From: "Rich Gauszka" 

While  years perhaps decades away I had thought the concept of nonotube
technology  was a bit more viable than the report I read today - keeping
fingers crossed. Thanks for the update


"Monte Davis"  wrote in message
news:u4m082dlft6e94rnpc0a1e7eke342rsfjt{at}4ax.com...
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote:
>
>>looks like carbon nanotubes and a space elevator will only be a dream of
>>science fictions writers - sigh
>
> Best to reserve judgment for  a while. The consensus on individual
> nanotube strength hasn't settled down yet, although the trend of the
> "median guesstimate" has been downward over the 5-6 yeras since
> Edwrads began beating the drum for space elevators. Theoretical
> figures depend on your choice of quantum-mechanical modeling
> assumptions, and on how well you understand the mechanisms of C-C bond
> rotation and breakage (not very). Even numbers from actual
> stretch-it-til-it-breaks tests are all over the lot; it's *hard* to
> clamp firmly onto a tube that's just 12 atoms or so around without
> introducing artifacts.
>
> Pugno is quite right about the strength of bulk CNT-based materials so
> far. Because the basic science is still hazy, there's been very little
> work on the nano->micro "bundling" that would get you 6 orders of
> magnitude from a single CNT to a fiber that process engineers could
> begin to work with. Every macroscopic sample announced so far has been
> very slapdash in length and orientation -- like pressing dust kittens,
> hair clippings and old kite string into a cylindrical form and calling
> it a hawser.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5