Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Nanotube-Coated Pot Boils Water FAST

ecogeek.org — I can think of no better use for nano-tech that helping me make ramen noodles even faster.

Bury

SVOboy 145 days ago, made popular 145 days ago

757 diggs
digg it

106 Comments
Who Dugg It?

acmaurer, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12Awesome! I saw a stove top that somehow boils water in 60-seconds, but this seems much safer (maybe) - Sign me up!
- Anpheus, on 07/09/2008, -1/+19Nanotubes are like nanoasbestos.
  
  Better not scrape the edge of the pot.
  - dracostimpy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7Nanotube-coated stomach digests food FAST?
  - jawagas, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Nanotube-coated poop travels in plumbing FAST?
  - dbug, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2In Soviet-Russia, nanotubes coat you... FAST!
  - onwardknave, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1The cleaner nanites make my teeth slippery.
- donjuan571, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/0 ...
  
  NANOTUBES CAUSE CANCER GOOD LUCK WITH THAT
  - shiftless, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1They're more like asbestos. Like if they're being sprayed about and you breathe them in. Otherwise, they seem perfectly fine.
  - Vironex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2"A STUDY"
    It's bold and in caps, so I know not to question.
  - Gudeldar, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Typical media with a sensational headline that doesn't match the story.
- dirtyfrog, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4I think the stove top you are refering to uses induction. By using induction the stove top would not be hot to touch but does transfer energy to the pot which causes it to heat up.
- someguy92, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2But how much water was it? Seems more like a cheap marketing gimmick.
jshare, on 07/09/2008, -0/+37so I can overcook my pasta in 1 min instead of 10
- geekchic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately, the van der Waals effect at the edge of the nanotubes would probably result in the pasta sticking to the base of the pan and burning.
  - unclemeat, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Why not have a nanotube kettle and use that to boil the water before pouring it in to your pasta pot?
  - goalieguy314, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Genius!
- Jeremyz0r, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Sounds like my Microwave. "Put soup in for 3 minutes" *steams in 1*
  - zer0nix, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2if you're talking about ramen or cup noodles, you're supposed to let the noodles sit in boiling water for 3 minutes, not microwave them -and especially not for 3 minutes :/
- LogicBomB, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Taste your food as you cook it...
  
  Boil water, add pasta, wait 5 minutes and then taste it every minute until you reach your desired doneness. You'll never overcook pasta again...
thespanielator, on 07/09/2008, -0/+75Imagine if this technology fell into the hands of the pastafarians.
- sooch, on 07/09/2008, -0/+20FSM has received a fair amount of attention today and I want MORE.
- billbugger, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6That'll be an allout Jerkhad!
jrattner1, on 07/09/2008, -1/+22Sounds like a great idea until the nano tech enters your body and decreases boiling times...
- rocketboot, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Speaking of which, are the tubes anchored strongly enough so stirring won't knock them all off? I'm not exactly a nanoscale scientist, so I only have a vague idea of how stuff works at that scale.
- PabloMac, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9That's a small matter.
  - brad3378, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5It all Boils down to safety.
GoodBBQ, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2Cool stuff. Go RPI!! :-)
- MrSlumberjack, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1WTF? Why buried? RPI is ***** incredible. This is one of many revolutionary things discovered by RPI research.
  - MacEnvy, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Screw The Engineers. GO 'GATE RADIERS!
    
    /or we could both just take out Cornell
    //seriously, ***** Cornell
manano, on 07/09/2008, -4/+9The one thing that worries me about nanotube applications is that no one has determined a method to break them down. I fear that they will be the "next plastic" which will sit on landfills for thousands or millions of years without braking down. Just my 2 cents.

But this is a cool application, nonetheless. :)
- neuromorph, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7there are many ways to break them down chemically. do more research before you make absolute claims. Sulfuric acid with sonication works. heat them in air (or O2 rich gases) above 650 centigrade also decomposes them.
  
  They are smart materials, but not indestructible!
  
  You should be more worried about the health affects if they are accidentally injested.
  - wonderchemist, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Yes, 650 C also degrades plastics nicely. The problem is some people are going to just chuck them in the trash, or at cows.
- trevdawg5, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Booo! BURIED-- Anti-Nanotubes, Get with the future!
- SverigesKung, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1What if the Nanotubes break and the pieces are dangerous to ingest, much more so than the original nano-material? What if the nano-material reacts with an unforeseen substance and becomes more dangerous. There are alot of strong potentialities for horrible unforeseen things to happen. I'm not scared or anti-nano, I just want the thinking on this to be long and hard.
SimonTB, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5AFK, making ramen noodles now.
- jawagas, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1I'll digg you up because your comment brought me joy. Though FYI, nobody honestly cares where/what you do on this comment thread.
cj485, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4mmm, oriental ramen.

NOM NOM NOM
- Galaxylander, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7It's OM NOM NOM stupid.
  
  :)
- bman85, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I personally enjoy chicken flavor mixed with cream of mushroom soup.
  
  But for eating plain Oriental Pwns.
phunlee, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5I thought last week an article said nanotubes give you cancer. Like asbestos fibers. I guess I'll start reading more than digg headlines.
- neuromorph, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4the jury is still out. there is a rampant fear that the nanofibers will mimic asbestos, but no conclusive research has been done on toxicity or exposure levels for the nanotubes.
  
  But they can be chemically modified to target/ link to bioactive sites, that would make them drug delivery devices, but also may increase lethality. Go figure!
neuromorph, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Who needs a $100,000 tea pot? Ill keep the aluminum and cast iron, and wait an extra 30 seconds.
swrostmore, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Word to RPI, down with S.A.J.!
- baldr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1true that.
- wezman2, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0I still don't understand why everybody has a vendetta against Shirley. She has been great in raising the Tute's national image along with making huge improvements in the school.
  
  Guess people just really don't like authority.
  - swrostmore, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1No, you STUDENT, people dislike her because "raising the national image" = raising tuition to like #2 in the nation, and "making huge improvements = using that tuition to pay famous architects to build buildings nobody can use, buying new silver RPI Crest rims for her Escalade, and paying herself the highest salary of any US college president.
Borgcube636, on 07/09/2008, -1/+18Ra: http://www.crystalinks.com/ra1.jpg
Men: http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/ho ...
Ramen: http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007 ...
HotDogBun, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1Nanotube coated pot.....mmmmmm.
- dhVyse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Smoke another buddy.. then pass it to me.
homesickalien, on 07/09/2008, -2/+19How do nanotubes help marijuana boil water?
espritprv36, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Aww. I really thought it was a video... LAME.

but still cool i guess
TheShero, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Honey can you please...

"IT'S READY"
- PabloMac, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3That's what she said.
- jgzman, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Tea's up, love.
daeus, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2down
l800LEMMINGS, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1nutritionally this is a bad thing but it can still help a lot of people who don't have time to cook
avrus, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Enjoy your cancer from the nanotubes you ingested and will never get out of your body.
avrus, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6MIRROR:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=2992 ...
chesscat, on 07/09/2008, -7/+1Another stupid solution in search of a problem. When's the last time modern science has cured anything or done anything meaningful?
- Bob042, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah, progress sucks.
- eddywin, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5velcro
- mohsenxp, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0since...oh wait.
  Well technology is where the money's at.
- xexx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3If only it didn't exist so we wouldn't have to be exposed to your stupidity.
- wolferz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1A processor that can preform calculations at ten times the speed of what was possible 5 years ago may not seem "meaningful" but think about what those processors allow us to do. The internet, is far from meaningless and requires a myriad of different computers each with their own processors and ram chips and so fort and so on. Perhaps individually higher end processors and ram and hard drives are not very meaningful... but the effect their combined use has can be.
  
  Also I remember recently the development of a new method using nanotubes and stem cells to promote the regrowth of nerve tissue. They were able to use that to restore the sight of a blind girl as I remember.
  - chesscat, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Yes, all that processing power and it's been used for the same thing as ten years ago: Surfing the net. Most people are not looking for the next perfect number in their calculations or calculating the consequences of full blown nuclear war and don't need to have 1 trillion/per second processing on their desktops.
  - askantik, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@ chesscat: What do you use YOUR computer for?
  - jgzman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Most people don't; some people do. Some people just want it. And if there was no demand (even if the demand is silly) there would be no supply.
  - wolferz, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1@chesscat
    
    yes yes and being informed up to the second about news from around the globe and being able to research it and communicate with others about it in real time is certainly no more important than watching nascar. DOWN WITH THE INTERNET! /sarcasm.
    
    ...The internet has changed the world for the better. If you can't see that then all I can say is, from one cynical mother ***** to another, you're too cynical.
wheezy360, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Wow, so a watched pot really does boil.
MasterThief117, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6For those who think this would allow more places for bacteria, think again. Copper has some destructive properties to many micro-organisms. Nothing much can live on it. In fact, they have to strip the copper coating off the hulls of ships they want to wreck for artificial reefs to allow sea life to grow on it.
- serif69, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4As far as I can tell, you're the only one who thought that. Good on you for doing the research, though.
yoda17, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1I don't think this will have much of a practical apllication onluess you need steam. It won't decrease the energy required to raise the temperaturse of the water.
- jeffness, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4sure it will. boil water faster = heat faster = less time to heat = less energy.
  
  sure, 100cc of water at 100degrees celsius has the same amount of energy in it regardless of how long it takes to heat, but efficient transfer of energy from the boiling apparatus into the water will reduce the time necessary to boil.
  
  I agree with the steam application though. Industrial use of this sort of tech will be much easier because using this thing ina cooking pot may be a bad idea; i scrape swaths of teflon off and ingest that, im not sure id like the idea of nanotube ingestion.
- moo083, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Thats not true. It allows more of the energy that is currently wasted to go to the pot instead of the air. So it isn't decreasing the energy required to raise the water temperature. Instead, its increasing the energy. Its just using its resources more efficiently.
jeffsback2223, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Wait, didn't they say something about nanotubes having the same qualities and effects as asbestos? And your going to cook with it? Sounds kinda fishy to me.
etx313, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1For the love of science, THIS IS SWEEET!!
whitecranberry, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2It's all fun and games till these nano particles come off the pot and into your water and then something bad happens.

The science exists to create many interesting things.. To bad common sense and the will to research the long term effects these things have does not exist equally.
CerMakAlot, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4I can think of one better use for carbon nanotubing. Space Elevator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
- Justice101, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1What I wanna know is how are carbon nanotubes gonna help me get my flying car faster? It's long overdue, I think.
- wolferz, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1in cost to benefit ratio... that's probably one of the worst uses.
  
  When we finally do figure out how to build nanotube structures that long that don't snap in two in a stiff breeze it will cost billions to build the structure and maintain it. And then what? We still don't have the tech to colonize mars... or mine it... or the asteroid belt. Yeh we will, theoretically, save some money on getting into space... and perhaps it might open doors for something world changing to happen half a century from now... but it will only do so when I'm on my death bed and after a very large sum of cash has been sunk into "possibly beneficial endeavors" such as mars landings and asteroid belt exploration.
  
  Why? Cause right now going to mars is just a science project... a very expensive science project. And like all science projects the best possible end result is to get an A+ and brag about it to mommy. It's going to be a very long time before corporations become seriously interested in industrial endeavors in space... and only then will space be able to benefit us directly,
  
  Now I'm not saying we shouldn't build a space elevator... hell build a dozen of them. The quest for space generated many of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of late 20th century and, through those breakthroughs, indirectly improved the lives of every one on earth. However... such indirect benefits almost always pale in comparison to the amount of money and efort put toward the primary goal of space travel before the breakthrough happened.
  
  Also if were going to solve the problems with nanotubes we need to to create an industry and thus generate a need for them. As demand climbs industrious types will rise to the challenge of meeting that demand and... if you look back at history... most of the big breakthroughs that changed the world were not made by scientists... they were made by business men in their quest for the all mighty dollar.
  - CerMakAlot, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1A space elevator wouldn't cost all that much actually, and projects using the elevator would pay for it relatively quickly. Also, the structure isn't built with nanotubes, the tether is (maybe you knew that already). However, If you think the only thing that comes from these space missions is shallow bragging rights then I wouldn't expect you to care about building a space elevator. However, I think that these experiments, and science itself are more than that. Science attempts to help us understand the world around us, where we're going and where we came from. Few things are so important.
    
    Also, building the elevator would allow such comparatively cheap access to space that interest would increase very quickly. The limiting factor is the current cost of accessing space, NOT the interest in it!
jimmiss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Concentrated solar could benefit from this greatly. Just give me a sheet of 1/4" stainless with both sides coated and I'll do the rest.
donjuan571, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Carbon nanotubes cause CANCER: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/0 ...

Will we meet the same fate as the romans with lead pots?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2This is actually a bigger issue than people realize.
- Specht1988, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1It has the potential to be a big problem. The structures of the nanotubes can really have some bad carcinogenic effects. I plan on staying away from them as best I can
BradMajors, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1The downside is:

"30-fold increase in the number of bubbles created as the water reaches 100oC"

The increase in bubbles will increase food cooking time.
- wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1If you cook the food AT a boil. Many foods require that you bring the water to a boil, add your ingredients, and then turn the temperature down so it can simmer. In this case it would still be a huge time saver.
  
  I can think of very few foods that are supposed to be cooked at boiling temperatures.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, a pot could easily "foam over."
CadMasterAdam, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1all those who say nanotubes cause cancer:

its ***** carbon! relax
- mmilton, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I bet you think smoking doesn't cause cancer either. Did you even read the article? IT talks about the "safety issue". Why don't you go inhale some asbestos and wait 5 years to see if you get lung cancer?
- askantik, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1My penis is carbon.
saqer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1can be used alongside solar cells and mirrors to produce electricity....
wishninja, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Wonder if it decreases the R value for other interfaces like air for instance. I wounder what coating the outside of the pot would do? Also what about the inside (or outside) of air conditioning condenser / evaporators?

They say in the article that faster boiling is heat transfer related. But Boiling is a little more complex. It involves the surface energies of the liquid solid interfaces and their ability to generate nucleation sites as well as other factors. It is really complex. More information would make this a diggable article.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2"Boiling is a little more complex. It involves the surface energies of the liquid solid interfaces and their ability to generate nucleation sites as well as other factors."
  
  The article covered that. It boils quicker because there is more nucleation sites due to the nano-wire surface area.
  
  This is also why Mentos explodes so well in diet Coke. Increased nucleation and reducing surface tension on carbon-dioxide trapped in the fluid. So, not only is there more nucleation, but you reduce the surface tension of the water.
  
  It shouldn't be an issue with cleaning, because it would actually reduce the ability for larger organic molecules to adhere -- they would have less surface contact while smaller water molecules would have more. The only problem is durability and toxicity.
  - wishninja, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2sorry guess I missed it somehow because of the way they explained it. durp!
leerayIG88, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1This will be perfect for torturing terrorist.
chemam, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1nanotube-coated pot??? yes! oh wait...
pcrow, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1So you could get a portion of the benefit by attaching a standard heat sink to the inside bottom of a pot, couldn't you? Why do you have to go to a nano scale to get the benefits? And by doing it at a macro scale, you don't have to worry about the effects should some of the nano tubes break off.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1With nano there is more surface area.
  
  This would provide a 10 to 30 times greater heat dissipation if used on a computer heat-sink, for instance.
  
  Currently, a cooking pan IS like a heat sink (of course without the fins to get pasta sauce stuck on).
  
  Circulon pans get more heat transfer by using concentric rings -- I guess doubling the surface area without becoming too fragile.
thebasshacker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Hmm, in the last nanotube post, I stated "nanotubes, what can't they do", and someone else said, "Make me dinner", well I just wanted to say that, nanotubes truly can do anything.
VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I'm guessing they will need to coat these nano-hairs to protect them (even though these structures could be strong because their are so many) -- reducing the efficiency.

The other big concern is that nano-structures can be very toxic, even with substances that are ordinarily not so. Chemistry is as much about structure as it is chemicals. Reshape a sugar molecule, and it tastes sweet but isn't digested -- like with a sugar substitute. And some nano-molecules don't break down in nature, because the traditional organisms/processes that transform them, don't react to these different structures.

I expect, that nano-technology will be involved in EVERYTHING we use eventually -- but I REALLY urge a lot of caution and testing. Nano-wire copper is not the same thing at all as traditional copper. We are comfortable with nano-tech because we don't know enough yet about the down-side.
mmilton, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Why is it that this article is explicit about the "safety concern" and yet so many of the comments are positive? Where is the concern about getting asbestos-like cancer-causing fibers everywhere in the environment? Are we that lazy where we are willing to risk agressive cancer causing agents in order to boil water faster?
Mockylock, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1IF, of course, you want to get cancer from making ramen noodles. It's been found to create the same effects as asbestos, as far as cancer goes.

Well, either MSG or Nano Cancer.. your choice ;)
Ribbys, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Considering the concern over teflon and other coatings on cookware, no thanks. I'll stick to elemental or steel cookware.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Nanotube-Coated Pot Boils Water FAST

Login or register to add a comment