Comments for The American Ceramic Society

Comment on Video: 3-D printed ‘Hyperelastic Bone’ regenerates bone tissue by Faye Oney

Faye Oney — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:38:10 +0000

In reply to Adam Jakus. Thank you for the additional information, Adam!

Comment on Video: 3-D printed ‘Hyperelastic Bone’ regenerates bone tissue by Adam Jakus

Adam Jakus — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:12:26 +0000

and the original paper was published in Science Translational Medicine.
http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/8/358/358ra127
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf7704

There have been numerous additional publications that use Hyperelastic Bone since.

Comment on Video: 3-D printed ‘Hyperelastic Bone’ regenerates bone tissue by Adam Jakus

Adam Jakus — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:10:36 +0000

Hyperelastic Bone was actually first produced and demonstrated at Northwestern University in 2012 by Adam Jakus and Ramille Shah, and since 2017 is being commercially sold through Jakus’ and Shah’s Advanced materials company, Dimension Inx (www.Dimensioninx.com), along with many other advanced 3D-printable ceramic and non-ceramic materials – all part of the 3D-Painting technology. As a technology, it is now quite advanced, commercialized, and underway for FDA clearance. The NSF story highlighted the original academic research done years ago, and not the current commercial availability or use of the Hyperelastic Bone material. Questions and inquiries about Hyperelastic Bone and other advanced materials can be sent to inquiry@dimensioninx.com

Comment on Making cheaper, small-diameter carbon nanotubes from carbon dioxide by Faye Oney

Faye Oney — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:53:42 +0000

In reply to Keith Humfeld. Hello Keith, thank you for your comments and insights. Those are great questions. I always have my eye out for articles about research that reuses or recycles CO2 into other viable products. Thanks again for your input!

Comment on Vitrification process turns radioactive waste into durable glass for safe disposal by Faye Oney

Faye Oney — Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:07:25 +0000

In reply to Connie Herman. Hello Connie, thank you for your comments. I was just reporting on what PNNL was currently doing at Hanford...but I would be happy to write a follow-up piece on what SRNL has been doing.

Comment on Vitrification process turns radioactive waste into durable glass for safe disposal by Connie Herman

Connie Herman — Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:38:15 +0000

While this represents good progress for the new Direct Feed Low Activity Waste flowsheet at Hanford, the article does not acknowledge the significant progress that the DOE’s Savannah River Site has been making in treating and safely storing its radioactive waste since 1996. The Defense Waste Processing Facility and Saltstone Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site are successfully managing and immobilizing their High-Level Waste in a borosolicate glass and Low Level Waste in a grout wasteform. The Savannah River National Laboratory used their knowledge and lessons learned from development of these flowsheets and successful operations to demonstrate Hanford Low Activity Waste vitrification with actual Hanford waste from a continuously fed and poured scaled joule-heated melter in 2001. The demonstration represented the Hanford baseline flowsheet at the time and allowed the design of the Waste Treatment Plant to advance.

Comment on Making cheaper, small-diameter carbon nanotubes from carbon dioxide by Keith Humfeld

Keith Humfeld — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 16:18:45 +0000

This is amazing, this is wonderful, this is necessary.

The article probably ought to mention the existing company that installs hardware on smokestacks on concrete plants (around 1000 ppm CO2) that turns a vast majority of the carbon into carbon nanotubes and largely returns the oxygen to help power the plant. If my memory serves me correctly those are also SWNTs and the process is electrochemical in a salt bath. I don’t know how the quality of those SWNTs compare to those produced in the new work from Vanderbilt.

One of the best things about this technology, from an environmental viewpoint, is that the carbon atoms are relegated to a very stable state of matter; they are removed from the carbon cycle. Without pretending that we have economical needs for this much mass of CNTs, what would the cost be to use this technology (in many instances in parallel) to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as we generate today, including transportation and environmentally responsible storage? How can we get that cost down? Is there a less expensive way to produce the Al2O3 catalyst if we’re not particular about CNT diameter?

Comment on Tobermorite combines with white graphene to make heat- and radiation-resistant ceramic by Faye Oney

Faye Oney — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:20:08 +0000

Yes, that is correct.

Comment on Tobermorite combines with white graphene to make heat- and radiation-resistant ceramic by Richard Mackay

Richard Mackay — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:48:41 +0000

the abstract to this article suggests this is computational work. Is that correct?

Comment on Repurposing plastic water bottles as concrete filler could help save the planet by Keith Humfeld

Keith Humfeld — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:53:25 +0000

Recycling plastic is bad for the environment; please landfill all of your plastic. Any carbon atoms in the plastic (up to 86% of its mass) are effectively sequestered, prevented from returning to the carbon cycle for tens or hundreds of years at least. When plastic is recycled, some of the atoms are converted to less stable forms and returned to the carbon cycle sooner. So long as the manufacturing of (new) plastic is not driving petroleum production, plastic is a sink for carbon atoms released from natural long term underground storage.
If energy were free and carbon-free, converting all excess atmospheric CO2 into bulk plastic monoliths would be a viable solution to climate change.