| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Nanotechnology Forum » Nano-foam: 5th Form of Carbon |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| sanman |
 Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Here's an article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-5.html
Is this really a fifth form of carbon? It sounds simply like a network
of nanotubes. The carbon is said to be at least temporarily magnetic
-- how is this possible? Besides it's low thermal conductivity, what
are the other physical properties, eg. tensile, stiffness, electrical? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Parallax |
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message
news:<c3qo350ej6@enews3.newsguy.com>...
[quote:e66d11236d]manofsan@yahoo.com (sanman) writes:
Here's an article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-5.html
Is this really a fifth form of carbon?
That depends of one's definition of "really" and "form."
It sounds simply like a network of nanotubes.
Yes. It might also be accurate to descibe it as a "buckytube aerogel" ---
or perhaps not. (That depends on one's definition of "aerogel.")
[ Excess quoted material elided by moderator. -JimL ][/quote:e66d11236d]
It does sound a lot like carbon aerogels. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Larkin |
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 23 Mar 2004 20:11:12 GMT, manofsan@yahoo.com (sanman) wrote:
[quote:a616e89010]
Here's an article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-5.html
Is this really a fifth form of carbon? It sounds simply like a network
of nanotubes. The carbon is said to be at least temporarily magnetic
-- how is this possible? Besides it's low thermal conductivity, what
are the other physical properties, eg. tensile, stiffness, electrical?
[/quote:a616e89010]
I am pleased to see that the announcement includes the mandatory
nanotech "may cure cancer" claim.
I propose that "nanotech" be redefined as "any small thing that may
someday cure cancer."
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Logajan |
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
[quote:0e0352d92c]
On 23 Mar 2004 20:11:12 GMT, manofsan@yahoo.com (sanman) wrote:
Here's an article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-5.html
Is this really a fifth form of carbon? It sounds simply like a network
of nanotubes. The carbon is said to be at least temporarily magnetic
-- how is this possible? Besides it's low thermal conductivity, what
are the other physical properties, eg. tensile, stiffness, electrical?
I am pleased to see that the announcement includes the mandatory
nanotech "may cure cancer" claim.
[/quote:0e0352d92c]
Strictly speaking, it said "may help treat cancer." Diplomatically
speaking, I would say that most nanotech announcements don't mention cancer
or any medical benefits, so if it appears to someone that every
announcement does, then that says more about the reader's fixation than a
fixation by nanotech PR on cancer cures. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Larkin |
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 26 Mar 2004 06:52:59 GMT, Jim Logajan <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
[quote:ba20fc50fb]
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
On 23 Mar 2004 20:11:12 GMT, manofsan@yahoo.com (sanman) wrote:
Here's an article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-5.html
Is this really a fifth form of carbon? It sounds simply like a network
of nanotubes. The carbon is said to be at least temporarily magnetic
-- how is this possible? Besides it's low thermal conductivity, what
are the other physical properties, eg. tensile, stiffness, electrical?
I am pleased to see that the announcement includes the mandatory
nanotech "may cure cancer" claim.
Strictly speaking, it said "may help treat cancer." Diplomatically
speaking, I would say that most nanotech announcements don't mention cancer
or any medical benefits, so if it appears to someone that every
announcement does, then that says more about the reader's fixation than a
fixation by nanotech PR on cancer cures.
[/quote:ba20fc50fb]
A sizable number of nanotech "discoveries" do in fact mention their
potential as cancer cures; I have noted this before not because I am
especially concerned about cancer, but because it pops up so often,
and so inappropriately, in nanotech announcements.
In this case, because this carbon form has a low thermal conductivity,
it is suggested that it could be injected into cancers to thermally
insulate them, after which IR radiation could destroy them. Be honest
now: isn't this an absolutely absurd proposal?
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John S. Novak, III |
| Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <c40k0b01gka@enews4.newsguy.com>, Jim Logajan wrote:
[quote:6966636fb0]I am pleased to see that the announcement includes the mandatory
nanotech "may cure cancer" claim.
Strictly speaking, it said "may help treat cancer." Diplomatically
speaking, I would say that most nanotech announcements don't mention cancer
or any medical benefits, so if it appears to someone that every
announcement does, then that says more about the reader's fixation than a
fixation by nanotech PR on cancer cures.
[/quote:6966636fb0]
In John's defense, the cancer claims have begun to stick out like a
sore thumb since he's made a point of mentioning them.
It would be interesting to count all the announcements in a given
fiscal quarter, and see how many of them invoke cancer.
--
John S. Novak, III jsn@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Logajan |
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 1:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
[quote:fef55652a1]A sizable number of nanotech "discoveries" do in fact mention their
potential as cancer cures; I have noted this before not because I am
especially concerned about cancer, but because it pops up so often,
and so inappropriately, in nanotech announcements.
In this case, because this carbon form has a low thermal conductivity,
it is suggested that it could be injected into cancers to thermally
insulate them, after which IR radiation could destroy them. Be honest
now: isn't this an absolutely absurd proposal?
[/quote:fef55652a1]
Absurd? It sounds downright dangerous! I can't and wont defend such
rationalizations - I'm merely saying they don't bother me too much because
there are other issues that bother me more. I suspect I know how these
things happen. Researchers are often called on to justify their research -
because it helps them get funding. If there is a remote rationale that
sounds "more" beneficial, say curing cancer, then it'll be touted instead
of the more mundane benefits. I suspect you're aware of these factors too.
They exist in all fields of research, but nanotech and materials
researchers can sometimes find remote justifications off in left field - or
the medical field - which are often more appealing than the actual intent.
If lots of money is available to fund medical (or nanotech) research, then
of course you'll find research being reclassified or rationalized to fit
these categories. Hell, a lot of plain old solution-based (and
other kinds of) chemistry has been reclassified as "nanotechnology". A lot
of people are saying we now have nanotech products and I'm one of those who
says baloney - there are NO such products. Drexler and no one else (not
even Feynman) brought the term "nanotechnology" to the world with a
compelling definition that implied revolutionary socioeconomic change. The
term clearly defined a technology that enabled the elimination of greater
than 99.9% of the world's economy by means of a self-replicating device
that every individual could own and that would satisfy virtually all of
their needs. That definition of nanotechnology has NOTHING in common with
solution-based chemistry techniques - no matter how clever they purport to
be - that would more likely INCREASE world economic interdependencies
rather than sever them.
That leads to my (admittedly vague) test for whether any given research
deserves to be stamped, certified, and sealed as relevant "nanotech
research":
Do the results bring me closer to owning "modest" sized device(s) that
would allow me to be economically independent of the world's economy
while providing a greater level of comfort and leisure than I enjoy now? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Larkin |
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Mar 2004 06:12:47 GMT, Jim Logajan <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
[quote:0a48826d9e]
That leads to my (admittedly vague) test for whether any given research
deserves to be stamped, certified, and sealed as relevant "nanotech
research":
Do the results bring me closer to owning "modest" sized device(s) that
would allow me to be economically independent of the world's economy
while providing a greater level of comfort and leisure than I enjoy now?
[/quote:0a48826d9e]
What an astounding definition of nanotech: it doesn't even mention
scale. A rifle and a skinning knife would fit that criterion.
It surprises me that so many people dream of a solar-powered (or
whatever) anything-constructor that sets them free from the horrible
oppressions of this world and the burden to help, and be helped by,
others. Personally, I rather enjoy all the goodies that an advanced,
affluent society provides, and if I didn't, I could always work less.
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Logajan |
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
[quote:3566e1c20b]On 30 Mar 2004 06:12:47 GMT, Jim Logajan <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
That leads to my (admittedly vague) test for whether any given research
deserves to be stamped, certified, and sealed as relevant "nanotech
research":
Do the results bring me closer to owning "modest" sized device(s) that
would allow me to be economically independent of the world's economy
while providing a greater level of comfort and leisure than I enjoy now?
What an astounding definition of nanotech: it doesn't even mention
scale. A rifle and a skinning knife would fit that criterion.
[/quote:3566e1c20b]
I'm no longer sure if you are arguing for the sake of arguing, or whether
there is some communication problem here. Both the scale and technology are
mentioned: '... relevant "nanotech research"'. The test question would not
be understandable if it were presented in isolation from the introducing
paragraph.
In any case, a rifle is a product of an industrial economy. One needs tools
for mining, refining, lathing, milling, etc. And access to suitably rich
mineral deposits. And access to energy, such as coal or running water.
And even with all that infrastructure in place, one still wouldn't get a
decent dental plan (nevermind medical). Unless they're supposed to remove
rotted teeth with the skinning knife? Not exactly anyone's definition of
"comfort"! :-)
So your response simply doesn't fit the criteria - not by a light year.
[quote:3566e1c20b]It surprises me that so many people dream of a solar-powered (or
whatever) anything-constructor that sets them free from the horrible
oppressions of this world and the burden to help, and be helped by,
others. Personally, I rather enjoy all the goodies that an advanced,
affluent society provides, and if I didn't, I could always work less.
[/quote:3566e1c20b]
Since more than half the world's population is estimated to make less than
$2.15/day/person (http://www.worldbank.org/research/povmonitor/) I think it
could be said that yes, the world yields only a hard, short life for many.
And if the world's wealth were somehow distributed evenly, it'd amount to
only ~$14/day/person (http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf)
You and I may enjoy some of the goodies of affluent societies, but unless
there is a revolution of some other nature (political, economic, social, or
whatever) the nanotech revolution seems the best shot at dramatically
raising the affluence of everyone on the planet in only a few decades.
Taking into account the other benefits that it will bring about, it becomes
VERY hard for me to understand why anyone would actively argue against it
on an economic basis. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Logajan |
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:26 pm
|
|