Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Aereospace Materials Used To Build Endless Pipe
Science Daily ^ | August 17, 2012 | Science Daily

Posted on 08/19/2012 8:25:56 AM PDT by Wuli

"Carbon fiber fabric and lightweight honeycomb materials, plus mobile manufacturing platform, make infinite pipeline technology cheaper and greener while boosting local economies."

-snip-

"Instead of conventional concrete or steel, Ehsani's new pipe consists of a central layer of lightweight plastic honeycomb, similar to that used in the aerospace industry, sandwiched between layers of resin-saturated carbon fiber fabric."

"In combination, these materials are as strong, or stronger, than conventional steel and concrete pipes, which are time-consuming and expensive to manufacture and transport."

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; gas; oil
American made, American invented and just in time for the latest surge in American domestic fossil fuel developments.
1 posted on 08/19/2012 8:26:02 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Interesting idea. The binding resins, if capable of resistance to attack by hydrocarbons, would make for reliable pipelines for transporting oil and natural gas, and would have “give” also.


2 posted on 08/19/2012 8:31:37 AM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

>>American made, American invented and just in time for...

...Myth & Co. to sell it to sinopec / the Chinese popular front for Royal Eurotrash?

Ping
Pong
Ping
Pong

Left 2, Right 2 - American middle class ZERO.


3 posted on 08/19/2012 8:37:05 AM PDT by OldEarlGray (The POTUS is FUBAR until the White Hut is sanitized with American Tea)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldEarlGray
Can't allow this to be employed. naturalists will claim it's bad for enviorment and is not natural
4 posted on 08/19/2012 8:47:57 AM PDT by shadeaud ( “Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8”. Just doing my duty a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shadeaud; Carry_Okie

Can't allow this to be employed. naturalists will claim it's bad for enviorment and is not natural

And lookie who who funds the "naturalists"....

====================

So, who are these guys at the NRDC? Well, it’s an interesting list.

Natural Resources Defense Council Board of Trustees

Chairman

Frederick A. O. Schwartz, Jr.

Partner, Cravath Swaine & Moore; (a British Law Firm) Former New York City Corporation Counsel (under Mayor Ed Koch)

Executive Director

Frances Beinecke

Co-founder, The New York League of Conservation Voters (with RFK Jr.)

Trustee

Laurance Rockefeller

Private philanthropist; Former Chairman, Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Former chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality; Trustee, the Laurance Rockefeller Charitable Trust

Trustee

Thomas A. Troyer

Partner, Caplin & Drysdale; Former Chairman, the Foundation Lawyers’ Group; Former member of the IRS Commissioner’s Advisory Group on Tax-exempt Organizations; (no conflict of interest there?) Board member, the Carnegie Corporation of New York

Pres & Co-founder

John H. Adams

Former Assistant US Attorney (New York)

Vice Chair

Adam Albright

Board member, Redefining Progress; Board Chair, Population Communications International; Program Chair, Conservation International

Vice Chair

Alan Horn

Chairman & Chief Operating Officer, Warner Brothers

Vice Chair

Burks Lapham

Chairman, Concern Inc.; Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (a relatively benign group)

Vice Chair

George Woodwell

Founding Director, Woods Hole Research Center; Co-founder, Environmental Defense Fund (they banned DDT, Alar, etc.)

Co-founder & Treas

Richard E. Ayres

Partner, Howrey & Simon; Former Chairman, National Clean Air Coalition

Trustee

Patricia Bauman

Member, Pew Environmental Health Commission; Former Manager, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences; Co-Director, The Bauman Foundation

Trustee

William Richardson

Former US Secretary of Energy; Former US Ambassador to the United Nations; Former US Congressman (D-NM)

Trustee

Michael Finnegan

Managing Partner, J.P Morgan Securities

 

Is this "Natural Resources" defense, or natural resource SUPPLIERS defense?

Now, let’s look at who gives the NRDC money, shall we?

Top Funders of NRDC

Funder

Total Donated

Comments

Descriptions in bold are major energy investors

Pew Charitable Trusts

$11,568,000.00

Sunoco money

Blue Moon Fund

$7,818,735.00

This is W. Alton Jones Money (Citgo)

Energy Foundation

$6,965,000.00

Launched by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and The Rockefeller Foundation. The Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation joined as a funding partner in 1996, and The McKnight Foundation joined in 1998. In 1999, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation joined to support two programs: the U.S. Clean Energy Program (now the Climate Program) and the China Sustainable Energy Program. In 2002, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation joined to support advanced technology transportation and clean energy for the West.

John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

$5,636,500.00

Bankers Life and Casualty money (investment portfolio unknown)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

$4,681,097.00

Your tax dollars at work subsidizing the interests of whom?

Turner Foundation

$3,795,167.00

CNN, and a lot more

Public Welfare Foundation

$3,500,000.00

Too confounded to determine

Joyce Foundation

$3,309,445.00

Timber Wealth

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

$3,022,340.00

General Motors

Ford Foundation

$2,733,300.00

Ford

Beinecke Foundation

$2,150,000.00

Major player at Yale.

J. M. Kaplan Fund

$2,057,500.00

William Bingham Foundation

$1,995,000.00

Homeland Foundation

$1,733,000.00

San Francisco Foundation

$1,654,739.00

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

$1,377,510.00

Them again

McKnight Foundation

$1,365,500.00

Robert Sterling Clark Foundation

$1,310,000.00

Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation

$1,310,000.00

Bauman Family Foundation

$1,226,000.00

Nathan Cummings Foundation

$1,220,000.00

Educational Foundation of America

$1,210,000.00

Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund

$1,205,000.00

Mertz Gilmore Foundation

$1,201,000.00

Carnegie Corporation of New York

$1,200,000.00

Park Foundation

$1,198,010.00

New York Community Trust

$1,186,821.00

Overbrook Foundation

$1,182,585.00

Surdna Foundation

$1,147,000.00

Bullitt Foundation

$1,122,675.00

William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

$1,075,000.00

Note also the participation with the Energy Foundation

Quod erat demonstratum.

Most, if not all of these people at NRDC are energy investors.

=================

http://www.wildergarten.com/wp_pages/articles/nrdc_energy_racketeering.html

(with the usual Kudos to FReeper Carry Okie)

5 posted on 08/19/2012 8:56:45 AM PDT by OldEarlGray (The POTUS is FUBAR until the White Hut is sanitized with American Tea)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

What about secondary containment pipe? You can’t move gasoline without it. Plus, I can’t imagine this saving much money using carbon and epoxy. Also, mandrel-wound composite pipe is structurally inferior to pipe centrifugally cast inside a hollow mandrel. When they can come up with a mobile centrifugal casting process then they’ll really have something. And they wont need expensive carbon fiber to overcome the strength compromise. But none of this could work in secondary containment applications.


6 posted on 08/19/2012 9:03:46 AM PDT by BillyBonebrake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: factoryrat

From the article;

“That is a big, big breakthrough in the pipeline industry that has implications for natural gas, oil, water, and sewer pipes.”

These guys are gonna get rich! But they didn’t build that.


7 posted on 08/19/2012 9:09:36 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Carbon fiber is NOT cheap and when it breaks, you need to replace the entire component. It shatters on failure.
Great for F1 car chassis as the shattering absorbs the impact. Then you throw it away and build a new one.


8 posted on 08/19/2012 9:20:54 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Aereospace Materials Used To Build Endless Pipe

Sounds like a bit of oversell...

9 posted on 08/19/2012 10:45:15 AM PDT by mikrofon (Get the gov't out of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
It is a real shame when otherwise brilliant engineers worry about "jobs, local economies, indigenous peoples, social justice, green, blah, blah, blah." He does talk about practical engineering objectives -- lower cost, improved performance, shorter construction time, improved reliability, better logistics -- but he just has to toss in "feel good du jour" PC crap to get government dolts to pay attention:

Reminds me of the village steel mills China tried to create in the 1960s.

Lastly, what NDT techniques does he propose to examine the pipeline material for wall thinning, possible erosion/corrosion, etc? I doubt ultrasound or xray imaging is going to work very well on such composite materials.

10 posted on 08/19/2012 10:49:17 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

An endless pipe is a torus. Whattayagonnadowithat?


11 posted on 08/19/2012 11:29:36 AM PDT by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

the science info is the science info

the political correctness crap is from the editors&writers at science daily

i subscribe to science daily’s free email updates for the science - “what’s happening” - and menatlly bypass the embedded editorials in any artiole

I do that only because they do cover a wide range of “what’s new” in science, and I don’t have to buy
a bunch of print or electronic versions of other
science magazines

write to them about ther embedded editorials; as I found, you likely will get no answer at all


12 posted on 08/19/2012 12:20:58 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

You could probably ask the scientists, about:

“Lastly, what NDT techniques does he propose to examine the pipeline material for wall thinning, possible erosion/corrosion, etc? I doubt ultrasound or xray imaging is going to work very well on such composite materials.”

by Email at: UA@engr.arizona.edu

It’s a good question.


13 posted on 08/19/2012 12:39:55 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Zathras

“Carbon fiber is NOT cheap and when it breaks, you need to replace the entire component. It shatters on failure.
Great for F1 car chassis as the shattering absorbs the impact. Then you throw it away and build a new one.”

All the transportation expense of all the heavy steel and cememt is not “cheap” either.

There are many types of “carbon fiber” materials, depending on the precursor material(s), the manufacturing process of the carbon fibers, and beyond that the type of materials the carbon fibers, or the carbon fiber end product, is integrated, or not, with other materials.

http://web.utk.edu/~mse/Textiles/CARBON%20FIBERS.htm

It is the resulting end-product materials that matter, and among them the brittleness of each is different.

Also, as the article pointed out, the particular carbon fiber sheets they plan to use are being integrated with a nother product, making for a composite structure of the walls of the pipe.

Also, as pipelines are buried, for the most part, it is not “direct impact” that their stability is most concerned about.

Lastly, when reading the “near endless” manner of constructing the pipe, it would seem that “patching a break” whould involve similar methods, so it’s not likely that “a whole section of pipe” would have to be replaced.


14 posted on 08/19/2012 1:02:42 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
the political correctness crap is from the editors & writers at science daily

I don't think so as these are direct quotes from Professor Ehsani. But there could be a couple of explanations: 1) the writer was making up quotations out of whole cloth or 2) the writer was subtly encouraging the professor to add the PC commentary by asking leading questions, e.g., "Do you think your work will help create jobs in impoverished third world countries?"

But I think most professors, even in the hard sciences and engineering, are steeped enough in PC crap to spout this on their own in order to keep the funding tap turned on.

15 posted on 08/19/2012 1:13:04 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BillyBonebrake

“What about secondary containment pipe? You can’t move gasoline without it.”

Why is that an issue?

“I can’t imagine this saving much money using carbon and epoxy.”

You might be right, or then again the lead scientist/engineer maybe crunched the numbers, including the alternative numbers for all the cement & steel, and considering their transportation costs, and thinks there is an economic opportunity. I don’t know that answer, they do.

“Also, mandrel-wound composite pipe is structurally inferior to pipe centrifugally cast inside a hollow mandrel.”

I wonder if that holds true for “mandrel wound” pipe made with the different materials involved in making this pipe.

“When they can come up with a mobile centrifugal casting process then they’ll really have something.”

They talk about a mobile process they intend to engineer (not finished on that yet they say) for their “wound mandrel” method. Given your first question about “wound mandrel” cast pipes, I think your last question requires their answer to your first.

“But none of this could work in secondary containment applications.”

Why? I’m ignorant and just asking.


16 posted on 08/19/2012 1:13:53 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BillyBonebrake

“What about secondary containment pipe? You can’t move gasoline without it.”

Why is that an issue?

“I can’t imagine this saving much money using carbon and epoxy.”

You might be right, or then again the lead scientist/engineer maybe crunched the numbers, including the alternative numbers for all the cement & steel, and considering their transportation costs, and thinks there is an economic opportunity. I don’t know that answer, they do.

“Also, mandrel-wound composite pipe is structurally inferior to pipe centrifugally cast inside a hollow mandrel.”

I wonder if that holds true for “mandrel wound” pipe made with the different materials involved in making this pipe.

“When they can come up with a mobile centrifugal casting process then they’ll really have something.”

They talk about a mobile process they intend to engineer (not finished on that yet they say) for their “wound mandrel” method. Given your first question about “wound mandrel” cast pipes, I think your last question requires their answer to your first.

“But none of this could work in secondary containment applications.”

Why? I’m ignorant and just asking.


17 posted on 08/19/2012 1:14:21 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moltke
An endless pipe is a torus. Whattayagonnadowithat?

Fill two of them with oil & float down the Mississippi. One for you, one for your cooler.

18 posted on 08/19/2012 1:20:57 PM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

Someone’s put enough water back into the Mississippi to do that? OK, I’m game as long as I get to stock the cooler.


19 posted on 08/19/2012 1:48:58 PM PDT by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

I can’t get my head around anyone making a pipe like that within a another pipe like that in the field. EPA rules for underground systems carrying just about anything other than water require secondary containment, including petroleum.

As far as single pipe, something field-fabricated would save a ton of money in terms of labor and logistics. But I’m not sure how the expense of carbon fiber would fit into that equation. What I meant earlier is that if they used fiberglass which is cheaper with a stronger fiberglass process (centrifugal casting) then they would ahve something really cool ... but still the whole idea just seems like a pipe dream. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;^)


20 posted on 08/19/2012 2:12:02 PM PDT by BillyBonebrake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BillyBonebrake

“I can’t get my head around anyone making a pipe like that within a another pipe like that in the field. EPA rules for underground systems carrying just about anything other than water require secondary containment, including petroleum.”

and with that comment you clarified for me the image of a “secondary containment” pipe; eureka, I see

and your right, the scientists nor the authors addressed that point, at least not directly

but, in their defense, it was I not them, in my comments alone, where I made a connection to the fossil fuels industry; so maybe, at this point anyway, the inventors are not looking at that industry for their pipes; and that would leave what, water??, drainage, sewer & flood control systems?? any guesses?


21 posted on 08/19/2012 4:15:36 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Water is a good guess - irrigation, drainiage, condensate, anything non-toxic, non-hydrocarbon ... and a lot of other stuff if its installed above ground. I actually used to sell composite pipe. Its cool stuff.


22 posted on 08/19/2012 4:48:09 PM PDT by BillyBonebrake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson