Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Except for long lenses. But might be useful in damping vibrations from
> shutter, auto aperture.
>
Yes, carbon fiber might be really useful in longer lenses, I had not thought of
that.
> I've read that carbon fibre is about 1/2 the weight of aluminum in a
> similar application. Titanium is 25 0.000000e+00avier than aluminum. In
> resin, it's
> probably not conductive, so could serve as a substrate for circuits.
>
I think that you may have misread this, or perhaps it applies to a specific
case.
It really varies quite a bit by application. In bicycle frames for example this
is
simply not the case. The lightest frames are generally Aluminum. Carbon fiber
and
titanium frame weights are very close, but not quite as light. The latest use of
the technology is to combine both carbon fiber and aluminum in the bicycle frame
structure. Your figures are fairly accurate for the base material weight, if you
had blocks of Carbon fiber, AL, and Ti of the exact same size I think those
numbers are correct. The problem is in order to get similar structural
properties
in most applications, you would need to use a lot more carbon fiber than AL or
TI.
>
> But savings in weight AND vibration isolation/control.
>
Polycarbonates, already offer both of these advantages, at less cost.
Polycarbonates can also be easily molded into useful shapes. It is much more
difficult to do this with typical CF construction. Polycarbonates also have much
higher shock and impact resistance compared to typical carbon fiber composites.
One reason that you don't see the fantastic weight reductions one would expect
to
gain with CF in bicycle frames is because of the need to address impact
resistance.
Jim Couch
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|