Nanotechnology has been pretty hyped in recent years with articles in 
magazines and even regular newspapers promising engineered materials with 
fantastic properties in the future. However, I though it was still strictly 
something in the labs at this point and not ready for commercialization yet.

And then, some weeks ago, a company called Nanocover has been showing TV 
commercials in national TV about their nanocover products, available right 
here and right now, and looking almost unbelievable, just like you'd 
imagine. Their commercial shows a white sofa lowered down in a red liquid 
and then lifted up again, still completely white. In the end we see the arm 
of a (supposed) scientist brushing a few remaining red drops off the sofa 
with his coat sleeve, and they just slide off like small balls, leaving no 
trail.

http://www.nanocover.com

They have products to repel water, oil and dirt, other products to avoid 
mist on glass and mirrors, products for fire protection and various other 
things. There are separate products designed to bind to different 
materials - textile, steel, wood, plastic etc.

You can read about the products in the Danish, Norwegian and English 
versions of the site while the German version has no information yet. It 
seems that products can only actually be bought in Denmark so far, but they 
are working on it for the three other countries too (and many more I 
presume). It's not even very expensive (prices are listed in the Danish and 
Norwegian versions of the site only). I'd try it out, if it wasn't for the 
fact that the safety measures for spraying the stuff only things make it 
somewhat cumbersome, but then again, not much more cumbersome than if you 
want to paint some furniture or something.

The commercial can be seen here:
http://www.nanocover.dk/om_nanocover/reklamefilm/nanocover_tekstil__laeder_.html

So, the nanotechnologic future is here...?

Rune

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote in message
news:4710a2c6$1@news.povray.org...

> And then, some weeks ago, a company called Nanocover has been showing TV
> commercials in national TV about their nanocover products, available right
> here and right now, and looking almost unbelievable, just like you'd
> imagine. Their commercial shows a white sofa lowered down in a red liquid
> and then lifted up again, still completely white.

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).

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote in message
> news:4710a2c6$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> And then, some weeks ago, a company called Nanocover has been showing TV
>> commercials in national TV about their nanocover products, available right
>> here and right now, and looking almost unbelievable, just like you'd
>> imagine. Their commercial shows a white sofa lowered down in a red liquid
>> and then lifted up again, still completely white.
> 
> 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).

That doesn't mean that this particular company *isn't* using 
nanotechnology.  Actually this sort of application sounds a lot more 
feasible than other SF nanotech tricks...Scotchgard and its ilk might 
have been around a while, but that doesn't mean you can't do a lot 
better by playing with how you apply it or what exactly you're applying.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" 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.

No, while some brands are like this, NanoCover does use actual 
nanotechnology. I found out there was a program in TV a while ago (I was 
able to see it online) testing if their products lived up to the commercial. 
Their results were mixed - some of the fabric repelled the red fruit juice 
they spilled on it, while other parts of the fabric did not. The reason was 
unclear - maybe insufficient or incorrect preparation of the textile was my 
impression, while they would not admit this and simply didn't comment on the 
strange inconsistent behavior. They did show the NanoCover liquid to a 
university professor though, who confirmed (with a nanomicroscope or 
whatever it's called) that it did contain nano-particles, but who could not 
comment on how effective it would be, saying that it could only be 
determined through testing.

> Also, not all (red) liquids are adhesive - depends on surface
> tension and cohesivity (mercury won't "stick", for instance).

Hmm, I dunno... It was a transparent red liquid. Anyway, regardless of what 
was used in the commercial, the hosts of the TV show was able to partly 
replicate the results - though not entirely.

I have been searching for online forum posts of people with experience with 
these products, and while some results are disappointing, others are 
reportedly very brilliant. Some of the posts I found very trustworthy, 
particularly one from a person who had tried their products on several 
materials and reported no effect with some of the things he had tried, but 
big satisfaction with others.

Rune

Post a reply to this message

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

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

The difference between nano-tech and chemistry is (for the most part) 
the design and manufacturing, not the final product. (Unless you're 
talking about actual nano machinery, like atomic-sized engines.)

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.

-- 
   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:
> 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

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