×

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!

Moving Water Molecules By Light

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the each-one-a-new-building-block dept.

Biotech 96

Roland Piquepaille writes "An interdisciplinary team of researchers at Arizona State University (ASU) has discovered a new nanotechnology effect, the ability of moving water molecules by light. This is a far better way than current methods such as damaging electric fields and opens the way to a new class of microfluidic devices used in analytical chemistry and for pharmaceutical research. For example, this makes possible to design a device that can move drugs dissolved in water, or droplets of water and samples that need to be tested for environmental or biochemical analyses. Please read this overview for more details and references, plus an image of two water drops illuminated with a fluorescent dye and sitting respectively on a nanowire surface and on a flat surface."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

96 comments

Removing drugs from water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852838)

...in the fine print "funded by columbian drug lords who want their bong water back"

True or not? (1)

MasterSLATE (638125) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852839)

Water molecules could move light, so it was only a matter of time to reverse the process

Re:True or not? (1)

Chucklz (695313) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852854)

Dont you remember our physics class? The water would diffract the light, oh wait I remember, we spent our physics class programming calculators.

Re:True or not? (4, Informative)

lpangelrob2 (721920) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853027)

It's not so much light moving the water, as I understand the article... it took a couple reads, but from what I can see, it's possible to overcome the fact that water sticks to an almost-non-stick surface by using light to generate a "lotus leaf" effect in the surface beneath the water... which appears to make an already slick surface even slicker.

This effect itself isn't all that new... it's in all those stain-repellent pants that are being sold now. Being able to control the effect with light is.

Re:True or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9870822)

No, the light doesn't cause the "lotus leaf effect". Nanoscale roughness causes the effect.

Sigh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852842)

God, physics is so boring.

I always fell asleep in physics class. At least mathematics is precise and logical.

Re:Sigh (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852874)

I hear you.

Me: "I can't crack this problem. I get this partial differential equation and it looks really hairy."

Lecturer: "Well, you're making it too complex from the start. As a first approximation you should approximate that the intensity is linearly proportional to x..."

Me: "Hey, wait a minute. Where in the problem does it say so?"

Lecturer: "It doesn't say so anywhere. That's what us physicists do. If the mathematics gets too hard, try a simpler physical model. Use your imagination!"

Me: *sigh* "And physics is supposed to be a hard science"

Re:Sigh (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852913)

If the mathematics gets too hard, try a simpler physical model. Use your imagination!

Nothing is impossible, if you can imagine it!

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852934)

Nothing is impossible, if you can imagine it!

Science is not about imagination. At least that's what I hope (I'm majoring in math and aiming at becoming a pro mathematician).

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853219)

actually when humans are active participants in scientific exploration, imagination plays a great role as it can be used to find solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

sometimes all it takes is you imagining a situation from a different point of view or using different sense modalities in order to perceive a solution.

the opposite or brute force method is a systematic approach that formulates hypotheses and tests them out then repeats forever. i doubt you have much time to do science this way, which is why imagination is very nice :)

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853270)

Brute force vs. imagining solutions.

What about the logic? The logic will never fail you. If you get a theoretical solution that's intractable at the time, then what's stopping you from publishing it so that later generations can attack it when the mathematics has developed enough (witness the incredible Fermat's problem, for instance).

Solving it by cheating (ie. approximating) is not scientific - it's just stupid.

You know you're a physicist when... (3, Funny)

BitwizeGHC (145393) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852966)

... you assume a "horse" is a "sphere" to make the math easier.

You know you're on Slashdot when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853188)

...you complain about everything in hopes of karma!

Re:You know you're a physicist when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853576)

... you assume a "horse" is a "sphere" to make the math easier.
So, instead of the saying: "A horse is a horse, of course, of course!" it becomes: "A sphere is a sphere, oh dear, oh dear!"

Re:You know you're a physicist when... (1)

SonOfFlubber (14544) | more than 9 years ago | (#9854740)

Sounds like that physicist was trying to describe my daughter's pony 'Blimpie'; which pound for pound has to be the fattest horse on the planet.

This could be interesting torture device (1, Interesting)

LeahofRivendell (797671) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852858)

It probably wouldn't be that practical, but it could be effective to dehydrate certain parts of someone's body by moving the water around inside. Maybe the military could find use for that.

RTFA (4, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853064)

Looks like you didn't RTFA.

It's about changing the hydrophobic/hydrophilic (water repellent/attractive) properties of a _special_ surface using light. This doesn't work on just any surface.

I dare say the military would prefer to dehydrate parts of your body by vapourizing bits of it e.g. zap you directly with a powerful beam of light. Or ionizing air between a thundercloud and you so that a lightning bolt zaps you ( that's to make it look like an "Act of God").

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9855416)

It looks like YOU aren't thinking creatively.
I'm thinking that using light to move molecules underneath the quanta surface diluting the effect that surface tension has on the entire plane (allowing for slight curves at the edges of whatever is holding the water). This has the potential of using the Anser Albifrons charge generated when there is a slight change in the angle subtended by the two Hydrogen atoms connected to the Oxygen. This charge can decrease or increase in a maximal field range of Omega squared minus some delta that is rougly proportional to temperature in degrees K. What this means in reality is nothing short of amazing demonstrations where the water could be brought up in a vertical formation (perhaps sculpture, eg: a White Fronted Goose) could be applied by just a simple frequency shift in the applied light.
(I'm assuming we're talking computer controlled lasers here...no frikken sharks)

TDz.

Oh dude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853065)

It'll be just like in the first Batman movie

They had better send the Department of Homeland Security to go and protect the University of Arizona, otherwise the Joker is going to like come steal their research and use it to dehydrate the U.N.

I know! What amazing uses could we find for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853143)

It probably wouldn't be that practical, but it could be effective to dehydrate certain parts of someone's body by moving the water around inside. Maybe the military could find use for that.

Yeah! Then maybe someone could find commercial uses for this revolutionary new technology -- If light can move water around in a person, imagine what it could do to food! OH the possibilities! Wow, you could even have instant, ready-to-eat meals heated by this device! I better patent this idea of water-moving light [howstuffworks.com] quick before someone else steals it!

Re:This could be interesting torture device (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853146)

Nah, according to the article it seems it doesn't work that way.

So I suppose we're not going to see a real world version of Abi Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, which sounds like a rather good thing.

Hydro-Computing (1, Interesting)

daniel23 (605413) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852870)

Would this mark the first step into the evolution of hydrocomputing, just light and water in miniature pipes, feasable to use under water or in environments with a high risk of explosion ?

Would this make any sense to have?

Re:Hydro-Computing (1)

afa (801481) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853035)

Interesting, but how can you call a huge device with so tiny water inside 'Hydro-Computing'?

Re:Hydro-Computing (1)

wass (72082) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853150)

This has already been around for awhile in several forms, one example is here [wikipedia.org].

I also remember seeing an article from an old Scientific American (I think) where a group fabricated a micro-scale manifold assembly that was a divide-by-10 circuit. Ie, after 10 input 'puffs' of fluid into a circuit, the output would 'puff' once. There were no moving parts, it was just a passive container whose shape allowed this behavoir. There were other circuit elements like this too.

Re:Hydro-Computing (1)

biobogonics (513416) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853915)

Does any one remember Ovshinsky? He made the cover of Life magazine back in the 60s with his "ovonic" micro fluid switches that were supposed to revolutionize everything. Of course that did not happen and now Energy Conversion Devices makes solar cells and batteries.

Here's George Jetson! (1)

phyruxus (72649) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852900)

So, now we can move water with light.. it's not a flying car, but maybe we can make bounce-tubes (a la stranger in a strange land, the Jetsons).

I ,for one, welcome this floorless-elevator technology.

wait... welcome? I--*

Re:Here's George Jetson! (1)

Peter_JS_Blue (801871) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853336)

As the body is mostly water could we use this as some weird transportation device ? Would it just move the water and leave the non-water bits behind - could be amusing to watch if done on someone you don't like.

Re:Here's George Jetson! (1)

wtansill (576643) | more than 9 years ago | (#9855928)

BFD. Let me know when they can use light beams to bring me a stream of beer molecules... Oh wait... Maybe they can use this technology so that I don't have to miss my TV show to go pee?

Roland Piquepaille == Spammer (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852909)

please visit his adverts he means, not an overview that he has cut and pasted with zero added insight

as he would say with his boilerplate article submission template

you can find more details in this overview of Roland Piquepaille's spamming activities here [slashdot.org]

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853099)

I'm sick of seeing Roland's blog on /.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853417)

So what?

You sound like you're just envious. Start your own blog.

Well... (1)

nuclear305 (674185) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852920)

back in my day we moved our water molecules by hand. Both ways, UP HILL! You kids and your newfangled technology. What ever happened to old fashioned elbow grease?

Joking aside, it seems this actually does have some practical uses such as reducing the time and resources required performing tests during drug development.

What ever happened to good ol' fashioned (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852931)

water displacement by feces?
You kids and your newfangled technologies....

This is the scary nanotech we've been warned about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852933)

Doesn't moving water molecules with light sound reckless to anyone? Surely this must be the first time water has been moved by photons. I think there may be implications to this beyond our understanding. This might lead to those Ice-9 problems we were warned about.

While nanotechnology is neat... (1, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852936)

I wonder at what point everybody's going to slow down with the research in recognition of the fact that we haven't figured out a way to curb the serious abuses (i.e. the goo problem) that can occur with each new discovery in the field.

Einstein agonized over the ramifications of his research into the atom far too late. We can already see the writing on the wall with nanotech -- perhaps it should be considered that the threat is greater than the promise?

Re:While nanotechnology is neat... (1)

Zackbass (457384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853009)

How exactly does one avoid an inevitable problem by agonizing over it? How would delaying a piece of technology help to make sure it isn't abused?

"Hmmm, I don't know about this whole atom thing, it could be used by bad people. Maybe I should just shelve this potentially groundbreaking piece of human progress until evil is eradicated."

Re:While nanotechnology is neat... (3, Insightful)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853026)

The problem of this is that;

1. It will eventually get discovered. Could we have ignored radar/gunpowder/pointy sticks inventions for this long?
2. No matter how long you think of something or plan something out, there will be someone who comes up with a flaw in your plans. Think bugs in software or man tampering with nature.

Re:While nanotechnology is neat... (1)

luckyguesser (699385) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853271)

Your two points address two types of flaws that could arise. 1. addresses fundamental flaws in design. 2. addresses exploits. Exploits include anything that may not even be in the original design, but which, when the design is tweaked or added onto, results in an evil. Exploits are not avoidable. Evil will not simply disappear in awe of a new technology. However, your first point sounds eerily fallacious to me. "It will eventually get discovered" sounds a lot like "They'll have the whole 4-digit thing figured out long before Y2K".

Re:While nanotechnology is neat... (3, Insightful)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853447)

>However, your first point sounds eerily fallacious to me. "It will eventually get discovered"

The atomic race was based entirely on this. Who will get the bomb first? Those in charge on either side did not have the luxury of sitting back and saying "Maybe we shouldn't" because the other side might succeed before them.

Look at today and how many countries can produce the bomb. Most of them got the know-how independently from each other. And the US is running around trying to control it from getting out of hand.

Re:While nanotechnology is neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853114)

If we can manage to overlook the attention-grabbing use of the word "nanotechnology" in the article --

This article is about stuff getting wet. An earlier poster aptly mentions stain-resistant pants. The new trick here is a photo-sensitive coating that changes how hydrophobic it is.

Are you worried about the goo problem posed by stain-resistant Dockers(tm) overrunning the world?

Why is nanotechnology different from other fields? (5, Interesting)

wass (72082) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853277)

we haven't figured out a way to curb the serious abuses (i.e. the goo problem) that can occur with each new discovery in the field.

Please elaborate on the 'goo problem'. Ie, with explicit details on how it would work, not just some qualitative description, which is all that anybody seems to have at the moment.

So somebody said that maybe all life COULD be devoured by a properly-designed nanotech robot that would reproduce quickly and break up organic matter into component monomers, etc etc etc.

I'll say a self-aware self-replicating AI program COULD be created that would spread through the net independent of host operating system, and crash all airplanes, screw up everybody's bank accounts, erase all data, etc etc etc.

Similarly, a 'battlebot' with enough memory COULD somehow be programmed properly that it also attains self-awareness intelligence, reproduces and builds an army of subservient battlebots, and wreaks havoc across the planet.

So, if you are trying to claim we should stop research into nanotechnology, then we should also stop research into computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, etc.

There is NO field where there isn't any risk that something bad could happen. Nanotech is the 'new' field, so this is where the fear-mongering comes in. You're not alone, look at comics, for instance. Most old-school Marvel superheroes got their superpowers, for better or worse, through radioactive effects, back in the fearful decades after the atom bomb. Nowadays the current fear is nanotech, and even the first Spiderman movie changed the story from a radioactive spider to a genetically-modified spider. You're doing the same thing, really.

I work with nanotech. Just 30 minutes ago I was putting carbon nanotubes onto a substrate, and I'll eventually do some electronic transport measurements. Currently I'm scanning the substrate with an atomic-force microscope. There are TONS of amazing uses that nanotubes might have, so we're studying many of their properties. Why is my study of carbon nanotubes different from somebody determining which binary tree search algorithms are most efficient, or what shape sawblade cuts through plastic the best?

Re:Why is nanotechnology different from other fiel (2, Interesting)

kirkjobsluder (520465) | more than 9 years ago | (#9855437)

So somebody said that maybe all life COULD be devoured by a properly-designed nanotech robot that would reproduce quickly and break up organic matter into component monomers, etc etc etc.

I keep reading about the grey goo, and I've yet to see an argument that it is possible from someone who demonstrates an understanding of the complex tradeoffs that limit our currently existing biological self-replicating machines. Problems like:

1: Oxygen is both a nutrient, and a poison.
2: The lack of a universal catalyst. A machine that catalyzes the transformation of one amino acid will be less than optimal for catalyzing a different amino acid.
3: Energy and trace elements severely limit growth at a microscopic level.

Re:Why is nanotechnology different from other fiel (1)

mikehuntstinks (769637) | more than 9 years ago | (#9855487)

That's already happened. If I understand correctly it works my organising millions of amazingly advanced nanotech robots organising into bi-pedal super-colonies which then organise into super-colonies of these super-colonies that then procede to destroy the planet.

Poorly written article - Here's what they mean: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852937)

If you add a bunch of nanofibers to a wax coated surface, the water will "ball up" and move around more easily. If you make the nanofibers sensitive to light, you can control the speed with which the water moves over the surface by changing the light level.

Roland Piquepaille == Spammer (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852939)

please visit his adverts he means, not an overview that he has cut and pasted with zero added insight
as he would say with his standard boilerplate article submission template

you can find more plaigarism and stolen images in this overview of Roland Piquepaille's spamming activities here [slashdot.org]

support original writers and photographers not plaigarists leeching other peoples hard work for profit

Aren't you a one nice upstanding slashbot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852956)

You are a one nice, upstanding slashbot, now aren't you?

You feel that it is your duty to file a report about Roland and "serve the public" by informing them of his despicable crime.

God, people like you make me sick.

wahey thats too advance.. (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852957)

I have to ask myself why. We can already move liquids quite simplely and from the sounds of it, this will use huge amounts of energy just to get the light to that state.

Re:wahey thats too advance.. (1)

amide_one (750148) | more than 9 years ago | (#9854851)

"huge amounts of energy"?? We're not talking about giant 1000-watt spotlights to pump water into your swimming pool. I imagine they'd hope to use this effect with mW ultraviolet LEDs or some equivalently small, low-power light source.

"why"? Because at this scale, it becomes fairly difficult to precisely, reproducibly move droplets of water around. Pumps and water hoses (as someone else wondered about) don't really work too well. Channels in microfluidic devices are tens to hundreds of micrometers across - this is to move microliter droplets, not buckets.

One problem with this is that it would apparently limit devices to one layer of channels (or at least, limit the complexity of the devices); the "damaging" electric fields can give pretty precise flow control in devices with several layers, etc. There's also the alternative of using "centrifugal force" for power on rotating disc devices - Bachas' group at Kentucky built nifty parallel microfluidic devices on CDs [uky.edu] that work like that. This new light-based approach works for moving individual drops around, but there are microfluidic things that it doesn't do (at least yet).

Finally, this is just a preliminary report that something pretty cool is actually possible - they don't describe even a simple device based on this, they're not announcing commercial availability of a complete home lab that uses this. If you don't get "why" ... well, wait a few years and a nifty application of it will be all the answer necessary.

Just drink some beer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852963)

You'll be moving water molecules in about 20 minutes.

Fascinating (2, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852968)

Sorry if this may be slightly off-topic, but I am absolutely fascinated with this new technology. This is clearly in the realm of what was once just Sci-Fi.

I am so frightened (and by frightened I mean extremely excited) at how fast we are evolving technologically, I can't even get a vague picture of where we'll be 5 years from now let alone 50.

I'd really like to hear some practical non-research based applications for this technology if any knowledgeable person might be able to help out. One of the first things I thought of was that this might be useful for creating cybernetics, since light is a lot less harmful than electricity, and I'm guessing that cybernetics of the future will involve some sort of liquid transfer on a nano scale.

Re:Fascinating (1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853016)

I am so frightened (and by frightened I mean extremely excited) at how fast we are evolving technologically

I'd say that while we're making good progress in certain fields of science and technology, we're not making enough progress in vital fields such as aerospace enginering and spaceflight (hypersonic planes, cheap and reliable manned spaceflights) or in the manipulation of genome and biochemistry in general.

It's kind of sad that the biggest obstacle at present is the irrational fear of modifying the fundamental building blocks of life and the lack of political courage to accept human casualties in space exploration.

Re:Fascinating (1)

gipsy boy (796148) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853169)

Yeah.. Though I'm probably younger than you are, I notice a great increase in nearly fictionous accomplishments lately. Like, quantum computers, too..they're suddenly becoming real? what the hell? And I've got the feeling somewhere there's a scientist assigned to the task of inventing a coffee machine based on nanotech.. But I wonder when the gap between actual usage and mere academics will start to thin out though, perhaps we're just overly informed nowadays and these things really won't see the daylight until another 30 years.

Re:Fascinating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9870799)

And I've got the feeling somewhere there's a scientist assigned to the task of inventing a coffee machine based on nanotech..

You're almost right, but it won't be coffee. It will be tea, earl grey, hot.

Re:Fascinating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9855559)

In five years, you will still be stupid.

Re:Fascinating (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#9866697)

Sorry if this may be slightly off-topic, but I am absolutely fascinated with this new technology. This is clearly in the realm of what was once just Sci-Fi.

Agreed, their demo [dvd365.net] is pretty astonishing.

Water Cooling? (1)

alue (253363) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852970)

You know what, this could make for a good water cooler for your cpu. Instead of having a noisy pump, you could just shine a fancy light down your water tubes.

I think I saw this on an infomercial (1)

chcorey (801648) | more than 9 years ago | (#9852972)

"Now for the small price of $999.00 you too can part the Red Sea."

Is this such a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9852990)

OK, I a way out of my league in this subject. But, isn't it right that microwave actually moves/spins water molecules (and transfer its energy to the molecules)? That is how a microwave oven works, isn't it? Since light wave and microwave are both electromagnetic waves, should it not be expected that light moves water molecule?

better breaks ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853028)

squillions of little nanobots with little lights creating your own private Left hander on the flattest bit of sea you can find .... now theres a good use for this research ... maybe if you were really nasty you could get zillions of the little buggers and impress your friends by creating a tsunami .... then again, mabe not?

Multitude of uses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853051)

So 20 years from now, when people take a piss, a beam of light comes out of their pants.


Cool, then we can write software rather than visiting the toilet once an hour (if you're a coffee junkie like me, that is)

This is Old Stuff!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853080)

Common, this is all triviality. I mean, if I go outside and the sun burns down, my water molecules move rather quicker than slower to the outside of my body!!

Uhm, ok, well, I cheated, I've only heard about this going outside thingy, I never leave the lab anyways...

Damaging Electric fields? (1)

rollingrock (653505) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853084)

Ummm... maybe someone should tell them that light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. :)

Re:Damaging Electric fields? (4, Informative)

francisew (611090) | more than 9 years ago | (#9854816)

By damaging electric fields, I'd guess they mean what is used in capillary electrophoresis (Several kV are used to generate a 'zeta potential' which consists of the counterions on a glass surface moving in the electric field, and dragging water along with them). Such high voltages can have bad effects on large proteins and other things (like living cells) that you might want to move, but not electrocute (let alone boil, which happens if you crank up the voltage to make things move faster).

IAAC (I am an analytical chemist), and in my humble opinion this is interesting, but not immediately practical, not as expansive as the article suggests (surprise!).

  • We could, for example:
  • -make an analysis system that comprised a bunch of wires crossing at different points and force droplets of different chemicals to come together to react
  • -to split individual droplets and move them around
  • -or to simply interface lots and lots of different analysis techniques without having a million junctions that all get dirty and need to be cleaned.

Kudos to the researchers, and I want to get 10 yards of light-actuated water droplet moving wire once they have it :)

Francis

I hope one day we can move big molecules like this (1)

afa (801481) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853087)

Just imagine moving a particular protein or DNA promoter or enzyme, which will be programed to implement certain procedures, into certain place in situ. And perhaps one day this tech can be used in the repairing of a effete cell...

SlashDot Illiteracy: WTF are the Editors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853116)

"the ability of moving water molecules by light"

should be
"the ability to move water molecules with light"

Oh puh-LEASE! What's the big deal about that? (3, Funny)

SnappingTurtle (688331) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853126)

They just moved a few molecules of water with light? My girlfriend's dad once got me moving a lot faster and further by turning on the lights.

Re:Oh puh-LEASE! What's the big deal about that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853557)

I bet he couldn't tell what your speed and location at the same time was though.

Re:Oh puh-LEASE! What's the big deal about that? (1)

bairy (755347) | more than 9 years ago | (#9854181)

I think the location was pretty obvious, and I would suggest the speed was blurry at best

Re:Oh puh-LEASE! What's the big deal about that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9856552)

I think the location was pretty obvious, and I would suggest the speed was blurry at best

I don't think you got the joke.

Please stop (5, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853252)

I appreciate that some of these stories submitted by Roland Piquepaille are about interesting topics, but EVERY single one of them includes at least one or two traffic-whoring links to his blog site, from which he derives advertising revenues. His blog site posts are generally completely inarticulate summaries and rehashings of the original articles that he writes, knowing that Slashdotters are too lazy to even read the artcle.


Hemos seems to usually be the culprit posting the Piquepaille stories. I don't mind if Hemos wants to post stories submitted by this guy (though often even the submissions are inaccurate summaries of the original articles), but it would be appropriate to edit out his links to poorly written, uninformative summaries that he posts on his blog before posting the story. I don't mind somebody occasionally using a Slashdot submission to let the community know about some new product they or their company has developed or interesting article or book they've written, but this blatant traffic farming is way over the top.

What's your problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853298)

So the guy makes a little bit of money on the side?

Is it out of your pocket?

No. So shut up already, asshat.

Re:What's your problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9857217)

So the guy makes a little bit of money on the side?

And he submits numerous articles with links to poorly written summaries in his blog. How many good article submissions did the Slashdot editors turn down because of this jerk? How many other people submitted this same article, only to be turned down so dickless can get free hits from Slashdot?

Is it out of your pocket?

For subscribers, yes, it is.

So shut up already, asshat.

No, make me, you cockbiting fuckard.

Re:Please stop (4, Insightful)

GileadGreene (539584) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853813)

I'll second that motion. The sheer quantity of Piquepaille articles is astounding [slashdot.org] - something like 1 every 2-3 days (does he give kickbacks to the /. eds?). And as you say, every single one includes links to his blog. At least Google has the courtesy to place the ads in a separate screen location, instead of embedding them directly in their "product".

Let me indulge in some whistleblowing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853962)

Piquepaille posts on anti-slash [anti-slash.org] - a site dedicated to crapflooding and trolling /. thus bringing the quality of the discussion here down.

I happen to know that Piquepaille is just a karmawhore whose aim is to make money for anti-slash with his ad-links.

Devious, isn't it?

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9861855)

> The sheer quantity of Piquepaille articles is astounding - something like 1
> every 2-3 days (does he give kickbacks to the /. eds?)

It's like Slashdot readmitting John Katz via the back door.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9861824)

> I don't mind if Hemos wants to post stories

It's nice of you to let the guy post on his own site.

> I don't mind somebody occasionally using a Slashdot submission to let the
> community know about some new product

Remind me again - who do you think you are?

Stain repelling pants... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853273)

From the article text:

The lotus leaf effect is a fairly well known phenomenon that combines the microscopically rough surface of the plant's leaves with a waxy chemical coating and leads to high water repellency and self-cleaning of the surface. It is already employed commercially in stain repelling pants.

Where can I buy a pair of such pants?

The sun has been doing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9853295)

for billions of years. All the Sun Gods would claim prior art.

Re:The sun has been doing that (1)

chameleon3 (801105) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853312)

This technology has implications for cancer research. If we can see how molecules can be moved by light, it will only be a matter of time before we see how it causes them to mutate and become cancerous.

Re:The sun has been doing that (1)

biobogonics (513416) | more than 9 years ago | (#9854773)

This technology has implications for cancer research. If we can see how molecules can be moved by light, it will only be a matter of time before we see how it causes them to mutate and become cancerous.

And about 30 seconds more for some huckster in Florida to make fantastic claims for it!

I wasn't aware that water molecules could mutate and become cancerous, by the way. (Of course we know that Di-Hydrogen Mon-Oxide *is* dangerous.)

Re:The sun has been doing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9868398)

A matter of time? It's no great mystery, perhaps you should look-up "ionizing radiation".

New means of transport (1)

Peter_JS_Blue (801871) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853393)

As the body is mostly water could we use this as some weird transportation device ? Would it just move the water and leave the non-water bits behind - could be amusing to watch if it was done on someone you don't like. Instant dick-head, just add water !

Ignorant (1)

PingXao (153057) | more than 9 years ago | (#9853961)

This might be an interesting story. Unfortunately I stopped reading the minute I noticed the submitter thinks this method of moving water might be better than "currnet methods such as damaging electric fields." Is the submitter serious? Here's a free clue Mr. Piqupaille: LIGHT IS AN ELECTRIC FIELD. Another thing: did I miss something with electric fields being "damaging" somewhere? I wonder where this guy is getting his information from.

Clues here (2, Informative)

GoPlayGo (541427) | more than 9 years ago | (#9854127)

Light is not an electric field, it is a propagating electromagnetic wave particle duality.

To address your other point, electric fields can be very damaging when they are sufficiently high intensity. Also, electromagnetic fields can be damaging too.

Not damaging to the water molecules, which are robust, but damaging to the materials disolved or suspended in the water, which may be delicate bio-active organic molecules. For example, there are various cell sorting systems that currently use electric fields. They might better use a system like this.

However, light can be damaging in its own right. Red and infrared light can be heating. Violet and UV light can be energetic and penetrating (think sunburn radiation damage).

Damaging fields (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9854322)

Wow... I just was not aware that electric fields could damage water. I guess you learn something every day...

Optical Tweezer (1)

rice0067 (220981) | more than 9 years ago | (#9855349)

The article does not describe Optical tweezers.. but I just wanted to note that Optical Tweezers are cool, and you can move nano particles around in cells and solutions with light using this device. We used them to measure the binding force of cell surface receptors.

(Receptors are springs... horse is sphere)

EGYPT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9855426)

Isn't this how they built the pyramids!

Oh, snap.

Nice, but how about separating into H2 + O (2, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9855787)

That does seem to be the more pressing problem.

NOTE: Poorly Titled Article ! (1)

shpoffo (114124) | more than 9 years ago | (#9864802)

The novel effect here acutally has nothing to do with light. The 'breakthrough' is in the use of a specially formulated surfaced nano-wire that repels water better. This wire thus has a lower hysteresis, allowing the strenth of a beam of light to move a water droplet.

A better articel title may have been "New nanotech surface allows light to manipulate water"

.
-shpoffo
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...