Dr. Brad Edwards’ thoughts on the Pugno study

Forwarded from Andy Price, and with the kind permission of Dr. Edwards, following are his initial thoughts on the Pugno study;

“The paper by Pugno has been beaten around a bit.  I just read the paper, very interesting.  Let me run through a few thoughts on it.

I start off worrying when someone creates his own theory and simulation to model everything from nanoscale to megascale (nanotubes to Earth) especially when there are plenty of molecular models out there.  But having said that, let me assume his simulation is perfect for a nanotube.  He appears to have scripted the paper to claim the cable will break (he repeats this claim at least four times throughout the paper often with the note that it is his opinion) – a second worry when an author appears to be trying to prove a conclusion.  Here are a few notes I made on his discussion:
– references and then ignores coatings to eliminate atomic oxygen erosion.
– states radiation damage will cause defects but doesn’t discuss the amount.  Damage seen in experiments is minimal for carbon fibers in the radiation fields around Earth.
– I may be wrong but it appeared to me that Pugno was using a macroscopic model to represent a damaged nanotube as a solid tube with a physical hole in it.  He certainly discusses this and then discusses missing bonds so I would be curious to know which one he went with.  I will need to look at this again.
– uses an erroneous theoretical maximum of 100GPa for the tensile strength of CNTs.  CNTs have been measured at strengths from 150GPa to 200 GPa and he references one that is at 109GPa.  His final 30GPa is directly related to this.
– uses the strength of long CNT bundles to prove his arguments.  CNT bundles are not a valid comparison because they can have very short CNTs and limited interaction.
– assumes that all CNTs will be damaged (it appears to be on a 100 nm length) and that none of them interact with each other in a supportive manner.
This is from a quick read of the paper but essentially as far as I understand, Pugno makes some poor assumptions to argue that there will be damage to all the CNTs in a ribbon, calculates that each CNT will degrade 70% and then jumps to the conclusion that the ribbon will degrade 70%.  As far as I can tell he doesn’t look at or consider the structure of the CNT threads, the interactions of the CNTs, real defect type and frequency, techniques to reduce defects in production, the real defect production rates in space, the maximum measured CNT strengths, …  The paper didn’t strike me as very good scientific work.
Having said all of this, people will view my remarks as biased – a reasonable assumption.  I have attempted to be objective because I would like to know the answers as well.  I would like to request that others examine this material as well.
I applaud the attempt to examine the materials issue, but don’t think Pugno has provided a good analysis in this paper.”

Thank you Andy and Dr. Edwards.

3 thoughts on “Dr. Brad Edwards’ thoughts on the Pugno study

  1. Pingback: Velcro City Tourist Board » Blog Archive » Links for 11-06-2006

  2. Tom Kalbfus

    It does seem that some people don’t want it to work, just as some people don’t want us to go to Mars, just as some people only want to send unmanned space probes to the planet. Instead of voicing this opinion, they simply go about proving how their opponent’s goals will never work.

    People who don’t want something to happen like to throw up metal obstacles and then say that these challenges are just too daunting and that solutions should never be attempted as they are a waste of time and effort.

    As for me, I was born in 1967 at the time of the Apollo program and have waited my whole life for the real space age to actually begin, that space age where space travel is not an astronautic spectacular and a news even deserving of coverage by the media or else the mission is just so boing that no one is interested except for hard core space enthusiasts.

    Me? I’m not so interested in other people’s space walks unless what’s being accomplished really is a first, such as landing people on the Moon or Mars, or commecial space applications that have never been tried before. When space travel is routine and not merely boring is when the true space age begins.

  3. Brian

    Hi Tom.

    It does seem that some people don’t want it to work, just as some people don’t want us to go to Mars, just as some people only want to send unmanned space probes to the planet. Instead of voicing this opinion, they simply go about proving how their opponent’s goals will never work.

    I don’t think it’s that so much as they’ve lowered their expecations. The problem is that some of those people are determined that their lower expectations must apply across the board.

    It’s a diseased form of nosey parkerism.

    Mind you – there is a legitmate place for critics and criticism. But nay-saying for it’s own sake is icky.

Comments are closed.