Ford, Boeing and NU Form Nanotech Alliance

spoonyfork wrote to mention an article detailing a collaboration between Ford, Boeing and Northwestern to research how nanotechnology can improve car and plane design. From the article: "Ford hopes the alliance will help it build more fuel-efficient cars and engines that are more durable because they run cooler. The research also will focus on designing vehicles that run on alternative energy sources, such as hydrogen and electricity. Nanotechnology should allow batteries for hybrid vehicles that produce more energy while weighing less and taking up less space, Stevens said. CEO Bill Ford Jr. recently said half of the company's models will have hybrid capabilities by 2010. By making batteries and other components smaller, it opens up space for more features that consumers want in their vehicles, Stevens said. Designers will be forced to make fewer compromises when choosing materials and amenities."

Comments

Interesting what's called nanotech.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at a conference when Revlon was listed as in the top-5 nanotech companies in the world - apparently because they deal with fine poweders or something like that.

Apparently Cuervo (yes, the tequila company) is one of the top plant biotech companies too, trying to speed up the lifecycle of whatever plant it is that makes tequila.

With enough marketing, I suppose even Microsoft could be a nano-tech company - micro & nano both mean small, don't they?

Re:Interesting what's called nanotech.

[biryokumaru]

Tequila is made from agave, which often have a very slow life span. In some parts of the US a particular species is known as the "century plant."

This has been your biology update from the town drunkard.

Who will be in business longest?

[opencity]

My money's on NU as it would be hardest for them to go bankrupt.
Ford deserves credit for at least making some effort.

Re:Who will be in business longest?

[nihaopaul]

my money is on the UN to stick their nose in, in a few years.

What!?

[RobbieGee]

As if the seats weren't small enough...

Re:What!?

[mikek3332002]

I though the point of the article was making, is that they have a smaller battery so you have 0.01 more leg room.

Re:What!?

[mikek3332002]

Correction: I meant to put 1cm

Need a new term - picotech!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Just about any manufacturing company's calling themselves nanotech these days.

I think we need a new term - say, picotech - with a strict definition "you know what every atom is doing". That way the real nanotech companies (single nanotube devices; but not bulk composites -- and molecular memory guys) could have a menaingful label; and all the chemists who think that the materials science label is so 90s can use nanotech without confusing anyone.

Smaller components for smaller cars

[Alain Williams]

By making batteries and other components smaller, it opens up space for more features that consumers want in their vehicles

Given the size of the typical US vehicle it has never struck me that space would be at a premium. Let us hope that this technology will be used to make smaller & more fuel efficient cars -- we all need to drive those to mitigate the causes of climate change -- especially cars made in the USA.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us hope that this technology will be used to make smaller & more fuel efficient cars

Those cars exist already and are used in the other countries. For some reason the majority of the people in the US things that bigger car means bigger penis, so they buy bigger cars. Of course, one reason is the gasoline price. If the price would be higher, people might be more willing to buy cars that are more fuel efficient. I think that only way to get people to buy smaller cars is to add more taxes to fuel.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[rock_climbing_guy]

I would just like to add that many people who choose large vehicles are not choosing them because they equate it with manliness or some-such, but smaller vehicles can be more dangerous to be inside in the event of a car crash.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[DeafByBeheading]

So if we could only take care of the fact that Americans, for the most part, drive like jack-asses (not that other countries are any better), we'd be all set. Also, I never was able to grasp the SUV philosophy of security-through-being-able-to-crush-the-shit-out- of-everyone-else-if-in-an-accident...

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[arkhan_jg]

One reason for that is because so many others are driving SUVs and light trucks. A car hit by a SUV is at greater risk of having fatalities than if it had been hit by a heavy car. It's the ride height and stiffness that makes SUVs more dangerous, not their weight.

Incidentally, SUVs themselves are held to the lower safety standards of light trucks, not passenger cars. They don't have the same safety standards for their occupants as passenger cars for side impacts, and their bumpers are not as strong. There's also the the significant increased risk of rollovers.

So buying an SUV or light truck not only puts other road-users at greater risk, it also puts the occupants at higher risk than if they'd bought a medium or large sized car.

To be fair, there are uses for light trucks and SUVs, mainly out of cities. In urban areas, a large car does the same job, is safer all round, and gets better fuel efficiency. The tax and safety loopholes that SUVs get should be closed, as they are primarily passenger vehicles, not business light trucks.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[Balthisar]

US cars made for the US market (oh, might I add Canada and Mexico in there, as well?) meet US tastes and demands. Yeah, that means big, old Expeditions and Crown Victorias and big, gas guzzling cars. It's not Ford et al's fault -- it's market driven.

If you look at Ford products in Mexico, the UK, Europe, and Asia, you'll see that Ford builts and sells more small cars the world over than big SUV's and full size cars in the North American market.

I'm currently working in Mexico launching an American market car. Down here when you ask for "full size" at the airport, they give you a Focus! I'm currently driving a Mondeo that my 6'2" frame barely fits into and while it's a perfectly safe care, it "feels" dangerously small when you're used to something the size of a Taurus or larger.

Not too long ago, I was trying to find out some information about these Mondeos (they don't sell 'em in the US/Canada market). I read a review of Mondeos on a British site. The review exclaimed that among the good points were the cavernous amounts of space inside this absolutely huge vehicle. The principal bad point was the miserable gas mileage, at only 27mpg is was fuel hog!

It just goes to show that perception among different markets is, obviously, different, and that you can't pigeonhole Ford into being nothing but a huge SUV maker. Remember, Toyota and Nissan sell into the USA/Canada/Mexico market, too, and they sell huge, behemouth trucks and SUV's, too! I'm betting you don't see many of those in Europe.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[chabotc]

I'm afraid i will loose any chance of not being marked a troll for asking this, but i'll be brave and do it anyway .. take pitty on me mods :-)

You speak of the US market, supply and demand and these are very good points, in the american mind puny european cars are just not 'cars', their toys that never feel 'safe' and just aint american enough. Europeans on the other hand think about things like 'gas is expensive', 'boy we polute a lot', 'wow taxes on huge cars are expensive' and the ever favorite 'how could i park such a monster of a car in town!'. So sure both sides have different ideas and concepts of what a car is and different problems they face.

However the enviriomental question isn't one thats unique to europe. Looking at recent huricanes one could say they are not becomming more frequent, but are becomming more powerfull .. one could argue that this could well be because the oceans are warming up, and warm water is the 'fuel' for a huricane, so a slightly warmer gulf of mexico directly equals stronger huricanes and more devistation.

Now the climate isn't changing its self, we as human kind contribute a lot to this, and thus we as people tried to initiate the kyoto convention, tax bigger cars and poluting industries, raise taxes on gas and a slew of other measures (here in the netherlands you get a big tax break on a small car equiped with state of the art filters, and get huge tax increases on big poluting cars forinstance).

Now the US didn't join the kyoto convention, still refuses too, sugested a watered down version that wouldn't mean taking drastic measures, the US doesn't choose (yet?) to drive less poluting cars, and doesn't stimulate less poluting industries 'as much' as europe does.

Doesn't anyone in america get the feeling that maybe their demands for bigger, more gas guzzling cars isn't such a bright idea and that maybe the kyoto convention isn't so silly afterall?

As you said its all supply and demand, and i'm just wondering why demand ain't shifting ..

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[milimetric]

Climate change is irreversible. The polar caps have started melting and they are creating more water around them. This water will gather more sunlight energy and keep it for longer causing less ice to be formed every winter and more ice to be melted every summer. Driving smaller cars is our ignorant idea on how to stop the enormity of nature from doing something that she's been set to do. We just have to figure out a way to live with climate change.

There was a darwin award for a lady that left her bus in neutral and then instead of just letting it crash into the wall she got in front of it and tried to push it back. We are all guilty of that if we think we can stop global warming. I totally agree, we have to stop producing so much CO2. We can do a lot of things towards that end, and I really hope that we start building sustainable housing and semi sustainable cars (that is my life goal). However, none of this will reverse climate change. Only help us to live in a cleaner world and to feel better about ourselves and our relationship with mother nature.

Here's to people realizing the gift of nature and not squandering it!!

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[buraianto]

And smaller cars are also less likely to be in an accident, due to better handling, braking, and rollover resistance.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[sydbarrett74]

Demand isn't shifting because Americans as a whole are selfish, arrogant, ignorant gluttons (i.e., 'fat, happy and stupid'). Lest this get modded as a troll, I'm an American.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[dfjghsk]

Now the climate isn't changing its self, ...

and why not? the climate has been changing itself for billions of years.. long before we were even here. So now that we are here, the Earth's temperature suddenly stopped changing by itself? We are the sole cause for the increase in temperature?

Sorry if I don't take your work for it.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[Wyatt Earp]

A couple of points.

1. Looking at recent hurricanes says nothing about climate change, it says more about a cyclical nature of Atlantic Basin Tropical Storms.
2. The climate might be changing itself, we see a marked increase in solar radiation and other bodies in the Solar System are warming at rates similar to Earth. Theres not near as much research into this as there is into human created climate change however for a number of political reasons.
3. Kyoto wasn't as much about changing the climate as it was about shackling the US industry with the same sort of political restraints as the European nations have. Nor will Kyoto solve any problems at all while it costs economies trillions of dollars. How much does Kyoto cost? Roughly 95 billion dollars at this point while it's lowered the temprature 0.001003259 C

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[Wyatt Earp]

If we can't stop it, why try?

Seriously, from your comment that it's irreversible, why should anyone change anything? Infact from that statement that "Climate change is irreversible", we should stop all fuel cell R&D, all fusion and pebble reactor R&D and throw that money into exploiting all the fossil fuels on Earth, all the coal, all the natural gas, methane clathrates, tar sand and oil shale.

I took an undergraduate course on Global Climate change and I remember one student who was always going on about hidden costs and price supports and how unstable things were and that we need fuel cells and a hydrogen economy and once we have a hydrogen economy where fuels have basicly no emissions, we need to then cut energy use. The two ideas don't work togeather, if we have cheap fuels that pollutive, why do we need to cut energy use?

Same with your comment, if we can't fix the problem with reducing CO2 or anything, why the hell should we cut CO2 at all?

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[milimetric]

um, because it's the right thing to do and because if you think about it it's more productive

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[Teun]

Looking at recent huricanes one could say they are not becomming more frequent, but are becomming more powerfull .. one could argue that this could well be because the oceans are warming up, and warm water is the 'fuel' for a huricane, so a slightly warmer gulf of mexico directly equals stronger huricanes and more devistation.

Come on, as an American you should know these Hurricanes are God's® revenge for that sinfull Democratic president y'all allowed to stay in the Whitehouse for 8 years!
8 years, that's more than the punishments the biblical Egyptians had to suffer!
Just wait till winter and them blizzards are going to hit them Democrats up north, you aint see nuthin' yet!

®= Registered Republican.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[Balthisar]

I think it's important to note that it's not just the US market. It's the "enlightened" Canadian market. It's the Mexican market. It's virtually all of the Latin American market. It's the entire New World. Let's include Australia in the New World, too, since they like their big cars and gas guzzlers, too.

It's definitely not just a lazy, selfish, American attitude. You're talking about an entire continent. In fact, I'm a hard-working, generous, world-travelling American, and to me a small car is a Taurus and good fuel economy is 22mpg. I also have a truck I use when I need a truck, and the fact that it gets 12mpg doesn't bug me in the least, because I can still afford $3/gallon, and I only use it when it's needed.

At the same time, I don't feel that the sky is falling. But I'm an American. I don't believe in Kyoto; I believe in productivity. It doesn't mean I'm an evil bastard; it only means that you and I were brought up with vastly different ideals and beliefs. I don't deny global warming, but I have faith in our ability to deal with it.

I'm not trying to cause a debate here, and won't respond to one. The point I'm bring up is this: Perspective is everything, and my post and its geneology show the truth in that.

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[7Prime]

I don't deny global warming, but I have faith in our ability to deal with it.

That's the problem, Americans have too much faith and not enough reason. You say you care, but then act as if the problem will fix itself on its own. I don't know if there is any explanation for this viewpoint other than laziness and apathy. Faith never put food on anyone's table, and it sure as hell won't fix any environmental problems.

--Eric

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[BlackTyranny]

What means more to you from an environmentally friendliness perspective, A:) Good gas mileage, or B:) Tier II emmissions standards? It almost seems to me we are professing enlightenment, without understanding all that much in reality. Now, if you were to argue the "Emmissions per Mile" of a vehicle, and compare Europe, China, Mexico, the U.S. and other vehicle outputs, then I'd be far more inclined to think we were heading down the right path to an honest debate. Gas mileage, on the other hand, is often nothing more than a measure of what it costs you to drive. Sure my German Opel got better gas mileage than my current F-150. But I'm also pretty sure I burned a lot more Ozone while doing 140kph on the autobahn to Frankfurt for 3 hours than I do in my F-150 driving through the snow to the great white north for 4 hours. I also know that Europe is heavily into small diesel engines, which have really respectable gas mileage. However, I am entirely unconvinced that this is in any way better for the environment, considering the horrible things that come out of a diesel engine while it's transitioning to a steady state of operation, especially in the cold winter months. Not to mention the incredible impact Summer vs. Winter fuel has on such vehicles. Anyone got a good reference on what the oil industry themselves could do to reduce vehicle emissions? There are trade-offs on various emission components, but eliminating 89 octane for 91 octane minimum, in conjunction with some technology upgrades / updates on new cars, would seem to be a step in the right direction. At today's gas prices, seems it would be a reasonably cost-effective improvement on multiple fronts. Thoughts, comments, references, suggestions?

Re:Smaller components for smaller cars

[BlackTyranny]

Gah... stupid submit-next-to-the-preview button mistake...

Should have looked like this:

What means more to you from an environmentally friendliness perspective, A:) Good gas mileage, or B:) Tier II emmissions standards? It almost seems to me we are professing enlightenment, without understanding all that much in reality. Now, if you were to argue the "Emmissions per Mile" of a vehicle, and compare Europe, China, Mexico, the U.S. and other vehicle outputs, then I'd be far more inclined to think we were heading down the right path to an honest debate.

Gas mileage, on the other hand, is often nothing more than a measure of what it costs you to drive. Sure my German Opel got better gas mileage than my current F-150. But I'm also pretty sure I burned a lot more Ozone while doing 140kph on the autobahn to Frankfurt for 3 hours than I do in my F-150 driving through the snow to the great white north for 4 hours.

I also know that Europe is heavily into small diesel engines, which have really respectable gas mileage. However, I am entirely unconvinced that this is in any way better for the environment, considering the horrible things that come out of a diesel engine while it's transitioning to a steady state of operation, especially in the cold winter months. Not to mention the incredible impact Summer vs. Winter fuel has on such vehicles.

Anyone got a good reference on what the oil industry themselves could do to reduce vehicle emissions? There are trade-offs on various emission components, but eliminating 89 octane for 91 octane minimum, in conjunction with some technology upgrades / updates on new cars, would seem to be a step in the right direction. At today's gas prices, seems it would be a reasonably cost-effective improvement on multiple fronts.

Thoughts, comments, references, suggestions?

And why didn't they...

[6pak]

...ask Matchbox to join in? They should have the obvious expertise!

Like this will go anywhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt this will do much for cars, because whatever they come up with will be too expensive. That's the same reason cars currently aren't being made out of titanium. If better mileage was all the car companies cared about, cars would get a few hundred mpg, but cost too much for most people to buy.

Re:Like this will go anywhere...

[dbIII]

I doubt this will do much for cars, because whatever they come up with will be too expensive.

Lets take a car example from a few years back - high strength low alloy steels. Just changing the way cheap and nasty steel was heat treated and formed gave large improvements and actually reduced costs - as well as giving us lighter cars.

Modern cars dent easily, but that's a different story and a deliberate design feature where the car takes the damage to reduce the energy that reaches the occupants.

Re:Like this will go anywhere...

[jupiter909]

Dear AnonC.

Climb out from whatever rock it is that you are living under and snap back to reality.

Technolgy becomes cheaper over time, fact. Look at satelitte navigation, non-stick pans, mobile phones, memoflex glasses, broadband communications, it has to all start somewhere though. From value-tubes to the computer that you have now posted your post from, which I know has at least a million or more transistors in a chip.

As for Titanium, it is costly due to not being widely available, the same reason gold and platinum is costly. Titanium is also not the easiest of materials to work with. It is unbeleively strong that is it's biggest pro factor. Now look at things such as Kevlar and other types of fiberglass and nano-tubing, easy to work with, easier to produce. Amazing affordable things through technology. Nano-fibers put together can create things stonger than anything anyone could have dreamt of even just five years ago.

They are not just worried about milage, they want cars that have other features too, like saftey.

Look at current cars on the market. The amount of technology that has gone into designing them is asstounding. Lighter and stronger materials, special crumple zones, engines that are becoming more efficient(running cooler, even new synthetic oils are helping) through new materials with each passing year. Tires that can handle high speeds under all conditions. All these things and you have doubt.

Please turn off your computer, throw it in the bin and go live in a hut away from technology.

Signed.
Jupiter909
Advocate for technology and disliker of short sighted ignortant fools

Re:Like this will go anywhere...

[netwiz]

As for Titanium, it is costly due to not being widely available, the same reason gold and platinum is costly. Titanium is also not the easiest of materials to work with. It is unbeleively strong that is it's biggest pro factor.

Where to start? There's so much wrong here. One, titanium isn't expensive because it's rare; it's the ninth most common element in the earth's crust. You kind of got it right with the materials handling comment. Ti isn't easy to work with, and that's why it's expensive. It's strong, but only in particular ways. In fact, depending on what you're trying to do, cast iron can be a better material. It's very strong for it's weight, and when heated, maintains that strength almost all the way to it's melting point, making it a superior metal in high-temperature environments.

Re:Like this will go anywhere...

[Wyatt Earp]

Just because it's the 9th most common element in the crust does not mean it exsists in deposits or forms that can be economically mined.

It is widely distributed and occurs primarily in the minerals anatase, brookite, ilmenite, perovskite, rutile, titanite (sphene), as well in many iron ores. Of these minerals, only ilmenite and rutile have significant economic importance, yet even they are difficult to find in high concentrations.

Thats the important part, the minerals with economic importance are hard to find in high concentrations.

Re:Like this will go anywhere...

[MtViewGuy]

Actually, automobile engines have become vastly more efficient thanks to things like computerized engine controls, port fuel injection, four-valve per cylinder combustion chambers, better spark plugs, and more recently variable valve timing. And it will get even better with the arrival of direct fuel injection and lean-burn combustion over the next few years.

nanotech alliance?

[commodoresloat]

I, for one, welcome our tiny new overlords....

Those companies are in trouble!

[bogaboga]

Ford and Boeing are in trouble. Makes me wonder whether these companies will even be relevant in a decade's time, when this technology is expected to be big. With competition from Airbus for Boeing and Ford having been replaced by Toyota, I doubt they will be strong participants in this field. Fact is, Airbus is now the largest airplane maker and not as many people want to buy Ford's vehicles.

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[dawhippersnapper]

not as many people want to buy Ford's vehicles.

Apparently you havent been to Southern Oklahoma or Texas lately, Ford has a strong group of viral marketers(big fanbase) there.

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[scavok]

Boeing is still well in the game. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,360417,00.html

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[man_eleven]

You seem to be forgetting that Ford also owns: Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Jaguar, and Aston Martin (and possibly a few others, Mazda maybe(?)). Despite the fact that US car companies seem to have dropped the ball so spectacularly when cheaper, better Japanese competition came along, I doubt we'll see the Ford brand disappear any time in the near future. Of the major US auto makers, Ford is probably the one most closely aligned with the needs of its customers - minus the glut of SUV's they've foisted upon us. And while Boeing have been a bunch of 'tards recently (with their bogus marketing practices), I still think their new business model is gonna fly (so to speak); smaller, cheaper, more fuel efficient airplanes that fly to a wider range of destinations. Airbus is betting on the jumbo-jet, Boeing not so much.

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[H0D_G]

ford also does well in foreign markets- like australia

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[TimeForGuinness]

Maybe you should read up on Boeing. They bought a little company called McDonell Douglas a few years back. Many people forget that they have a commercial, space, and defense business.

I think they will be fine.

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[Wyatt Earp]

In the long run, Boeing is in better shape than Airbus since Boeing is diversified and Airbus is not.

http://www.airbus.com/en/
http://www.boeing.com/flash.html

Go to Boeing's products heading, defense systems, space systems, commerical aviation, military aviation.
Airbus builds commerical airplanes, that's it.

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[linzeal]

Boeing has more aerospace, materials and manufacturing patents than god. They can rest on their laurels for years and just enjoy revenue from them.

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[bogaboga]

Unfortunately, all those materials and manufacturing patents do not help as the company has made repeated loses in the years past!

Re:Those companies are in trouble!

[bogaboga]

Unfortunately, Boeing still makes loses despite all these achievements.

Re:Old slashdot jokes...

[hunterx11]

In Korea, only old people lament the continued use the played-out /. memes.

NU = Northwestern University

[storem]

For all non-US readers, form deep down in their website:
(http://www.northwestern.edu/

Northwestern University is a private institution founded in 1851 to serve the Northwest Territory, an area that now includes the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. In 1853 the founders purchased a 379-acre tract of land on the shore of Lake Michigan 12 miles north of Chicago. They established a campus and developed the land near it, naming the surrounding town Evanston in honor of one of the University's founders, John Evans. After completing its first building in 1855, Northwestern began classes that fall with two faculty members and 10 students.

More on http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/

Nanotech

[H0D_G]

As a student in a nanotech degree, it brings warmth to my heart that I'll be able to get a job once I finish Uni. Whether the term nanotechnology will lose some of its stigma as "grey goo" will have ended by then is another question. and whether I'll be able to say nanotechnology without a chorus oh "huh?"s is a better question

Re:Nanotech

[Secrity]

Whether the term nanotechnology will lose some of its stigma as "grey goo" will have ended by then is another question.

I don't think of "grey goo" when somebody says "nanotechnology", I think of the nanites in Star Trek TNG episode 49 Evolution.

Re:Nanotech

[H0D_G]

Defense rests.

Re:Old slashdot jokes...

[poopdeville]

In Soviet Russia, the continued use of played-out slashdot memes laments you!

not a MOPAR

[zogger]

but you can get a tzero by ac propulsion that does pretty good performance wise if you are looking for some sportscar. Instead of MPG look at cost per mile instead with whatever you pay for electric now for charging.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home .htm

Ford Nanotech

[bobbuck]

Ford wants nanotech to track profits and build new micromanagers for the dealers and suppliers.

Re:Seriously don't by Ford

[Bill Dog]

You mean you had an extended warranty and they refused to pay for it? Did you mod it? My '01 GT is coming up on 46K, but I've got 3 more years on the extended warranty, and it's stock and I've got receipts for all the maintenance, so if my engine blew, I'd damn well expect it replaced. And get an attorney if I had to to get it replaced.

You've got to be kidding about Boeing.

[MtViewGuy]

Here's the big issue (quite literally!) that could hurt Airbus: the A380 superjumbo airliner project.

The A380 is threatening to turn into a white elephant for Airbus, mostly because it will cost many millions of US dollars/Euros to upgrade airports to accommodate the plane and because airlines are increasingly more interested in point-to-point service, which uses smaller planes. Boeing will take advantage of more point-to-point with more 777 and 787 sales, while Airbus is scrambling like mad and trying to line up financing to build the A350 for the same reason.

Re:Seriously don't by Ford

[splatter]

good for you... I didn't do anything but maintainance and mine blew up... so I suppose that makes you special?

Re:Seriously don't by Ford

[splatter]

no, mods no upgrades... just a shitty car engine that died 100k miles to soon

Don't hate me beacuse I am telling you all my experience..... the AC ford cowards are coming out of the wood work

Re:Nanotech: Save me, technology!

[H0D_G]

I don't give a damn about American jobs- I'm Australian