Errr, polyethylene terephthalate = PET. The stuff they make Coke bottles out of. Should be ok in most environments and it's cheap.
Teflon is poly(tetrafluoroethylene) which is very chemically stable and has excellent temperature resistance. However, even if it offered the same resistance to the high voltages in the system as the PET, it would probably make these things prohibitively expensive.
I'm not sure that's a very good analogy to be honest. Cell phones are based on technologies which are decades old, well understood and have been incrementally advanced. It could be argued that it has taken half a century to realise the telecommunications systems which we have today.
In the field of nanotechnology there are many barriers to progress. One of the main ones as mentioned above is accurate measurement (metrology) of the substances and products which are being manufactured. The recent advances (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 04/0344203&tid=126) in superlenses to beat the diffraction limit may help advance optical techniques and advances are being made all the time in complimentary methods such as AFM and electron based methods, but these are all incremental too.
One of the most exciting aspects of nanotechnology is also one of the current barriers, which is the fact that everyday, well understood materials can behave COMPLETELY differently at the nano-scale. For instance, clusters of 20-80 gold atoms have experimentally been shown to posess totally alien chemical and electrical behaviours when compared with the properties of the material that we are familiar with on the macroscale. This means that it becomes difficult to predict how materials are going to behave working on these length scales and extensive experimentation is required.
For this reason too, I strongly hope that nanotech does progress at a slower pace, as that will give us time to develop strategies for health and safety concerns in tandem with the 'cool' technology. Radical changes in material behaviour may well realise some fantastic new devices which will revolutionise modern life, but toxological and bioactive properties must also be well understood, particularly in the nanobiotech areas.
Working in the area, it is also vitally important to educate the general public about this branch of science and help to reassure them that the nanorobot invasion/grey goo armageddon predictions from some branches of the media aren't likely to happen. Otherwise the science will follow Genetically Modified foods into the dustbin of history.
Of course, if this does occur, each nanotech area will simply revert back to their respective disciplines of materials science, molecular biology, etc etc. It would just be a shame to lose such a lucrative funding source;)
I don't know a great deal about the subject but here's my two cents anyway.
I seem to recall light waves are one heck of a lot longer than a nanometer, like hundreds of times. Viewed as a particle, a photon is similarly huge. To put it into Enquirer-speak: You can't peek into the eye of a needle by throwing bowling balls at it.
Not sure how a photon can be huge, as such as it has no mass, just an associated energy. It's the diffraction limit that causes the problem, which can already be overcome in the near field (very close to the instrument ~few nm). These lenses could therefore possibly improve current near field optical techniques.
One nanometer wavelength "light" is somewhere in the gamma-ray area. It's really hard to bend these. Even if you could, most target materials are semi-transparent at these wavelengths. Worse yet, that energy of photon is likely to disrupt whatever it's hitting. Not good for viewing things unless you get off on watching a lot of microscopic Terminator-style explosions.
They won't be using gamma rays.
If you did get that level of resolution, which seems mighty doubtful, what is the depth-of-field or width of field? It's not much fun looking through a drinking straw at really out-of-focus blobs
Depth and width of fields aren't really relevent here, the implementation will probably involve single point measurements using a probe analogous to a fibre optic, coupled with a very high precision scanning head, allowing images to be constructed.
There are already a whole host of super-microscopes of the electron scanning and tunneling varieties.
Yes, but the methods proposed here are probably going to be cheaper, easier (no high vacuum requirement etc) and give extra information about the chemical and optical properties of the material through spectroscopic and polarisation state analyses.
Any new develoments in this area will be a boon for activities in nanometrology and biometric areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much all Lagunas are keyless these days, but not sure how that affects the SL.
It's more likely the hydraulic power steering failed when the engine stoopped and he failed to account for the extra effort required to make the turn.
Errr, polyethylene terephthalate = PET. The stuff they make Coke bottles out of. Should be ok in most environments and it's cheap.
Teflon is poly(tetrafluoroethylene) which is very chemically stable and has excellent temperature resistance. However, even if it offered the same resistance to the high voltages in the system as the PET, it would probably make these things prohibitively expensive.
I'm not sure that's a very good analogy to be honest. Cell phones are based on technologies which are decades old, well understood and have been incrementally advanced. It could be argued that it has taken half a century to realise the telecommunications systems which we have today.
/ 04/0344203&tid=126) in superlenses to beat the diffraction limit may help advance optical techniques and advances are being made all the time in complimentary methods such as AFM and electron based methods, but these are all incremental too.
;)
In the field of nanotechnology there are many barriers to progress. One of the main ones as mentioned above is accurate measurement (metrology) of the substances and products which are being manufactured. The recent advances (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01
One of the most exciting aspects of nanotechnology is also one of the current barriers, which is the fact that everyday, well understood materials can behave COMPLETELY differently at the nano-scale. For instance, clusters of 20-80 gold atoms have experimentally been shown to posess totally alien chemical and electrical behaviours when compared with the properties of the material that we are familiar with on the macroscale. This means that it becomes difficult to predict how materials are going to behave working on these length scales and extensive experimentation is required.
For this reason too, I strongly hope that nanotech does progress at a slower pace, as that will give us time to develop strategies for health and safety concerns in tandem with the 'cool' technology. Radical changes in material behaviour may well realise some fantastic new devices which will revolutionise modern life, but toxological and bioactive properties must also be well understood, particularly in the nanobiotech areas.
Working in the area, it is also vitally important to educate the general public about this branch of science and help to reassure them that the nanorobot invasion/grey goo armageddon predictions from some branches of the media aren't likely to happen. Otherwise the science will follow Genetically Modified foods into the dustbin of history.
Of course, if this does occur, each nanotech area will simply revert back to their respective disciplines of materials science, molecular biology, etc etc. It would just be a shame to lose such a lucrative funding source
I don't know a great deal about the subject but here's my two cents anyway.
I seem to recall light waves are one heck of a lot longer than a nanometer, like hundreds of times. Viewed as a particle, a photon is similarly huge. To put it into Enquirer-speak: You can't peek into the eye of a needle by throwing bowling balls at it.
Not sure how a photon can be huge, as such as it has no mass, just an associated energy. It's the diffraction limit that causes the problem, which can already be overcome in the near field (very close to the instrument ~few nm). These lenses could therefore possibly improve current near field optical techniques.
One nanometer wavelength "light" is somewhere in the gamma-ray area. It's really hard to bend these. Even if you could, most target materials are semi-transparent at these wavelengths. Worse yet, that energy of photon is likely to disrupt whatever it's hitting. Not good for viewing things unless you get off on watching a lot of microscopic Terminator-style explosions.
They won't be using gamma rays.
If you did get that level of resolution, which seems mighty doubtful, what is the depth-of-field or width of field? It's not much fun looking through a drinking straw at really out-of-focus blobs
Depth and width of fields aren't really relevent here, the implementation will probably involve single point measurements using a probe analogous to a fibre optic, coupled with a very high precision scanning head, allowing images to be constructed.
There are already a whole host of super-microscopes of the electron scanning and tunneling varieties.
Yes, but the methods proposed here are probably going to be cheaper, easier (no high vacuum requirement etc) and give extra information about the chemical and optical properties of the material through spectroscopic and polarisation state analyses.
Any new develoments in this area will be a boon for activities in nanometrology and biometric areas.
They're still there in winnt/system32/qbasic.exe Who says Windows is bloated with useless junk?