Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Biotech Science

Replicating Hardest Known Biomaterial Could Improve Solar Cells and Batteries 28

Posted by Soulskill
from the harder-better-faster-stronger dept.
cylonlover writes "Inspired by the tough teeth of a marine snail and the remarkable process by which they form, assistant professor David Kisailus at the University of California, Riverside is working toward building cheaper, more efficient nanomaterials. By achieving greater control over the low-temperature growth of nanocrystals (abstract), his research could improve the performance of solar cells and lithium-ion batteries, lead to higher-performance materials for car and airplane frames, and help develop abrasion-resistant materials that could be used for anything from specialized clothing to dental drills."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Replicating Hardest Known Biomaterial Could Improve Solar Cells and Batteries

Comments Filter:
  • overhyped nano stuff (Score:5, Informative)

    by Goldsmith (561202) on Friday January 18, 2013 @11:45PM (#42631945)

    What are these guys really doing? Are these materials even close to as good as "high performance" materials used in car and airplane frames? Are these coatings close to as hard and uniform as those used on drills? What is it about a study on millimeter scale crystallization that leads us to make these claims about macro scale properties?

    Some of us in nanotechnology are scientifically comparing nanomaterials to their bulk counterparts. When we sit down and do measurements in realistic conditions, the kind of hyperbolic statements made here are a big problem. Think of it like the solid state physics version of the dot com bubble.

    The work described here is good and it is important, but we shouldn't be projecting the results forward with such unfounded certainty.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?