Science Crowdfunding campaign announced: Nanotech: from air to space

[RGClark]

Nanotech now has the capability to make the space elevator and private, orbital launchers possible.

It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it.

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568#/

For technical background see:

From nanoscale to macroscale: applications of nanotechnology to production of bulk ultra-strong materials.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2016/02/from-nanoscale-to-macroscale.html

Bob Clark

 

[boogabooga]

:facepalm:

 

[Col_Klonk]

I should start a crowd-funding thing... I could live the high life for a few months, a year.. maybe many years.

Depends on how good a BS'er I'll have to be... Nah.. it's just too much hassle.
:rofl:

 

[APDAF]

I don't get it?

 

[Notebook]

I don't think anybody will get it.

N.

 

[RisingFury]

"Hi! We're a startup! And we think we're smarter than all of the world's scientists put together! Give us money! It's not a scam! Really!!! WHY WON'T YOU BELIEVE ME????"

1. Start up
2. Cash in
3. Sell out
4 Bro down

---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Having read the Indiegogo terms of use, this looks more and more like something that should be taken down:

Prohibited Perks
Campaign Owners are not permitted to offer or provide any of the following as a Perk:
...
any form of financial incentive or participation in any profit sharing;
...

From the campaign:

Early Investor
There is a high probability the proposals described here will work. The intent is create a start-up to develop these technologies. One can imagine this tech with materials a hundreds times stronger than steel and personal aircars would be worth billions. Imagine being an early investor in Apple or Google. Supporters of this crowdfunding campaign will be given that opportunity.

Another thing in the terms of use:

Prohibited Campaigns
Campaign Owners are not permitted to create a Campaign to raise funds for illegal activities, to cause harm to people or property, or to scam others.

While this isn't technically impossible, it smells more and more like a scam to me.



Robert Clark, you have a history of overblown statements, supported by little to no evidence and you have no history of demonstrating any scientific or engineering ability (no, blogging doesn't count). So now you just go out and ask for a quarter of a million dollars, so that you can buy a machine that you won't know how to use, to do a few experiments that have probably been done before and you're promising miracles in return. I think you've gone a little too far this time.

 

[Lmoy]

There's a lot of good reasons we don't have flying cars, and none of them are due to the materials not being strong enough.

Besides that, a space elevator would be kind of like VentureStar. Even if it's physically possible, the initial investment cost is much more than the potential savings on orbital launches, making it completely pointless. With that in mind, a tech demo is not going to get any of its funds back, even if it is successful, and that's a very generous "if".

 

[jedidia]

Huh... I though this was just one of RGClarks tech-posts brimming with unabashed optimism, but it turns out it's actually his crowd-funding campaign. I've checked the forum rules and there seem to be no rules about self-advertisement, but this is a bit over the top... :blink:

 

[RisingFury]

Huh... I though this was just one of RGClarks tech-posts brimming with unabashed optimism, but it turns out it's actually his crowd-funding campaign. I've checked the forum rules and there seem to be no rules about self-advertisement, but this is a bit over the top... :blink:

Yes, I spotted that too. Conveniently, there's been 1 backer, backing $100 since the campaign was posted. How convenient

RGClark can't deliver on these promises and I bet he knows, which makes this a scam.

 

[Urwumpe]

Huh... I though this was just one of RGClarks tech-posts brimming with unabashed optimism, but it turns out it's actually his crowd-funding campaign. I've checked the forum rules and there seem to be no rules about self-advertisement, but this is a bit over the top... :blink:

Well, I find actually quite many things that shout "close the window".

First of all, there is no business plan. Nothing explains you how the money is going to be spend. What is it actually needed for? Are there other sources of funding to reduce the risks?

Next, the page is already full of copyright violations, since the photographs used are not by Clark, but from other researchers. In academic standards, he is falsely taking all the credit for himself there (despite the citation). He does not say of what he is actually capable himself.

There is a lot of claims of "patent pending", which suggests that Clark is having actually having patents pending under his name or the name of his project. There is nothing specified what technology or innovation this patent actually is about. Again, since he does not specify what his own technological competence there is, it is possible that these patents are not pending under his name or the name of his company and he is committing fraud.

Finally, the claims about wire thickness and thrust lack any base. A quick research even reveals that actually the opposite is the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism

As expected by basic high school physics knowledge, air gap and current are responsible for the thrust force, excessive ionization is bad for thrust. A too thin wire would not only have problems providing the needed current, it would also cause more ionization because of the stronger electric field gradient at the same current.

Thus: I don't recommend investing there until the basic defects in the presentation are fixed and a proper offer for investment is presented.

 

[RisingFury]

RGClark: Dream big. Do nothing.

 

[Loru]

I've checked the forum rules and there seem to be no rules about self-advertisement, but this is a bit over the top... :blink:

O-F Staff Note.

Thread is line with forum rules. Our role is not to check scientific validity of the theories put up here but to check if post is "safe to browse" for our members. In our view there is little difference between this campaign and any other crowdfunding / early access project.

If you have any legal complaints, feel free to notify staff using report button.

Of course rules still apply so please keep it civil.

 

[jedidia]

Thread is line with forum rules.

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise, sorry if I gave the impression.

...

Hey, welcome back

 

[Urwumpe]

Hey, welcome back

Hey, I just tested the life without O-F, I have not yet decided to keep it. :lol:

 

[RGClark]

...
Robert Clark, you have a history of overblown statements, supported by little to no evidence and you have no history of demonstrating any scientific or engineering ability (no, blogging doesn't count). So now you just go out and ask for a quarter of a million dollars, so that you can buy a machine that you won't know how to use, to do a few experiments that have probably been done before and you're promising miracles in return. I think you've gone a little too far this time.

Any research proposal could turn out not to succeed. This is actually analogous to getting a research grant from a federal agency, or a venture capital company.

It is important to note, that the federal agency that applied I applied to for a grant in 2009 also didn't think it would work to tie together the nanotubes to get arbitrarily long nanotube electrical cables. But the Rice University team proved it worked in 2011.

So if you want a technical prediction that turned to be valid there's one.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Any research proposal could turn out not to succeed.

That is why you rarely request money for research proposal from private citizens, but from foundations, corporations and governments. They can mitigate the risk of failure or better: The risk of a negative outcome.

But there is a difference. With those, you get controls by your investors. You need to prove your work. With crowdfunding there is hardly any control except what you voluntarily do.

Also, you still do so many technical errors in your application, that its impossible to give you any money. What makes you better than some drunken hobo under a bridge? You are not saying it.

 

[RGClark]

...
Finally, the claims about wire thickness and thrust lack any base. A quick research even reveals that actually the opposite is the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism
As expected by basic high school physics knowledge, air gap and current are responsible for the thrust force, excessive ionization is bad for thrust. A too thin wire would not only have problems providing the needed current, it would also cause more ionization because of the stronger electric field gradient at the same current.
Thus: I don't recommend investing there until the basic defects in the presentation are fixed and a proper offer for investment is presented.

The inverse relation of wire diameter and thrust is discussed on that wikipedia page here:

Corona wire
The corona wire is usually, but not necessarily, connected to the positive terminal of the high voltage power supply. In general, it is made from a small gauge bare conductive wire. While copper wire can be used, it does not work quite as well as stainless steel. Similarly, thinner wire such as 50 gauge tends to work well compared to more common, larger sizes such as 30 gauge, as the stronger electric field around the smaller diameter wire results in better ionisation and a larger corona current.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Corona_wire

The exact relation between wire radius and thrust is discussed here:

Lifter theory.
by Evgenij Barsoukov
Courtesy of Evgenij Barsoukov
Created on April 30, 2002 - JLN Labs - Updated on May 3, 2002
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lftheory.htm#4

Bob Clark

 

[RisingFury]

Any research proposal could turn out not to succeed. This is actually analogous to getting a research grant from a federal agency, or a venture capital company.

Except that research grants are given to scientists or people that have through their work demonstrated the ability to do science. You haven't. All you do is blog.

It is important to note, that the federal agency that applied I applied to for a grant in 2009 also didn't think it would work to tie together the nanotubes to get arbitrarily long cables electrical cables. But the Rice University team proved it worked in 2011.

So what? Have you ever considered that they rejected your proposal because they thought that *you* couldn't do it?

So if you want a technical prediction that turned to be valid there's one.

Bob Clark

Except that you have no scientific training or credentials and you haven't been involved in any similar work. But you want $250 000. Sure.


Also, this isn't a research proposal. Those work by you getting the grant, doing the work and then publishing the results, not holding onto the knowledge for your own financial benefit.

 

[RGClark]

Except that research grants are given to scientists or people that have through their work demonstrated the ability to do science. You haven't. All you do is blog.
So what? Have you ever considered that they rejected your proposal because they thought that *you* couldn't do it?
Except that you have no scientific training or credentials and you haven't been involved in any similar work. But you want $250 000. Sure.
Also, this isn't a research proposal. Those work by you getting the grant, doing the work and then publishing the results, not holding onto the knowledge for your own financial benefit.

My scientific background is in pure mathematics. One advantage of that is looking at the equations and drawing conclusions on their implications. One implication of the equations for ionocraft is that for the corona wire at nanoscale diameters it should provide enough thrust to liftoff carrying its own power supply.

It happens all the time that a university team receives a grant from federal agency to do basic research and they then commercialize the results when they succeed. An example that comes quickly to mind is that of mapping the human genome, whose successful results led to many university research teams setting up their own independent companies.

In regards to the grant proposal that was turned down, this was a successful prediction I made over a decade ago in regards to the electrical conductivity of the nanotubes. Yet the most important aspect of the prediction, that the nanotubes would also maintain their high strength when tied together has still not been tested.

In relation to this crowdfunding campaign I've communicated with several organizations devoted to creating the space elevator. My prediction now is whether it's done by me or another research team, it will now be proven soon that nanotubes can maintain their strength when tied together. That will be a true game changer.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

My scientific background is in pure mathematics. One advantage of that is looking at the equations and drawing conclusions on their implications. One implication of the equations for ionocraft is that for the corona wire at nanoscale diameters it should provide enough thrust to liftoff carrying its own power supply.

Wrong - but who am i to explain physics to you, if you know math. At least you claim so. I have some doubts there:

Your conclusions are based on three equations on your favorite source:

I = k*G*V(V-V0)
F=2*pi*e0*L*V(V-V0)/(d*ln(f_geo/r)))

f_geo is more or less voodoo there, the author provides some approximations without experimental confirmation.

if you paid as much attention to math as I did, you would notice the following relation:

This term really increases slowly with decreasing wire radius r:

[math]Y = d \cdot \ln \left( \frac{f_{geo}}{r} \right)[/math]

But the effect of the term is inverse proportional on the thrust force, the larger term Y, the lower the thrust force:

[math]F=\frac{2 \pi e_0 L V(V-V0)}{Y}[/math]

As predicted by other less esoteric sources and peer reviewed papers: The smaller the wire diameter, the lower the thrust.

Also, you sure know the basic relation between wire diameter, voltage and current?