Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

201 comments

Eyeglasses? (1, Funny)

Musteval (817324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434689)

I, for one, don't have glass lenses. Normally, that's a good thing, as it keeps me from getting shards in my eyes as much, but now I'm not so sure.

Re:Eyeglasses? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434717)

...it keeps me from getting shards in my eyes as much...

Do you get into lots of fights?

Re:Eyeglasses? (1)

ben0207 (845105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434740)

Actually, I reckon that this would work with regular plastic lenses. I hope so, walking in to aroom from outdoors makes me essentially blind for 30 seconds.

Re:Eyeglasses? (3, Informative)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434750)

According to TFA (not that I expect people to actually read the thing):

So far, the coating is more durable on glass than plastic surfaces, but Rubner and his associates are currently working on processes to optimize the effectiveness of the coating for all surfaces. More testing is needed, they say.

Re:Eyeglasses? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434758)

I tend to open the door first.

This alleviates concussion and allows me to see straight away.

Re:Eyeglasses? (4, Informative)

bryhhh (317224) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434992)

It's not just glass that fogs up though. Despite the /. story suggesting that this coating is only for glass, TFA says that this coating can be applied to "virtually any surface", which is great news for motorcyclists with plastic visors that always fog up on cold/wet days. Normally when it is raining, I have three choices,

1. Closed visor, it fogs up within minutes - Can't see a thing.
2. Visor fully open (nothing to fog), subjected to a face full of fast moving water droplets - can't see a thing.
3. Visor open slightly, air can circulate, visor doesn't fog, but water droplets form on the inside of the visor, which severely reduce visibility.

Re:Eyeglasses? (1)

KinkifyTheNation (823618) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435242)

Have you tried Rain-X?

Re:Eyeballs? (0)

RKBA (622932) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435011)

"I, for one, don't have glass lenses."

Neither do I. Mine are plastic and they're mounted inside my eyeballs! I also have a totally artificial metal tooth bolted into my jawbone. All I'm missing is a bolt protruding from my neck to complete my bionic image. ;-)

P.S. I had cataract surgery with lens replacement in both eyes a few years ago probably because of long term cortisone use.

The low tech solution (5, Informative)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434695)

Ever wanted a shave in the shower but your hand-held mirror fogs up? Rather than buying this patented glass you can resort to a low-tech solution: Rub a little shaving foam over the glass and the wash the excess off so you have a thin, clear, greasy film on the glass.You'll find that the mirror no longer steams up.

The reason this works is because the greasy film causes much larger drops to coalesce on the mirror than you would normally get. These larger drops don't refract the light nearly and as a result are essentially transparent. This simple trick allows me to insure my sideburns are the same length even when under the most horrendous time presure.

See, who says that Physics can't be useful in everyday situations?

Simon

Re:The low tech solution (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434745)

You have time to shave in the shower? I am always too busy masterbating (usually 4-5 times before the hot water cylinder runs out).

Re:The low tech solution (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434802)

Masturbating is a word every man should be able to spell correctly. You sir, are a disgrace to your sex.

Re:The low tech solution (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434761)

Interesting.... can I use this solution on my monitor when I get a BSOD?

Re:The low tech solution (2, Funny)

tmbg37 (694325) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434783)

I use an electric razor, you insensitive clod.

Re:The low tech solution (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434810)

that witty quip has outlived it's useful, find some new material would ya.

Re:The low tech solution (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434981)

mod the gp down if you're gonna mod anyone down. it's a lame joke.

Re:The low tech solution (-1, Offtopic)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434996)


Screw those cowards.
That was actually funny.

Re:The low tech solution (2, Funny)

halleluja (715870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434819)

Rub a little shaving foam over the glass
Yes, I use Vaseline to get a pretty look and start every day like a soap opera.

An even lower tech solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434823)

lick your mirror. you'll find it wont fog for a while after that.

Re:The low tech solution (-1, Offtopic)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434827)

Cool, I'll have to try this when I get home.

Re:The low tech solution (5, Informative)

dsginter (104154) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434841)

If you've got a hand-held mirror, then you can just heat it up under the shower water. The "fog" appears on the mirror because it is lower temperature than the water vapor. When this water vapor comes in contact with the lower temp mirror, it loses the energy that it needs to stay in the form of vapor and turns back into water. This "fogs up" the mirror.

If you just heat up the mirror, then it will no longer suck the energy out of the water vapor and cause the fog.

Re:The low tech solution (2, Informative)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434993)

I can't recall where I heard this, but some Japaneese hotel rooms feed the hot water for the shower through a miniature radiator behind the mirror. This way, running the shower automatically heats the mirror so that it doesn't fog.

Re:The low tech solution (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434918)

It tends to last about a week as well which is nice. I've been doing that trick for ages.

But side burns man? Do you have an afro too? If not you need one, you should go for the insane druggy look.

Re:The low tech solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434942)

I look a bit drugged out here [ckwop.me.uk] but still look a bit respectable..

I can't really grow a afro, as much as i'd want to. :) Gotta settle for mutton chops unfortunately..

Simon.

Re:The low tech solution (0, Offtopic)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434990)

pfft! They arn't side burns. that's shaving poorly.Come bakc when you look like that block from Beagle 2 :P

Re:The low tech solution (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434938)

Why use expensive shaving foam?

spit on it and rub it around. fog prevention the low tech way.

Most divers know of this trick, spitting in your goggles and then rubbing it around gives you fog free facemask for the duration of your dive.

Re:The low tech solution (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435141)

This does not help you in such cases as:
Your car
Your face gear (glasses, goggles, masks)
Home windows (sometimes they get foggy)

Also, it would be nice if I didn't have to waste my expensive shaving cream on my mirror (not that I use shaving cream, which is another problem).

They do have those mirrors that connect to your shower head and it trickles down warm water. The warm water keeps the mirror at the same temp as the shower, and you get no fog.

Re:The low tech solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13435256)

The word you were looking for was "ensure" not "insure."

Language arts can also be useful in everyday situations!

Re:The low tech solution | Use soap instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13435288)

Just use soap, works better and is cheaper than shaving foam.

Re:The low tech solution (1)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435423)

That's kinda neat but the moisture causes other problems in the washroom besides mirror fog. Like mildew, mold, etc. So the best idea (like with good code) is to make sure the problem never occurs. ie use an exhaust fan.

More light?!? (-1, Troll)

b100dian (771163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434704)

Coated glass appears clearer and allows more light to pass through than untreated glass while maintaining the same smooth texture
Who do they think they're foolin'?
More light than comes from through the glass??

Re:More light?!? (1, Informative)

Decaff (42676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434755)

Who do they think they're foolin'?
More light than comes from through the glass??


if it makes a smoother surface, it could allow more light through

Re:More light?!? (1)

b100dian (771163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434770)

The transparent coating can be applied to eyeglasses, camera lenses, ski goggles ... even bathroom mirrors, they say

It seems clear to me that this thingie is applied on existing surfaces.
Therefore applied on glass.
Now can one explain, if the glass allows X% of light to pass, how can this "coating" amplify it to X+?

And no, I'm not trolling.

Re:More light?!? (2, Informative)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434816)

Now can one explain, if the glass allows X% of light to pass, how can this "coating" amplify it to X+?



Because most of the light that does not pass through the glass is not "absorbed" inside the the glass but instead reflected at the air/glass and glass/air boundary layers.

Coating glass with stuff to minimize the reflection is a really old thing. Ever wonder why the lenses of (good) binoculars seem have a bluish or reddish tint to them ? Because they're coated to increase light transmission.
 

Re:More light?!? (1)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434973)

Easy. Regular glass surface in air reflects back about 4% of the incoming light. Reduce this to 1% and you'll get 3% more light through. That is why most optics is coated.

Re:More light?!? Yes, it does. (4, Informative)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434831)

Their claim is valid. Anytime light passes through an abrupt change in the index of refraction (e.g., from air to glass), a percentage of the light it reflected back. That's why you see a ghost image of yourself in even "transparent" pieces of glass. On ordinary glass, about 4% of the light is reflected (removed) by each air-to-glass or glass-to-air interface (8% for each pane).

Adding a anti-reflective coating that has an intermediate index of refraction can reduce this. Nonlinearities in the reflection process mean that two interfaces of lesser change reflect far less than one big change. Camera lens makers do this all the time because many lens have 6 to 20 pieces of glass and thus a dozen or more interfaces that each would to attenuate light and create multiple internal reflections between the lens elements.

It may not be much, but that antifog coating probably lets a couple extra percent of the light through.

Re:More light?!? Yes, it does. (1)

sadtrev (61519) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435206)

The explanation is not quite right.

Antireflection coatings have a thickness of 1/4 lambda so that half the light that would normally be reflected is reflected with 180degrees phase shift. Thus for a single wavelength (v-Coating) it is possible to reduce reflection from 4% to less than 0.1%. For a broader range of wavelengths (U-coating) a number of coatings of different thicknesses are used.

The coating itself (typically CaF) is chosen because it is relatively easy to vapour-deposit to controlled thickness and because its refractive index is halfway between that of air and glass.

Somehow I don't believe that the same effect could be achieved by a thin film of water, though it's probably better than nothing.

Re:More light?!? Yes, it does. (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435456)

The explanation is not quite right.

Antireflection coatings have a thickness of 1/4 lambda so that half the light that would normally be reflected is reflected with 180degrees phase shift. Thus for a single wavelength (v-Coating) it is possible to reduce reflection from 4% to less than 0.1%. For a broader range of wavelengths (U-coating) a number of coatings of different thicknesses are used.


Yes, a 1/4 lambda film maximizes antireflection but a thicker film also works -- reducing reflection from 4% to 2%.

The coating itself (typically CaF) is chosen because it is relatively easy to vapour-deposit to controlled thickness and because its refractive index is halfway between that of air and glass.

Actually CaF2 doesn't have a very good index (1.44). MgF2 is a bit better at 1.38. Neither are half-way for normal glass, but they do work well with higher index glasses.

Somehow I don't believe that the same effect could be achieved by a thin film of water, though it's probably better than nothing.

Water's index of 1.33 makes it better than MgF2 or CaF2 as an anti-reflective coating. I'm not sure how the anti-fog coating changes the index, though.

Does Windows Vista use this? (4, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434705)

XP + Nanotech coating = Transparent Windows! Probly explains the long delay in releasing LongHorn...

Re:Does Windows Vista use this? (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435350)

Nope. The windows in Vista are foggy [flexbeta.net] .

I'm blind! (-1, Troll)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434709)

I'm blind, you insensitive clod!

Re:I'm blind! (0, Offtopic)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434911)

Blind people need glasses too! X-D

Re:I'm blind! (2, Funny)

wbren (682133) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434930)

I'm blind, you insensitive clod!
But at least you're a wonderful touch typist.

Solve a Real Problem (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434721)

Develop a coating for glasses that prevents greasy smudging from eating chips and other junk food. The anti-fogging stuff sounds OK for a nasal spray straight to the brain on those mornings after.

Re:Solve a Real Problem (2, Insightful)

pianorain (888377) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434872)

Why spend money on a coating for the glasses when there are several solutions readily at hand? 1) Don't eat junk food. 2) Wash your nasty hands. 3) Wear gloves.

Re:Solve a Real Problem (3, Funny)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435013)

Which reminds me: we need a coating for monitors that prevents greasy smudges from morons pointing at the screen. A thin metallic film with a 10 kV feed would be good.

IF u cant afford that... (2, Interesting)

domipheus (751857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434722)

And want a cheaper solution for keeping your bathroom mirror fog free, before you get in the shower/bath/whatever, rub some shaving foam into the glass. not alot - about a cm^2 blob. then rub with a very damp cloth so it dissapears and u can see your reflection.

Have the shower!

Get out, go to shave, and voila! No foggy window!

This nanotech gaff will definately work wonders in the car. Hey, it will mean I wont have to bust my gut when I get in having to clean every window of fog while my gf drives. now that I mention it, I should really learn to drive...

Re:IF u cant afford that... (-1, Offtopic)

YuriGherkin (870386) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434868)

How was this a "troll" ?!?!

TROLL? Having a laugh. (-1, Offtopic)

domipheus (751857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434967)

Ok, I posted the same info as a guy did 1 min ago because of the shitty post delay, but troll? Christ guys. Just dont waste your points if you are going to be like that.

Re:IF u cant afford that... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13435055)

yeah, redundant if your gonna mod it down

Sorry (3, Funny)

FinestLittleSpace (719663) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434734)

I won't believe any of this until there is a Podcast released on it.

Fog-X (5, Informative)

coke_scp (892822) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434748)

The people who make rain-x, which works rather well itself to deflect rain, also make fog-x, which I've tested on a steamy bathroom mirror, and it works perfectly.

Re:Fog-X (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434826)

But it leaves a tiny layer of water on the surface - the condensation is just the same, only instead of billions tiny droplets, it forms one flat layer. This thing claims to keep your mirror dry.

Re:Fog-X (2, Informative)

pecko666 (684783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434895)

No. This solution also creates thin water film on the surface.
As a result, the droplets flatten and merge into a uniform, transparent sheet rather than forming countless individual light-scattering spheres.

Re:Fog-X (2, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434932)

It doesn't, because doing so would violate certain thermodynamic principles in horribly gruesome ways.

If there is an object with a temperature below the dew point, water will condense on it, regardless of what the surface is like.

One drawback... (3, Funny)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434767)

MIT scientists have applied for a patent on a coating process that reduces or eliminates fogging on glass surfaces. The new coating consists of a highly acidic chemical that melts the glass into a thick green goo. While the glass (now known as green goo) possesses none of its original qualities including transparency, it has also been shown to provide a 5% or greater resistance to fog.

I wonder... (1, Interesting)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434774)

I wonder if it can be applied to motherboard, if you plan using liquid nitrogen, dry ice or such for cooling :) Air humidity condensation on nearby elements is one of the worst problems with high-efficiency CPU cooling.

Re:I wonder... (3, Insightful)

b100dian (771163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434812)

I guess not.
Humidity is still there - just not in the form of little droplets.

Re:I wonder... (1, Insightful)

k98sven (324383) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435008)

Using liquid nitrogen or dry ice to cool your computer has nothing to do with "high efficiency cooling".

It's rice. And it's stupid. And it has nothing to do with cooling your machine in a practical or efficient manner.

Scuba Divers know a solution... (4, Informative)

se2schul (667721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434781)

...they simply spit in their masks to prevent fogging.

Re:Scuba Divers know a solution... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435318)

Yeah, and you know what? That doesn't work. At all. As far as I can tell it's just something that divers tell newbies to make them spit on themselves. I tested that stuff from the Rain-X guys on my car windshield, too, but it left a film of crap on my windshield that was almost as bad as the fog was. It might work better on a diver's mask, I dunno, I haven't been diving in years. It might also have improved in the last few years -- I stopped using it almost immediately.

So if MIT can get rid of my foggy glass, I'd be quite happy to give them a try...

Good for motorcyclists (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434785)

Fogging of glasses is a problem. The visor problem's been largely solved what with Foggy Masks, Fog City films but it's still a problem for those who wear glasses.

 

Re:Good for motorcyclists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434896)

Fogging of glasses is a problem. The visor problem's been largely solved what with Foggy Masks, Fog City films but it's still a problem for those who wear glasses.

Fog City is ok, but it has it's limitations. You have to apply it just right to make sure you don't allow moisture to make it's way between the film and your shield. Once this happens, you're basically screwed. Also, you are now looking through 2 layers, this causes a bit more distortion vs a single layer. It also causes the infamous "flare" effect with lights at night. It also causes a bit of a mirror effect, basically allowing you to see your own face reflected as some of the light makes it throught the fog shield, but then reflects back off of your face shield.

That being said, it's still the best solution I have found for keeping ones shield clear on rainy days where spitting on it and/or wiping shaving cream is not an option. I would whole heartedly welcome a shield that just naturally didn't fog up. It would be a god send for guys like me who commute.

Re:Good for motorcyclists (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435056)

" I would whole heartedly welcome a shield that just naturally didn't fog up. "

I got a new Caberg helmet that just doesn't fog at all. I think the visor comes precoated with something, I'm guessing it'll wear off eventually. This stuff sounds a bit more permanent.

 

awsome (4, Insightful)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434786)

One of the worst things about wearing glasses up north is the fogging.. being outside in -25c temperatures for even a few minutes and glasses get cold enough that they fog up when paying for gas, or shovelling snow, etc.. pain in the ass. I welcome this new technology :)

Re:awsome (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434969)

fogging in winter is not a problem in the great white north.

when I lived in upper michigan, go out to shovel and then return inside, your glasses FROZE UP.

no amount of nanotech or other fancy coatings can stop that from happening.

it's not fog, it's ice. this is most obvious if your homes heating system is properly designed and adds humidity to the air. a 0degF pair of glasses getting in contact with warm humid air = nice thin layer of ice.

If you want to solve the fogging issue, get a decent quality eyeglass cleaner. mine has had an anti-fog agent in it for over 3 years now and it's the cheap crap they give you at D.O.C. eyeglass centers.

Great news for scuba (5, Informative)

vstanescu (522393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434787)

May be this will finally replace the old method of spit and rinse, because all those special glasses on the scuba masks had no effect until now. For those who don't know, if you want your scuba mask to be perfectly clean of fog, you have to spit inside it when it is dry, then rinse very fast with sea water (just to make the glass clear enough but probably without rinsing all the substances in the saliva from the glass) then put it on the face and dive immediately. For those who forgot doing this, even the best tempered glass became foggy in a few minutes in cold water.

Re:Great news for scuba (3, Informative)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435190)

Oh, come on, it's nowhere near *that* fussy!

You spit in it whether it's dry or not. Then you rub it into the glass with a finger, and give it as much of a dunking as you like in whatever water is around. Then it'll stay fog-free unless you allow it to dry out - so either put it on & trap the moisture in, or leave your mask laying flat with some water inside.

Of course even the best tempered glass will fog: tempering isn't supposed to provide anti-fog properties, it's used as a safety measure.

Lastly, it's not like you can't buy bottles of anti-fog from any half-decent dive shop that'll do at least as good a job.

(As a UK diver, I might add that one downside of spitting in your mask is that on very cold winter dives, your spit will freeze solid on the glass before you can do anything useful with it ;o)

Re:Great news for scuba (1)

gregmac (629064) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435413)

Lastly, it's not like you can't buy bottles of anti-fog from any half-decent dive shop that'll do at least as good a job.

I've been less than impressed with the anti-fog. I've tried a couple types, and I just find my spit works better. It's also a lot more convienient. :)

1947 solution (5, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434790)

The X-1 had a bad problem with its windshield fogging up and frosting. On the flight before it went supersonic, according to "Yeager: Autobiography":

"My crew chief applied a coating of Drene Shampoo to the windshield. For some unknown reason it worked as an effective antifrost device, and we continued using it even after the government purchased a special chemical that cost eighteen bucks a bottle."

So why is this being called nanotech? (4, Interesting)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434797)

Basically, they take a glass/plastic mix of microscopic particles, coat the glass and then subject it to high heat, making a glass sponge (Very simplified explination).
I always think of nanotech as something more novel. If this were thousands of billions of tiny squeegee bulldozers one micron across moving the water to the edge of the glass, then I'd consider it nanotech.

Re:So why is this being called nanotech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434893)

The bulldozers would be a MEMS, not nanotech.

Sponge (1)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434920)

Applying a patent for a sponge just doesn't sound good enough. And hey, maybe later they can extend the explanation of the patent to include the standard sponges used to wash your windows.
You pay MIT every time you buy a sponge!

Re:So why is this being called nanotech? (5, Insightful)

qval (844544) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434926)

It's being called nanotech because it uses nanoparticles, very small groupings of atoms, containing 100s or 1000s of atoms. Government money for nanotech research applies if you're working with objects smaller than 100nm in some dimension. IIRC, carbon nanotubes are sized roughly 5nm and larger in diameter.

The current state of the art of nanotech is not nanobots that can cure cancer. That's just what people speculate might come out of this technology, but how often is such exhuberance warranted? where's my flying car?

Also, by the way, something one micron across would be microtech by definition, not nanotech, but that's more me being a stickler than informative...

Re:So why is this being called nanotech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434939)

Come up with an idea and most will not notice it, but attach a couple of buzzwords to an idea and everyone will be oooooh n a n o t e c h, no matter how stupid the idea might be.

Re:So why is this being called nanotech? (3, Insightful)

k98sven (324383) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435034)

So why is anything being called nanotech?

Nanotech is a buzzword. It doesn't really mean anything. It's never meant anything. It's just a new word used by chemists, solid state physicists, and others to get funding and excitement around the same stuff they've been doing for quite some time.

Already excists for several years (1)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434803)

Motor helmet screens come with this kind of anti-fog layer for several years already, see for example: http://www.bellmotorsports.com/helacc.shtml [bellmotorsports.com] or http://ecom1.sno-ski.net/goggles.html [sno-ski.net] for fog free goggles. So did MIT do their background research before starting this patents application?

Re:Already excists for several years (3, Insightful)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435025)

So did MIT do their background research before starting this patents application?

Those products appear to be using (a) an attachable "sticker" or (b) a spray. Neither of which I would call particularly permanent. Anti-fog coatings (in general) have been around for years. The concept of applying them at manufacturing time using the particular process detailed in TFA is presumably the novel basis on which they are applying for a patent. If not, one would hope the Patents office will deny them the patent.

From TFA:

"The team has developed a unique polymer coating - made of silica nanoparticles - that they say can create surfaces that never fog."

"Some stores carry special anti-fog sprays that help reduce fogging on the inside of car windows, but the sprays must be constantly reapplied to remain effective."

So yes, I'm guessing they did do their background research. Did you, before posting? For example, by reading TFA?

...steamy windows (1)

My Iron Lung (834019) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434822)

Does it work for any kind of smoke?

one handed web surfers would appreciate this (-1, Troll)

YuriGherkin (870386) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434846)

I'm sure that there are plenty of Slashdot one handed web surfers out there that would require this coating on their monitors at those certain crucial moments ...

I'll believe it when I see it... (1)

SShadow (72233) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434865)

I have glasses and I have tried everything to keep the darned things from fogging up in the winter when I am outside.
It's ANNOYING.

I'd like to beta test this stuff... I wonder if they'd send me a batch. :)

Filing for patents? (3, Insightful)

BadDoggie (145310) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434867)

Funding for this study was provided by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Science Foundation (via the Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, or MSREC)

I'm not a raging anti-patent looney screaming about the need for a free utopioan society, but if funding for this was provided by the public, surely the results belong to the public and the methods belong in the public domain rather than to MIT for the next 17-34 years.

woof.

Re:Filing for patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434885)

Then the funding agency should pay all the costs of research. The salaries of the researchers are probably paid by MIT. So should MIT subsidize research?

Re:Filing for patents? (1)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435170)

The salaries of the researchers are probably paid by MIT

No, the salary of the lead researcher most likely comes from MIT. The countless grad students who did 99% of the work almost certainly get paid from the grant, not the school.

However, in most cases, you could call this a meaningless distinction. When a prof gets a grant, the school usually takes all of it, keeps a nice clean half of it for the privelage of "affiliation", and then doles the rest out to the actual research team in a standard salary/expenses manner.

Re:Filing for patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13435299)

Why do universities patent their reearch?

I thought academic research was for the purpose of public benefit, not benefiting the institution or the researchers.

Seems kinda sad to me.

Stallman slams Slashdot; Slashdot silent (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13434890)

Wow. Apparently over 500 people submitted a Forbes story where Richard Stallman strongly criticizes Slashdot and Newsforge for not supporting open source, and Slashdot editors refused to post the story:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/26/open-l inux-proprietary-cz_dl_0826open.html?partner=yahoo tixhttp://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/26/ope n-linux-proprietary-cz_dl_0826open.html?partner=ya hootix [forbes.com]

It would be embarassing, wouldn't it? Here's Richard Stallman with such gems:

Stallman says it bugs him that VA Software-owned Web sites, like SourceForge and NewsForge, take money from Microsoft to run "smear campaign" ads on its sites. And he is not impressed when folks at places like Slashdot and NewsForge claim he is their hero.

"They dwell on how much they admire me or my principles, because they want said admiration to pass as a substitute for doing the right thing," Stallman says.

Would any Slashdotters and NewsForgers dare to live up to Stallman's ideals and bite the closed source hand that feeds them? Would any of these cyber Che Guevaras push their employer to "Do the right thing"?

Probably not. But no doubt they'll keep smack-talking about "openness" and "freedom"--and denouncing the "enemies" of the movement on VA Software Web sites.

Re:Stallman slams Slashdot; Slashdot silent (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13435171)

mod this up. i dont think anyone wants slashdot to turn into 1984

Ski Goggles (2, Insightful)

complex17 (783342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434940)

Just the other week I was nearly driven crazy by a layer of fog that had snuck in-between the two lenses of my ski goggles. It took several days of sitting them next to a heater before the problem was fixed. Presumably this couldn't happen with totally fog-free lenses.

Ice blinding (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435462)

Fogging ski goggles is a real safety issue. Your breath always manages to get up into them, especially if you are wearing a face mask.

When I was climbing Mt Rainier I had to wear goggles on the last half due to strong winds and I was practically blind from the iced up fog. No attempts to rewarm them in my jacket worked, it was a real pain. Same thing happens on winter climbs in the Presidentials in NH. I've even tried applied coatings like "cat crap" but they don't work.

A coating that works on plastic that can stop icing as well as fogging would be a major safety enhancement.

Frost? (1)

joschm0 (858723) | more than 8 years ago | (#13434995)

Since the silica coating will prevent water droplets from condensing on glass wouldn't that also prevent frost from freezing on a windshield? Of course that would require coating the outside of the windshield.

swimming goggles (1)

e**(i pi)-1 (462311) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435030)

I look forward for swimming glasses which do
not fog up. They usually do, evenso the packages
claim they have a coating which should prevent that. When swimming competitively, we had a low-tech solution: spit on the inside of the goggles would prevent fogging up.

It's not "nanotech" -- it's a chemical coating (2, Interesting)

DrHanser (845654) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435049)

I don't know why they're bandying the term "nanotechnology" around, because it's not. It's a silica coating that prevents fogging. In fact, the only reason this made it to slashdot is because the term "nanotechnology" was used in the title of the original press release [eurekalert.org] . You'd think the people at MIT and the ACS would know better.

the science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules.

This does not meet those criteria.

Re:It's not "nanotech" -- it's a chemical coating (1)

penguinoid (724646) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435204)

I bet that MIT does know better (they know where the funding is). As for your definition of nanotechnology, he science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules, this seems incorrect. After all, a very large diamond is still a single molecule, as is IIRC anything made of metal. Nanotechnology is about working with small things.

Re:It's not "nanotech" -- it's a chemical coating (1)

DrHanser (845654) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435265)

http://www.answers.com/nanotechnology [answers.com]

I just don't see why chemistry doesn't just stay chemistry. It's like we've got to give it a fancy name to make it appeal to the masses. Because, you know, if we don't, no one will give a damn.

If this article read "Chemical Coating Prevents Fogging," it never would have made it to slashdot. This is relatively boring inorganic chemistry given a zippier name. Smart marketing is what it is. Marketing for what, though, I'm not sure, since it's not like you can go buy the stuff at Autozone or whatever.

Re:It's not "nanotech" -- it's a chemical coating (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435427)

nanotechnology | noun the branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, esp. the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.
 
 
(from the dictionary on my desk )

However dictionaries do disagree on this ..and some give this
nanotechnology [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
an area of science which deals with developing and producing extremely small tools and machines by controlling the arrangement of individual atoms
dictionary.cambridge.org [slashdot.org]

Though i suppose these definitions are not that dissimilar

Much needed (1)

EiZei (848645) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435074)

I am pretty much ready to sell my soul to get a windshield with that treatment, trying to drive a volvo 745 with a crappy heater is downright dangerous when you can't see worth s*** and the roads are slippery.

Does Self-Cleaning glass not already do this? (1)

kieran (20691) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435097)

From the article: "The new coating prevents this process from occurring, primarily through its super-hydrophilic, or water-loving, nature [...]"

I recall this being one of the properties of nano-coated self-cleaning glass such as Pilkington Activ or PPG SunClean, so does that not already provide the same anti-fog advantages?

sh17! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13435149)

fl7 They looked posts. therefore

Too late! Quatro razors come with non-fog mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13435258)



Too late! Quatro razors already come with a non-fog mirror. Works, too.

Two Lower Tech Solutions (2, Interesting)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435274)

As any scuba diver will tell you, spit works wonderfully to prevent your dive goggles from fogging up.

And if you wish for a slightly higher tech solution, your local auto parts store sells a product called Fog-X which when applied to glass, prevents fogging.

Re:Two Lower Tech Solutions (1)

nutznboltz (473437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13435300)

But then you have to plan ahead to put something on your windshield.

This is sweet, it could save lives.
Load More 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...