New material to line telescope tubes?

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:04:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Possibly, depending on the process. But the stuff is applied cold, so
it should be usable as a coating on any material.

Is this stuff costly because they can't scale-up the process? Can't wait for the greenie kooks to start wailing about it being "evil" because it involves nano particles.

I expect its expensive because nobody has tried to scale the process
up. That requires a sufficiently large market.

It is sensible to consider very seriously what environmental and
health impact materials like this might have. We are certainly doing
immense harm with small particles of plastic, for instance- enough to
justify removing many plastic materials from common usage. Wisdom
dictates not rushing into mass usage of carbon nanomaterials.

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 16:08:32 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It is sensible to consider very seriously what environmental and
health impact materials like this might have. We are certainly doing
immense harm with small particles of plastic, for instance- enough to
justify removing many plastic materials from common usage. Wisdom
dictates not rushing into mass usage of carbon nanomaterials.

Which suggests that the sanctions ought to be higher for throwing a carbon fiber bicycle into the village pond rather than a steel one.
Sadly, it seems there is a larger market for carbon fiber pond fillers than steel, or even aluminium.
The affinity of aluminium for fragile carbon fiber may just be its [CF's] eventual undoing.

Just as there is a vast market for opiates and Roundup, _only_ the markets decide on the global levels of pollution.
One could argue that the markets have self-awareness but distinctly aggressive, anti-social and suicidal tendencies.
Do the markets need behavioural therapists?
Am I in the wrong thread?
I am not aware of it. ;-)

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 12:32:43 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Do the markets need behavioural therapists?

It's the actions of individuals acting in the market, under the
constraints of the "Prisoner's Dilemma", that cause the problem.

John Savard

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 19:53:32 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

It's the actions of individuals acting in the market, under the
constraints of the "Prisoner's Dilemma", that cause the problem.

The markets are a medieval "game" for psychotic mercenaries to practice their blood lust.
The more blood they spill the higher their pay and the more one sided the battle.
The higher their pay the more they are admired for their ferocity.

Would they take a double-edged sword into the street and slaughter innocents?
They might well, if the reward was high enough and they could get away with it.
Just as they do every day of their "working" lives.
No action [of theirs] is without consequence [for countless others.]
Their innumerable victims lie in the mass graves of dying towns, laid waste before their barbaric onslaught around the globe.


They leave the dead and dying to be picked over by the slavering vultures and hyenas.
The smell of the mountains of rotting human victims always safely distanced.
By the high-rise "seats of the gods" to which they constantly aspire.
Their costly business suits the Teflon armour of the predatory sociopath.
Aloof, alien warlords, laying waste to our hapless world of "Untermensch" for a ridiculously quick buck.

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:57:56 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/style/2017...al-orig-tc.cnn

This is not new. A perfect black absorber has been available for at least 8 years. To the best of my knowledge it did not consist of nanotubes but was a series of microscopic cones on the surface. This would absorb grazing incidence rays perfectly. The downside apart from cost was the fragility of the surface.

http:www.richardfisher.com

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 08:15:26 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 12:22:06 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Imagine if these 'soot' particles ended up in the ocean, like much else we discard.

Given that buckyballs of carbon are a potent carcinogen, little pieces
of carbon nanotube probably are dangerous.

John Savard

Sigh. We are surrounded in the air and always have been with "nanoparticles" from ground flour to silica from Saudi Arabian dust-storms.

On Sunday, 16 April 2017 06:32:07 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Sigh. We are surrounded in the air and always have been with "nanoparticles" from ground flour to silica from Saudi Arabian dust-storms.

I am an absolute martyr to flour storms in my palaces!

On Sunday, 16 April 2017 03:02:38 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2017 06:32:07 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Sigh. We are surrounded in the air and always have been with "nanoparticles" from ground flour to silica from Saudi Arabian dust-storms.

I am an absolute martyr to flour storms in my palaces!

Exactly. So unless you are in the factory where the stuff is made and there is an explosion, I really don't think it even poses the same threat air did in say, 1970, before auto pollution devices.

RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2017 03:02:38 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2017 06:32:07 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Sigh. We are surrounded in the air and always have been with
"nanoparticles" from ground flour to silica from Saudi Arabian dust-storms.

I am an absolute martyr to flour storms in my palaces!

Exactly. So unless you are in the factory where the stuff is made and
there is an explosion, I really don't think it even poses the same threat
air did in say, 1970, before auto pollution devices.


Modern direct injection petrol engines produce more of the harmful
particulates than unfiltered diesels and don't have particle filters.
Diesels have particle filters but no catalytic converters. So petrol
engines now produce more particles than unfiltered diesels and diesels
produce more NOX than catalysed petrol engines.

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 02:16:38 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2017 03:02:38 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2017 06:32:07 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Sigh. We are surrounded in the air and always have been with
"nanoparticles" from ground flour to silica from Saudi Arabian dust-storms.

I am an absolute martyr to flour storms in my palaces!

Exactly. So unless you are in the factory where the stuff is made and
there is an explosion, I really don't think it even poses the same threat
air did in say, 1970, before auto pollution devices.


Modern direct injection petrol engines produce more of the harmful
particulates than unfiltered diesels and don't have particle filters.
Diesels have particle filters but no catalytic converters. So petrol
engines now produce more particles than unfiltered diesels and diesels
produce more NOX than catalysed petrol engines.

Diesels are disgusting. Horrible black fly-ash, a known carcinogen. They should ban diesels for all but large trucks and heavy equipment.