On 06/04/2026 14:34, Bald Eagle wrote:
> kurtz le pirate <kur### [at] freefr> wrote:
> 
>> I don't know if that's "chemically" correct.
>> I've always been pretty bad at that stuff.
> 
> This should be chemically correct. *
> 
> * there is a certain strain energy that cannot be exceeded for stable molecules.
> So, as long as your nanotube has a certain minimum radius, then it should be
> fine.   That's not to say that they've actually made/discovered on of that exact
> size, just that there's nothing obviously wrong with the theoretical structure.
> Usually when making things like this, there are the fundamental thermodynamic
> considerations (is it stable?) but there can be overriding kinetic realities
> that control what actually happens. (Structure A is less stable but forms
> faster, so it out-competes structure B and winds up unexpectedly being the major
> reaction product.)
> 
> The only other thing that's "missing" is the filling of the empty valence
> orbitals on those dangling edge carbons.   What is at the edge of a crystal?
> This is where a lot of interesting research goes on in the field of surface
> chemistry.
> You could also likely terminate those sites with methyl groups, alkenes (double
> bonds) or some sort of aldehyde, ketone, or carboxylic acid.
> 
> You can also "dope" nanotubes with small quantities of other elements to replace
> some of the carbons - boron, nitrogen, silicon, ... to imbue them with various
> useful properties.
> 
> - BE
> 
> 


I should have guessed as much when I saw your email. You’re a true 
chemist for whom certain concepts are obvious but remain a bit abstract 
for others—at least for me. In any case, your explanations are 
“relatively” simple and offer some good insigh.


In this image, at least, the nanotube is just a pretext for exploring 
and applying a few mathematical transformations.


-- 
kurtz le pirate
compagnie de la banquise

Post a reply to this message