World Webbing formula

Status
Not open for further replies.
More on the tech.
The tech is key to the design of any web shooter.
With the tech you can control what every process of the webshooter.
All with the click of a button.
You can control the order of which chemicals mix.
You can control the delay in which the web is shot( allowing time for chemicals to mix properly).
and endless other things.
With complicated enough code anything is possible. (and i can write it)
 
Yeah you guys are probably right.... but i believe the goal, for me anyway, is to create something that is cheap and works. Peter parker didnt have a lot of money when he built the web shooters. Thats why its so cool that he made them. Peter in the movie is a genius already, and most importantly has a connection to oscorp... a connection none of us have. Im aiming for cheap buildable working web shooters. I know we have our own designs, but i think thats whats most important.
 
Heres an example of one of the syringes i use at the tip
Ao9bR.jpg

very small
 
More on the tech.
The tech is key to the design of any web shooter.
With the tech you can control what every process of the webshooter.
All with the click of a button.
You can control the order of which chemicals mix.
You can control the delay in which the web is shot( allowing time for chemicals to mix properly).
and endless other things.
With complicated enough code anything is possible. (and i can write it)

And, might I ask, what language you used?
And also... WHAT IS THE TECH? Is it a microcontroller? Is it just some kind of motor? That's what we want to know.
 
Microcontroller. Combination of C++, Ruby, and Python.
 
C++ would be the "parent" language. and when asked too it would trigger certain python or ruby scripts.
 
C++ would be the "parent" language. and when asked too it would trigger certain python or ruby scripts.

I know C++ and Python; I'm really excited about this, though. Sorry if i seemed really strange about it.
 
I am too. I finally found a couple people who i know have the potential to make it. If you want you can add me on facebook, ill pm you my profile.
 
I am too. I finally found a couple people who i know have the potential to make it. If you want you can add me on facebook, ill pm you my profile.

Sorry, man, I don't have a Facebook. That's alright though.
Also, I have a couple of ATMEGAs I'm programming specifically for this purpose.
 
I wonder if we could find a chat-room? This process is taking too long for individual messages.
 
Not at all. This thread closes when a moderator says so. Anyway, let's get into the scientific nitty gritty here since it seems we don't have to worry about the mechanism so much right now.

Peter Parker's webbing is related to nylon. That's what it said. It's tougher than steel. That leaves nano-cellulose, and kevlar. Let's look at the chemical composition and models of these.

Kevlar- -CO-C6H4-CO-NH-C6H4-NH-

nylon 6,6- [-OC-( CH2)4-CO-NH-(CH2)6-NH-]


Polyethylene- [(CO)C6H4(CO2CH2CH2O)]n




CH2-Methylene

C6H4- Benzene ring

NH- Covalent bond

CO- double convalent bond

Now the three most successful tough plastics (that are not on the nano-scale) have these four things in common between at least two of them. I have the pictures of these models, but my computer is not letting up. You can find them on wikipedia in Kevlar, nylon, and Polyethylene.

Let's dissect these a little bit. I'll go into what makes nano-cellulose so tough despite working on a different set of rules.

All of these polymers are chains of monomers. Those formulas up there are the monomers. They link with endless amounts of themselves. Now the links in the chain are called cross-links, and they are usually covalent or hydrogen bonded. Now they are not cross-linked at every atom. That would make it brittle and hard. That's what I did wrong when I tried my hand at formula creation with cyanoacrylate and polyurethane. It needs a medium crosslink, and preferably the links between them are on the hydrogen. The reason for that is that hydrogen bonds are like unstable relationships. They break off and move on to someone else immediately.

The difference is in the CO or carbon oxygen with a double covalent bond. That is what makes these chains stick together making them kind of rigid.

Now the longer the chain with the less cross-links, the more flexible it is. But there is an exception.

Now admittedly, I'm still a kindergartner in polymer science, so I don't know everything. One thing i do know is that every polymer chain has a back bone. This backbone will produce a good deal of the properties as well. For example Carbon backbones tend to be stronger, and hydrogen are more flexible. I don't know what happens to chains based on aromatic rings. That's what styrofoam is.

I'm heading to CAROwinds with my family but when I get back I will finish explaining it.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. This thread closes when a moderator says so. Anyway, let's get into the scientific nitty gritty here since it seems we don't have to worry about the mechanism so much right now.

Peter Parker's webbing is related to nylon. That's what it said. It's tougher than steel. That leaves nano-cellulose, and kevlar. Let's look at the chemical composition and models of these.

Kevlar- -CO-C6H4-CO-NH-C6H4-NH-

nylon 6,6- [-OC-( CH2)4-CO-NH-(CH2)6-NH-]




Polyethylene- [(CO)C6H4(CO2CH2CH2O)]n




CH2-Methylene

C6H4- Benzene ring

NH- Covalent bond

CO- double convalent bond

I think your previous idea about sugar chains was brilliant. I have seen that compunds engineered with these have the ability to stick to themselves, being able to attract itself and not fall apart. Perhaps we can incorporate it with the above.
 
does anyone know the chemicals to make a real spiders webbing? I'm thinking that that would work best
 
To Awesome man: yeah, we found a research paper that listed specific proteins. however, I have emailed one of the scientists that pioneered web viral engineering. That's not a joke. http://www.livescience.com/3720-real-spider-man.html That is the guy I emailed. He told me that webbing is such a unique polymer that no one scientist could comprehend it.

To Wadaltmon: I think that would be pretty cool. You can do an experiment that turns sugar into pure carbon. Actually, there are a lot of experiments that do that, but there is one in particular that could work for our purposes.



Back to business. When I first started this, I used to believe in a false assumption about polymers. I used to believe that they were more like colloidal suspensions that were cross-linked. that is not how it really works though. Let's give an example:

Nylon6,10 is the coolest of the nylons because it is so easy to make. Here are a few links to get acquainted:

http://www.polymerprocessing.com/polymers/PA610.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylene_diamine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebacoyl_chloride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRnDGjzCzfs

So this is the easiest nylon to create. I feel the video explained it well. But, if you notice, it took the nitrogen bonds from the Hexamethylene diamine, and sort of bonded with the sebacoyl chloride. It eventually kicked out the chlorine atoms and a few hydrogens to become hydrochloric acid. The reason for nylon's strength is it's carbon backbone.

The same can be said about polyethylene and kevlar, though the methods by which to create them are very difficult.

So what we know about the webbing formula so far. It has to have a carbon backbone as well. This can be achieved by using an acid and an amine, or by other methods.


That being said, what the heck is up with cellulose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose

nanocellulose is so different from rayon, but each has different strength and properties even though they are chemically similar.

Just for the sake of space, I'm going to tell you that basic rayon and nano-cellulose have the same chemical formula. The difference is one is stronger like kevlar. Why?

It's the same reason that it is also shear thinning. It's mostly hydroxide atoms.

Unlike nylon, Kevlar, or polyethylene (the compound in plastic bottles) cellulose is completely organic. As such it has more oxygen and hydrogen in it than nitrogen or aromatic rings. (those are the structures in the pictures.) The difference in strength is how big the structures are because the hydrogen bonds have more power in numbers.

Hydrogen is small, and it doesn't provide super strong chemical bonds. However, if you can get a ton of them together the strength will accumulate quickly.

Rayon, cellulose on large scale, is strong, but will tear easily because it is easy for water to get into the gaps between molecules. Hydroxide loves water.

Nano-cellulose however is tiny, and if you look at the picture of the molecules it is super tiny. It looks very close to graphene, the strongest substance on earth, but it has more hydrogen atoms. That weakens the strength a bit, but because it is so small the hydrogens can all hold hands and remain strong. Here's the beautiful part. If the hydrogens break, they will find others to latch onto. this allows it to have shear properties. In our case, we are lucky because those shearing properties happen to be thixotropic. That's good, because it means when you apply pressure, the hydrogens will come apart and flow until they find other hydrogens. It flows like water instead of syrup.

final good thing about this is that the cellulose, because it is so small, can only be compressed so much before the hydrogens stick together. In english, if you force the gel through a spinneret, it will squeeze the water out and the hydrogens will stick together forming the kevlar strong crystalline form.






So in short, we know that to gain strength, we need a carbon back bone. To gain shear thinning properties, we need hydrogen bonds coupled with hydro-compliant material, and we need an oxygen to anchor the hydrogen to the carbon chain.

there was a lot of material here so feel free to ask questions. this is just for the two most important features: strength and shear thinning. We have not gone into elasticity or adhesion which are the other two properties.
 
Are these carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen bonds the reason it is hard to dissolve kevlar, nylon, and polyethylene? Also could you put a monomer in a solvent and add chemicals that have carbon, oxygen and hydrogen bonds so when the solvent evaporates the bonds will connect and form a polymer?
 
1.)Are these carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen bonds the reason it is hard to dissolve kevlar, nylon, and polyethylene?

Also

2.)could you put a monomer in a solvent and add chemicals that have carbon, oxygen and hydrogen bonds so when the solvent evaporates the bonds will connect and form a polymer?

1.)Yes, the reason polymers with a carbon back bone is so hard to dissolve is because it has 4 valence electrons. That means that it can make many multiple bonds. As such, Carbon is a super stable element. Trying to break a double bond is hard, and very few solvents can do that.

2.) Well, the thing is unless it is purely elemental, you can't really just use monomers. You can chemically modify a reactant to a polymer. So for example you can modify the hexamethylene diamine, and you can modify the sebacoyl chloride, but the short answer is no. That's the same assumption I had with the oxygen crosslinking polyurethane mixed with the cellulose acetate. I forgot to consider reactivity rate.

What we would have to do is think up the ideal formula out of functional groups, and then take reactants that are reactive enough and match up correctly and make it.
 
Got the book "Chemistry: A Contemporary Approach" to kind of help guide my designs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"