 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote
>
>> 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...
>
> That's the bottomline. What's now called nano-science used to be known as
> colloidal science (or in the other case, just solid state technology). Any
> small molecule technically qualifies as a nano-particle as well. The
> nano-science, as originally intended, hasn't come to fruition yet.
Yah. Tiny machines swimming through bloodstreams etc is probably better
described as nano-engineering.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:47134441$1@news.povray.org...
> One of the most interesting uses of "nanotech" would be to keep your car
> windscreen clean, without the need for wipers or a cloth to get off
> splatted flies.
Well, yes, good one, but I would say that one of the most useful would
be 'anti glare'. The glare from a windscreen when the sun is low(ish) is
certainly blinding and dangerous.
~Steve~
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Most nanotech is just particles at the moment,
So what distinguishes it from chemicals? Why isn't scotch-guard
"nano-tech"?
> I think actual machines are quite a way off yet...
They made working electric motors the size of logic gates some 10+ years
ago. I don't know if that counts, but I imagine it has advanced since then.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> One of the most interesting uses of "nanotech" would be to keep your car
> windscreen clean, without the need for wipers or a cloth to get off
> splatted flies.
That's called "Rain-X". Go out and buy some. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Well, yes, good one, but I would say that one of the most useful would
> be 'anti glare'. The glare from a windscreen when the sun is low(ish) is
> certainly blinding and dangerous.
And polarized sunglass lenses don't do for you? :-)
Really, something that would cut light that's perpendicular to the
windshield would be cool. Like the larry niven blue-sun goggles.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And polarized sunglass lenses don't do for you? :-)
>
> Really, something that would cut light that's perpendicular to the
> windshield would be cool. Like the larry niven blue-sun goggles.
It would probably be illegal though. Most countries have strict
requirements about the % of light that is transmitted through the front
windscreen and the front side windows. AFAIK the specifications are not
detailed enough to deal with polarised light, but simply adding a polariser
would likely reduce the transmittance enough to fail the tests.
A further idea is to replace the screen with a LCD panel that has just one
huge passive pixel (=very cheap to make). You automatically get polarisers
that will cut out any glare (assuming you align them correctly) and then you
just need a light sensor to dim the view when it is very bright - no need
for sunglasses!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One of the most interesting uses of "nanotech" would be to keep your car
>> windscreen clean, without the need for wipers or a cloth to get off
>> splatted flies.
>
> That's called "Rain-X". Go out and buy some. :-)
Oh ok, I'll see if we have some equivalent here. First I need to go and get
my car washed though :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Most nanotech is just particles at the moment,
>
> So what distinguishes it from chemicals? Why isn't scotch-guard
> "nano-tech"?
I'm not sure how scotch-guard works, and I think 'chemical' is a bit of
a nebulous term. I always thought nanotech refers to discrete artifacts
smaller than a micron (i.e., whose size is best measured in nanometres).
Wikipedia have quite a good run-down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology
>> I think actual machines are quite a way off yet...
> They made working electric motors the size of logic gates some 10+ years
> ago. I don't know if that counts, but I imagine it has advanced since then.
I don't know anything about that. I think I heard of a demonstration
some time ago, but what would you use it for?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47141eac$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Well, yes, good one, but I would say that one of the most useful
>> would be 'anti glare'. The glare from a windscreen when the sun is
>> low(ish) is certainly blinding and dangerous.
>
> And polarized sunglass lenses don't do for you? :-)
Well, yes, they would be ok, apart from I don't like wearing sunglasses.
I dunno, I haven't tried any on for years now.
~Steve~
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> Remember the good old days, when we
> used to complain about cryptography
> being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I'm not sure how scotch-guard works, and I think 'chemical' is a bit of
> a nebulous term.
Uh, less nebulous than "nanotech" I think.
> I always thought nanotech refers to discrete artifacts
> smaller than a micron (i.e., whose size is best measured in nanometres).
You mean, like, molecules? :-)
I always thought nanotech had to be "devices", like it says on the wiki.
I.e., it isn't nanotech if you don't know the physical shape of the
molecule. (Necessary but not sufficient.)
> I don't know anything about that. I think I heard of a demonstration
> some time ago, but what would you use it for?
To demo that you have the technology to create such things!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
