Honda Makes Nanotube Breakthrough

SkinnyGuy writes "Carbon nanofibers and nanotubes are the future of computers, cars, energy and more, but it won't happen until someone figures out how to make carbon nanotubes more efficiently and in formations that can deliver enough energy and functionality to offer practical solutions for real-world problems. Honda's latest breakthrough could be the first step. Of course, Intel is working on similar carbon nanotube fabrication technology. Whoever finally delivers a practical solution, it sounds like a win-win for us."

Seems Wasteful

[BigSes]

Use only as a pure conductive option? There should be so many more intelligent applications that could be used.

win-win

[gmuslera]

Unless whoever gets it put a big fat expensive patent around it.

Re:win-win

[A beautiful mind]

What do you mean shady? Patents are something that shouldn't exist in the first place! There is nothing shady about ignoring them, especially if it's legal in the country of residence.

People should realise that invention is not A to B, but it is a feedback loop! If you make it hard to go from B to C, it's pointless!

What I find funny...

[Rei]

What I find funny about all this is that Honda, the biggest, most anti-electric-vehicle automaker out there, may just have given electric vehicles the best gift they could have asked for. Not in terms of batteries, but in terms of nanotube-composite charging cables. Optimal metallic nanotubes have a resistivity a tiny fraction that of copper; they're practically room temperature superconductors, in terms of resistance. And it's directional, too -- the current flows readily down the length of the tubes, but poorly from side to side. I've seen varying numbers, and I think it depends on the types of tubes and their application, but this [electrical...ronics.org] article says that CNTs on microchips can carry 1,000 times the current density of copper and silver. Now, you won't get that extreme level in a composite, but those are still amazing numbers to have as a starting point.

In short, they're perfect for the ideal super-high-power charging cable. Far thinner, lighter, and less cooling needed for a given power output. You could probably have a cable off that monster 800kW charger Aerovironment made for TARDEC be light enough for a six year old to handle.

Obviously, the ultra-high-power chargers still need the typical battery buffer so that they don't strain the grid, but if metallic CNT cables hit the market, there will be some serious current flowing with a much lower charger size and cost. :)

Re:A perfect solution.

[dbIII]

That's is a well known problem with small fibres which people have been keeping in mind with this sort of research for 40 years or so.

Re:win-win

[drinkypoo]

Without patents, there is a huge incentive to keep all commercializable discoveries and inventions secret,

It doesn't work that way. The only way to keep it secret is to not sell it; as soon as you sell something, it can be first copied and later reverse-engineered and duplicated. These are the distribution-related problems patents were allegedly created to solve.

In my opinion that's a better result than having the invention remain secret forever.... YMMV.

You are committing the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Given a choice between making some profit by selling an unpatented product, and no profit by not selling an unpatented product, the choice is fairly clear. Any product not produced because there is no patent protection is either obvious (which is why it's easy to copy) or a bullshit novelty. Anything else requires infrastructure to produce, and time to reverse-engineer.

Perhaps patents could be replaced by a law prohibiting selling outright copies, forcing competitors to reverse-engineer your work. They would still do this, so the technology would still be understood in time. Or maybe it's enough just to shorten their term; as we approach the technological singularity, developments should come closer together. Patent law is only slowing down this process; we should at minimum shorten patent terms to match the speed of progress.

Re:win-win

[lokiomega]

Given a choice between making some profit by selling an unpatented product, and no profit by not selling an unpatented product, the choice is fairly clear.

Or more likely, losing money from R&D funds not being recouped from insufficient sales. Patents are a good idea by creating an incentive to innovate. It's the abuse of the patent system that's stalling creativity, not the system itself.