glenmark writes "Researchers at the Solid State Electronics Laboratory at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden have developed the world's smallest pinball game. The video is fascinating. The flippers are electrostatically-actuated monocrystalline silicon cantilevers. I hope Pat Lawlor and Steve Ritchie see this. I have a feeling they would get a kick out of it." And in another nanotech story, psmears writes "Three hundred times more powerful than ordinary batteries, but much lighter and smaller? Researchers at the University of Birmingham have developed a micro-engine that will allow people to charge mobile phones using lighter fluid. Further information at Research-TV including photos and a film."
That thing sure is sensitive to tilt. A minor gravitational fluctuation sets it off.
I know you're just being a smartass, but actually I'd say that this thing is less susceptible to tilt and more to "surface" forces like friction and electrostatics compared to it's larger counterparts.
This is great news! Just the other day, my boss discovered the worlds smallest game of pocket pool. If I bought him one of these pinball machines, he could have his own private arcade.
the video compares the size of the MEMS pinball to a Swedish Safetyy match, a.5mm lead and a human hair. The comparison really gives great perspective!
It is an MPEG codec. DivX is an implementation of MPEG-4. If you want source code for a decoder see the ffmpeg [sourceforge.net] (as libavcodec) or xvid [xvid.org] codecs. Between then, I've not see an OS with a POSIX layer that's not been able to compile a decoder engine. Granted, there are large bunches of optional parts that the various decoders don't all cover, but I've not yet see any problems with ffmpeg decoder.
If by MPEGS you mean MPEG-1, then yes - that is slightly more portable than MPEG-4 codecs, but not noticably (better support on embeded systems). They do however, have poorer picture quality, and larger bitrates. So, it's not really a good choice for internet distribution. MPEG-2 would also be better than MPEG-1, but it's also not quite as good as MPEG-4, interms of low bitrate quality. And for a web demo, the lower the bitrate, the better.
If you've got a particular platform in mind, then drop a line, and I'll see if I can find a pre-compiled setup for it.
"VLC works just fine"
Indeed it does.
I also have mplayer, but I find VLC far better.
I have "installed" the Divx-codec for mac, but Quicktime seems to disregard it.
I prefer that the Divx codec is used over all that MS-mediaplayer crap. Although Xvid [xvid.org] would even be better.
Ok, don't use it myself (OSx doesn't run on any of my boxen). But I've never had a problem with Mplayer. Ocassional teething problems in compilation, but if your on Mac hardware, those nice people behind Fink [sourceforge.net] have taken care of all that.
If there's something you don't like about mplayer, you could look at xine. Might be more to your tastes.
Given that this is just another "Look that we can do now with interesting molecules!" thread, I suggest a side discussion:
Will the Diamond Age begin in our lifetimes?
I'm personally of the opinion that when the nanotech revolution starts, it'll happen so shockingly fast that applications, society and governance will take decades to catch up -- think internet x10.
In a world of pervasive nanotech, I suspect the next really big industry will be power generation; it'll require a step up in juice unlike any seen since the start of the century. Fortunately, nanotech will hopefully solve some technical problems (superconducting power transmission, materials suited to support fusion, etc) at the same time it's demanding this huge level of power generation.
Of course, in a world of pervasive nanotech, our existing governmental and societal structures are in a lot of trouble... We live, as the ancient Chinese said, in interesting times (and I mean that in the spirit in which they did).
While nanotechnology has many great potentials, they are still in a hazy future. Lasers were once seen as the technology that would transform the world. Same with Computers. Yet the bulk of the world is still relatively unchanged by either of these. Certainly the developed nations have changed substantially, but in many respects they have not changed much if at all.
I get up in the morning, go to work from 8-5 every weekday morning for 40 hrs a week. Same as my dad did, and same as my kids will. How we do our work has changed, but the simple pattern of society in which we work to earn money to pay for housing, food, et al. has remained unchanged.
In the bulk of the world, life is much closer akin to my grandfolks time. People work from sunrise to sunset to scratch out a living, and their sustenance, from the land. Nano technology is not going to dramatically change their lives. Drought or other climatic changes will be the key variable to their lives.
We do indeed live in interesting times, but I do not think that our time is any more interesting on an individual level than any other time. We live in a time that has seen the average american progress steadily further from the basic compnents of survival. How many average americans would be able to fend for themselves in the "wild?" The "interesting" past of our American lives is when all the artificial walls separating us from basic needs come crashing down.
Nanotechnology then does but attempt to fortify those walls and afford us protection from our fear of being without. Earlier times had the same fear, the difference being that they lived closer to their fear than we do.
"Lasers were once seen as the technology that would transform the world."
And they were right - they did. Not then, and not in the laser death ray way they thought back then, but now. I read a compelling article a while back (probably here) that proposed that the tech boom of the 90's was not the result of computer, the Internet or anything else. It was about lasers becomming cheap enough to be put in everything. Lasers are in millions of things. We don't even think about them - CD, DVD, fibre networks, SP/DIF..etc.
The transformations don't happen until the price point comes down. Nanotech is more like the way people think about the Internet - it starts inexspensivley from the get go (wouldn't have without those cheap lasers though). Once the first practical molecular assemblers are created (assuming they can be) it will boom very very quickly.
The change is not a matter of fact, it's a matter of perception. Essentially, nothing changed in this world during the last 14 or so billion years. After the laws of nature formed, nothing ever changed and I don't expect any changes for another 10^N years, until protons start decaying. Even talking about human life, knowing the history of technology well, one may argue that nothing really changed. Yeah, there have been fast food joints in Babylon (honest) and may be your grand-grand-...-grandfather was flip
Lets separate what real nanotech offers from what nanotech does in SF stories.
Firstly, look at some of the stories set now, written 50 years ago. How many of them have an even part way accurate description of, well, anything?
So, when your talking about nanotech, what are you actually thinking of?
What I'm thinking of is something that will be a bit like a cross between mechanical engineering and chemistry - make the various mechanical parts small so that they tend to operate in a chemicaly relevent length scale. That's the sort of thing that these micro-engines are.
Think about biology for a moment, and about the sorts of biochemical reactions that go on in a living being. Those are the sort of things that nanotach can do. I do not believe that we will see a "Universal constructor" type device for many centuries, if ever.
Note that the two examples that you give have been solved without the use of nano tech. Superconducting powerlines are in use in europe. They are unfortunatly only cost effective for short range (around 100 miles or so) high power transfers - but that's improving. The problem with fusion is not materials. You cannot get a material that will contain a fusion reaction - instead they use magnetic containment. And the problem is keeping the thing stable. I cannot see how nanotech devices would assist in this.
So, in sumary, you are thinking of the effects of something, but I've no idea what.
The problem with fusion is not materials. You cannot get a material that will contain a fusion reaction - instead they use magnetic containment. And the problem is keeping the thing stable. I cannot see how nanotech devices would assist in this.
Better materials would help substantially with magnetic confinement fusion. In particular, something with a high tensile strength and a superconductor with high breakdown field strength would make many of the difficulties with magnetic confinement fusion magically
A friend and I were having a discussion about this a few months ago. We both love "technology", but I think I tend to overboard on the side of seeing it as the tool withi which all problems can be solved. My friend has a more cautious view. He suggested that eventually there will be a time when this stuff will probably result in many problems:
-War (over who should use it and how it should be used.) -New nanotech based "diseases" caused by their proliferation -Political and ethical issues that no one can even dream of right now
The usual stuff to be sure, but nonetheless the kind of thing that someone like me would never think about. I think you are correct in your assertion that society and governance will have trouble catching up. They are already having trouble with the Internet alone. (Think spam regulation)
On another subtopic: I think that nanotech in it's current form is very much akin to the early days of computing when the first nixie tubes were being used as a display device. They displayed information in a very rudimentary fashion that still required human intervention to be interpreted to the common man.
What I think will be interesting in the future of nanotech is when we can manipulate matter as we do pixels in today's 3d rendering engines. Think of it as rendering reality... with filters... and the ability to manipulate textures... colors... etc.
I would suggest that all the algorithms we've been developing for 3D rendering will be the very fundamentals of matter manipulation software. Of course there are many other factors that we currently ignore in 3D that will be essential to real matter. (Don't want hollow object for one thing)
Just imagine the possibility of applying encryption and compression algorithms on matter.:) You store the data model of your physical object and you discard the portions of the model that are repetitious.
From the technical angle, it's going to be a lot of fun. From the societal angle it's going to be very tumultuous.
Personally, I think that eventually waste dumps are going to become goldmines for discarded matter to use in the manufacturing of new materials. If I were interested in making money long term, I'd probably buy a few garbage dumps now and keep them in the family.
Specifically, I was commenting on the fact that the micro-engine uses lighter fluid to charge the cellphone. I feel uncomfortable enough putting a cellphone up to my ear under normal circumstances. I'd feel quite a bit more apprehensive if I'd just loaded it up with lighter fluid.
Specifically, I was commenting on the fact that the micro-engine uses lighter fluid to charge the cellphone. I feel uncomfortable enough putting a cellphone up to my ear under normal circumstances. I'd feel quite a bit more apprehensive if I'd just loaded it up with lighter fluid.
"Carl, you see if you can figure out what's wrong with this thang. It won't crank up and ever'thang seems to be put together right."
"Investigators at the School of Engineering are the first to manufacture these engines in a durable, heat resistant material such as ceramic or silicon carbide."
Apparently their ear is resistant (up to 2700K). Maybe yours would become too ceramic too - after the first bake.
Wait, and there is more - some solid propellants, used by military and in shuttle SRBs have pretty high energy/weight index ratio too. And it is easy to operate and get a great thrust from a small ammount of stuff. [Once you lit the fuse
Researchers at the University of Birmingham have developed a micro-engine that will allow people to charge mobile phones using lighter fluid.
...and in other news, police have been unable to determine the cause of a few hundred homicides in the area. However, they suspect a cult following due to the strange nature of the burns on the victims' left or right ears. More tonight at 11. Now over to you with the weather, Dave...
Berkeley [berkeley.edu] has been working on mini and micro rotary engines for a little while now. Rotaries are really better for this application as they have less moving parts. Their mini rotary engine [berkeley.edu] is about the size of a penny while their micro rotary engine [berkeley.edu] has a rotor of size 1mm! Rotaries have no valves which makes them much easier to produce at this size.
If its the size of 1 mm, shouldn't it be called a "milli-engine"? It always bugs me when people name things with words that imply many magnitudes of order difference in size and use up all the obvious choices for things smaller yet than what is now called a microxxxx.
Or how about when nanotech gets smaller then 1nm, are we going to have to the change that name too?
Given that atoms are on the order of 0.1 to 0.3 nm and given the strong limitations imposed by nuclear physics (particularly the strong force), I don't think there is much risk.
I didn't link to anything about the recent University of Birmingham press release in the column [dansdata.com] I put up the other day about fuel cells and related technologies. The reason why I didn't is that their press release doesn't make a lot of sense, and there's nothing more substantial on their site [bham.ac.uk] or in the video [research-tv.com]. This piece [icnetwork.co.uk] is better, but not much better, at least for the microengine-instead-of-battery applications to which people keep saying their developments apply.
"These micro-engines have over 300 times more energy than an ordinary battery" is meaningless. If they mean total energy delivery over whatever time period you like, then microengines can beat batteries by a factor of a million trillion zillion, as long as you hook them up to a big enough fuel tank. In actual power capacity, though, microengines aren't anything special at all, yet.
The aim is little turbines the size of a sugar cube that run from butane or propane or whatever, and have several watts of output power; prototypes of such things have been spinning for a while now. The microengines shown in the U of B release, though, are minuscule piston units which have power output in the microwatts, if that. Heck, the ones shown in the release don't even have generators attached to them, so their electrical output at the moment is zero!
For your amusement: A reader also pointed this [indiatimes.com] out to me; it's a reprint of a piece on the subject from the British "Sun" tabloid, and it reads as if they took the U of B press release and put it through a Markov chain [san-francisco.ca.us] program, or something.
It's good to know that alcoholism in the press is alive and well.
It's just very carefully selected semantical dodges.
It is talking about how much energy is contained inside these systems. (I'm assuming there's talking either per unit volume, or per unit mass. Other wise, well, it's totally meaningless).
That's a different number from how much energy you cet get out of the systems. In fact, my gut instinct is that they are comparing the energy you can get out of a battery to the total energy available from the fuel with the micro-
have developed a micro-engine that will allow people to charge mobile phones using lighter fluid.
Great. Now I can add my laptop and cell phone, along with nail clippers and wooden slupting tools, to list the of things you can be detained Airport Security guards can pull me out of line and strip search me down for...
on the other hand I wonder what MacGuyver could do with one of these, a pack of toothpicks and some loose sweater yarn...
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 20 2003, @12:13PM (#6255259)
I've been saving this up for a moment like this:
Ever since I heard of Unix I've always had a ball, From Berkeley up to Linux I must've run 'em all; But I ain't seen nothing like him On systems large or small That tired, squinting, blind kid Sure makes a mean sys call!
He sits just like a statue, Like part of the machine, Feeling all the limits, Knows what signals mean, Hacks by intuition, His process never stalls, That tired, squinting, blind kid Sure makes a mean sys call!
He's a Unix Wizard, I just can't get the gist A Unix wizard's Got such a mental twist.
How do you think he does it? I don't know! What makes him so good?
Ain't got no distractions, Don't hear no biffs or bells, Don't see no lights a flashin' Ignores his sense of smell, Patches running kernels Dumps no core at all, That tired, squinting, blind kid Sure makes a mean sys call!
I thought I was The process table king, But I've just handed My root password to him.
Even on my own hot boxes, His hacks can beat my best. The network leads him in, And he just does the rest. He's got crazy Finger servers Never will seg-fault... That tired, squinting, blind kid Sure makes a mean sys call!
About a year ago, Popular Science did an article on nanotech motors. They said that the biggest drawback of even the best Li-batteries is that no battery has even hit the 1% efficiency rating. Reasearchers hope that with these mini-engines, we may finally see power devices as small as a battery that can produce over 1% efficiency. I believe that 10% is their ultimate goal, although anything over 1% would still be worlds better than batteries. Granted, use in such devices as portable phones would actually mean that the micro engines would just be recharging the batteries, which would limit the overall efficiency to less than a 10th of a percent, but given other applications and better technology, such nano engines could replace Li-batteries in laptops and other high performance appliances. No more plugging your laptop into the wall, just go to the gas station and filler up;) .
Surely they don't really mean batteries only have "1% efficiency" in terms of energy usage. I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I would bet that the process of charging and discharging a good battery would achieve 50% to 75% efficiency. IOW, you get up to 75% of the electrical energy back out that you put in. Otherwise, electric cars would be totally out of the question, and charging a 20W laptop would consume kilowatts of power.
What they probably meant is that a battery of a given mass is only able to st
But, geez (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, not so much (Score:2, Interesting)
I know you're just being a smartass, but actually I'd say that this thing is less susceptible to tilt and more to "surface" forces like friction and electrostatics compared to it's larger counterparts.
But nice gag all the same.
Re:But, geez (Score:3, Funny)
TILT!!! TILT!!!!
*Puts down unit and gently picks up unit*
TILT!!! TILT!!!
GEEZ! I'm not bumping or tilting you dumbass! What's wrong with you??!!??
*result of yelling* TILT!!! TILT!!!
This is great news (Score:5, Funny)
Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Where is the quarter slot?
TMNT quote (Score:2)
Re:Umm... (Score:4, Funny)
I think the token-machine is out-of-order right now though
Parent
And the nobel prize goes to... (Score:2, Funny)
Solid State Electronics Laboratory for the smallest balls known to exist!
Wow ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the old days (Score:4, Funny)
Some people still do. They call them MPEGS.
Re:Remember the old days (Score:5, Informative)
It is an MPEG codec. DivX is an implementation of MPEG-4. If you want source code for a decoder see the ffmpeg [sourceforge.net] (as libavcodec) or xvid [xvid.org] codecs. Between then, I've not see an OS with a POSIX layer that's not been able to compile a decoder engine. Granted, there are large bunches of optional parts that the various decoders don't all cover, but I've not yet see any problems with ffmpeg decoder.
If by MPEGS you mean MPEG-1, then yes - that is slightly more portable than MPEG-4 codecs, but not noticably (better support on embeded systems). They do however, have poorer picture quality, and larger bitrates. So, it's not really a good choice for internet distribution. MPEG-2 would also be better than MPEG-1, but it's also not quite as good as MPEG-4, interms of low bitrate quality. And for a web demo, the lower the bitrate, the better.
If you've got a particular platform in mind, then drop a line, and I'll see if I can find a pre-compiled setup for it.
Parent
Re:Do you use DOS? (Score:2, Informative)
VLC (Score:2, Informative)
Indeed it does.
I also have mplayer, but I find VLC far better.
I have "installed" the Divx-codec for mac, but Quicktime seems to disregard it.
I prefer that the Divx codec is used over all that MS-mediaplayer crap. Although Xvid [xvid.org] would even be better.
Re:Do you use DOS? (Score:2)
Ok, don't use it myself (OSx doesn't run on any of my boxen). But I've never had a problem with Mplayer. Ocassional teething problems in compilation, but if your on Mac hardware, those nice people behind Fink [sourceforge.net] have taken care of all that.
If there's something you don't like about mplayer, you could look at xine. Might be more to your tastes.
Looks like a matrix arcade - here's the music (Score:5, Funny)
"Electostatic actuation" - now maybe they could drive the music for it through nano-elctrostatic speakers:
"He's a nano wizard
There's got to be a spin
A nano wizard
S'got monocrystalline"
New Casting Roles (Score:3, Funny)
David Spade; the world's smallest pinball wizard.
Side discussion: (Score:5, Insightful)
Will the Diamond Age begin in our lifetimes?
I'm personally of the opinion that when the nanotech revolution starts, it'll happen so shockingly fast that applications, society and governance will take decades to catch up -- think internet x10.
In a world of pervasive nanotech, I suspect the next really big industry will be power generation; it'll require a step up in juice unlike any seen since the start of the century. Fortunately, nanotech will hopefully solve some technical problems (superconducting power transmission, materials suited to support fusion, etc) at the same time it's demanding this huge level of power generation.
Of course, in a world of pervasive nanotech, our existing governmental and societal structures are in a lot of trouble... We live, as the ancient Chinese said, in interesting times (and I mean that in the spirit in which they did).
Re:Side discussion: (Score:5, Insightful)
While nanotechnology has many great potentials, they are still in a hazy future. Lasers were once seen as the technology that would transform the world. Same with Computers. Yet the bulk of the world is still relatively unchanged by either of these. Certainly the developed nations have changed substantially, but in many respects they have not changed much if at all.
I get up in the morning, go to work from 8-5 every weekday morning for 40 hrs a week. Same as my dad did, and same as my kids will. How we do our work has changed, but the simple pattern of society in which we work to earn money to pay for housing, food, et al. has remained unchanged.
In the bulk of the world, life is much closer akin to my grandfolks time. People work from sunrise to sunset to scratch out a living, and their sustenance, from the land. Nano technology is not going to dramatically change their lives. Drought or other climatic changes will be the key variable to their lives.
We do indeed live in interesting times, but I do not think that our time is any more interesting on an individual level than any other time. We live in a time that has seen the average american progress steadily further from the basic compnents of survival. How many average americans would be able to fend for themselves in the "wild?" The "interesting" past of our American lives is when all the artificial walls separating us from basic needs come crashing down.
Nanotechnology then does but attempt to fortify those walls and afford us protection from our fear of being without. Earlier times had the same fear, the difference being that they lived closer to their fear than we do.
Parent
Lasers (Score:5, Insightful)
And they were right - they did. Not then, and not in the laser death ray way they thought back then, but now. I read a compelling article a while back (probably here) that proposed that the tech boom of the 90's was not the result of computer, the Internet or anything else. It was about lasers becomming cheap enough to be put in everything. Lasers are in millions of things. We don't even think about them - CD, DVD, fibre networks, SP/DIF..etc.
The transformations don't happen until the price point comes down. Nanotech is more like the way people think about the Internet - it starts inexspensivley from the get go (wouldn't have without those cheap lasers though). Once the first practical molecular assemblers are created (assuming they can be) it will boom very very quickly.
Parent
Re:Side discussion: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Side discussion: (Score:5, Interesting)
Firstly, look at some of the stories set now, written 50 years ago. How many of them have an even part way accurate description of, well, anything?
So, when your talking about nanotech, what are you actually thinking of?
What I'm thinking of is something that will be a bit like a cross between mechanical engineering and chemistry - make the various mechanical parts small so that they tend to operate in a chemicaly relevent length scale. That's the sort of thing that these micro-engines are.
Think about biology for a moment, and about the sorts of biochemical reactions that go on in a living being. Those are the sort of things that nanotach can do. I do not believe that we will see a "Universal constructor" type device for many centuries, if ever.
Note that the two examples that you give have been solved without the use of nano tech. Superconducting powerlines are in use in europe. They are unfortunatly only cost effective for short range (around 100 miles or so) high power transfers - but that's improving.
The problem with fusion is not materials. You cannot get a material that will contain a fusion reaction - instead they use magnetic containment. And the problem is keeping the thing stable. I cannot see how nanotech devices would assist in this.
So, in sumary, you are thinking of the effects of something, but I've no idea what.
Parent
Re:Side discussion: (Score:3, Interesting)
Better materials would help substantially with magnetic confinement fusion. In particular, something with a high tensile strength and a superconductor with high breakdown field strength would make many of the difficulties with magnetic confinement fusion magically
Re:Side discussion: (Score:5, Interesting)
-War (over who should use it and how it should be used.)
-New nanotech based "diseases" caused by their proliferation
-Political and ethical issues that no one can even dream of right now
The usual stuff to be sure, but nonetheless the kind of thing that someone like me would never think about. I think you are correct in your assertion that society and governance will have trouble catching up. They are already having trouble with the Internet alone. (Think spam regulation)
On another subtopic: I think that nanotech in it's current form is very much akin to the early days of computing when the first nixie tubes were being used as a display device. They displayed information in a very rudimentary fashion that still required human intervention to be interpreted to the common man.
What I think will be interesting in the future of nanotech is when we can manipulate matter as we do pixels in today's 3d rendering engines. Think of it as rendering reality... with filters... and the ability to manipulate textures... colors... etc.
I would suggest that all the algorithms we've been developing for 3D rendering will be the very fundamentals of matter manipulation software. Of course there are many other factors that we currently ignore in 3D that will be essential to real matter. (Don't want hollow object for one thing)
Just imagine the possibility of applying encryption and compression algorithms on matter.
From the technical angle, it's going to be a lot of fun. From the societal angle it's going to be very tumultuous.
Personally, I think that eventually waste dumps are going to become goldmines for discarded matter to use in the manufacturing of new materials. If I were interested in making money long term, I'd probably buy a few garbage dumps now and keep them in the family.
Parent
The beginning of the end (Score:5, Funny)
It's all good science until ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's all good science until ... (Score:5, Informative)
See, the micro-engine charges the cellphones. Combustion + ear = ear on fire. That was his joke. Even if you thought it unfunny, it was on-topic.
Posted with a bonus in hopes that someone will see this.
Parent
Lighter fluid (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, and thank you for noting.
Parent
Re:Lighter fluid (Score:3, Funny)
"Carl, you see if you can figure out what's wrong with this thang. It won't crank up and ever'thang seems to be put together right."
"It ain't got no gais in it!"
Re:Lighter fluid (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently their ear is resistant (up to 2700K).
Maybe yours would become too ceramic too - after the first bake.
Wait, and there is more - some solid propellants, used by military and in shuttle SRBs have pretty high energy/weight index ratio too. And it is easy to operate and get a great thrust from a small ammount of stuff. [Once you lit the fuse
Micro-engines in cell phones? (Score:5, Funny)
Researchtv needs to research site development (Score:5, Funny)
When I tried to watch the film, I got this javascript "error":
There seems to be a problem with your system. Browser not Microsoft Internet Explorer
That's a problem?
We'll find WMD's in Iraq as soon as we plant them there.
Way To Be Flaming... (Score:5, Funny)
Mini and Micro Rotary Engines (Score:5, Informative)
naming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:naming (Score:4, Insightful)
Or how about when nanotech gets smaller then 1nm, are we going to have to the change that name too?
Given that atoms are on the order of 0.1 to 0.3 nm and given the strong limitations imposed by nuclear physics (particularly the strong force), I don't think there is much risk.
Parent
Re:Mini and Micro Rotary Engines (Score:2, Interesting)
For the Micro Fallingwater Game Room (Score:5, Interesting)
My two cents (Score:5, Interesting)
"These micro-engines have over 300 times more energy than an ordinary battery" is meaningless. If they mean total energy delivery over whatever time period you like, then microengines can beat batteries by a factor of a million trillion zillion, as long as you hook them up to a big enough fuel tank. In actual power capacity, though, microengines aren't anything special at all, yet.
The aim is little turbines the size of a sugar cube that run from butane or propane or whatever, and have several watts of output power; prototypes of such things have been spinning for a while now. The microengines shown in the U of B release, though, are minuscule piston units which have power output in the microwatts, if that. Heck, the ones shown in the release don't even have generators attached to them, so their electrical output at the moment is zero!
For your amusement: A reader also pointed this [indiatimes.com] out to me; it's a reprint of a piece on the subject from the British "Sun" tabloid, and it reads as if they took the U of B press release and put it through a Markov chain [san-francisco.ca.us] program, or something.
It's good to know that alcoholism in the press is alive and well.
Nanoscale... (Score:5, Funny)
300 times more energy than an ordinary battery...? (Score:5, Interesting)
"These micro-engines have over 300 times more energy than an ordinary battery and are much lighter and smaller."
So a cellphone that needs a daily charging will now need a refill once a year?
I would wager that this claim carries a degree of exaggeration.
Re:300 times more energy than an ordinary battery. (Score:2)
It's just very carefully selected semantical dodges.
It is talking about how much energy is contained inside these systems. (I'm assuming there's talking either per unit volume, or per unit mass. Other wise, well, it's totally meaningless).
That's a different number from how much energy you cet get out of the systems. In fact, my gut instinct is that they are comparing the energy you can get out of a battery to the total energy available from the fuel with the micro-
exploding cell-phones anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Great. Now I can add my laptop and cell phone, along with nail clippers and wooden slupting tools, to list the of things you can be detained Airport Security guards can pull me out of line and strip search me down for...
on the other hand I wonder what MacGuyver could do with one of these, a pack of toothpicks and some loose sweater yarn...
I'm a Pinball... I mean Unix Wizard (Score:5, Funny)
Ever since I heard of Unix
I've always had a ball,
From Berkeley up to Linux
I must've run 'em all;
But I ain't seen nothing like him
On systems large or small
That tired, squinting, blind kid
Sure makes a mean sys call!
He sits just like a statue,
Like part of the machine,
Feeling all the limits,
Knows what signals mean,
Hacks by intuition,
His process never stalls,
That tired, squinting, blind kid
Sure makes a mean sys call!
He's a Unix Wizard,
I just can't get the gist
A Unix wizard's
Got such a mental twist.
How do you think he does it?
I don't know!
What makes him so good?
Ain't got no distractions,
Don't hear no biffs or bells,
Don't see no lights a flashin'
Ignores his sense of smell,
Patches running kernels
Dumps no core at all,
That tired, squinting, blind kid
Sure makes a mean sys call!
I thought I was
The process table king,
But I've just handed
My root password to him.
Even on my own hot boxes,
His hacks can beat my best.
The network leads him in,
And he just does the rest.
He's got crazy Finger servers
Never will seg-fault...
That tired, squinting, blind kid
Sure makes a mean sys call!
new version of song needed... (Score:2)
(Sounds like Mork from Ork joke eh?)
In other news: Nano-guitars! (Score:4, Interesting)
lighter fluid = fumes? (Score:2)
Video Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
pinball_720x540_(divx).avi [btrig.com]
NanoTech Engines (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NanoTech Engines (Score:3, Interesting)
What they probably meant is that a battery of a given mass is only able to st
Game Over. (Score:4, Funny)
It's slashtilted...