Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists 145

Posted by Hemos from the the-first-ones-around dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article, Nature says that "tiny metal particles give 15th century Italian ceramics lustre." Nature adds that iridescent glazes -- changing colour when viewed from different perspectives -- were achieved by using "particles of copper and silver of between 5 and 100 billionths of a metre across." And the story becomes even more interesting. Nanotechnology meets alchemy! "The ability to change colour was regarded as an alchemical property, making iridescence magic too." Read this summary for more details. And for more information, you can read the abstract of this research paper, "Copper in glazes of Renaissance luster pottery: Nanoparticles, ions, and local environment," published by the Journal of Applied Physics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists More

Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists

Comments Filter:

  • Change color ... (colour, whatever) (Score:5, Funny)

    by inertia187 ( 156602 ) * on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:14PM (#6331460) Homepage Journal
    "The ability to change colour was regarded as an alchemical property, making iridescence magic too."

    Yep, I can attest to that. Just take a look at all of the magical leftovers in my refrigerator.

  • Does that make... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MoxCamel ( 20484 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:15PM (#6331470)
    ...the first caveman to figure out how to throw a spear an "Aerospace Engineer?" :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Does that make... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:36PM (#6332118) Homepage
        Maybe we can just send a missle back in time...

        Only if you were somehow able to encase the entire thing in flesh, as cyberDyne Systems have proven, you can't send inorganic material back in time without encasing it in living tissue.

        I really don't wanna think about what that would look like.

        • I really don't wanna think about what that would look like.

          Holy crap that's funny. I'm sitting in the library right now trying not to bust a gut.
        • What about the T1000? 'He' was metal right? a polymemetic alloy or whatever? They never explained how he was sent back. The T-X must be metal too or something, I guess I'll find out tonight!!! And why didn't the resistance just kill someone and stuff a rifle inside him so Reese would have some good weaponry?

          oh well, suspension of disbelief i guess.

    • Re:Does that make... (Score:4, Funny)

      by SeanTobin ( 138474 ) <byrdhuntr AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:33PM (#6331641)
      I don't think they would be an Aerospace Engineer. A spear would be classified as a projectile instead of any kind of object 'Of or relating to the science or technology of flight.'

      Granted a spear is designed to fly, but it makes its designers no more aerospace engineers than my cat. They may however qualify for any of the following positions:

      Experimental projectile theorist
      Advanced weaponry specialist
      Long range warfare expert
      Overt combat engineer
      Specialized weaponry designer
      Multi-component weapon composer
      Tatical physics engineer

      Of course, simply telling your opponents that you have tatical physics engineers ready to attack them is likely to just cause them to surrender. For added effectiveness, let them know your TPE's are going to show them a Shock and Awe attack.

      • Re:Does that make... (Score:4, Informative)

        by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:24PM (#6332034) Homepage Journal
        Granted a spear is designed to fly,

        Spears do not fly, they follow a ballistic path which has nothing to do with flight. There are no surfaces on a spear that produce significant lift (and I am an Aerospace engineer ;-)

        • I am an Aerospace engineer ;-)

          IN CASE OF EMERGENCY:

          Run around, scream and shout, breathe real hard till we all pass out.

          I certainly hope you don't design passenger aircraft.

        • There are no surfaces on a spear that produce significant lift

          Perhaps nothing on a spear, but something on a Spears?

        • I think I have to disagree; they do make use of, in at least some cases, air drag to maintain a flight profile.
          An instinctual understanding perhaps was had of the "center of pressure" (air pressure created during flight)and adjusting it either back behind the center of gravity or in front of it would effect the length of flight, and the orientation of the spear at the end of said flight; a expert spearmaker could perhaps be said to be a Aerodynamics Expert.
        • Granted a spear is designed to fly ...

          Spears do not fly, they follow a ballistic path which has nothing to do with flight. There are no surfaces on a spear that produce significant lift (and I am an Aerospace engineer ;-)

          Obviously, the person delivering this information to an eagerly awaiting (enemy?) tribe would be some sort of proto-Ari Fleischer wherefore only haphazard approximations to the truth should be expected.
    • "...the first caveman to figure out how to throw a spear an "Aerospace Engineer?" :)"

      The first Cruise Arrow is tested...

    • Monkeys Fling Poo (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Forget the cave man, go back even further, to the first monkey ever to huck a loaf.

    • Re:Does that make... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Funny, but you bring up a salient point. If these potter KNEW that they were working at the nanonucular level, then yes they could be nanotech engineers. But it is likely that they did not and that this was a happy acccident. Much like the way that a lamer uses Windows XP to connect to their ISP but doesn't know anything about PPP. You can't consider that lamer a network engineer even though they are establishing a PPP connection.

  • Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cultobill ( 72845 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:15PM (#6331479)
    That's not really nanotech. They weren't using the nanomaterials directly, or intentionally. The particles just happened to be the right size.

    • Re:Meh (Score:3, Funny)

      by kin_korn_karn ( 466864 )
      This insight was brought to you by the scientific journal "DUH".

    • Re:Meh (Score:3, Funny)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 )
      That doesn't matter - I understand their patent is about to be approved anyway. Talk about prior art!

      *rimshot*

    • Yeah it is (Score:3, Informative)

      by siskbc ( 598067 )
      That's not really nanotech. They weren't using the nanomaterials directly, or intentionally. The particles just happened to be the right size.

      Yes it is. Nanotech is the ability to control feature size on a nanometer level, generally considered to be smaller than 200nm. They had the ability to do that, whether they knew it or not, as the iridescent patterns depend on the regular ordering of features around that size. Had they not had the ability, they would have ended up with some crappy glaze that didn

  • In Other News... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Raindance ( 680694 ) * <johnsonmx@@@gmail...com> on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:15PM (#6331480) Homepage Journal
    ... In other news, we're all 'Nanotechnologists'!

    Seriously; we all use nanoproperties of materials to achieve macro results; just this morning I used nanotechnology in the form of nano-molecular-structure surface tension in my coffee, preventing spillage. I think this is very interesting but in the interests of linguistic integrity, having words actually *mean* something through exclusion, I question the spin that 'Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists'; that implies a level of conceptual or technological understanding of nanophenomena which simply wasn't there.

    Were Renaissance Potters clever? Yes. Were they 'Nanotechnologists'? No.
    • Point well take, but then today's quantum physicists aren't really quantum physicists by futuristic standards. In 500 years, many of the arts we call science will be viewed as we regard alchemy today.
      • Good thought- though to clarify, 'quantum physicists by futuristic standards' wouldn't be quantum physicists at all; after a Kuhnian paradigm shift, which is implied by 'futuristic standards', they'd undoubtedly call themselves something else. 'quantum physicists' could then take on some of the questionableness we attribute to alchemy today.

        Cheers about the conceptual structure the phrase 'the arts we call science' implies as well.

        I think we're in agreement!
      • If Renaissance potters called themselves nanotechnologists then I'd say your point was good. We invented the quantum physics to descibe what we're doing now, not what we'll be doing in 500 years. The word and its meaning will of course evolve like Alchemy->Chemistry.

        Comparing today's quantum physicists to Renaissance potters is a little rough on physicists, don't you think? Despite the constant reminders that if you think you understand quantum, you don't, I would like to think we understand it bet
      • Point well take, but then today's quantum physicists aren't really quantum physicists by futuristic standards. In 500 years, many of the arts we call science will be viewed as we regard alchemy today.

        I always like to think about that. Here's a great example: All those ugly ass cars in the 70s were pimp-mobiles. Now we have cars with a fettish for black plastic, instead of fake wood.

        In 50 years, who will make fun of us for what we do and develop.

        In 500 years, who is going to sit and think "Why didn't
      • In 500 years, many of the arts we call science will be viewed as we regard alchemy today.

        And when that time comes there will be new words and terms for the things done in that age. People will say "just because our ancestors didi things that alters quantum coherence domains doesn't mean they were Phasespace Engineers."

        The arts we're doing today are the kernals of science tomorrow.

        -shpoffo

    • I like this trend. (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Good way to pad a resume.
      Let's see
      Bio-technologist - pet goldfish
      Forensic expert - dead goldfish
      Multitasker - can walk and chew gum concurrentyly
      Scholar - knows what concurrentyly means
      Web-user - can't spell
      • Or do what I do and create a double-sided resume: On one side is your standard, boring, corporate, lying-through-your-teeth, buzzword-laden resume, and on the other you put your no-bullshit, plain-english, the-truth-gets-you-nowhere version.

        --

    • I mean, I'm made of nanoparticles! Does that make me (or my parents) a nanotechnologist? No. However, this post does make me a nanoloser.

      I'm not sure if that means I'm only very slightly a loser, or just a very tiny one. Ah well, a question for the the Renaissance potters, for sure.

    • Re:In Other News... (Score:4, Informative)

      by LauraScudder ( 670475 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:54PM (#6331789) Journal
      Hear hear!

      You know birds don't actually use blue pigments to achieve blue colorings? They use nanoscale keratin particles to contructively interfere in the blue range. If we believed slashdot editors, every bird with blue feathers should get a tenured position in nanotech.

      You can't call something a nanotechnologist if they don't know they're working on a nano-scale.
      • "If we believed slashdot editors, every bird with blue feathers should get a tenured position in nanotech."

        In defence of the slashdot editors, it was the story submitter and the article itself which gave this story the slant we're being critical of, not the editors themselves. Approving something for posting does not imply asserting all that is asserted within the story.
    • I so agree with your position!

      "Ancient nanotechnoligsts" is condescention. It is analogous to "noble savage".

      Q: Why is it necessary to shoehorn our understanding of an alien culture (alien in time or viewpoint) into the context of our "culture" of the moment?

      A: The popular press--by necessity of appeal and accessibity to the general populace--must provide glib explanations of fact in terms of trendy misunderstings.

      This is the sacrifice of critical thought on the altar of market share.

    • nanomagicians (Score:3, Informative)

      by grantsellis ( 537978 )
      for reference, Merriam-Webster seems to agree the use of nanotechnologist is shaky:

      nanotechnology

      ...
      : the art of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale especially to build microscopic devices (as robots)

      but the actual title of the article is

      Copper in glazes of Renaissance luster pottery:

      Nanoparticles, ions, and local environment

      And there's no reference to nanotechnologists in the abstract, so this seems more the submitter being poetic. Welcome to /.

      Anyway, since Rennais

    • I'm a nanotechnologist because i use tiny machines to create the energy i need to survive. (Mitochondria)

  • Using a fine powder is NOT nanotechnology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Samir Gupta ( 623651 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:15PM (#6331481) Homepage
    It doesn't take too much technology knowhow to grind something up into very fine bits.

    • Re:Using a fine powder is NOT nanotechnology (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Someone tell that to Donald Rumsfeld
    • But it does take much knowhow to fire those pots without melting the metal particles or oxidizing them, to keep the copper balance right, etc.

      If you think stuff like this is easy, ask yourself why we can't make the enameled glass you see in old cathedrals anymore; while we obviously did know how to make them in medieval times...

      • What kind of glass are we talking about exactly, and why is it so hard to replicate nowadays?
        No offense, but could you provide some links to back that up? I find it a little hard to believe, but would be very interested in reading more about it. Thanks.
        • I mean certain colors you see in very old stained-glass windows (generally in European cathedrals).

          We know what ingredients and pigments where used to produce those glasses, but the exact production process is lost. What makes the glasses so special is their "controlled imperfection"; there are bubbles of air and other gasses in the glass that break the light shining through it. It was done by controlling the heat and airflow to the glass while firing, but exactly how it was done is lost for some colors.

  • Nature schools us again... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kiriwas ( 627289 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:16PM (#6331488) Homepage
    Just goes to show how many "revolutionary" things we've come up with were adaptations or exact duplicates of something that already happened naturally. These alchemists had no idea that there were nanoscopic particles whose physics lead to the change in color, yet it happened, and we are only NOW finally realizing why and how it happened.

    • These alchemists had no idea that there were nanoscopic particles whose physics lead to the change in color, yet it happened, and we are only NOW finally realizing why and how it happened.

      Reminds me of my molecular biologist friend, who is from an Italian family. He once described to me, while cooking an excellent pasta sauce, that the reason they slow-cooked vegetables was to keep the flavor in.

      He then told me that only recently have they been able to describe why the flavor is kept in: it's becau

  • Decopauge! The 1970's Nanotech revival! (Score:3, Troll)

    by deanj ( 519759 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:18PM (#6331502)
    Next they'll be saying the Decopauge is the 1970s technology revival of those potters from way back when.

    This article is a biiiiiiig stretch; sounds like someone read an article about nano-tech somewhere and decided that just because they found some dust someplace it's related....geesh.

  • Same (?) principle is used in some currency (Score:5, Informative)

    by c13v3rm0nk3y ( 189767 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:19PM (#6331508) Homepage

    Some currency now has a "hologram" printed on it which appears to use the same principle.

    For example, some of the newer Canadian bills have a hologram in the corner that was introduced to foil counterfeiters. My understanding is that these were created by crushing up the stuff used to make laser-cut holographic images and applying it to the paper as a printing process.

    This process sounds similar to the one described in the article.

    • Re:Same (?) principle is used in some currency (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tmasssey ( 546878 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:03PM (#6331862) Homepage Journal
      This is *exactly* what was done to add the "color-shifting ink" on U.S. Currency.

      A company attempted to put a hologram on a bill. However, one of the tests it had to pass was a test that crushed the currency. This broke down the intereference pattern, destroying the hologram. So, they got the idea of chopping up the hologram into tiny bits, mixing it into an ink-type base and applying it to the bill that way.

      Voila! Color-shifting ink.

  • "Nanotechnology" is an overused term (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:20PM (#6331528)
    I haven't RTFA, so I don't know if it was the author or the submitter who attached this trendy term to a story about ceramic glazes. But unless the potters in question were building microscopic robots, they weren't "nanotechnologists" in the generally understood sense of the word.

    People have been using finely ground substances of one sort or another at least since the mortar and pestle were invented.

  • Not a new principle (Score:4, Informative)

    by f97tosc ( 578893 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:22PM (#6331535)
    There is nothing new in the fact that even ancient processes can affect material on a very small scale (since they got a Nature paper, I am sure the particulars of this case are very intriguing).

    The repeated beating of metal causes imperfections in the crystal structures which makes it harder. Japanese sword smiths knew what they were doing (or rather, did not know what they were doing) when they in a ritualistic manner repeadetely beat the metal, put it underground for a number of years, etc, etc.

    Tor

  • Yeah, right... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:22PM (#6331536) Homepage Journal
    ...so what you're telling me is that the riced-out green iridescent Honda down the street is driven by a nanotechnologist?

    Whoa.

  • the same technique is used today when creating similar materials.

    They seem to have used silver and copper salts and a mix of other things that turned the salts into metal at 600 degrees.

  • Whats next? (Score:3, Funny)

    by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:26PM (#6331575)
    Sensational discovery:
    Prehistoric Particle Physics Experiment Discovered!!
    Archeologiest find great hint for colliding experiments utilizing Atoms of Si,C and O in a compound material.

    Only because incas used piss to etch a copper gold compound doesnt mean they knew about electron gases in metals or electronegativity.

    Same goes here....

  • That's how stained glass works too (Score:5, Informative)

    by DarklordSatin ( 592675 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:26PM (#6331577) Homepage
    Stained glass windows use a similar kind of nanoparticle emulsion concept to get their different colors (also based on particle size). We've known all of this for quite a while; it's nothing new.
  • ... except just a hair smaller...

    Should any of this surprise anyone? Mankind has been interested in small things forever... take my wife...

  • bad attempt to make story interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:26PM (#6331580)
    I think the article's title is a bad (aka incorrect) attempt to make the story more relevant... buzzword compliant. It also has very little to do with the common understanding of the meaning of the word nanotechnology. But the title probably got it more attention than it would have otherwise received, but then again so did the boy who cried wolf.

  • Forget terminology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LilJC ( 680315 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:27PM (#6331587)
    Whether this is technically nanotechnology or not, I still find it very interesting. I always wondered how alchemists continued to find work after without ever making gold.

    I suppose we still do the same thing current day - people are ever searching for perpetual motion machines and researching anti-gravity. Every time someone puts together a device the layman can't figure out, funding pours in and our modern alchemists continue employment in various potentially unsolvable problems.

    Myself, I prefer Feymann's approach: considering how likely you are to solve a problem as well as how valuable the solution is (not to mention how many others could solve the problem).

    • I always wondered how alchemists continued to find work after without ever making gold.

      Easy, they became plumbers--everyone knows that's the only trade that can turn lead into gold!

    • I always wondered how alchemists continued to find work after without ever making gold.

      A true alchemist would call that gold "fools gold". European alchemy was a mix of a strongly magical religious philosophy called hermetism and medieval science. The main axiom of heretism is "as above, so below", or what happens on earth reflects what happens in heaven; where heaven was a state of mind (hemetism as a whole is a mind-oriented religion).

      The ultimate goal of hermetic alchemism was the "Transmutation". Th

      • Hm, posted to early, addendum:

        So in the end this is what truely religious people (like monks) do, they try to reach an ultimate goal that seems impossible to the rational mind, but (some of) the byproducts of the process are quite usefull to society as a whole

        Don't underestimate the power of this mindset, in particular that of thes hermetic alchemists, they where furocious explorers due to their philosophy/faith. Take a look at this timeline [levity.com] of famous alchemists, some of the people on there are the foun

  • nanotechnology now means materials science (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nihilus ( 680917 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:32PM (#6331630)
    If you subscribe to the new marketing usage of the word "nanotechnology" which is used to include such material science feats as those Eddie Bauer khakis that have nano-sized particles to help make them water proof, then yes, you might as well say these potters are nanotechnologists too.
  • I have seen many a Honda Civic with a paint job that changes color as you walk around it.

    Supposedly that type of paint is the most exspensive kind. Has many small metal flakes of the different colors in there.

    All I know is that I can't imagine wanting that on a car, but I have seen so many with it.

    Although I suppose that maybe, much like the people of lore in this article, these fellows think the changing colors makes the car magic, and therefore able to actually be fast.

    • Actually, they know the paint isn't what makes a car fast. It's the decals man. Oh, and a big huge wing on the back for a front wheel drive cars. Oh, and the lack of torque. Oh, and a loud soundsystem that rattles the whole car because they don't know how to properly implement a nice sound system. Oh, and they suck.

  • Romans Were First here. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caesar-auf-nihil ( 513828 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:37PM (#6331654)
    Regarding the colloidal metals, which are nanoscale, referred to in this article, the Renaissance potters may have just been practicing, or re-learning, a skill that the Romans had used since at least the 1st century AD. There are several examples of ornamental dishes (goblets, plates, etc.) where the Romans applied colloidal gold or other metals to the surfaces to get the right appearance. They didn't know what it was they were making, they just knew how to make it. So while they were manipulating nanoscale particles to fabricate into a decorative coating - is it nanotechnology by today's definition? No, its not. However, it is impressive that such things have been around as long as they have, but we're just now beginning to understand what has been around for centuries.
    I suspect when our descendents 1000 years from now look back, they'll say "look: Those 20th century yahoos were practicing picotechnology and they didn't even know it"

    • "look: Those 20th century yahoos were practicing picotechnology and they didn't even know it" - except they'd say 21st century not 20th. Check the calendar - years 2001-2100 are 21st century & years 1901-2000 are 20th century. If it hasn't dawned on you yet - we've been in the 21st century for two and a half years. Descendants 10 centuries from now would be in the 31st century.
      • Yes, you're right that it is now the 21st century. However, nanotechnology by today's definition began possibly as early as the 1960s (which was 20th century) depending on how you interpret the scientific papers of the time.

        My comment was an analogy, not meant to be taken literally, and our descendents in the 30th century may still well make the above statement...or not.
        • It depends when you date a technology - from an idea in someone's head - or a practical application of a (sometimes not yet discovered) scientific idea/ discovery. I'm tired - I take things literally......
    • The technique referred here is islamic lusterware and involves the firing of metallic salts on the glazed surface. It was not developed by the romans, as this poster suggests, nor was it "renaissance" era technology. The application of lusters to functional ceramcis can be traced to the persians around 900 a.d.
      • Just as tech moves around the world today, it did then. The pieces I'm referring to were dug out near Herculeum, the other city destroyed by Vesuvius when it erupted. Estimated dating was 1st century AD. Now did the romans learn it from the Persians, or was it the other way around? Heck, for all we know it could have been a different group that introduced the technique to both cultures. My point was that this type of technology has been around for centuries, but we're just now understanding what it re

  • Didn't know Harry was that good. (Score:4, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:52PM (#6331773)
    I didn't know Potter was that good with this stuff. Afterall, Snape nearly flunks him out of Potions every term.

  • Hacking Matter (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Malic ( 15038 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:55PM (#6331798)
    Actually, McCarthy's book [slashdot.org] covered this very fact. They had no idea what they were doing at the time but laid the ground work centuries later for quantum dots.

  • that's not nanotechnology (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 73939133 ( 676561 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @12:57PM (#6331814)
    Sorry, but that's not "nanotechnology". Nanotechnology mean atomically precise, self-assembling, nano-scale machines [zyvex.com].

    I suppose given the utter failure of nanotechnology to achieve anything to date, it's not surprising that people are retreating on their claims. Even the staunchest proponents are weakening the requirement for self-assembly, but to call iridescent paints "nanotechnology" is going too far for even the weakest definition.

  • This must be a typo. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig.hogger@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:12PM (#6331940) Journal
    Surely they meant Harry Potter is a nanotechnologist...
    • Oh fine, I wasn't the only one who related the Potter in the topic to a famous(?) book... :p

      I still wonder how to post a comment on the highest-level (as a non-reply)...

  • Low standards? (Score:5, Funny)

    by t0ny ( 590331 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:15PM (#6331971)
    Wow, if we are going to apply that lax of a standard to what qualifies as working with nanotechnology, then we may as well say I am working with it when I lay a big, smelly steamer in the bathroom.

    All those stench molecules! Wow! Im a nanotech engineer!

  • I mean, I atmospherically deployed bioactive nanotechnology.

    Buzzword alert! ;-P

  • What about Damascus steel? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:21PM (#6332008) Journal
    Wouldn't that be an amazing demonstration of nanotechnology? One would think...

    • Re:What about Damascus steel? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vengeance ( 46019 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:24PM (#6332036)
      Damascus steel? Which kind? The folded kind made from ingots of different kinds of steel? Or do you mean 'true' damascus steel, made from wootz, which was apparently an iron ore from a very specific area.

      In either case, I don't know if the structures involved are down to a true nanometer scale, and I suspect they are not, since the patterns are quite visually obvious.

  • WTF is NANOtech about this?! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Seriously, can we not declare Slashdot of all places a pseudosciencebuzzword-free zone?!
  • Since we have spent so much time arguing the definitions of "hacker" and "cracker", with the same enthusiasm I wish to enlighten you to the better understanding of the words "magic" and "alchemy".

    Magic and Alchemy continue to be greatly misunderstood by the masses.

    From the layman's perspective, magic may be defined as:

    Magic - That which has no logical explanation, but yet was manifested. Beyond reality and defying all explanation - An illusion. A miraculous act. Trickery!

    Such meanings are complete a

  • alchemy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zan Zu from Eridu ( 165657 )
    I was taught alchemy is a precursor to chemistry, physics and biology, which originated in China and arrived in Europe through the Middle East. In Europe alchemy was mixed with hermetics, resulting in a "magical" branch, but alchemists in general didn't consider themselves magicians.

    Considering something to be "alchemic" implied it to be man-made, not magical; magic came from god(s).

  • Just because they produced a certain result does not mean they understood how that result came about. Sure makes for a clever sound bite, though. "Billionths of a meter" sounds much more impressive than using an appropriate unit, like millimeters or angstroms or something.

    Better yet, express it in fractions of a light year! That way you can call them astrophysicists as well!

  • Islamic lustreware predates Italian by centuries (Score:3, Informative)

    by boyerspice ( 685657 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @01:55PM (#6332266)
    I am dissapointed that the Nature article made no mention of the Islamic origins of lustreware. The process of lustre glazing predates the referenced Umbrian work by centuries.

    Muslim potters invented the lustre process, which eventually worked its way into Spanish pottery in via the Moors. Only then did the process find its way to the Italian potteries of Umbria.

    A very short google search turned up these interesting links:
    Early Muslim Wares at artsofislam.org [artsofislam.org]
    11th century Egyptian lustre plate [touregypt.net]
  • Someone should give dictionaries to college students.
  • Stone him to death with nano-sized pebbles.

  • changing the definition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @02:27PM (#6332603) Homepage
    There is a HUGE difference between "nanotechnology" and "nanoscale". Some modern corporations started using the term interchangeably because nanotech sounded cooler. Please don't follow their example.
    • There is a HUGE difference between "nanotechnology" and "nanoscale". Some modern corporations started using the term interchangeably because nanotech sounded cooler. Please don't follow their example.

      Because of stupid stuff like the original story, "nanotechnology" as a term is useless. After all, I at the "nanoscale" turn spaghetti into /. posts. Does that mean I'm exploiting nanotechnology? Sure! Guess I better IPO my digestive system while the market is hot.

  • I'm going to have to have to have you change the name of the article, you see, "Potter" is part of a registered trademark of GreedyBitch Inc. this article might be picked up by the mass media and kids would read it, thinking that it is the latest Harry Potter installment.

    If the name isn't changed quickly, we will have no other option but to sue for 100 BILLION DOLLARS! </dr. evil>

    Thank You for your co-operation

    JK Rowling
    GreedyBitch Inc.
  • I just read the headline and thought these Nanotechnologists were related to Harry Potter. Woulda' made fine sixth edition tho: "Harry meets nanotechnologist Potter from renaissance"....
    • The ability to change colour was regarded as an alchemical property...

    It's true. Any sufficiently advanced technology really IS indistinguishable from magic!

    Okay, maybe I'm being just a little sarcastic. My point is, just because the Renaissance potters didn't know how the feat was accomplished makes it no less skillful. We're just now coming to the technological point where we can analyze some of these achievements - like the ceramic glaze - and figure out how to replicate them.

    Our grandcestors would h

  • I thought "Were-Nanotechnologists" were people who turned into researchers by the light of a full moon.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close