Bad Reception? This'll make it oakey-dokey.
February 20, 2012 8:32 PM Subscribe
The Ents aren't going to like this at all.
posted by sswiller at 8:49 PM on February 20, 2012 [9 favorites]
posted by sswiller at 8:49 PM on February 20, 2012 [9 favorites]
they sprayed the nanoparticles onto an iPhone antenna and put it into a Faraday cage. When they compared the dBm from the standard antenna to the one they sprayed, they measured an increase of 20 dBm from the standard antenna.
Uh... I'm skeptical. 20dBm is 100mW. Maximum output from a 3G phone is 125mW, so that's an 80% gain in ERP. I know that iPhones reportedly have very badly designed antennas, but that's ridiculous.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:49 PM on February 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Uh... I'm skeptical. 20dBm is 100mW. Maximum output from a 3G phone is 125mW, so that's an 80% gain in ERP. I know that iPhones reportedly have very badly designed antennas, but that's ridiculous.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:49 PM on February 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
This is the type of bold, declarative one sentence headliners that I love in a FPP. Seriously this link is pretty great.
posted by KeSetAffinityThread at 9:35 PM on February 20, 2012
posted by KeSetAffinityThread at 9:35 PM on February 20, 2012
So in the comments they are worrying about the dangers of inhaling the spray. My thought was, wow, finally a way to improve that radio reception in your silver fillings! So annoying when your favorite song keeps fading in and out during a boring lecture.
posted by TreeRooster at 9:39 PM on February 20, 2012
posted by TreeRooster at 9:39 PM on February 20, 2012
Will someone think of the children?
posted by Ironmouth at 9:51 PM on February 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Ironmouth at 9:51 PM on February 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
Real trees that can also be mobile phone antennas? Much better than mobile phone antennas disguised as trees.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:52 PM on February 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:52 PM on February 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Sounds like vaporware to me. Also, leave the damn trees alone.
posted by Scientist at 10:07 PM on February 20, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by Scientist at 10:07 PM on February 20, 2012 [3 favorites]
And later, when nano-driven sentient trees beam messages into all our heads, we'll remember where it all started.
I did notice no mention of what effect nanoparticle spray had on trees, or on the surrounding vegetation should the particles migrate, which you have to assume will happen. Would kind of like some research on that guys, before I end up eating nanotoxic apples or killing off some more endangered species or something.
posted by emjaybee at 10:09 PM on February 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
I did notice no mention of what effect nanoparticle spray had on trees, or on the surrounding vegetation should the particles migrate, which you have to assume will happen. Would kind of like some research on that guys, before I end up eating nanotoxic apples or killing off some more endangered species or something.
posted by emjaybee at 10:09 PM on February 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
Yeah, no mention at all of what it might do to the health of the tree. The technology having been originally developed for military use, I'd be surprised if the tree's welfare was even considered.
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:09 PM on February 20, 2012
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:09 PM on February 20, 2012
I am an antenna engineer. This is mostly just hype about some fancy conductive paint. There are a lot of reasons why you might want to paint on an antenna (conformal antennas on complex curved surfaces for example). But the big claims of spraying a phone with this stuff and getting a drastically better signal is really misleading.
Watching the video, he doesn't explain their demos very well, but I think what they've done is to take electrically small and inefficient antennas and enlargen them with bigger footprint. For example, I think they took a really small RFID antenna that was only a few mm long, and extended the arms by a few cm with their paint. Electrically small antennas become much more efficient as they become larger, so they see a significant performance improvement. Same thing with the iphone antenna. They didn't just willy nilly spray this stuff onto the outside of the phone, they opened it up and modified the antenna with their paint.
Thats all well and good, but there were probably valid design that led to the smaller antenna designs in the first place. Packaging for example, or interactions with other components/systems. The iPhone antenna I believe is dual use, so they probably just improved the performance of one system at the expense of another. (20dBm is a meaningless spec without a baseline, BTW). Nothing that couldn't be done with some copper tape.
The one thing they mentioned that I am quite familiar with was the spherical antenna from U-I (I know the guy that did the development). The innovation in the design is the shape of the conducting features, not the material itself. They used the nanoparticles because they could "print" the pattern using an inkjet head. But the same shape made of copper would have worked just as well
Bottom line, I don't believe the paint itself adds anything other than the ability to easily modify existing conducting structures. And just spraying it on your phone is not going to do anything good.
posted by jpdoane at 10:12 PM on February 20, 2012 [16 favorites]
Watching the video, he doesn't explain their demos very well, but I think what they've done is to take electrically small and inefficient antennas and enlargen them with bigger footprint. For example, I think they took a really small RFID antenna that was only a few mm long, and extended the arms by a few cm with their paint. Electrically small antennas become much more efficient as they become larger, so they see a significant performance improvement. Same thing with the iphone antenna. They didn't just willy nilly spray this stuff onto the outside of the phone, they opened it up and modified the antenna with their paint.
Thats all well and good, but there were probably valid design that led to the smaller antenna designs in the first place. Packaging for example, or interactions with other components/systems. The iPhone antenna I believe is dual use, so they probably just improved the performance of one system at the expense of another. (20dBm is a meaningless spec without a baseline, BTW). Nothing that couldn't be done with some copper tape.
The one thing they mentioned that I am quite familiar with was the spherical antenna from U-I (I know the guy that did the development). The innovation in the design is the shape of the conducting features, not the material itself. They used the nanoparticles because they could "print" the pattern using an inkjet head. But the same shape made of copper would have worked just as well
Bottom line, I don't believe the paint itself adds anything other than the ability to easily modify existing conducting structures. And just spraying it on your phone is not going to do anything good.
posted by jpdoane at 10:12 PM on February 20, 2012 [16 favorites]
Some of those fake tree antennas actually look pretty good!
Also, 3rd-ing the health effects of spraying magic nano-particles onto a living thing that sheds and also houses all sorts of other living things.
posted by Bonky Moon at 10:13 PM on February 20, 2012
Also, 3rd-ing the health effects of spraying magic nano-particles onto a living thing that sheds and also houses all sorts of other living things.
posted by Bonky Moon at 10:13 PM on February 20, 2012
Some of those fake tree antennas actually look pretty good!
Well, they're better than just unapologetic, undisguised antennas, which are pretty hideous. But I'd still prefer real trees that were antennas (except if toxic antenna paint will kill them and everything in and around them including adorable squirrels, curious fluffy kittens, and me).
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:19 PM on February 20, 2012
Well, they're better than just unapologetic, undisguised antennas, which are pretty hideous. But I'd still prefer real trees that were antennas (except if toxic antenna paint will kill them and everything in and around them including adorable squirrels, curious fluffy kittens, and me).
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:19 PM on February 20, 2012
Also, the painted trees are not for cellular phones, but are most likely for ad-hoc military communications in the field. A 200 ft tree could work well for HF military band, but would be worthless for much higher frequency signals used by cell systems.
posted by jpdoane at 10:25 PM on February 20, 2012
posted by jpdoane at 10:25 PM on February 20, 2012
ChamTech Operations is just a little bit too close to Armacham Technology for my comfort.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:07 PM on February 20, 2012
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:07 PM on February 20, 2012
"I did notice no mention of what effect nanoparticle spray had on trees, or on the surrounding vegetation should the particles migrate, which you have to assume will happen."
Eventually these nanoparticles (along with all the other nanoparticles scientists are coming up with) are going to get into the water supply, like everything else does. The big question is what will happen then. Do they disperse and rust away, or will they last for centuries? Will they wash into the oceans or collect in wetlands and watersheds? At what concentration are they considered safe in the environment, and how much of this stuff are living creatures going to absorb? Would animals and people just excrete them, or would they collect in our bodies? What if we eat plants that grew in nanoparticle polluted water?
posted by Kevin Street at 11:22 PM on February 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
Eventually these nanoparticles (along with all the other nanoparticles scientists are coming up with) are going to get into the water supply, like everything else does. The big question is what will happen then. Do they disperse and rust away, or will they last for centuries? Will they wash into the oceans or collect in wetlands and watersheds? At what concentration are they considered safe in the environment, and how much of this stuff are living creatures going to absorb? Would animals and people just excrete them, or would they collect in our bodies? What if we eat plants that grew in nanoparticle polluted water?
posted by Kevin Street at 11:22 PM on February 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
What does it turn antennas into?
posted by dirigibleman at 11:24 PM on February 20, 2012 [5 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 11:24 PM on February 20, 2012 [5 favorites]
Eventually these nanoparticles (along with all the other nanoparticles scientists are coming up with) are going to get into the water supply, like everything else does. The big question is what will happen then.
Very probably nothing. Let me suggest that you take this opportunity to chill the fuck out and relax instead of reacting to BIG WORD YOU HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH BEFORE in exactly the way the hypemachine behind the FPP intended you to.
posted by 7segment at 12:00 AM on February 21, 2012 [2 favorites]
Very probably nothing. Let me suggest that you take this opportunity to chill the fuck out and relax instead of reacting to BIG WORD YOU HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH BEFORE in exactly the way the hypemachine behind the FPP intended you to.
posted by 7segment at 12:00 AM on February 21, 2012 [2 favorites]
I think you're misinterpreting the emotional tone of my previous post. Still, is there any evidence that nanoparticles will be harmless? Maybe they will be, but some more study should be done before we start spraying them on trees. (Or buildings, roads, and other places outside of the laboratory.)
posted by Kevin Street at 12:11 AM on February 21, 2012
posted by Kevin Street at 12:11 AM on February 21, 2012
Author says However, as far as some of the capabilities for the spray-on antenna, I haven’t been able to confirm them.
and yet he breathlessly repeats the ridiculous claims.
in RFID tags the nanoparticle spray extended the readable range of the tag from a mere five feet (1.5 meters) to 700 feet (200 m)
Seriously, IEEE Spectrum, readers who design and sell yagi and parabolic antennas are going to be very dismayed.
I bet if you respray the already sprayed RFID, it can be read from 65,000 feet (20 kilometers) !!
posted by Twang at 12:27 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
and yet he breathlessly repeats the ridiculous claims.
in RFID tags the nanoparticle spray extended the readable range of the tag from a mere five feet (1.5 meters) to 700 feet (200 m)
Seriously, IEEE Spectrum, readers who design and sell yagi and parabolic antennas are going to be very dismayed.
I bet if you respray the already sprayed RFID, it can be read from 65,000 feet (20 kilometers) !!
posted by Twang at 12:27 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
If it doesn't pan out with the military, private investigators may be able to use this new technology to answer the age old question Where Did You Sleep Last Night?
posted by mannequito at 12:48 AM on February 21, 2012
posted by mannequito at 12:48 AM on February 21, 2012
I am not a biologist of any stripe, but wouldn't it just slough off the tree as it grows new bark? Or just weather away normally? If the answer is "no", let me Nth concern for the trees. Spray it on telephone poles instead! That would amuse me.
posted by zinful at 12:52 AM on February 21, 2012
posted by zinful at 12:52 AM on February 21, 2012
Oddly enough, this made me think of Jill Masterson.
posted by arcticseal at 1:02 AM on February 21, 2012
posted by arcticseal at 1:02 AM on February 21, 2012
He says the name of his company is pronounced, "Kam-tech," but I bet it's really pronounced "Sham-tech."
posted by crunchland at 2:16 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by crunchland at 2:16 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Nanoparticles are, in this case, just very small particles. Not tiny machines that will eventually combine to rule the world. The metallic pigments in all paints are nanoparticles. I'd worry more about the chemical composition of the base.
posted by Splunge at 2:39 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Splunge at 2:39 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
The last thing we need is nanoparticles interacting with trees and making them sentient.
posted by Renoroc at 4:40 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Renoroc at 4:40 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Great. Sounds like I'm going to need a whole lot more tin foil.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 5:11 AM on February 21, 2012
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 5:11 AM on February 21, 2012
The Ents aren't going to like this at all.
Are you kidding? They are so tired of stealing broadband from Isengard!
This could make it possible to have high bandwidth connectivity in your car.
Because this will allow drivers to send emails as well as text!
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:22 AM on February 21, 2012
Are you kidding? They are so tired of stealing broadband from Isengard!
This could make it possible to have high bandwidth connectivity in your car.
Because this will allow drivers to send emails as well as text!
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:22 AM on February 21, 2012
I thought dialup speeds would be plenty fast for ents.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 5:26 AM on February 21, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 5:26 AM on February 21, 2012 [2 favorites]
in case of interference re-orient your entenna.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 5:58 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 5:58 AM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Great, just when I'd finished pulling out all the fillings the CIA installed in my teeth.
posted by bokane at 6:28 AM on February 21, 2012
posted by bokane at 6:28 AM on February 21, 2012
My trees are augmented
posted by MangyCarface at 7:31 AM on February 21, 2012
posted by MangyCarface at 7:31 AM on February 21, 2012
Trees can also be repurposed as lumber which can make all sorts of useful things, upon which you can then spray conductive paint. Myself, I'd build an antenna tower, put an antenna on it, and then *maybe* spray the conductive paint.
To be honest I just use the existing cell towers that "look like trees".
posted by lothar at 9:09 AM on February 21, 2012
To be honest I just use the existing cell towers that "look like trees".
posted by lothar at 9:09 AM on February 21, 2012
Complete technobabble horseshit FTFA:
The material that Chamtech came up with contains nanoparticles that when sprayed on a surface act as nanocapacitors. The nanocapacitors charge and discharge very quickly and don’t create any heat that can reduce the efficiency of your typical copper antenna.
jpdoane may have something closer to the truth, in describing it as mere conductive paint, but for the record: nanocapacitors (nor, in general, capacitors) don't have anything to do with increasing antenna efficiency (hint: there's a reason we make antennas out of conductors instead of insulators).
As for trees becoming antennas, even with spray-on conductive paint: trees aren't going to beat purpose-built antennas at their own job, and nature isn't going to let that paint stay put long enough to make the reduced construction costs (if any) pay off.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:27 PM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
The material that Chamtech came up with contains nanoparticles that when sprayed on a surface act as nanocapacitors. The nanocapacitors charge and discharge very quickly and don’t create any heat that can reduce the efficiency of your typical copper antenna.
jpdoane may have something closer to the truth, in describing it as mere conductive paint, but for the record: nanocapacitors (nor, in general, capacitors) don't have anything to do with increasing antenna efficiency (hint: there's a reason we make antennas out of conductors instead of insulators).
As for trees becoming antennas, even with spray-on conductive paint: trees aren't going to beat purpose-built antennas at their own job, and nature isn't going to let that paint stay put long enough to make the reduced construction costs (if any) pay off.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:27 PM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
« Older My Big Fat Greek Bailout | "The future for digital storage is constant... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If the cheap osmotic desalination guy also works out I shall smile from ear to ear.
posted by jaduncan at 8:38 PM on February 20, 2012 [1 favorite]