posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:00 PM
So sorry OP, but i had to respond to this post.
It is incorrect to say they perfected the process and we scientists cannot do the same right now. As it has already been pointed out in a couple of
articles on the subject, the actual method of producing the blades was lost down the years.
If they could produce the steel back then, and 'you scientists' cannot replicate it today, then it is entirely correct to say you cannot do the same
now...how can not being able to replicate something today, that was done back then, be anything else?
The only relevance of the method being lost over time, is to highlight the fact that we no longer know how to do it, and are now unable to figure out
how accomplish the same technological feat, that was done previously...which is what the poster said.
It is most likely that the amazing blades were an accident of both materials and production methods.
So anything 'you scientists' cannot figure out how to replicate, had to be an accident and not something that was deliberately aimed for? What
evidence makes you conclude this was most likely an accidental process or discovery?
Arrogance is a word that springs to mind.
OP, could piezo crystals fit into powering your nanotube encrusted blade theory?
Or possibly a series of tiny oscillating weights, creating a magnetic charge fed to a series of embedded capacitors, feeding the nanotubes with
energy, powered only by kinetics or movement of the sword (motion of walking/running/horseback riding while in scabbard, drawing, hacking and
slashing, thrusting, etc.) might be a method.
Much like the self powered wrist watches.