I see you rigged your carbon nanotube suit desert fashion.
Posted on 08/29/2017 7:24:07 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Scientists, including those from Northeastern University in the U.S., developed carbon nanotube pores that can exclude salt from seawater.
The team found that water permeability in carbon nanotubes (CNTs) with diameters of 0.8 nanometre significantly exceeds that of wider carbon nanotubes.
The nanotubes, hollow structures made of carbon atoms in a unique arrangement, are more than 50,000 times thinner than a human hair.
The super smooth inner surface of the nanotube is responsible for their remarkably high water permeability, while the tiny pore size blocks larger salt ions.
“We found that carbon nanotubes with diameters smaller than a nanometre bear a key structural feature that enables enhanced transport,” said Ramya Tunuguntla, a postdoctoral researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in the U.S.
“The narrow hydrophobic channel forces water to translocate in a single-file arrangement, a phenomenon similar to that found in the most efficient biological water transporters,” said Tunuguntla.
Computer simulations and experimental studies of water transport through CNTs with diameters larger than one nanametre showed enhanced water flow, but did not match the transport efficiency of biological proteins and did not separate salt efficiently, especially at higher salinities.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehindu.com ...
This seems to be a good thing, as badly needed drinking water can be widely available to where it is now not.
Therefore, the ‘carbon footprint’ nutjobs will see to it the technology never sees the light of day.
If it really worked it would be on the market. These press releases are researchers campaigning for more grant money.
I see you rigged your carbon nanotube suit desert fashion.
This is written very poorly.
For instance “The team found that water permeability in carbon nanotubes (CNTs) with diameters of 0.8 nanometre significantly exceeds that of wider carbon nanotubes.”
They mean salt exclusion is less in wider tubes.
And they spelled nanometer wrong - nanametre.
Still it’s interesting.
>>Ultra-thin carbon nanotubes can separate salt from seawater<<
But they won’t do it for less than $15 an hour. They are represented by gloria allred.
:)
Can the structure be flushed out and reused or is it disposed of when its full of salt ions?
nanometer is the American spelling.
nanometre is the international spelling.
What is the Russian spelling?
It seemed the most logical way........................
That looks like the Brit and maybe French spelling.
What is the Russian spelling?
The Arabian spelling?
What is the Russian spelling?
“And they spelled nanometer wrong - nanametre.”
You misspelled their misspelling which is not a misspelling but a British variation.
Don’t you just hate it when you try to look smart and you fail? ;)
This is good to know in the event I’m on Naked and Afraid.
From Wikipedia:Reverse osmosis (RO) is a water purification technology that uses a semipermeable membrane to remove ions, molecules, and larger particles from drinking water. In reverse osmosis, an applied pressure is used to overcome osmotic pressure, a colligative property, that is driven by chemical potential differences of the solvent, a thermodynamic parameter. Reverse osmosis can remove many types of dissolved and suspended species from water, including bacteria, and is used in both industrial processes and the production of potable water. The result is that the solute is retained on the pressurized side of the membrane and the pure solvent is allowed to pass to the other side. To be "selective", this membrane should not allow large molecules or ions through the pores (holes), but should allow smaller components of the solution (such as solvent molecules) to pass freely.It appears that the article is talking about a new form of “semipermeable membrane” for use in “reverse osmosis."
Yep, as far as I can tell nanotubes are the snake oils of today. So much promise, so little delivery.
“nanometer is the American spelling.
nanometre is the international spelling.”
Read more carefully. Nanametre is a misspelling. I was not referring to the re but the a.
“You misspelled their misspelling which is not a misspelling but a British variation.
Don’t you just hate it when you try to look smart and you fail? ;)”
Lol.
The article spelled it nanametre.
Your comment is quite ironic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.