New Amazing Fantastic Material

Greenboats Flax27
Greenboats Flax27 - Bcomp https://www.bcomp.ch/news/greenboats-flax27/

 

your own post must not of attracted much attention?
Doesn't have much to do with volcanic rock derived fibers?

 

They are two different metrics; one for mass and the other for vibration absorption.

 

I posted information on this product in this thread first, then started a second thread in the proper section of the forum where this one should have been posted in my opinion.

People interested in one material should be interested in another was my thinking.

 

Article quote in question:

Lets say I have an object and I could use 9% less of it compared to carbon fiber but don't (equal mass), I now have 250X's the vibration absorption.

Let's say I have an object and I use 9% less of it compared to carbon fiber (less mass), I now have 5X's the vibration absorption.

If we use less of this vibration absorbing material (Bcomp), then lower the vibration absorbing factor compared to carbon fiber it shall be.

However I still don't see the math working. Did I read this wrong, or is the original article poorly written and means to indicate something else?

Anyway, the problem I see with Fiberglass, Aramid fibers and Flax is the untreated fibers themselves can hold water/moisture whereas a mineral based Basalt Fiber cannot, correct?

 

I don't think that follows, and I certainly don't think you'd get more vibration absorption by using less material. It's got to be a lot more complicated than that anyway, and quite likely varies according to the structure you're making.

 

Flax, hemp and other natural fibers have been around a long time, they have a difficult time getting traction because they tend to be a bit more difficult to use, and the entire supply chain is geared to more traditional fibers.

If you can only better the properties of more common fibers in a few specific situations, at a higher cost, with long lead times, and minimum order quantities, breaking into the market is tough.

 

About natural fiber composites (ondarvr), one TV program argued against them in a strange claim that they were less recyclable than metals used in car bodies.

James May's Cars of the People
James May's Cars of the People - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May%27s_Cars_of_the_People

The car, East Germany's Trabant, the material Duroplast.

Trabant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

Duroplast - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duroplast

Now of course, a TV program and it's host known for making entertaining but often misleading or inaccurate criticisms in an attempt to mock with humor isn't a leading "Green" expert by any stretch. Showing a Trabant used as a planter for flowers minus it's steel frame is just symbology not science.

However, it does raise the question if some of these products can or should be recycled themselves.

Something as complex as the Bcomp sailboat hull with a recycled PET plastic core once ground up into tiny shards can be made into what future product? It's as if each of these products may give birth to several other products in the future should the desire and technology exists, otherwise they be just more landfill material once expired.

clmanges, thank you for pointing out an inconsistency in the original product text, I do suspect a typo or two in the 5X and 250% sentences.

 

Silicate needles vs continuous fibers?

I do suspect human lungs would be irritated by both, but any worse than the barbed needles of the original fiberglass of the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's?

1978
Fiberglass Tied to Asbestos-Type Lung Disease
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...disease/b59cc085-3c30-4780-a899-a4dd51c6e225/

 

You would think the cancer aspect of fiberglass would be a real concern, but I don't think it ever materialized as a big problem.

That report was from 1978, at that point I'd been in the industry for a long time, and PPE wasn't even on the radar.

For the most part, the polyester/fiberglass industry hasn't been as much of a health hazard as you would expect it to be.

 

Why is that a "strange" claim? Steel, iron and aluminum can be 100% recycled. Heat until it melts and use as feed stock for new steel, iron or aluminum. US EPA statistics show about 1/3 of US steel production in 2018 was recycled old steel. Ferrous Metals: Material-Specific Data | US EPA https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/ferrous-metals-material-specific-data

Recycling composites is more difficult. A typical use for "recycled" composites is as filler for some other application.

 

Yes, recycling composites is challenging.

 

Back in the late 90's VW introduced the 3L Lupo (could achieve 3L/100km fuel usage). Many of its parts were Aluminum for light weight. A few were composite. The paint was some "special" green paint that was damaged if a bird pooped on it. The rear drums were aluminum without a cast iron liner and only lasted a few thousand km. The suspension components were bending and getting the alignment out and had to be frequently replaced or corrected so that you could drive safely. I bought the "regular" VW Lupo with the 1.4L 3 cylinder Tdi engine instead of the aluminum 1.2Tdi of the 3L. My car was fabulous, its parts were made of steel, everything was reliable and the paint didn't fall off. It easily did 110mph on the autobahn and got nearly 1000km range on a tankful. Unfortunately, due to divorcing my German wife I had to leave Germany and so the car had to go also...

Not everything "green" is better. In fact, mostly not in my opinion. We agonize over grams of engine emissions and put unbelievably complicated exhaust systems with their own controllers on cars today, when at the same time we have millions of acres of Federal land burning annually producing more emissions than all of humanity on this planet combined. But no one is hired to cut down the dead wood and process it so it can be cleanly burned in peoples wood stoves. What about every time a volcano erupts and spews out literally thousands of tons of noxious gas, dust, heat into the atmosphere. Every major eruption dwarfs what we do on the planet, yet the only items are legislated are those which makes things comfortable or enable mobility. Apparently neither of those are desirable outcomes from a governance point of view.

 

Just going off my childhood memories, insulation in general went though several generational health and safety improvements in the later 1970's early 1980's.

The ho0ked shaped fibers of fiberglass replaced with strands, the dustablity of mineral wool and loose fill granular insulation changed, and formaldehyde of spray foams went to different chemicals. In the bigger picture it may be viewed that these products were all made more environmentally and human friendly.

 

Cite statistics, please, and name your source.

Burning it is probably not the best use, and the planet got along just fine with forest fires long before we came on the scene.

Again, statistics and source, please. Also, the planet got along fine with the kind of volcanic activity we're all familiar with. Volcanism WAS a major factor in planetary mass extinctions several times in the deep past, but it was typified by events such as one that covered roughly half of India two miles deep in lava.

Read The Ends of the World, by Peter Brannen.