Talk:Carbon nanotube/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Archive 1 of Talk:Carbon nanotube:

Removal of Cross-linking Link

I vote the following link be removed, (it was added just today): "*http://www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ee/ADC-FCT2001/ADCFCTabstract/101.htm High pressure crosslinking of nanotubes. The road to a useable material?" Maybe it is just me, but this link doesn't seem to fit very well in the article. Nanobug 13:27 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Interesting research, but the link isn't in a particularly useful form as a reference. I removed it. BTW, Nanobug, edit boldly. Don't be afraid to make changes where they are clearly called for and there doesn't seem to be an active edit war going on. Just make the changes and justify them on the talk page. It can always be reverted if the change was inappropriate.--Robert Merkel 14:12 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, will do. Nanobug

---

Nano-diamond

Scientists never hope to reach the theoretical strengths of individual nanotubes in macroscale structures. In fact, this is impossible. Just reaching the strength of bundles of hundreds of pure nanotubes, though significantly less than that of an individual, would yield amazing properties. Editing article accordingly Iammaxus 17:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is debatable if you are comparing pure strength and incorrect if you are looking at strength-to-weight ratio which will be important for things like the space elevator. See for an example the link on nanotechnology to nanoDiamond.

That site refers to "nanoDiamond" some sort of material made from nanotubes, but not exactly nanotubes. In addition, it is rather sketchy on details of strength for both molecular, and macro scale structures; mainly because this molecule has never been made. i will leave the article as it stands, though i highly doubt wether what you say is achievable. BTW, im curious, why/how/where are u intersted in CNs? Iammaxus 04:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The theoretical strength and strength-to-weight ratio of nanoDiamond is yet to be calculated. Both are expected to be high, but how high is speculative. Nanobug 15:20, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Adult Supervision

2 Sentences Removed to Talk

From this 'graph:

Other applications for nanotubes that are currently being researched include high tensile strength fibers. Two methods are currently being tested for the manufacture of such fibers. A French team developed a liquid spun system that involves pulling a fiber of nanotubes from a bath which yields a product that is approximately 60% nanotubes. The other method, which is simpler but produces weaker fibers uses traditional melt-drawn polymer fiber techniques with nanotubes mixed in the polymer. After drawing, the fibers can have the polymer burned out of them to make them purely nanotube or they can be left as they are. These technologies are currently being developed by Alexander Lobovsky with Advanced Fiber Engineering, LLC and the University of Texas NanoTech Institute

i am removing the last sentence, rather than fixing what i know is wrong, in the belief that what would be left has a low probability of accuracy and relevance. Evidence against it:

• "Lobovsky" (is this a The Big Lebowski joke?) is almost certainly Lobkovsky
• AFE LLC on Google only via the article
• 3 dead links out of 3

But the material is here, for others more knowledgable to evaluate, just in case. --Jerzy 18:18, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)

The Adult Supervision Part
In a fit of thoroughness, i decided after writing the above but before saving the edit, to document where that sentence came from. It turns out to have been added, along with all but the first sentence of that 'graph, in an edit of 06:16, 2003 Aug 21 I was surprised that the edit had stood so long unchallenged; that could reflect an error in my judging of it. In particular, i am obliged to point out the last link currently on the page, added in this edit, which makes clear the awareness of that editor that it is UTC, not the statewide UofT system, an issue i had intended to include in my complaints.

On other hand, i then noticed the 'graph (which i am removing as well) added in the same edit:

Nanotubes are already replacing fiberglass in production car bumpers because of their high strength and the electrical conductivity they lend to the product.

It could be right in implying that high electrical conductivity is desirable in auto bumpers, but unless it's a joke, it is grossly negligent in failing to even hint at why it could be true. (Bcz people who knock down power poles may be saved from electrocution when their bumper grounds the downed wires??? Because someone is proposing "active bumpers" that exploit piezoelectricity???)

Most lilkely, IMO, WP is neglecting this page so badly as to let an obvious joke stand for 5 months. --Jerzy 18:18, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)

=== Adult Supervision === (funny... but wrong)

While I thank you for attempting to correct the spelling of my last name,

...

Note to third parties: The user page User:Iammaxus suggests that "Max Lobovsky" or "Maxus Lobovsky" is an outside-WP name for the user, so construing this as a claim to be "Alexander Lobovsky" is probably unfounded. --Jerzy 08:41, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

...

Ah! You are certainly something of an authority on the spelling of your last name, so i would not have presumed to correct you on that. On the other hand, your last name, if anything, may be a handicap in accepting the correct spelling of what may be a single person whose surname is sometimes spelled like yours, and sometimes with Ks at two points it -- unless you and he have a relative who knows you both.--Jerzy

you must understand that the internet is not a complete repository for all the world's information.

(That would seem to be a gratuitous insult, since you are offering no other kind of verifiable information.)--Jerzy

Regardless, "Alexander Lobovsky" and "Lobovsky, Alexander" turn up several results pertaining to polymer research in Google.

That is not in question. Nor is it compelling, since some Web sites repeat each others false Web info; WP often does so.--Jerzy

I cannot even imagine how this could possibly be construed as a joke, where is the humor?

To my understanding, "Lobovsky" is very close to the Polish pronunciation of the Polish name Lebowski, and may even be an Ellis-Island spelling of Lebowski. If Lobkovsky is the correct spelling, someone might have made a bad joke by putting an intentional misspelling of it on WP -- tho i unite with your opinion that there's nothing funny there. (If it need be said, there is nothing inherantly funny about the name Lobovsky, and IMO any humor that rubs off from the film is insignificant.) But one should not look for humor where the expression "Is this a ... joke?" is invoked; it involves more of a suggestion that there are people with inadequate ideas of what is funny or what is a worthwhile joke.

Now that i realize you meant "my last name" literally (rather than "the last name i provided in the article") i will omit indicating how to tell that what i meant by "the obvious joke" was the statement about bumper conductivity.--Jerzy

Second, a search for nanotubes and "car bumpers" turns up a paper http://kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu/~CE_REGNER/Proposal.htm discussing exactly what i said. The conductivity is used to allow the bumpers to be electroplated.

I am glad to have the importance of conductivity made plausibile, and glad to see a reference, even one that (see below) does nothing to prove your point. However, by mentioning that a search produced the URL, you would seem to imply that i should have done a search to fill in for your prima facie implausible assertion, instead of putting it on Talk where it can be weighed by editors but not put forward as writing and research for which we solicit the respect of the reader. If you expect otherwise, dream on, at least as far as this editor is concerned.

This explanation, if you had seen fit to include it with or without the citation, might have hidden the weaknesses in your edit that occasion this discussion. In any case, i was dead on in referring to your "grossly negligent" editing, which is further evidenced in your citing a university research proposal (not actual research, let alone positive research results, let alone evidence of even a pilot project in a factory) as evidence of them "already replacing fiberglass" in bumpers. Negligence, at best, is also shown by your having written that in the face of the article Carbon nanotube mentioning cost "which prohibits any large scale use of them". --Jerzy

While I conceed that the reference to Alexander Lobovsky and his research may be a little bit biased. Everything i said is in fact true.

Some of what you've said is implausible, justifying treating it as probably false. Nearly all the rest of what you have said may be true or false, but is in any case inadequately supported at present. Come up with more and better evidence. --Jerzy

You may argue that many others are involved in such research. Fine, add them if you wish.

Adding more material to remove bias is preferable to discarding good information about one PoV that has substantial support, but that is not the issue here. You apparently are not arguing that the other researchers are frauds, yet you have written it in a way that suggests Lobovsky/Lobkovsky is of outstanding significance. The material is best being preserved on Talk until something complete enough to not be deceptive is available, and until better evidence is found that it is better material than you have shown it to be. --Jerzy

If you really insist, remove it, but please, in the future, relax with the "Adult Supervision".

If i have given offense by sounding as if i assumed you not to be an adult, or as if i were sarcastically pretending to so assume, i apologize. I have no specific recollection of "Adult Supervision" being a WP phrase for "responsible oversight where irresposibility is excessive" (the concept i intended to communicate), tho i thot of it as following logically from another WP usage: one that to my ear evokes the phrase "Play nicely with the other children." (Some people use that ironically, but not sarcastically -- at least some with teachers for parents.) If WPians whose judgement i trust more than Iammaxus's so advise, i will try to suppress the phrase "Adult Supervision" from my WP vocabulary. --Jerzy

I will be restoring the article. Iammaxus 00:05, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. I've reverted again , tho i'll at least move the new text to here. (You put that text where your final sentence and your summary suggest the old bumper text would be. You could try to summarize more completely and accurately.) --Jerzy 08:41, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

I have struck out what i said immediately above, due to my confused reading of the Page-history of Carbon nanotube. The only criticism i have of Iammaxus's summary-writing is this very minor point (which i mention here only to clarify how trivial my considered criticism is): restoring A means putting back what A put in and someone removed; this can also be called "reverting to A". "Reverting to A" is really short for "reverting from the current revision of the page to the last revision signed by A", and often appears in the summary as simply "(rv)" when the user whose last revision was reverted was the second to last editor before the reversion edit. --Jerzy 09:17, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

Lobovsky/Lobkovsky

If and when there is reason to include text re Alexander Lobovsky or Lobkovsky: plz note that Iammaxus has cited only a Google association between the first spelling and polymers fibers; someone should at least check my impression that Google association between the second spelling and some nanotech topic is stronger, and comes from sites that purport to be more closely affiliated with him (and of course perhaps consider going off the Web for data). --Jerzy 08:41, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

---

Lobovsky and Google

Note that i use the word "consistent" here in a strict sense: two things are consistent with each other, unless each would imply the other was false, but i intend no suggestion that the truth of anything makes things that are consistent with it any more likely -- only that there is insufficient evidence to rule out their both being true.

Search and its Hits

OK, my search, done abt 20:30 UTC, is

"Alexander Lobovsky" OR "Lobovsky Alexander"

The initial results are "1-8 of about 18". I list those 8 first, followed by the additional ones that appear when we "repeat the search with the omitted results included". (The rest should pretty much duplicate 1-8 in content.) I number the rest 9-18 even tho Google displays them interspersed among the "1-8" ones.

1. [1] (This very page)
2. [2] ("Lobovsky, Alexander", second of two authors of a patent.
3. [3] (Same site & linked by #2; abstract of the patent)
4. [4] (Supports the removed text. Oh, wait, it includes the removed text, bcz it's the article before that text was removed.)
5. [5] (NJ state list of licensed Professional Engineers ...)
6. [6] (4th of 9 authors of [Shouting case on Web site converted to title case by Jerzy] "The Preparation And Optimization Of Carbon Nanotube Sheets For Electromechanical Actuator Applications", mostly from NJ Honeywell; one of 29 titles presented in a "poster session", starting at 8PM, at a 5-day 2001 "Fall Meeting" of Materials Research Society)
7. [7] (Another WP-derived page)
8. [8] In Italian, but "Alexander Lobovsky del National Institute of Standards and Technology di Gaithersburg (Maryland)" isn't too hard to translate. This is an interesting one, as i'll discuss.)
9. [9] (dupe, and WP)
10. [10] (dupe, and WP)
11. www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/ c/ca/carbon_nanotube.html (dupe, and WP)
12. www.voyagenow.com/travel-references/en/ wikipedia/c/ca/carbon_nanotube.html (dupe, and WP)
13. www.tutorgig.com/ encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=Carbon_nanotube (dupe, and WP)
14. [11] (dupe, and WP)
15. www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/ lookup.cgi?title=Carbon_nanotube (dupe, and WP)
16. [12] (dupe w/plural title, and WP)
17. www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/ wikipedia/Carbon_nanotube.html (dupe, and WP)
18. [13] (What an odd URL; the site is not just a Google-cache ghost; the page looks like a recent mirror of ours, but for an IP in place of "Not logged in", and for the first of these two sentences: "This page has been accessed 602 times. This page was last modified 08:11, 4 Sep 2003."; dupe, and WP)

(Note that the unlinked hits are given with Google's pseudo-URLs; in any case, i often relied on the Google extracts or the Google-cached text, rather than the sites the hits were crawled on.)

Analysis

• The "entries very similar to the 8 already displayed" are all derived from WP's Carbon nanotube article.
• Of the 8 remaining,
  • 2 (#2 & 3) are from, respectively, the index entry for a patent abstract and the abstract on the same site that the index points directly to.
  • #8, the Italian-language one is a misspelled reference not applicable to anyone whose real name is Lobovsky with a single K. This is demonstrated by the CV of Alexander Lobkovsky where he personally asserts he has been at National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, 1999-2001, but implies never being employed by Honeywell at any time from his turning 17 (apparently in his native Ukraine) until August of 2003.
  • Three are this page (#1) and two copies of this page's articles, (#4 & 7).
  • This leaves 3 mutually independent non-WP-dervied Lobovsky hits. They are hits #3, 5, and 6 in both the list above and the following list.

3. The patent credit indicates a significant, but possibly secondary, technical role in some non-nanotech fiber research and/or development at Honeywell. It is also evidence of his career being one of several kinds (no hint of which one of them) that might lead to involvement in nanotube research and/or development.

5. His being a licensed Professional Engineer in NJ is consistent with his being a key contributor on a nanotech research team, and it makes it highly likely that he holds an bachelor's or professional degree in some form of engineering. (Note, however, that the license's contribution to his credentials for such a position would have been insignificant, unless he lacked such a degree.) This hit does establish a connection between him and NJ, however, and thus is evidence making it likely that he is the Honeywell A.L. of #3 and #6.

6. The affiliation with NJ Honeywell and the relationship between fibers and nanotubes makes it pretty likely he is the patent-connected A.L. of #3.

Conclusions

While these Web pages are consistent with the removed Lobovsky text, they are far from sufficient to verify it. They also offer no evidence that Lobovsky is even one of the significant contributors wherever he now works (rather than high-grade support staff to them), let alone a principal contributor, as would have to be the case to keep the removed text from being a misleading distortion.

It must also be kept in mind that the questions of the appropriateness, in the article, of letting the removed text

• be part of a survey of current developments, or
• stand alone in the absence of such a survey,

go far beyond those of Lobowsky per se.

Jerzy & IamMaxus

Complaints

• Jerzy, I would prefer you not pull apart my comment to insert your responses. If you wish to respond point by point (I agree, that is the best way) copy the relevant pieces to your comment that way what i said is left in tact.

• though you must have some background in this subject for you to presume to be able to correct someone, it is probably not a good idea to remove the writings of other people unless you are very confident they are incorrect. I am sorry that I cannot point you to more information about the car bumper post, but i have read it in a scientific journal/magazine of note. "Implausability" does not warrant removal of a comment [edit:I just read Wikipedia:verifiability and i understand your intent now, but even that article suggests discussing before removing Iammaxus 06:58, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)]. I do not believe that you have researched the subject thoroughly enough to even know what is plausible. Do you have any idea how small, percentage wise, the additives that can significantly effect polymers or any material are?

• I do not understand why you continue to refer to Alexander Lobovsky as "Lobovsky\Lobkovsky" You do not have the slightest reason to believe that i have mispelled it. If you call Google recommending Lobkovsky as the proper spelling, then i refer you to my comment about the incompleteness of the internet (a comment which was not at all out of place). Even more outlandish, you continue this after i had told you, albeit sarcastically, that this is my surname, i know how its spelled.

• Finally, i must ask you to please be a little bit more kind in your comments and actions. There is no reason to constantly take shots at my credibility, knowledge, etc. If you wish to make your opinion of my incorrectness known, state it and let others judge. In fact, i believe people like you are discouraging new wikipedians by being so aggressive. You stated repeatedly that i should put things in the discussion page before posting

You may withold response if you wish as I will not be touching the article again. I guess I cannot really contribute anything of import... Iammaxus 06:50, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Though I don't mean to divert negative attention away from me, I'd like to point out how targeted and unfair your peer-review is. Look at what nanobug wrote about nanodiamond in the article and comments, specifically its origin... Iammaxus 01:55, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

long, strong nanotubes are unobtainium ?

Hmm. In all fairness you'll note that space elevator designs currently rely on unobtainium, whereas rocket cost reductions mainly rely on launching more often, using better engineering and architectures, using actual past experience; and avoiding being part of a national program as they usually don't care so much about money. Wolfkeeper

Actually, calling carbon nanotubes of sufficient strength to build a space elevator "unobtainium" is not at all fair, IMO. We can't produce the stuff just yet, but there doesn't seem to be any theoretical reason why we shouldn't be able to in the relatively near future. We know the stuff exists, we know it can be manufactured, we just haven't worked out a refined commercial process for doing it yet. Unobtainium, on the other hand, is a material which we don't have any reason to expect will be possible to use. Bryan 15:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, historically, titanium was referred to as unobtainium; even when it was very much known to exist- the Russians had cornered the market on it- and getting enough to build the SR-71 involved some chicanery. You appear to be confusing unobtainium with handwavium- handwavium is something that you have no idea whether it can exist or not, but it's just what you need to make everything work out. I would say that elevator cable is nearest to unobtainium, YMMV.--Wolfkeeper 23:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Unobtainium presents both meanings, but as far as I'm aware the meaning that I used is the more widely understood one. Bryan 23:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Either way, you don't have the stuff, and may never have the stuff.--Wolfkeeper 17:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

No, we don't have the stuff, but we think there's a good chance we will have it within a few decades. Materials have been made in the laboratory in small quantities that might be suitable,

No, they are not suitable; unless you have a reference that everyone has missed. Cite? Current materials are typically too weak and too short; although some materials are long enough but too weak by a factor of 2, and some other microscopic examples are strong enough but about 10 orders of magnitude too short.

and there don't seem to be any laws of physics or economics that forbid them from eventually being manufactured in bulk. (edit: by economics, BTW, I mean that the stuff's made of a very common element so it'd be physically possible to get enough of it. The economics of manufacturing the elevator remain a lot less well defined, of course.) Bryan 23:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to second Bryan here. The rate of tech advancement on CNTs is really incredible; I would be quite surprised if we don't have mass produced strong CNT fiber in 10-20 years. Listening to you, Wolfkeeper, talk about how it will never happen

I'm of the firm belief that I have never said that anywhere. I actually think that appropriate CNT cable probably will appear. I simply said that we don't have it today; and it is true that we may never have it.

just sounds like a person from the 1920s saying "Uranium could never be enriched, and we could never produce sizable amounts of plutonium (all we can produce are micrograms!), so an atomic bomb is impossible!". It's really just chemistry we're talking about (not even nuclear chemistry), and seldom has a mere chemical process proven intractable after a long period research. We're now making literally flawless diamonds through CVD - what makes you think CNTs will somehow be different? Rei 16:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a proof a cable can be made strong enough; certainly individual nanotubes can be made strong enough. This is materials science, not chemistry per se; and I don't think that the field has an exactly spotless record with predicting ultimate strengths of things. I'm not exactly betting against it happening though; but I'm not holding my breath.

or Rei saying there is no scope to reduce rocketry costs :-) . It is important to realise that some goals are never attained - we tend to forget the failures. Eliminating malaria was something once thought inevitable - within a decade. By incorrigible optimists. Paul Beardsell 17:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Carbon nanotube/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I guess it is a good article, so I've nominated it but until we decide what to do about it it remains a B-article. I rated it High on the importance scale because they could potentially become VERY important in many diffrent branches of the industry... Snailwalker | talk 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)