NASA Wins Nanotechnology Award

Roland Piquepaille writes "NASA is rarely associated with nanotechnologies. But one of its researchers working at the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center just received a Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 award for a manufacturing process for high-quality carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Because of its ability to produce bundles of CNTs without using a metal catalyst, this method is simpler, safer, and cheaper than current ones. The CNTs produced by this process are also purer and well suited for medical applications."

Re:How long until someone whines....

[bxwatso (1059160)]

NASA does waste money. IMO, the manned space program has been a complete waste of money since the last Moon shot. NASA as a whole, however, has some bright spots.

This reminds me of IBM, which in the 80's was a huge, bloated, money wasting pig. Despite this, they generated more patents and innovations than any other company on earth (ex: they invented the relational database, but Ellison made a fortune on it). Like Xerox, they rarely turned their innovations into valuable products.

I think that a hugely well funded organization with no purpose (Parc, Watson Labs, NASA) provides niches for innovators to spread their wings. That is, until marketing gets involved.

Re:

[Fission86 (1070784)]

the problem with nasa is that it IS a government run institution, which means that politicians have a decently sized say in how it's run.

now this wouldn't be a problem if politicians were well educated or atleast made an effort to learn about a program before saying "let's take in a new direction," but they're not, they're dumb as hell and love to change things at the first sign of trouble.

of course this might just go straight back to john q. taxpayer, who isn't very smart either and doesn't understan

Re:

[darthflo (1095225)]

if politicians were well educated or atleast made an effort to learn about a program

"[They are] elected to lead, not to read." -- The President of the US of A, according to the Simpsons Movie.

Re:

[c6gunner (950153)]

Humans are an inherently illogical species. The reason we need a manned space program right now is the same reason that hollywood movie starts get paid millions of dollars for work that has no practical value whatsoever. Namely, humans like to be amused, and they like drama. And there's nothing amusing or dramatic about lobbing a circuit-board on wheels at Mars, and then having it roll around collecting rocks.

Re:

[Futile Rhetoric (1105323)]

And there's nothing amusing or dramatic about lobbing a circuit-board on wheels at Mars

Beagle II would like to have a word with you.

Re:

[bhima (46039)]

So, in answer to your question: Less than 5 minutes.

Really small display cabinet

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

You need a really small display cabinet to show off your nano technology awards.

acronym question

[by Anonymous Coward]

NASA is usually pronounced nassa, not en-ey-ess-ey
SCSI is usually pronounced scuzzy, not ess-see-ess-ai
etc.

So how is CNT pronounced in mixed company?
I'm actually serious.

Re:

[citizenc (60589)]

HoTMaiL

:P

Re:

[StarfishOne (756076)]

Almost like TNT of course.. there are 4 letter acronyms and 3 letter acronyms, a big difference! ;P

Re:

[MarsDefenseMinister (738128)]

Ahhhh. Tunt.

Re:

[dbrower (114953)]

Three letter acronyms tend to be spoken as letters, and four letter ones leap towards pronuciation.

NBA, NFL, CBS, ABC, NBC, FBI, CIA, ..., CNT

No, you're not serious, are you.

-dB

Re:

[aproposofwhat (1019098)]

Of course, this story comes courtesy of Roland "Copper Nanotube" Piquepaille.

Re:

[TeknoHog (164938)]

Three letter acronyms tend to be spoken as letters, and four letter ones leap towards pronuciation.

NBA, NFL, CBS, ABC, NBC, FBI, CIA, ..., CNT

If the letters are pronounced separately, it's not an acronym.

Re:

[gabriel.dain (928879)]

CNT is an initialism, not an acronym.

It is, in fact, both. Acronyms can be made up of only initial letters.

Re:

[swillden (191260)]

CNT is an initialism, not an acronym.

It is, in fact, both. Acronyms can be made up of only initial letters.

Acronyms are nearly always made up of only initial letters. The difference between an acronym and an initialism is how it is pronounced. If you say the letters one by one, it's an initialism. If you form them into a pronounceable word (the classic example is Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus) then it's an acronym.

What the GP is saying, then, is that CNT is pronounced "see enn tee".

Re:

[WallaceAndGromit (910755)]

So how is CNT pronounced in mixed company? I'm actually serious.

I would suggest... can't.

Re:

[pragma_x (644215)]

*chuckle*

May I buy a vowel?

Re:

[MattskEE (925706)]

On that topic, how do we pronounce copper nanotubes, i.e. CuNT?

Obligatory

[CrazyJim1 (809850)]

YAY NASA! Go inanimate carbon rod!

Use the superheated nanotubes Luke!

[MisterBone (865983)]

Sorry for the the silly subject line but I've got a question. How hot can a carbon nanotube be while still keeping it's structural strength? And how strong is that tube in normal conditions? I keep thinking about fishing rods, lasers and star wars whenever I read about carbon nanotubes, so if anyone has any information to stop my daydreams, please share.

Water-catalyst Deposition

[kriyasurfer (1190407)]

I remember back in 2005 when I had just started up a consulting firm with several of my buddies. To make ends meet, we did some contracting from online sources. One of the contracts we won was to produce a marketing plan for a small hospital up in the North East. They had some money and they were looking at starting up some sort of carbon nanotube startup. While researching, we came across Dr. Benavides's discovery. I read the paper she published. It was pretty neat. The technique is relatively simple. You

Space Elevator Cable?

[J_Omega (709711)]

I'm surprised that noone's brought this up. From TFA:

Given their level of purity, the high-quality SWCNTs made using Benavides's discovery are particularly well suited for medical applications, where metal particles cannot be present, as well as applications where high strength and electrical conductivity are desired, since high purity enhances these characteristics. Yet, they can be used in other applications as well.

Plus they seem to be less expensive, more safe, and easier to produce this way.

Does

Obligatory

[Ironlenny (1181971)]

I for one welcome our inanimate carbon overlords.

The actual patent

[Ceriel Nosforit (682174)]

Patent found here [uspto.gov]

Abstract:
"A non-catalytic process for the production of carbon nanotubes includes supplying an electric current to a carbon anode and a carbon cathode which have been securely positioned in the open atmosphere with a gap between them. The electric current creates an electric arc between the carbon anode and the carbon cathode, which causes carbon to be vaporized from the carbon anode and a carbonaceous residue to be deposited on the carbon cathode. Inert gas [*] is pumped into the gap to flush out oxygen, thereby preventing interference with the vaporization of carbon from the anode and preventing oxidation of the carbonaceous residue being deposited on the cathode. The anode and cathode are cooled while electric current is being supplied thereto. When the supply of electric current is terminated, the carbonaceous residue is removed from the cathode and is purified to yield carbon nanotubes."

I assume this means she's identified the electric properties of the metal catalyst as the significant factor in the success of those techniques, and simply, with genius, replaces those properties with an electric current. You could probably do the same thing using a metamaterial or an EM radiation cavity, if you wanted to bypass the patent.

* "Intert gas" is usually helium, or the much, much cheaper alternative of nitrogen.