Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:26:24 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m25.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.6] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 3124610 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:46:32 -0500 Received: from Newlan2dl@aol.com by imo-m25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r1.2.) id q.158.3103d8fb (18403) for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:46:26 -0500 (EST) From: Newlan2dl@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <158.3103d8fb.2d966f32@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:46:26 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Carbon X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1080366386" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5017 -------------------------------1080366386 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might not be saving any weight at all. Consider that if you compare f6.0 oz fiberglass and 6 oz carbon. Carbon is about 2/3 the density of fiberglass so for a given ariel weight of 6 oz., the carbon will be thicker and require more resin to fill the interices. If you were to make the weight of the fabric based on similar strength or Modulus of elasticity, then it would be lighter. But you should have a much stronger laminate. One interesting aspect of carbon vs. fiberglass laminates is that the matrix resin often used on older structures like boats, used cheap orthopthalic resin with a strain to failure of only around 3% while the glass had a strain to failure of 5-6%. So the structure would never actually get to the calculated values if you just looked at the glass since the resin would fail at about half the strain of the strong stuff holding it together. Ironically, carbon is much better suited (at least in that one area) for cheap resin! So the lesson of this is the matrix resin should ALWAYS have a higher strain to failure than the reinforcing. Dan -------------------------------1080366386 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You might not be saving any weight at all.  Consider that if you c= ompare f6.0 oz fiberglass and 6 oz carbon.  Carbon is about 2/3 the den= sity of fiberglass so for a given ariel weight of 6 oz., the carbon will be=20= thicker and require more resin to fill the interices.  If you were to m= ake the weight of the fabric based on similar strength or Modulus of el= asticity, then it would be lighter.  But you should have a much st= ronger  laminate.
 
One interesting aspect of carbon vs. fiberglass laminates is that the m= atrix resin often used on older structures like boats, used cheap orthopthal= ic resin with a strain to failure of only around 3% while the glass had a st= rain to failure of 5-6%.  So the structure would never actually get to=20= the calculated values if you just looked at the glass since the resin would=20= fail at about half the strain of the strong stuff holding it together. = Ironically, carbon is much better suited (at least in that one area) for ch= eap resin!  So the lesson of this is the matrix resin should ALWAYS hav= e a higher strain to failure than the reinforcing.
 
Dan
-------------------------------1080366386--