Slashdot Mirror


Nanotechnology-Powered Wiper-Less Windshield

fab writes "Italian car designer Leonardo Fioravanti (who worked for Pininfarina for a number of years) has developed a car prototype without windshield wipers. This amazing technological feat is made possible thanks to the use of 4 layers of glass modified using nanotechnology. The first layer filters the sun and repels the water. The second layer, using 'nano-dust' is able to push dirt to the side. The third layer acts as a sensor that activates the second layer when it detects dirt, while the fourth layer is a conductor of electricity to power this complex mechanism. I haven't been able to find an English article, but there is always a google powered translation of the Italian article."

178 comments

  1. Windshield Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't breathe this.

    1. Re:Windshield Dust by Himring · · Score: 3, Funny

      The first layer filters the sun and repels the water. The second layer, using 'nano-dust' is able to push dirt to the side. The third layer acts as a sensor that activates the second layer when it detects dirt, while the fourth layer is a conductor of electricity to power this complex mechanism. I haven't been able to find an English article, but there is always a google powered translation of the Italian article....

      The fifth layer is a bum who skirts the windshield with a windex bottle filled with gutter water, wipes it with a clothe he found, and then you hand him some change from your pocket....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    2. Re:Windshield Dust by Scutter · · Score: 3, Funny

      The fifth layer is a bum who skirts the windshield with a windex bottle filled with gutter water, wipes it with a clothe he found, and then you hand him some change from your pocket....


      I'm happy to pay them *not* to crap up my windshield.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:Windshield Dust by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      I thought they just spit on it and wiped it off with the newspaper they sleep under.

    4. Re:Windshield Dust by gnick · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm happy to pay them *not* to crap up my windshield. I assume that you either haven't spent much time in a large city or just give in to these folks, but that's the standard scheme. You pay the guy before he squirts your windshield so that it doesn't get crudded up. It's more blackmail/mugging than providing a service.
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Windshield Dust by eonlabs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      also, I wouldn't drive it in upstate NY

      snow?

      I challenge your nanotech with my ICE SCRAPER!

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    6. Re:Windshield Dust by sporkme · · Score: 1

      Now I need one to wipe the beer I just spat all over my monitor. Thanks for that.

    7. Re:Windshield Dust by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "snow? I challenge your nanotech with my ICE SCRAPER!"

      surely they planned for that, right? How much water can these windshields repel? Semi drives by and throws tons of water on my windshield and it'll automatically clear it instantly at highway speeds? My wipers can hardly keep up, i have my doubts about this technology.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    8. Re:Windshield Dust by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention all the dirt, road grime, and bugs you get hit with all the time. I once ran into a swarm of bees that instantly blocked the whole windshield. Only the wipers and washer fluid combo saved me from wrecking. Can nano do bee guts?

    9. Re:Windshield Dust by Bob+The+Magic+Camel · · Score: 1

      ...The 6th always tells the truth, the seventh always lies....

      --
      This signature is esoteric
    10. Re:Windshield Dust by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Are those people that annoying where you're from?
      In my town they're fun. They come in groups of three or four, provide a little show (mostly juggling with strange objects) and do an okay job cleaning the windshield.
      In another, highly mercantile, town I've lived for a while they skip the show and sell useful stuff like little electric fans and maps.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    11. Re:Windshield Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sounds like a good reason to aim your windshield squirters 90-degrees to the side. Let them have it in the face with real windshield cleaner before they get too close.

    12. Re:Windshield Dust by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Good point, but forget snow and ice.

      What about ROCKS? How expensive will these things be to replace. You can replace a current windshield for about $200, add in a couple dollars a year for Wipers, a few bucks more for fluid and that's it, just a minor set of replacment and maintenance costs. Replacing one or two windshields during the life of a car isn't too big a burden, but what about when they cost $2000 a pop, and a is a single rock chip capable of disrupting the power flow to the entire or even a substantial portion of the windshield, thus requiring a new windshield.

      So again I ask what about Rocks?

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    13. Re:Windshield Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better: metallic striping on windshield - conencted to small Kv pulser (lower than taser). Glass is insulated from vehicle by rubber gasket, ground line connected to car body.

      Even thru paint and with some water conduction/leakage it should still be enough to illustrate why they shouldn't touch your windshield.

    14. Re:Windshield Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, the sensor and electric fields are the two innermost layers - when was the last time your car has kicked up a rock and it's managed to permeate all the way through to actually let the outside air in? My oldest car (29 year old) hasn't seen such a strike yet, and it's driven on more rocky roads than I care to count. Plus, given that these windshields will inevitably end up on the most expensive cars, I'd dare say that they'll be stronger than your average windshield - expensive things are USUALLY higher quality.

    15. Re:Windshield Dust by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Don't breathe this.

      Why not? I'd love to have clean lungs again.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    16. Re:Windshield Dust by billcopc · · Score: 1

      In my book, punching such bastards is fair game. Winding up in the street is proof enough that they have poor judgment, running around spraying people with shitwater just confirms their worthlessness as human beings.

      On one hand, we need better help for homeless people, but they need to be deserving of our help.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    17. Re:Windshield Dust by Non-Huffable+Kitten · · Score: 1

      Winding up in the street is proof enough that they have poor judgment I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      running around spraying people with shitwater just confirms their worthlessness as human beings. Thanks for solving this long-standing problem for us. Maybe you can send the update to these guys? (Subject: "ur doing it wrong!")
      --
      Medium cat is MEDIUM.
    18. Re:Windshield Dust by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Well now, have _YOU_ ever found yourself homeless, running around harassing everyone who happens to have a pulse ?

      I wouldn't have such a big problem with "career bums" if they didn't instigate so much shit in the first place. Bumming change at the intersection isn't going to turn their life around.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    19. Re:Windshield Dust by Non-Huffable+Kitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well now, have _YOU_ ever found yourself homeless (...) No I haven't, but I have my parents to thank for that.

      I wouldn't have such a big problem with "career bums" if they didn't instigate so much shit in the first place. Bumming change at the intersection isn't going to turn their life around. It probably isn't. I was mainly questioning your statement that making mistakes makes a person "worthless" and undeserving of help.
      --
      Medium cat is MEDIUM.
    20. Re:Windshield Dust by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Will it blend my hand if I put it on the windshield?

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  2. Mama mia thatsa cleana windshielda! by MeditationSensation · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now I want one that has adjustable levels of tinting for privacy and blocking out the sun.

    1. Re:Mama mia thatsa cleana windshielda! by chill · · Score: 1
      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  3. Ice? by DebateG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's pretty cool if you live in a climate when your main problem is dirt / rain. But what about ice/sleet/freezing rain, which is the bane of my existence now that I'm living in the Midwest.

    1. Re:Ice? by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. It's got to be able to move a large quantity of slush off a windshield when the truck next to you hits a puddle and suddenly throws a gallon on your windshield.

    2. Re:Ice? by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1
      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    3. Re:Ice? by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I installed a Trunk Monkey with a scraper. I also got the accessory crowbar for those annoying hip hop fans with a sub woofer next to me.

    4. Re:Ice? by reidconti · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's pretty cool if you live in a climate when your main problem is dirt / rain. But what about ice/sleet/freezing rain, which is the bane of my existence now that I'm living in the Midwest. Move.
    5. Re:Ice? by b0nafide · · Score: 1

      ditto to that; up here in the mountains of british columbia my morning routine would be much, much easier if only I had something other than elbow grease and an ice scraper. If nanobots could work through the night on moving snow off of my vehicle, I'd be tempted to also apply them in a 100' radius around the house.

    6. Re:Ice? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1
      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:Ice? by jzeejunk · · Score: 0

      There's a secret 5th layer, which will keep the wind shield hot so that ice falls and melts right away. This 5th layer will also serve as hand warmer, blow dryer, toaster etc... depending on how much ice has already (not) fallen

      --
      sarchasm
    8. Re:Ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, we all have heated windshields, it's called defrost. However, when you're driving highway speeds and a truck covers your car with slush, waiting for it to melt is not an option.

    9. Re:Ice? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      > if only I had something other than elbow grease and an ice scraper

      I'm amazed if the guy scrapes the ice off his windscreen while at highway speed

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    10. Re:Ice? by b0nafide · · Score: 1

      i dunno, sounds like something homestar runner would do.

    11. Re:Ice? by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Ok does anyone know where that article went about using active matrix LCD style wire grids to create an ice proof surface? I swear the article was posted to slashdot or wired a few years ago but I cannot find it. It was about a guy (Russian I think) who work in an ice lab (Harvard I think)and found that the protons not the electrons move when a current is applied to ice. He created a surface that would bond to or explosivley reple ice depending on the type of charge applied to the surface. I have looked for this 10 times on google and can't find a thing about it.

  4. Durability by contraba55 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this any stronger than a standard windshield, or will the rogue baseball do it in?

    1. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia windshield hits you!

    2. Re:Durability by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First things first: Is is as effective as windshield wipers?

    3. Re:Durability by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm curious if it can even be used in the US. All windshields here have to be tempered safety glass and they place a shatter container around it to stop glass pellets from flying in your face if it is ever damages.

      If you have ever seen a car accident that busted the windshield, you will probably notice that the glass might be shattered by it is all contained and most likely can all be removed in one piece. Now the side windows and possibly the back window, they usually just shatter and fall in a pile of a thousand or more pieces. I'm wondering how this would stack up to this or if it would be part of the laminating process. I think it might be a good side view window and mirror replacement though. It was so cold the other night, road spray kept freezing my mirror and windows up and I couldn't see my blind spots nor could I back into the driveway without cleaning both of them off.

  5. How would this work for snow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This sounds like a good idea but I live in an area that gets a lot of snow and the windshield wipers help clear the snow off the window when it is coming down heavy, and I don't see how this would work in that situation.

    1. Re:How would this work for snow by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! What about a layer of ice an inch think, with 12 inches of snow on top of it? This integrated RainX is nice, but it is not a replacement for windshield wipers.

  6. 5 Layers? by weighn · · Score: 4, Funny

    so how long until an executive at a rival company demands that they produce one with 5 layers?
    One more is always better, just ask Gillette and anyone with a guitar amp.

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    1. Re:5 Layers? by Boogaroo · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Well ours has SIX layers and a FREE bonus layer on the inside to get rid of fingerprints and dog-nose smudges.

    2. Re:5 Layers? by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      And blood. And hair fibers.

    3. Re:5 Layers? by jay-be-em · · Score: 0

      C'mon dude, at least site your alleged witticisms
      theonion

      --
      "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
    4. Re:5 Layers? by jay-be-em · · Score: 1, Funny

      And cite them too.

      In before grammar/spelling nazis.

      --
      "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
    5. Re:5 Layers? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      In before grammar/spelling nazis.

      That's because grammar correction is like driving. When I do it it's obviously reasonable. It's the other guy who drives like an idiot/maniac, and the other guy who's a grammar nazi.

  7. Permeable first layer? by s4m7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe I'm stupid, and being your typical /.er I didn't RTFA, but how does a second layer deal with dirt? Is the first layer permeable? That's just... weird.

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    1. Re:Permeable first layer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm stupid, and being your typical /.er I didn't RTFA, but how does a second layer deal with dirt? Is the first layer permeable? That's just... weird. Um, hello??? It's nanotech! So it just uses some nanites or something. Just like Ray Kurzweil promised us.
    2. Re:Permeable first layer? by nbucking · · Score: 1

      They mean layers of nano particles. Kind of like layers of paint if your paint was spread to the nearest nanometer. Since the particles are so small the dust and water can easily permeate now to the level were the proper layer will practically 'wipe' away the debris.

    3. Re:Permeable first layer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm just not in touch with the youth of today or something, but what in the name of the Great Green Arkleseizure makes a question like this interesting?!
      Maybe the ANSWER could be interesting, but wtf?!

      Anyway the first layer is based on titanium dioxide, which is mostly to repel the sun, also from the summary, while it's not perfectly clear, the layers obviously interact, ergo permeability and impermeability would be implied for the various layers to deal with this or that.

    4. Re:Permeable first layer? by aggspball3r · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe I'm stupid, and being your typical /.er I didn't RTFA, but how does a second layer deal with dirt? Is the first layer permeable? That's just... weird.


      DUH! it's series of tubes just like the internet!
      --
      There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
    5. Re:Permeable first layer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway the first layer is based on titanium dioxide, which is mostly to repel the sun, Ah yes... In fact, the repulsive effect of Earth's rich deposits of titanium dioxide may be the only thing that keeps it from plummeting into the Sun.
    6. Re:Permeable first layer? by Chonnawonga · · Score: 1

      It doesn't actually say... in Italian, nor in Googlenglish.

  8. Re:There's quite a good article by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    DO NOT CLICK THE ABOVE LINK

  9. Dare I ask... by Wuhao · · Score: 2, Funny

    Was there something terribly wrong with wipers to begin with?

    1. Re:Dare I ask... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently they weren't expensive enough.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Dare I ask... by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was there something terribly wrong with wipers to begin with?
      They inevitably wear out, lose curvature, smear, start squeaking, cause distraction, are a pain to replace, etc. Some more quickly than others. I bought a new car in September and realized a couple days later that I'd made a mistake going car shopping on a clear sunny day. The stock wipers work in such a fashion that after each pass, a thin film is left behind, evaporating a moment later unless the wipers are going fast enough (or the water's coming down hard enough) to prevent that. Fine during the day, or during heavy rain, but I almost had a wreck the first time I drove that car at night in a drizzle. The glare from streetlights and opposing traffic diffusing through the film left behind by the wipers made it almost impossible to see.

      I've been using Rain-X for years and as long as the application is fairly fresh, it's easy to drive in the rain without wipers. I have to say, if I could get a windshield with those repellent properties built in, and the effects were proven to last, I'd happily pay a premium for it.
      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    3. Re:Dare I ask... by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

      Wow. Are you serious? I mean, "a pain to replace"? If you bought a new car, they should not be a pain to replace. It's only after they've been on for a couple of years and rusted and seized up that it's a pain to get them off without breaking them into pieces. I change mine twice a year, before and after winter. It takes me about 10-15 minutes a year to replace them, at the staggering cost of $15 per blade.

      If you want to talk about stock crap, how about those tires that come with your new car? It's almost reckless the way they cheap out on those.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    4. Re:Dare I ask... by muridae · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Was there something terribly wrong with wipers to begin with?
      Yeah, they don't make wipers for motorcycle helmets.
    5. Re:Dare I ask... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I've been using Rain-X for years and as long as the application is fairly fresh, it's easy to drive in the rain without wipers. I have to say, if I could get a windshield with those repellent properties built in, and the effects were proven to last, I'd happily pay a premium for it. Rain-X makes windshield wiper fluid. You can pay a premium for that.
      http://www.rainx.com/Products/Windshield_Washer_Fluids/De-Icer_Bug_Remover.aspx
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Dare I ask... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You beat me to it. I am really curious whether it will work for motorcycle visors, side mirrors, and maybe the windows on my office so they don't dry all spotted with dirt :)

    7. Re:Dare I ask... by PapayaSF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Was there something terribly wrong with wipers to begin with?

      Apparently they weren't expensive enough.

      Good point and funny reply, and this seems to be a good spot to reveal one of the great secrets of auto maintenance: you can sharpen your windshield wipers and make them last many times longer. All you need is a small piece of fine sandpaper. Get the wiper blade wet (if it's not already), fold the sandpaper into a V shape, and pull it along the edge a number of times. You want to take off the stiff and cracked edge and expose a fresh layer of rubber. I get extra years out of blades this way, though YMMV.

      I use a little gadget I bought at a flea market for a dime decades ago, a little piece of sheet aluminum that's mostly handle to hold an inch-long groove like two sides of an inside-out triangular file. Forget the "100 mile-per-gallon carburetor," it's the windshield wiper blade sharpener that's my candidate for great suppressed invention.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    8. Re:Dare I ask... by hacker · · Score: 1

      Rain-X also makes wiper blades themselves...

    9. Re:Dare I ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There wasn't anything "wrong" with reaching your arm out the side with a cloth and wiping the windshield yourself, either, until they found a better way.

    10. Re:Dare I ask... by Atario · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I'm sure there's no reason they couldn't.

      From a quick Googling, it looks like some work has been done in this area.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    11. Re:Dare I ask... by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Whoa! You replace wiper blades twice a year?!

      I replace mine.. let me think about this.. 3 times ever.

      Current car is nearly two years old, still original wiper blades, 42k miles driven. I live in England, so yes, it definitely rains.

      You need to buy better wiper blades!

    12. Re:Dare I ask... by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      They tend to dry out more than wear out.

    13. Re:Dare I ask... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they don't make wipers for motorcycle helmets.

      Not a problem; CERN is already working on it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Dare I ask... by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Sure they do -- the wiper is a strip of suede or similar material on the back of thumb of the left glove. Works pretty well in mist; in heavy rain you don't need to wipe at all. Something about the orientation of the visor and its proximity to the eyes makes the water not obstruct vision significantly. I've ridden in rain so hard that every car pulled off the road because their wipers couldn't keep up, but I could see just fine.

      Anyway, this new four-layer conductive glass technology certainly would not work in a motorcycle helmet. Helmet visors are thin flexible plastic.

    15. Re:Dare I ask... by Suicide+Drink · · Score: 1
      http://www.burnyourbonus.info/rec.autos.tech/thread342.html

      The high efficiency carb was a HUGE loser in that it gat well under what the old factory carb could do.
    16. Re:Dare I ask... by muridae · · Score: 1
      Rain isn't so bad, I agree. But I got stuck out one night in a bad combination of rain and fog. Thick fog that stuck to the outside of my visor, and the inside misted up because it was so cold. Cracking the visor open a little didn't work, then my glasses fogged up too. Something like this that would actively repel water would have been great that evening.

      Just because it is on glass now doesn't mean the same idea can not be applied to plastics later.

    17. Re:Dare I ask... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like what you really need is a heated visor. It would be easy enough to have a resistive-wire sticker that runs around the perimeter of the visor, and a breakaway power cord...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Dare I ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After about 15 years of driving used vehicles in Canada I finally had to replace a windshield wiper. It cost me $12 and took 5 min to replace (because I didn't know what I was doing). I am afraid that this issue will have to gain several orders of magnitude on the expensive-pain-in-the-ass scale for it to even register.

      Now if a super-cold windshield de-fogger had been mentioned then I would pay attention. Nothing sucks more than breathing downward for 10 minutes to prevent one's breath from condensing and freezing to the inside of the windshield. Well, except when the engine is finally warm and the defogger can finally be used, only to turn the entire windshield interrior opaque.

  10. I wonder... by theJavaMan · · Score: 1

    I wonder how well the lack of wipers cope with snow, frost, chunks of dirt, and various other things. How will it handle little stone chips on the windshield? Will that spot simply remain dirty?

  11. What about non-water stuff? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like bird poo, smashed butterflies, roadkill blood, garbage, mud, tree leaves, etc?

    Will this ultimate wipeless windshield be able to clear it away?

    1. Re:What about non-water stuff? by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like bird poo, smashed butterflies, roadkill blood, garbage, mud, tree leaves, etc?
      My lord man are you sure your that will be your most immediate concern at that point?

      I guess it depends if your front grille and pants are made of some self cleaning nanomaterials...
    2. Re:What about non-water stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about Darl McBride. Or Jack Thompson. Does this miracle windshield cleanse those after they get run over?

    3. Re:What about non-water stuff? by metaltoad · · Score: 1

      Since when did windshield wipers actually clear that stuff away? You know as well as I do, that if a bird craps on your windshield all a blade is going to do is smear it around. The absence of wiper blades, doesn't mean you never have to wash the car.

      Despite how neat this sounds, please wake me up when they actually put this on something off the factory line.

    4. Re:What about non-water stuff? by Gumbytwo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe he's driving a Canyonero.

    5. Re:What about non-water stuff? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Pilkington self cleaning glass (for buildings) claims you never need to clean your windows, so it must deal with dirt somehow -- probably by letting rain wash the dirt away.

    6. Re:What about non-water stuff? by Threni · · Score: 1

      What problems does doing away with windscreen wipers solve, anyway?

    7. Re:What about non-water stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. it will, however, make the rubber side of the squeegee at the gas station obsolete.

    8. Re:What about non-water stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But more to the question, will it blend?

  12. bugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will not work in the south where the greatest windshield ornament is bug juice.

  13. How much fuel would be saved annually... by distantbody · · Score: 1

    ...if every new vehicle had this, along with rear-view cameras to replace external mirrors?

    1. Re:How much fuel would be saved annually... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it will cost more fuel. Instead of running one motor intermittently, you have to power an entire windshield, plus sensors, plus your rear view camera, plus the display unit, continuously. A silvered piece of glass doesn't use any fuel.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:How much fuel would be saved annually... by distantbody · · Score: 1

      ...if every new vehicle had this, along with rear-view cameras to replace external mirrors?
      In terms of reduction in drag.
    3. Re:How much fuel would be saved annually... by iksbob · · Score: 1

      Eliminating the mirrors might result in a measurable decrease in drag since they hang out in the air flow along side the vehicle. Wipers on the other hand are generally mounted at the transition between the hood and windshield. Since the windshield slopes upward at a greater angle than the hood, you get a slower moving, high pressure area at the transition. A disruption as small as a wiper or two in an already disrupted airflow isn't going to make a huge difference.

    4. Re:How much fuel would be saved annually... by dino2gnt · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much better off everyone would be if we could protect them from themselves!

      --
      Future events such as these may affect you in the future!
    5. Re:How much fuel would be saved annually... by distantbody · · Score: 1
  14. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  15. I for one... by mwilli · · Score: 1

    welcome our new windshield wiperless car overlords.

    --
    My sig beat up your sig.
  16. C.O.P.S. by MikeUW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cool - this totally reminds me of that episode of C.O.P.S, when a chemical mishap produces some sort of dirt-repelling cloth that the Big Boss uses to make a super clean suit. I don't remember if there was anything else to the plot though...

    1. Re:C.O.P.S. by aug24 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ahem. Possibly sir is thinking of this. Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  17. Great for motorcyclists/cyclists. by gnuman99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. It will cost 0. Yes, 0. Just like always-on lights we have in Canada cost, yes, 0.

    The gas engine wastes so much power anyway and never runs at optimal that the so called loses are meaningless. 100HP engine can generate 100W of power without any additional fuel costs. Heck, on a bike you generate 100W of power without too much effort. You can only speak of loses with some *efficient* hybrids or electric cars. But then the windshield doesn't need to be powered all the time anyway.

    Regardless, this technology may be most helpful in places where wipers are currently not used. For example, motorcycle helmets. Or cycling glasses.

    1. Re:Great for motorcyclists/cyclists. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Regardless, this technology may be most helpful in places where wipers are currently not used. For example, motorcycle helmets. Or cycling glasses.

      Yeah somebody up the page was talking about something called RainX. Making the outer layer hydrophobic seems to be the main trick here.

    2. Re:Great for motorcyclists/cyclists. by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      A 100 HP gasoline engine needs about 400W of fuel flow to make 100W of extra electrical power. That comes out to about 1 gallon per 90 hours of operation.

      While it might be essentially unmeasurable in your fuel bill, so is a single 100W bulb in your electric bill. It doesn't mean that it doesn't count.

    3. Re:Great for motorcyclists/cyclists. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You're really wrong. Back when they first came out, and gas was, iirc, 59 cents a canadian gallon (and not the $1.24 /liter it is today - $4.91 / US gallon or $5.64 / canadian gallon),it was calculated that running lights would cost an extra $25/year in fuel consumption.

      Today's running lights take less energy; however, we also drive about 50% more per annum than we did back then, so we still end up consuming at least . Of course, with the hgher price, you're now looking at annual costs easily over $100.00 - still cheap when you take into account the reduced accident rate.

  18. Re:There's quite a good article by Scutter · · Score: 3, Funny

    DO NOT CLICK THE ABOVE LINK

    Yeah. That oughta do it.

    /shiny red CANDY button...

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  19. THE ARTICLE by jimbo7 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nuova idea della Fioravanti: per il suo ventesimo anno di attività, l'azienda fondata dal famoso designer che per anni ha fatto la storia della Pininfarina (sue quasi tutte le Ferrari più belle) ha appena proposto la prima auto senza tergicristalli. New idea of Fioravanti for its twentieth year of operation, the company founded by the famous designer who for years has made the history of Pininfarina (almost all his most beautiful Ferrari) has just proposed the first car without wipers. Un prototipo battezzato Hidra che grazie al ricorso alle nanotecnologie ea un particolare studio aerodinamico riesce a tenere sempre pulito il parabrezza, pur non avendo nessuna spazzola. A prototype baptized Hidra that thanks to the use of nanotechnology in a special aerodynamic study can keep clean the windscreen, while not having any brush. Tutto nasce da uno specialissimo vetro che grazie a quattro sofisticati trattamenti superficiali modificano le caratteristiche del vetro a livello molecolare. Everything stems from a special glass that thanks to four sophisticated surface treatments change the characteristics of glass at the molecular level. Il primo (a contatto con l'aria esterna) è a base di biossido di titanio: filtra il sole ma, soprattutto, regala al parabrezza un forte effetto idrorepellente. The first (in contact with the outdoor air) is based on titanium dioxide: filters the sun but, above all, gives the windscreen a strong hydrophobic effect. Il secondo strato di vetro è in realtà costituito da polveri microscopiche che spingono lo sporco ai lati del vetro, a loro volta azionate da sensori posti nel terzo strato che fanno pulire il parabrezza a seconda delle necessità (quantità di acqua o sporco da smaltire). The second layer of glass is actually made up of microscopic dust pushing dirt on the sides of the glass, in turn activated by sensors placed in the third layer forming clean the windshield as needed (quantity of water or dirt for disposal). E il quarto strato? And the fourth layer? E' il più fantascientifico perché è un conduttore di corrente, necessaria per alimentare il funzionamento di questo complicato parabrezza. And 'Unbelievable as it is a conductor of electricity, needed to power the operation of this complicated windscreen. Tanta meraviglia, secondo la Fioravanti, potrebbe essere prodotta in serie fra 5 anni, ma già adesso funziona. Tanta wonder, according to Fioravanti, could be produced in series between 5 years, but now it works. Ed è stata installata sulla Hidra, una concept car multifunzionale, ossia MPC (Multi Purpose Coupè), una 5 porte, 4 posti, basata su una scocca già immaginata per offrire grandi risultati per quanto riguarda dinamica del veicolo, sicurezza passiva, flessibilità. It was installed on Hidra, a concept car multifunctional ie MPC (Multi Purpose Coupè), a 5-door, 4 seats, based on a body already imagined to deliver great results with regard to dynamic vehicle passive safety, flexibility. Per la storia dell'auto si tratta di una svolta: in 100 anni per pulire il parabrezza, dalle prime utilitarie alle modernissime supercar, si è sempre fatto ricorso alla vecchia, cara, spazzola del tergicristalli. For the history of this is a turning point in 100 years to clean the windscreen, from the first utility to modern supercar, has always resorted to the old, expensive, brush the wipers. Oggi, grazie alla Fioravanti, destinata ad andare definitivamente in pensione. Today, thanks to Fioravanti, intended to move permanently retired.

  20. Ice isn't the end of it.. by Sparky+McGruff · · Score: 2

    If you're in a warmer climate, try bird-crap and bugs. Try driving down I-5 from Redding to Sacramento CA in the late spring sometime. Bugs coming at you like a freakin' hailstorm. Grasshoppers, dragonflies... Big juicy bugs that leave splats. Or, if you're relay lucky, you might get hit by a stray tomato flying off a truck. Let's see a nano-wiper sweep away that!

    1. Re:Ice isn't the end of it.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "you might get hit by a stray tomato flying off a truck"

      Back in the day when bottles were made of glass, following a coke truck in the Aussie summer heat was somewhat hazardous.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  21. Your so lucky by Plazmid · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're so lucky, I live in Texas where it gets so hot, it rains molten metal. If we are lucky, it rains solid metal, in the winter of course. Well, I have to go, its night now, which means that the temperature is low enough to venture out of the life support module to repair the ceramic radiators.

    1. Re:Your so lucky by bytesex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dem Texans an dem guns...

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    2. Re:Your so lucky by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      We in Phoenix dream of our vaporized metal being merely molten.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  22. They've been researching this awhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My brother attended Penn State as an electrical engineer. One of his internships was with a professor's company who was working on embedding nanotubes into windshields in order to produce electricity and heat. I'm not sure how far they have gotten with it but I do know we talked about this around 5 years ago.

  23. No more toilet paper by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someday you'll spray nano-particles on your ass and you won't have to wipe for a whole week. Of course, you could try petroleum jelly today, but it's uncomfortable, unless you like that sort of thing.

  24. But without windshield wipers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So two nuns are on a road trip, when suddenly a tiny diminutive demon jumps on the hood, and plasters himself against the hood, making scary noises and faces. And the driving nun says, "Ah! What do I do?" So the passenger nun says, "Well, turn on the windshield wipers!" So the driving nun turns on the windshield wipers. But the demon just grabs on to the wipers, and now he's just going back and forth while making his scary noises and faces. And now he's agitated. So the driving nun says, "Ah! What do I do?" And the passenger nun says, "Well, turn on the windshield wiper fluid! It's filled with holy water." So the driving nun turns on the windshield wiper fluid, and it SEARS the demon, and there's all this screaming while there's a huge, thick cloud of steam. But when the smoke clears the demon is still there, going back and forth with the windshield wiper, with his flesh all seared, and now he's REALLY pissed, right? So the driver nun says, "Ah! What do I do?" The passenger nun thinks for a minute then says, "Well, show him your cross!" So the driving nun leans out the window and screams, "Get off my fuckin' hood!"

  25. Familiar... by Fweeky · · Score: 1

    I remember some oldish sci-fi book where the protagonist made himself very rich developing something like this. Supposedly it worked by making the surface vibrate slightly so that water, dirt, etc simply wouldn't adhere to it.

    I'm trying to think what it was.. something by Arthur C. Clarke maybe? This review of The Ghost from the Grand Banks mentions "a really satisfactory windshield wiper". Ah yes, Chapter 3, "A Better Mousetrap", "[the Mark V Wave Wiper] doesn't merely keep off water -- it shakes off any dirt that's already there".

    The blindingly obvious realisation that makes him truly filthy rich is that not only can cars make use of it, but that is has huge potential applications for buildings, skyscrapers especially.

    1. Re:Familiar... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that the ultrasonic sound generated by such a device will also break down structures in the human bodies. No thanks.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  26. Forget the windshield... by 954 · · Score: 1

    use this technology on the body so I don't have to wash my car as often.

    1. Re:Forget the windshield... by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ***use this technology on the body so I don't have to wash my car as often.***

      Do WHAT to your car? Look man, If cars needed washing the dealer would do it for you before you drove the car off the lot.

      And, more seriously, haven't you got better things to do with your life than wash a stupid car? Maybe, once a year, in the springtime if the car is elderly and you live in an area that uses road salt -- or a few times in midsummer if you don't get Summer rainfall. But mostly washing cars is about as foolish a use of time and resource as dealing with a damn lawn.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Forget the windshield... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But mostly washing cars is about as foolish a use of time and resource as dealing with a damn lawn.

      You, sir, do not know what you are talking about.

      If you park your car inside it doesn't matter too much, but if you park it outside then grease (all cars burn oil and shed petrochemicals, even EVs although it's orders of magnitude less) which glues dirt on the car and does not wash off traps water and grit onto the car. When you touch the gritty car it rubs away some of the paint. This is especially important on cars with single-stage paint which has less binder on top of the pigments, which are the thing that really fail in the paint. Once it's worn away the paint fails at an accelerated rate. Even the oxides are harmed by being uncovered. Over time more-or-less invisible cracks appear in the paint, as well. It's important to use a degreaser and get them clean, then use a wax to seal them, to extend the life of the paint.

      Once paint has really failed it dramatically increases the cost of a new paint job and decreases the resale value of the car. So if you don't care about money, by all means don't wash your car. Or if it's already a beater, of course, then it doesn't matter. My car's paint is already trashed on the roof and hood, probably because it wasn't washed enough.

      Anyway, no amount of rain can wash away road grease, it doesn't have the right pH. Rainwater is under 5 and detergent is over 8... not to mention, it's not detergent, so it doesn't break up the bonds in the grease. Rain is incapable of really cleaning your car. Period the end. Thank you, please drive through - but don't drive through a car wash, that shit is dangerous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Forget the windshield... by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      Let me respond concisely -- HOGWASH. Most paint jobs -- there have been a few exceptions -- will protect the car from corrosion for 20 years in the sun and weather without doing any more than fading a bit. The paint job has virtually no affect on resale value after 10-12 years. After 15 years the car is worth whatever the junk yard will pay for it -- an amount that may well be negative. And Joe's Auto Salvage couldn't care less about the paint job. It's possible to keep a car on the road longer --especially if you do your own maintenance. But repair parts get hard to find and it's hard to justify the effort unless the car is something special. In most cases, the paint will outlast the car with no cleaning whatsoever.

      Come on man -- unless it's your hobby (in which case wash, wax, and baby it to your hearts content) it's just a car -- wheels. Nothing more. Don't aggrandize the silly thing.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:Forget the windshield... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most paint jobs -- there have been a few exceptions -- will protect the car from corrosion for 20 years in the sun and weather without doing any more than fading a bit.

      Basically every car I have ever owned has been in the 20 year age range and every one has had some degree of paint failure.

      I am now driving a 1993 Subaru Impreza with dead paint on the roof and hood. Last car was a 1981 Mercedes with dead paint on roof, hood, and trunk, but that's a couple years outside your range (got it two years ago.) Before that I had a 1989 240SX with dead paint on the roof.

      The paint job has virtually no affect on resale value after 10-12 years.

      You apparently say this because all of your cars have had bad paint and you've never had one with good paint to resell.

      It costs around $2000 to get a decent paint job put on a car with good paint, in a shop. They will charge you another $500 to $1000 on top of that if the paint has failed because it has to be sanded back to the point at which it cleanly feather-edges before the car can be painted.

      After 15 years the car is worth whatever the junk yard will pay for it -- an amount that may well be negative.

      I purchase cars used, and sometimes make money when I sell them.

      Some vehicles are currently appreciating in value, and I'm not talking antiques either. For example, the Mercedes-Benz Model 123 station wagons are currently appreciating. A 1985 MBZ 123 Wagon will be worth more next year than it is this year.

      I buy distinctive cars. I don't buy J. Random shitpile. I do buy cheap cars, of course. The 1993 Impreza is a gutless wonder but the lightest of all Imprezas and if you engine swap it it's a monster. The 1989 240SX is medium-gutless but one of the best handling production cars, well, ever. Etc. Both are easy to work on. I got the Impreza for $1500 with a blue book of $2750 because of the paint failure.

      repair parts get hard to find and it's hard to justify the effort unless the car is something special. In most cases, the paint will outlast the car with no cleaning whatsoever.

      Only if you don't maintain the rest of the car. That means changing the oil, changing the transmission fluid or oil, changing the differential oil, flushing the cooling system every year (or two at the outside), washing the crap off the engine (Especially wires and connectors which are most likely to degrade) and washing the underpan, etc etc. 99.44% of people do about 10% of the required maintenance to their vehicle.

      it's just a car -- wheels. Nothing more. Don't aggrandize the silly thing.

      For you, it's just a car. Apparently. You spend too much and let it depreciate more than is necessary. Me, I buy cars at the absolute lowest price and improve them. Aside from saving piles of money, I sometimes make money unloading the thing (albeit rarely - too often I get derailed in the middle of a project and just unload it. But that is the "hobby" factor rearing its head. Maybe you don't care that you're throwing away money on lame purchases. If you have excess money, that's fine for you. But it still doesn't make it sensible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. fixing it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, what does it cost when some a-hole smashes your windshield to steal the $0.85 you left in open view?

    1. Re:fixing it? by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Nothing. They'll break the side window instead, that's easier.

      Replacing a windscreen costs £50 - I ring the insurance company, they ask me where the car is, a short while later a van turns up, someone gets out, replaces the windscreen and drives off again. I get charged £50. No reason this would be any different..

  28. One of the most informative summaries on /. by zen-theorist · · Score: 1

    In sharp contrast to the usual high-school essays that submitters come up with.

  29. Wait.. how long? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    15 minutes??

    It only takes 15 minutes if you count the time it takes to drive to Autozone, which should really be amortized over the other items you're also purchasing. Or you're an auto mechanic working for a dealership doing an inspection and "saving time" by doing that wiper replacement for someone without calling first.

        Of the remaining 5 minutes, maybe a minute in total is spent actually removing the assemblies (my wiper arms don't go full up like a normal car, so for me there's a trick to it, but it doesn't take longer than a minute) and the rest is walking into the store and waiting for an employee to get freed up. They have an odd* policy whereby they only have complete assemblies on the floor, the replacement blades are behind the counter for some reason. The employee does thread the refill for ya, though.

    This costs between $6 and $10 for a pair of blades, meaning that if your blades are differently sized, you have to keep an extra refill around and do it yourself next time. I don't see why you'd pay for full assemblies every time when the only thing that wears out is the rubber.

    *not really that odd when you think about it. They're obviously trying to foster the either the idea that replacing the entire assembly every time is "just how it's done" or that "just the blades" aren't even sold separately.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Wait.. how long? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Some places don't even have refills at all any more, wal-mart did that this year (yes, I know, I know.) The explanation I got was that too many people were failing to get the little clip into the little groove, because they are big fucking idiots, and scratching the shit out of their windshields. I guess this last year was either the year the average intelligence of the American consumer finally dipped somewhere below "inbred collie" or it was just the year that the insurance companies finally needed that particular excuse to force companies to pay more money for their ostensible diligence in risk identification.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Wait.. how long? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Used to be that insurance didn't cover things you could avoid by not being a dumbass. And paying for a replacement windshield if your wiper comes unseated due to not securing it properly, then insisting on running the wipers ANYWAY (you ARE looking through the window they're clearing, right?) for the length of time it would take to actually cause noticeable scratches was a perfectly reasonable "dumbass" tax.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  30. Re:5 Layers? Or goes to 11 by infonography · · Score: 1

    so how long until an executive at a rival company demands that they produce one with 5 layers?

    One more is always better, just ask Gillette and anyone with a guitar amp. Like Nigel's?
    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  31. Windshield treatments by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    A brother-in-law talked me into applying an Amway window treatment, and I was amazed at how well it shed water. You could, and I did, drive alongside a semi at freeway speeds and the water just slipped off and out of sight. It was absolutely convincing. Its only drawback was that you had to reapply it every several weeks. At first it worked even down to 25 mph, but gradually wore off as you used wipers at slower speeds, especially if you used the washer fluid, and eventually you had to use wipers as high as, say, 50mph, at which point I would reapply it. That bottle ran out and I tried some others which worked as well.

    There was also a mental adjustment period for me; water just streams up and over the car, not to the sides, and it seems so wrong to not have wipers sweeping back and forth. The streams going up the windshield were so different from what I was used to that it was distracting and somewhat headache inducing, and it took several rainstorms to get used to it. But now it's wipers that look wrong.

    Until you see it from inside, it is hard to believe how well it sheds water splashed up by the semi alongside you, but it is literally almost as clear as having no water on the windshield. It made a believer out of me.

    1. Re:Windshield treatments by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt the water treatments, but if the windshield is being built this way, it better handle something rougher than a little bit of water and dust.

      Have you ever had to chisel your car out from under an inch of ice before attempting to drive to work on that same inch on all the roads? It's fun, dangerous, stupid, and not uncommon in many of the northern states. NY and Penn were particularly fun for this because of the occasional eat-your-car pothole. SD was great for the bee and locust swarms. My wipers couldn't handle the bees. I had to pull over and scrub them off for about 15 minutes because they caked on so badly.

      If nano on a windshield can't handle a good scrubbing, how's it going to handle it when a flock of birds makes friends with the hood and roof of your car. Nano tech is CERTAINLY subject to the new car rule. Birds WILL crap on it.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    2. Re:Windshield treatments by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Hm, I think at least the bird/insect problem are common enough in Italy for them to have considered it when designing that windshield.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    3. Re:Windshield treatments by American+Scum · · Score: 1

      One thing the manufacturers of the rain-wiping chemicals don't advertise is, at least with Rain-X, it increases glare. I wasn't sure why I was having such a hard time driving at night until I came across reports of it happening, and wasn't sure even afterward - so I tested the theory. After allowing a good amount of time for the product to wear off of the windshield, I applied it up to a point at which I was happy with, and no higher. When driving at night, I adjust my head to see through the area I applied it, then above it, numerous times. I found that yes, using Rain-X, at least, did increase the glare from oncoming headlights, so I stopped using it. The glare increase wasn't extreme, but since I was fining night driving bordering on just being painful, any little improvement would be a good thing. Maybe I'm a little less tolerant of glare than others, but I do know that night driving is nowhere near as painful as it used to be while I was using a rain wiping chemical.

    4. Re:Windshield treatments by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      A $2 jug of rain-X windshield washer fluid will do the same thing, and re-applying it as easy as using the 'spray' button.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    5. Re:Windshield treatments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Rain-X which is probably the same thing as your Amway product (just re-badged like they tend to do).

      Works about the same as you described. When I first put it on I go as long as possible before using the wipers because the performance starts degrading after that.

      It also very important to follow the application directions exactly. Many people get turned off on these products because they don't apply it correctly. Basically: 1. thin coat 2. another thin coat 3. mist with water and really wipe dry, paying careful attention to wipe every smudge clear.

    6. Re:Windshield treatments by Amilianna · · Score: 1

      Just wondering - I didn't read the linked article, but this one here on our beloved /. didn't seem to indicate that the windshield couldn't be scraped or wiped or cleaned. I mean, if that was the case, it would be entirely useless not just for the extreme examples you have stated but because you couldn't even drive it through a normal car wash! I would think, that if it can handle just being on a car (where a rock could kick up at any moment and smack into it) that it's pretty sturdy stuff and therefore can take a little abuse as you chisel your way out of the ice. It would be nice if it handled this itself, but just having it handle the rain and dirt would be worth it - and I'm sure that (if they don't have it already) the more extremes will be added later as they perfect the technology.

      --
      "Does bouncing count?" - Silk, Magician's Gambit by David Eddings
    7. Re:Windshield treatments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, no. All those windshield treatment goops are junk. They last a few days, not weeks, until the dust sticks to it. Then you can't see anything from all the light refraction at night. Anybody who drives for a living will tell you that it's much easier to wipe your windshield once a week, than to spend several times the effort to clean the dusty goop off and apply it again to get a few days of clear vision, and the rest of the time, worse than untreated glass.

    8. Re:Windshield treatments by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever had to chisel your car out from under an inch of ice before attempting to drive to work on that same inch on all the roads?....

      BTW, in Europe lots of drivers buy cars with car pre-heaters or build them in later.
      You never have to de-ice windows and do no cold-starts (longer engine life), not to mention nice warm interior.

      http://www.webasto.us/am/en/am_auto_heaters_444.html

      Just curious, is this done in the US as well in measurable quantities?
      I guess it depends on the state you live.

    9. Re:Windshield treatments by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      I disagree. Personally, I think the people that use Rain-X and then complain simply didn't apply it properly. It does take some effort. I say this as someone that doesn't like driving at night because of the glare of oncoming headlights, but I've never noticed any problem with glare using Rain-X. The thing is, you absolutely have to buff it thoroughly and well after you first apply it. Put some elbow grease into it!

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Windshield treatments by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      Depends on a lot of things.
      Some people do, and some don't.

      My car is about 10 years old, and so it doesn't.

      Some people I know have heated driveways so they don't need to shovel snow in the winter, but in my opinion, that's completely ridiculous. Still, people will live with what they can afford to do regardless of anything else.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    11. Re:Windshield treatments by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've tried various rain-x products including their wipes and never gotten it to work right. Maybe I'm just a gimp, but nothing that's that much of a pain in the ass is worth the effort. Except, of course, the one that goes into your wiper fluid, which is finally simple enough for me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Windshield treatments by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, yes. It works fine for me. Sorry you had problems, but your problems don't invalidate my success, and I never claimed my success applied to everybody.

      So go pound sand.

    13. Re:Windshield treatments by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Some people I know have heated driveways so they don't need to shovel snow in the winter, but in my opinion, that's completely ridiculous."

      if i still lived in chicago I'd have a heated driveway. What's ridiculous is having to get up a hour early 3 times a week for 3 months so you can use the snow blower on the driveway to get to work. It's about $10/sq ft if you have it installed or you can diy for a quarter of that.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  32. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    attempt = fail.

    The ultimate goal is to make a system that can replace the current system and do nothing less than the system it's trying to replace or improve on. That is 1 of the goals of progress. This isn't progress but a neat 'wow' factor that most consumers care about anymore instead of functions. /. used to be news for nerds, now it's 'omg my new toaster is clear, so we can watch toast, well, toast!' type of site.

  33. Four words by winkydink · · Score: 1

    Time value of money

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Four words by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, but it's not worth five minutes of your time to save $15? Do you make more than $180 an hour? Besides, I'll bet it takes you longer than that to buy and install new blades. And you'll be reducing your carbon footprint like all the trendy people.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    2. Re:Four words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time value of money

      And how much time do you suppose it takes to make an excursion to the parts store, cut the replacement blades out of the "anti-theft" plastic (is wiper blade theft really that much of a problem anywhere?), remove the old blades with the retainer clip now frozen in place from age/weather, and thread the new blades onto the wiper arm? A minute or two spent "sharpening" old wiper blades doesn't sound so inefficient anymore, does it?

      No, I'm not PapayaSF.

      - T

    3. Re:Four words by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Takes me a while to find sandpaper someone stashed somewhere years ago, or go out and buy it. Whereas when I send my car for repair I can just tell them "By the way, change the wipers for me, thanks!".

      What I would want is a more permanent sort of rainx coating that's compatible with wipers.

      No matter what you will need wipers to physically move the "big" stuff rapidly. While water will roll off a water repellent screen, if there's a big splash of water, wipers can remove it faster than it rolls off or gets blown off.

      And oh yeah, I also want better wipers. Some are so squeaky, and some quickly "dry up and harden" and stop being effective.

      What do they use on the 777 or new planes?

      --
    4. Re:Four words by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Even worse, it seems they don't sell new wiper refills much any more; in most stores I've looked at, they only sell entire wiper assemblies (the rubber part plus the metal multi-link part), which cost more, usually $6-15 each. It used to be you could buy standard-sized refills (only the rubber part) for $2 or so. It took more time to replace, but it produced a lot less waste, and saved money too.

  34. The Real News by jeremiahbell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real news is that Google just dropped an almost perfect machine translation of an Italian article and nobody noticed. I surfed all over the articles website amazed buy one article after another, not by their content, but by the translation. Hasn't anybody else noticed? Perhaps it is a fruition of Google scanning and comparing those thousands of U.N. Documents they said they would use a year or two ago.

    --
    "Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
    1. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's much better than what Systran had gotten us used to, but I wouldn't call it "almost perfect". For instance, "vecchia, cara spazzola" means "dear, old brush", not "old, expensive brush".
      Another thing I've noticed is that Google's translator seems to ignore punctuation: for example, if you translate "l'intervista" and "parla Leonardo Fioravanti" separately, you get "the interview" and "Leonardo Fioravanti talks" respectively, which is correct; but "L'intervista: parla Leonardo Fioravanti" somehow becomes "The interview talks Leonardo Fioravanti".

    2. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I do not know how you could call this perfect. The first four words of this article are translated wrong. It is impressive because the machine translation can do, but until a program is able to understand the meaning behind the words, things will always sound funny. Incidentally, this comment was translated from Italian to English and English to return and it is surprising how little has changed in the process.

    3. Re:The Real News by obstalesgone · · Score: 1

      The translation is far from perfect, but it certainly is a meaningful and useful translation. Except for a few ambiguities and grammatical errors, I had no problems understanding the intent of the article.

      Kudos to Google!

  35. Re:Four words-suit response! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure you are at the correct forum? This is a *nerd* forum, we dig neat tools and tips and tricks. A billionaire nerd would still think that is neat and actually would go out and sharpen his bugatti wipers, just to check it out. That's the difference between suits and nerds. Money is always secondary or even lower to *neat stuff*.

  36. Comparison? Safety record? by syousef · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd like to see a comparison of advantages and disadvantages of using this mechanism instead of what is essentially a DC motor, an arm, and some gearing. If there's no advantage and it costs more why do I want it? In any case it better be proven before I use it because if there's even a small chance I'll be unable to see while doing 110km/hr down the freeway I won't touch it.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Comparison? Safety record? by argent · · Score: 1

      I've more than once had problems seeing past a DC motor, an arm, and some gearing, while going 110 km/hr down the freeway. If it means I don't have to peer through a rapidly moving wedge of clear glass I'll consider it.

    2. Re:Comparison? Safety record? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Pointing out that a old trusted method is better vs a new untested one for something safety critical is apparently now flamebait. I smell a minor slashdot bitchslap afoot.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  37. Nanotechnology by professorfalcon · · Score: 1

    But does it stop bullets?

  38. well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hope this technology is used in making eye glasses, especially for those of us who bike through any kind of weather.

  39. Replacement cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the owner would have to pay out of pocket for driving behind someone on a gravel road...

    Interesting concept, totally impractical when compared to traditional wiper blades.

  40. A better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine an insurance company would be happy to replace this article's thousand dollar windshield, when it inevitably breaks.

    I'd rather have a rear window defroster that wasn't lines of conductive paint, which break or wear out after a few years. It'd be as popular as sliced bread if there was some sort of doped glass, which isn't terribly weaker than normal glass, that would uniformly heat when electricity is applied. Having that for side windows, and the rear window would be awesome.

  41. Cite the 'original' source. by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

    MadTV's Spishak razor skit predates that Onion article by about 5 years.

  42. people that will buy this aren't affected by bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    the bugs are individually plucked out of the air in advance by butlers wielding chopsticks.

  43. Cutlery by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I bought some plates with that treatment, and finally I manage to keep the gravy separate from the potatoes. It does a nice "Moses and the red sea" trick too with the soup.

  44. Re:There's quite a good article by Monkeybaister · · Score: 1

    /shiny red CANDY button...

    Now you've made me want to click it. There's candy!

  45. Self-Cleaning Windshields Are Just Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't someone think of the squeegie-guys?

  46. And price by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    And after the baseball does it in, the cost of replacing the super-duper high-tech nanotechnology four layer glass windshield will do you in.

  47. Makes absolutely no sense by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting
    At first glance this article makes absolutely no sense.

    A top layer that repels water. Swell. But how long does that layer last when subjected to your typical environment?

    A second layer of microscopic dust that somehow pushes dirt to the side. Can anybody fathom any mechanism for this?

    A third layer that's a sensor for dust? WTF?

    A fourth conductive layer?

    One possible mechanism might be that the fourth layer is charged up to several thousand volts, charging the unwanted dust, then it reverses polarity, repelling the dust. Which might have a chance of working at 0% humidity and very fine dust.

    Also note that the gratuitous reference to nanotechnology, which in this context probably refers to what we normally call "powdered ingredients".

    1. Re:Makes absolutely no sense by fab2004 · · Score: 1

      no, the fourth layer carries a minuscule amount of electricity.

  48. *ahem* Original? by absurdist · · Score: 1
    And SNL's Triple Trac razor parody predates Mad TV by, oh, I don't know, say TWENTY FREAKING YEARS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saturday_Night_Live_commercials

    Damn kids...

  49. Why? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And how does it do with snow, sleet, or freezing rain?

    For that matter, since he's in Italy, how 'bout volcanic ash, should Vesuvius go up?

    And how much does it cost, and how complicated is it to build, install, and maintain, in comparison to a DC motor and the mechanism for wipers?

    Note to developer: KISS is the acronym of the day for engineering.

                  mark

    1. Re:Why? by fab2004 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's Etna that erupts ashes on a regular basis -- a couple of years ago traveling to Sicily I was rerouted to Palermo because Catania's airport was closed as it was covered by a layer of ashes (ask any pilot and they'll tell you how dangerous it is to fly through a cloud of volcanic ashes). As far as cost it's a prototype which will require a big investment to be turned into production, as the inventor explains in this this follow up interview, where he confirms the use of nanotech.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as cost it's a prototype which will require a big investment to be turned into production, as the inventor explains in this this follow up interview, where he confirms the use of nanotech.

      The one thing missing from this discussion is someone to point out that it's not nanotechnology - nanomaterials, yes.

      Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of individual atoms or molecules. I hope someday the 'nano' buzz dies down so people can finally understand this.

    3. Re:Why? by fab2004 · · Score: 1

      The inventor in the interview (I think you can understand even if you don't speak Italian) calls what he's using nanotechnology, I can't say if he's right or wrong but he's the one who has a real car with this kind of windshield.

  50. Forget mud... by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

    What happens when it gets hit by a pebble at 75mph?

    --
    Visit the
  51. Yeah, but .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... what will one of these cost to replace every time some truck tire flings a rock through it?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  52. Or, you can spend a few bucks on RainX by yppiz · · Score: 1

    Cool that someone's thinking about Nanotech, but it sounds like what RainX does, and RainX is a really simple, fairly inexpensive solution.

  53. But how durable is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people have already commented on this windshield's ability to repel frost or ice. More to the point, its probable inability to do so. That's okay, as I wouldn't expect my car to automatically keep ice away when I park outside on a winter's night. But the next morning, when I grab my blade and start scraping off the ice... what damage might I be doing to the windshield? It seems like a pretty fragile arrangement of thin layers, and I don't imagine a sharp piece of metal would be good for it. Also, what of small objects or rocks that fly up and hit it?

  54. Excuuuuuse me but ... by Bustergates · · Score: 1

    Excuse me but the only time I even think about windshields and wipers is when it's raining cats & dogs and the old wipers are dangling useless from the old blades, which for the life of me I could be an able-bodied Stephen Hawking and still not figure out how to remove and replace them with the new ones in time before the whole damn rain storm for which I bought them had already passed! Believe me if I could afford a windshield that didn't need useless set of wipers that always deteriorate before I need them I'd buy it. -Bozo_de_Niro-