Darren New wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> They did show the NanoCover liquid to a university professor though, 
>> who confirmed (with a nanomicroscope or whatever it's called)

A decent scanning electron microscope would be sufficient.

> I'm not sure I'd trust the opinion of someone who called them 
> "nano-particles".  :-)

Nothing wrong with the term. I've heard it used in proper context before.

> I.e., if the "nano-cover" works by having little gripping claws to hold 
> it to the fabric, and a set of bellows on the other side to blow water 
> away, maybe you could see that with a 'scope. Otherwise, I'm not sure 
> how you'd determine whether it's really "nano" or not.

It just refers to the size of whatever discrete entities you're dealing 
with. If they're less than 100 microns across I'd be perfectly happy 
referring to them as such, but it usually refers to particles (and, one 
day perhaps, machines) that are tens of nanometres across or smaller.

Most nanotech is just particles at the moment, or nanoscale features on 
normal substrates. I think. Fullerenes count too, like buckyballs or 
buckytubes. There's all sorts of novel applications but it's mainly just 
paints and coatings at the moment. I think actual machines are quite a 
way off yet...

Post a reply to this message