Bill Pragnell wrote:
> If they're less than 100 microns across
I meant nm, of course.

Post a reply to this message

> Fabric protectors (like Scotchgard) and water repellants have been 
> available
> for ages (that's why people wax their cars), nothing "nano", just regular
> technology marketed under a hype branding. Also, not all (red) liquids are
> adhesive - depends on surface tension and cohesivity (mercury won't 
> "stick",
> for instance).

Yep, it really does depend on what liquid they used.  I used to have a set 
of marker pens for measuring the stickyness of surfaces (I forget what the 
scale was, but they were numbered 1-50 or something).  The 1 was like 
mercury, it would stick to nothing (not even normal paper) and would always 
form blobs.  The 20-30 would mark and stick to pretty much anything (like a 
permanent marker).  We were using them when we had problems with print not 
sticking very well to plastic wrap.  They could have easily used a liquid 
like I had in my marker pen #1 and it would pretty much "run off" of 
anything you put in it.

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.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Fabric protectors (like Scotchgard) and water repellants have been 
>> available
>> for ages (that's why people wax their cars), nothing "nano", just regular
>> technology marketed under a hype branding. Also, not all (red) liquids 
>> are
>> adhesive - depends on surface tension and cohesivity (mercury won't 
>> "stick",
>> for instance).
> 
> Yep, it really does depend on what liquid they used.  I used to have a 
> set of marker pens for measuring the stickyness of surfaces (I forget 
> what the scale was, but they were numbered 1-50 or something).  The 1 
> was like mercury, it would stick to nothing (not even normal paper) and 
> would always form blobs.  The 20-30 would mark and stick to pretty much 
> anything (like a permanent marker).  We were using them when we had 
> problems with print not sticking very well to plastic wrap.  They could 
> have easily used a liquid like I had in my marker pen #1 and it would 
> pretty much "run off" of anything you put in it.
> 
> 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.

Indeed, and such coatings already exist in certain applications.  For 
example, the application of TiO2 (titanium dioxide) on glass to create a 
surface that is "self cleaning".  It's described as nano technology 
because of the scale of the reaction that takes place and the thickness of 
the coating, even though it's not nano technology in the sci fi 
tiny-machines sense that most people think of.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> 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.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> 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