Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #57430 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-09-24 20:16 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 23:21 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 09:38 -0700
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:33 -0700
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 16:34 -0700
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:50 -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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 21:00 -0700
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 22:52 -0700
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 20:10 -0700
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:21 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:23 -0700
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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:46 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-18 09:48 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 16:50 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 06:15 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 18:44 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:05 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:17 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:06 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:03 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:13 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:58 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:07 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:20 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 11:11 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:08 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:42 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 21:52 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:47 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 09:15 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 20:16 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. |
| Message-ID | <npa80i$imu$1@dont-email.me> |
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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 23:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <020666a7-4dfa-4383-aabf-423966112219@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57430 |
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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/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/9607/alvarado-9607.html http://www.grantadesign.com/download/Teachingmaterials/Lecture-wallach-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/images/Hirscher%20M.%20(ed.)%20Handbook%20of%20Hydrogen%20Storage%20(Wiley,%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/564x/32/35/1b/32351b528fd9f7f1af14953848576a91.jpg We can do amazing things with aluminum - we can do even better with nanotube materials!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 09:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4a91bd9-1ac4-4f36-bb2b-3aee43ff56bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57433 |
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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/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/9607/alvarado-9607.html > > http://www.grantadesign.com/download/Teachingmaterials/Lecture-wallach-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/images/Hirscher%20M.%20(ed.)%20Handbook%20of%20Hydrogen%20Storage%20(Wiley,%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/564x/32/35/1b/32351b528fd9f7f1af14953848576a91.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/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Specific-impulse-kk-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/article/pii/S0013468604006462 http://lae.mit.edu/ehd/ To keep the aircraft moving requires 92 MW of power to generate hydrogen from water.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npf7ns$8mc$1@news.hpeswlab.net> |
| In reply to | #57430 |
In sci.space.policy Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > American Journal of Nanomaterials > Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > Robert Clark > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > Next stop: the space elevator. There was an awful lot of "might" and "may" in that article. Nothing that suggested anyone has gotten a sufficiently strong construct out to say a meter or even 10cm. rick jones -- firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npke4v$g2s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57437 |
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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Rick Jones" wrote in message news:npf7ns$8mc$1@news.hpeswlab.net... In sci.space.policy 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. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13hrrb166ppgvoauv65hagtqsojaekqfva@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #57470 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>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.
Everything is always "easy and low cost" until someone has to actually
build something and make it work.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57430 |
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 | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3225ec6625cb825f9897db@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #57439 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5o8u8d-kod.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57442 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > 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 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bc9af6a-27ee-4df4-acaf-12a4309e2a6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57445 |
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 4:16:09 AM UTC+12, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > 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 > > 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-aviation/some-3000-applicants-approved-commercial-drone-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/CompositesGuide#slide-0-field_images-1282681
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npkhp6$sj9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57445 |
For your reference, records indicate that jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success > is economics No, it’s simply because they’re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed from a car-crazed society. Once you have a vehicle that can fly between locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on roads. Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could just fly to? Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles of driving is going to remain airworthy? Eliminate the “economics” problems and flying cars still make no sense. Imagine a world where everyone is Superman. Superman does not drive to the rescue. Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4iv09d-8im.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57481 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success >> is economics > > No, its simply because theyre a stupid outdated SF concept birthed > from a car-crazed society. Once you have a vehicle that can fly between > locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on > roads. Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could > just fly to? Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles > of driving is going to remain airworthy? In the real world you would never be allowed to land and take off just anywhere for a whole lot of reasons, so you would still need to drive some distance. Designated areas, if such were to ever become common, would likely be at least 10 to 20 miles apart. In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npn6uu$7u6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57484 |
For your reference, records indicate that jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy. Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car! -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <21l39d-b52.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57506 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy. > > Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car! There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked. Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npq3nk$am8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57508 |
For your reference, records indicate that jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > > For your reference, records indicate that > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy. > > > > Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car! > > There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked. > > Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar > > Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D You, too, support my point. Clearly it didn’t “work” if it didn’t even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle. That’s why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a vehicle airworthy. It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart. Or hail damage or whatever else we don’t think twice about subjecting cars to because we don’t have to think about them falling out of the sky. Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that.. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ei69d-63c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57535 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: >> > For your reference, records indicate that >> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy. >> > >> > Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car! >> >> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked. >> >> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar >> >> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D > > You, too, support my point. Clearly it didntwork if it didn’ > even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not > regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle. Working and commercial success are two entirely different things. You really need to go buy a dictionary and learn the real meaning of the words you use. > Thats why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a > vehicle airworthy. It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door > dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart. Or hail > damage or whatever else we dont think twice about subjecting cars to > because we dont have to think about them falling out of the sky. > Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a > fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that.. Flying cars have not been a fiction since the first one flew many decades ago. Again, you really need to go buy a dictionary and learn the real meaning of the words you use. Buying a flying car to go to the local store would be silly on many levels. Aircraft have always been subject to hail damage. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rab1sb1jdk2ugk91fdd8cobgvo8fotl6kc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #57535 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>For your reference, records indicate that
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > For your reference, records indicate that
>> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
>> >
>> > Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!
>>
>> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.
>>
>> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
>>
>> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D
>
>You, too, support my point. Clearly it didn’t “work” if it didn’t
>even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not
>regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle.
>
>That’s why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a
>vehicle airworthy. It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door
>dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart. Or hail
>damage or whatever else we don’t think twice about subjecting cars to
>because we don’t have to think about them falling out of the sky.
>Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a
>fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that..
>
Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft? The real
problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
regulations. The airplane side is easy.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npsnjm$u3g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57543 |
For your reference, records indicate that Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft? The real > problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR > regulations. The airplane side is easy. Thank you for continuing to support my point. I still argue that even in a *SF* universe, it is tough to make a case for a flying car. Even if you hand wave all the tech and regs and costs, very few worlds can be created where it makes sense to drive around in a vehicle that can fly. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6s3sbte0ttvoig3tqs58kdgcj8c7uctc1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #57565 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft? The real
>> problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
>> regulations. The airplane side is easy.
>
>Thank you for continuing to support my point.
>
Thank you for continuing to be a raving dipshit. You've convinced me
you aren't worth wasting time on.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5q799d-7vk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57565 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft? The real >> problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR >> regulations. The airplane side is easy. > > Thank you for continuing to support my point. I still argue that even > in a *SF* universe, it is tough to make a case for a flying car. Even > if you hand wave all the tech and regs and costs, very few worlds can > be created where it makes sense to drive around in a vehicle that can > fly. Perhaps for someone with a very limited world view. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web