Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

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.

Real progress occurs when the results of research labs are turned over to development labs for further characterisation and testing. Development labs measure physical properties of new materials and engineers skilled in the art use those demonstrated properties to design things using the new materials.

That's what's reported here.

A skeptical *engineer* takes research results with a huge grain of salt.

The clueless engineer doesn't recognise one type of result from the other and has never ever not once designed something from first principles using the relevant tools of the trade (CAE).

Scaling up lab experiments to something operational in the real world is
quite often difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

I'm certain that a clueless engineer like yourself it all seems a bit scary uncertain and unpredictable.

Yet you seem to
think everything is possible today with a sweeping wave of generalities.

I know what is possible and what is not based on clear engineering analysis..

You, not so much, since you brought it up.

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 article ,
says...

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.

Real progress occurs when the results of research labs are turned over to development labs for further characterisation and testing. Development labs measure physical properties of new materials and engineers skilled in the art use those demonstrated properties to design things using the new materials.

That's what's reported here.

Development labs are still a far cry from a large factory which could
produce carbon nanotubes in both the length and quantity needed for a
very large structure, say like a space elevator. And don't forget that
the large factory has to produce those nanotubes far cheaper than a
development lab ever could.

But for you, scaling anything up is always simple math, isn't it?

A skeptical *engineer* takes research results with a huge grain of salt.

The clueless engineer doesn't recognise one type of result from the other and has never ever not once designed something from first principles using the relevant tools of the trade (CAE).

For the last 25+ years, I have written CAE software for a living. I
support engineers at the many major aerospace companies that use our
software. CAE is a tool which can be used and abused, depending on who
is using it. After so many years in the business, it's usually easy to
tell when working with an end user which he/she is. And the bad ones
certainly don't seem to stick with any one project or any one company
for long.

Scaling up lab experiments to something operational in the real world is
quite often difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

I'm certain that a clueless engineer like yourself it all seems a bit scary uncertain and unpredictable.

Name calling, shocking. Keep it classy Mook.

Yet you seem to
think everything is possible today with a sweeping wave of generalities.

I know what is possible and what is not based on clear engineering analysis.
You, not so much, since you brought it up.

We've seen your "clear engineering analysis" posted to your web pages
and these newsgroups many times. Yeah...

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.

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.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 10:15:12 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

Real progress occurs when the results of research labs are turned over to development labs for further characterisation and testing. Development labs measure physical properties of new materials and engineers skilled in the art use those demonstrated properties to design things using the new materials.

That's what's reported here.

Development labs are still a far cry from a large factory which could
produce carbon nanotubes in both the length and quantity needed for a
very large structure, say like a space elevator. And don't forget that
the large factory has to produce those nanotubes far cheaper than a
development lab ever could.

But for you, scaling anything up is always simple math, isn't it?

You and your like minded friends are clueless as I stated earlier. Clueless is an apt description since you are arguing from the mistaken premise carbon nanotubes are part of some hazy distant future and not used today.

Applied Nanotech's paper, which I provided earlier, is a company that offers carbon nanotube products to the market TODAY.

http://www.appliednanotech.net

Lest you attempt to argue Applied Nanotech is some meaningless player in a minor market, all we need do is look further afield to see companies like Bayer offering carbon nanotubes TODAY as well;

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/...013809.article

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers offers papers and courses on how to use carbon nanotube products and produce carbon nanotube reinforcements TODAY.

https://www.asme.org/engineering-top...uction-process


A skeptical *engineer* takes research results with a huge grain of salt.

The clueless engineer doesn't recognise one type of result from the other and has never ever not once designed something from first principles using the relevant tools of the trade (CAE).

For the last 25+ years, I have written CAE software for a living.

Are you sure it wasn't for pretending to write CAE software for a living?

I
support engineers at the many major aerospace companies that use our
software.

Woe be to anyone who wants an update on the CNT properties then.

CAE is a tool which can be used and abused,

I would suspect you fall more into the abuse category.

depending on who
is using it.

Definitely in the abuse category then.

After so many years in the business, it's usually easy to
tell when working with an end user which he/she is.

Just because they haven't fired your sorry ass, is not any reason to crow about it.

And the bad ones

Which by definition include you - given your abject cluelessness.

certainly don't seem to stick with any one project or any one company
for long.

So, in your own mind bitter clingers to a job that goes nowhere over 20 years is a real achievement, whereas creating products, companies, and wealth - is not. lol. We see where you are coming from.


Scaling up lab experiments to something operational in the real world is
quite often difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

I'm certain that a clueless engineer like yourself it all seems a bit scary uncertain and unpredictable.

Name calling, shocking. Keep it classy Mook.

What can you say to someone who is clueless? 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, and I couldn't schedule a course with ASME on how to use carbon nanotubes in product design, or call your freaking company and get an update on the CNT properties for your CAE program. The fact YOU don't know this and you claim to work in the field, speaks volumes about just how CLUELESS you are.


Yet you seem to
think everything is possible today with a sweeping wave of generalities.

I know what is possible and what is not based on clear engineering analysis.
You, not so much, since you brought it up.

We've seen your "clear engineering analysis" posted to your web pages
and these newsgroups many times. Yeah...

Well, read the freaking literature ape, before you make clueless comments then.


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 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 article ,
says...

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?


Cite to the contrary:

Bayer MaterialScience shuts down carbon nanotubes project
10 May 2013 | Amanda Jacob
http://www.materialstoday.com/compos...ry/news/bayer-
materialscience-shuts-down-carbon-nanotubes/

From above:

"It has been found, however, that the potential areas of
application that once seemed promising from a technical
standpoint are currently either very fragmented or have
few overlaps with the company's core products and their
application spectrum."

"For Bayer MaterialScience, groundbreaking applications
for the mass market relating to our own portfolio and
therefore comprehensive commercialisation are not likely
in the foreseeable future," he says.

"We are currently in contact with potential interested
parties regarding the specific application of the
know-how generated."

All 30 people employed in the CNT sector will be
transferred to other positions within the Bayer
MaterialScience group.

Sounds like Bayer found carbon nanotubes to not be a profitable
business.

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.

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. 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

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

The point is CNTs are NOT R&D, they've entered large-scale production in 2007 - AND YOU DON'T KNOW THAT - notwithstanding your ability to use google to find Bayer's exit from the market in the face of strong Chinese competition!




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.

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.

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

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:17:39 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

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?


Cite to the contrary:

Bayer MaterialScience shuts down carbon nanotubes project
10 May 2013 | Amanda Jacob
http://www.materialstoday.com/compos...ry/news/bayer-
materialscience-shuts-down-carbon-nanotubes/

From above:

"It has been found, however, that the potential areas of
application that once seemed promising from a technical
standpoint are currently either very fragmented or have
few overlaps with the company's core products and their
application spectrum."

"For Bayer MaterialScience, groundbreaking applications
for the mass market relating to our own portfolio and
therefore comprehensive commercialisation are not likely
in the foreseeable future," he says.

"We are currently in contact with potential interested
parties regarding the specific application of the
know-how generated."

All 30 people employed in the CNT sector will be
transferred to other positions within the Bayer
MaterialScience group.

Sounds like Bayer found carbon nanotubes to not be a profitable
business.

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.

Why did Bayer exist the market? You claim WRONGLY that it was because the value of CNTs were over-stated. This mis-represents what happened. What happened? Others came in and ate Bayer's lunch.

Look, when CNTs were being produced by Bayer, they thought Bayer could dominate the global market with 60 metric tons per year capacity and their patents.

When the Chinese blew their doors off producing over 3,100 metric tons per year by 2011, Bayer realised their patents had value only in highly specialised applications that did not give them OVERALL dominance.

So, they sold it to their largest buyer who made use of those specialised details. FutureCarbon!

Notwithstanding this mis-step by Bayer, total demand for CNTs exceeds 3,500 tonnes per year today and is growing by 600 tonnes this year alone!

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

You can go out and buy CNTs from Sigma Aldrich - for example - so my point stands you freaking apes. The technology for graphene and CNTs is well established, and you can go buy it off-the-shelf today. In 2007 you could buy it from Bayer. Not so today because of the tremendous SUCCESS of the CNT market.

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.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

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!

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.