Re: Carbon Games

>I hope you don't mind this reply posting that I made to
>alt.sci.nanotech.

Not at all :-)
Was considering it myself.
I don't actually see it for some reason, though.
<shrug>

>---------- Forwarded article ----------
>Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:27:34 +0100
>From: Rory McLean <rory@romsys.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: alt.sci.nanotech
>Subject: Re: Carbon Games
>
>(From sci.nanotech)
>
>In article <13uvrur3ec13b3@news.supernews.com>, mike
><URL:mailto:mikespam@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Well.
>> As is so busy here, I thought I’d post this
>> little idea. One of many random thoughts that
>> percolate about my mind off and on.
>> [Under normal situations I’d tidy them up,
>> but this place needs a jump-start. It's coming
>> directly from brain to text. Be warned.]
>
>Posting things like this is probably a better bet here, in
>alt.sci.nanotech

Humm. Well I did think about it, then changed my mind
as I wanted to stimulate some activity in sci.nanotech.
If it'd been bounced I’d have put it here anyway :-)

>> So, I was musing on carbon tubes. Specifically
>> how to make a nice yard or more, single length tube.
>> How to coax the carbon to take our choice over its own?
>> In my head, almost fully outlined popped this:
>> A tiny chamber filled with carbon dioxide, kept active
>> via laser to stop it settling on the walls.
>> A silicon partition with six laser made perforations
>> (single carbon atom sized) in a hexagon pattern.
>> And a pressure control between the two, so that when
>> the holes are filled the difference encourages it to
>> progress through to the ordered side.
>
>OK.  I'm assuming you want to take a container of CO2, and 'spin'
>a continuous length of carbon nanotube, probably single-walled,
>from a 'hole' in the container.

Sort of, I was thinking of a 'pure' carbon gas (I have no idea where the oxygen
snuck in though ! I didn't realise I’d typed 'dioxide' Sorry ).
The plan (err, hope), was that the carbon'd settle in the holes and be
extruded on the other side, binding with each other on the journey.

>You will need to take the CO2 apart, into carbon and oxygen,
>which is going to require precisely applied energy.  You will
>need to dispose of the oxygen, as I'm assuming you don't want to
>dilute the CO2.

Suppose some form of CO or CO2 will end up in use, maybe a catalyst
could help split it, but then you have, as you said, got to find a route out
for the oxygen. I guess a sample could be treated at regular intervals
and the oxygen used to reduce some sacrificial material?
(If we used hydrogen I could get a cup of tea from it too!)

>You then need to 'persuade' the carbon to take
>the form of the next part of your carbon nanotube, rather than
>something like graphite.

Ah, this was the ring formations job. The idea that the trapped atom
could only bind with its neighbor, and the hole’s position would give
it little option on how to shape itself.

>It sounds to me as though you will need very clever chemistry at
>the 'hole' in your CO2 container, or, more likely, full-blown
>molecular nanotech.
>Presumably you would have something 'grabbing' the CO2 molecules,
>passing these to something which dismantles them into carbon and
>oxygen, passing these to the nanotube fabrication mechanism, or
>an oxygen disposal mechanism, respectively.

Damn :-)
This is called the catch 22. (I always wonder, why 22?)
It would be nice, but my original thought was without the Oxygen.
I can't believe I missed it when I proof read, grrrr.

>Presumably you need to consider how your carbon nanotube is
>started, and maybe finished.

I did consider that it might need a kickstart, when silicon is purified
a 'seed' crystal is used. So i thought, why not put a little nanotube to
the holes? Then i realised it'd be difficult to hold it exactly in place.

>You will also need a quality-control monitoring system, to detect
>if any part of the process is not working properly, and some way
>of repairing or replacing broken processing parts.

Quickly becomes a Fabricator A' la A C Clarke. doesn't it? :-)

>I suppose you might imagine something like continuous sock
>making, or the crochet sometimes done by children using a ring
>with four hooks around it, where a crocheted tube of wool is
>slowly 'extruded' down through the ring. [grin]

Heh, If you make the ball, and i'll knit up the nanotube. :-)

>> I guess this won't work like this, maybe the carbon
>> will behave better in a liquid mixture?
>
>I'm interested in what sort of liquid mixture you might be
>thinking of.

I didn't have anything in mind, and off and on in the last few
days tried to think of something specific. No go tho, Sorry.

>> Anyhow, I'm still interested in why it won't work :-)
>> Fire away. :-)
< Bang !>

I knew that if it was straitforward it would have been
done a long time ago. But there's not really any other
way to ask 'why will this not work' without asking in some
manner.

Thanks for replying, sorry it was so long a gap.
The real world (tm), get's in the way sometimes. :-)

-mike :-)
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]