backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 25 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on May 19 at 9:28 AM


A University of Houston Professor is teaching an old dog -- the polycarbonate plastic found inside compact discs -- new tricks, thanks to carbon nanotube-improved conductivity. The resulting material could be soon used to protect jet fighter circuits, as well as see deployment in consumer electronics  (Source: Memorex)
The jets of the future may have something in common with your compact discs

Polycarbonate, the inexpensive plastic found in compact discs and DVDs, is a remarkable compound with excellent optical and mechanical properties.  However, despite its strengths and ease of manufacturing, it has seen limited use because of one key limitation -- its extremely poor conduction.

Now, Shay Curran, an associate professor of physics at the University of Houston, hopes to change that.  He states, "While its mechanical and optical properties are very good, polycarbonate is a non-conductive plastic. That means its ability to carry an electrical charge is as good as a tree, which is pretty awful.  Imagine that this remarkable plastic can now not only have good optical and mechanical properties, but also good electrical characteristics. By being able to tailor the amount of nanotubes we can add to the composite, we also can change it from the conductivity of silicon to a few orders below that achieved by metals."

Professor Curran hopes to deploy the polycarbonate/carbon nanotube mix in the electronics inside future jet fighters to improve their integrity and protect these highly critical systems against electric pulses or surges.  Furthermore, he says similar coatings could block EMF interference and safeguard personal electronics like phones and computers from thermal/electrical charge buildup.  Thermal and electrical charge buildup is a leading cause of computer failure.

Now that an optimum formulation has been determined, the key to commercializing the tech and helping it to see such exotic deployments will be to turn it into a printable ink.  The ink would be "painted" directly onto airplane electronics and other devices.  Typically, the shielding in airline electronics is made of metal, which is heavier, less elastic, and likely more expensive.

The team also has yielded a breakthrough that may help the rest of the nanotube industry blossom.  The team ditched the typical acid bath that is used to remove soot from the nanotubes and improve their conductivity.  The acid treatment typically damages the tubes and exposes them to defects.  Instead, the team used centrifuging as a means to clean the nanotubes.  The result was a process that took slightly longer, but did less damage to the tubes, yielding greater conductivities.

Professor Corran says that his team is just starting to unlock the polycarbonate/nanotube composites' potential.  He states, "While these are phenomenal results, finding these unusual highly conductive properties has not even begun to scratch the surface.  There is hard science behind it, so developing it further will require significant investment. And we are very thankful to the Air Force for giving us this auspicious start."

His new work is published titled "Electrical Transport Measurements of Highly Conductive Carbon Nanotube/Poly(bisphenol A carbonate) Composite" in the Journal of Applied Physics.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lighter weights too...
By Jansen (blog) on 5/18/2009 1:19:39 PM , Rating: 3
This could also cut weight and bulk from aircraft, which would increase fuel efficiency and increase cruising and top speeds.

With the increasing amounts of electronics and wiring in cars, this could have automotive applications as well.




RE: Lighter weights too...
By ZeroOne on 5/18/2009 1:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
....in buildings to...


RE: Lighter weights too...
By nixoofta on 5/18/2009 6:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they'll make hats?

:P


RE: Lighter weights too...
By Jedi2155 on 5/18/2009 9:59:05 PM , Rating: 4
Say goodbye the tin foil hat and hello to the polycarbonate!


RE: Lighter weights too...
By StevoLincolnite on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Lighter weights too...
By Murloc on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/19/2009 7:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
[USAF sarcasm] You're thinking of Air Force pilots who drive sky trucks anyway. Navy pilots generally can't get McDonald's at sea. [/USAF sarcasm]


RE: Lighter weights too...
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/18/2009 3:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel efficiency, yes.
Top speed, not at all.

Top speed is limited by aerodynamic drag. Acceleration is the one limited by thrust/weight ratio.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By steven975 on 5/18/2009 3:22:01 PM , Rating: 3
Technically, that is correct. Ultimately, top speed is limited by drag.

In aircraft, however, 2 factors limit top speed before drag ever enters the equation.

1. Thermal limits. A F-111 can do mach 3.2, but the aircraft would have to be written off as it would melt the wings. Yes, this has happened, and the pilot never flew again.

2. Sonic/shock waves. A F-18 (A-D anyway), had a fixed intake. Its fixed intake design limits it to Mach 1.7. The aircraft could go over that, but the engines would probably disintegrate.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By 91TTZ on 5/18/2009 4:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thermal limits. A F-111 can do mach 3.2, but the aircraft would have to be written off as it would melt the wings. Yes, this has happened, and the pilot never flew again.


Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of an F-111 going mach 3.2. This sounds similar to the stories I've heard about Mig-25's.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By steven975 on 5/18/2009 4:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
My dad flew them for over a decade.

and a KC-135 can go over Mach 1 in a dive when running from a Mig-21 too.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By Smilin on 5/18/2009 5:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
No it can't

...or more precisely...the pilot can take it over Mach 1 in a dive but he'll be flying at that speed for the rest of his life.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By KGBird on 5/18/2009 8:51:33 PM , Rating: 3
Technically the answer is yes. An old buddy of mine flew KC-135s and pushed one past Mach 1. The catch is, he did it at high altitude, where the speed of sound is lower. Not sure what altitude he was at.


By inperfectdarkness on 5/19/2009 9:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
that would be the very first time i've heard of an f-111 going mach 3 in level flight. i know that mig-25's can get up there but it will melt the engines.

realistically...mach 3 is pretty close to the limit an aircraft can travel with SUBSONIC intake speeds. the x-43 & x-51 both demonstrate this. with ROCKET propulsion (or some other type of propulsion yet to be invented) this is not an issue. however, a scram-jet is necessary when you're going significantly > mach 3.

it's also improbable that you'll ever see manned combat aircraft flying at hypersonic speeds. the sheer mechanics of getting a plane up to that speed (not including sub-orbital descent) are mind boggling; not to mention the life-support systems that would be required. turning at these speeds would result in instant g-loc for anyone human.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By stromgald30 on 5/18/2009 4:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
1. Do you have any proof of this? I think there are many other limits to the aircraft other than the wings melting off.

2. That's not true. The engines won't come close to disintegrating until probably Mach 3. That's the problem they ran into with the SR-71. The heat increase going across the strong, Mach 3 shock makes the air too hot for the engine blades to handle.

The fixed intake of the F/A-18 limits the aircraft speed because going past that speed would cause the shocks in the inlet to strengthen to a point that it chokes off airflow into the engine, causing the engine to stall.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By Smilin on 5/18/2009 5:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
2. The airflow in the F/A-18 is already "choking" the engine by design in supersonic flight so the engine doesn't fail. If you get above a certain speed the high pressure edge of the airflow will reach the intake full force and you'll have a mechanical (not thermal) failure of the compressor.

Older jets like the F-14 had a less elegant solution of using a door that lowered during high speed to restrict airflow...We also lost so many F-14s in the mid to late 90s that the Navy briefly grounded all of them then banned them from supersonic flight until the cause could be determined.

The SR-71 used the solution of essentially turning the turbojet into a ramjet at high speed by moving the nosecone to bypass the turbines.


RE: Lighter weights too...
By kaborka on 5/18/2009 3:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
Top speed on the F-15 is limited by the melting point of the canopy!


question
By Smilin on 5/18/2009 3:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
How would this protect from EM or an EMP?

If you make it conductive it will generate voltage if placed in a magnetic field right?

Plastic isn't succeptible to EM not because it's plastic...it's because it's not conductive. Change one thing and it changes the other.

I may just not get it. Can someone 'splain?




RE: question
By GeorgeH on 5/18/2009 3:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
RE: question
By Smilin on 5/18/2009 4:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, still not following. That's the traditional method of dealing with EM (there are copper "blankets" in many emp sensitive weapons). I'm not following how making a plastic conductive wouldn't necessitate the same.


RE: question
By murray13 on 5/18/2009 4:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
If you get the conductivity of plastic close enough to metal you can get rid of the metal cage and have a plastic one.

My reservation with it is I'm not sure if I want plastic protecting the electronics that keep the plane I'm on in the air. Most people have NO idea of the stress (mechanical and thermal) put on aircraft avionics.


RE: question
By Smilin on 5/18/2009 5:26:07 PM , Rating: 3
That makes sense.

I hear ya about the mechanical and thermal stress though.

So in the Navy we frequently had issues with the com system in our aircraft. The pilot would be ready to launch then suddenly signal me for a troubleshooter and point to his ear. Here we go again I thought.

The Tshooter would come out, talk with the pilot for a sec then head to the back of the plane. He would pop out this big box (worth almost six figures) drop it from about a two feet onto the deck a few times, throw it back in the plane and a few minutes later we'd get a thumbs up and launch.

I finally had to ask what this was all about. It turns out the arrested landings would smack some cards loose in the thing. They could do this "drop fix" a handful of times before it would just completely ruin it and they'd have to send it off for repair (who probably just replaced the worn out duct tape).


RE: question
By KGBird on 5/18/2009 9:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
We're forgetting one thing... Even with a Faraday cage around selected electronics, if a wire runs to those electronics, they are no longer protected. The EMP will simply travel along the wire.


centrifuge the intertubes!
By MadMan007 on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: centrifuge the intertubes!
By GeorgeH on 5/18/2009 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
The "Internet Tubes" Mesohippus has been dead for awhile now - how's about joining the rest of Proconsul africanus and moving on to the Miocene already? ;)


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki