Hello,


My first attempt with nanotubes.

I don't know if that's "chemically" correct.
I've always been pretty bad at that stuff.

But I think it makes for a nice picture.




Happy Easter weekend

-- 
kurtz le pirate
compagnie de la banquise

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nanotube3.png' (317 KB)

Preview of image 'nanotube3.png'

On 4/4/26 18:41, kurtz le pirate wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> My first attempt with nanotubes.
> 
> I don't know if that's "chemically" correct.
> I've always been pretty bad at that stuff.

    Is this a pure geometric abstraction or a model
    derived from real datas/formulas ?

> But I think it makes for a nice picture.

    Remember of an old experiment :)
           http://la.buvette.org/POV/FromOBJ/p/

    May be, I can revive this project one day or other ?

> Happy Easter weekend

    Thanks, I've got a nice sun over my home for this w-e.

-- 
**                                                            **
*                      tTh des Bourtoulots                     *
*                  http://maison.tth.netlib.re/                *
**                                                            **

Post a reply to this message

Le 2026-04-04 à 12:41, kurtz le pirate a écrit :
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> My first attempt with nanotubes.
> 
> I don't know if that's "chemically" correct.
> I've always been pretty bad at that stuff.

That's pretty much the actual structure of a real nanotube.

> 
> But I think it makes for a nice picture.
> 

Agree.

> 
> 
> 
> Happy Easter weekend
>

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 04.04.26 um 18:41 schrieb kurtz le pirate:

> I don't know if that's "chemically" correct.
> I've always been pretty bad at that stuff.
> 
> But I think it makes for a nice picture.

Cool! And now make a whole space elevator cable of that stuff!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

-- 
VBI BENE, IBI BACTRIA!

Post a reply to this message

https://www.somewhereville.com/2007/07/20/recent-appearances-hessen-nanotech-and-institute-of-physics/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fdcnvdwcj_povray_july2007.jpg' (34 KB)

Preview of image 'fdcnvdwcj_povray_july2007.jpg'

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