In article <6wrLs.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Martin Brown <|||email@example.com> wrote:
> On 22/01/2013 05:50, RichD wrote: > > I saw a news item about a new technique to draw CO2 from > > the atmosphere. It's a chemical process, using amines, > > which binds with the molecule, coated on a large structure, > > in the shape of a honeycomb. > > > > According to the story, this maximizes surface area. > > ok, mathematicians, which function gets optimized by a > > honeycomb? What are the constraints and assumptions? > > 2D problem to *minimise* the surface area to occupy a given volume. Bees > use it to make honeycomb with the least amount of wax. > > It is not difficult to show that the angle between sides must be 120 > degrees and that equal lengths minimise total length/area occupied. > > They have the structure just about as wrong as it is possible to be > unless the stuff they are making it out of is extremely precious. > > The 3D problem to occupy volume with a foam of minimum surface area is > far more interesting and gives rise to Plateau's laws of soap films. The > Kelvin foam structure was optimal until fairly recently when > Weare-Phelan discovered a 3% better solution using a pair of shapes. A > whole new family has been found but as yet a proof of optimality eludes.
This concept of honeycomb is crazy. True, the area of the honeycomb is a relativity efficient way of getting large reactive area to convert CO2 to something that can be safely sequestered.
How are you going to get the zillions of tons of amines the OP thought would be a suitable reactant? How much CO2 is sent into the atmosphere to prepare the amines? The honeycomb math problem is a red or even infrared herring.
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection. Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.