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!

Reflectivity Reaches a New Low

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the engaging-cloaking-device dept.

Science 166

sporkme writes "A new nanocoating material developed by a team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has the lowest level of reflectivity ever seen ... or not seen in this case. The amount of light reflected by the composite of silica nanorods and aluminum nitride is almost the same amount reflected by air. From the article: 'Schubert and his coworkers have created a material with a refractive index of 1.05, which is extremely close to the refractive index of air and the lowest ever reported. Window glass, for comparison, has a refractive index of about 1.45. Using a technique called oblique angle deposition, the researchers deposited silica nanorods at an angle of precisely 45 degrees on top of a thin film of aluminum nitride, which is a semiconducting material used in advanced light-emitting diodes (LEDs). From the side, the films look much like the cross section of a piece of lawn turf with the blades slightly flattened.' Suggested applications include increased efficiency in solar cells, more energy-efficient lighting and advances in quantum mechanics."

cancel ×

166 comments

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

Hey check out my new low reflective phone! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212680)

oh crap where did it go?

Re:Hey check out my new low reflective phone! (4, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212972)

Ooooh! Shiny! Wait... awwwww...

Bah... (-1)

locokamil (850008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212690)

I figured this one out a long time ago. It involves a reinforced glass box (so that light can go through medium) and a vacuum pump. Refractive index: 1.0

And what everyone was really thinking... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212692)

Even more birds hitting windows!

Re:And what everyone was really thinking... (3, Funny)

ACS Solver (1068112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212762)

Speaking of windows. Vista has "glass" style Aero. Now Windows Vienna will have a new "nanocoating" style, even less reflective than Vista!

Re:And what everyone was really thinking... (2, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212900)

I don't know what the big deal is... Wonder Woman has had this stuff for years.

Re:And what everyone was really thinking... (4, Funny)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213216)

(Wonder woman is flying through the sky in a sitting position)

Superman: So, I see you're flying the invisible plane.

Wonder Woman: Oooh, um...er...this is...kinda embarrassing. You see...I'm actually, in the lavatory of the invisible plane.

Superman: Oh...so, you mean...right now, you're...

Wonder Woman: Yeah.

(Wonder Woman stands up and walks forwards, sitting down again and gripping the invisible steering wheel)

Superman: So...I noticed you didn't wash your hands in the invisible sink...

Re:And what everyone was really thinking... (4, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213780)

Give credit where credit's due man, that's taken from a Family Guy [youtube.com] episode.

Re:And what everyone was really thinking... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213176)

"Now Windows Vienna will have a new "nanocoating" style, even less reflective than Vista!"

That's nothing; my old pre-OS X Mac already has that feature.

Re:And what everyone was really thinking... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212842)

I think you mean:

  • Even more bugs hitting windows!

What I first thought (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212980)

Stealth coating. If I could coat my car with this stuff . . .

Who needs Fuzz Busters!

What I first thought also (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213010)

was stealth coating for fighter jets

Re:What I first thought (1)

Bad D.N.A. (753582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18214046)

I wonder how well this would work in zero G in a Vac?

I can see coating the surfaces of a spacecraft (thermal blankets, booms, dish, etc...) that are near the field of view of instruments sensitive to light (as many are). Glint poses a serious problem for many instruments and this could help mitigate the problem

I wonder how long it outgasses?

Actually, I was thinking... (3, Funny)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213838)

"My ex must have had a mirror made of this shit!"

Re Snipper can avoid being spotted! (1)

chrislusf (900701) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213876)

In Hollywood, snippers are often discovered by their gun-mounted scope front glass! This can save it.

Re:And what everyone was really thinking... (1)

ross.w (87751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213984)

At least they won't attack their reflection aand crap all over the balcony in the process.

That's not what I was thinking... (1)

greenguy (162630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18214140)

I saw the Einstein logo and read the headline as "Relativity reaches an newe low." I was very confused -- when did relativity become variable?

Nothing to see here... (5, Funny)

messerman (446251) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212710)

...move along.

Re:Nothing to see here... (2, Funny)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213534)

It must have taken a long time of reflecting to write that post ;)

Re:Nothing to see here... (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213660)

It's odd no one seems to have picked up on the posibility of invisibility (or near-invisibility as it were). When light doesn't get refected back, our eyes can't see things. Am I right? In the dark it would be nearly impossible to tell an item of this material is there, other than by context (ie, light reflects from surrounding items, but not the item in question...)

Re:Nothing to see here... (2, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213712)

"The sky reflects back blue, but there's this strangely dark spot moving against it... shoot it!" Just because it doesn't reflect light doesn't mean that it also doesn't block light. In the dark, it'd be very hard to see an object, but it would be the strange completely black spot against the backlight if you ever saw it silhouetted against a light source. It'd be awesome if they could use this as an anti-glare coating on binoculars or something, though.

Re:Nothing to see here... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213988)

I didn't see where they were talking about different kinds of light. A lot of time when they talk about reflectivity, they are also concerned with ifrared and other part of the light spectrum like radar waves and all.

And yes, I agree, not reflecting light is only part of the invisibility problem. The other part is getting light to pass through or around an object making it apear as if the object isn't there. However, In the case of search lights in the night sky or maybe infra red heat vision and maybe radar, The coating could make an object look theoreticly invisisble. But thats only because it isn't silhouetted.

There were rumors that passive radar recievers could be set up and watch the black hole being created by US stealth aircraft. They were basicly invisible to radar because they either didn't reflect it or absorbed the waves hitting it. I guess some AU scientist/government workers could monitor US spyplanes using this to a point of determing their course direction and making some educated guesses on their targets. I'm not sure if this could help like other black metals have in the past.

The material has a variable refractive index. (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212740)

They made several layers with increasing refractive indices, so the RI of the outermost coating is close to air while that of the innermost coating is close to the material it coats. What's cool about this is that it cuts reflexion across the EM spectrum, it doesn't just trade off reflectivity in one part of the spectrum for that in another, like previous anti-reflective coatings have done. Unfortunately, it isn't transparent so it won't work as a coating for glass.

Re:The material has a variable refractive index. (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212864)

But it will make a great coating for my stealth car... let's see the LIDAR catch me now!

Transparent Aluminum? (3, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212744)

Would this constitute "Transparent Aluminum?

typed on "Keyboard, how quaint"

Re:Transparent Aluminum? (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212906)

> Would this constitute "Transparent Aluminum?
>
>typed on "Keyboard, how quaint"

Naw, that ship was at least visible. How about something like that ship over there. I mean that... is really bad for the eyes... I mean you can hardly make out its shape... light just seems to fall into it!

And the UI... I mean, it's the wild color scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate on of these weird black controls that are labelled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up black to let you know you've done it. And then it crashes into the sun! What kind of UI is this, Windows Aero?

Re:Transparent Aluminum? (1)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213240)

I suppose you just expect I'll stay behind and operate the linux webserver. Typical.

Re:Transparent Aluminum? (1)

zcat_NZ (267672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213262)

That's what you get when you steal Disaster Area's stunt ship...

Re:Transparent Aluminum? (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213264)

No, this [chemistry.org] would.

Refractivity? Or Reflectivity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212746)

Huh?

Re:Refractivity? Or Reflectivity? (5, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213032)

Refraction and reflection are closely related. Light reflects when it strikes a discontinuity in index of refraction. If the IOR is made to vary smoothly, on the other hand, light will not reflect. And that's exactly what they seem to have done here.

Re:Refractivity? Or Reflectivity? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213180)

So, if I painted my car with the stuff, it would make it immune to lidar and maybe even radar speed guns?

Re:Refractivity? Or Reflectivity? (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213382)

actually, i think coating your car in this wouldn't do any good. it's not like your car will automatically go invisible, the material below this nanocoating will still reflect light, right back through the coating.

what you would need is something that has a HIGHER reflectivity index, and angle them all crazy-like, reflecting it all over the place before sending it back, so the laser ends up getting several mixed signals.

Re:Refractivity? Or Reflectivity? (5, Informative)

fizzup (788545) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213906)

There is reflection at a dielectric boundary. A dielectric is something that is not a metal, like glass. If you focus your eyes on a window, you can see a reflection of yourself because air and glass are dielectrics with different indices of refraction.

The amplitude of the reflected light wave for light that strikes perpendicular to the dielectric boundary is (n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2) - the "n's" are indices of refraction. For a boundary between air and this stuff, the reflection is (1.05 - 1.0) / (1.05 + 1.0) = (0.05/2.05) = 1/41. Compare with glass, with an index of 1.4: (1.4 - 1.0) / (1.4 + 1.0) = 0.4/2.4 = 1/6. (The difference in intensity is the square of this, though, which diminishes the difference.)

The equation for non-normal incident light is more complicated*, but even light that is a long way off normal incidence reflects by about the same amount. It's only when you start approaching 90 degrees off normal that a dielectric boundary starts reflecting lots of light. Try it with a large window pane: you have to get your head right up there and view something with a glancing reflection to see it clearly.

They're saying that they can coat a semiconductor, like an LED or a photovoltaic cell, with this stuff. Then about (1/6 - 1/41) more light either strikes the PV, or leaves the clear stuff that surrounds the LED.

This will not work as well as a magnesium fluoride coating for lenses, though. That kind of antireflective coating relies on destructive interference with the reflected light from the two dielectric boundaries, which is why they only work at a certain wavelength.

* Google "reflected light at a dielectric boundary" for the gory details.

Re:Refractivity? Or Reflectivity? (2, Interesting)

skelly33 (891182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18214126)

Perhaps you can clarify something that I haven't seen mentioned yet (?)

I believe that there are three things that can happen when radiation encounters an object:

a) Reflect
b) Absorb
c) Pass through

In the case of "solar power", it strikes me that there is another application aside from PhotoVoltaic that could benefit from lower reflectivity, and that is solar thermal. I would think that surfaces designed to absorb solar thermal energy, such as solar water heaters, or solar concentrating power systems, that reduced reflectivity would mean greater absorbtion of solar thermal energy, and thus improved overall solar thermal efficiency ...

Oh crap.... (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212750)

So where did I put that new "low reflectivity" bottle of vodka? I can't seem to find it.

Re:Oh crap.... (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212770)

Look for the column of vodka hanging in mid-air.

Re:Oh crap.... (1)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213062)

Look for the dark spot; not to be confused with the lack of memory after consumption.

Re:Oh crap.... (3, Funny)

zcat_NZ (267672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213360)

"absolut transparency" ?

Finally (2, Funny)

Real World Stuff (561780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212766)

A substance the matches the deep cold black hearts of the Vista activation process designers.

spiffy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212776)

good news: we have a material which reflects no light whatsoever- now if only we could remember where the damn thing is...

Re:spiffy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18213370)

Expect everything at Microsoft to be coated with it. This will prevent people from seeing a reflection of the chair that's being thrown at them.

For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212788)

How does reducing reflection increase the efficiency of LEDs? This stuff absorbs light. It seems to me like it would only be able to make things darker, not lighter. I'm willing to accept I just don't get it... but what is it that I don't get?

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (4, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213038)

I did not read either the summary or the fine article, from what I heard on NPR, this coating improves the signal to noise ratio of communications. Sort of like talking in an anechoic chamber versus a room with highly sound reflective walls with booming echos.

This is how I would explain it. All these reflections are really echos of light. And when a pulse of light is fired along the fiber, it gets reflected at many interfaces, travel backward, gets reflected again and travels forward etc. Thus the single transmitted pulse arrives as multiple pulses of varying strengths and varying time differences. When a series of pulses are fired, at somepoint the echos completely overwhelm the signal. The anechoic coating will help communication, stealth aircraft etc. It might find applications in improving solar cell efficiency. But might not make your light bulb any brighter.

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (1)

DemonThing (745994) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213110)

From what I understand this coating doesn't absorb light; it's a transparent material that simply reflects less, and therefore transmits more.

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18213112)

Think about this, almost all light sources are encased in something. Glass, plastic, etc. If you reduce reflection from the encasing material then you increase output. ie. more light passes through the surface instead of being reflected.

"Clear" glass is not 100% transparent, it reflects some amount of light (especially in the UV range). This stuff reflects much less than glass.

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (2, Insightful)

XenoRyet (824514) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213202)

I think the trick is that it's transparent, and non-reflective in the sense that nearly all the light goes through it unimpeded. As opposed to it being opaque, and non-reflective in the sense that all light gets absorbed.

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (1)

shawnce (146129) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213232)

Reducing reflection doesn't mean that the material absorbs more light... it just reflects less. Glass for example reflects some amount of the light (visible) that hits it while allow a majority of the rest pass thru it.

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213346)

Presumably they can use it to create a better package material. It is 'less dark' than anything else, so it lets more light out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED#Physical_function [wikipedia.org]

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (1)

K-Man (4117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213356)

The efficiency of an LED die is limited by how many photons actually get out of the material and into the open air (if they don't, they reflect internally and turn into heat). Many of the recent improvements in LED efficiency have come about through better light transmission, which requires a careful transition from the high-index-of-refraction die to low-index-of-refraction air.

Re:For Energy-Efficient LIGHTING? (1)

brianben (965786) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213842)

Light absorption is a reversible process... and materials that absorb light very well also emit light very well. In fact, to first order, the emissivity and the absorptivity (is that a word?) are exactly equal. That may seem counterintuitive but think of it this way: a material like carbon black, which has tons of surface area, is great at absorbing light and heat (infrared light). If you heat it up to red-hot, that same large surface area is emitting light like crazy (where crazy == efficient).

Thats great (0, Redundant)

bherman (531936) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212806)

Now can they work on getting their (RPI) name out beyond the East Coast?
My degree is worthless when no one here (Chicago) has ever heard of the school!


except hockey players.

Re:Thats great (1)

EinZweiDrei (955497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212936)

Don't forget radio aficianados. WRPI is one of the best college stations I've had the privilege of hearing.

Re:Thats great (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212976)

FWIW I know who RPI is and I'm in California.
-nB

Re:Thats great (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212990)

Don't look now, but I think that's what they're trying to do ;)

Matt Hitchens, Comp Sci, '02

Re:Thats great (1)

bloodyghol (761462) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213726)

Wow, at least Her Highness Shirley Ann Jackson is spending my tuition money on something. You never know, one day we might come up with something cool. Finding people that know about RPI is tough, but you will find clusters of engineers here and there that hail from the 'tute. However, it's becoming better recognized being a "new ivy" and all. Our undergrad applications doubled this past year. Woohoo. GO RED!

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212858)

I can do better with a can of black spray paint... not just low reflectivity, no reflectivity.

Brought to you by the captcha "tangibly".

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212960)

Even flat black spray paint has a reflectivity index above 1.0.

Ninjas (0, Redundant)

N. P. Coward (953833) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212862)

I, for one, welcome our new "ninjas coated in this stuff" overlords.

But only at night.

Re:Ninjas (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213080)

You welcome naked ninjas? I guess we're bringing back the old Irish fighting style.

Re:Ninjas (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213516)

Dude, ninja had this stuff long ago. That's why no one's seen them for hundreds of years.

stealth (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212876)

I wonder if they thought about doing this with radar instead of light- even sneakier stealth planes

Speedtrap evasion (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18214144)

Try painting your car with this stuff, drive past a cop shooting LIDAR, and see if you get pulled over.

FWIW, police officers are trained to aim the LIDAR at your front license plate for best results, as the retroreflective surface provides the best return. However, this can be tricky with a moving target Of course, anything that provides a sufficient reflection will usually work.

Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18212886)

If you leave one of these in direct sunlight, it gets really, really hot!

Oh my... (3, Funny)

keeboo (724305) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212888)

Reflectivity Reaches a New Low

Just when you started to think it couldn't get worse...

Good way to avoid speeding tickets (0, Redundant)

pyite69 (463042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212914)

How much would it cost to cover your car with this?

Link to abstract (3, Informative)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18212968)

Here's a link to the abstract [nature.com] . Don't think you can get the full article without some sort of subscription.

Anti-reflection coatings are nothing new. Their used all the time in optics. What's new about this acts as a broadband anti-reflection coating. If this can be transferred to commercial production it would have a huge impact on optical equipment.

Extremely useful (1, Redundant)

lordvalrole (886029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213002)

Probably extremely useful to military purposes. (ie. stealth sort of stuff)

Re:Extremely useful (1)

macron1 (971968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213146)

Yeah, or increased efficiency in solar cells, more energy-efficient lighting and advances in quantum mechanics

Re:Extremely useful (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213292)

Yeah, I'm sure it'll handle the current problems of camel jockeys shooting down helicopters no problem.

note to radar operators (2, Funny)

enos (627034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213846)

look for bomber-sized gaps in background radiation

Use for this stuff (3, Interesting)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213134)

I think they should coat television and computer monitor screens with this material. This will help to see the image being displayed, since there will not be any glare to obscure the image.

Re:Use for this stuff (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213388)

Whatever is under it would retain its own properties; a coating of this stuff would be 'less there' than any other coatings.

Strength at thickness? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213160)

How strong is this stuff at greater thicknesses? Could it be used for better windows (less breakable, more transparent)?

There are plenty of applications for high-strength high-transparency (which I'm assuming is a product of lower reflectivity) materials. Heck, if they're strong enough then depending on the cost there's a decent market for them just in the vehicle-window market (especially planes, jets, submarines, ships, etc).

Re:Strength at thickness? (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213902)

Greater thickness==less transparency, just like for window glass, or air for that matter. Another important factor is what part of the spectrum gets reflected. A good example is plexiglass, it does an outstanding job of filtering UV, which is great if that was what you wanted, but very bad if you were planning on using these things for say, solar cells.

ow strong is this stuff at greater thicknesses? Could it be used for better windows (less breakable, more transparent)?

Wavelengths & military applications (0, Redundant)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213172)

The technique allows the researchers to strongly reduce or even eliminate reflection at all wavelengths and incoming angles of light,
I'm amazed the article doesn't mention military applications. What do they use on stealth planes now?

Re:Wavelengths & military applications (1)

jordan314 (1052648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213286)

Well if you had a plane made out of this low-reflectivity substance, wouldn't you still see motors, wires, weapons, gas tanks, wheels, machinery, and pilots floating through the air?

Re:Wavelengths & military applications (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213932)

I'm amazed the article doesn't mention military applications. What do they use on stealth planes now?
They use a radar absorbing material, and a shape designed to refract radar mostly up and away from the ground.

this material would do bupkus for Stealth. Radar would pass through, bounce off whatever else they make the plane out of, and then bounce right back to the receiver.

I won't believe it... (1)

TheCoop1984 (704458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213238)

until I see it

At last... (1)

kbox (980541) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213314)

..An expensive alternative to painting something black.

Refraction matters to cinephiles! (1)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213354)

I use titanium dioxide enriched paint (white) as a topcoat on my projector screen.
I wonder if the basecoat were of this material and the topcoat tiny (20 micron?) glass beads, would it give good results?
I figure since the beads are round and the back of the display has no reflectivity, the light from the projector wouldn't bounce back and blind you like if you were to use a mirror because the back doesn't reflect...

Correct me if I am wrong... (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213380)

... isn't the illusion of water on the road a product of light reflecting off of the air?

Sorry, wrong: (4, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213612)

... isn't the illusion of water on the road a product of light reflecting off of the air?

No.

It's caused by the curvature of light refracted by the difference in refractive index between the hot air near the sun-heated surface and the cooler air above it. The light bends back up without "touching" the underlying surface.

You only get a little bend. This is why you need a very hot surface to get enough of a bend to be visible at all. It's also why you only get it at large distances, where the line of sight is nearly parallel to the ground.

It looks like water because you look at the ground and see a a region of like of the sky's color, shimmering due to convection current - generated patches of uneven refractive index in the air rather than surface ripples.

Re:Sorry, wrong: (4, Funny)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18214042)

...or, it's caused by actual water on the road.

scumbags (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213410)

"Reflectivity Reaches a New Low"

Those scumbags. Worse than the RIAA and MS combined!

announcement! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213442)

I hereby nominate this nanocoating material for 'employee of the month'! (everyone has to win at least once)

Re:announcement! (1)

SageMusings (463344) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213562)

"I hereby nominate this nanocoating material for 'employee of the month'! (everyone has to win at least once)"

Then why have I been skipped twice?

Precisely 45 degrees (0, Offtopic)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213468)

How is that different from 45 degrees ?

Re:Precisely 45 degrees (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213904)

it's Precise man PRECISE.

There are 10 types of people, those who don't have a life and put binary tricks in there sig, and 9 other enjoying the many suprises of life.

Great for a manager (1, Informative)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213502)

I am a manager at a large company. My employees always compliment me on how much they appreciate my open door policy. They can always walk in and ask me questions. Frankly, they're starting to annoy me! I can hardly get any work done.... I've only been able to play to level 2 of Tetris today and its a Friday!

What is the possibility of making a transparent door with this new material? My open door policy will still remain in effect. But my door will always remain closed. I think I will like my job again when I hear them whisper, "He used to be a great guy, but dealing with him now is like hitting a brick wall!".

Well.... (3, Funny)

kaizenfury7 (322351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213570)

Me at a night club in the corner sipping my Jolt with my penguin shirt has even lower reflectivity. No one even knows I'm there. And that's with a _clean_ shirt even.

Re:Well.... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213942)

Troll? WTF? Well, I appreciated your self deprecating humor/honesty.

Re:Well.... (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 7 years ago | (#18214058)

It was too much painful truth for the moderator.

My God, it's full of stars! (0, Offtopic)

Srdjant (650988) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213760)

We can use this to make machines that have proportions of 1 by 4 by 9.

Better use, anti-glare coating on TVs and monitors (0, Redundant)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213804)

And I bet a LOT of TV companies would be very willing to pay a great deal of money for this.

fun subject (2, Funny)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213976)

Reflectivity Reaches a New Low

Eh, until reflectivity wakes up in a dumpster with a dead hooker, not knowing how it got there or what happened the night before, I think it could get lower.

First thing they did (1)

gummyb34r (899393) | more than 7 years ago | (#18213996)

First thing they did (apart from searching for the sample for an hour or two) marked it with a wide
fatty red stripe.

It's like, how much more black could this be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18214096)

And the answer is none. None more black.

new products from thinkgeek (1)

garlicbready (846542) | more than 7 years ago | (#18214116)

I think we can come up with a few more interesting uses for this stuff

set up some invisible walls on the pavement, fun with the neighbours
(good one for the students)

want to start your own cult?
How about walking across a transparent platform in mid air or just above water made of this stuff
Jesus eat your heart out

Now you too can have an invisible aeroplane just like wonderwoman

How about donning a superman outfit, fit a platform to the roof of your car
and see how many accidents you can cause, when onlookers see a real life superhero flying down the street

worried about weapons of mass destruction appearing on the news?
new and improved (mostly) invisible nukes, watch out for that healthy green glow

want a flying / hovering car of the future, how about invisible wheels?
(watch out for those pot holes)

I wonder if 2 way mirrors would be less noticible from the mirror side, using this stuff
since you could probably increase the amount of reflective mirror material on one side while maintaing the same level of brightness from the other side
  because of the decreased reflectivity maybe
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>