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
  #1  
Old August 20th 16, 07:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  #2  
Old August 21st 16, 07:21 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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Before space elevator, look for very lightweight, very capable high pressure tanks and rocket engine casings.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...rado-9607.html

http://www.grantadesign.com/download...-RW-UOC-EN.pdf

http://www.pnylab.com/pny/papers/youngs/youngs.pdf

Young's modulus of materials that exhibit 1200 GPa at 1.4 g/cc makes it 12x stronger than an epoxy matrix at about the same density!

This will allow the weight of an aircraft structure to fall from 47% of a plane's weight to 4% of a plane's weight!

In aerospace practical nanotube structures, will allow a high pressure tank to go from 20 atm (300 psi) to 200 atm (3,000 psi) and permit the elimination of turbomachinery altogether, whilst improving thrust to weight from 120 to 1 to 1,500 to 1 in conventionally scaled engines operating at 200 atm, with overall structure fractions in the 1% range even with low density cryogenic fuels. Performance goes even higher with MEMS scale engines, since engine thrust scales with area and engine weight scales with volume - 12,000 to 1 for MEMS scale engine arrays!

http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/~pratibha/...ey,%202009.pdf

Very high pressure allows the storage of hydrogen as a supercritical slush. Hybrid storage of hydrogen, where high pressure is applied to store hydrogen as slush or a supercritical fluid. By cooling pure hydrogen below the freezing point at 259 -C, a mixture of solid and liquid hydrogen, called slush, can be produced. This provides higher energy densities if high pressure may be maintained at low mass. Nanotubes provides a means to achieve this.

At 200 bar and 20 K a density of 90 kg/m3 is achieved in liquid hydrogen. Figure 1.21 page 32 in the reference above. This is 30% greater than its density at boiling point.

LOX has a density at its boiling point of 1,141 kg/m3. A similar increase is possible with LOX at 200 bar at 52 K - increasing density to 1,483 kg/m3..

With a 6 to 1 oxidizer to fuel ratio, at 200 bar combustion chamber pressure, specific impulse of 495 seconds 4.85 km/sec exhaust speed - is achieved. With a 2% structure fraction a SSTO vehicle with 85% propellant fraction is possible and a 13% payload fraction! This is about the same as today's airliner in terms of payload! With a 461.8 kg/m3 average propellant density at this oxidiser fuel ratio

A Boeing 737-300 has a payload of 14.25 metric tons. So, a 109.6 metric tons take off weight for the aforementioned SSTO. 2.20 tonne structure built out of nanotube fibres as described. 93,160 kg of propellant occupying 201.7 cubic meters. A 7.3 meter (23.9 ft) diameter sphere, in the centre of a disk that has a crew cabin around the equator of the sphere, equipped with a propulsive skin burning hydrogen and oxygen, either stored on board or from the atmosphere - using the Coanda effect to multiply lift. A 100 ft diameter sphere with two floors. This ship should be capable of orbiting the Earth and returning, as well as travelling to any point on Earth in a matter of 45 minutes or less.

Nanotube monocoque structrures used in architecture would revolutionize construction. Parts would be fabricated and nested together in quite compact forms given their thinness and easily transported anywhere. Geodesic structures of immense size could be easily erected anywhere with materials of this strength and lightness.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...3848576a91.jpg

We can do amazing things with aluminum - we can do even better with nanotube materials!



  #3  
Old August 21st 16, 05:38 PM 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 6:21:06 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Before space elevator, look for very lightweight, very capable high pressure tanks and rocket engine casings.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...rado-9607.html

http://www.grantadesign.com/download...-RW-UOC-EN.pdf

http://www.pnylab.com/pny/papers/youngs/youngs.pdf

Young's modulus of materials that exhibit 1200 GPa at 1.4 g/cc makes it 12x stronger than an epoxy matrix at about the same density!

This will allow the weight of an aircraft structure to fall from 47% of a plane's weight to 4% of a plane's weight!

In aerospace practical nanotube structures, will allow a high pressure tank to go from 20 atm (300 psi) to 200 atm (3,000 psi) and permit the elimination of turbomachinery altogether, whilst improving thrust to weight from 120 to 1 to 1,500 to 1 in conventionally scaled engines operating at 200 atm, with overall structure fractions in the 1% range even with low density cryogenic fuels. Performance goes even higher with MEMS scale engines, since engine thrust scales with area and engine weight scales with volume - 12,000 to 1 for MEMS scale engine arrays!

http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/~pratibha/...ey,%202009.pdf

Very high pressure allows the storage of hydrogen as a supercritical slush. Hybrid storage of hydrogen, where high pressure is applied to store hydrogen as slush or a supercritical fluid. By cooling pure hydrogen below the freezing point at 259 -C, a mixture of solid and liquid hydrogen, called slush, can be produced. This provides higher energy densities if high pressure may be maintained at low mass. Nanotubes provides a means to achieve this.

At 200 bar and 20 K a density of 90 kg/m3 is achieved in liquid hydrogen. Figure 1.21 page 32 in the reference above. This is 30% greater than its density at boiling point.

LOX has a density at its boiling point of 1,141 kg/m3. A similar increase is possible with LOX at 200 bar at 52 K - increasing density to 1,483 kg/m3.

With a 6 to 1 oxidizer to fuel ratio, at 200 bar combustion chamber pressure, specific impulse of 495 seconds 4.85 km/sec exhaust speed - is achieved. With a 2% structure fraction a SSTO vehicle with 85% propellant fraction is possible and a 13% payload fraction! This is about the same as today's airliner in terms of payload! With a 461.8 kg/m3 average propellant density at this oxidiser fuel ratio

A Boeing 737-300 has a payload of 14.25 metric tons. So, a 109.6 metric tons take off weight for the aforementioned SSTO. 2.20 tonne structure built out of nanotube fibres as described. 93,160 kg of propellant occupying 201.7 cubic meters. A 7.3 meter (23.9 ft) diameter sphere, in the centre of a disk that has a crew cabin around the equator of the sphere, equipped with a propulsive skin burning hydrogen and oxygen, either stored on board or from the atmosphere - using the Coanda effect to multiply lift. A 100 ft diameter sphere with two floors. This ship should be capable of orbiting the Earth and returning, as well as travelling to any point on Earth in a matter of 45 minutes or less.

Nanotube monocoque structrures used in architecture would revolutionize construction. Parts would be fabricated and nested together in quite compact forms given their thinness and easily transported anywhere. Geodesic structures of immense size could be easily erected anywhere with materials of this strength and lightness.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...3848576a91.jpg

We can do amazing things with aluminum - we can do even better with nanotube materials!



Aircraft today are;

47% structure
15% payload
38% fuel

Going to

04% structure
15% payload
81% fuel

Increase the Brequet factor from 0.478 to 1.661 which is 3.474x the range!

A Boeing 737 goes from 4,304 km to 14,605 km range and its fuel goes from 23,170 litres to 49,237 litres as its structural weight falls from 45.4 tonnes to 4.0 tonnes using nanotube fibre.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...k-20090105.png

Using slush liquid hydrogen at 90 kg/m3 at 200 bar, and 78.2 tonnes of hydrogen, on board (868,890 litres) multiplies range another factor of 3.08 or 44,983 km - allowing round the world flight without refuelling! This solves the problem of hydrogen distribution!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft

Another option of course would be to vastly improve payload!

Tiny drone craft would replace large airliners that are common today.

http://www.ehang.com/ehang184

Consider a payload equal to that of a typical passenger vehicle. 0.4 tonnes. Take off weight is 2.7 tonnes. Structure weight is 0.1 tonnes. That's how much nanotube material you need. This leaves 3.5 tonnes hydrogen fuel.. At 90 kg/m3 this occupies a volume of 38.9 cubic meters. Add in the volume of a luxury car interior (3.4 cubic meters) and you have a total volume of 42.3 cubic meters for the craft.

Contained within an oblate sphere 1.44 meters in height and 12.97 meters in diameter equipped with a propulsive 'smart skin' that propels the aircraft, guides it, senses the environment, and even renders it invisible when necessary

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1310

we have the first global flyer!

You can fly around the world in 90 minutes! Using electric propulsion!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...13468604006462

http://lae.mit.edu/ehd/

To keep the aircraft moving requires 92 MW of power to generate hydrogen from water.
  #4  
Old August 22nd 16, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

In sci.space.policy 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.


There was an awful lot of "might" and "may" in that article. Nothing
that suggested anyone has gotten a sufficiently strong construct out
to say a meter or even 10cm.

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
  #5  
Old August 22nd 16, 06:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

In sci.physics 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.


Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical.

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'.


The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have
been lots of flying cars built.


--
Jim Pennino
  #6  
Old August 23rd 16, 11:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

In article ,
says...

In sci.physics 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.


Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical.

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'.


The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have
been lots of flying cars built.


For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now...

The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's
simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a
pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a
driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks
they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other!

To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars!

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.
  #7  
Old August 23rd 16, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

In sci.physics 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.


Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical.

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'.


The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have
been lots of flying cars built.


For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now...

The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's
simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a
pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a
driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks
they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other!

To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars!

Jeff


Neither the FAA nor any other aviation authority on the planet is going
to allow non-pilots into the airspace system.

So there is the first problem, you will HAVE to be a pilot to fly a
flying car.

Fully autonomous aircraft are not going to happen any time soon.

Witness the current hoopla over drones to get a feel for the regulatory
temperment; you now have to register what amounts to model airplanes
with the FAA.

The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
is economics; you have to be a pilot, which isn't cheap, they cost
a LOT to build and certify to two sets of sometimes conflicting
regulations, and the market for such a thing is tiny.

Materials have never been an issue.


--
Jim Pennino
  #8  
Old August 23rd 16, 06:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:15:57 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

In sci.physics 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.


Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical.

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'.


The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have
been lots of flying cars built.


For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now...

The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's
simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a
pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a
driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks
they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other!

To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars!

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.



Average gas mileage according to the US DOT is 24.5 miles per gallon. At 131.76 megajoules per gallon this is 5.38 megajoules per mile.

Now Tesla is proposing an electric jet, similar to Airbus' e-fan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJKYekL7JsY

This plane is powered by two 30 kW ducted eight bladed electric fans and travels at 220 km/hr (137 mph). Cruise speed is maintained at 40 kW after climbing to altitude - and flight time is on the order of an hour at present, but advances in battery technology over what was used on this product will triple this. Giving this a 300 km to 900 km range - providing the aircraft is not recharged in flight.

Another innovator, Lasermotive, has already powered a drone in flight. With a lightweight laser receiver, an accurate beam steering mechanism, and an efficient solid state laser, it is possible to power an aircraft indefinitely as long as it is in sight of a beam source. In this instance, battery power is used only for take off and landing.

http://lasermotive.com

At 137 mph and 40 kW we have 144 megajoules per hour or 1.05 megajoules per mile. This is about 1/6th the energy cost of an automobile.

Now E-HANG 184 is a single passenger quad-rotor

http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs/

This uses 107 kW to travel 100 kph (62 mph) and has a 23 minute range. It is intended for point to point travel within a city - distances less than 10 miles-, however, it does show the flexibility of electric fan propulsion. Clearly a wing-fan system using this technology is the next logical step, giving one the ability to take off and land vertically, navigate automatically - operation is as simple as using GPS app in your smartphone - and speed silently any distance you like - consuming 1/6th the power of a modern motor car (excepting for take off and landing which uses 2/3rd the power of a modern motorcar.

NASA has developed the Puffin aircraft - which is a tail sitter electric airplane that takes off and lands vertically and flies like a normal aircraft..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSdwNl-9mPU

Now Textron Aviation sells the Cessna Skyhawk commercially for $307,500 - and built about 43,000 of them since it was first introduced in the 1950s. Its about 4x more expensive than a typical Land Rover or Mercedes motorcar. It travels 226 kph (140 mph) a little slower than the e-fan, and it has a 1289 km (801 mile) range on 56 gallons of av-gas. That's 9.21 megajoules per mile!

Automobile: 5.38 megajoules per mile $84,950
Skyhawk: 9.21 megajoules per mile $307,500

Now NASA, EHANG, and Airbus, report that electric aircraft cost about half as much to build and only 1/20th the cost to maintain as conventional aircraft! This puts the maintenance cost of an e-fan type aircraft well below the range of conventional autos. It also gives us the following

Electric VTOL/Jet: 1.05 megajoules per mile $153,750

About 2x the typical Land Rover acquisition cost.

The E-HANG 184 has an interesting business model, as do companies like Matternet

https://mttr.net

They use drone technology exclusively, and excepting emergency situations, dispense altogether with pilots.

So, putting this altogether we can see the emergence of FLIGHT ON DEMAND! Here, you have an Uber style app, in your smartphone, that calls an aircraft after you've negotiated a price and selected a server. The aircraft drops down out of the sky to a convenient location and you board it. The aircraft takes off and flies you directly to your destination - letting you off - and then taking off to its next appointment - which has already been scheduled by cloud based software.

What's the cost likely to be?

Well, given the cost of capital is 8.5% per year and the life span of the equipment is 7 years, and the maintenance cost is 2% of the purchase price per year, and the utilitsation rate is 85% and the cost of power is $0.18 per kWh, (5.25 cents per mile) - and the average flight duration is 18 minutes whilst the repositioning time is 12 minutes - we have the following;

CAPEX: PMT(0.085,7,$153750) = $30,038.02 per year
OPEX: 0.02 * $153750 = $3,075.00 per year
2 calls per hour
8,766 hours per year * 85% = 7,451.1
14,902.2 calls per year
Cost per call: 33,113.02 / 14,902.2 = $2.22
Cost per mile: 1.05 megajoules/mile * $0.18/kWh / 3.6 megajoules/kWh = $0.0525/mile

Now, what's a good rate of return for a home based business? Well, if a loan is organised for half the capex, and the other half is provided by the operator, and they charge $5 per trip, and charge $0.30 per minute after the first five minutes, or fraction (12.2 cents per mile) this provides a 36% IRR and 69% ROI after seven years - even with zero resell value! Used Skyhawks 7 years old, sell for about 1/3 their purchase price. So, this puts a used e-flyer at $51,000 after 7 years, and adds to the return for the operator. People can buy these for less than a motorcar, and fly them in the same system, for $0.0525 cents per mile!

We're already lower than the price of a car.

Looking at actual travel data - this may be an over-estimate! The times outlined above is based on the amount of time people spend in their vehicle. Assuming they will travel farther if they travel faster. However, if we look at distances not times, things change.

NHTS data shows that daily travel in the United States totalled about 4 trillion miles, an average of 14,500 miles per person per year. On a daily basis, the average person traveled 40 miles, most of it (35 miles) in a personal vehicle.

Because more than one person can travel in a personal vehicle, these 35 person miles amounted to about 23 vehicle miles traveled. Annually, the total number of vehicle miles traveled in 2001 was nearly 2.3 trillion. In terms of number of trips, people took 411 billion daily trips or about 1,500 trips per person per year.

Now, 23 vehicle miles at 147 mph is 9.42 minutes in a vehicle each day. Divided by 4.1 trips per day, this is 2.3 minutes per trip. Add another 1.7 minutes to reposition the vehicle for the next pick up and you have 15 trips per hour - which is 7.5x more productive. This reduces your pickup charge from $2.22 to $0.30 on the cost side and from $5.00 to $0.67 on the charge side (maintaining the same IRR (internal rate of return)). Most would charge a dollar to travel anywhere in five minutes - and only charge for time for longer distance flight. Actual demand numbers would determine the best approach.

The number of trips rises to 111,766.5 per year from 14,902.2 per year per vehicle. With 306 flight cycle per day (assuming a shorter distance travelled) and a demand of 4.1 trips per person - 74.6 people are served every day on average. 318.9 million people are served with 4.3 million vehicles in this way. The energy demand of the USA is dropped by a factor of 6 - and if supplied with solar panels - ends our reliance on foreign oil! Where would we put solar panels? On the roads of course!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQba3ENhlKA

Which provides energy to recharge electric vehicles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkMN8CN9OBY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1tfOeChenQ

and that includes electric aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNo377rGrew

of unlimited range.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAic2NC7Qp0

A world of 7.44 billion people having the same mobility of an average American requires about 100 million aircraft. 1/10th the 1.015 billion automobiles in use today, and each using 1/6th the energy of a comparable car - or 1/60th the total energy USED TODAY to drive motorcars - delivered at a cost about half that (if providing tremendous returns for owner/operators of delivery services).

So, this changes the world BECAUSE FLYING VEHICLES OF THIS TYPE ARE SO MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE THAN MOTORCARS.

Long distance routes may be supplied by lasers from space using holographic techniques to beam power to multiple moving vehicles on Earth's surface.

More advanced systems use laser propulsion directly from space, to provide BALLISTIC TRANSPORT ON DEMAND. Here the vehicle transitions from normal flight to ballistic flight using laser propulsion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_-teBjZ4w

So, instead of waiting 84 hours to get from one side of the world to the other, we move around the world in 42 minutes! We only use non-ballistic flight to climb to altitude to boost ballistically - and then fly directly to our destination. With drones and no pilots (except via remote access in an emergency) we can dispense with airfields and the attendant costs and logistical problems of them.

This capacity combines well with tele-presence technology that lets you operate a robot remotely. You can live anywhere, work anywhere, and travel anywhere - in less time than an American spends in their car.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM2...89XHdCBRH6WSwA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTSakUtxXYY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN9Ri1GmuY

Stand alone homes that exist anywhere, and connect via satellite to anywhere through wireless internet as well as laser powered ballistic transport.








  #9  
Old August 23rd 16, 06:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 4:16:09 AM UTC+12, wrote:
In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

In sci.physics 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.

Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical.

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'.

The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have
been lots of flying cars built.


For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now...

The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's
simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a
pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a
driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks
they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other!

To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars!

Jeff


Neither the FAA nor any other aviation authority on the planet is going
to allow non-pilots into the airspace system.

So there is the first problem, you will HAVE to be a pilot to fly a
flying car.

Fully autonomous aircraft are not going to happen any time soon.

Witness the current hoopla over drones to get a feel for the regulatory
temperment; you now have to register what amounts to model airplanes
with the FAA.

The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
is economics; you have to be a pilot, which isn't cheap, they cost
a LOT to build and certify to two sets of sometimes conflicting
regulations, and the market for such a thing is tiny.

Materials have never been an issue.


--
Jim Pennino


How many ways can someone be wrong? lol.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...one-operations

The FAA has approved 3000 commercial drone operators January this year, including Boeing's application for the Little Bird Drone!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undX_rxY-dQ

Drones like autonomous cars are coming and they're here to stay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yCAZWdqX_Y

Materials are an important factor in creating highly efficient aircraft and spacecraft.

http://aviationweek.com/CompositesGu...images-1282681


  #10  
Old August 24th 16, 04:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

Thanks for taking the time to read it. Right, these now are just proposals.
All of them though would be easy and low cost to test for nanotechnology
research labs. So considering the the billion dollar benefit in producing
structures a hundred times stronger than steel at 1/5th the weight, the
benefit to risk ratio is huge.
What goes into the risk calculation tough has to be consideration of the
likelihood they would work. For the simply tying the nanotubes proposal, as
I discussed in the article it has already been proven tying them together
can give lighter weight conducting wires than copper wires. And it is known
that tying ropes together can give ropes 80% to 90% the strength of the
component ropes.
For the laser irradiation proposal nanotubes were able to be combined by
illuminating the nanotube ends with a resulting strength close to the 300
Mpa(megapascals) tensile strength of the component nanotubes. It needs to be
tested though using nanotubes of the greatest measured strength at above 100
Gpa(gigapascals).

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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Jones" wrote in message ...

In sci.space.policy 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.


There was an awful lot of "might" and "may" in that article. Nothing
that suggested anyone has gotten a sufficiently strong construct out
to say a meter or even 10cm.

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 




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 07:10 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.