Cars To Be Assembled Atom By Atom

Roland Piquepaille writes "In a new article, the Detroit News says that the adoption of nanotechnology by car manufacturers will produce safer, lighter and cheaper vehicles. While GM is already using nanocomposite materials for several vans, Ford is developing new nanoengineered catalysts to replace platinum. The newspaper gives other examples, such as auto-adaptive suspension systems, scratch-resistant paints or nanocoated windshields which will not crack. In fact, all parts in a car can be improved by using nanotechnology, according to the article. And if automakers are only going to introduce limited amounts of nanotechnology-related products in the next few years, their usage should be widespread within ten years. More details are available in this overview."

Comments

Errm....

[Haydn Fenton]

Excuse my ignorace, but surely nanotechnology would produce safer, lighter and cheaper (depending on the meaning.. I'm assuming consumer-side cost) everything?

Re:Errm....

[idiot900]

Yup, but trying hard enough to make a car using nano-technology will probably result in vast amounts of byproducts small enough to get into your cells and subtly kill you.

We already have plenty of "byproducts small enough to get into your cells and subtly kill you". Smoke, alcohol, really any poisonous compound - these are all made of up things called "molecules" that can potentially get into your cells and cause damage. Sadly, your tinfoil hat may not protect you from all of these "molecules".

(Before you mod me Flamebait: as long as there has been life, there has always been pathogenic matter that exerts its effects on a subcellular level. What's unique about this situation?)

Too Good to be True

[powera]

By the time we get to the point where we can build AN ENTIRE CAR atom by atom, I want to be flying around Earth in spaceships at 10000mph. Seriously, which is more difficult to do? Make available technology we already have somewhat, or assemble TRILLIONS of atoms.

I think this is "reporter getting carried away by 'nano' buzzword". Nano is NOT the holy grail. Maybe some parts will have nano coatings, but those aren't even assembled "atom-by-atom".

Re:Too Good to be True

[Dun Malg]

I think we're already there. The majority of accidents I've seen or heard about lately involve a soccer mom or someone else in their SUV that felt so safe in that they were careless.

Those soccer moms aren't more careless because they drive SUVs. They've always been careless drivers. The problem is that those large, heavy, tall vehicles, while arguably safer when in an accident, are less forgiving when trying to avoid an accident.

Could you help me?

[Rylfaeth]

I'm out of gas and I need directions to the nearest gas station so I can spend $2 a gallon on an antiquated and crude fuel to make my futuristic nanocar run.

Thanks!

-Rylfaeth

You have got to be high...

[caffeineboy]

if you think that a cheapskate industry like the automotive industry will be all up in nanotech.

Manufacturers are too cheap to do things like hot dip galvanizing body and frame, but they will use a bunch of nanotech? Ironic. Something as simple and low-tech as galvinizing cars that would double or triple their lifetime are left out as too expensive...

Let's start with the simple stuff please.

Yet meeting California emmissions will bk them

[Ars-Fartsica]

I'm amazed to hear that the major autos makers can figure out how to use nanotech to build car parts yet the 30% increase in efficiency demanded by new California emmissions guidelines is apparently beyond the scope of all known science and apparently will bankrupt them, according to a suit they filed to render said guidelines illegal.

Re:Yet meeting California emmissions will bk them

[aiken_d]

Yeah, because if you can keep a windsheild from cracking with a new coating, you must be able to reduce emissions by 30% with about the same amount of investment (and therefore final product cost increase).

Logic, people, logic.

-b

Re:Yet meeting California emmissions will bk them

[Dun Malg]

Where is the flaw in logic?

It's the "if they can put a man on the moon..." fallacy. It assumes that the problem they solved is as hard or harder than the one they didn't solve. Development of a nano-coated windshield does not logically suggest that they could've reduced emissions by 30% by applying their resources there instead.

Re:asdf

[zoeith]

Another movie quote that is ontopic. "Plastics! Plastics! Plastics!" from 'The Graduate'. It's about time to start screaming "Nanotech! Nanotech! Nanotech!"

Re:More perks?

[mpn14tech]

If/when we get to the point where we can build cars atom by atom, I think stringing together a few carbon and hydrogen atoms from renewable resources will not be much of a problem.

Re:This outlier was disregarded decades ago

[pjt33]

Surely you do want the glass to shatter, but you want the entire pane to shatter into nice small circular chunks. This seems to be what current safety glass does nowadays, with the result that it causes lots of tiny scratches on your skin, but none deep enough to leave a scar. (I speak from the experience of a smash 4 years ago).

shouldn't they apply this to aviation first...?

[demonhold]

I mean, I've almost lost my life twice in near-crash plane accidents due to material-fatigue (I ignore whether this is the correct term). I mean in one of them part of the fuselage tore... in the other some piece of the hydraulic system caused some sort of havoc...

If nanotechnology allows us to check material integrity in both in the assembly line and in the periodic revisions as someone here has stated what are we waiting for?

What's the difference?

[roystgnr]

If you have to take into account nanometer-scale effects to design something, I don't think it's too far fetched to call the result "nanotechnology".

The problem is that to in most science fiction and speculative non-fiction, "nanotechnology" has been used primarily as a synonym for "nanorobotics", which would be infinitely cooler but is much further away.

It will suffer the same fate befalling Software

[FreeUser]

At what point then could we just download 'plans' off P2P and just 'grow' our own car, house, dinner....

At the point where the ruling oligarchs choose to relinquish their architectures of control (patent and copyright law) and allow knowledge and thought to be shared freely.

I.e. not in the lifetime of anyone currently living, if ever.

Expect nano-designs to be covered by both patents and copyrights, much like software in America is today. And expect progress to be decimated as a result, and the best products to be created in technical violation of the law in many places, such as mplayer is today (though fortunately not in violation of the laws where its author lives).

And the latter, semi-optomistic note, assumes there are safe havens where free thinking people can still create ... probably far away from the United States or Europe. If "harmonization" succeeds, there will be no such place, and the only products and creativity that will exist will be the glacially slow change industry offers us ... assuming they don't see any threat to their current revinue streams in offering the new product. There will be no innovation from outside, and with government mandated monopoly markets, no competition either.