On top of the fact that Edencrete has greater compressive strength compared to the experiment, I'm assuming that the experiment's methodology will also have an impact on the other aspects which make Edencrete great? e.g. flexural strength, split-tensile strength, abrasion resistance. After hours and hours of research I did not come across anything about the ultrasound method and its relation to all those other aspects but correct me if I am wrong. If Edencrete can outperform relative to the experiment you link, and also perform well in these other aspects then they are well ahead of the pack aren't they? If you can substantiate with evidence that there is a superior as developed product with the use of MWCNT concrete then we have a debate. Once again, yes the method people are using may achieve dispersion, but is the product better and more developed than Edencrete?
What else comes into my mind late at night is:
1. Clearly EDE are not just using similar methods to those experiments otherwise there wouldn't be differences so large in the results.
2. EDE would be aware that there are other experiments going on for CNT and concrete. They would clearly do their due dilligence on the research Monash has done and have also assessed their competition and environment.
3. Yes large competitors are a threat. The only way to compete with them is to have a superior product/service. I was reading about Woolworths, Coles, Aldi, etc losing market share to much smaller online grocers because they have a unique service that those large supermarket chains do not just as an example. These online businesses only take a small percentage of the market share and its already highly profitable! Additionally, please link one of the large companies with their product which can actually outperform Edencrete. Are they going to sell air? Because i don't see their superior product that they will sell below cost for years. I haven't heard any news about a large concrete corporation seeking approval for CNT reinforced concrete. Testing and approval is a time consuming process. We would also be aware of this occurrence if it were actually happening.
4. If the process of CNT dispersion were so easy there would not be ongoing academic research papers on this topic. Most of the experiments done are actually not feasible. I did come across an experiment that did outperform Edencrete but they used few walled carbon nanotubes (FWCNT) which are multiples more expensive than the MWCNT used in Edencrete. For your reference: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream...30/A1_nasibulina_larisa_i_2012.pdf?sequence=1
5. In regards to your concern about the supply capability of CNT please refer to earlier posts in this thread. Whytee has addressed this by saying that Colorado prototype reactors can produce a few tonnes of CNT. So 1 million tonnes of concrete requires 600 tonnes of CNT. Reasonable to expect that they can up the output on those reactors.
MB has also mentioned the modular nature of the Pyrolsyis reactors. It is not about one huge reactor but many reactors! My question though is does anyone know how hard/expensive it is to build one extra reactor to meet their production needs? IMO JuanCarlos has the right to be cautious about this (although he is overly skeptical in general) because the supply and cost is where the risk lies for EDE and I am not here to just mindlessly up-ramp.
6. Lastly, we can all speculate as much as we wish about the deal between Monash and EDE but the truth is nobody here will probably know. I would rather stick to the facts about the product and not make my own head spin with limitless thoughts and reasons that will never be known.
These are just my own thoughts and I could be incorrect so feel free to correct or add on anything.
(20min delay)