NASA Wins Nanotechnology Award

Roland Piquepaille writes "NASA is rarely associated with nanotechnologies. But one of its researchers working at the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center just received a Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 award for a manufacturing process for high-quality carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Because of its ability to produce bundles of CNTs without using a metal catalyst, this method is simpler, safer, and cheaper than current ones. The CNTs produced by this process are also purer and well suited for medical applications."

Comments

Really small display cabinet

[LiquidCoooled]

You need a really small display cabinet to show off your nano technology awards.

acronym question

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is usually pronounced nassa, not en-ey-ess-ey
SCSI is usually pronounced scuzzy, not ess-see-ess-ai
etc.

So how is CNT pronounced in mixed company?
I'm actually serious.

Re:How long until someone whines....

[bxwatso]

NASA does waste money. IMO, the manned space program has been a complete waste of money since the last Moon shot. NASA as a whole, however, has some bright spots.

This reminds me of IBM, which in the 80's was a huge, bloated, money wasting pig. Despite this, they generated more patents and innovations than any other company on earth (ex: they invented the relational database, but Ellison made a fortune on it). Like Xerox, they rarely turned their innovations into valuable products.

I think that a hugely well funded organization with no purpose (Parc, Watson Labs, NASA) provides niches for innovators to spread their wings. That is, until marketing gets involved.

Obligatory

[CrazyJim1]

YAY NASA! Go inanimate carbon rod!

Re:How long until someone whines....

[Fission86]

the problem with nasa is that it IS a government run institution, which means that politicians have a decently sized say in how it's run.

now this wouldn't be a problem if politicians were well educated or atleast made an effort to learn about a program before saying "let's take in a new direction," but they're not, they're dumb as hell and love to change things at the first sign of trouble.

of course this might just go straight back to john q. taxpayer, who isn't very smart either and doesn't understand what CNTs are and doesn't see NASA being worth the "DoD sized" budget that they think NASA has http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1000/1, but john q. taxpayer understands "nasa goes to moon again" as something tangible and worth while. while i won't argue against it being tangible or worth while, it definitely isn't the best way to spend the limited amount of time/money that nasa is given

The actual patent

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Patent found here

Abstract:
"A non-catalytic process for the production of carbon nanotubes includes supplying an electric current to a carbon anode and a carbon cathode which have been securely positioned in the open atmosphere with a gap between them. The electric current creates an electric arc between the carbon anode and the carbon cathode, which causes carbon to be vaporized from the carbon anode and a carbonaceous residue to be deposited on the carbon cathode. Inert gas [*] is pumped into the gap to flush out oxygen, thereby preventing interference with the vaporization of carbon from the anode and preventing oxidation of the carbonaceous residue being deposited on the cathode. The anode and cathode are cooled while electric current is being supplied thereto. When the supply of electric current is terminated, the carbonaceous residue is removed from the cathode and is purified to yield carbon nanotubes."

I assume this means she's identified the electric properties of the metal catalyst as the significant factor in the success of those techniques, and simply, with genius, replaces those properties with an electric current. You could probably do the same thing using a metamaterial or an EM radiation cavity, if you wanted to bypass the patent.

* "Intert gas" is usually helium, or the much, much cheaper alternative of nitrogen.