2012 - A Year in Review

2012 has been a busy year here at P2i and with 2013 only a few weeks away, we take a look back at some of our more exciting highlights.

January:

The first month of 2012 saw us attend two very different tradeshows. For the second year in a row, we exhibited at International CES in Las Vegas which was also a milestone for P2i, as we announced that over 8 million consumer electronics devices had been protected from water damage with our nano-coating technology. You can find out more about how we got on at CES here.

In addition, we also attended ISPO in Munich, Germany to promote our ion-mask™ technology to lifestyle brands, where we were delighted to announce that the technology had been applied to over 3 million pairs of shoes.

February:

Did you know that more than half of all mobile phone users expect devices to be water-repellent? In research carried out by P2i, mobile phone users from the UK, France, Germany, Spain and the US also admitted to using their devices in the rain, shower and sauna. Read all about the findings here.

February also saw our return to Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona where we were also interviewed by The Fonecast. In preparation for MWC, we also produced a brand new video to explain how our coating is applied to electronic devices. You can watch this video below:

March:

At AudiologyNow2012! we were delighted to be crowned Best of Show for the second year running, an award that was made all the more special as P2i was the first company to win this award in consecutive years. You can see our award and booth here.

Ever wondered what the difference between waterproof and water repellent electronics is? In our post from the 21st March, we look at the differences in more detail.

April:

In April, we attended two tradeshows for the first time, World Filtration Congress in Graz, Austria and NEPCON in Shanghai, China ,as well as featuring on NewsWatch TV hosted by Scott Steinberg.

Finally, we were delighted to announce our partnership with leading headwear brand Kangol, who have applied ion-mask™ to a range of their iconic hats. You can watch our technology in action on Kangol hats below:

May:

Our busiest month so far!

With the London Olympics just around the corner, P2i teamed up with UK Sport to protect equipment and accessories in cycling and sailing, two of Britain's leading sports. We also attended CTIA Wireless in New Orleans, USA and started our series of blogs entitled: A Brief History of Nanotechnology, which charts the early beginnings of nanotechnology through to the present day (you can find the series by searching our blog).

Do you know what happens if you apply our coating to normally water absorbent items? Well in May we created The Repellent Files to find out. You can see all our experiments so far which include Mentos & Diet Coke, sponges and coffee granules on P2i.TV.

To top off an excellent month, we were crowned Most Innovative Company of the Year 2012 by the Best in Biz Awards 2012 EMEA.

July:

While June went by a little more quietly, July was certainly a month to shout about, winning not one but two industry awards! At OutDoor 2012 in Friedrichshafen, Germany our collaboration with Trekmates was recognized as the DRY Mountain Lite Mitt featuring ion-mask™ was awarded the Industry Award in the Accessories category.

And at the same time, the Global Business Excellence (GBE) Awards were being held in London where we were acknowledged by winning the Outstanding New Product/Service award.

August/September:

Both August and September continued where July left off with more awards coming our way. In August, we were again awarded the title of Most Innovative Company in Europe by the International Business Awards (Stevies) and in September we were listed in the Sunday Times Tech Track 100 list. The list highlights the top-performing private companies and we came 27th!

October:

How waterproof are consumer electronics? That was the main topic of our blog in October. We also announced our exclusive partnership with Plantronics to protect cutting-edge Bluetooth devices, including the Voyager Legend headset.

November:

Did you catch Richard Hammond's Miracles of Nature on BBC One? If you did, you will have seen that we were featured! In the first episode entitled 'Super Bodies', Richard Hammond explored how nature has inspired human technological developments and how the wings of the Morpho butterfly produce the same water-repellent effect as our technology. The series will be on DVD from next year but images and more information from the show can be seen here.

November also saw the official launch of our partnership with Alcatel Mobile (TCL), where our coating has been applied to Alcatel's flagship model, the ONE TOUCH 997 Ultra. Watch the video below:

Last but not least, it was time to answer another frequently asked question: How small is our coating?

December:

There are exciting projects in the pipeline but you will have to wait to find out what. We also have a host of activity planned for 2013, so watch this space...

If you would like to know more about our technology, visit www.p2i.com or alternatively you can ask us a question in the comment box below.

How small is small?

If you have visited p2i.com, seen our collateral or even watched our videos then you will be aware that we refer to our technology as 1,000 times thinner than a human hair. Which is pretty small, but exactly how small is small?

In this post we will look at how small nanometres really are, as well as posting some interesting facts.

What is small?

The word nano originates from the Greek word for dwarf, but today, the term nano more commonly refers to anything that is 'incrediblly small' or to be precise - one billionth (10^-9) times smaller than a metre.

To put this into perspective the smallest object visible to the naked human eye is a single strand of human hair, anything smaller than that and we need the help of microscopes to see them. And even more sophisticated and expensive microscopes are required before building blocks such as hydrogen atoms become visible. In fact, you would need to line up 10 hydrogen atoms in a row just to equal one nanometre!

Powers of Ten:

To measure size, either large or small, the calculations required to do so are done in powers of ten, as you can see below:

To get our heads around this subject in a more understandable way, in 1997 a video was produced which takes the viewer on a journey of magintudes. Called Powers of Ten, the video is still very influential today. Every 10 seconds the viewing point starts from ten times further away, eventually reaching the edge of the known galaxy. At this point we then return to Earth at the same speed, ending inside one of the smallest objects visible; a carbon atom. It is a great representation of scale in comparasion to our own size as human beings and you can watch it below:

More recently, a modern version of this video has been produced narrated by Morgan Freeman which you can see here:

Some interesting facts:

We have all heard of red blood cells and DNA, but have you ever wondered how small they actually are? Below are some of these objects and their relative size:

• Grain of Rice =  1 Millimeter
• Red Blood Cell =  5-7 Microns in length (5000 Red blood cells would fit into 1 inch)
• DNA = 1 Micron
• Common Cold Virus = 0.0001 Micron or 75-100nm wide

Did you know that the average human finger nail grows at around 1 nanometer(nm) per second? And if your were able to strech a meter a distance of 1690 miles (roughly the same distance as Melbourne to Perth in Australia), a nanometre would only be the size of a parecetol or asprin tablet.

So as you can see, when we talk about the nanoscale, we are working in incredibly small dimensions.

P2i's nano-coating technology:

It is amazing to know that so much activity is going on, on scales of size that are sometimes hard to comprehend.

Our coating, which is measured in nanometers is molecularly bonded to products surfaces inside and out, offering superior liquid repellency. As mentioned earlier, the coating is 1000 times thinner than a human hair and invisible to the naked eye, in fact it is so small that it does not change the look or feel of the surface it is applied to.

You can find out more about our technology here as well as seeing how it is applied in the following video:

As always, if you have any questions about nanotechnology or our coating, just ask.

Nano Nightmares

Nanotechnology, like genetically modified food or nuclear power, often produces a knee-jerk reaction. It’s somehow ‘not natural’ and so is considered scary and dangerous. This is primarily a reaction to words, the same way that it easy for advertisers to push emotional buttons with ‘natural’ as good and ‘artificial’ as bad.

This is a silly distinction. There is a lot in nature that is very dangerous indeed – and much that is artificial protects us from that. If you doubt this, try removing everything artificial when you are flying in a plane over shark infested waters. For that matter, many of the most virulent poisons like ricin and botulinus toxin are natural. Water crammed with bacteria and faecal matter is natural. Clean, safe drinking water from a tap is artificial. Yet we can’t help reacting like puppets when the advertisers use those magic words.

Some concerns about nanotechnology are down to what is at best futurology and at worst science fiction. Prince Charles infamously caused headlines back in 2003, when newspapers reported ‘The prince has raised the spectre of the “grey goo” catastrophe in which sub-microscopic machines designed to share intelligence and replicate themselves take over and devour the planet.’

Charles later denied ever meaning this, commenting that he never used the expression ‘grey goo’ and saying ‘I do not believe that self-replicating robots, smaller than viruses, will one day multiply uncontrollably and devour our planet. Such beliefs should be left where they belong, in the realms of science fiction.’ But he certainly did express concerns that not enough was being done to assess and manage any risk associated with the use of nanotechnology.

Unlike the grey goo headlines, this is a perfectly reasonable attitude. The very nature of nanotechnology implies using substances in physical formats that our bodies might not have encountered, and hence we can’t make assumptions without appropriate testing and risk assessment.

If we are to be sensible about this, we need to first avoid a blanket response to nanotechnology. You would be hard pressed to find a reason for being worried about the impact of nanometer thin coatings, such as that used by P2i (sponsors of the Nature’s Nanotech series) There is a big difference between manipulating coatings at the nanoscale and manufacturing products with nanoparticles and small nanotubes.

We know that breathing in nanoparticles, like those found in soot in the air, can increase risk of lung disease, and there is no reason to think that manufactured nanoparticles would be any less dangerous than the natural versions. When some while ago the Soil Association banned artificial nanoparticles from products they endorsed, I asked them why only artificial particles. Their spokesperson said that natural ones are fine because ‘life evolved with these.’

This, unfortunately, is rubbish. You might as well argue it is okay to put natural salmonella into food because ‘life evolved with it.’ Life also evolved with cliffs, but it doesn’t make falling off them any less dangerous. There is no magic distinction between a natural and an artificial substance when it comes to chemical makeup, and in practice if there is risk from nanoparticles it is likely to be from the physics of their very small size, rather than anything about their chemistry.

There are three primary concerns about nanoparticles – what will happen if we breathe them, eat them and put them on our skin. The breathing aspect is probably the best understand and is already strongly legislated on in the UK – we know that particulates in the air can cause a range of diseases and have to be avoided. There is really no difference here between the need to control nanoparticles and any other particles and fibres we might breathe. Whenever a process throws particulates into the air it ought to be controlled. (And this applies to the ‘natural’ smoke from wood fires, say, which is high in dangerous particulates, as well as any industrial process.)

When it comes to food, we have good coverage from The House of Lords Science and Technology committee in a 2010 report. They point out that nanotechnologies have a range of possible applications in food that could benefit both consumers and industry. ‘These include creating foods with unaltered taste but lower fat, salt or sugar levels, or improved packaging that keeps food fresher for longer or tells consumers if the food inside is spoiled.’

The committee’s report sensibly argued ‘Our current understanding of how [nanoparticles] behave in the human body is not yet advanced enough to predict with any certainty what kind of impact specific nanomaterials may have on human health. Persistent nanomaterials are of particular concern, since they do not break down in the stomach and may have the potential to leave the gut, travel throughout the body, and accumulate in cells with long-term effects that cannot yet be determined.’

Their recommendation was not to abandon these technologies, but rather that it was essential to perform appropriate research, preferably across the EU, to check the impact of such nanomaterials when consumed, and to ensure that all such materials that interact differently with the body from ordinary foodstuffs are assessed for risk before they are allowed onto the market. This seems eminently sensible.

The final area, applying nanoparticles to the skin, is perhaps most urgent, because most of apply them on a regular basis. Most sun defence products, and a number of cosmetics contain them. It is hard to find a good reason to allow for any risk in a pure cosmetic, and arguably they should be prevented from containing nanoparticles. But the story is more nuanced with sun creams.

Most sunscreens contain particles of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide. These invisible particles, ranging from nanoscale to significantly larger, provide most of the sunscreen’s protection against dangerous ultraviolet. What has to be weighed up is the benefits of using products to prevent a cancer that kills over 65,000 people a year worldwide – and would kill many more if sunscreens weren’t used – against a risk that has not been associated with any known deaths.

The potential for these nanoparticles to cause harm depends on them penetrating through the outer layers of the skin to reach cells where they could cause damage. In theory a nanoparticle is capable of doing this. But the current evidence is that the particles remain on the surface of the skin and do not reach viable skin cells. Skin cancer is a particular risk in Australia, so this is a topic that has been studied in depth there. As Cancer Council Australia concludes: ‘there is no credible evidence that sunscreens containing nanoparticles pose a health risk. There is plenty of evidence however, proving that sunscreen can help reduce the risk of skin cancer, in particular non-melanoma skin cancer.’

Overall, then, we should not be lax about nanoparticles and their effect on our bodies. We need careful testing and where necessary regulation. But equally we should not be swayed into knee-jerk reactions by emotional words carrying little meaning.

Written by Brian Clegg - Popular Science

How waterproof are consumer electronics?

If you are a keen follower of consumer technology, then you will be aware that there has been a steady emergence over the past year of smartphones and tablets offered complete with 'waterproof' protection. But just how waterproof are these electronics?

Gadgets form an essential part of our everyday lives and there are few places left where our smartphones and tablets do not accompany us. More and more people are taking their electronics into potentially hazardous locations, for example the bathroom or even worse, saunas!

What you may not realize is that even if the device is left in a 'safe' spot, these environments still pose a risk. Water takes many forms such as vapour, mist and steam, all of which can penetrate inside devices. If there is no barrier against ingress, then the vapour or steam can reach internal components, resulting in corrosion and phone malfunctions.

This principle is more commonly understood when dealing with water in its normal form, liquid. Should a device fall into, or be splashed with liquid, without a protective barrier in place, the liquid can penetrate deep inside the device, resulting in electrochemical migration. We have discussed electrochemical migration in a previous post but here is a recap:

• Electrochemical migration is the movement of metal ions between conductors which results in devices short circuiting and failing.

Our everyday lives have resulted in a greater need for electronics that can withstand the effects of liquids in all their forms. This in turn has seen the latest smartphones and tablets being offered with a repellent or waterproof protection.

What makes electronics waterproof?

For an electronic device to be considered waterproof, it has to be either completely sealed and ruggedized (making them bulky), or alternatively it must have barriers in place that stop water from penetrating through. It is this second option that is proving more popular now, as it allows devices to offer protection from water without the need for external casings. In this approach, manufacturers use seals known as gaskets or O-rings to act as barriers, stopping liquids from penetrating inside the device and damaging the internal components.

So are they really waterproof?

This is an interesting question as devices can claim to be waterproof if they have barriers in place to keep water out, but what about the internal components themselves? Are they also protected should liquid manage to get inside?

The answer in the majority of cases is unfortunately NO. Sealing devices off does stop water from getting in but if the barrier is compromised, for example by a device being dropped, then the case, gaskets or O-rings protecting it can become damaged and break. This could allow water to seep  towards the circuit board and internal components, resulting in device failure and loss of data.

It just takes one break in the seal for water to get inside and if this does occur, it may not be noticed as seals are hidden away on the inside. So while we think our device is waterproof, a break in the seal will not become apparent until the phone is malfunctioning and by then it could be too late.

The importance of protecting the internal components

Knowing that waterproof devices are only as good as the seals and barriers that protect them, it is important that protection is also offered to the internal components as well. And this is where liquid repellent nano-coating technology comes in.

A liquid repellent nano-coating differs from a waterproof solution in that it is not a physical barrier, meaning that liquid can still penetrate inside the device. This, however, is not the end of the device's life. The nano-coating, which is applied in vapour form, molecularly bonds to both the inside and outside of the entire device, ensuring that each and every exposed surface is treated. What this means is that, although water can get inside the device, any liquid that does come into contact with components will simply move away from the surface, rather than sticking to it, resulting in reduced corrosion, electrochemical migration and failure.

While a nano-coating is not waterproof (it is not a physical barrier), it does protect from splashes and spills as well as less obvious 'wet' environments such as saunas, bathrooms and high humidity climates.

A waterproof device has many benefits for day to day life but if the barrier fails, the device becomes vulnerable. By applying a liquid repellent nano-coating to the internal components, protection is offered to the most valuable parts of electronic devices, where all our data, numbers and images are stored. Nano-coatings are not a waterproof solution but do offer protection against everyday scenarios and environments, we and our devices find ourselves exposed to.

If you would like to know more about our liquid repellent nano-coating do let us know in the comments below. You can also see how our repellent nano-coating is applied to electronics in the video below:

The Importance of Being Wet - Nature's Nanotech (4)

Image from Wikipedia

The image that almost always springs to mind when nanotechnology is mention is Drexler’s tiny army of assemblers and the threat of being overwhelmed by grey goo. But what many forget is that there is a fundamental problem in physics facing anyone building invisibly small robots (nanobots) – something that was spotted by the man who first came up with the concept of working on the nanoscale.

That man was Richard Feynman. His name may not be as well known outside physics circles as, say, Stephen Hawking, but ask a physicist to add a third to a triumvirate of heroes with Newton and Einstein and most would immediately choose Feynman. It didn’t hurt that Richard Feynman was a bongo-playing charmer whose lectures delighted even those who couldn’t understand the science, helped by an unexpected Bronx accent – imagine Tony Curtis lecturing on quantum theory.

Feynman became best known to the media for his dramatic contribution to the Challenger inquiry, when in front of the cameras he plunged an O-ring into iced water to show how it lost its elasticity. But on an evening in December 1959 he gave a lecture that laid the foundation for all future ideas of nanobots. His talk at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society was titled There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom, and his subject was manipulating and controlling things on a small scale.

Feynman pointed out that people were amazed by a device that could write the Lord’s Prayer on the head of a pin. But ‘Why cannot we write the entire 24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a pin?’ As he pointed out, the dots that make up a printed image, if reduced to a scale that took the area of paper in the encyclopedia down to pinhead size, would still contain 1,000 atoms each – plenty of material to make a pixel. And it could be read with technology they had already.

Feynman went on to describe how it would be possible to write at this scale, but also took in the idea that the monster computers of his day would have to become smaller and smaller to cram in the extra circuits required for sophisticated computation. Then he described how engineering could be undertaken on the nanoscale, and to do so, he let his imagination run a little wild.

What Feynman envisaged was making use of the servo ‘hands’ found in nuclear plants to act remotely, but instead of making the hands the same size as the original human hands, building them on a quarter scale. He would also construct quarter size lathes to produce scaled down parts for new devices. These quarter scale tools would be used to produce sixteenth scale hands and lathes, which themselves would produce sixty-fourth scale items… and so on, until reaching the nanoscale.

The second component of Feynman’s vision was a corresponding multiplication of quantity, as you would need billions of nanobots to do anything practical. So he would not make one set of quarter scale hands, but ten. Each of those would produce 10 sixteenth scale devices, so there would be 100 of them – and so on. Feynman points out there would not be a problem of space or materials, because one billion 1/4000 scale lathes would only take up two percent of the space and materials of a conventional lathe.

When he discussed running nanoscale machines, Feynman even considered the effect on lubrication. The mechanical devices we are familiar with need oil to prevent them ceasing up. As he pointed out, the effective viscosity of oil gets higher and higher in proportion as you go down in scale. It stops being a lubricant and starts being like attempting to operate in a bowl of tar. But, he argues, you may well not need lubricants, as the bearings won’t run hot because the heat would escape very rapidly from such a small device.

So far, so good, but what is the problem Feynman mentions? He points out that ‘As we go down in size there are a number of interesting problems that arise. All things do not simply scale down in proportion.’ Specifically, as things get smaller they begin to stick together. If you unscrewed a nanonut from a nanobolt it wouldn’t fall off – the Van der Waals force we met on the gecko’s foot is stronger than the force of gravity on this scale. Small things stick together in a big way.

Feynman is aware there would be problems. ‘It would be like those old movies of a man with his hands full of molasses, trying to get rid of a glass of water.’ But he does effectively dismiss the problems. In reality, the nano-engineer doesn’t just have Van der Waals forces to deal with. Mechanical engineering generally involves flat surfaces briefly coming together to transfer force from one to the other, as when the teeth of a pair of gears mesh. But down at the nanoscale a new, almost magical, force springs into life – the Casimir effect.

If two plates get very close, they are attracted towards each other. This has nothing to do with electromagnetism, like the Van der Waals force, but is the result of a weird aspect of quantum theory. All the time, throughout all of space, quantum particles briefly spring into existence, then annihilate each other. An apparently empty vacuum is, in fact, a seething mass of particles that exist for such a short space of time that we don’t notice them.

However, one circumstance when these particles do come to the fore is when there are two sheets of material very close to each other. If the space separating the sheets is close enough, far fewer of these ‘virtual’ particles can appear between them than outside them. The result is a real pressure that pushes the plates together. Tiny parallel surfaces slam together under this pressure.

The result of these effects is that even though toy nanoscale gears have been constructed from atoms, a real nanotechnology machine – a nanobot – would simply not work using conventional engineering. Instead the makers of nanobots need to look to nature. Because the natural world has plenty of nanoscale machines, moving around, interacting and working. What’s the big difference? Biological machines are wet and soft.

By this I don’t mean they use water as a lubricant rather than oil, but rather they are not usually a device made up of a series of interlocking mechanical components like our machines but rather use a totally different approach to mechanisms and interaction that results in a ‘wet’, soft environment lacking flat surfaces and the opportunities for small scale stickiness to get in the way of their workings.

If we are to build nanomachines, our engineers need to think in a totally different way. We need to dismiss Feynman’s picture of miniature lathes, nuts, bolts and gears. Instead our model has to be the natural world and the mechanisms that evolution has generated to make our, admittedly inefficient, but still functioning nanoscale technology work and thrive. The challenge is huge – but so is the potential.

In the next article in this series we will look at the lessons we can learn from a specific example of nature’s ability to manufacture technology on the nanoscale – the remarkable virus.

Hanging with the Gecko - Nature's Nanotech (3)

Image from Wikipedia

If you’ve ever seen gecko walking up a wall, it’s an uncanny experience. Okay, it’s not a 40 kilo golden retriever, but we are still talking about an animal weighing around 70 grams that can suspend itself from a smooth wall as if it were a fly. For a gecko, even a surface like glass presents no problems. This is nature’s Spiderman.

It might be reasonable to assume that the gecko’s gravity defying feats were down to sucker cups on its feet, a bit like a lizard version of a squid, but the reality is much more interesting. Take a look at a gecko’s toes and you’ll see a series of horizontal pads called setae. Seen close up they look like collections of hairs, but in fact they are the confusingly named ‘processes’ – very thin extensions of the tissue of toe which branch out into vast numbers of nanometer scale bristles.

These tiny projections add up to a huge surface area that is in contact with the wall or other surface the gecko decides to encounter. And that’s the secret of their glue-free adhesion. Because the gecko’s setae are ideally structured to make the most of the van der Waals force. This is a quantum effect resulting from interaction between molecules in the gecko’s foot and the surface.

We are used to atoms being attracted to each other by the electromagnetic force between different charged particles. So, for example, water molecules are attracted to each other by the hydrogen bonding we saw producing spherical water droplets in the previous feature. The relative positive charge on one of the hydrogen atoms is attracted to the relative negative charge on an oxygen. But the van der Waals force is a result of additional attraction after the usual forces that bond atoms together in molecules and hydrogen bonding have been accounted for.

Because of the strange quantum motion of electrons around the outside of an atom, the charge at any point undergoes small fluctuations – van der Waals forces arise when these fluctuations pair up with opposite fluctuations in a nearby atom. The result is a tiny attraction between each of the nanoscale protrusions on the foot and the nearby surface, which add up over the whole of the foot to provide enough force to keep the gecko in place.

Remarkably, if every single protrusion on a typical gecko’s foot was simultaneously in contact with a surface it could keep a heavy human in place – up to around 133 kg. In fact the biggest problem a gecko has is not staying on a surface, but getting its foot off. To make this possible its toes are jointed unusually and it seems to secrete a lubricating fluid that makes it easier to detach its otherwise dry but sticky pads.

Not surprisingly, there is a lot of interest in making use of gecko-style technology. After all, master this approach and you have a form of adhesion that is extremely powerful, yet doesn’t deteriorate with repeated attaching and detaching like a conventional adhesive. A number of universities have been researching the subject.

The first publication seems to have been from the University of Akron in Ohio, where a paper in 2007 described a gecko technology sticky tape with four times the sticking power of a gecko’s foot, meaning fully deployed gecko-sized pads could hold up around half a tonne. With these on its feet, a 40 kilogram golden retriever would have no problem walking up walls – the only difficulty would be managing to apply enough force to detach its paws as it walked. In the tape, the gecko’s setae are replaced by nanotubes of carbon fibre which are attached to a sheet of flexible polymer, acting as the tape.

The great thing about carbon nanotubes, which are effectively long, thin, flexible carbon crystals, is that they can be significantly narrower than the smallest protrusions from a gecko’s foot. A typical nanotube has a diameter of a single nanometer – pure nanotechnology – maximising the opportunity for van der Waals attraction. Within a year, other researchers at the University of Dayton (Ohio again!) were announcing a glue with ten times the sticking power of the gecko’s foot.

Such adhesives are available commercially on a small scale, offering the ability to stick under extreme temperature conditions and to surfaces that are wet or flexible that would defeat practically any conventional adhesive. We can expect to see a lot more gecko tapes (like the Geckskin product) and gecko glues in the future.

There have been other theories to explain the mechanism of the gecko’s foot, including a form of capillary attraction, but the best evidence at the moment is in favour of van der Waals forces. This seems to be borne out by the problem geckos have sticking to Teflon – PTFE has very low van der Waals attractiveness. To find out more about the gecko’s foot (and other technological inspirations from nature) I would recommend the aptly titled The Gecko’s Foot by Peter Forbes.

The action that keeps a gecko in place is a dry application of natural nanotechnology, but the more you look at the nanotech biological world, the more you realize it’s mostly a wet world. In the next feature in this series we’ll look at why conventional ‘dry’ engineering often won’t work on nanoscales and how we need to take a different look at the way we build our technology, bringing liquids into the mix.

 

----

 

You can also read this post on the Popular Science website.

An Introduction to Nature's Nanotech

Did you know that aspects of nature are built on nanotechnology? Brain Clegg, popular science author has written a series of posts (seven in total) exploring the nanotechnology that exists in nature. The series which is sponsored by P2i begins with an introduction which you can read below.

When we think of nanotechnology, it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that we are dealing with the ultimate in artificial manufacturing, the diametric opposite of something that’s natural. Yet in practice, nature is built on nanotechnology. From the day-to-day workings of the components of every single biological cell to the subtle optics of a peacock feather, what we see is nanotechnology at work.
 Not only are the very building blocks of nature nanoscale, but natural nanotechnology is a magnificent inspiration for ways to make use of the microscopic to change our lives and environment for the better. By studying how very small things work in the natural world we can invent remarkable new products – and this feature is the first in a series that will explore just how much we can learn and gain from nature’s nano tech.

As I described in The Nanotechnology Myth the term ‘nanotechnology’ originates from the prefix nano- which is simply a billionth. Nanotechnology makes use of objects on the scale of a few nanometres, where a nanometre is a millionth of a millimetre. For comparison, a human hair is around 50,000 nanometres across. Nanotechnology encompasses objects that vary in size from a large molecule to a virus. A bacterium, typically around 1,000 nanometres in size, is around the upper limit of nanoscale items.

A first essential is to understand that although nanotechnology, like chemistry, is involved in the interaction of very small components of matter, it is entirely different from a chemical reaction. Chemistry is about the way those components join together and break apart. Nanotechnology is primarily about their physics – how the components interact. If we think of the analogy of making a bicycle, the ‘chemistry’ of the bicycle is how the individual components bolt together, the ‘nanotechnology’ is how, for example, the gear interacts with the chain or pushing the pedals makes the bike go.

This distinction is necessary to get over the concern some people raise about nature and nanotechnology. A while ago, when I wrote my book on environmental truth and lies, Ecologic, I had a strange argument with a representative of the Soil Association, the UK’s primary organic body. In 2008 the Soil Association banned nanoparticles from their products. But it only banned man-made nanoparticles, claiming that natural ones, like soot, are fine ‘because life has evolved with these.’

This is a total misunderstanding of the science. If there are any issues with nanotechnology they are about the physics, not the chemistry of the substance – and there is no sensible physical distinction between a natural nanoparticle and an artificial one. In the case of the Soil Association, the reasoning was revealed when they admitted that they take ‘a principles-based regulatory approach, rather than a case-by-case approach based on scientific information.’ In other words their opposition was a knee-jerk one to words like ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ rather than based on substance.

Of themselves, like anything else, nanoparticles and nanotechnology in general can be used for bad or for good. Whether natural or artificial they have benefits and disadvantages. A virus, for example, is a purely natural nanotechnology that can be devastatingly destructive to living things. And as we will see, there are plenty of artificial nanotechnologies that bring huge benefits.

In nature, nanotechnology is constructed from large molecules. A molecule is nothing more than a collection of atoms, bonded together to form a structure, which can be as simple as a sodium chloride molecule – one atom each of the elements sodium and chlorine – or as complex as the dual helix of DNA. We don’t always appreciate how significant individual molecules are.

I had a good example of this a few days ago when I helped judge a competition run by the University of the West of England for school teams producing science videos. The topic they were given was the human genome – and the result was a set of very varied videos, some showing a surprising amount of talent. At the awards event I was giving a quick talk to the participants, looking at the essentials of a good science video. I pointed out that they had used a lot of jargon without explaining it – a common enough fault even in mainstream TV science.

Just to highlight this, I picked out a term most of them had used, but none had explained – chromosomes. What, I asked them was a chromosome? They told me what it did, but didn’t know what it was, except that it was a chunk of DNA and each human had 46 of them in most of their cells. This is true, but misses the big point. A chromosome is simply a single molecule of DNA. Nothing more, nothing less. One molecule.

Admittedly a chromosome is a very large molecule. Human chromosome 1 is the biggest molecule we know of, with around 10 billion atoms. Makes salt look a bit feeble. But it is still a molecule. The basic components of the biological mechanisms of everything living, up to an including human beings are molecules. Chromosomes provide one example, effectively information storage molecules with genes as chunks of information strung along a strip of DNA. Then there are proteins, the workhorses of the body. There are neurotransmitters and enzymes, and a whole host of molecules that are the equivalent of gears to the body’s magnificent clockwork. These are the building blocks of natural nanotechnology.

So with a picture of what we’re dealing with we can set out to see nature’s nanotech in action and the first example, in the next feature in this series, will show how nanotechnology on the surface of a leaf has inspired both self-cleaning glass and water resistant trainers.

----

You can also read this article on the Popular Science website.

A Brief History of Nanotechnology: Part 5 - A Glimpse at the Future

Over the last few weeks, we've touched on the history of nanotechnology, tracing its roots as far back as the ancient world, examining its emergence as a field of study in the second half of the 20th century and outlining a number of more recent advances. In this, the final instalment of the series, we look at how nanotechnology might develop even further in the not too distant future.

In 2006 a Scientific American article estimated that between 1997 and 2005, "investment in nanotech research and development by governments around the world soared from $432 million to about $4.1 billion and that by 2015, products incorporating nanotech will contribute approximately $1 trillion to the global economy". This increase of investment in and around nanotechnology could have far-reaching effects, impacting everything from how we manufacture products to how we fight diseases, such as cancer. 

One speculative area of nanotechnology that could be very exciting for instance, is molecular manufacturing, which when put simplistically is "the ability to bring materials to life from the simple molecular reconstruction of everyday beings" an idea that Richard Feynman first described in 1959.  And in 1999, claims went even further, stating that molecular nanotechnology "will let us make remarkably powerful molecular computers. It will let us make materials over fifty times lighter than steel or aluminium alloy but with the same strength. We'll be able to make jets, rockets, cars or even chairs that, by today's standards, would be remarkably light, strong, and inexpensive. Nanotechnology will replace our entire manufacturing base with a new, radically more precise, less expensive and more flexible way of making products."

There are also many potential uses for nanotechnology in medicine as well. A preliminary study has indicated that nanoparticles could be used to target and treat cancer in the future by homing in on certain proteins and delivering medication. Meanwhile, researchers have developed artificial muscles that could help propel nanobots through a person's body in order to diagnose and treat medical conditions. These "doctor bots" as they have been dubbed might sound like the stuff of a mad scientist's dreams, but they're a real possibility.

Of course, these statements about the future of nanotechnology as a field are just speculative at the moment and difficult to predict, as are the scientific and societal implications of such developments. But one thing is clear, at least: nanotechnology is a very powerful science, with huge capacity to influence or change many different aspects of our lives.

And with that, our brief look at the history and developments of nanotechnology has come to an end. If you have any questions regarding nanotechnology and nano-coatings in general or are interested to know more about our own technology, just ask. You can find out more about how our nanotechnology is applied to different markets here: http://www.p2i.com/applications

A Brief History of Nanotechnology: Part 4 - The Early 2000s to the Present Day

Our last post explored the emergence of the field of nanotechnology as we know it in the 1980s and 1990s, including seminal developments by scientists such as Eric Drexler, Richard Smalley, and others.

Now we turn our attention towards the early 2000s, which proved to be an exciting time for nanotechnology. The field could now be explored and debated in greater depth. Drexler and Smalley, for instance, famously engaged in a public discussion about approaches to nanotechnology, with Drexler defending his idea of "universal assemblers" and Smalley offering objections.

Meanwhile, concerns about the broader implications of nanotechnology - a potentially very powerful but still relatively new field - were being raised and addressed with consideration given to both the potential benefits as well as risks involved. In 2003 congressional hearings on the societal implications of nanotechnology were raised and in 2004 the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering published a report on the implications of nanotechnology and nanoscience, which you can read here.

Nanotechnology also began to appear more in more commercial settings during the 2000s, including the emergance of our technology and the launch of ion-mask™ on Hi-Tec shoes:

In the early part of the decade, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles were included in sunscreen and cosmetics, and carbon nanotubes were used to make textiles stain-resistant. By 2011 the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies estimated that there were over 1300 nanotech products publicly available.

In our next and final post of the series, we'll take a closer look at what the future might hold for nanotechnology. If would like to read some of our early posts in this series you can through the links below:

• Part 3: The 80s & 90s
• Part 2: Early Developments
• Part 1: Roots

You can also find out more about our ion-mask™ technology here and as always if you have any questions we would love to hear them.

A Brief History of Nanotechnology: Part 3 - The 80s & 90s

In our last post we looked at some very early developments in nanotechnology, including the possible impact that Richard Feynman's 1959 lecture "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" may have had on later advances in the field. It was certainly an influence on Eric Drexler, "the undisputed godfather of nanotechnology", who encountered Feynman's talk in 1979.

The 1980s saw the real emergence of nanotechnology as a field of study. The publication of Drexler's seminal book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology in 1986 marked an important milestone for the field. In the book, Drexler (unknowingly) appropriated and popularised the term "nanotechnology" itself, which had been initially defined in a slightly different context in 1974 by Tokyo Science University Professor Norio Taniguchi as "the processing of, separation, consolidation, and deformation of materials by one atom or by one molecule". In Engines of Creation, Drexler presented his idea of molecular manufacturing and the "molecular assembler": a "proposed device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision". Drexler's 1992 book Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation, published after completion of his PhD at MIT (he earned the first doctoral degree on the topic of molecular nanotechnology) continued to build on these ideas.

The 1980s also saw other important advances, including the invention of the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) in 1981 and the discovery of fullerenes in 1985. The Scanning Tunnelling Microscope, developed by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Roher at IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, allowed surfaces to be examined at the atomic level. In 1985, Harry Kroto, Richard Smalley and Robert Curl discovered fullerenes, sometimes called buckyballs - hollow molecules composed of carbon, which helped lead to the structural assignment of carbon nanotubes. These developments meant that "nanotechnology could develop through the scientific method rather than the conceptual and thus untestable visions of Drexler", and the field as we know it today - diverse and full of possibility - was born.

Next week we'll look at some of the debates and developments that have occurred in more recent years, and get a glimpse of where nanotechnology might be headed in the future.

You can find out more about our nano-coating technology here: www.p2i.com/technology

P2i Presents: The Repellent Files

You may be wondering what the title means. Well, here at P2i we are often asked what other products our technology could be applied to. And this is a question that is regularly brought up by people who have witnessed our tissue demonstration as well:

So this got us thinking and the idea of The Repellent Files were born.

So what are The Repellent Files?

Each week we will upload a new video to YouTube of a different, normally water absorbent item that has been treated with our liquid repellent nano-coating to see how well it copes when subjected to water or other liquids.

In our first file posted yesterday, we investigated whether a teabag, coated with our nanotechnology, could keep the water clear once boiling hot water was poured over it. To ensure it was an even test, we had a regular teabag available as well.

Want to know what happened? Well, have a watch of the video below and you can see the result for yourself:

The Verdict:

Thumbs Up! Although it is not very good if you want a cup of tea, but the test shows that our coating can stop a teabag acting as it should by successfully repelling the water around it.

If you have any suggestions for items that can be put to the test, do let us know. You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube where we will be posting the next file.

Find out more about how our technology works by visiting: www.p2i.com/technology

A Brief History of Nanotechnology: Part 2 - Early Developments

In our first post, we looked at some surprisingly early examples of nanotechnology at work. However, the field is generally considered to be a very modern one, and most major early developments occurred within the latter half of the 20th century.
The history of nanotechnology is often traced to a very specific moment of inception: the 29th of December, 1959, when physicist Richard Feynman delivered an after-dinner lecture called "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" during a meeting of the American Physical Society at the California Institute of Technology.

Feynman's lecture predated the use of the term "nanotechnology" to describe the field of study as we now know it, but many of the ideas he explored and the questions he asked are still highly relevant.

Feynman wondered "why cannot we write the entire 24 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the head of a pin?" and spoke of the possibility of building machines on a minute scale by "manoeuvring things atom by atom".

‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom’ writes Dr. K. Eric Drexler, whose own work in the 1970s and 80s did much to advance the field, "was a comparatively casual effort - an after-dinner speech at a conference - yet in it he presented a bold and enduring vision of a technological journey leading toward the atomic scale and toward the ultimate boundaries set by physical law. The world has travelled far toward what Feynman saw, and has far still to go."

It's hard to measure the exact impact that Feynman's talk had on the emergence of nanotechnology, of course, but, as Drexler points out, "Feynman was the first to outline a world of technologies that would work and build at the ultimate, atomic scale".

The term "nanotechnology" itself wasn't coined until 1974, when Tokyo Science University Professor Norio Taniguchi defined it: "'Nano-technology' mainly consists of the processing of, separation, consolidation, and deformation of materials by one atom or by one molecule’.' Taniguchi used the term "to describe semiconductor processes such as thin film deposition and ion beam milling exhibiting characteristic control on the order of a nanometer. The ideas contained in this definition were further explored and developed by Drexler in the late 70s and 1980s, culminating in the release of his book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology in 1986, which "is considered the first book on the topic of nanotechnology".

In next weeks post we will take a closer look at these ideas and how they developed.

A Brief History of Nanotechnology: Part 1 - Roots

In this series we are going to take a closer look at the history of nanotechnology, from early findings through to the present day and what developments nanotechnology can bring for the future.

To begin we are going to explore the beginnings of nanotechnology.

Most people consider nanotechnology to be a modern field of science. Primary development occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, and it continues to evolve. Its history is usually traced as far back as Richard Feynman's famous 1959 lecture "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom". Feynman did not specifically name nanotechnology, but his talk "inspired the conceptual beginnings of the field decades later”.

However, as a recent article in the Guardian suggests, the field may actually have roots that extend much further back - all the way into the ancient world. "Artisans from the past also controlled matter at the tiniest scales," writes the article's author, Rosamund Daw. "By modern-day standards, they were working in a branch of nanotechnology called nanocomposites. These are bulk materials in which nanoscale particles are mixed to improve the properties of the overall or composite material."

One example of this is the Lycurgus cup, a Roman glass cage cup containing nanoparticles that make the glass look red when light shines through it but green when viewed in reflected light. Another is Maya Blue, a bright azure pigment discovered in the Mayan city of Chichen Itz which is particularly resistant to wear and contains clay with nanopores into which indigo dye was combined chemically to create an environmentally-stable pigment. And in 2006 researchers in Germany revealed that they had discovered nanowires and carbon nanotubes in a Damascus steel sabre from the 17th century.

The artisans who crafted these objects and materials may not exactly have been nanotechnologists by modern standards, but it's impressive to see how far back the history of this modern technology can be traced. Moreover, the discoveries that today's scientists have made as a result of looking at these very old objects may actually help advance the field. "Some of these studies are providing pointers for new nanotechnology research," writes Daw. Based on a study of the properties of the Lycurgus cup, for example, "researchers have developed thin nanocomposite films containing gold nanoparicles which can reflect infra-red while still transmitting light. These films could be used to coat windows in hot countries to reflect heat away while allow light through the glass, thus reducing the need for air conditioning." So the history of nanotechnology is informing its future.

In our next post we will take a look at the early stages of nanotechnology development...