Thanks for the video Watson, its very helpful, in this video at :52 seconds you add incements 100ml, what is that will you please give me some information about it
Hi Tyler I want to ask two things from you . 1: what was the quantity of CNTs and chemicals you take during making bucky paper, can you give me all data so that I can take guidance from that. 2:Can you give me any theoretical data or report of your work on the basis of which you make this bucky paper, actually i want to make this paper but i don't have any idea in which quantity i will use CNTs and methanol .your video is really very helpful for me .thank you so much for making such a good informative video.
Thanks for the video Tyler! I am trying to produce buckypapers using MWCNTs dispersed in methanol exactly as you described, but still they are not producing good dispersions. What was the power of the sonicator that you used. Have you tried to obtain them using a paper membrane in the vacuum filtration step? I think that this may be one of my problems since the pore sizes of the membrane are large and the filtration goes faster than necessary. What cautions do you recommend on this step. Thank you very much!
Hi Bruno, - I believe the sonicator was a Branson 450, which has a max output of 400W. Given the 70% setting, the output was probably 280W. - I did not ever use paper filters; as Professor Floyd mentioned in another comment, the filters used in the video were PTFE with 5 micron pores. - I did not use MWCNTs, but Professor Floyd did before I started in the lab. I seem to remember he had poor or variable success with them (primarily that the felts were too flimsy). - Again in another comment, Professor Floyd mentioned some ways dispersion can be improved: adding surfactants, changing or blending solvents. Hope that helps, sorry I did not get to this sooner.
@@tylerwatson2930 Great video! Thanks. Why you used 280W of power? Could it be used less? Maybe 50W? And you used inner sonicator. It is necessary? Why you don't use ultrasonic bath?
Hi Tyler firstly i want to say thank you for this video. I want to ask something about my experiment. 1. Do we need to pour the dispersion into the beaker directly or gradually in the filter section? 2. What should we do to minimize the carbon nanotubes remaining in the beaker during the filtration process? 3.Is it better to do the dispersion with water or with ethanol or methanol? I guess water needs more time for filtration.
Hi Melike, Glad you enjoyed the video! 1. That should not matter much; I believe we put it in two sections just because the volume of filtrate was greater than the filtration beaker. 2. Things that would help: -more sonication, this will homogenize the solution better, reducing clumps that can build up -dilute the mixture more, again to separate the particles -make sure your beaker is very clean 3. Yes, an alcohol works better. The SWNTs are nonpolar (as is the filter), so the solution mixes and filters better in a less polar liquid.
Have you ever seen cracks forming on buckypaper, like desert cracks. Because every time I make a buckypaper using vacuum filtration process, I get a buckypaper with these cracks..
Hi Jefferey, Yes, those cracks can be fairly common. Professor Floyd can speak more to the subject (maybe read his reply to Ben Davis below), but the cracks seem to correlate to the buckypaper quality. If you want fewer cracks, it may help to homogenize your nanotube solution more, or use a different type of nanotube. Heavier / thicker buckypapers seem to be more prone to cracking (probably a drying and stability issue). What are the type, mass, and concentration of nanotubes you are filtering?
I'm using short unfuctionalized MWCNT with a diameter of about 80nm and length of about 20 um from cheaptubes.com. I added 5g of surfactant , triton x100, for dispersion and 0.5g or 1g of cnt and 500 g of DI water. I sonicated the mixture for 30 min with a tip sonicator. It didn' t work out so after looking at your video I switched the solvent to methanol but that didn't work as well. At least in terms of dispersion, it looked to me that water was a much better medium than methanol , so I was wondering if there is a particular reason why you used methanol,, but you obviously are getting a crackless buckypaper. When using methanol during filtration process, the surface of buckypaper looked crackless at first. But as methanol evaporated further, it seemed as if the CNTs were grouping themselves into tiny 1mm by 1mm pieces as methanol evaporated.
Thanks Jeffrey, some things that you might try or consider: -we do sonicate for about an hour; heavy sonication is very important, and inadequate sonication will result in clumps and possibly even the cracks. I do believe the recycled felts were of lesser quality partially because of this fact. -you're absolutely right, the cracks generally develop as drying continues -we primarily use SWNT as opposed to MWNT; they seem to be better self-supporting -we don't use surfactant -your concentration is about 5x what we used, and your overall mass is 10x what we put into one felt Methanol was chosen for a variety of reasons. It does evaporate quicker, and it should interact less with itself, the vacuum, and the nanotubes - thus making the process go more smoothly. I believe due to the highly polar nature of the water compared to methanol, as well as the lower vapor pressure, we hypothesized the methanol would form fewer inconsistencies in the felt and would not linger in the felt. The full drying process (after the bulk liquid had passed through the vacuum) included 30 minutes on the vacuum and an overnight stay in the drying oven, with the methanol as it was. Hopefully this helps, and best wishes on your project! Feel free to comment more if you need.
Sorry for the super late reply :{ BPs usually crack for two reasons, the CNTs are not well dispersed and when the solvent evaporates the surface tension contraction is stronger than the fiber connections or adhesion. The second, similar reason is the solvent evaporating too quickly. You can try rinsing with a solvent that has less surface tension. Also try covering the BP as it dries. It will take longer but will hold together better. The best solution is to disperse better and rinse with a low surface tension solvent.
Hi Benjamin, The ideal end result for the felts we made in the video is to have ~50 mg nanotubes in the felt (as seen when weighing the fresh powder). The recycled "sludge" is not at a set concentration, but the concentration was often empirically determined. For both processes, it was ideal to have one felt's worth of nanotubes in 200 mL of methanol, so the end concentration was usually 0.25 mg/mL prior to vacuum filtration.
We use ~50 mg SWNT in 300 mL MeOH for suspensions that will be filtered to make buckypaper. When we are recycling the broken or damaged buckypapers we only add enough MeOH to make a thick sludge, we then take the sludge and make buckypapers using ~50 mg SWNT in 300 mL MeOH. Sorry that was not clear in Tyler's video. Just an FYI, the better dispersed the CNT the higher the quality buckypaper. You can achieve this by optimizing your dispersion solvent (using surfactants, or a blend of solvents, Dichlorobenzene works very well but is hard to remove later), by increasing the volume of the solvent or decreasing the mass of CNT to be dispersed, and by sonicating for longer or at higher power. There are so many variables it really comes down to finding a procedure that makes a buckypaper having the qualities you need.
@@ayep13 the filtration will depend on how well dispersed the CNTs are in the soln, pore size of the filter, and volume to be filtered. Better dispersed will clog the pores and take longer to filter. For our 50 mg BPs typical filtration times were 30 -60 min, however I have had some BPs take 4-6 hrs to filter.
The membrane filter was a 47 mm diameter, PTFE, 5 micrometer pore size. hope this helps you out. the better you disperse, the more flexible your buckypaper will be, but the longer the filtration will take.
@@hunter8949 if I remember correctly, we made some heavier / thicker felts (bucky papers), but at some point they became unstable. I think that could have to do with a higher weight per surface area, or poor deposition on the formation filter. I'm not sure if / where I mentioned, but we ended up adsorbing the fresh felts onto glass, which made them much more stable. The process was fairly simple; at the end of the filtration phase, when all the SWNTs had deposited but the felt was still wet with methanol, we removed the filter+felt from filtration and pressed the felt side against a glass piece. The pieces we used were about 1.5" diameter circles about 5mm thick. Through the glass, we could see where the felt was well-adhered (darker) vs. poorly adhered (light); so we could press down through the filter to adhere the felt better. Once fully adhered, we could air-dry the module, then peel off the filter, and finish heat-drying the felt+glass.
Just talk normally. Don't try to over animate. It might actually be better if you record the audio as you are working so you aren't sitting there focusing on a script. Not inherently working on the project talking live as you go, as labs can be noisy; but doing something else so you aren't fixated on reading. Interesting how-to nonetheless.
great info, thanks
I wonder if you separated the buckypaper after drying it or did you separate it immediately after filtering it?
Thanks for the video Watson, its very helpful, in this video at :52 seconds you add incements 100ml, what is that will you please give me some information about it
Hi Tyler I want to ask two things from you .
1: what was the quantity of CNTs and chemicals you take during making bucky paper, can you give me all data so that I can take guidance from that.
2:Can you give me any theoretical data or report of your work on the basis of which you make this bucky paper, actually i want to make this paper but i don't have any idea in which quantity i will use CNTs and methanol .your video is really very helpful for me .thank you so much for making such a good informative video.
Nyc n good
Does it stick to all the surfaces
Thanks for the video Tyler!
I am trying to produce buckypapers using MWCNTs dispersed in methanol exactly as you described, but still they are not producing good dispersions. What was the power of the sonicator that you used. Have you tried to obtain them using a paper membrane in the vacuum filtration step? I think that this may be one of my problems since the pore sizes of the membrane are large and the filtration goes faster than necessary. What cautions do you recommend on this step. Thank you very much!
Hi Bruno,
- I believe the sonicator was a Branson 450, which has a max output of 400W. Given the 70% setting, the output was probably 280W.
- I did not ever use paper filters; as Professor Floyd mentioned in another comment, the filters used in the video were PTFE with 5 micron pores.
- I did not use MWCNTs, but Professor Floyd did before I started in the lab. I seem to remember he had poor or variable success with them (primarily that the felts were too flimsy).
- Again in another comment, Professor Floyd mentioned some ways dispersion can be improved: adding surfactants, changing or blending solvents.
Hope that helps, sorry I did not get to this sooner.
@@tylerwatson2930 Great video! Thanks. Why you used 280W of power? Could it be used less? Maybe 50W? And you used inner sonicator. It is necessary? Why you don't use ultrasonic bath?
Hi Tyler firstly i want to say thank you for this video. I want to ask something about my experiment.
1. Do we need to pour the dispersion into the beaker directly or gradually in the filter section?
2. What should we do to minimize the carbon nanotubes remaining in the beaker during the filtration process?
3.Is it better to do the dispersion with water or with ethanol or methanol? I guess water needs more time for filtration.
Hi Melike,
Glad you enjoyed the video!
1. That should not matter much; I believe we put it in two sections just because the volume of filtrate was greater than the filtration beaker.
2. Things that would help:
-more sonication, this will homogenize the solution better, reducing clumps that can build up
-dilute the mixture more, again to separate the particles
-make sure your beaker is very clean
3. Yes, an alcohol works better. The SWNTs are nonpolar (as is the filter), so the solution mixes and filters better in a less polar liquid.
Have you ever seen cracks forming on buckypaper, like desert cracks. Because every time I make a buckypaper using vacuum filtration process, I get a buckypaper with these cracks..
Hi Jefferey,
Yes, those cracks can be fairly common. Professor Floyd can speak more to the subject (maybe read his reply to Ben Davis below), but the cracks seem to correlate to the buckypaper quality. If you want fewer cracks, it may help to homogenize your nanotube solution more, or use a different type of nanotube. Heavier / thicker buckypapers seem to be more prone to cracking (probably a drying and stability issue). What are the type, mass, and concentration of nanotubes you are filtering?
I'm using short unfuctionalized MWCNT with a diameter of about 80nm and length of about 20 um from cheaptubes.com. I added 5g of surfactant , triton x100, for dispersion and 0.5g or 1g of cnt and 500 g of DI water. I sonicated the mixture for 30 min with a tip sonicator. It didn' t work out so after looking at your video I switched the solvent to methanol but that didn't work as well. At least in terms of dispersion, it looked to me that water was a much better medium than methanol , so I was wondering if there is a particular reason why you used methanol,, but you obviously are getting a crackless buckypaper.
When using methanol during filtration process, the surface of buckypaper looked crackless at first. But as methanol evaporated further, it seemed as if the CNTs were grouping themselves into tiny 1mm by 1mm pieces as methanol evaporated.
Thanks Jeffrey, some things that you might try or consider:
-we do sonicate for about an hour; heavy sonication is very important, and inadequate sonication will result in clumps and possibly even the cracks. I do believe the recycled felts were of lesser quality partially because of this fact.
-you're absolutely right, the cracks generally develop as drying continues
-we primarily use SWNT as opposed to MWNT; they seem to be better self-supporting
-we don't use surfactant
-your concentration is about 5x what we used, and your overall mass is 10x what we put into one felt
Methanol was chosen for a variety of reasons. It does evaporate quicker, and it should interact less with itself, the vacuum, and the nanotubes - thus making the process go more smoothly. I believe due to the highly polar nature of the water compared to methanol, as well as the lower vapor pressure, we hypothesized the methanol would form fewer inconsistencies in the felt and would not linger in the felt. The full drying process (after the bulk liquid had passed through the vacuum) included 30 minutes on the vacuum and an overnight stay in the drying oven, with the methanol as it was.
Hopefully this helps, and best wishes on your project! Feel free to comment more if you need.
Sorry for the super late reply :{
BPs usually crack for two reasons, the CNTs are not well dispersed and when the solvent evaporates the surface tension contraction is stronger than the fiber connections or adhesion. The second, similar reason is the solvent evaporating too quickly.
You can try rinsing with a solvent that has less surface tension. Also try covering the BP as it dries. It will take longer but will hold together better. The best solution is to disperse better and rinse with a low surface tension solvent.
What concentration are the CNTs in the methanol?
Hi Benjamin,
The ideal end result for the felts we made in the video is to have ~50 mg nanotubes in the felt (as seen when weighing the fresh powder). The recycled "sludge" is not at a set concentration, but the concentration was often empirically determined. For both processes, it was ideal to have one felt's worth of nanotubes in 200 mL of methanol, so the end concentration was usually 0.25 mg/mL prior to vacuum filtration.
We use ~50 mg SWNT in 300 mL MeOH for suspensions that will be filtered to make buckypaper. When we are recycling the broken or damaged buckypapers we only add enough MeOH to make a thick sludge, we then take the sludge and make buckypapers using ~50 mg SWNT in 300 mL MeOH. Sorry that was not clear in Tyler's video.
Just an FYI, the better dispersed the CNT the higher the quality buckypaper. You can achieve this by optimizing your dispersion solvent (using surfactants, or a blend of solvents, Dichlorobenzene works very well but is hard to remove later), by increasing the volume of the solvent or decreasing the mass of CNT to be dispersed, and by sonicating for longer or at higher power. There are so many variables it really comes down to finding a procedure that makes a buckypaper having the qualities you need.
@@professorfloyd4538 hi. How long do you vacuum filtered it?
@@ayep13 the filtration will depend on how well dispersed the CNTs are in the soln, pore size of the filter, and volume to be filtered. Better dispersed will clog the pores and take longer to filter. For our 50 mg BPs typical filtration times were 30 -60 min, however I have had some BPs take 4-6 hrs to filter.
@@professorfloyd4538 thank you for the reply. Much appreciated
can you please tell us which membrane was used
The membrane filter was a 47 mm diameter, PTFE, 5 micrometer pore size.
hope this helps you out. the better you disperse, the more flexible your buckypaper will be, but the longer the filtration will take.
Thanks a lot sir!
ho strong was the Bucky paper, if I may ask
Hi Hunter,
The buckypapers are typically fairly weak. They are self-supporting, but they fall apart from heavy adsorption.
@@tylerwatson2930 thank you for replying, and thank you for the info
@@tylerwatson2930 so if you were to connect multiple Bucky papers for more absorption, would that make it stronger?
@@hunter8949 if I remember correctly, we made some heavier / thicker felts (bucky papers), but at some point they became unstable. I think that could have to do with a higher weight per surface area, or poor deposition on the formation filter. I'm not sure if / where I mentioned, but we ended up adsorbing the fresh felts onto glass, which made them much more stable. The process was fairly simple; at the end of the filtration phase, when all the SWNTs had deposited but the felt was still wet with methanol, we removed the filter+felt from filtration and pressed the felt side against a glass piece. The pieces we used were about 1.5" diameter circles about 5mm thick. Through the glass, we could see where the felt was well-adhered (darker) vs. poorly adhered (light); so we could press down through the filter to adhere the felt better. Once fully adhered, we could air-dry the module, then peel off the filter, and finish heat-drying the felt+glass.
You really need to modulate the tone of your voice. You're speaking not singing a song.
Hi Bash,
Thanks for the feedback - this is one of my first videos published, so I can work on perfecting the narrating and dubbing.
Just talk normally. Don't try to over animate. It might actually be better if you record the audio as you are working so you aren't sitting there focusing on a script. Not inherently working on the project talking live as you go, as labs can be noisy; but doing something else so you aren't fixated on reading. Interesting how-to nonetheless.