Difference between revisions of "Thermal isolation"
m |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Because of the [[scaling laws]] for surface-to-volume-ratio single isolated nanoscale parts would cool of / heat up instantly to average environment temperature. | Because of the [[scaling laws]] for surface-to-volume-ratio single isolated nanoscale parts would cool of / heat up instantly to average environment temperature. | ||
Thus Thermal isolation makes only sense in makroscopically divided spaces. | Thus Thermal isolation makes only sense in makroscopically divided spaces. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Technology level III]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Technology level II]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Technology level I]] | ||
Revision as of 11:33, 20 May 2014
Thermal isolation in technology level III is problematic when one restricts oneself to pure hydrocarbon systems. Diamond is the worst possible thermal isolator. More generally the allotropes of carbon (diamond, lonsdaleite, graphene, nanotubes, fullerenes?) are all pretty bad thermal isolators.
Structuring carbon in novel ways may yield acceptable results. Regular gaps between electrically conductive surfaces can have influence on the allowed modes of electromagnetic (heat) radiation transport. (Todo: check whether macroscopic structures can be electro-statically levitated in multiple shells whith nano-scale distances in between)
If the incremental path was taken silicates may me mechanosynthesizable to an AP aerogel like substance.
A lack of material stiffness may pose problems.
The stiff structures desirable for AP systems somewhat contradict low thermal conductance since they usually lead to a high phononic (lattice vibration) contribution to thermal conductance. Electronic contributions can be kept low more easily.
Because of the scaling laws for surface-to-volume-ratio single isolated nanoscale parts would cool of / heat up instantly to average environment temperature. Thus Thermal isolation makes only sense in makroscopically divided spaces.
