A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old September 22nd 16, 12:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:05:56 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
I mean, you and your like minded friends act as if I couldn't
call up Bayer and buy all the carbon nanotubes I wanted


Actually, I'm not sure you can. Google search of "bayer carbon
nanotubes" gives top search results of 2013 and 2014 articles on the
subject with these titles:

Bayer MaterialScience shuts down carbon nanotubes project ...

Bayer offloads its carbon nanotube and graphene patents to ...

Bayer Exits Highly Hyped Carbon Nanotubes Business

Carbon nanotubes not commercially viable for Bayer - Chemistry World

Bayer Divests Itself From Patents For Carbon Nanotubes And Graphene

Bayer MaterialScience exits carbon nanotube business

Bayer selling carbon nanotube intellectual property to FutureCarbon

Bayer MaterialScience brings Production of Carbon Nanotubes to a Halt



So Mook, do you have a cite which says Bayer is still in the business of
selling "all the carbon nanotubes" any customer wants?


Well, in 2007 you could buy all you wanted from Bayer. They were making 60 tonnes per year.


It's not 2007 Mook. And in 2007, they weren't producing them in
"arbitrarily long lengths". They were really short little things you
could add to other materials. So not really carbon nanotubes like you'd
need say for a space elevator.

Today you can buy CNT from Sigma Aldrich;

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/material...ePage=16376687

Bayer sold their patents and tooling to FutureCarbon, because the owners of FutureCarbon were willing to pay more for the rights than Bayer felt they could make with them in the face of growing Chinese competition.

If you read the annual report on the transaction you will see Bayer made a net gain on the transaction, and FutureCarbon has expanded their rate of production to support their specialty materials using CNTs.

The 2007 article indicates Bayer had a capacity of 60 tonnes per year. This article;

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=23118.php

Shows that in 2011 global production for CNTs was 3,141 metric tons!

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1322105

In 2016 global production of CNTs and graphene was 3,500 metric tons


So production barely went up between 2011 and 2016. Also, for global
production, that certainly doesn't sound like a lot. Also, graphene
isn't carbon nanotubes, so you're inflating your numbers to make them
look better.

You're the one that said you could buy all you needed from Bayer. You
were wrong. When a large company like Bayer dumps a "promising" new
technology like carbon nanotubes, it's not ready for prime-time. In
2013/2014 when Bayer dumped everything they owned related to carbon
nanotubes (including patents), it wasn't ready for prime time.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #72  
Old September 22nd 16, 12:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:05:56 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
I mean, you and your like minded friends act as if I couldn't
call up Bayer and buy all the carbon nanotubes I wanted


Actually, I'm not sure you can. Google search of "bayer carbon
nanotubes" gives top search results of 2013 and 2014 articles on the
subject with these titles:

Bayer MaterialScience shuts down carbon nanotubes project ...

Bayer offloads its carbon nanotube and graphene patents to ...

Bayer Exits Highly Hyped Carbon Nanotubes Business

Carbon nanotubes not commercially viable for Bayer - Chemistry World

Bayer Divests Itself From Patents For Carbon Nanotubes And Graphene

Bayer MaterialScience exits carbon nanotube business

Bayer selling carbon nanotube intellectual property to FutureCarbon

Bayer MaterialScience brings Production of Carbon Nanotubes to a Halt



So Mook, do you have a cite which says Bayer is still in the business of
selling "all the carbon nanotubes" any customer wants?

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


In 2007 Bayer had the ability to ship 60 metric tons per year.
By 2011 when they exited the market due to stiff Chinese competition,
they sold out to their largest buyer, total demand was over 3100
metric tons per year. Today over 3,500 metric tons per year is being
purchased throughout the world.


It's not 2007. So, now you are telling us that you are basing your
arguments on data nearly a decade old!?!?

Today you can buy from any number of suppliers - mostly Chinese
though. Sigma Aldrich offers CNTs to anyone who wants them today.


You're the one who made the assertion you could buy all the carbon
nanotubes you wanted from Bayer. You were wrong. Bayer dumped carbon
nanotubes. They didn't pan out for them.

And you're the one insulting others in this group saying we don't know
what we're talking about. LOL.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #73  
Old September 22nd 16, 12:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:11:34 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:48:32 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Robert Clark schrieb:

From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.

I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself.

Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties
to practical performance.

That's not what's reported here;

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs...mao_2012_p.pdf

And with the techniques reported here;

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Docu..._AANov2013.pdf

It's just like you Mook to dismiss someone with actual experience in the
field in favor of glowing research papers and reports in the media which
contain clear bias. Of course the researchers have nothing but positive
things to say in order to maintain their funding.


There is a difference between research laboratories and development labs which you are ignoring.
T


And there is an even bigger difference between labs of any sort and
actual working experience and tech. That is a much more critical
difference than the one you bring up between labs and you routinely
ignore it.


You're the one who refuses to ignore that global demand for CNTs is well established at 3,500 metric tons per year and plans are afott to grow that production by 600 metric tons per year - in China alone!


3,500 metric tons per year is absolutely pathetic compared to other
materials. Your own data showing that production has plateaued for
several years goes against your own claims that the material is
currently suitable for widespread use. It's really not (at least it's
not economical to do so). It can't currently compete against more
traditional composites and metal alloys in the quantities that would
make it a mainstream material.

Maybe it will get there in many more years. Maybe it won't.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #74  
Old September 23rd 16, 05:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:11:34 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:48:32 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Robert Clark schrieb:

From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.

I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself.

Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties
to practical performance.

That's not what's reported here;

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs...mao_2012_p.pdf

And with the techniques reported here;

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Docu..._AANov2013.pdf

It's just like you Mook to dismiss someone with actual experience in the
field in favor of glowing research papers and reports in the media which
contain clear bias. Of course the researchers have nothing but positive
things to say in order to maintain their funding.


There is a difference between research laboratories and development labs which you are ignoring.
T


And there is an even bigger difference between labs of any sort and
actual working experience and tech. That is a much more critical
difference than the one you bring up between labs and you routinely
ignore it.


You're the one who refuses to ignore that global demand for CNTs is well established at 3,500 metric tons per year and plans are afott to grow that production by 600 metric tons per year - in China alone!


I've never made a comment of any type with regard to carbon nanotubes.
Please seek treatment for these delusions of yours.


You have no appreciation whatever of the reality of what's going on blinded as you are by what you think is going on based on outdated materials.


You have no appreciation whatever of the reality of what's going on
blinded as you are by your paranoid delusion that everyone who
disagrees with you and thinks you are a buffoon is the same person.
You have done this over and over and over again and are once again
doing it.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #75  
Old September 24th 16, 11:13 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:03:44 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:05:56 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
I mean, you and your like minded friends act as if I couldn't
call up Bayer and buy all the carbon nanotubes I wanted

Actually, I'm not sure you can. Google search of "bayer carbon
nanotubes" gives top search results of 2013 and 2014 articles on the
subject with these titles:

Bayer MaterialScience shuts down carbon nanotubes project ...

Bayer offloads its carbon nanotube and graphene patents to ...

Bayer Exits Highly Hyped Carbon Nanotubes Business

Carbon nanotubes not commercially viable for Bayer - Chemistry World

Bayer Divests Itself From Patents For Carbon Nanotubes And Graphene

Bayer MaterialScience exits carbon nanotube business

Bayer selling carbon nanotube intellectual property to FutureCarbon

Bayer MaterialScience brings Production of Carbon Nanotubes to a Halt



So Mook, do you have a cite which says Bayer is still in the business of
selling "all the carbon nanotubes" any customer wants?


Well, in 2007 you could buy all you wanted from Bayer. They were making 60 tonnes per year.


It's not 2007 Mook.


True

And in 2007, they weren't producing them in
"arbitrarily long lengths".


True

They were really short little things you
could add to other materials. So not really carbon nanotubes like you'd
need say for a space elevator.


So? You're making **** up and assuming its relevant. Bayer exited the market because they couldn't dominate it the way they wanted. 60 tonnes in 2007 grew to 3000 tonnes per year in less than a decade and is going to grow 500 tonnes this year. This is not a R&D topic, its a fundamental new material with applications being developed daily.

That's the freaking point.


Today you can buy CNT from Sigma Aldrich;

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/material...ePage=16376687

Bayer sold their patents and tooling to FutureCarbon, because the owners of FutureCarbon were willing to pay more for the rights than Bayer felt they could make with them in the face of growing Chinese competition.

If you read the annual report on the transaction you will see Bayer made a net gain on the transaction, and FutureCarbon has expanded their rate of production to support their specialty materials using CNTs.

The 2007 article indicates Bayer had a capacity of 60 tonnes per year. This article;

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=23118.php

Shows that in 2011 global production for CNTs was 3,141 metric tons!

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1322105

In 2016 global production of CNTs and graphene was 3,500 metric tons


So production barely went up between 2011 and 2016. Also, for global
production, that certainly doesn't sound like a lot.


CNTs are not a research topic that a sceptical engineer has every right to question. CNTs are an emerging technology developing new applications daily.

Also, graphene
isn't carbon nanotubes,


Its funny that you are so freaking clueless, and are so ill informed by your gaseous gut.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/s...etter-together


so you're inflating your numbers to make them
look better.


Not really. You're conflating your gut feelings with reality just to make you feel better.

You're the one that said you could buy all you needed from Bayer.


Look last time I bought CNTs for my own research I bought it from Bayer. So, I was speaking from my personal experience. That was 2007. Today, you can buy even more from a larger number suppliers than Bayer ever imagined possible. So, my point stands. You can buy CNTs and Graphene in any quantity you like - its not a research topic. that's the freaking point.

You
were wrong.


About Bayer still being in the market. Sure. About CNTs being a commodity - not so much.

When a large company like Bayer dumps a "promising" new
technology like carbon nanotubes, it's not ready for prime-time.


You obviously didn't read the articles you cite. Bayer left the market because they got their asses handed them by Chinese manufacturers. The lock they thought they had on the market didn't exist. Demand grew more rapidly and ways they didn't expect. This is a reflection of the success of CNTs as a product.

In
2013/2014 when Bayer dumped everything they owned related to carbon
nanotubes (including patents), it wasn't ready for prime time.


The patents were more valued by their main customer than they were to Bayer.. Bayer couldn't maintain the control they desired over the marketplace because of the tremendous developments in the field that moved outside their control.

When you say CNTs aren't ready for prime time you are just making **** up that has no bearing whatever on reality.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


You're a ****ing idiot.
  #76  
Old September 24th 16, 11:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:07:25 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:05:56 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
I mean, you and your like minded friends act as if I couldn't
call up Bayer and buy all the carbon nanotubes I wanted

Actually, I'm not sure you can. Google search of "bayer carbon
nanotubes" gives top search results of 2013 and 2014 articles on the
subject with these titles:

Bayer MaterialScience shuts down carbon nanotubes project ...

Bayer offloads its carbon nanotube and graphene patents to ...

Bayer Exits Highly Hyped Carbon Nanotubes Business

Carbon nanotubes not commercially viable for Bayer - Chemistry World

Bayer Divests Itself From Patents For Carbon Nanotubes And Graphene

Bayer MaterialScience exits carbon nanotube business

Bayer selling carbon nanotube intellectual property to FutureCarbon

Bayer MaterialScience brings Production of Carbon Nanotubes to a Halt



So Mook, do you have a cite which says Bayer is still in the business of
selling "all the carbon nanotubes" any customer wants?

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


In 2007 Bayer had the ability to ship 60 metric tons per year.
By 2011 when they exited the market due to stiff Chinese competition,
they sold out to their largest buyer, total demand was over 3100
metric tons per year. Today over 3,500 metric tons per year is being
purchased throughout the world.


It's not 2007.


True.

So, now you are telling us that you are basing your
arguments on data nearly a decade old!?!?


Its not an argument. Its a fact. When I bought CNTs I bought them from Bayer. I was relating my experience. In the intervening decade Bayer lost control of the market and sold the patents to those clients who valued them more than Bayer did. For example, working with CNTs a decade ago I developed a meanMeanwhile, an entire CNT manufacturing infrastructure arose far larger and more varied than was available in 2007. Vastly bigger than 2007. This proves my point about CNTs being a commodity. Notwithstanding the fact that Bayer exited the market.

Today you can buy from any number of suppliers - mostly Chinese
though. Sigma Aldrich offers CNTs to anyone who wants them today.


You're the one who made the assertion you could buy all the carbon
nanotubes you wanted from Bayer.


I was wrong about that. Get over it. It was based on my personal experience, and that was dated. The point remains. Namely, CNTs are commodities that can be purchased from a large variety of vendors.

You were wrong.


Of course. Bayer got out of the market because other suppliers ate their lunch and they couldn't compete.

Bayer dumped carbon
nanotubes. They didn't pan out for them.


Right. Your implication that CNTs aren't profitable per se is dead wrong. Bayer likes specialty products they dominate. CNTs became a commodity far faster than they expected, so they left the market.

And you're the one insulting others


**** you you clueless retard.

in this group saying we don't know
what we're talking about. LOL.


You don't if you say CNTs are not a commodity.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


You are an ignorant *******.
  #77  
Old September 24th 16, 11:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:14:06 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:11:34 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:48:32 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Robert Clark schrieb:

From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.

I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself.

Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties
to practical performance.

That's not what's reported here;

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs...mao_2012_p.pdf

And with the techniques reported here;

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Docu..._AANov2013.pdf

It's just like you Mook to dismiss someone with actual experience in the
field in favor of glowing research papers and reports in the media which
contain clear bias. Of course the researchers have nothing but positive
things to say in order to maintain their funding.


There is a difference between research laboratories and development labs which you are ignoring.
T

And there is an even bigger difference between labs of any sort and
actual working experience and tech. That is a much more critical
difference than the one you bring up between labs and you routinely
ignore it.


You're the one who refuses to ignore that global demand for CNTs is well established at 3,500 metric tons per year and plans are afott to grow that production by 600 metric tons per year - in China alone!


3,500 metric tons per year is absolutely pathetic compared to other
materials.


According to this genius statement Platinum is a pathetic material and not a commodity... lol.

Of course the reality is quite different. Platinum is a precious commodity.. It is commonly used in catalytic converters for automobiles and is also prominently used in jewelry. The estimated global platinum production in 2014 was 5.8 million ounces - 216.7 metric tons.

Your own data showing that production has plateaued for
several years goes against your own claims that the material is
currently suitable for widespread use.


CNTs are produced in quantities vastly exceeding other valued commodities - like platinum. Your misinterpretation of my comments notwithstanding.

It's really not (at least it's
not economical to do so).


CNTs are used in a wide range of products today and are best suited .

Here's a 2013 review article. Please note the APPLICATIONS of CNTs - and their exponentially increasing rates of production.

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/new...encereview.pdf


It can't currently compete against more
traditional composites and metal alloys in the quantities that would
make it a mainstream material.


I'm certain your gut is telling you this is a correct statement. Unfortunately it bears no relation whatever to reality.


Maybe it will get there in many more years. Maybe it won't.


One thing is for certain, you will never get to a point where you will appreciate reality just as it is. You know, a reality where CNTs and graphene are widely used today and are a commodity in broader use today than materials like Platinum.


Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

  #78  
Old September 24th 16, 11:47 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 4:52:55 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:11:34 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:48:32 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Robert Clark schrieb:

From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.

I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself.

Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties
to practical performance.

That's not what's reported here;

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs...mao_2012_p.pdf

And with the techniques reported here;

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Docu..._AANov2013.pdf

It's just like you Mook to dismiss someone with actual experience in the
field in favor of glowing research papers and reports in the media which
contain clear bias. Of course the researchers have nothing but positive
things to say in order to maintain their funding.


There is a difference between research laboratories and development labs which you are ignoring.
T

And there is an even bigger difference between labs of any sort and
actual working experience and tech. That is a much more critical
difference than the one you bring up between labs and you routinely
ignore it.


You're the one who refuses to ignore that global demand for CNTs is well established at 3,500 metric tons per year and plans are afott to grow that production by 600 metric tons per year - in China alone!


I've never made a comment of any type with regard to carbon nanotubes.


That's what I'm talking about you blowhard. If you're not talking about what I'm talking about, why the hell are you saying anything at all?

Please seek treatment for these delusions of yours.


You're the one responding to topics and refusing to discuss them. Take your own advice you freaking ape.




You have no appreciation whatever of the reality of what's going on blinded as you are by what you think is going on based on outdated materials.


You have no appreciation whatever of the reality of what's going on


Nonsense.

blinded as you are by your paranoid delusion


You're an expert in diagnosis are you? Somehow I think not.

that everyone who
disagrees with you and thinks you are a buffoon is the same person.


Look, I'm talking about CNTs and the fact that CNTs are produced as commodities today and have a large number of applications. That's what I'm talking about. Are you talking about this? You just said you weren't. So, what the hell are you responding to you ape?

You have done this over and over and over again and are once again
doing i


You have made the same mistake over and over again. Certainly. And play the same games over and over again. Get a freaking life you moron.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine


  #79  
Old September 24th 16, 05:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 4:52:55 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:11:34 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:48:32 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Robert Clark schrieb:

From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.

I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself.

Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties
to practical performance.

That's not what's reported here;

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs...mao_2012_p.pdf

And with the techniques reported here;

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Docu..._AANov2013.pdf

It's just like you Mook to dismiss someone with actual experience in the
field in favor of glowing research papers and reports in the media which
contain clear bias. Of course the researchers have nothing but positive
things to say in order to maintain their funding.


There is a difference between research laboratories and development labs which you are ignoring.
T

And there is an even bigger difference between labs of any sort and
actual working experience and tech. That is a much more critical
difference than the one you bring up between labs and you routinely
ignore it.


You're the one who refuses to ignore that global demand for CNTs is well established at 3,500 metric tons per year and plans are afott to grow that production by 600 metric tons per year - in China alone!


I've never made a comment of any type with regard to carbon nanotubes.


That's what I'm talking about you blowhard. If you're not talking about what I'm talking about, why the hell are you saying anything at all?


I wasn't, you loony ****. YOU don't own the venue. I was talking
about what YOU do.


Please seek treatment for these delusions of yours.


You're the one responding to topics and refusing to discuss them. Take your own advice you freaking ape.


You're the paranoid loon who thinks he gets to choose what people can
say. Please, seek treatment, pond scum.




You have no appreciation whatever of the reality of what's going on blinded as you are by what you think is going on based on outdated materials.


You have no appreciation whatever of the reality of what's going on


Nonsense.


Breaking a mocking statement apart doesn't make you look any smarter,
Mookie.


blinded as you are by your paranoid delusion


You're an expert in diagnosis are you? Somehow I think not.


You have identified your problem, Yoda. You think not. I wish you'd
start thinking, but your years of history show that that is just very
unlikely.

One needn't be an arson investigator to recognize fire, Mookie...


that everyone who
disagrees with you and thinks you are a buffoon is the same person.


Look, I'm talking about CNTs and the fact that CNTs are produced as commodities today and have a large number of applications. That's what I'm talking about. Are you talking about this? You just said you weren't. So, what the hell are you responding to you ape?


I'm talking about ****s; in particular a mook named (appropriately)
Mook.


You have done this over and over and over again and are once again
doing i


You have made the same mistake over and over again. Certainly. And play the same games over and over again. Get a freaking life you moron.


Tu coque is the best you can do after mistaking me (again) for Jeff?
Get some freaking treatment you nutter.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #80  
Old September 25th 16, 04:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 6:37:07 AM UTC+12, Robert Clark wrote:
American Journal of Nanomaterials
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article
From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
Robert Clark
Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html

Next stop: the space elevator.

Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Double walled carbon nanotubes were fabricated into motors over a decade ago. Recently, the power to weight has been upped, and arrays of these could power nano-scale and micro-scale machinery.

https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~yuzvinsk.../nanomotor.php

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-worlds...ful-nanoengine

The ability to produce megawatts per kg of weight exceeds the power density of lightweight engines like the PWR RS-24 SSME Block 2 H2 Turbopump (Brayton Cycle) 63.4 MW at 460 kg produces 138 kW/kg.

Achieving 2.8 MW per kg - when achieved - reduces the weight of this pump to 23 kg!! Meanwhile, the use of CNT reinforced combustion and thrust chambers, reduce weights there as well. While, the ability to reduce engine size automatically increases thrust to weight of the engine.

Arrays of micro scale and nano-scale batteries, capacitors, flow batteries and fuel cells, have achieved 6.8 MW to 10 MW per kg power densities.

* * *

So, it is of interest to consider the creation of a hydrogen oxygen fuel cell powered fuel pump system for a rocket - that exceeds the efficiencies and performance of conventional systems.

To produce 1.5 gees at lift off beneath a 760 tonne External Tank, requires 6 SSME firing at full thrust. This requires 380.4 MW of power be generated by hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell. At 85% efficiency, such a fuel cell would process

* * *

The drag equation is

F = 1/2 * rho * u^2 * Cd * A.

A space shuttle external tank shape and aerodynamic performance is well understood. The total drag area of the tank is

A = 55.899 + 274.774 * sin(theta) + 40.147 * (sin(theta))^2 + 11.883 * (sin(theta))^3

Cd of the External tank from zero speed to Mach 2.3 is 0.08

u during glide is 134.17 m/sec (300 mph)

density of air depends on altitude and is;

0 km altitude 1.2250 kg/m3
10 km altitude 0.4127 kg/m3
20 km altitude 0.0880 kg/m3
30 km altitude 0.0180 kg/m3
40 km altitude 0.0039 kg/m3
50 km altitude 0.0010 kg/m3

Which tells us something when we look at how the External Tank gets destroyed during re-entry. Basically, the tank is designed to withstand heating during ascent without causing the cryogenic liquids to boil off. It could survive modest heating during re-entry. What does the system in is it gets smashed by rapid acceleration as it falls to lower altitudes.

By modulating lift during re-entry, the tank can be maintained at reasonably high altitudes where air density is very low, and forces as well as temperature, modulated. A very modest increase in thermal protection is required if this is done, and weight is not adversely affected.

In the end, the tank is flying at 20,000 m altitude travelling at 134.17 m/sec (300 mph/ 485 kph) and flying at 2.5 degrees elevation (using inflatable wings deployed after slowing to subsonic speeds) producing a substantial controlled body lift. Hydrogen fuel is drawn from tank ullage of a zero boil off tank, and combined with atmospheric oxygen, in an array of nano-scale fuel cells, must consume 569 kW of power in four props of 142.25 kW each - a very tiny amount of power when compared to the requirements for pumps at full power!

At 20,000 meters, the tank can fly 33.4 km/kg of hydrogen ullage gas, when combined with atmospheric oxygen. At 10,000 meters the range drops to 7.1 km/kg at this speed - and power requirement increases to 2.7 MW. At sea level power rises to 7.9 MW to maintain speed and range drops to 2.4 km/kg.

A surplus of 1/2 percent of hydrogen (584.6 kg out of 116.93 metric tons of hydrogen out of 760 metric tons of propellant) is sufficient to fly the tank 19,525.6 km at 20,000 meters! This allows flying from nearly any point on Earth back to the launch centre in less than 40.3 hours following launch.

* * *

A sub-scale system is being designed that consists of seven flight elements.. Each element is shaped like a minature External Tank that is 1 meter in diameter and 6 meters long. Empty, the tank masses 57.7 kg and carries 197..3 kg of liquid hydrogen along with 1,085.0 kg of liquid oxygen. The seven elements carry 1100 kg into space (2,425 lbs). At $2.5 million per launch the system achieves a very low price point in combination with a very good profit.

The price of each tank is $890,900 - and ten articles are produced as part of the development programme. The entire programme costs $20 million and results in an ability to fly three payloads per week into LEO. 156 payloads per year earning $390 million per year on a $20 million investment.

Each tank consumes 197.3 kg of liquid hydrogen and 1,085.0 kg of liquid oxygen. This is produced from 1,775.7 litres of water electrolysed into 1,578..4 kg of oxygen and 197.3 kg of hydrogen. 493.4 kg of oxygen is surplus. A 200 kW system is required to produce fuel from water in this way, to fill up each tank in 56 hours. Seven tanks require 1.4 MW capability.

The same fuel cell system that drives the electric pumps and electric fans, along with the zero boil off cryogenic system, also has sufficient capacity when plugged into the power mains, to refuel itself with tap water.

25 MW power satellite element may be orbited that masses less than 1,100 kg.. The concentrating photovoltaic system is 176 meters in diameter when deployed on orbit. Energising a ion rocket that has 54 km/sec exhaust velocity produces 925 Newtons. On a 2200 kg payload this produces 0.42 meters per second squared. It takes two hours to propel another 1100 kg payload and the satellite itself to an increase in 3 km/sec - which is sufficient to take it to Mars or the Moon - from LEO. 119 kg of additional propellant is required to bring the vehicle to this speed.

Entering Low Lunar Orbit or Low Mars Orbit - requires in both instances approximately 0.7 km/sec. In the case of Mars this may be reduced further by very high altitude aerobraking. Another 28 kg of propellant is required for this. 56 kg to enter LLO and leave LLO back for Earth. To use the ion engine throughout - to leave Earth orbit, enter Lunar Orbit (or Mars orbit) and leave Lunar Orbit (or Mars orbit) and slow by ion engine back into Low Earth Orbit - requires 281.7 kg of propellant overall. This leaves 818.3 kg payload (1800 lbs) in LLO.

A LOX/LH2 rocket with 4.5 km/sec exhaust speed in vacuum, is capable of imparting a 3.3 km/sec delta vee (enough to land and take off from the Moon, or landing with aerobraking on Mars and taking off for orbit again) using 425.3 kg of propellant - leaving 393 kg of useful load. This is enough for two people!

At a couple million dollars per person, this produces a steady revenue - and up to 362 people per year go to the moon.

At 25 MW - a laser powered system sent to GEO, and the L1, and a laser powered engine that modulated exhaust speed - could increase payloads to the moon. A similar system at Earth Sol L1 and Mars Sol L1 could assist in interplanetary journeys - and lift a system off at Mars. The power satellites could also power equipment that processes local fuels into LOX/LH2.

* * *

A 900 kg telecommunications satellite - with a 200 kg laser/ion reusable kick stage - powered by a power satellite - could be launched and migrate to any desired orbit.

722 such satellites launched in a 5 years would capture the world's telecommunications marketplace today - and earn trillions of dollars per year.

* * *

A 25 MW power station that delivered power to any point on Earth at $0.11 per kWh 24/7 earns $24.1 million per year! With a 30 year life span and 8.5% discount rate, this revenue stream is worth $259 million the day it switches on! With 100 kW receivers, each equipped with 85 kWh power packs, that recharge in less than an hour, every three days or allows each satellite to support 20,800 terrestrial users of this size. This is enough to recharge a Tesla and provide a home with power using a Powerwall.

* * *

A quad rotor that consumes 100 kW at vertical take off and landing and maintains a 485 kph cruise - when powered by a 25 MW power satellite - permits 250 to be flying simultaneously! With a 20% utilisation 1250 units would be supported by each power satellite. 43.9 km/$ at $0.11 per kWh - is energy cost. Far less than the cost of an automobile at current fuel prices.







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a long filament of magnetism in the sun's northern hemisphere erupted,producing a magnificent CME Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 October 1st 13 03:41 AM
A way to make arbitrarily long nanotubes? Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 0 October 20th 07 03:24 PM
[fitsbits] HPX paper published Mark Calabretta FITS 0 October 11th 07 02:30 AM
NEW PAPER RELATED TO GPS AND VLBI PUBLISHED Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 0 August 17th 05 03:53 AM
Published Paper Probes Pulsar Pair Ron Astronomy Misc 0 April 28th 04 11:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.