Slashdot Mirror
Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article, Nature says that "tiny metal particles give 15th century Italian ceramics lustre." Nature adds that iridescent glazes -- changing colour when viewed from different perspectives -- were achieved by using "particles of copper and silver of between 5 and 100 billionths of a metre across." And the story becomes even more interesting. Nanotechnology meets alchemy! "The ability to change colour was regarded as an alchemical property, making iridescence magic too." Read this summary for more details. And for more information, you can read the abstract of this research paper, "Copper in glazes of Renaissance luster pottery: Nanoparticles, ions, and local environment," published by the Journal of Applied Physics."
Nopw, just finely ground up stufff. Sheesh! FP
That's not really nanotech. They weren't using the nanomaterials directly, or intentionally. The particles just happened to be the right size.
-- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
... In other news, we're all 'Nanotechnologists'!
Seriously; we all use nanoproperties of materials to achieve macro results; just this morning I used nanotechnology in the form of nano-molecular-structure surface tension in my coffee, preventing spillage. I think this is very interesting but in the interests of linguistic integrity, having words actually *mean* something through exclusion, I question the spin that 'Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists'; that implies a level of conceptual or technological understanding of nanophenomena which simply wasn't there.
Were Renaissance Potters clever? Yes. Were they 'Nanotechnologists'? No.
It doesn't take too much technology knowhow to grind something up into very fine bits.
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
I think the article's title is a bad (aka incorrect) attempt to make the story more relevant... buzzword compliant. It also has very little to do with the common understanding of the meaning of the word nanotechnology. But the title probably got it more attention than it would have otherwise received, but then again so did the boy who cried wolf.
If you subscribe to the new marketing usage of the word "nanotechnology" which is used to include such material science feats as those Eddie Bauer khakis that have nano-sized particles to help make them water proof, then yes, you might as well say these potters are nanotechnologists too.
Science: The original open source.
Regarding the colloidal metals, which are nanoscale, referred to in this article, the Renaissance potters may have just been practicing, or re-learning, a skill that the Romans had used since at least the 1st century AD. There are several examples of ornamental dishes (goblets, plates, etc.) where the Romans applied colloidal gold or other metals to the surfaces to get the right appearance. They didn't know what it was they were making, they just knew how to make it. So while they were manipulating nanoscale particles to fabricate into a decorative coating - is it nanotechnology by today's definition? No, its not. However, it is impressive that such things have been around as long as they have, but we're just now beginning to understand what has been around for centuries.
I suspect when our descendents 1000 years from now look back, they'll say "look: Those 20th century yahoos were practicing picotechnology and they didn't even know it"
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
Sorry, but that's not "nanotechnology". Nanotechnology mean atomically precise, self-assembling, nano-scale machines.
I suppose given the utter failure of nanotechnology to achieve anything to date, it's not surprising that people are retreating on their claims. Even the staunchest proponents are weakening the requirement for self-assembly, but to call iridescent paints "nanotechnology" is going too far for even the weakest definition.
Funny, but you bring up a salient point. If these potter KNEW that they were working at the nanonucular level, then yes they could be nanotech engineers. But it is likely that they did not and that this was a happy acccident. Much like the way that a lamer uses Windows XP to connect to their ISP but doesn't know anything about PPP. You can't consider that lamer a network engineer even though they are establishing a PPP connection.
Seriously, can we not declare Slashdot of all places a pseudosciencebuzzword-free zone?!
Better yet, express it in fractions of a light year! That way you can call them astrophysicists as well!