Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nanocar Wins Top Science Award

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the more-than-meets-the-eye dept.

Robotics 175

Lucas123 writes "A researcher who built a car slightly larger than a strand of DNA won the Foresight Institute Feynman Prize for experimental nanotechnology. James Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice Univ. built a car only 4 nanometers in width in order to demonstrate that nanovehicles could be controlled enough to deliver payloads to build larger objects, such as memory chips and, someday, even buildings, like a self-assembling machine. Tour and a team of postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers constructed a car with chassis, working suspension, wheels and a motor. 'You shine light on it and the motor spins in one direction and pushes the car like a paddle wheel on the surface,' Tour said. The team also built a truck that can carry a payload."

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does this mean (4, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204719)

The researchers will be asking for a bailout instead of a grant?

Re:Does this mean (3, Funny)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205087)

And they'll get one proportional to the size of their cars.

Re:Does this mean (5, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205179)

Ah nanotechnology. The next big thing.

Re:Does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205289)

Is there a "Score: X, Ironic" mod, or does "Funny" kind of cover that?

Re:Does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205483)

And they'll get one proportional to the size of their...

/. needs some form of moderation that allows moderators to turn comments into ad libs.

Re:Does this mean (1)

cellurl (906920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206027)

Didn't Cal Tech do this 15 years ago? Albeit fun, but wheres the learning? For example, The DARPA challenge taps the creative mind with algorithms that the Feds can't see, but in this, I just see headlines. Headlines are nice for funding I guess. Are any of the actual researchers on this blog?

Hear that? Ralph Nader just fell out of his chair! (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204731)

I'd buy one for my commute. I have a Nissan Armada that I bought before gas prices went skyrocketing. I needed something with lots of space because of what I was carrying around and it was the roomiest. My needs have changed and I can't get out of it what I owe (who wants a gas hog these days). This car would be perfect for my commute (against traffic, 10 miles - takes less than 15 minutes each way even if I hit all of the lights) and would fit within my budget.

I wouldn't even need any extra garage space.....I could just store it under my eyelid at night or - alternatively - build a ramp up into my Armada and park it there.....three cars in a two car garage!

=Smidge=

I still don't think it's better than wrestling (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26204749)

Bubba tells me these Nanonascar stuff is better than wrestling, but I just bodyslam him and tell him he's wrong.

Missing tags.... (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204757)

Where is 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong', 'terminator', and 't2000'?

Re:Missing tags.... (4, Funny)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204789)

sorry - too little, too late :)

No Cup Holders? (4, Funny)

vjmurphy (190266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204787)

No cup holders? Worthless. Even Nanites need somewhere to put their Nano-Dr Pepper.

Re:No Cup Holders? (4, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204915)

Or maybe a little pair of buckyballs to hang off the trailer hitch.

Re:No Cup Holders? (5, Funny)

internetcommie (945194) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204999)

I don't really think anybody wants to show off the fact that they have nano-nuts...

Re:No Cup Holders? (1)

Windows_NT (1353809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205159)

im just waiting for ESPN to start airing the 'NanoTech Nascar' circuit.
in all seriousness, this is really fricken cool. Image, RC nanocars! I wonder if the 'big 3' will start investing in this technology? of course, i dont think they can scale the Vortec down to that size ...

Re:No Cup Holders? (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205337)

Didn't you get the memo? The 'big 3' are essentially bankrupt.

Re:No Cup Holders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205185)

There's no point, since no one has yet built a cup small enough. And even if they had, what are you going to put in it?!

Re:No Cup Holders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205263)

Two girls?

Re:No Cup Holders? (1)

malkir (1031750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205925)

I'll hold off until I can get nano-spinners for my rims :)

Oh hell no!! (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204791)

Oh hell no, please.

My wife has enough trouble finding the regular sized car when she has been shopping.

How the hell will she find a nano-car?

Re:Oh hell no!! (3, Funny)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204985)

Look on the bright side: it's easy to park. :-)

Re:Oh hell no!! (2, Funny)

Al Al Cool J (234559) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205281)

Easy to park, sure. But try finding it afterwards in a busy shopping mall parking lot!

Sci-Fi meets Science (3, Interesting)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204799)

I think we are nearing some sort of "singularity" as the number of stories about real science invading what was until recently only Science fiction becomes common place. (http://inttech.blogspot.com/2008/11/sci-fi-and-real-science-collide.html)

Read this article, listen to the Futures in Biotech (http://twit.tv/FIB) podcast, we are progressing technology at a fantastic rate. It feels me with equal parts hope and dread.

Re:Sci-Fi meets Science (4, Interesting)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204957)

I don't know about that. There are, I think, definitely things that we haven't even begun to imagine. I mean, a couple of centuries ago, they could've only imagined "horseless carriages". I don't think they could even grasp the concept of a nanocar back then, or nano-anything for that matter.

It's pretty pessimistic to think that all that we can achieve is only what we can imagine at the moment. There will probably be more out there for us to discover. Don't worry.

Re:Sci-Fi meets Science (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205741)

I never meant to imply that we were about to run out of things to invent. I just have found that in almost Sci-Fi story I have read recently that there is a part of it that has or is very near coming true.

Some like Vernor Vinge's Localiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localizer_(fictional_device) [wikipedia.org] ) which are slightly advanced RFID devices.

Re:Sci-Fi meets Science (1, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206039)

"I mean, a couple of centuries ago, they could've only imagined "horseless carriages"."

Two centuries ago = late 1808

Nicholas Cugnot produced a working steam-driven horseless carriage in 1769. The first steam locomotive was built by Richard Trevithick in 1804.

http://nevertoolatebook.com/FardierdeCugnot20050111.jpg [nevertoolatebook.com]

Re:Sci-Fi meets Science (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205277)

Dunno how near we are, but in my estimation, we're either going to get destroyed by our creations, or they'll take control of themselves.

I'm not 100% sure of them taking control of themselves (software still isn't really close IMHO), but some of this crap put into the hands of a few nutsoid individuals will be enough to push us back at least 50 years or so... given the trajectory of the power and portability of new technology, I think that's pretty difficult to argue against.

So, in my estimation, singularity is the optimistic viewpoint.

Re:Sci-Fi meets Science (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205613)

1. Make everyone afraid of this new tech. Make them think it's bad for us.
2. Let them vote to leave it in the hands of the government or someone wiser.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Joking aside. You bring up a valid point, but I give you a counterpoint. If you fear that the technology will be used against you and you delegate such power to control it to someone else, you are essentially giving them the wheel. Do you think someone else can run your life better than yourself? I'm talking about your view on yourself. Not what you think of your neighbor, relative, or the person in front of you on the road. Do you lack the self confidence that you could live a happy productive life without someone else keeping you from the "bad" things people might think of?

Re:Sci-Fi meets Science (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205365)

I think we are nearing some sort of "singularity" as the number of stories about real science invading what was until recently only Science fiction becomes common place

It's been that way since I learned to read 50 years ago. Actually since way before - in 1946 before there were computer screens or keyboards, when computers were programmed with solder and plugs, and their output was simply lights turned on or off and there were less than half dozen in the world, Murray Leinster wrote A Logic Named Joe [baen.com] that foretold personal computers, computer keyboards, computer screens, the internet, and client-server technology.

The old 1964 Star Trek foretold flat screened voice activated computers, talking computers, self-opening doors, cell phones, space shuttles, etc.

Some inventions seem to have never been foretold, afaik nobody had a replacement lens for the eye that would cure age related presbyopia (Dr. McCoy couldn't cure Kirk in Star Trek IV).

Even in the 19th century, Jules Verne foretold a visit to the moon, and although his astronauts were shot out of a cannon, there is much in From The Earth To The Moon [online-literature.com] that mirrors Apollo 11 in many ways.

Re:Sci-Fi meets Science (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205891)

Or, maybe, you're just getting old. ;)

The world will owe Ted Stevens an apology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26204805)

...when we discover the dump trucks in our series of tubes.

Model? (1)

astrodoom (1396409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204821)

Let me know when they come out with the nano-porsche.

Re:Model? (1)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205153)

I had a micro-porsche [wikipedia.org] when I was a kid, so it can't be that far off.

Re:Model? (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205979)

Nano-Porsche? Clearly what needs to be made is a nano-Mini. Yes... the Mini Cooper N will finally silence the enthusiasts who complain about things like safety features making modern Minis too big.

I for one... (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204839)

welcome our Replicator Overlords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Stargate) [wikipedia.org]

Re:I for one... (2, Insightful)

jornak (1377831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204921)

I fail to see the likeness between non-intelligent, non-replicating nanocars, and the Replicators.

Sure, they're both self-assembling machines, in a way, but the nanocars lack the communication between each car, and they don't have any way to digest materials and replicate.

And even then, these things carry payloads, they don't form objects by themselves. RTFA.

Don't underestimate them... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204945)

Remember, the Terminator started as a chess-playing computer.

Re:Don't underestimate them... (1)

jornak (1377831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205039)

That's assuming you're following the Sarah Connor Chronicles timeline, which is obviously a shoddy fallacy created by shoddy writers of a shoddy TV series.

Shoddy.

Re:Don't underestimate them... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205251)

True enough. Like when she walked into that warehouse and got her stupid ass shot... idiot...

Everything is IP (5, Interesting)

Xerolooper (1247258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204869)

I for one look forward to the day when the physical world is reduced to being as fluid as intellectual Property is today.
Have a Nano factory in your garage(call it a replicator for you Star Trek fans) where you can download the latest gadget and it is produced before your eyes.

Re:Everything is IP (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205283)

"But in the future, things will be built not from the top down, but the bottom up -- as in nature." Agreed. As the above statement suggests and frankly, makes the notion quite exciting!

Re:Everything is IP (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205341)

Read Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age.

Given how spot on he was when he wrote Snow Crash (we're about one generation of MMORPG and one instance of hyper-inflation away from everything in Snow Crash being dead on the money) I would say there's a good chance you are more correct than you imagine.

Re:Everything is IP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205417)

Read Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age.

No, thanks. Cyberpunk is not very interesting. Oh hey, do you have a sister? A BIG-TITTED SISTER?

It's normal to fantasize about rape occasionally. Sometimes I pick a Slashdot user (this time, it's you, Glonoinha) and imagine what their sister would look like. Then I fantasize about tying the sister to a table, naked, spread-eagled, and torturing her with various power tools and cutting implements.

And conducting psychological torture as well... for example, keeping her in darkness for a week straight, while whispering, "We're going to make a baby, a beautiful baby," and raping her over and over again, impregnating her. Then, aborting our child with a coat hanger.

Finally, I would tie her wrists to her ankles, behind her back, so that she resembles a circle. I would fuck her one last time, and pick her up by the handcuffs and toss her, alive, into a furnace.

*sigh*

Imagination is fun.

Re:Everything is IP (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206019)

Have a Nano factory in your garage(call it a replicator for you Star Trek fans) where you can download the latest gadget and it is produced before your eyes.

RepRap [google.com] .
It's not nano, but you just described it fairly well. Better still, it's open source.
http://www.reprap.org [reprap.org]

Re:Everything is IP (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206031)

In the light of the way a lot of IP is handled today, "Everything is IP" sounds like a dystopian nightmare.

According to the researchers (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204881)

it was even a bit smaller than a Corbin Sparrow.

Re:According to the researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205995)

African or European?

Finally... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26204889)

THE car for the man with an incredibly long penis.

Re:Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205353)

WTF mods, that was FUNNY!

Signed, different AC

The labor unions are squirming... (1)

jep77 (1357465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204893)

Self constructing machines and buildings? The unions will never allow it.

Re:The labor unions are squirming... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204905)

As long as the union workers still got paid, they wouldn't care.

Re:The labor unions are squirming... (2, Insightful)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205011)

When the industrial revolution started the workers [wikipedia.org] "would never allow it" then, either. Small groups of people, however organised will never stop truly revolutionary technologies, what ever century they're living in.

Re:The labor unions are squirming... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205133)

It won't be the unions that complain, it will be the IP "owners" who will complain that they own everything you make, because their plans are copyrighted.

Meanwhile nothing but land will have any REAL worth, as nothing will be in the least bit scarce.

Re:The labor unions are squirming... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205371)

Let'em complain. Our nanites will be building objects based on open source patterns.

Re:The labor unions are squirming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205759)

"Meanwhile nothing but land will have any REAL worth, as nothing will be in the least bit scarce."

Sure, until they get seeded on some asteroids or moons and start building another Earth. Then the real estate market will collapse, and realtors will be looking for a bailout too.

Very cool (4, Insightful)

dexmachina (1341273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204909)

OK, jokes aside, that's effing cool. Starting in the new year, I'll be joining a nano research team so things like this are incredibly exciting. As I see it, the ultimate hurdle with nanoscience won't be on the engineering side. The great challenge will be theoretical, determining what microscopic abilities/properties the nanobots/cars/things will need to have in order for the swarm to exhibit the macroscopic behaviour that's desired. So for example, with these nanocars delivering particles in a ground-up assembly. Each car could be completely autonomous and somehow programmed to bring its payload exactly where it's supposed to go, but that would be completely unfeasible: if you're producing 10^23 vehicles, each needs to be exactly the same, not a custom build like this prototype. So instead you need to figure out exactly what properties and initial conditions the swarm has to have so that, collectively, it does what you want. Sort of like reverse engineering an ant colony. It sounds pretty straight forward, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done in the mathematics of this sort of thing. Anyways, very exciting!

Organization? (1)

cusco (717999) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205121)

So with 10^23 vehicles each bringing it's tiny payload to the assembly point, and presumably a swarm of builders at the assembly point, how the frack do you do traffic control? I would see that as a much larger obstacle than the actual construction of the vehicles and builders. Hell, we've only got 10^6 highly complex autonomous devices attempting to arrive at their destinations here in the Seattle/Tacoma area every weekday, and it's a freaking mess!

Re:Organization? (2, Insightful)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205167)

So with 10^23 vehicles...how the frack do you do traffic control?

That's pretty much the same question the city of Los Angeles asks every day. I'm pretty sure they've given up.

Re:Organization? (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205517)

Well, if we leave out the "Outta-my-way-I'm-late" asshole circuit...

And that's Everett/Seattle/Bellevue/Tacoma area now.

-Joe, Tulalip

Re:Organization? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205905)

Railroads.

You only need one smart rail builder. The rest of the cars just have to follow the rail and dump their load when they hit an empty location on the side. Make that a moving spur, make the rails movable and you can build a sheet line by line. Have the rail loop back to a collection bin and pick up another chunk.

Re:Organization? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206067)

You don't do "traffic control". Each automaton routes itself, continually deciding where is payload is best unloaded.

Re:Very cool (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206087)

if you're producing 10^23 vehicles, each needs to be exactly the same, not a custom build like this prototype

Not if you've developed nano-factories that build nano-factories, either level of which takes external commands or runs through a series of variations during its processing.

lots of small things working together (5, Insightful)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204949)

I thought the most important point in the FA was the shift in thinking which this kind of technology could one day produce:

But in the future, things will be built not from the top down, but the bottom up -- as in nature.

Nature has always pushed it's own tech forward via lots of small things working together. Lots of small things working together also creates redundancy.

Re:lots of small things working together (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205275)

and redundancy leads to layoffs. :-(

Re:lots of small things working together (3, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205325)

Lots of small things working together also creates redundancy.

Let's just hope this redundancy produces a single sky scraper as opposed to 50+ distro's and a dozen or more winmanagers! :p

Great for repairs, too. (4, Insightful)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26204967)

The inventor, Dr. James Tour, states that he did this "so that we can someday construct buildings and other large objects with molecular-size vehicles."

I'm curious to find out how long it would take for nanovehicles to construct large-sized objects. However, an even greater usage for this invention would be to repair and strengthen structurally unstable buildings, dams, levees, etc.

Re:Great for repairs, too. (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205147)

I'm curious to find out how long it would take for nanovehicles to construct large-sized objects.

Depends how many you use, and whether they get distracted writing the complete works of Shakespeare.

To put that in layman's terms... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205009)

4 nanometers is 1/3,657,600,000 of a Volkswagen.

Re:To put that in layman's terms... (1)

nugatory78 (971318) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205141)

How many fractions of the library of congress is that?

Re:To put that in layman's terms... (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205773)

Isn't a LoC a unit of information?

I would much rather see the translation in terms of furlongs, my chosen unit of length for everyday usage.

Re:To put that in layman's terms... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205913)

Isn't a LoC a unit of information?

I would much rather see the translation in terms of furlongs, my chosen unit of length for everyday usage.

Google puts it at: 1.98838782 Ã-- 10-11 furlongs [google.com]

Re:To put that in layman's terms... (1)

nugatory78 (971318) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206001)

its such an amazing unit of measure, I don't see why it shouldn't be used for multiple uom basis e.g. information, length, volume, weight, value, etc. You start going crazy once you realize that LoC is so amazing, that it can be used to calculate the value of a piece of information.

Suuuure they did. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205037)

That's nothing, you should see my flea circus.

Interesting way of thinking (1)

PouletFou (1221320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205045)

From the article, this looks interesting "Until now, engineers have built things by taking larger objects and cutting them down to make smaller ones [...] But in the future, things will be built not from the top down, but the bottom up -- as in nature."

Hate to be gloomy but... (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205051)

All I can think about is nano-malware.

Re:Hate to be gloomy but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205149)

Nano airplanes crashing into nano Trade Centers!

Re:Hate to be gloomy but... (1)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205215)

No worries. Nano-worms can be easily squished with a good pair of boots.

Re:Hate to be gloomy but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205245)

weaponized nanotech = scarier than nukes

nano-Clarkson? (1)

Tired and Emotional (750842) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205055)

When are they going to test it on Top Gear?

Re:nano-Clarkson? (1)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205195)

I too want the specs on this. What's the 0-60 time? how much HP, what's the power to weight ratio? Options and trim packages? Nano GT? Nano Truck denali?

Re:nano-Clarkson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205231)

I was picturing a bunch of scientists on "Pinks".

"Oh, that was close! We're going to have to go to the scanning tunneling microscope for that one."

Re:nano-Clarkson? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205333)

It would have to be Hammond that tests it. Clarkson is too fat and May , well, he's just May.

particle man's car? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205067)

Does the car get gas, or does the gas get it?

Meh... (2, Funny)

imrec (461877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205187)

Call me when someone finds a way to mount 22" rims on it.

Nah... (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205399)

Just have a metric boatload of these circumambulating on the 22" rims, and have them move instead of the engine. In fact, you won't need an engine.

Why am I suddenly thinking of the crabs under the Black Pearl on POTC:AWE?

EP!!!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205203)

Hooray for Rice! (1)

elnico (1290430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205239)

And to think that if I had taken my dad's advice on majors, I'd have had Dr. Tour as my intro organic chemistry prof...

Nano Car industry Bailout (1)

nachosupreme (1332221) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205351)

The good news is that when the Nano car industry goes belly up... thier bailout will not cost nearly as much!

Re:Nano Car industry Bailout (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205505)

Finally! A real world use for the nano-payment system.

Hey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205397)

Can I be the nanocar in Nanopoly!?

How do we know this isn't a hoax? (1)

harkabeeparolyn (711320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205429)

A scientist says he's built a working car 4 nanometers across. There's no picture of the thing in operation, obviously, because you can't make optically images of anything that small. So you have to ask, how does even the scientist know what he's built, if anything? How do we know this isn't just some guy standing pantless before the world?

Re:How do we know this isn't a hoax? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205847)

Trust him, he wears a lab coat!

Definition (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205567)

I think the scientist's and my definition of "car" is significantly different. I wonder what exactly they mean by "car" and why they chose that term. Self-powered vehicle? Does it need gas? How does one drive it, or does it drive itself? How is it programmed to do this or that? etc...

Nonetheless, it's cool.

you fail 1t!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205583)

Come on bAby...and

New television series coming to NBC this spring: (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205611)

The Fantastic Voyages of NanoKnight Rider. Drag racing and nano-car chases in people's bloodstreams everywhere. And you thought that voice inside your head was imaginary? It's your bloodstream chatting you up, and it sounds just like William Daniels.

Found a picture (4, Funny)

blue l0g1c (1007517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205749)

Here it is --> .
(couldn't help myself)

Re:Found a picture (2, Funny)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205923)

Here it is --> .

(couldn't help myself)

Pff that's not actual size, that's like displaying an enhanced 4 foot poster of a fly. ... :)

RICE University (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205837)

Am I the only one that finds it funny, and rather apt, that RICE [wikipedia.org] University is working on nano-cars?

Even Buildings? (1)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205851)

I read "even buildings" in the summary and the first thing I thought of was Python's "El Mystico (and Janet)" who erected buildings by hypnosis.

Now why was that the first thing that occurred to me?

Oh, I remember. I'm a total dork.

Borg anyone? (1)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205935)

Does nobody here see where this is going? We're going to create the borg before we ever even figure out how to travel at warp speed...we're so screwed.

Okay, this small car thing has gone WAY too far (2, Funny)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206015)

The whole thing with small cars like the Smartcar and the Mini has it's merits in terms of saving fuel and use on narrow urban streets, but honestly, this is just going too far with the concept. There's no way I'm going to be able to be comfortable in a car that small or have any room for any of my stuff.

Really, I knew this would eventually go just way too far.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>