immensely powerful. For example these carbon nanotubes should be able to have enough strength to even hold a space elevator concept, which is quite insane. However it maintains this level of strength only when the structure is perfect. One flaw and it wont hold so much. Still a lot though.
... it means you’ll struggle to melt it? Bearing weight means it’s stable, but it doesn’t account for impact, or other structural imbalances. If the graphite under the graphene cracks, it’s no longer on a stable surface. In that instance it doesn’t matter if it breaks or not, because it won’t be doing the job it needs to do (supporting the frame shape).
I've been puzzled for quite a while. If all these carbon structures are so mighty, why we need resin when making rackets? All in all, is resin reinforced by carbon or carbon reinforced by resin?
Then why don't we label a racket "resin racket" if carbon is just one of the reinforcing materials like titanium fibres or kevlar fibres let say?
First of all, by volume, there is a lot more of the fibres than there is resin. That's why a lot of manufacturers state "graphite" aswell. The resins job is to hold the fibres together, and to keep them from moving relative to each other. Other than that you'd want as little as resin as possible, as it's just adding weight without adding anything impactful in regards to strength and stiffness. Second, there's the fact that simply stating "resin" wouldn't specify it there was glass fibres, carbon fibres, kevlar, titanium etc. Then there's of course the marketing reasons - "carbon fibre", "kevlar", "titanium" sounds a lot cooler than "resin" And there's probably a few 100 reasons more than I can come up with here right now.
