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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Nanotech Pinball and Miniature Engines 171

Posted by michael from the tiny-bubbles dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanotech Pinball and Miniature Engines More

Nanotech Pinball and Miniature Engines

Comments Filter:

  • But, geez (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:46PM (#6255013)
    That thing sure is sensitive to tilt. A minor gravitational fluctuation sets it off.

  • This is great news (Score:5, Funny)

    by Daimaou ( 97573 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:47PM (#6255020)
    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.

  • Umm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:48PM (#6255032) Homepage Journal

    Where is the quarter slot?

  • Solid State Electronics Laboratory for the smallest balls known to exist!

  • Wow ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jmays ( 450770 ) * on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:50PM (#6255053)
    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!

  • Remember the old days (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:50PM (#6255057) Homepage Journal
    ...when folks used to encode videos using codecs that worked well on any platform?

    Some people still do. They call them MPEGS.

    • I used to have a winbox, a linuxbox and now I have an Apple powerbook.
      I don't recall great difficulties playing divx-files under any of these systems.
      Perhaps you are still using DOS?
      • I used to have a winbox, a linuxbox and now I have an Apple powerbook. I don't recall great difficulties playing divx-files under any of these systems.
        You are playing divx avis natively on your Powerbook? How? Only way I've found is that kludge called MPlayer. But I got what I paid for, I suppose.

        • Re:Do you use DOS? (Score:2, Informative)

          by KJE ( 640748 )
          VLC [videolan.org] works just fine

          • VLC (Score:2, Informative)

            by Councilor Hart ( 673770 )
            "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.
        • Um, DivX 5.06 for Mac [divx.com]?

          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.

    • Re:Remember the old days (Score:5, Informative)

      by DarkMan ( 32280 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:04PM (#6255196) Journal
      Huh?

      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.
    • ...when folks used to encode videos using codecs that worked well on any platform?

      Don't worry, it doesn't run on MSWindows either. I just fired up my MSWin box to look at it, and it complained that I didn't have ActiveX enabled. Well, I don't, and I'm not going to enable it just to see a movie.

  • "Rows and columns of tiny nano-pinball games" That sounds like I'm hallucinating quite badly.

    "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)

    by Jonsey ( 593310 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:52PM (#6255077) Journal
    And the Tony goes to:

    David Spade; the world's smallest pinball wizard.

  • Side discussion: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:52PM (#6255084) Homepage
    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).

    • I'll take up part of that discussion.

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garyrich ( 30652 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @02:23PM (#6256026) Homepage Journal
        "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.

      • Re:Side discussion: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by danila ( 69889 )
        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
        • Please do not pity me for my 8-5 job. I work with incredibly sharp folks at a challenging and highly rewarding job. I have enjoyed paralegalling for several years now and will continue to do it as long as I enjoy it. I appluad you for fortune but even by your own admission you have only the means now to support yourself for a year or two. After that it is always possible that you could end up working the 8-5 thing yourself, which would be another drastic change in your life.

          I wrote the reply more as a

          • Thanks for an interesting and though-stimulating post. It encouraged me to enjoy my carefree life, get out of the house and have a white night walk, to think (again) about nanotech and changes and structure my thoughts a little bit.

            Changes in the past and present

            1. It is a fact that humans haven't changed much in the past 10 thousand years. As I understand, we have essentially same physical and intellectual capability as our remote ancestors had. Our brains and bodies haven't changed much. So the basic

          • And here are some separate replies more specifically to your post (in addition to my ideas on changes and nanotech in another post).

            I agree that it is important to consider the causes for failures of earlier civilisation. Unfortunately, I think not enough attention is paid to that and we do not have a clear understanding yet of why every one of them failed except for the modern European (later Western) societies and whether there are some risks that we should pay special attention to.

            I want to note that a
    • (and I mean that in the spirit in which they did).

      You mean as in the curse "May you be born in interesting times".

      Well it does concern me - just look at the trouble Crusher started, having to set traps for them in the mess. I don't want these things in my food - I'm sure they'd make it taste burnt.

      Neal Stephenson's book was captivating but a little troubling. And a leap does seem to be taking place now. Over what chasm I don't know.

      But that pinball game shows more dexterity than I'd imagined was curren

    • Re:Side discussion: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DarkMan ( 32280 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:32PM (#6255415) Journal
      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
    • >Will the Diamond Age begin in our lifetimes?

      I officially petition that the membership rolls of /. become a phyle unto themselves.

      Then, later after some nanophages reduce Darl C. McBride into a pile of steaming goo. I propose that we work dilligiently at getting the hell off this planet!

    • Re:Side discussion: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Trolling4Dollars ( 627073 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:41PM (#6255497) Journal
      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.

  • The beginning of the end (Score:5, Funny)

    by jtkooch ( 553641 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:53PM (#6255089)
    Now nano sized soldiers will have equipment to perfect their hand eye coordination before they launch their attack on mankind.

  • It's all good science until ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:53PM (#6255097)
    someone lights there ear on fire answering the cell phone.

    • Re:It's all good science until ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by EnVisiCrypt ( 178985 ) <[groovetheorist] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:04PM (#6255195)
      I hate to break it to the mod's, but this is not offtopic. In fact, it's quite funny.

      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.

      • Lighter fluid (Score:4, Interesting)

        by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:12PM (#6255247)
        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.

        Oh, and thank you for noting.

        • Re:Lighter fluid (Score:3, Funny)

          by Wansu ( 846 )
          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."

          "It ain't got no gais in it!"

        • "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
    • ... someone lights
      their ear on fire answering the cell phone.

      Then it's a FoxTV special -- When Cell Phones Attack!

      --

  • Micro-engines in cell phones? (Score:5, Funny)

    by HTH NE1 ( 675604 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:58PM (#6255139)
    You are so going to be turning off your cell phone at the gas station now!

  • Researchtv needs to research site development (Score:5, Funny)

    by j3ffy ( 639422 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:59PM (#6255149)

    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)

    by Jim_Hawkins ( 649847 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:00PM (#6255163)
    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...

  • Mini and Micro Rotary Engines (Score:5, Informative)

    by pyite ( 140350 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:00PM (#6255165)
    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.

    • naming (Score:2, Insightful)

      by maddogsparky ( 202296 )
      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.

      • f its the size of 1 mm, shouldn't it be called a "milli-engine"?

        I think they are naming it after the size of the moving parts...

        Also... MIT Gas Turbine Lab Micro-Turbines [mit.edu]
      • Mini comes from miniature and micro comes from microscopic.

        They're not talking about unit prefixes.

        And even if they were, if you had something that was 10 mm big, would you have to stop calling it a milli-engine and change the name to a centi-engine?

        Or how about when nanotech gets smaller then 1nm, are we going to have to the change that name too?

        And according to you, I guess we'll have to change the names micrometer and microscope, because they're much bigger then a micro meter.

        • Re:naming (Score:4, Insightful)

          by First Person ( 51018 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:55PM (#6255674)

          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.

      • >If its the size of 1 mm, shouldn't it be called a "milli-engine"?

        You're wrong: nanotechnlogy is not about the size of the object produced but about the accuracy used to create the object.
        If you created a very big object, by controling precisely the position of each molecules of the object, it would be nanotechnology, even if the object is very big.

        But you're right: these object are not nano at all: these are MEMS.
    • I wish I could put that in a remote controlled RX-8. [mazda.com] That'd be a neat toy. :)

  • For the Micro Fallingwater Game Room (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:01PM (#6255168)
    This would be great for furnishing the game room of the one-millionth scale model of Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater [berkeley.edu]

  • My two cents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daniel Rutter ( 126873 ) <dan@dansdata.com> on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:04PM (#6255193) Homepage
    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.

    • I was waiting for someone to point this out. Moreover, the article says: These new power-supplying machines will soon be used to charge mobile phones and lap top computers in a matter of seconds thereby eliminating the need to recharge them frequently. They're claiming that they'll replace batteries. But then, what are you charging up "in a matter of seconds"? Massive capacitor banks?

  • Nanoscale... (Score:5, Funny)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:05PM (#6255202) Homepage Journal
    And a new record for the fastest slashdotting of a University website... Insert obligatory joke about Nanoseconds here.
    • 13:35:31 (468.91 KB/s) - `pinball_640x480_(divx).avi' saved [13983744/13983744]

      I got to it just fine!
    • I think this is a disturbing trend to replace real actual funny jokes with keywords that are known to generate a typical response in a certain demographic. Instead of thinking of something original and then presenting it to other you cheat.

      But if this is indeed the current standard of Slashdot (implied joke here - Slashdot users are stupid - ha-ha) I might as well try it. Imagine a Beowulf cluster (implied joke) of unfunny [goatse.cx] (implied joke) jokes.

      Now moderate this into oblivion (implied modappeal), I have ka

  • 300 times more energy than an ordinary battery...? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by relativePositioning ( 661852 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:07PM (#6255219)

    "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.

    • Probably not any exageration at all.

      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-
    • "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.

      The 300x almost certainly refers to energy density (per unit mass or per unit volume; pick one). This is consistent with switching from batteries to chemical fuels (though still a bit optimistic). The thing is, a fuel cell will do the same thing with _ze
  • C'mon people... you know the drill... anyone got one?
  • They must be running their website using the pinball machine too. I hope that they can keep all of those .'s from /. in play or their server will tilt.

  • exploding cell-phones anyone? (Score:3, Funny)

    by sTalking_Goat ( 670565 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:11PM (#6255245) Homepage
    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...

  • I'm a Pinball... I mean Unix Wizard (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:13PM (#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!
  • He's a nano-pinball nano-wizard...

    (Sounds like Mork from Ork joke eh?)
  • Researchers at the University of Birmingham have developed a micro-engine that will allow people to charge mobile phones using lighter fluid AND power their computers with STEAM!!!

  • In other news: Nano-guitars! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by phUnBalanced ( 128965 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:20PM (#6255311) Homepage
    Check out this rocking piece [oddmusic.com] of nanotech.
  • Besides the seeming flammability risk, what about fumes?
  • Researchers at the University of Birmingham have developed a micro-engine that will allow people to charge mobile phones using lighter fluid.

    Unfortunately, you can't take flammable liquids like lighter fluid aboard aircraft, so it isn't going to help much on those long flights unless they change the regs. I don't see that hapening in the current security climate.
    • Unfortunately, you can't take flammable liquids like lighter fluid aboard aircraft, so it isn't going to help much on those long flights unless they change the regs. I don't see that hapening in the current security climate.

      Well.. you aren't supposed to be using your mobile phone aboard aircraft either!

    • Unfortunately, you can't take flammable liquids like lighter fluid aboard aircraft,

      You can't? I've never been stopped from taking my Zippo or Bic on board. Of course, it's been years since I've flown and I know that they could of changed this by now, but I would assume that as long as you don't try to take the lighter fluid bottle on board, they are not going to question your cell phone or laptop.

  • Video Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:25PM (#6255353)
    Here is a mirror of the video if you want to check it out:

    pinball_720x540_(divx).avi [btrig.com]

  • NanoTech Engines (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KingArthur10 ( 679328 ) <[arthur.bogard] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:28PM (#6255377)
    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

      • Re:NanoTech Engines (Score:2, Interesting)

        by serbanp ( 139486 )
        Actually the LiIon and LiPolymer batteries casually achieve 98% storage efficiency. That's why a 68W battery, charging at 4Amps, is quite lukewarm. If the charging process would be so inefficient, the battery would be hot as hell itself.

        Serban
  • somebody post a torrent of the video as a reply; mod whoever's post is a torrent up and mine down

  • Game Over. (Score:4, Funny)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:42PM (#6255503) Journal

    It's slashtilted...
  • (and this story was on the Reg two days ago...)

    The nanotech engine looks very far from production ready - two or three unclear images, and an interview, that's it. The video is mainly marketing for Birmingham Uni, AFAICS, and almost entirely void of technical details or facts.

    I'll be impressed when I see a prototype actually working, or any kind of technical detail. This looks nothing more than an artist's impression and some smoke designed to drive funding.

    There is also a very big hole in the design a
    • The nanotech engine looks very far from production ready - two or three unclear images, and an interview, that's it. The video is mainly marketing for Birmingham Uni, AFAICS, and almost entirely void of technical details or facts.

      Hear, Hear. Miniature engines are sexy projects for demonstrating micro-machining capabilities but they invariably disappear from the radar after the initial media flurry. The inventors are so excited about their projects that they overlook the inevitable effects of downscaling
  • BitTorrent seems like a great solution to deal with the Slashdot effect, if the editors ever showed any signs of caring about dealing with it.

    I can't see the pinball!

    Tim

  • The article [bham.ac.uk] about the micro engine was frustrating. "300 times more eneergy". Bah! 300 times more energy than a watch battery or a car battery? Obviously, they mean power but how much power? 300 times x? What's x?

    Also, since this thing consumes fuel, it might be helpful to compare power-to-weight ratios with the smallest gas engines widely available (e.g., model airplane engines).

    Thanks a lot, U Birmingham, for dumbing the article so far down that all it conveys is "oooohhh look, neat new thing".

  • The microengine are very small (thumbnail) sized combustion engines that drive a generator.

    I believe the 300x figure would be for electricity generated in a cubic inch... Though the article seems to actually trying to state that it would be based on cost, that the energy requirement for making the battery far exceeds the amount of electricity that comes out of the battery over it's entire life.

    So that these little engines would be very cheap to manufacture. And I need a little assurance that these aren'
  • Once again, the story has been posted on physicsweb [physicsweb.org] two days ago.
  • I know that standard batteries generally have a small amount of outgassing, but what sort of combustion byproducts are we talking about with this lighter-fluid-based "battery"?

    The article is very light on the technical details of how lighter fluid will generate the energy, other than that the device be "a few millimetres wide". But the MSDS for Ronsonol Lighter Fluid [k12.ok.us] goes into quite a bit of detail:

    * 95% Light Aliphatic Naptha

    * 5% Medium Aliphatic Naptha

    * <30ppm Benzene

    * Hazardous Decomp Products:
  • Here is a mirror of the movie in case it gets slashdotted. http://brain.cx/pinball.avi [brain.cx]

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close