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 ...
That’s where you need grant money going. Figuring out what to do with all that salt! ;-)
Bingo. That is the critical question. How does one remove the salt to use it again. Otherwise I would think it is too expensive to keep making this stuff for one time use.
” I see you rigged your carbon nanotube suit desert fashion.”
“It seemed the right way”
“Wow - you must be THE ONE PROPHESIZED!!”
‘Geez you people are easily impressed...”
I saw these kinds of experimental results 10 years ago. The problem is producing producing stable carbon nanotubes in volume at these dimensions.
Has no meaning.
“Your comment is quite ironic.”
Damn - I just hate that! :) Didn’t read enough of the article.
Though to be fair to the author of the article, I wouldn’t call it a misspelling, more of a typo, since earlier in the article it was spelled correctly.
He's not, he's taking a shower........
“nanometer is the American spelling.
nanometre is the international spelling.”
Purely statements of fact. No other inference made or opinion asserted.
Hoping that this comes into effect soon. We’ll need a good watermaker for the boat when we head south.
The current reverse-osmosis machines are good, but, could be better.
It is a question I would expect a journalist to think to ask but somehow that didn’t happen.
“nanometer is the American spelling.
nanometre is the international spelling.”
Purely statements of fact. No other inference made or opinion asserted.
You are still missing that the article spelled it “nanametre”.
Nana, with an a. Not nano.
What about distillation?
No, I didn’t miss it the first time - before my original post. I simply posted the correct spelling(s).
Where does the salt go? If it quickly clogs up the device then this doesn’t help much.
>This seems to be a good thing, as badly needed drinking water can be widely available to where it is now not.
We’ve already got the best tech in the world for water distillation: High temperature nuclear reactors. Run salt water through them, turns into steam that powers the generators and clean fresh water comes out the other side.
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.