New material absorbs 99.96% of light, Guinness World Record darkest substance.

[Cyparagon]

It was a hypothetical proposed by Alaskan. Read the thread. Try to keep up.

 

[Accutronitis]

It was a hypothetical proposed by Alaskan. Read the thread. Try to keep up.

But you quoted me, Twice, Speak for your self....

 

[Cyparagon]

To recap:

Alaskan: "some of this stuff in a very fine powder dispersed into the air..."
Cyp: "That would be basically soot, by the way"
Accutronitis: "nuh uh!"
Cyp: "you're wrong, accutronitis, and here's why..."
Accutronitis: "but it's not a powder"
Cyp: "I'm aware. It was a hypothetical alaskan proposed"
Accutronitis: "But you're talking to ME"

You're irredeemably hopeless. At this point, I'm not sure if you're dumb, or just playing dumb. Let me know when you gain an ability to keep track of a basic conversation.

 

[Accutronitis]

And you are being disingenuous, Don't put words in my mouth and then call the results "dumb" !

Like I ever said "nuh uh!" ? or "but it's not a powder" OR "But you're talking to ME" ? Get real, If your going to use quotation marks as least quote me honestly and correctly !

What I DID SAY is...

Carbon nanotubes are nothing like "soot"

The point is they are not ground up.....

But you quoted me, Twice

What does that dishonest quoting of me say about you ?

This back and forth is going nowhere and we should both just drop it and walk away while agreeing to disagree........

 

[Encap]

Diamond aside, the carbon allotropes are all quite similar on a small scale.

Grind up carbon rod into the "fine particles suggested above, and you basically get soot.
Grind up charcoal into the "fine particles" suggested above, and you basically get soot.
Grind up graphene into the "fine particles" suggested above, and you basically get soot.
Grind up graphite into the "fine particles" suggested above, and you basically get soot.
Nano-tubes would be no different.

To recap:

Alaskan: "some of this stuff in a very fine powder dispersed into the air..."
Cyp: "That would be basically soot, by the way"
Accutronitis: "nuh uh!"
Cyp: "you're wrong, accutronitis, and here's why..."
Accutronitis: "but it's not a powder"
Cyp: "I'm aware. It was a hypothetical alaskan proposed"
Accutronitis: "But you're talking to ME"

You're irredeemably hopeless. At this point, I'm not sure if you're dumb, or just playing dumb. Let me know when you gain an ability to keep track of a basic conversation.

op:

Seems to be the case that soot is soot and there is a substancial soot community that studies carbon nanotube soot thusreference single-wall carbon nanotube soot is now available from the NIST Standard Reference Materials Program :

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued the world’s first reference material for single-wall carbon nanotube soot. Distantly related to the soot in your fireplace or in a candle flame, nanotube-laden soot is the primary industrial source of single-wall carbon nanotubes, perhaps the archetype of all nanoscale materials. The new NIST material offers companies and researchers a badly needed source of uniform and well-characterized carbon nanotube soot for material comparisons, as well as chemical and toxicity analysis."
"Single units of SRM 2483, “Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (Raw Soot),” are available from the NIST Standard Reference Materials Program at https://www.nist.gov/srm

NIST Safety Data Sheet--Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (Raw Soot)
https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/msds/2483-MSDS.pdf

"The importance of an extensive elemental analysis of single-walled carbon" nanotube soot.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25110357

"A density gradient ultracentrifugation analysis of carbon nanotube soot"
See: A density gradient ultracentrifugation analysis of carbon nanotube soot

:can:

 

[Accutronitis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyparagon View Post To recap:

Alaskan: "some of this stuff in a very fine powder dispersed into the air..."
Cyp: "That would be basically soot, by the way"
Accutronitis: "nuh uh!"
Cyp: "you're wrong, accutronitis, and here's why..."
Accutronitis: "but it's not a powder"
Cyp: "I'm aware. It was a hypothetical alaskan proposed"
Accutronitis: "But you're talking to ME"

You're irredeemably hopeless. At this point, I'm not sure if you're dumb, or just playing dumb. Let me know when you gain an ability to keep track of a basic conversation.

So you going to quote his misquote ? Nice....... :thanks: