Fine. You still have to see a CNT to know that you have an array of them as opposed to an array of... something else.
Apparently the non-understanding is deeper than I thought.
So... third try (and if I can't get an answer, I'll accept that as, "Don't bother me, I have fraud to promote!"), what's the diameter of a CNT?
Apparently the non-understanding is deeper than I thought.
So... third try (and if I can't get an answer, I'll accept that as, "Don't bother me, I have fraud to promote!"), what's the diameter of a CNT?
What in, not a Bybee, come on this is getting ridiculous, Rice Uni has some nanotube cable, that can carry 4 times the current of copper... All other electrical/electronic components are backed up by science, only a fool would put an unknown component backed up by magic in their equipement😕
Oh a clue on the size, its mentioned in CNT's name, the middle word if you want another hint.
Some pictures....
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/channe...r-times-the-current-of-copper/1018031.article
Last edited:
How much magnification you think that would please your needs?
You have to think of the hard limit: Wavelength of microscope's illumination.
If your microscope works with white light you can’t see anything smaller than
~ half a micrometer (380 to 750 nm) even if it has optics x1trillion.
George
Appx. one Nanometer in diameter, some 132 million times it diameter long.
Yes, trying to actually see some true atomic structure with "white light" is rather absurd, like trying to see the Apollo equipment on the Moon with your own eyesight, looking up at night.
_____________________________________________Rick..........
Yes, trying to actually see some true atomic structure with "white light" is rather absurd, like trying to see the Apollo equipment on the Moon with your own eyesight, looking up at night.
_____________________________________________Rick..........
Attachments
Last edited:
IMO, it really is better if you let him figure this out himself. It's more educational for him.
Even if there's trillions in parallel, you still have to see one in order to know what you have. If you had done the 5 second think that George did, you'd have saved a lot of time and effort.
Understanding and using basic physics is even easier. Try it, it may prove more productive in actual technical endeavors.
Forgive me for being stupid, but are not carbon fibres and carbon nanotubes somewhat different things with different sizes and different properties? I remember first hearing about carbon fibres around 1971, which was a long time before graphene was discovered. Which is it that the Bybee is alleged to contain?
You can see them with the naked eye. But that's not your claim, it's something... else. "Look, over there! A squirrel!"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.