Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Cars To Be Assembled Atom By Atom 285

Posted by simoniker from the nano-tick-tock dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "In a new article, the Detroit News says that the adoption of nanotechnology by car manufacturers will produce safer, lighter and cheaper vehicles. While GM is already using nanocomposite materials for several vans, Ford is developing new nanoengineered catalysts to replace platinum. The newspaper gives other examples, such as auto-adaptive suspension systems, scratch-resistant paints or nanocoated windshields which will not crack. In fact, all parts in a car can be improved by using nanotechnology, according to the article. And if automakers are only going to introduce limited amounts of nanotechnology-related products in the next few years, their usage should be widespread within ten years. More details are available in this overview."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cars To Be Assembled Atom By Atom More

Cars To Be Assembled Atom By Atom

Comments Filter:

  • asdf (Score:2, Funny)

    by professorhojo ( 686761 ) *
    Hello, welcome to Johnnycab..

    "DRIVE, DRIVE!!"

    Please state your destination

    "ANYWHERE, JUST GOOOO!!!"

    Please state a specific address

    "SHEET, SHEEEEETTT!!!!"

    I'm sorry, that is not a valid address

    "RAAHHHHHHHHH"

    (Rips the Johnny Cab out of its seat)

  • Errm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Haydn Fenton ( 752330 ) <no.spam.for.haydn@gmail.com> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:11PM (#9478272)
    Excuse my ignorace, but surely nanotechnology would produce safer, lighter and cheaper (depending on the meaning.. I'm assuming consumer-side cost) everything?

    • Have a Bigger P3Ni5 Using Nonatechnology! (Score:5, Funny)

      by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:19PM (#9478309) Homepage
      Etcetera. Sigh.

    • Re:Errm.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pacc ( 163090 )
      Yup, but trying hard enough to make a car using nano-technology will probably result in vast amounts of byproducts small enough to get into your cells and subtly kill you.

      Of course we learned that when trying to create biocompatible compounds using chemical means, but remember that they are creating materials and not cars and couldn't care less about your well-being.

      • Re:Errm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by idiot900 ( 166952 ) * on Sunday June 20, 2004 @01:05PM (#9478469)
        Yup, but trying hard enough to make a car using nano-technology will probably result in vast amounts of byproducts small enough to get into your cells and subtly kill you.

        We already have plenty of "byproducts small enough to get into your cells and subtly kill you". Smoke, alcohol, really any poisonous compound - these are all made of up things called "molecules" that can potentially get into your cells and cause damage. Sadly, your tinfoil hat may not protect you from all of these "molecules".

        (Before you mod me Flamebait: as long as there has been life, there has always been pathogenic matter that exerts its effects on a subcellular level. What's unique about this situation?)
        • Except things like smoke and alcohol are organic and more "natural". There are already mechanisms to deal with them. Nanotechnology presents an [even greater] opportunity for toxins for which the body has no, or very limited, coping mechanisms. Also, I can largely choose not to consume alcohol, and I know how to avoid smoke. But if EVERYTHING is toxic, how do I avoid that?
    • Boy, I sure was scared about nano-robots taking over the world, but being overrun by self-replecating cars wouldn't be so bad... 'cause hey, free car!
    • Excuse my ignorace (sic), but surely nanotechnology would produce safer, lighter and cheaper (depending on the meaning..[.] I'm assuming consumer-side cost) everything?

      Yeah, sure, safer, lighter, cheaper.

      But the real questions all are about style. To wit, can I get one of these cars in a "gray goo" color?

  • OpenSource Nanotech? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:13PM (#9478280) Homepage Journal
    At what point then could we just download 'plans' off P2P and just 'grow' our own car, house, dinner....

    • Re:OpenSource Nanotech? (Score:5, Funny)

      by josh3736 ( 745265 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:42PM (#9478394) Homepage
      You'll be able to do it, it just won't be legal! (Hence why you have to download the plans off P2P.)

      You see, if you grow your own car, you'd be infringing on the car company's copyright. (The car companies have have a non-expiring copyright on all Cars®, you see.)

      Furthermore, growing your own car will be a felony punishable by a $1,000,000 fine and 30 years in Federal Pound-Me-In-the-Ass prison under the DMCLFMBBC (Digital Millenium Copyrights Last For a Millenium to Benefit Big Companies) Act of 2007.

      Oh, and you might as well not even bother to try and download a car since your computer will just blow up [slashdot.org] anyways.

    • It will suffer the same fate befalling Software (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:50PM (#9478414)
      At what point then could we just download 'plans' off P2P and just 'grow' our own car, house, dinner....

      At the point where the ruling oligarchs choose to relinquish their architectures of control (patent and copyright law) and allow knowledge and thought to be shared freely.

      I.e. not in the lifetime of anyone currently living, if ever.

      Expect nano-designs to be covered by both patents and copyrights, much like software in America is today. And expect progress to be decimated as a result, and the best products to be created in technical violation of the law in many places, such as mplayer is today (though fortunately not in violation of the laws where its author lives).

      And the latter, semi-optomistic note, assumes there are safe havens where free thinking people can still create ... probably far away from the United States or Europe. If "harmonization" succeeds, there will be no such place, and the only products and creativity that will exist will be the glacially slow change industry offers us ... assuming they don't see any threat to their current revinue streams in offering the new product. There will be no innovation from outside, and with government mandated monopoly markets, no competition either.

  • Too Good to be True (Score:5, Insightful)

    by powera ( 644300 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:13PM (#9478281) Homepage
    By the time we get to the point where we can build AN ENTIRE CAR atom by atom, I want to be flying around Earth in spaceships at 10000mph. Seriously, which is more difficult to do? Make available technology we already have somewhat, or assemble TRILLIONS of atoms.

    I think this is "reporter getting carried away by 'nano' buzzword". Nano is NOT the holy grail. Maybe some parts will have nano coatings, but those aren't even assembled "atom-by-atom".

    • Re:Too Good to be True (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dotslashconfig ( 784719 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:19PM (#9478310)
      I think you're missing the point slightly... The main advantage of building these cars "atom by atom" is the use of nano-devices to check structural integrity of the vehicle. The main hope for these nano-devices is that they'll provide more accurate measures of stress tolerance in an impact.

      One of the other added benefits from using nano-technology in this field is that certain devices could be used as a warning system, or sensor. In that sense, implanting these tools in the framework of the vehicle can be considered going "atom by atom" to choose the most likely places an impact will occur, and using the nano-machines as information relay to the vehicle's on-board computer. This way, instead of relying on crush sensitive technologies to deploy air bags and the like, we can use more precise measuring devices to help improve safety in vehicles.

      Of course, the one trade-off of this is that as these technologies allow for more driver error, there is the potential we could lean too hard on these devices to protect human life. It's a very dangerous idea to have a vehicle that is so protective of its passengers that the passengers become careless... but I think we're a long way off from that.

      • Of course, the one trade-off of this is that as these technologies allow for more driver error, there is the potential we could lean too hard on these devices to protect human life. It's a very dangerous idea to have a vehicle that is so protective of its passengers that the passengers become careless... but I think we're a long way off from that.

        I think we're already there. The majority of accidents I've seen or heard about lately involve a soccer mom or someone else in their SUV that felt so safe in th

        • Re:Too Good to be True (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:46PM (#9478406) Homepage
          I think we're already there. The majority of accidents I've seen or heard about lately involve a soccer mom or someone else in their SUV that felt so safe in that they were careless.

          Those soccer moms aren't more careless because they drive SUVs. They've always been careless drivers. The problem is that those large, heavy, tall vehicles, while arguably safer when in an accident, are less forgiving when trying to avoid an accident.

          • Let us not forget the more important implication of this: for every SUV that hits a smaller vehicle, the other passengers have a far great chance of dying. What has happened is that we've ended up in a road-mass arms race with our neighbors.

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ro ll over/etc/before.html
          • You also forgot the other reason that SUV's are creating more soccer-mom accidents.

            SUV's work to hinder Darwin's theory.

            After all, evolution doesn't work right if the incompetent are prevented from dying due to their incompetence.

          • The problem is that those large, heavy, tall vehicles, while arguably safer when in an accident...,/i>

            Don't even try to pull this one. Huge bulky cars are only safer for those that *drive* them ( and even that's debatable). God forbid you are the person in the sub-compact getting run over by those god awful things and their idiot drivers.

            • Don't even try to pull this one. Huge bulky cars are only safer for those that *drive* them

              Pull WHAT? I never said they were safer for those being hit. I was speaking about the mindset of SUV drivers. Do you really think they're thinking of the safety of anyone except themselves and their precious children?

        • The vast majority of accidents occur when driver A makes a mistake and driver B doesn't react fast enough to avoid driver A's vehicle.
      • Of course, the one trade-off of this is that as these technologies allow for more driver error, there is the potential we could lean too hard on these devices to protect human life. It's a very dangerous idea to have a vehicle that is so protective of its passengers that the passengers become careless

        Personal injury is only one reason why people don't drive carelessly. Also very high up on the list are "not wanting to wreck their car", "not wanting to incur liability for damaging others' property", and "n

    • By the time we get to the point where we can build AN ENTIRE CAR atom by atom, I want to be flying around Earth in spaceships at 10000mph.

      Umm, that's a hell of a speeding ticket yer looking forward to.

  • Could you help me? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rylfaeth ( 138910 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:14PM (#9478284)
    I'm out of gas and I need directions to the nearest gas station so I can spend $2 a gallon on an antiquated and crude fuel to make my futuristic nanocar run.

    Thanks!

    -Rylfaeth

    • Re:Could you help me? (Score:5, Funny)

      by zephc ( 225327 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:32PM (#9478355)
      Well, give the US auto industry enough time, they'll find a way to reconstruct dinosaurs atom by atom, then kill them, put em in the ground, and turn them in to oil. Yay, another 50 years of oil and it only took a trillion tons of biomass to die to do it!

      • The dinosaurs wouldn't have to be functional, they would just have to decay properly, so all of the early versions could be put to good use even if the cloning part went slightly askew*. Yay - genetic experimentation without all of the nasty public relations fallout!

        * Unless they're tasty - this is prime cookout season, you know.
      • Most oil comes from ancient vegetable matter, like plankton, not animal matter. Cite [cartage.org.lb].
    • My oldfashioned car also does nanotechnology. It makes carbon dioxide and water (and some other chemicals too) atom by atom from the petrol in its fuel tank. And it can do that whilst moving too! Sounds unbelievable isn't it?

  • sub-microscopic assembly lines (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:14PM (#9478285)
    ...I, for one, welcome our -

    ahh, scrub it. People will still find a way to drive like idiots, even in super nanotechnologically advanced cars.
    • Couldn't agree more.

      Safety has become a valuable sales argument for car manufacturers lately. Both passive safety and active safety have evolved quite a lot during the last few years.

      Both will for sure keep on evolving in the future, but the only thing that has not and will not evolve are people. To be more exact, the attitudes have not evolved.

      Everytime when an accident occurs you see the headlines screaming right at you in the news, and even the most hardened road hogs seem to calm down for a week or t
    • "ahh, scrub it. People will still find a way to drive like idiots, even in super nanotechnologically advanced cars."

      You could have saved some bandwidth by shortening your post to shit happens.

  • This is surface chemistry, not nanotechnology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:14PM (#9478287) Homepage
    Most of this is just good surface chemistry, not "nanotechnology". Lately, we're seeing the term "nanotechnology" applied to fine powders, coatings, catalyst surfaces, and such. That's not about building large structures out of individual atoms; it's just surface treatments for ordinary bulk materials.

    Good technology, just too much hype.

    • What's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <roy AT stogners DOT org> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:41PM (#9478389) Homepage
      If you have to take into account nanometer-scale effects to design something, I don't think it's too far fetched to call the result "nanotechnology".

      The problem is that to in most science fiction and speculative non-fiction, "nanotechnology" has been used primarily as a synonym for "nanorobotics", which would be infinitely cooler but is much further away.
      • Well, how about the fact that making steel is 'nanotech', making it stainless even more so.

        We've been fooling with this stuff for quite literally ages, it's just that we've now found the light switch... It's alot easier to work in the light.

  • You have got to be high... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caffeineboy ( 44704 ) <skidmore.22@o s u . edu> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:14PM (#9478288)
    if you think that a cheapskate industry like the automotive industry will be all up in nanotech.

    Manufacturers are too cheap to do things like hot dip galvanizing body and frame, but they will use a bunch of nanotech? Ironic. Something as simple and low-tech as galvinizing cars that would double or triple their lifetime are left out as too expensive...

    Let's start with the simple stuff please.

    • Manufacturers are too cheap to do things like hot dip galvanizing body and frame, but they will use a bunch of nanotech? Ironic. Something as simple and low-tech as galvinizing cars that would double or triple their lifetime are left out as too expensive...

      I'm going to trim and rephrase a bit..

      Manufacturers are too cheap to do .. something .. that would reduce the number of new cars required by a factor of two or three..

      • That's crap. Most people simply don't care whether their car lasts 10 years or 30, because they are going to replace it sooner anyway. If there was demand for long-lasting cars, some manufacturers would produce them and conquer the market. The fact that this didn't happen means that there basically is no demand for it.


        • That's crap. Most people simply don't care whether their car lasts 10 years or 30, because they are going to replace it sooner anyway. If there was demand for long-lasting cars, some manufacturers would produce them and conquer the market. The fact that this didn't happen means that there basically is no demand for it.

          Maybe, but people don't have any reasonable way to evaluate the life time of a car.
          If the only observable difference between two cars is the sticker price, most people buy the cheaper on

    • galvanized iron (Score:2, Informative)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 )
      For the uninformed, hot dip galvanizing [corrosion-doctors.org] involves putting iron or steel (not aluminum right?) into a zinc and iron (with a touch of aluminum) molten mix. This does wonderful things for your metal, but mainly the process inhibits rust, which would void any rust warranties your dealer wants to sell you.
    • Ah, see, but doubling or trebling the lifetime of a car is not in the interest of the automaker--the sooner you come out to buy another car, the better. As long as all the car makers do that, it becomes accepted that cars only survive for so long, and so everybody expects to go buy another car after a few years.

      The other factor is buzzwords: people are going to be much more impressed by "built with the latest nanotechnology!" than by "galvanized body!"
      • But most people don't drive their car until it falls apart anyway. People get a new car after a few years because they want to be driving a new(er) car, or because their lifestyle has changed and they need a different car, not because their old car fell apart. Witness the popularity of the car lease.

        Besides, how often does a modern car rust apart anymore before it simply becomes more expensive to keep running than replace?

  • I bet I know where they got the idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:15PM (#9478292)
    From that commercial where they build that car from legos.

  • More perks? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by andy55 ( 743992 ) * on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:16PM (#9478293) Homepage

    What wonderful news! So in a few years, when modern industrial society has seized up and American life as we've known it comes to halt as a result of the rapidly diminishing fossil fuel supply, our cars will still be shiny!

    I apologize for being off topic--mod me down--but the American car/suv/prettiness craze has gotten way out of hand...

    More seriously, I urge people to plug into the facts and realties of the worlds fossil fuels, and how the American way of life and economy is presently overly-dependent on this resource.

    Harry J. Longwell, executive vice-president of Exxon Mobil, made an unprecedented admission recently when he wrote: To put a number on it, we expect that by 2010 about half the daily volume needed to meet projected demand is not on production today... Even the necessarily conservative International Energy Agency (IEA), in its World Energy Outlook, 1998, concurred for the first time that global output could top out between 2009 and 2012, and decline rapidly thereafter.

    We can only hope to elect policymakers that have the courage to make the right decisions and foster international cooperation (rather than, say, invade and occupy oil-producing regions).

    /rant

    • Re:More perks? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mpn14tech ( 716482 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:21PM (#9478314)
      If/when we get to the point where we can build cars atom by atom, I think stringing together a few carbon and hydrogen atoms from renewable resources will not be much of a problem.

      • Re:More perks? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheGavster ( 774657 )
        The problem here is that the fossil fuels give up energy by breaking bonds between atoms. If we have to form those bonds in this spiffy manufacturing process, we're really just wasting energy. Don't forget that in addition to cars, our power plants also consume a huge quantity of hydrocarbon fuel. Of course, a battery perfected on the nano-meter scale might make an electric car viable (provided that you adopt some clean-ish source of energy, like nuclear power (clean-ish because there's still waste, its jus

    • you know.... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by zogger ( 617870 )
      ... I live out in the country and I am SERIOUSLY considering getting a horse. I've worked with them before on a ranch and at a stables, but never owned one, but still... grow your own fuel, grow your own replacement vehicle, the same vehicle can be used for basic trannsportation, as a tractor in the garden and woodlot, etc. I got several vehicles to choose from to drive around and work with now, but still... it is not far fetched to think that the old fashioned way might become pretty valuable and "new" fas

    • Re:More perks? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Decaff ( 42676 )
      Diminishing resources won't be a problem. With nanotechnology we can make cars that are very, very small.

    • Here's a great short factual piece [worldenergysource.com] that's chuck-full of info, references, and key quotes (such as the Exxon vice-president quote).

  • Atom by atom? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eudial ( 590661 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:17PM (#9478295)
    Somehow i feel sorry for the poor people assigned the job of actually putting them together.

  • Yet meeting California emmissions will bk them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:17PM (#9478296)
    I'm amazed to hear that the major autos makers can figure out how to use nanotech to build car parts yet the 30% increase in efficiency demanded by new California emmissions guidelines is apparently beyond the scope of all known science and apparently will bankrupt them, according to a suit they filed to render said guidelines illegal.

  • Nanotechnology windshields....not a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by voss ( 52565 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:20PM (#9478311)
    If my car is in a wreck or goes into a canal. If I cant open the doors I want to be able to break the windows and get out.

    If Im dead...my beautiful windshield doesnt mean a damn thing.
    • Why is there always someone with an argument like this? Seatbelts are potentially fatal too if they prevent you from getting out of a burning car, but the good far outweighs the bad.

    • This outlier was disregarded decades ago (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:32PM (#9478352)
      Your concerns were outweighed by the need to keep glass from nicely shattering and shredding passengers decades ago. Go look at accident photos prior to the age of safety glass. Not pretty.

      The chance of my car being submerged in water is maybe ten million times less likely than the chance a collision will press my face against the windsheild or door glass at a high rate of speed, in which case I definitely do not want to be able to shatter that glass on impact - if I do, if forms a guillotene that take off a body part when I retract.

      • Re:This outlier was disregarded decades ago (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:38PM (#9478378)
        Surely you do want the glass to shatter, but you want the entire pane to shatter into nice small circular chunks. This seems to be what current safety glass does nowadays, with the result that it causes lots of tiny scratches on your skin, but none deep enough to leave a scar. (I speak from the experience of a smash 4 years ago).
        • It sure as hell does leave a scar. I have a 4 inch long, 1/4 inch wide laceration running from my nose to my ear because safety glass gashed the hell out of my face in an accident. That said, i'm glad it was safety glass rather than normal glass, because that laceration would've been a beheading otherwise

    • Safety glass is designed to break safely (Score:4, Interesting)

      by voss ( 52565 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:52PM (#9478420)
      The nanotechnology glass as designed is designed NOT to break...that is not safe in case of collision or car going into a canal. This is not hypothetical, dozens of people in MY COUNTY ALONE died because they were trapped in their car when the car was submerged or burning. They did a special on it where people couldnt break the glass because they didnt have a simple icepick in their car.

      If you make it out of nano, its also going to be an issue for paramedics to try and get into the car.

      A seatbelt has a button to release it. There should be some safety measure built into nanowindshields that will allow them to be broken or removed in case of an emergency.

    • If my car is in a wreck or goes into a canal. If I cant open the doors I want to be able to break the windows and get out.

      If Im dead...my beautiful windshield doesnt mean a damn thing.

      If this is a regular occurance perhaps you shouldn't drive. if it is not. Then worry more about the probable chance of chipping your winshield vs the improbable chance that you roll your dumb ass self into a canal.

  • wake me up ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisumNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:22PM (#9478315) Homepage Journal

    when the nano-vats can be powered by a few kilo's worth of any fresh bio-mass consisting of mostly water.

  • Scope of problem (Score:4, Funny)

    by wombatmobile ( 623057 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:25PM (#9478326)

    * Amenities like cup holders that can absorb or produce heat, keeping beverages at the perfect temperature.

    I didn't realize that was such a big problem.

    "Any part of the car that's made has the potential to be improved by nanotechnology," Messner said, "because ultimately materials and parts are made out of atoms and molecules."

    Oh, right.

  • Unfortunately (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:25PM (#9478329)
    The cars produced by nano technology are only 2 mm long at most so getting in to them will be a bit of squeeze.
    • "The cars produced by nano technology are only 2 mm long at most so getting in to them will be a bit of squeeze."

      I feel another class action suit against McDonald's brewing.

  • Programmable use-by date? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by csirac ( 574795 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:27PM (#9478336)
    Car manufacturers are hardly putting current technology to good use, let alone nano-technology.

    Even if they could make anything for even equivilent cost, let alone cheaper, they'd probably still find some way of letting it break in 3-5 years.

  • Lacks imagination (Score:5, Interesting)

    by danharan ( 714822 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:27PM (#9478338) Journal
    "It's not going to change the overall vehicle to be unrecognizable from today," Hass [manager of physical and environmental sciences at Ford] said. "But the biggest impact may well be beyond anybody's imagination today."
    The guy isn't clued in. The car is one technology that is ready for more than incremental improvements; it needs a fundamental rethinking.

    There is a model out there, one that has been out for 10 years now: the Hypercar. It started as a concept by the Rocky Mountain Institute [rmi.org], and eventually a company by the same name (Hypercar Inc. [hypercar.com]) was formed. Slashdotters might find it interesting that Bill Joy is one of their investors.

    It's amazing technology, and it would have far reaching implications.
    • There is a model out there, one that has been out for 10 years now: the Hypercar. It started as a concept by the Rocky Mountain Institute, and eventually a company by the same name (Hypercar Inc.)

      So where's an actual Hypercar? They promised a prototype would be out a couple years ago. I refuse to believe anything from a company whose website says they leverage "synergies" unless I see a working prototype. I can't even find a photo of a mockup. The best I can find is a few CAD views.

      • Re:Lacks imagination (Score:2, Insightful)

        by danharan ( 714822 )
        They're not going to build them; they're trying to get the big automotive companies to build them. So far they have had some success getting companies to adopt some of the technologies they designed, especially with Hybrids.

  • Safer? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Space_Soldier ( 628825 ) <not4_u@hotmail.com> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:34PM (#9478361)
    I thought that nano-tech products from cabon are super strong. This will turn every car into a bulldozer. How will this be safer?

    • Re:Safer? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Garak ( 100517 )
      Carbon is very light compared to steel. If you could structer graphite carbon(pencil lead) into diamond it would be extreamly strong and light(stronger than steel, lighter than alumimin). Its the ideal building material for just about everything.

      It will be safter because the car will have alot less mass and would bounce off rather than bulldoze through other vechiles. It would also be super strong so the passenger compartment could not be crushed. It wouldn't rust, bend, it can be transparent...

      Its the

  • Cheap nanotech (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Merovign ( 557032 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:36PM (#9478368)
    My problem with Locally Made Cars is cheapness. Not low price, I like that. Cheapness.

    Anyone here check out a Cadillac lately? Doesn't it just reek of Chevy? Cheap plastics, ringy body panels with the wrong kind of or inadequate insulation, buttons, knobs and levers that are not only in the wrong or confusing places but feel like they're going to fall off.

    I think someone needs to learn how to make a car before they make a super-nanotech-alien-killing-machine car.

    I mean, foot handbrakes? What is this, 1970? I can't use that emergency brake in an emergency because my feet are busy DRIVING!!! It's a parking-only brake. At least they finally found a manual transmission.

    You'd think Chrysler would learn something from Daimler. Nope. Check out the trunk on the Crossfire. You practically have to unload groceries from bags before you can get them in the car! How is nanotech going to help that? "Hey, it's 30% stronger!" "Yeah, but I still can't put a suitcase in it!"

    Maybe they'll finally come up with paint that doesn't fade and peel quickly, and if good interior materials are cheap maybe they'll start using them. Won't tell them where to put things, however.

    Doesn't solve reason #1 why I've basically given up on American cars - the manual transmission. Generally Not Offered. Nanotech won't help that, probably make slushboxes smaller, though. Wait, Volvo already did that. And didn't send us the manual S80. GRRRRRRR.

    Walk before you run, people. Walk before you run.
    • Isn't the Crossfire more of a roadster? People who buy a roadster don't give a flying fig if it can hold groceries. It's like complaining that the SSR can't carry 4x8 foot sheets of plywood, or that the Boxter is limited in its brick carrying capacity. Roadsters are supposed to be a second fun car in addition to a primary.

      As for manual transmissions, well, each to his own, I guess. I got sick of stick shifts years ago when I left my teens and stopped being a wannabe race car driver. I'm looking at new car

      • . Express dislike for the current President, fine (I don't like him either), but enough with the hypocritical jingoism already.

        Umm, all the jingoism I've seen has come from this side of the pond.

  • shouldn't they apply this to aviation first...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by demonhold ( 735615 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:38PM (#9478380) Journal
    I mean, I've almost lost my life twice in near-crash plane accidents due to material-fatigue (I ignore whether this is the correct term). I mean in one of them part of the fuselage tore... in the other some piece of the hydraulic system caused some sort of havoc...

    If nanotechnology allows us to check material integrity in both in the assembly line and in the periodic revisions as someone here has stated what are we waiting for?

  • what's it good for... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by whathappenedtomonday ( 581634 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:43PM (#9478398) Journal
    ...as long as those nanotech cars still run on fossil fuels?

    for those who haven't heard it yet:
    tabloid style [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net]

    overview [hubbertpeak.com]

  • Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by emorphien ( 770500 )
    I'm not sure what to think of this. I think the american car makers should work on making the existing products they build more reliable, rather than making them more complicated to build.

    Either way, there's a lot of good uses for this stuff. I've seen some things about nanotech to create diamond hard coatings on plastic lenses. This could be used on glasses, cheap cameras, computer displays and all sorts of things.

  • what this really means (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @12:46PM (#9478409)
    Is that manufacturing and assembly of products will move from the factory to on site in the home. Companies will respond to this by saying that you owe them patent and copy royalities on the things you repilcate. They will become extremely rich and powerfull, and be all to happy to attempt to impose an all encompasing police state to ensure collection of royalities. (don't believe me, just look at the RIAA when the internet came along, look at how the pharmacutical companies tried to sue millions of dirt poor africans dying of AIDS in the world court for patent infringement - if they're willing to do that they are willing to do anything)

    Moral, if you want the benefits of future technology to promote freedon and not take it away, work to get rid of patents today. They hinder far more innovation than they promote, and they are far more like microregulation than some kind of free market property right.

  • Call me a luddite (Score:3, Insightful)

    by panxerox ( 575545 ) * on Sunday June 20, 2004 @01:05PM (#9478466)
    but if you dont need !ANY! employees to make a car (and I assume by that time all other manufactured products) won't you like have a !DEMAND! problem? All you'd need to produce cars is a marketing dept and a black box that excreates chevys.

  • Banking on the new "IN" term (Score:3, Informative)

    by poofyhairguy82 ( 635386 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @01:17PM (#9478519) Journal
    This is just a ploy to wrap up investors that are captivated by the word "nanotechnology." In all probability the technology will probably just assure that future "American" cars will break down in exactly six years on the dot instead of the current relative time frame. Seeing as how for the last twenty or so years "American" (made in Mexico) carmakers have only been interested in making cars that will fail in ten or so years. "Planned Obsolesce" has become the mantra to drive the bottom line. "Nanotechnology talk" assures the investment capital need to do it.

  • Utter BS (Score:2, Interesting)

    by qwasty ( 782400 )

    Cars To Be Assembled Atom By Atom
    ...In fact, all parts in a car can be improved by using nanotechnology, according to the article...

    This is utter BS and should be recognized as the hype that it is. Certainly, nanotech of the materials kind is, and will continue to be important and useful technology. But, how are those little atoms going to machine a precision piston bore in a sleeved cast iron block? Better still, how the heck are those atoms supposed to press that sleeve into the block? Anyone? Anyone

  • ...just in time to drive it to the store to pick up your copy of Duke Nukem Forever.

    Better put your deposit down at a dealership today!

    ~Philly

  • That's nice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NetNinja ( 469346 )
    But will it improve quality in American cars?

    probably not. Cars will be as disposible as Cell phones in the future.
  • if this nano stuff will improve the quality of American cars, I'm all for it. The garbage that the "Big 3" have been selling for the past 20 years or so can't possibly get any worse.

    And the junk that the Japanese have been dumping on our shores for years.... Quality cant possibly go down on those recycled rusts-out-in-5-years crap boxes.

  • A nanotech car (Score:3, Interesting)

    by danila ( 69889 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:21PM (#9479078) Homepage
    It seems that many people here are too attached to the present to be able to imagine the possibilities of the future. So as a public service, let me post a quote from the "Nanonet [webcenter.ru]" book by Alexander Lazarevich.
    In practical terms this means that if, for example, we design a automobile for the NanoTech, it should not have a dashboard - all the necessary information about the status of the car systems should be fed into the driver's optic nerve, to be superimposed on his actual field of vision. Also, such a car should not have a steering wheel or pedals - mental commands from the driver should be routed directly to the car's final controls, without any mechanical intermediaries. All this allows to radically simplify the design, and consequently, to considerably reduce the time needed to "grow" a car. ... an automobile built in compliance with the NanoTech principles doesn't have any transmission, and the function of the engine is performed by the wheels themselves...


    And to completely visualize a NanoTech-style car, please remember that it always has just as many seats as it has passengers and its trunk is never larger than the luggage it carries. And if you take into account the fact that it just doesn't make any sense to transport things that can always be grown at your destination, it means that usually such car doesn't have any trunk at all.
    That was an explanation given in one of the dialogs. And here is how it works:
    In the street, a few amazed passers-by could see how a big white bubble started to grow from a puddle right opposite the main entrance to a gloomy imposing building without any signs. In a few seconds the bubble turned into a very strange-looking, compact single-seater car. One could see only one seat under its transparent upper body. There was no driving wheel in front of the seat, no pedals, no control panel. The strangest thing of all was that the car didn't have any doors. In a few more seconds a mustached guard with high cheekbones came out of the building and approached the strange car. A big oval hole suddenly appeared in the car's upper body. The passers-by were staring with their mouths wide open. "Good morning" - said the polite guard, eased himself into the hole, and sat in the only seat there was. The hole immediately healed over as if it had never existed, and the car pulled out without producing any sound or exhaust gases.


    In fifteen minutes' time, when Levshov was already driving along an out-of-town highway he saw his pursuers. The car increased its speed. And then it sprouted wings, like aircraft wings. In one more minute it got off the ground, and its wheels dissolved - not retracted or folded, but dissolved, while at the same time the wings became a little longer. In a few more seconds the plane left his pursuers beyond the horizon.
    The book is available online at http://www.webcenter.ru/~lazarevicha/ntn_toc.htm [webcenter.ru] and can be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes.

  • The two forms of Nanotechnology (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fullofangst ( 724732 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @04:57PM (#9479553)
    Two common meanings when people talk about using nanotechnology.

    1. Using "nano" materials in construction - the more common meaning when people talk about nanotechnology, is when materials manufactured on the small scale give interesting effects and properties used to make a product better in some form

    2. Construction on the atomic scale - this is the (in my opinion) real killer-app of technology, where products, materials, literally anything ... is put together atom-by-atom by a process - whether it be tiny machines with gripper arms, or a use of biotechnology to connect atoms together - using plain, simple, raw materials. Think carbon, oxygen, hydrogen rather than wood, steel, concrete.

    It's the number 2 usage of nanotechnology that I'm waiting for. If it becomes possible to construct a motor vehicle using the atom-by-atom build process, you can build cars, trucks, whatever for minimal costs. It will of course, be interesting to see how the companies will handle the logistics and pricing strategies ...

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close