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!

'Invisible Glass' Solves Screen Reflection Problems

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the stop-glaring-at-me dept.

Displays 216

An anonymous reader writes "The days of dealing with very reflective glass panels may soon be behind us. Nippon Electric Glass has used the FPD International 2011 conference in Japan this week to show off its new 'invisible glass' panel. What NEG has done is added anti-reflection films to both the front and back of the glass that are only nanometers thick. Look at a typical sheet of glass and you will see about 8% of the light reflected off of it. With NEG's anti-reflection film in place, that is reduced to just 0.5%."

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

But Apple (5, Funny)

John Bresnahan (638668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37868990)

has told me that I want a highly reflective screen!

Re:But Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869082)

*rolls eyes*

Re:But Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869096)

Pretty well every other laptop maker does the same! At least I can get a MBP with an anti-glare screen. Some makers don't even offer that choice but hey, don't let the facts stop your anti apple ranting.

Re:But Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869194)

Although, Apple is the only manufacturer that promote highly reflective glossy screen as a feature. That joke at Apple expense was funny and deserved.

Re:But Apple (2, Informative)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869290)

They promote it as a feature, yet offer an upgraded anti-glare screen? Your anti-Apple bias is showing...

Re:But Apple (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870110)

I seem to recall Apple being on the forefront of pushing glossy screens. I don't think they were the only ones that offered it, but I'm pretty sure they were the first ones to go glossy only.

Re:But Apple (2)

JazzLad (935151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870386)

This is because Apple leads all innovation.

There goes my karma ...

Re:But Apple (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869654)

Antiglare is no match for an actual matte display, which are available on some laptops (HP probooks for example).

Re:But Apple (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869830)

Some inexpensive laptops, too... my $400 Dell Vostro V130, for example, has a really good 13" matte screen on it.

And you bring up my first reaction to reading this article.... "great, until it gets covered in fingerprints and dust". I definitely prefer a matte screen since I started working in an area where there's sunlight. :)

Re:But Apple (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870142)

My Lenovo SL500 is matte too. Cost me all of $500.

Re:But Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869158)

In all seriousness, if you want truer blacks, you have to go glossy. If you want less glare, you want matte. So, if you're into watching movies or doing serious video/imaging work, then blacker blacks may be important to you. This is regardless of manufacturer (apple, others, etc)

Re:But Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869182)

If you want to do anything productive other than video/imaging work, buy a ThinkPad.

Re:But Apple (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870194)

If you want truer blacks, you stay far far away from backlit displays. If you want black that is black you get a CRT or plasma.

Re:But Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869274)

A highly transflective screen; yes, but NOT the glass of that screen.

Re:But Apple (2)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869354)

You silly, this is not for Apple devices. This is for banks' doors.

"Occup..." -BOING/CRASH!-

Re:But Apple (3, Funny)

taylorius (221419) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870290)

You silly, this is not for Apple devices. This is for banks' doors.

So the banks can blame the special glass when their employees fail to be visible in reflections?

Cool, how durable is it? (3, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37868992)

That's a really cool coating, but will it be destroyed the first time you have to wipe off dust/fingerprints/etc...? I've had this problem with anti-reflective coatings in the past, especially when they get wet for some reason.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (2)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869032)

The coating goes on both sides of the glass. You might wipe off the top layer, but I bet the bottom one will stay. So at the very least, I would expect a reduction from 8% glare to 5% glare, as opposed to 0.5%. 8 to 5 is still a over a 37% percent reduction.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869084)

Durability is a HUGE issue. Anyone that wears glasses knows that when you get the anti-glare coating, that means the glasses are impossible to clean and will scratch if you even fart too close to them.

If they do this and it can withstand 10 psi of pressure on a 000 steel wool wad for 500 strokes witout any damage, I am suddenly very interested.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869150)

It's not just durability. Anti-reflection coatings also fail when someone touches the display and leaves behind a fingerprint: the oils in the fingerprint are thick enough to make it reflective again, so they really show up.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869282)

Yes, but I can think of damn many "no touch" surfaces like monitors, TVs, glasses, picture frames, glass doors, windows and so on that would benefit. It's not like everything has to be touch even though it's the new megahype.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869356)

The problem there is that now that I've been using a tablet for a while, I've started accidentally trying to use my monitor as a touch screen as well, poking and dragging at things instead of using the mouse. It doesn't work, and it leaves finger prints, but as more people get used to touch devices, that reflex is going to get more common and affect more monitors.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870420)

So I just have to keep tablet users out of my house?

imokaywiththis.jpg

Bad idea for glass doors (1)

rollingcalf (605357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869682)

People would be more likely to fail to see a glass door if it has anti-reflective film, resulting in them walking face-first into it and hurting themselves and possibly also damaging the door.

Re:Bad idea for glass doors (2)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870286)

People would be more likely to fail to see a glass door if it has anti-reflective film, resulting in them walking face-first into it and hurting themselves and possibly also damaging the door.

Not to mention rendering it reflective do to the smudging from the person's face.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870128)

People do touch their monitors. Quite a lot. You can tell by the fingerprints.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869266)

Not sure where you get your glasses from, but the last three pairs I've had over the past seven years haven't had any trouble with daily cleaning even though I do have anti-glare coating.

One CRT I did manage to scratch with my fingernail, though.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (5, Funny)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869276)

I have anti-glare coating on my glasses and I have none of the problems you describe. My glasses aren't scratch anywhere noticeable, and cleaning it with a lint-free cloth is ridiculously simple.

Hopefully your glasses aren't as old as your UID; this may explain the problem otherwise as I change mine rather regularly.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (0)

decoy256 (1335427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869506)

Intrauterine device? What do contraceptives have to do with anything?

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869524)

That would be a IUD.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869652)

Looks like you need new glasses, or should clean them :).

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

decoy256 (1335427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869768)

Although, I suppose the advice is still valid... it probably is a good idea to change your IUD every once in a while also. I would assume. Having a T-shaped piece of plastic shoved up your bajango is not one of my areas of expertise. I will defer to the Apple users on this topic. (... and cue the flame war... it was a joke, people).

I've had glasses with anti-glare coating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37870032)

And I never saw such problems. I had a great pair, anti-glare, transition lenses, etc. The works. Indeed, I had that pair for a good five years without any issues. It even survived my backpack - by no means a small feat. In fact, it is on my to-do list to order another - once I find frames I like.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

el_gordo101 (643167) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870196)

A bit off-topic, but I have found that using a very mild dish-soap and water to clean my glasses and drying with a soft cloth or paper-towels helps to preserve the anti-glare coating. I used to use Windex to clean them but found that it just ate up the ant-glare coating. The worst thing you can do is to use your shirt-tail to wipe your lenses clean, might as well take a piece of steel-wool to them.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870406)

If they do this and it can withstand 10 psi of pressure on a 000 steel wool wad for 500 strokes witout any damage, I am suddenly very interested.

I'm trying to think of any time I've ever used steel wool on an electronic gizmo's glass...

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869100)

Yep, that's what I was thinking of as well. Plus I'm sure there are other anti-reflection treatments, maybe 0.5% is a new record but it's not like 8% was the best we could do before.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (0)

R0UTE (807673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869248)

Don't piss on your telly again, and you should be fine.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

denshao2 (1515775) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869280)

I'm not sure about the ones that they are using, but very durable anti-reflective coatings have been available for years. They are used in UV filters for cameras.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869422)

If it's anything like the anti-glare coating on my glasses it will be very sturdy indeed. Of course that coating adds a pretty good chunk of change to the cost of the lenses, but it works like a charm and stands up to repeated cleaning with rubbing alcohol.

Re:Cool, how durable is it? (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869752)

but will it be destroyed the first time you have to wipe off dust/fingerprints/etc

No problem! Just put a thin coating of glass over it to protect it!

Phones/tablets (2)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869014)

Oh, I can't wait for this to show up on phones and tablets! It is probably my #1 complaint about modern capacitive touchscreens. For example, I could use my Xoom as a mirror, before applying an anti-glare film on it. And films are hard to apply, sometimes not pretty, and sometimes reduce the touch sensitivity.

Re:Phones/tablets (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869476)

Actually, I do use my Xoom and Bionic as mirrors. Subtle way to check for food in the beard on the way to court.

-GiH

Re:Phones/tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869692)

I didn't think they let defendants take those things into court.

iPhone (1)

Kadagan AU (638260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869056)

I'm sure Apple will love this!

Re:iPhone (2)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869612)

Either that or file suit because of it.... 50/50 odds.

The birds are going to be angry (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869058)

"According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, up to 1 billion birds may be killed annually by colliding with windows."

Re:The birds are going to be angry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869086)

birds fly into full on mirrors too

Re:The birds are going to be angry (1)

danlock4 (1026420) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870108)

That's why a "dirt pattern visible from the exterior but not as much from the interior" would be beneficial to flying birds (and running animals).

Re:The birds are going to be angry (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869110)

I thought they collided into pigs and blocks.

Re:The birds are going to be angry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869200)

The next version will have invisible glass blocks.

Re:The birds are going to be angry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869172)

Angry Birds?

There's already an app for that.

Re:The birds are going to be angry (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869300)

Let them run Linux.

Re:The birds are going to be angry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37870034)

Re:The birds are going to be angry (1)

tippe (1136385) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869302)

I would think that eliminating glass reflections would reduce this problem. Don't birds fly into windows and glass buildings because they see the environment around them reflected in the glass and just don't know any better? Remove the reflection, and they would probably avoid the windows.

I wonder if the US fish & wildlife service will care about the increased number of humans walking into reflection-less glass doors however...

a fact that needs to be pointed out to anti wind (0)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869346)

I'm sick of ignorant people saying wind power is a threat to birds; windows are a far greater threat. Just where are the estimates for the damage coal does to birds (and everything else?) Hell, asthma rates here are about 50x what they were 40 years ago and the warnings about eating local fish went from a few per week in the 90s to a few per month today (and they NEVER make the connection as to why when they report it in the TV news.)

I don't think anybody should get out of high school without understanding density, mass, and gravity! Somehow people fail to grasp the concept of 1 lb of tiny coal turning into a HUGE volume of gas (let alone the chemistry involved that actually cause it to gain weight.) We have unlimited air is the belief; thinking its like invisible land or something; completely ignoring its density.

Re:a fact that needs to be pointed out to anti win (1)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870356)

Uh, yeah, the GP said "window" not "wind" (I see how you could get those two mixed up). I do, however, agree with you. I'm not saying we should get rid of coal-fired plants, but we should also have wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear power as well. Energy diversity is the key to all of this.

Re:The birds are going to be angry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869872)

So THAT's why those Angry Birds(TM) are so angry!

They may just be ignorant. See oblig. Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-07-23/ [dilbert.com]

Can I get them in gloss finish ? (3, Funny)

craznar (710808) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869076)

After all - existing screens aren't that shiny until they put TruBright(TM) or Ultrabright(TM) or AmazaView(TM) or BlindUView(TM) coating of crap on them.

Re:Can I get them in gloss finish ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37870314)

You know you can peel these coating using a razor blade and some fancy chemical stuff? :P

No one will buy this (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869090)

I am typing this from a 13" glossy Macbook Pro, and I think there's a misunderstanding about why people buy glossy screens. The glossy screen is the perfect Apple screen because I can simultaneously see the two most important things in the world: the blog I'm reading, and myself. Always myself.

Re:No one will buy this (1)

hellkyng (1920978) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869538)

Also the reason for the camera that faces you, when your holding the iPhone properly. Really FaceTime... no one ever uses that. It is made so you can admire yourself actually being on the screen of an iPhone. Its the closest you ever get to iHeaven.

Re:No one will buy this (1)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870016)

Please, I upgraded to the super pro upgrade display. The LCD outer layer is covered by an outward facing mirror.

Re:No one will buy this (2)

uncqual (836337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870102)

Isn't Jobs going to get lonely in iHeaven if it's so exclusive?

(Too Soon?)

Re:No one will buy this (1)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870182)

Shouldn't you have listed yourself first?

Evolution of screens converges to a perfect mirror (4, Funny)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869092)

We all know that the perfect monitor screen resembles (or should resemble) a highly polished mirror, and that the viewing of films, games, software or the web is a secondary effect that some people find occasionally useful.

So with that in mind, how is this technology a step forwards again?

Re:Evolution of screens converges to a perfect mir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869314)

I don't think we all know that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that no one outside of your bizarre fever dream knows that.

Re:Evolution of screens converges to a perfect mir (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869576)

In fact, I'm pretty sure that no one outside of your bizarre fever dream knows that.

Bingo. Yes I (lucid) dream about this most nights and await the day when monitor manufacturers wake up to my reality. For now, I've resorted to buying tailor-made mirrors to cover the TV and 2 monitors we have in this house. Friends remark at how wonderfully new and high-tech they look all the time, and I'm inclined to agree. That's what it's all about.

But I would do anything to have them pre-installed like this to begin with.

Re:Evolution of screens converges to a perfect mir (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869318)

Is this a troll? I'm confused. It's a step forward because there's less glare, and no one wants glare in windows.

Re:Evolution of screens converges to a perfect mir (1)

Xoltri (1052470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869366)

I think he is commenting on the recent trend of displays moving to glossy screens where in the past this was not a desired feature. In fact, I have found the trend towards glossy screens a step backward as well. Sometimes you end up seeing yourself staring back at you more than what's supposed to be on the screen. Hence the sarcasm about displays evolving to a perfect mirror.

Re:Evolution of screens converges to a perfect mir (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869434)

Oh you're right, I don't buy glossy so it kinda went over my head.

i spy (1)

pinfall (2430412) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869102)

Now I can really watch my neighbors without having my own dirty looks reflected back at me.

But creates others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869118)

Poor birds

Re:But creates others (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869304)

Fuck birds. Birds are gay.

We've been visited by the future... (3, Funny)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869142)

...and they brought us transparent glass. What's next, non-floating bricks?

Re:We've been visited by the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869370)

transparent aluminum!

Re:We've been visited by the future... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869424)

Maybe someday we'll have digital cameras that aren't the size of a book!

another fine victory (1, Funny)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869164)

for GLORIOUS NIPPON!

Why do we need protection screens at all? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869240)

Why do we need protection screens at all? Can't they make the actual screens hardy enough to survive relatively rough usage?

Re:Why do we need protection screens at all? (2)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869312)

no.

Re:Why do we need protection screens at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869972)

Not in an Android phone at least!

B-b-but the shiny! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869336)

Nobody likes matte! Everyone likes the shiny!

God, I hate what has become of the industry, shiny this, shiny that. SHINY ISN'T FUNCTIONAL IN ANYTHING BUT A MIRROR.
YES, CARS TOO. MATTE BLACK > ALL, SO I CAN RUN PEOPLE OVER WITH SHINY TABLETS IN THE NIGHT... er wait, that won't work, hipsters and shinefreaks are afraid of the dark.

how long do you give it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869378)

... until some asshole uses this to cause people to run into glass doors/plates/windows?

Does this become the outermost layer of a display? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869382)

The reason I ask is - is this regular, breakable glass, or can you put some Gorilla Glass on top of it? And if you did, would it then become reflective again? Can this new extra-transparent glass be made extra-hard like Gorilla Glass?

I think even if it can't, and if you can't put Gorilla Glass on top of it without losing your extra-transparency, I'd still prefer this on my cellphone/tablet. At least that's not a worry on monitors.

What is new here? (1)

Zorpheus (857617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869398)

Even some old CRTs had anti-reflection coatings. That quality of coating is offered for years for good optics. So what is new here, maybe a high quality coating for an affordable price?

Telescope optics (1)

popoutman (189497) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869450)

This sounds interesting - I wonder if these coatings are the same as the coatings that are regularly applied to premium telescope eyepieces and refractor objectives? I know that there are very expensive multilayer coatings that can guarantee 99.9% transmission across the visible wavelengths when applied to an air-glass surface. It's very cool to see a lens with these coatings as from and angle it will be almost black and rotating to face-on it will effectively disappear.

Is there any idea as to the cost of these coatings?

PETA alert!! (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869514)

When people start using this stuff for windows in buildings, I wonder how the bird population will be affected....

And if I'm wondering that now, you know PETA will jump on it later. Hmmmm
-imagines typical naughty imagery they use somehow involving invisible glass this time-
This might be worth it after all. Kill the birds!!

Re:PETA alert!! (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870000)

Birds will be better off. They won't see the reflections, thinking there's trees behind the glass. They'll see what's actually behind the glass. Now, if you put a bunch of trees on the other side of the windows...

Re:PETA alert!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37870190)

Forget the birds, think of humans.

How many noses are broken in glass doors?

Invisible Doors (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869544)

I'd love to see Glass Doors made of this and watch as people run into them! LOL!

But I /prefer/ glossy screens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869550)

They're easier to read when the sun is shining on them than matte ones!

Think of the Dogs (1)

Clipless (1432977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869558)

And dogs everywhere cringe at this announcement. I know that my dog will hate me if this ever makes it to consumer windows.

Why Flat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37869644)

The reflection problem was solved on old monitors by having a convex screen.

News? (4, Informative)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869712)

This isn't news, this is an advertisement.

1. AR (anti-reflection) coatings [wikipedia.org] have been available on photographic lenses for decades. Even the ultra tiny lenses in your iPhone/Blackberry/Android phone have AR coating. AR coatings are *always* nanometers thick, by their very nature.

2. AR coatings have been available on eyeglass lenses for nearly as long. Most people these days get some sort of AR coating on their lenses.

3. AR coatings have been available on framing glass to protect valuable paintings, photographs, and other items in picture frames for the same scale of time. Drop by your local framing / art supply store and check out what's usually called museum glass.

4. AR coatings were used on nearly every CRT by the time sales started to plummet in favor of the LCD. I use a couple of them in my lab to this day.

5. AR coatings are already available on some laptop screens (eg, by Sony and Samsung, no doubt among others).

So, news about a new technology ("Solves Screen Reflection Problems")? No. Product announcement? Yes.

Re:News? (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870022)

Look at all the people above you who were fooled. It's interesting how the ignorance of a seemingly intelligent discussion can be illuminated in an instant.

Though the glass displays I've seen in museums are always, as far I've seen, annoyingly reflective. I thought they were kept that way on purpose to thwart photography.

Re:News? (4, Informative)

Jay L (74152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870276)

I have a painting with AR glass. It's a big improvement over regular glass, but it's way, way more reflective than the glass seen in the photo.

Also note from the WP article you cited:

It is possible to obtain reflectivities as low as 0.1% at a single wavelength. Coatings that give very low reflectivity over a broad band can also be made, although these are complex and relatively expensive.

TFA claims broadband 0.5% reflectivity.

Star Trek (1)

DocZayus (1046358) | more than 2 years ago | (#37869884)

So.... How close are we to getting transparent Aluminum?

Re:Star Trek (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37870120)

If it's coated in this stuff, we probably won't know how close we are until we've hit it.

This gives a new meaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37870198)

to walking into the patio door, and finally the dream of invisible doors will become reality :)

dynavue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37870248)

General dynamics - itronix developed an anti glare display viewable in direct sunlight. It was pretty amazing, they called it dynavue. I'm not sure what happened, but they were supposed to lease the tech out to othe manufacturers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?