Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

From	"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics, rec.arts.sf.science
Subject	Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
Date	2016-08-24 11:23 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<npke4v$g2s$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<npa80i$imu$1@dont-email.me> <npf7ns$8mc$1@news.hpeswlab.net>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Thread

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

csiph-web