31–40 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like they're probably talking about Tensile strength. ( http://www.celluforce.com/en/product_properties.php )
Does that put us in space elevator territory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really fascinating. The boat sounds almost like a mobile version of the huge wall of ice in Game of Thrones. I could see this used to construct space stations and vehicles, to be used where the vacuum of space prevented thawing.
Vacuum doesn't prevent thawing. Vacuum is an insulator against mechanical heat transfer, but it doesn't do anything against radiative heat transfer. Better not bring that pykrete hull anywhere closer to the Sun than, say, Mars. Also, cellulose is harder to find in space than carbon, iron or aluminum, currently.
That's easy: put Multi-layer insulation between you and the sun, and install radiators on the shaded side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1971001...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find footage, but Mythbusters had a pretty impressive episode where they tested various formulations of pykrete. Jamie's newspaper-based one seemed to be the strongest. A smallish piece of it held a pile of lead, plus Adam's entire weight, while he smacked it with a hammer repeatedly. They built a little boat out of it which disintegrated pretty quickly. The idea that you could build an aircraft carrier was d…
I would consider "plausible" and "ludicrous" to be mutually exclusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently, the Indian government is funding research in producing nanocellulose out of bamboo: http://icfre.gov.in/UserFiles/File/Projects/Thurst-Areas/lig... I am also highly interested in: (1) Can nanocellulose or microfibrillated cellulose be made from recycled cardboard, and other forms of packaging we use to transport goods? (2) If (1), then can it be made in a machine the size of a Makerbot / Recyclebot? (3) I…
I'm kind of curious if this high tech paper can be folded like origami into interesting transparent and super strong creations?
I'm more interested in reducing the numbers of trees chopped down for packaging. I've been recently more conscious of how much package gets put around objects when I get the things I order from Amazon. Further, if these could be done cheaper or faster than pre-made packaging, you could print the package around the object rather than hiring humans to package it up.
It's not just corrugated cardboard. There's also bubble wraps, and all the plastic packaging we use. And just as importantly: how easy is this stuff to recycle? Is it possible to feed excess back into a machine that chops it down to the raw material that can be reprinted into what we need?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently, the Indian government is funding research in producing nanocellulose out of bamboo: http://icfre.gov.in/UserFiles/File/Projects/Thurst-Areas/lig... I am also highly interested in: (1) Can nanocellulose or microfibrillated cellulose be made from recycled cardboard, and other forms of packaging we use to transport goods? (2) If (1), then can it be made in a machine the size of a Makerbot / Recyclebot? (3) I…
I'm kind of curious if this high tech paper can be folded like origami into interesting transparent and super strong creations?
Can we print out foam-replacements for open source couches? Does the material have intrinsic "flame retardant" properties? (Probably not but who knows?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find footage, but Mythbusters had a pretty impressive episode where they tested various formulations of pykrete. Jamie's newspaper-based one seemed to be the strongest. A smallish piece of it held a pile of lead, plus Adam's entire weight, while he smacked it with a hammer repeatedly. They built a little boat out of it which disintegrated pretty quickly. The idea that you could build an aircraft carrier was d…
You have to remember that surface area increases with the SQUARE of size, but volume by the CUBE. So scale it up by a factor of 10 and you have 100x the surface and 1000x the volume, so it will melt much slower. Scale it up by ANOTHER factor of 10, and it'll melt another factor of 10 slower, and possibly more. Building-size blocks of ice take months to melt, even in warm temps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading this many years ago. I don't think it is mentioned in the wikipedia article but a further benefit of pykrete was that it would make an aircraft carrier almost immune to torpedo attacks. I didn't see any backup to this but I seem to remember that the aircraft carrier would have a hull of pykrete 14 foot thick, which judging by the bullet tests mention in the article, might have made it exceptionally…
This sounds unlikely. From what I understand, torpedoes do most of their damage by causing hull flexion of the target ship by exploding underneath rather than punching a hole in the hull itself. An incredibly heavy, inflexible hull seems like it would be easier to crack as opposed to some material that has the ability to bend and absorb shock. I'm not an expert either so hopefully one of our naval folks will come in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to remember that surface area increases with the SQUARE of size, but volume by the CUBE. So scale it up by a factor of 10 and you have 100x the surface and 1000x the volume, so it will melt much slower. Scale it up by ANOTHER factor of 10, and it'll melt another factor of 10 slower, and possibly more. Building-size blocks of ice take months to melt, even in warm temps.
That helps if your aircraft carrier is a solid block...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds unlikely. From what I understand, torpedoes do most of their damage by causing hull flexion of the target ship by exploding underneath rather than punching a hole in the hull itself. An incredibly heavy, inflexible hull seems like it would be easier to crack as opposed to some material that has the ability to bend and absorb shock. I'm not an expert either so hopefully one of our naval folks will come in…
This is true of modern torpedoes, but was not true of WWII vintage torpedoes, which generally smacked into the side of the hull and blew up.