BASF Shows Off Some Tantalizing Nanotech 178
Dan B. writes "The Technology section in The Age today is running a story on the current 'Next Generation' nanotech coming to a store near you from BASF. Interesting read, but I'd like some more info on the 10 hour batteries the size of a cigarette lighter."
Re:BASF (Score:2, Interesting)
She said that their ads are amusing to her because they "make it better" by paying a lot of money to keep track of new patents that are made by smaller people (not big companies), then steal them and use them to generate money for themselves and other companies that employ them.
They then just absorb the lawsuits and tie them up in the courts until the person or small company fighting them runs out of money.
but that is a lot harder to describe in a catchy way in an ad.
Re:BASF (Score:2)
At BASF, We don't make the nanotech, we make it smaller.
They're usually pretty smart about their advertising.
Perhaps it's because they don't make the ad copy, they make it more intelligent.
Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site (Score:5, Funny)
If mere words are so harmful to your children, then I fear for their future.
My children have been taught not to fear words or thoughts. I hope they're not too progressive for your world.
Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't mean to be a troll, but that statement makes you seem like the kind of person that gets an ego trip from raising kids the right way.
IMHO, most children aren't able to fully grasp all ideas and words. The simple truth is that most kids won't be able to understand consenting sexual agression the first time they encounter it on the Internet. The original poster had a valid point. Just because you're obviously super intelligent and a great parent, doesn't mean everyone else can be as perfect.
Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site (Score:1)
Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site,FUCK YOU EAGLES (Score:1)
Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site (Score:1)
Uh Oh (Score:1)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a bit OT, but does anyone else think Crichton is a shill for some conservative/religious organization? Almost all his books are about how new technology can go catastrophically wrong and kill people in gory, fascinating ways. Jurassic Park (and sequel), The Andromeda Strain, Airframe (to an extent), and now Prey.
I smell conspiracy.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2, Interesting)
Why are handguns (for personal protection, obviously) so popular in America? Too many people watching their local evening news. We're a bunch of irrational sissies.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1)
Go read something for a change.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1)
It's all Amish propagana, damnit!
Seriously, I don't know about him being anyone's shill. But I do know that I can't stand the "Crichton formula". Every book of his (that I've read anyway) pulls the same crap where introducs something (cloned dinosaurs, alien viruses, preditory nanotech, etc) that would have a profound effect on the world. But his story's hero will always find some way to put the genie back in the bottle so that he doesn't have to deal with any consequences outside of his main characters.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2, Insightful)
Sphere and The Terminal Man can be summed up the same way as your examples. You forgot to mention "ten-page dissertations on aformentioned promising technology, placed in the middle of the story" in your list of cliches.
Airframe and Eaters of the Dead didn't follow his normal methods. I don't think EotD sold very well (for Crichton), although Airframe was a moderate success (and wasn't it supposed to be made into a movie? Or did I miss it?)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2)
Timeline, Congo, Jurassic Park, Lost World, Sphere, Prey, Terminal Man, Andromeda Strain...they're all the same book with different characters and different technologies. Eaters of the Dead is different because it's just an adaptation of Beowulf. Airframe is a hack detective story; nothing unique.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:3, Insightful)
Fear of the unknown is a strong literary theme, it's not surprising at all that people in the 20th and 21st centuries eat it up.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1)
I would say that Cameron was ahead of his time in his anxieties about military robots, etc. Isn't it interesting that the Terminator mythology timeline, including the soon to be released T3: Rise of the Machines closely mirrors real events in the respective years when the films were released? Because of the time which elapsed between films, Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong could even act out their parts at each stage in the story without troubling to play their characters older or younger. In T2, Sarah Connor looked exactly as she should have after those years had gone by, and now Furlong would make an exellent John Connor if he weren't having serious substance abuse issues.
Rise of the machines, indeed. Now we're actually killing terrorists with UAVs, and you can read (slashdot posted a story) about wireless technology being employed to create *independent* networks in the sky so that these killer robots can communicate with each other and make battlefield decisions at a moment's notice...can you say "SkyNet"!?!? It's hillarious, even as it is terrifying!
I'm not so worried about SkyNet "waking up", but because I do have a shred of empathy for people I've never met, I'm deeply concerned about what the future of war might be like for some poor family in some poor country that we have so carelessly labeled an "axis of evil". Those nightmarish scenes from the Terminator movies...people living like rats as they try to survive a merciless mechanical onslaught...could actually be what Bush and co. have in store for any "brown people" who don't kowtow to the new capital-first world order.
"Global demographic trends suggestive of an overpopulated future? No problem!"
(insert sounds of military laser canons here)
Deeply concerned.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1)
Of course I'd buy the book after my eyes start to get burn-in.....
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1)
10 hour batteries? (Score:3, Funny)
I guess it depends upon the load, eh?
Re:10 hour batteries? (Score:1)
That's exactly what I thought. I have batteries that are _much_ smaller and last for _years_, and I'm using them for over ten years now. In my watches...
Re:10 hour batteries? (Score:1)
What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine never having to polish your shoes again, having glistening white teeth without visiting a dentist, or owning a mobile phone powered by a miniature battery. These are not just idle fantasies, but a reality where small things could make your wildest dreams come true.
wow! this guy's pretty darn wild! I bet for a big night out he turns on the TV and drinks a whole light beer. I mean, c'mon - with all the possibilities for nanotechnology, having self-polishing shoes is the best he could come up with?
it looks that just as with other technologies (www, e-commerce, ...) we're gonna have to wait for the pron industry to break new ground and lead the way ... oh, the possiblities!!! Wait a minute, don't. Eughh!
Econ/Business Perspective (Score:1)
Figure $5/bottle. Figure 1 billion customers. You do the math.
Re:Econ/Business Perspective (Score:1)
the main thing is - will anyone BUY it? and will it be so cheap? I don't think so - not for a good while at least. The price will eventually come down, but even so ...
Re:Econ/Business Perspective (Score:1)
True.
"...marketable to every person on the planet who wears a pair of shoes."
I don't think so. The only shoes I have that need regular polishing are ones I hardly wear. If a bottle of Nano-Polish is $5 and is good for ten polishings (or at least two), I will only need to buy a few every year.
Even at $10 and one shoe only, that's maybe $60-$100 a year for most people. And at $20 (or $10) a pair, it'd be better to save the damn money and polish them yourself. There won't be much of a market for Nano-Polish unless/until it's cheaper than conventional polish. I mean, why use nanotechnology to clean your shoes when you can have illegal immigrants do it for pennies? Of course, it could get a hell of an advertising campaign and gross billions...
I know the Nano-Polish situation is hypothetical, but it's applicable to nearly any small-time chore. To make a lateral comparison:
Nano-Car-Wash-and-Wax would be something I'd invest in, but not Nano-Squeegee.
Re:Econ/Business Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
But, geek that I am, I'm really waiting for that tooth whitening stuff to come out.
Re:Econ/Business Perspective (Score:1)
Of course for big projects like construction, nanotechnology can be useful.
Look at Total Annihilation. You could build a command center in, like, twenty seconds.
Re:Econ/Business Perspective (Score:1)
The problem is, you'd have to fine-tune the length of time the shine stuff actually works. If every Nike shoe had built-in NikeShine, and NikeShine expired after 6 months of wear, Nike could possibly get you to buy more shoes per year than you do now, assuming you're the kind of person who likes clean-looking footwear, which is a majority of Nike's basketball shoe consumer.
Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, don't ever leave yourself open like that again. Anybody else here resist the urge to poke fun at a guy who suggested the porn industry use nanomachines to provide a service he might want?
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ugh. Did you even read the F'n A? It's really frustrating when somebody takes the time to understand the capabilities of something they understand only to have the listener get all disappointed because he didn't invent a replicator or something.
The whole point of what he was saying was that nature has solved a LOT of problems we have today, and on the nano-level we can understand what it's doing and incorporate reserach that nature has already done into modern society. His example wasn't cool because it could make the dir resistant shoes, it was cool because it meant that they could emulate nature. The result is future materials would be longer lasting. Dare I say: mold-proof houses?
I'd normally concede that they could have presented their case better, but in this example they described the bits of it that were interesting enough that the application was merely an example.
10 hour batteries.. (Score:1)
Re:10 hour batteries.. (Score:1, Interesting)
ig farben (Score:1)
Re:ig farben (Score:5, Interesting)
After WWII, most of the assets of the IG were transferred to Agfa, Hoechst, Bayer, and of course BASF. If I recall correctly though, the IG is actually going to be dissolved some time in 2003, though I am not sure when. Anyone know when this is scheduled to happen?
I'm definitely looking forward to some of the products that BASF is developing, especially the hydrogen gas battery. That is going to nice if/when it ever reaches the masses.
Re:ig farben (Score:2)
PS. Buying stuff at Walmart does not equate to being a part of the "poorer part of the US population." It can also mean that you are a cheap fuck who doesn't mind terribly made crap.
What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:5, Informative)
A standard size D Alkaline battery is 17 amp-hours at 1.5 volts. That sounds a lot more impressive than a 10 hour battery, and it's using 30 year old technology.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:2)
A bit more info on the batteries would be helpful but I have this feeling that the writer of the article 'aint that much of a techy.
Re:What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:5, Informative)
The car battery can easily handle 600 amps for a few seconds while starting your car. There's no way the laptop battry can handle 80 amps even for a fraction of a second
This just makes the "10 hour battery" in the article even more meaningless.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:1)
Depends on the chemistry. an old NiCd laptop battery could probably put that out (short-circuit current)
I agree about this battery however. I wonder how many Librarys Of Congress you could transfer per charge.
Re:What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:2)
A car battery is roughly 30AH @ 12V,
30 Ah is rather minimal. 50-60 Ah is more common.
Re:What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:1)
Re:What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:2)
My car has a 1.6 engine and a 60 Ah battery. The starter motor is rated at 1 kW.
Re:What's a 10 hour battery? (Score:1)
neither are Amp-hours (Score:1, Informative)
So if you take the rated voltage times the total amp-hours drawn you get a misleading number.
Watt-Hours. That's the way.
Brand New BASF Teeth? (Score:1)
Say good bye to dentists? Now that really would rock. Well for those of us that actually go
What are the real applications? (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine never having to polish your shoes again, having glistening white teeth without visiting a dentist, or owning a mobile phone powered by a miniature battery.
When my work shoes need polishing, my wife does it or I pay 50 cents and have them done at the Mall Foodcourt or something.
I got glistening white teeth by using Colgate Gel. It's $14.99 and quite a bargain.
And my mobile phone gets 6 hours of battery life on a single charge, which is plenty since I don't really talk to many people.
So, honestly, could someone point me toward some practical real-world applications of this supposed "Next Generation" of nanotechnology?!
Re:What are the real applications? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What are the real applications? (Score:1)
10 hours? bah. (Score:4, Insightful)
A battery the size of a cigarette lighter that lasts for 10 hours? I've got those. They're these little sticks with two "A"'s marked on them and they run my GBA for a good 15 hours
Miniature batteries for my mobile phone? Gee I think I've got that too. It lasts about 10 hours. And I can replentish it by using this other magical device on my wall called a socket.
Seriously... fuel cells will need to run a phone for a month at least to be worth it. A laptop better run for a couple weeks. Recharging them isn't a simple matter of plugging them in the wall as it is now... you've got to replace the hydrogen (or other fuel, most people seem focused on hydrogen for some inane reason, even though it's hard to make and doesn't have much energy content).
This article, like many other nanotech articles, is mostly hype and handwaving (and most of these things aren't even what you typically consider nanotech). So who won buzzword bingo? ;-)
Re:10 hours? bah. (Score:3, Funny)
Last time you checked did you find out that just because it's abundant doesn't mean it's a simple matter to acquire it?
Re:10 hours? bah. (Score:2, Informative)
1. Attach hose to faucet.
2. Fill bucket.
3. Apply electric current.
4. Profit!
Seriously, getting hydrogen is easier than getting just about any fossil fuel, and the power to run the electrolysis can come from just about anywhere, including renewables like solar or wind. Moving the hydrogen around is a thornier issue but we solved a similar one for petroleum as it is.
Re:10 hours? bah. (Score:1)
Re:10 hours? bah. (Score:1)
The other arguements that I've seen against it is that hydrogen has the ability to escape most containers. It doesn't escape solid metal containers, except by way of the valve. A good valve won't leak enough to make a spark.
So really... what is the real arguement against hydrogen? You could use alcohol as well, but there has been a lot more research on how to get hydrogen to give up and take electricity.
Re:10 hours? bah. (Score:2)
I believe it also has the lowest potential energy of any substance, so compared to having something else in the same volume, you get less energy out. And it's not particularly easy to work with compared to anything else, either.
I think the main advantage is that it is (as someone else said) abundant, but it's still not easy to process and prepare for use. You won't be dumping liquid hydrogen into a battery.
For refilling it, the tank idea is actually pretty good, although hydrogen is still fairly dangerous. Too bad helium doesn't work for this.
I just want to be able to fill up a battery from the water faucet and run my laptop for a week. Call me back when they get that. ;-)
Re:10 hours? bah. (Score:2)
Now, yes, that means that there are lots of elements you could use that will generate more energy than hydrogen. But I belive the people of a little island called Bikini will agree with me when I say Hydrogen produced a pretty substantial quantity of energy as well under that process.
Burning? That might be something else. I belive we use Hydrogen for that because it's easy to come by and you can bind a whole lot of them to various ring-shaped chemicals.
More like tiny refillable propane tanks (Score:5, Insightful)
True. "Recharging" a fuel cell will not just involve plugging them into the wall (unless someone makes a *MAJOR* breakthrough in both electrolysis techniques and hydrogen storage).
Most likely, it would work more like a cross between "normal" batteries, and the sort of propane tanks people use for BBQ grills. You would buy a 6-pack of methanol cartridges, roughly the size and shape of an AA battery (as a hypothetical example, of course... I have no more knowledge of future fuel-cell-form-factors than anyone else ). You'd pop them into your electricity-consuming device, just like normal batteries. The actual functional bits of the fuel cell would form a part of the electricity consuming device (or some sort of hip-pack to support legacy devices until everything takes the standard size fuel cell cartridges), and it would simply "drink" from the cartridges you plug in.
When you have a pile of empty cartridges, you'd take them back to the store for a rebate, a lot like recycling an aluminum can. Except, to reuse them, we wouldn't need to melt them down and make a whole new fuel cell, we'd simply refill them. The stores themselves might have some means of doing this, or they might just send them on to some sort of regional refilling center, but the whole process would (could, anyway) involve very little waste.
Of course, I only describe the *SENSIBLE* way to do it. More likely we'd actually build the entire functional fuel cell as a single encapsulated unit, complete with fuel *and* nasty chemistry for the catalyst; ship them across country both ways in a hideously polluting diesel 18-wheeler; and we'd make them out of a plastic that for reasons no one understands, we can't reuse, so they go to the landfill and we waste even *more* petroleum making more plastic.
But hey, what do I know. I need to stop acting so optimistic all the time.
Re:More like tiny refillable propane tanks (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely we'd actually build the entire functional fuel cell as a single encapsulated unit, complete with fuel *and* nasty chemistry for the catalyst; ship them across country both ways in a hideously polluting diesel 18-wheeler; and we'd make them out of a plastic that for reasons no one understands, we can't reuse, so they go to the landfill and we waste even *more* petroleum making more plastic.
You forgot to mention that the fuel cells (or cartridges - this name shows where I am heading) from different manufacturers of i.e. notebooks, will not be compatible. Notebook producers will build small chips into these cartridges, which are protected by patents, locking out potential third party cartridge manufacturers. The prices of notebooks will dramatically go down, while the cartridges will get suspiciously expensive
Re:10 hours? bah. (Score:1)
I think the big benefit to hydrogen is that the "waste product" is simply hot water. Other fuel might not be quite so "eviro-friendly" as that...
Snake! (Score:1)
What'll be next from BASF? (Score:2, Funny)
Well, this is a change of pace (Score:3, Insightful)
And I gotta agree with someone who posted above. When it comes to nanotechnology, which probably will be a cornerstone on science in years to come, and these are the applications the writer busts a hard on over, god help the man if he ever sees a porno. I mean come on, at least write about something I can't do by myself. I want tiny robots damn it! And flying F'in cars!
How about this? (Score:5, Funny)
No shit, Sherlock...
Re:How about this? (Score:1)
Keep digging, Watson.
blast processing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:blast processing (Score:4, Funny)
this amazing technology was unmatched until sony developed the custom "emotion chip", which enabled programming much more emotion into video games. that is why the ps2 is great for doughy-eyed anime games, whereas the xbox is only good for emotionless sports games.
i'm still waiting for someone to come up with a porn-optimized video compression codec. something that is good with skin tones and has good motion-prediction for repetitive back-and forth movements.
we have to get into this again? (Score:5, Insightful)
what they don't mention are the possible negitive effects. it's like atomic power...great benifit, possibly nasty applications. to apply nano tech to consumer goods is one thing, but to use it to make weapons is quite another (on a morality scale). this technology is more highly adaptive than anything else we have seen before.
governments the world over have been toying with nano tech to make weapons that kill more efficently, are more easily hidden, etc. what happens when common street thugs can "make" their own weapons with nano tech? what happens when countries that have firearms bans (uk, australia, others) have people running arround with nanotech weapons that are small and more leathal than the standard lead slug fired by a gun today? how do you track things like this? what happens when the government/corperation/etc decides to make a nanotech listening device out of the paint in your home?
this is a tech that is to be truly feared and respected. remember...technology is only as good as those who use it.
-frozen
Re:we have to get into this again? (Score:1)
I've also read some reports about nano-systems which are being designed for survelliance and information gathering. The idea is that they are aerosol based and act as tiny mirrors floating in the air. They have a tiny control device which collects light rays bounced from the nanoparticles, and which reassembles the light rays into a video stream, which is then transmitted to a survelliance team.
Aldus Huxley should be rolling over in his grave with the advent of such technology.
Re:we have to get into this again? (Score:2, Insightful)
... You will ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Ever had a robot that did all your household chores, cooked your meals, ran your errands, and looked like it came from http://www.realdoll.com?...
No?
You will!
And the company that will bring it to you is AT&T."
Of course, nothing they promised ever got delivered, and certainly not by AT&T.
Re:... You will ... (Score:5, Funny)
Not so, my friend! They had one that went:
"Ever send a fax from the beach? You will..."
The product that the person in the commercial was using is the AT&T EO. [att.com] My friend had one... it was a funky notebook page sized PDA that had a real OS, a windowing system and everything. I even hacked on it on a road trip once so we could use it as a serial terminal to get to the Linux box we had booted in the car to listen to MP3s (Yes, that's ultimately geeky, but it was cool! :)
Re:... You will ... (Score:1)
What a pity there was no Michael Jackson endorsement.
Found the last link I was looking for (Score:4, Informative)
Diamond age (Score:2, Funny)
Where's the "news"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a well-written piece, a good article for the site it's on, and I wouldn't think it out of place in "USA Today" or "Popular Science," but why does a pointer to it belong on Slashdot? The newest piece of information in the article is about the "lotus effect cling", which was 'news' in 2001!
Re:Where's the "news"? (Score:1)
Oo... I dunno.. The Age is a Melburnian paper... which makes it Australian.
which was 'news' in 2001!
So it's right on schedule for slashdot then? (Unless it's a FreeBSD release, in which case it's three years late.)
BASF doesn't make a lot of the killer nanotech (Score:5, Funny)
Hydrogen power cells (Score:1)
Also, for those who said hours is not a measure of power, you're idiots. It was placed in a strong context. read the article next time.
Re:Hydrogen power cells (Score:1)
Also, for those who said hours is not a measure of power, you're idiots.
Methinks you is the idiot, unless you meant energy where you wrote power...
Self-cleaning shoe (Score:2, Insightful)
The wax coating for the "Lotus-Effekt" (from the BASF Article [www.basf.de], 9 paragraphs down, under the heading "Nanotechnology means learning from nature") will still be susceptible to this.
How long before... (Score:1)
Drexler (Score:5, Interesting)
Real nanotechnology, often called molecular nanotechnology, consists of actual manipulation of atoms into molecules and structures with useful properties, and will make most of the current claims of nano products look extremely weak. But no-one knows exactly how to do it just yet!
Lots of progress is being made on the research front, and they will get there, but anyone who tells you they have nanotechnology products available now or in the near future are talking about the weak versions of nanotechnology that have been around for thousands of years. See here [computingjapan.com] for a better description of the distinction between weak and strong nanotechnology.
"real" nanotechnology (Score:2)
So what exactly does "real" mean here? If you can arrange the shape of molecules to create particular functionality, does the technology matter? It's a bit like arguing that piece of metal A is inferior to piece of metal B because A was cast to shape in a mold and B was carved from a black by a machining centre. The real question is surely, which is best fitted for its putpose?
Re:"real" nanotechnology (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Drexler (Score:2, Informative)
The whole point is that tiny robots which can build anything are a very, very long way off. The only way it's going to happen is through this "hype and effort" that's going into "weak" nanotechnology.
As far as moving atoms around (including bonding, unbonding, exciting states) one at a time to make things... no problem. [uci.edu] Dr. Ho can "see" and manipulate the electron clouds surrounding an atom (pretty damn cool if you ask me).
What? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, it's called "Kool-Aid powder"...
BASF (Score:2)
When Nanotech Goes Horribly Wrong (Score:2)
The CIA is already spraying villages in Africa with government-synthesized nano. It was meant to be used as a "smart exfoliant"..Rather than run in there with an army of bulldozers and pissing everyone off, we're dropping lumberjack nano in there to clear large areas of dense forest. Why? to lay oil pipelines in West Africa under the guise of improving Africa's economy:
Buruli Busters [burulibusters.com]
Since the only way to kill the nano is to deprive it of sunlight and dissolve it, theyre packing mud onto all the people who've been afflicted with it in order to kill it off.
Oh well, it was the thought that counts.
PS.. I just made all that shit up on the spot. Ha-ha, gullible, arentcha?
At BASF (Score:2)
redefine your job (Score:1)
Chemists put a UV absorbing solid into suspension and then sell it as sunscreen - and its nanotechnology!? I don't think so. Since when is making a wax similar to a plant leaf wax called nanotechnology? Just because someone uses atoms and molecules and small particles to make things doesn't make it nanotechnology in my book - it makes it chemistry.
Re:In 30 years... (Score:2)
Re:I have some of these 10-hour batteries... (Score:2)