 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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. :-)
Rain-X doesn't really keep it clean, it just makes water (and snow, for
that matter) sheet off it :)
I use it here - it's great none-the-less ;)
Lance.
thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Not necessarily. Carbon nanotubes are a good example of nanotechnology
where initially you'd think that it wouldn't be called a "device". If
something is just a physical structure, can it be a device?
That brings up the question of what is and isn't a device: Is a device
only something with moving parts? If it is, then what about a laser?
Most people would consider it a device. It's a bit of a grey area. Is it
a device if it has no moving parts but performs a function by altering
things on/around it? Well, then a simple TiO2 nano coating on glass could
be considered a device, and so could a nanolaser even if, again, it's just
a physical structure (in this case a nanowire attached to a substrate).
So, a lot of surfaces and physical structures can be considered devices,
and, if their details are of a nano scale, would fall under the term
nanotechnology.
Lance.
thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> Not necessarily. Carbon nanotubes are a good example of nanotechnology
> where initially you'd think that it wouldn't be called a "device". If
> something is just a physical structure, can it be a device?
Well, I'd say a pipe is more a device than the water flowing thru it. It
may not be very active, but as I say, I consider "nanotech" to be based
on the physical structure of the item rather than the chemical behavior
as such. I.e., if it's a nanotube because it's cylindrical and hollow,
it's "nano". If it's a nanotube because it's made out of carbon, then
that's chemistry.
I don't think the reality of the objective world is such that you can
separate the two concepts reliably. Things are what they are, and
chemical reactions happen because of the shapes of the molecules. So
it's kind of a pointless discussion that nobody is "right" about.
Feynman, the guy who invented the concept as such, described nanotech as
essentially that which you used nanotools to build. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> Rain-X doesn't really keep it clean, it just makes water (and snow, for
> that matter) sheet off it :)
It takes most of the grime with it, tho. :-) But yah, it's not what
Scott was talking about, but I figured he'd want to know.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Rain-X doesn't really keep it clean, it just makes water (and snow, for
>> that matter) sheet off it :)
>
> It takes most of the grime with it, tho. :-) But yah, it's not what Scott
> was talking about, but I figured he'd want to know.
Yes, useful input here. I think I recall seeing similar, but they were
advertised very badly and I just dismissed them as "rubbish" that would
never work very well. I will look out for a bottle to try out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> 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? :-)
'Artifact' in the sense that it's an artificial structure that couldn't
occur naturally. In general I wouldn't describe molecules as artifacts.
I guess buckyballs and buckytubes count as both as they do occur in
nature, albeit rarely. And I wouldn't class a single crystal as a
'molecule' either. :P
I guess it is a bit of a grey area.
>> 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!
Publicity; like a nanoscale ad poster... I guess it makes people aware
of it. They'll be bringing out a low carbon-emission version next just
to get the climate change crusaders off their backs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
