Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #593948 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 47 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-08-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:23 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:00 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-22 17:19 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-08-23 06:15 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-23 16:03 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-24 16:25 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:45 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:38 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:04 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 19:02 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:38 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:53 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:58 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:55 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:54 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:20 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:31 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:59 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-28 17:32 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-08-25 21:53 -0300
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:35 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 21:44 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:37 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:07 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:31 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:28 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 16:26 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 16:48 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:27 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:44 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:39 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:06 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:14 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 21:29 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-22 13:38 -0500
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npsll5$p29$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594818 |
For your reference, records indicate that jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months, though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t think past how you do things currently. > There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that > is automated. Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything *near* even that kind of SF fantasy. > There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? > > There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? > > There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed. Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gh999d-7vk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #594876 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. > > You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months, > though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some > damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world > building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t > think past how you do things currently. A preflight is a preflight. If the machine is damaged you call your insurance agent. > >> There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that >> is automated. > > Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point > is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right > to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything > *near* even that kind of SF fantasy. Only in your blindered view of the world. The ability to drive to the airport runway and off you go has been around for nearly a century now, whether you want to accept the reality or not. FYI, most personal flights do not require paperwork of any kind. > >> There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? >> >> There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? >> >> There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? > > Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed. > Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you. Only in you narrow world view. Just because something exists it does not mean everyone, or even a significant fraction of everyone, will want it. Your comment about motives is meaningless to me; I have no motives in regard to flying cars, airplanes, cars, sailboats, bicycles,or any other vehicle. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npkec7$gpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594303 |
I agree there. There has a recent announcement of a quad-copter style flying transport that is intended to be self-flying. 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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.3225ec6625cb825f9897db@news.eternal-september.org... In article <5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> 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. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npke95$gep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594193 |
Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. 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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> 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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ect09d-0bm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #594487 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods > could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured > nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. > > Bob Clark Only in a few niche applications where weight and strength are competing parameters. For the vast majority of things there is no incentive to build them from nanotubes. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npfgrm$ika$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #593948 |
On 8/20/2016 1:37 PM, 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. > space elevator is a total joke, electric elevator? how much do the copper cables weigh ? Gasloine powered? how much gas and O2 weigh ? How does the astronough at the top, jump off into orbit ? how do you keep it from falling over ? Skyhook ? how do you keep it from wind blowing it over ? How much cement is needed for the base ? how many miles of guy wires ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nprjom$5dm$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #593948 |
Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web