Slashdot Mirror


BASF Shows Off Some Tantalizing Nanotech

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."

40 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Shut it Michael. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a serious issue in science and technology alike, and shouldn't be avoided as an issue.

    A lot of people don't understand the kind of thinking that goes into the scientific process these days. There are many cases of Physicists, Chemists, Bio-chemists who spend many years testing a single hyposthesis.

    Sitting in a lab all day looking at spreadsheets for 5 years will challenge anyone's sanity. Often times these scientists, who are very pressured by the "publish or perish" dogma of academia, are very anxious about thier results. So much so that many of them begin to have fantasies in thier minds about the results...they literally build a play-world in thier minds.

    Almost any scientist who's worked on a new theory can attest to this, it's like thinking you're holding the $100Billion lotto ticket in your hand, it's very exciting...you want to believe, the lust for fame, the recognition you always deserved but never recieved, fantasies of being promoted, going to a better university...it sounds like something a very disturbed individual would think...but believe me, it's very very common place.

    My point here is this; these scientists who release bad results are not neccesarily "evil" or trying to "dupe" the scientific community. They have simply lost touch with reality...and want thier fantasy world to come true so badly...that they really do believe in the validity of what they publish. So ultimately the "fault" should rest in the rigor of the editors who publish these results. That's where the check and balance between fantasy and science should be.

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  2. Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Funny
    First off, your joke is barely even laughable. Secondly, it's downright innappropriate for any kids or young teenagers to be reading on a site like this.
    Yes. Words are bad. Children should be kept as far away as possible from words.

    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.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  3. 10 hour batteries? by Mononoke · · Score: 3, Funny
    I've got plenty of 10 hour rechargable batteries. In fact, they last quite a bit longer than that.

    I guess it depends upon the load, eh?

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  4. What? by kruetz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article

    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!

    --

    This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
    Who's got the whiteout?
    1. Re:What? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "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!"

      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?

    2. Re:What? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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? "

      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.

  5. Re:Uh Oh by goatasaur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the same thing when I read the article. Prey was a pretty cool book.

    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.

    --
    ~D:
  6. What's a 10 hour battery? by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hour is not a measure of power. How many amp- hours is this battery capable of? What terminal voltage?

    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

    1. Re:What's a 10 hour battery? by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The discharge curve is also very important. If I draw 10 amps from that 17 Ah alkaline D battery, it will last about 30 minutes instead of 1.7 hours. If I take 10 amps from a 9 Ah NiMH D battery, it will last the full 0.9 hours.
      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

  7. 10 hours? bah. by oGMo · · Score: 3, 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? ;-)

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:10 hours? bah. by wadetemp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last time I checked hydrogen was the most abundant resourced on earth.

      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?

    2. Re:10 hours? bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Blockquoth the poster:

      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?

      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.

  8. Re:What are the real applications? by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Funny
    When my work shoes need polishing, my wife does it...
    Is that before you send her out to mend the fences and churn the butter, or after?

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  9. What'll be next from BASF? by IcebergSlim · · Score: 2, Funny

    ....Quadruple sided, quadruple density?

  10. Well, this is a change of pace by Nemus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Weren't nanotechnology agents supposed to be ridding my body of disease, putting out fires, and building space stations right now? Now we'll be using a wax like substance to clean our shoes and using a toothpaste to repair our teeth. Methinks priorities may have changed.


    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!

    --
    Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
  11. Re:BASF by AssFace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    my aunt is a patent law attorney (and her father was a partner at one of the best patent law firms in the country) and I can recall her talking about BASF one day.

    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.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  12. How about this? by mehfu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Manufactured products are made from atoms.

    No shit, Sherlock...

  13. blast processing by QEDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I hate something more than a buzzword (remember Blast Processing and the Sega Genesis?), is an article that is just about a buzzword.

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
    1. Re:blast processing by joe_bruin · · Score: 3, Funny

      fool, blast processing was a technology developed by sega exclusively for the the genesis (aka 'megadrive' in europe and asia) which allowed programmers to blast data through the processor. how do you think they got sonic the hedgehog to go that fast?
      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.

  14. we have to get into this again? by frozencesium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ok...most of us know all of this already. we all know that nano tech can be a great service...longer battery life, clothes that clean themselves, etc...

    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

    --
    I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    1. Re:we have to get into this again? by Militant+Pedestrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Science fiction authors like Bruce Sterling and Rudy Rucker have addressed your worries in many of their works, check it out. Their conclusion is that this deadly technology will be combated with, well, more technology. That's how things have always happened.

  15. ... You will ... by ThresholdRPG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These outrageous claims remind me of the old AT&T commercials:

    "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.

    --

    -Michael
    Threshold RPG
    1. Re:... You will ... by frohike · · Score: 4, Funny
      Of course, nothing they promised ever got delivered, and certainly not by AT&T.

      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. 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! :)

  16. Found the last link I was looking for by Dan+B. · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the link to the article on the BASF website.

    --
    Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
  17. Diamond age by kEnder242 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm still waiting for my mediatronic chopsticks.

    --
    my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
  18. Where's the "news"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a recap of press releases issued from 1999-2002. Seriously! They're even ordered chronologically in the thesis paragraph. I realize this because I've been keeping a local archive of every mnt-related press release that I've come across since 1998.

    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!

  19. Re:Uh Oh by syd02 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No conspiracy necessary. If you look around, you'll notice that market-driven media entities are constantly fearmongering. And they love this president, because his popularity too is positively correlated with popular fears. Boogymen abound. The end result is going to be (already is getting) ugly.

    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.

  20. BASF doesn't make a lot of the killer nanotech by saddino · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bill Joy warned about. BASF makes a lot of the killer nanotech Bill Joy warned about better.

  21. Re:Uh Oh by goatasaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "But I do know that I can't stand the 'Crichton formula'."

    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?)

    --
    ~D:
  22. Self-cleaning shoe by zobier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The general reason my shoes look crusty is from scuffing NOT dirt.

    The wax coating for the "Lotus-Effekt" (from the BASF Article, 9 paragraphs down, under the heading "Nanotechnology means learning from nature") will still be susceptible to this.

    --
    Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  23. Re:Econ/Business Perspective by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah...but you forget it's not just for shoes...it's for jackets, !paper!, construction materials...do you have any idea whatsoever how much cleaning stuff (like buildings) costs? Or what about applying it to bridges, over the paint coat: goodbye dirt-errosion. Or what about those mirrored skyscrapers?

    But, geek that I am, I'm really waiting for that tooth whitening stuff to come out.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  24. More like tiny refillable propane tanks by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    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. ;-)

    1. Re:More like tiny refillable propane tanks by platypus · · Score: 2, 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 ...

  25. Re:ig farben by Tempelherr · · Score: 5, Interesting
    IG Farben itself has quite an extensive history for anyone interested, especially with regard to its member's roles in WWI (manufacturing chlorine gas and potassium nitrate, which helped to alleviate Germany's dependance on Chilean imports) and WWII (producing poison gases, running work camps, ie Auschwitz). It was an incredibly huge and productive industry, also producing many other things, such as artifical rubber.

    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.

  26. Drexler by nanobug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At the last Foresight Conference Eric Drexler expressed his frustration at the amount of hype and effort going into research and development on this psuedo nanotechnology. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and getting "nano" into their products.

    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 for a better description of the distinction between weak and strong nanotechnology.

    1. Re:Drexler by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting article, it's not often you list science fiction in the credits of something trying to be scientific. The way I see it, "nanotechnology" will be its own field in a couple decades, much like computer science is today relative to physics and math.

      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. Dr. Ho can "see" and manipulate the electron clouds surrounding an atom (pretty damn cool if you ask me).

  27. Re:Uh Oh by freeweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So are almost all of James Cameron's movies.

    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.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  28. What? by Feztaa · · Score: 3, Funny

    fruit juices get their rainbow of colours from tiny particles that dissolve in liquid and disappear without a trace.

    Yes, it's called "Kool-Aid powder"...

  29. Re:Timothy, my kid reads this site by enomar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My children have been taught not to fear words or thoughts. I hope they're not too progressive for your world.

    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.

    --

    :wq
  30. Re:"real" nanotechnology by Sdrawcab · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The imaginary "molecular nanotechnology" is like having a fully automatic 3-axis CNC mill, while the current "nanotech" is like a blacksmith hammering away. Its all a matter of sophistication.