Colossal carbon tubes. Stronger per weight than carbon nanotubes?

I somehow missed this back in 2008 or perhaps I saw they were not as
strong as carbon nanotubes in tensile strength so I didn't pay much
attention to them, but a team in 2008 announced development of what
they refer to as "colossal carbon tubes" which they say are stronger
than carbon nanotubes on a per weight basis:

Aug 8, 2008
Carbon nanotubes, but without the 'nano'.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35364

Specific strength.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

Peng, H.; Chen, D.; et al., Huang J.Y. et al. (2008). "Strong and
Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes with Walls of Rectangular Macropores".
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (14): 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.145501
http://www.mse.ncsu.edu/research/zhu...T/PRL-CCTs.pdf [full
text]

The reason the team says the colossal carbon tubes have higher
specific strength than carbon nanotubes is because while their tensile
strength is 7 GPa, only slightly better than carbon composites long in
common use, their density is only 0.116 g/cm³(!)
These tubes so far are only centimeter lengths but another quite
useful aspect of them is their large diameters compared to nanotubes,
in the range of 50 to 100 microns. This is about the thickness of a
human hair. This would make them much easier to work with as far as
combining them together to create longer lengths.
If it is possible to join them and retain their individual strength
or make them at arbitrarily long lengths and retain the same strength
then they would be well in the range to make the space elevator
possible.


Bob Clark

On Aug 11, 10:32*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*I somehow missed this back in 2008 or perhaps I saw they were not as
strong as carbon nanotubes in tensile strength so I didn't pay much
attention to them, but a team in 2008 announced development of what
they refer to as "colossal carbon tubes" which they say are stronger
than carbon nanotubes on a per weight basis:

Aug 8, 2008
Carbon nanotubes, but without the 'nano'.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35364

Specific strength.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

Peng, H.; Chen, D.; et al., Huang J.Y. et al. (2008). "Strong and
Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes with Walls of Rectangular Macropores".
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (14): 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.145501http://www.mse.ncsu.edu/research/zhu/papers/CNT/PRL-CCTs.pdf*[full
text]

*The reason the team says the colossal carbon tubes have higher
specific strength than carbon nanotubes is because while their tensile
strength is 7 GPa, only slightly better than carbon composites long in
common use, their density is only 0.116 g/cm³(!)
*These tubes so far are only centimeter lengths but another quite
useful aspect of them is their large diameters compared to nanotubes,
in the range of 50 to 100 microns. This is about the thickness of a
human hair. This would make them much easier to work with as far as
combining them together to create longer lengths.
*If it is possible to join them and retain their individual strength
or make them at arbitrarily long lengths and retain the same strength
then they would be well in the range to make the space elevator
possible.

* Bob Clark

Now all we need is magic beans to grow the space stalks. :-)

The space cannon is also looking promising. For many years people
argue that it would require an enormous cannon at least 40 km in size.
Like building a railroad of 40 km is something impressive.

Gravity fields are still a bit to dangerous to make public. It's not
actually hard to do. The UFO's really give away the big trick at first
sight. But lets not mention that. :-)

____
http://blog.go-here.nl/spacetravel

On Aug 11, 1:32*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*I somehow missed this back in 2008 or perhaps I saw they were not as
strong as carbon nanotubes in tensile strength so I didn't pay much
attention to them, but a team in 2008 announced development of what
they refer to as "colossal carbon tubes" which they say are stronger
than carbon nanotubes on a per weight basis:

Aug 8, 2008
Carbon nanotubes, but without the 'nano'.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35364

Specific strength.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

Peng, H.; Chen, D.; et al., Huang J.Y. et al. (2008). "Strong and
Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes with Walls of Rectangular Macropores".
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (14): 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.145501http://www.mse.ncsu.edu/research/zhu/papers/CNT/PRL-CCTs.pdf*[full
text]

*The reason the team says the colossal carbon tubes have higher
specific strength than carbon nanotubes is because while their tensile
strength is 7 GPa, only slightly better than carbon composites long in
common use, their density is only 0.116 g/cm³(!)
*These tubes so far are only centimeter lengths but another quite
useful aspect of them is their large diameters compared to nanotubes,
in the range of 50 to 100 microns. This is about the thickness of a
human hair. This would make them much easier to work with as far as
combining them together to create longer lengths.
*If it is possible to join them and retain their individual strength
or make them at arbitrarily long lengths and retain the same strength
then they would be well in the range to make the space elevator
possible.

* Bob Clark

Bulk carbonado continuous fiber = 490 GPa

~ BG

On Aug 11, 10:25*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:
*I somehow missed this back in 2008 or perhaps I saw they were not as
strong as carbon nanotubes in tensile strength so I didn't pay much
attention to them, but a team in 2008 announced development of what
they refer to as "colossal carbon tubes" which they say are stronger
than carbon nanotubes on a per weight basis:

Aug 8, 2008
Carbon nanotubes, but without the 'nano'.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35364

Specific strength.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

Peng, H.; Chen, D.; et al., Huang J.Y. et al. (2008). "Strong and
Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes with Walls of Rectangular Macropores".
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (14): 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.145501
http://www.mse.ncsu.edu/research/zhu.../PRL-CCTs.pdf*[full
text]

*The reason the team says the colossal carbon tubes have higher
specific strength than carbon nanotubes is because while their tensile
strength is 7 GPa, only slightly better than carbon composites long in
common use, their density is only 0.116 g/cm³(!)
*These tubes so far are only centimeter lengths but another quite
useful aspect of them is their large diameters compared to nanotubes,
in the range of 50 to 100 microns. This is about the thickness of a
human hair. This would make them much easier to work with as far as
combining them together to create longer lengths.
*If it is possible to join them and retain their individual strength
or make them at arbitrarily long lengths and retain the same strength
then they would be well in the range to make the space elevator
possible.

* Bob Clark

* *Cool

Cool joke

On Aug 11, 1:32*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*I somehow missed this back in 2008 or perhaps I saw they were not as
strong as carbon nanotubes in tensile strength so I didn't pay much
attention to them, but a team in 2008 announced development of what
they refer to as "colossal carbon tubes" which they say are stronger
than carbon nanotubes on a per weight basis:

Aug 8, 2008
Carbon nanotubes, but without the 'nano'.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35364

Specific strength.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

Peng, H.; Chen, D.; et al., Huang J.Y. et al. (2008). "Strong and
Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes with Walls of Rectangular Macropores".
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (14): 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.145501http://www.mse.ncsu.edu/research/zhu/papers/CNT/PRL-CCTs.pdf*[full
text]

*The reason the team says the colossal carbon tubes have higher
specific strength than carbon nanotubes is because while their tensile
strength is 7 GPa, only slightly better than carbon composites long in
common use, their density is only 0.116 g/cm³(!)
*These tubes so far are only centimeter lengths but another quite
useful aspect of them is their large diameters compared to nanotubes,
in the range of 50 to 100 microns. This is about the thickness of a
human hair. This would make them much easier to work with as far as
combining them together to create longer lengths.

http://google.com/groups?q=%22Compar...+illiterate%22

thickness - broadness
A cloud is thin; a metal is thick. And lengths come in seconds and
years.

*If it is possible to join them and retain their individual strength
or make them at arbitrarily long lengths and retain the same strength
then they would be well in the range to make the space elevator
possible.

A skylift could also benefit from a magnetostrictive wire and
magnetofluid sheath.

-Aut

On Aug 13, 5:44*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:32*pm, Robert Clark wrote:



*I somehow missed this back in 2008 or perhaps I saw they were not as
strong as carbon nanotubes in tensile strength so I didn't pay much
attention to them, but a team in 2008 announced development of what
they refer to as "colossal carbon tubes" which they say are stronger
than carbon nanotubes on a per weight basis:

Aug 8, 2008
Carbon nanotubes, but without the 'nano'.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35364

Specific strength.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

Peng, H.; Chen, D.; et al., Huang J.Y. et al. (2008). "Strong and
Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes with Walls of Rectangular Macropores".
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (14): 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.145501http://www.mse.ncsu.edu/research/zhu/papers/CNT/PRL-CCTs.pdf*[full
text]

*The reason the team says the colossal carbon tubes have higher
specific strength than carbon nanotubes is because while their tensile
strength is 7 GPa, only slightly better than carbon composites long in
common use, their density is only 0.116 g/cm³(!)
*These tubes so far are only centimeter lengths but another quite
useful aspect of them is their large diameters compared to nanotubes,
in the range of 50 to 100 microns. This is about the thickness of a
human hair. This would make them much easier to work with as far as
combining them together to create longer lengths.

http://google.com/groups?q=%22Compar...+illiterate%22

thickness - broadness
A cloud is thin; a metal is thick. *And lengths come in seconds and
years.

*If it is possible to join them and retain their individual strength
or make them at arbitrarily long lengths and retain the same strength
then they would be well in the range to make the space elevator
possible.

A skylift could also benefit from a magnetostrictive wire and
magnetofluid sheath.

Ugh, silly me--magnetohreist sheath.

On Aug 13, 8:47*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

A skylift could also benefit from a magnetostrictive wire and
magnetofluid sheath.

Ugh, silly me--magnetohreist sheath.

Right. Silly you.

Idiot

"Idiot" wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 8:47 am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

A skylift could also benefit from a magnetostrictive wire and
magnetofluid sheath.

Ugh, silly me--magnetohreist sheath.

Right. Silly you.

Idiot

=====================================
Right. Idiot you. Nice signature, though.