|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |