This is cool, but I wonder what the implications are for the mutated molecule's characteristics that might result in microscopic material properties/behaviors.
for the second transformation the molecule loses aromaticity, so if it was conductive there would be a local conductivity defect. aromatic hexagons are flat and pentagons and heptagons are not, so there would likely be a "desired" curvature difference.
in the specific case of graphene, a heptagon/pentagon stone wales transformation would almost certainly snap back to all hexagons due to the strain.
Are you suggesting something like this could be used in an electroactive material that exhibits physical deformation to behave like an artificial muscle? (not suggesting that would be practical or efficient, but maybe?)
This is cool, but I wonder what the implications are for the mutated molecule's characteristics that might result in microscopic material properties/behaviors.
for the second transformation the molecule loses aromaticity, so if it was conductive there would be a local conductivity defect. aromatic hexagons are flat and pentagons and heptagons are not, so there would likely be a "desired" curvature difference.
in the specific case of graphene, a heptagon/pentagon stone wales transformation would almost certainly snap back to all hexagons due to the strain.
Are you suggesting something like this could be used in an electroactive material that exhibits physical deformation to behave like an artificial muscle? (not suggesting that would be practical or efficient, but maybe?)
arrow is wrong here. conductivity responds to the structure. the structure does not respond (in that way) to electricity.
Baez is such an extraordinary expositor, I love reading his work even if I have no clue or interest in what he’s on about.
You can sense his excitement!