Monthly Archives: July 2011

Nanotechnology funding and impact: a global perspective

Leave a reply

This morning (July 13, 2011), Cientifica released its 2011 Report on Global Nanotechnology Funding and Impact (Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact). Here’s text from the news release (this news release may not be available in perpetuity),

With US government funding of nanotechnology receding slightly in 2011, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates indicate that for the first time, China will spend more than the US to fund nanotechnology.

“In the last 11 years, governments around the world have invested more than US$67.5 billion in nanotechnology funding,” said Tim Harper, CEO of UK-based consulting company Cientifica. “When corporate research and various other forms of private funding are taken into account, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars will have been invested in nanotechnology by 2015.”

Corporate research and private funding were thought to have surpassed government funding figures as far back as 2004. But this year, according to Cientifica’s estimates, in PPP terms China will spend US$2.25 billion in nanotechnology research while the US will spend US$2.18 billion. In real dollar terms, adjusted for currency exchange rates, China is only spending about US$1.3 billion to the US’s $2.18 billion.

This appears to be a temporary hiccup in US dominance in public funding of nanotechnology with the US again taking the lead next year even in PPP terms, spending $2.46 billion with China allotting $2.2 billion.

“Cientifica’s index of countries’ ability to take advantage of emerging technologies indicates the US, Germany, Taiwan and Japan have the combination of academic excellence, technology-hungry companies, skilled workforces and the availability of early stage capital to ensure effective technology transfer,” said Harper.

When combined with levels of nanotechnology funding, the US is still the place to be, although China and Russia are increasingly attractive. The UK and India struggle at the bottom of the league.

For more information on nanotechnology funding or Cientifica’s Emerging Technology Exploitation Index visit www.cientifica.eu.

Note to editors: Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the theory of long-term equilibrium exchange rates based on relative price levels of two countries, takes into account the fact that labour, materials and other costs may be significantly lower in one country than in another but in the absence of transaction costs and official barriers to trade, identical goods will be identically priced in different markets when the prices are expressed in terms of one currency.

I have taken a look at the report, which you can find here, to better understand this Purchasing Power Parity concept and found these two illustrative graphs (pp. 4-5 in the report),

 

The graphs don’t tell the whole story as spending money on research doesn’t necessarily mean that a country will be able to capitalize on their investment (from the report),

In order to obtain a more accurate picture
of which economies are best placed to translate research funding into an economic benefit, we used data
from the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Competitiveness Report.  (p. 6)

Key findings from the Cientifica report (found on this webpage),

  • With US government funding of nanotechnology receding slightly in 2011, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates indicate that for the first time, China will spend more than the US to fund nanotechnology.
  • In the last 11 years, governments around the world have invested  more than US$67.5 billion in nanotechnology funding. When corporate research and various other forms of private funding are taken into account, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars will have been invested in nanotechnology by 2015.
  • Corporate research and private funding were thought to have surpassed government funding figures as far back as 2004. But this year, according to Cientifica’s estimates, in PPP terms China will spend US$2.25 billion in nanotechnology research while the US will spend US$2.18 billion. In real dollar terms, adjusted for currency exchange rates, China is only spending about US$1.3 billion to the US’s $2.18 billion.
  • This appears to be a temporary hiccup in US dominance in public funding of nanotechnology with the US again taking the lead next year even in PPP terms, spending $2.46 billion with China allotting $2.2 billion.
  • Cientifica’s index of countries’ ability to take advantage of emerging technologies indicates the US, Germany, Taiwan and Japan have the combination of academic excellence, technology-hungry companies, skilled workforces and the availability of early stage capital to ensure effective technology transfer.
  • When combined with levels of nanotechnology funding, the US is still the place to be, although China and Russia are increasingly attractive. The UK and UK and India struggle at the bottom of the league.

One final note, Canada didn’t make any league in this report.

ETA July 13, 2011: Dietram Scheufele at the nanopublic blog has posted briefly about the report by highlighting information about the countries (Japan, US, and Germany) most likely to ‘translate nano funding into economic impacts‘.

 

  • With US government funding of nanotechnology receding slightly in 2011, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates indicate that for the first time, China will spend more than the US to fund nanotechnology.
  • In the last 11 years, governments around the world have invested  more than US$67.5 billion in nanotechnology funding. When corporate research and various other forms of private funding are taken into account, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars will have been invested in nanotechnology by 2015.
  • Corporate research and private funding were thought to have surpassed government funding figures as far back as 2004. But this year, according to Cientifica’s estimates, in PPP terms China will spend US$2.25 billion in nanotechnology research while the US will spend US$2.18 billion. In real dollar terms, adjusted for currency exchange rates, China is only spending about US$1.3 billion to the US’s $2.18 billion.
  • This appears to be a temporary hiccup in US dominance in public funding of nanotechnology with the US again taking the lead next year even in PPP terms, spending $2.46 billion with China allotting $2.2 billion.
  • Cientifica’s index of countries’ ability to take advantage of emerging technologies indicates the US, Germany, Taiwan and Japan have the combination of academic excellence, technology-hungry companies, skilled workforces and the availability of early stage capital to ensure effective technology transfer.
  • When combined with levels of nanotechnology funding, the US is still the place to be, although China and Russia are increasingly attractive. The UK and UK and India struggle at the bottom of the league.

Dirty science at Glastonbury

2 Replies

Science outreach doesn’t have to take place in a squeaky clean museum or classroom or theatre hall; it can place in the unhygienic and dirty outdoors. Zoe Cormier in her June 30, 2011 posting on the Guardian Science blogs describes it this way,

It ended for one man with a weeping confessional about how much he missed his mum. Another told us he had a shameful preference for instant coffee. A few couldn’t remember their own names. Many screamed at the top of their lungs into the microphone. Quite a few got naked in the glow of pink neon before we swabbed them down with wet wipes

The scene was the 2011 Glastonbury Music Festival and the science outreach was performed by a group calling itself Guerilla Science (more from the Cormier posting),

It began at the entrance to a giant white cube, the Decontamination Unit, amid the muddy mess of Glastonbury. Bewildered guests – who thought it was a night club – were greeted by two guides in biohazard suits, who led them to a Microbial Zoo: an array of colourful Petri dishes bearing swirls and stripes and spots of rainbow-coloured bacteria.

Some of the strains produced these artful patterns all on their own. Proteus mirabilis, with to its whip-like tails, swims in circles at high speeds through the agar, producing concentric rings.

“Drawing people in like this helped them to learn that you really wouldn’t be able to live without these ‘dirty, disease-causing things’,” says Sarah Forbes, a microbiology PhD student at the University of Manchester, who grew the plates. She gives the example of Staphylococcus epidermidis, which lives on our skin and prevents other more virulent bacteria from taking hold.

Appearing at Glastonbury isn’t Guerilla Science’s only project, they are presenting a Dirt Banquet (at the Secret Garden Party, July 21-24, 2011). The Dirt Banquet will take place on July 22, 2011. From the Guerilla Science website homepage,

Working in partnership with chef Joe Gray, Guerilla Science will host a Dirt Banquet on the evening of Friday July 22 at the Secret Garden Party at sunset – the second and last time we will host this unparalleled experience. The first was held inside London’s unrivaled Crossness Pumping Station with experimental food artisans Bompas & Parr.

As before, this feast of filth will showcase dirty delicacies such as radioactive cheese serum, ambergris, Islay whiskey, and an aphrodisiac dessert – each course inspired by the physical, biological, ethical, architectural, social, political and temporal dimensions of dirt. Full menu, which will vary from the Crossness feast, will be announced a week before the date.

Eminent experts will accompany each course, feeding guests with ideas about the nature of dirt. Neuroscientists Zarinah Agnew and Aidan Horner will introduce us to the dirty bits of the brain. Gastronomist Rachel Edwards-Stuart, former apprentice of Heston Blumenthal, will accompany canapes. Epidemiologist Elizabeth Pisani, author of The Wisdom of Whores … , wh0 will speak on sexuality over dessert. And beatboxer Yasson will serenade us with the snarling trills of the spiralidoo.

Here are a few more details about Guerilla Science’s plans for their day at the Secret Garden Party,

As always, we will hold court at one of the UK’s most colourful and riotous music festivals, the Secret Garden Party.

For our fifth first-class year we will celebrate with four days of explosions, brains, balloons, showdowns and sounds, complete with (in imagination-perfect-land), a 150-person capacity tent, a zoo, an island and a boat.

…

In the meantime, we can tell you this: funded by our most generous benefactors the Wellcome Trust as part of their Dirt season of events, we will host a Dirty Day of filthy good fun.

I notice that this description on the Guerilla Science website was written by Zoe, I wonder if that’s Zoe Cormier, the writer of the piece in The Guardian. ETA July 13, 2011: Yes, Guerilla Science Zoe is the Zoe Cormier who wrote for The Guardian. She also let me know that she’s Canadian and has had some pieces published in the Globe and Mail, including this one about frogs (how could I resist?).

I like this approach and found the contrast between this creative, fun science outreach for adults as opposed to the more lecture-oriented, sober style of science outreach found in Vancouver (and, as far as I can tell, the rest of Canada too) quite striking. In Canada, the fun is usually saved for the kids.

Here’s a little more about Guerilla Science,

We mix science with art, music and play.

Every summer throughout London and the English countryside thousands of people discover our installations, films, music, live demonstrations, interactive experiments, debates, games and talks at music festivals and arts events around London.

I hope the July 21, 2011 Dirt Banquet and their other Secret Garden Party events are a great success and if I were in the UK, I’d definitely check this out (provided it’s not sold out).

Carleton University and Picosun Oy develop new plasma-enhanced process for atomic layer depostion

4 Replies

Finnish company, Picosun Oy along with Professor Sean Barry and Jason Coyle at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) have developed a new process for atomic layer deposition (from the July 11, 2011 news item on Nanowerk),

Picosun Oy, Finland-based global manufacturer of state-of-the-art Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) equipment, reports successful process for preparation of gold thin films with plasma-enhanced ALD (PEALD) method first time in the world. Gold films were grown in Picosun’s SUNALE™ ALD reactor equipped with the same company’s Picoplasma™ plasma source system on top of ruthenium underlayers, from precursor chemicals developed and synthesized by Prof. Sean Barry and Ph.D. student Jason Coyle from Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

…

“Coinage metals (Cu, Ag, Au) are poised to play a significant role also in sensing technologies, where they will be crucial in signal enhancement and as anchor surfaces for organic sensing elements. Using plasma to deposit these metals as an ALD process widens drastically the deposition temperature window, permitting the employment of such sensitive substrates as modified fiber optic filaments and plastics. The design of the Picoplasma™ tool allows for excellent uniformity over a wide deposition area, while minimizing substrate damage from the plasma source”, states Prof. Barry from Carleton University.

Congratulations!

University of Toronto researchers publish on quantum dots and ‘artificial molecules’

Leave a reply

Professors Shana Kelley and Ted Sargent (he was last mentioned in my June 28, 2011 posting on colloidal quantum dots) have published their findings on quantum dots, self-assembly, and luninescence in Nature Nanotechnology. From the July 10, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

“Nanotechnologists have for many years been captivated by quantum dots – particles of semiconductor that can absorb and emit light efficiently, and at custom-chosen wavelengths,” explained co-author Kelley, a Professor at the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, the Department of Biochemistry in the Faculty of Medicine, and the Department of Chemistry in the Faculty of Arts & Science. “What the community has lacked – until now – is a strategy to build higher-order structures, or complexes, out of multiple different types of quantum dots. This discovery fills that gap.”

The team combined its expertise in DNA and in semiconductors to invent a generalized strategy to bind certain classes of nanoparticles to one another.

“The credit for this remarkable result actually goes to DNA: its high degree of specificity – its willingness to bind only to a complementary sequence – enabled us to build rationally-engineered, designer structures out of nanomaterials,” said Sargent, a Professor in The Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at the University of Toronto, who is also the Canada Research Chair in Nanotechnology. “The amazing thing is that our antennas built themselves – we coated different classes of nanoparticles with selected sequences of DNA, combined the different families in one beaker, and nature took its course. The result is a beautiful new set of self-assembled materials with exciting properties.”

For anyone who can get past Nature Nanotechnology’s paywall, the article is titled, “DNA-based programming of quantum dot valency, self-assembly and luminescence”, and it was released on July 10, 2011.

Nanotechnology-enabled Catalytic Clothes look good and clean the air

1 Reply

There’s a great video on the RIA Novosti website featuring interviews about an art/science collaboration between Professor Helen Storey at the London College of Fashion and Professor Tony Ryan, a scientist at the University of Sheffield. The two have created clothing that cleans the air of pollution. From the University of Sheffield June 15, 2011 news release,

Catalytic Clothing is a radical partnership between the University of Sheffield and London College of Fashion University of the Arts London that brings together the worlds of fashion and chemistry with the potential to clean the air we breathe. Employing existing technology in a new way, it seeks to explore how clothing and textiles can be used as a catalytic surface to purify air. It is the brainchild of artist/designer Professor Helen Storey MBE and chemist Professor Tony Ryan OBE – people from two very differing worlds who are using their diametric approaches to achieve great things. Previous projects include the groundbreaking Wonderland project which has now been seen by over 11 million people worldwide.

…
An exclusive film starring Erin O’Connor with soundtrack by Radiohead is already going viral with millions of views.

Here’s a brief preview of the film,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVN2j56t2ek

Here’s a link to the Catalytic Clothing website where you can see the entire film.

For those interested in the science part of the Catalytic Clothing story (from the Catalytic Clothing website, Scientific Background/FAQS page),

What is the science behind Catalytic Clothing?

Catalytic Clothing harnesses the power of a photocatalyst to break down air borne pollutants. A catalyst is a term used to describe something that makes a reaction proceed at a greater rate but isn’t actually consumed during that reaction. A photocatalyst gains the energy it needs to be active from light.

Where do the pollutants come from?

The two biggest sources of air borne pollutants are industry and motor vehicles. Although the majority of the pollutants are prevented from reaching the air, using technology such as catalytic converters, some do escape. It is these pollutants that Catalytic Clothing will break down.

How are the pollutants broken down?

When the light shines on the photocatalyst, the electrons in the material are rearranged and they become more reactive. These electrons are then able to react with the water in the air and break it apart into 2 radicals. A radical is an extremely reactive molecule. These radicals then react with the pollutants and cause them to break down into non-harmful chemicals.

What happens to the pollutants after they’ve been broken down?

The Catalytic Clothing technology is designed to breakdown the pollutants straight away. However, some pollutants may become attached without being broken down. In this case, the pollutants will be washed off during subsequent laundering. This actually already happens with normal clothing.

Is this technology used in any other products?

Photocatalysts have been incorporated into several commercially available products that possess de-polluting properties. These products include paints, cements and paving stones. [Note 1: In the RIA Novosti video, Ryan mentions titanium dioxide specifically. Note 2: Coatings for pavements in Germany are mentioned in my August 2, 2010 posting; scroll down 1/2 way.]

How is the technology delivered to the surface of the clothing?

The photocatalyst is delivered to the surface of the clothing during the traditional laundry procedure as an additive within a standard product such as a fabric conditioner. The active agent is packaged within a shell that is attracted towards, and subsequently binds to, the surface of the clothing during the washing cycle.

Why do we need mass participation to produce a noticeable reduction in the level of pollution?

Although any garment that is treated with the product becomes active, a single garment is only able to remove a small proportion of the air borne pollutants. Therefore, a large number of individuals, all acting together, is required to produce a noticeable reduction in the level of pollution.

How many people would need to participate to produce a noticeable reduction in the level of pollution?

An estimate of the required level of uptake for the Catalytic Clothing indicates that a significant reduction in the level of air borne pollutants in a large city such as London could be achieved if, for every metre of pavement width, 30 people wearing Catalytic Clothes walked past each minute.

Would someone wearing Catalytic Clothing be at a greater risk of exposure to pollutants?

No. The Catalytic Clothing technology won’t actively attract any pollutants. Instead, it will break down anything that comes within very close proximity of the photocatalyst’s surface.

How would society benefit if Catalytic Clothing was widely introduced?

Exposure to air borne pollutants presents a risk to human health and also has a detrimental effect on ecosystems and vegetation. Air pollution is currently estimated to reduce the life expectancy of every person in the UK by an average of 7-8 months. The widespread introduction of Catalytic Clothing would dramatically reduce the level of air borne pollutants, thereby improving the quality of life for all members of society.

The main sponsor for the project is Ecover (from the news release),

Ecover, who are the main sponsors of the Catalytic Clothing cultural campaign, are one of the world´s leading suppliers of green and sustainable cleaning products. All of their products are made with fully renewable plant-based ingredients and produced using a totally biochemical process. Ecover has been recognised by the United Nations Environment programme (UNEP) for their outstanding practical achievements for the protection and improvement of our environment.

Here’s the Ecover website.

This really is the last posting for today. Happy Weekend!

ETA July 11, 2011: Here’s a posting by Jasmin Malik Chua about the project at the Ecouterre website.

India’s nanotechnology efforts lacking?

1 Reply

According to the Chair of the Indian Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Committee, C. N. Rao, India lags behind neighbours China and Japan in its nanotechnology research efforts. From the July 6, 2011 news item on India’s Economic Times website,

India could miss the “nano bus” if it did not catch up soon with China, Japan or the US that were making rapid strides in the field of nanotechnology, the next frontier of science, says top scientist C.N.R. Rao.India, which had made rapid strides in IT and space technology, was not doing enough in the nanotechnology sector, compared to China, Japan or the US, said the chairman of the scientific advisory committee to the prime minister.

…

Rao lamented that India was languishing at the 10th or 12th position in the world in conducting research in nano-science and contributing papers in the field.

“In terms of publication of papers, research wise, we are way behind others, in the 10th or 12th in the world, while China is at the top, followed by the US and Japan,” Rao said in an interview on the margins of a nanotech event Tuesday [July 5, 2011].

I always like  to find out how other countries (in this case, India’s chief science advisor) view nanotechnology generally and how they perceive their own nanotechnology efforts in relation to the rest of the world.  Here’s what Rao had to say about the urgency of the effort,

Referring to the critical problems of energy, drinking water and environment/climate faced by India and many countries in the world, the Linus Pauling research professor said the prime minister had set an ambitious target of producing about 800,000 MW of power by 2020. But there was no way of reaching even half the target with the available resources, including fossil fuels.

If you want the full picture according to Rao, please do follow the link. Meanwhile, after noticing the reference to drinking water I searched out my Feb. 25, 2011 posting of an interview with Darren Anderson and Keith Thomas of Vive Nano, a Canadian cleantech company (focussed on crop protection) has interests in India (we mostly discuss the market not the nanotechnology).

July 2011 update on nanotechnology regulatory framework discussion

1 Reply

It’s getting hard to keep up with the material on nanotechnology regulatory frameworks these days but here’s my latest effort (in no particular order).

Nanowiki published a July 7, 2011 roundup of the discussion about the recent FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) and EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) initiatives along with a list of selected articles and blog postings to supply context (yes, my blog posting Nano regulatory frameworks are everywhere! of June 22, 2011 was included!). Please do check out their roundup as they mention articles and commentaries that I haven’t.

Also included in the Nanowiki roundup was Andrew Maynard’s (Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center) draft of an article for Nature magazine  on the topic of nanomaterial definition and nanotechnology regulatory frameworks. The final version of the article is behind a paywall but a draft version can be viewed on Andrew’s 2020 Science blog. From his July 6, 2011 posting,

Five years ago, I was a strong proponent of developing a regulatory definition of engineered nanomaterials.  Today I am not.  Even as policy makers are looking for clear definitions on which to build and implement nano-regulations, the science is showing there is no bright line separating the risks presented by nanometer and non-nanometer scale materials.  As a result, there is a growing danger of science being pushed to one side as government agencies strive to regulate nanomaterials and the products they are used in.

I have mentioned Andrew’s perspective vis à vis bypassing a definition of nanomaterials and getting on with the task of setting a regulatory framework in my June 9, 2011 and my April 15, 2011 postings. I expressed some generalized doubts about this approach in the earlier posting while noting that both Andrew and Dexter Johnson (Nanoclast blog on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]  Spectrumwebsite) have a point when they express concern that the definition may be based on public relations concerns rather than science.

Also chiming into the debate is Scott Rickert (president and chief executive officer of Nanofilm) in his July 8, 2011 article, Six Ways I Know Nanotechnology Is Here To Stay, for Industry Week,

Have you been keeping up on recent government developments that have the nanotechnology industry in an uproar? First there was a dust-up when Clayton Teague stepped down as Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. There were rumors that the anti-nano forces had run him out. (Not true, by the way.) Then an announcement that the Food and Drug Administration would be looking at nanotechnology safety guidelines got some folks twitching. The same day, the White House released principles to guide the regulation and oversight of nanotechnology applications. That had people running for the exits.

Colleagues who’ve been in nanotechnology for a decade without incident were considering shutting down businesses, afraid a nano-boogieman was going to target them for billion-dollar lawsuits. Start-ups were in fear that the trickle of investment money would completely dry up. Any day I expect to see black armbands popping up in university labs in mourning over lost research grants.

Rickert goes on to suggest that all this recent regulatory activity can be attributed to ‘growing pains’ which he supports with various facts and figures. He has commented on this topic before as I note in my June 17, 2010 posting.

Happy Weekend!

Worlds in the making at FACT in Liverpool

Leave a reply

It’s quite the week for finding art/science/technology projects in the UK. This time I’ve found the Worlds in the Making exhibition at FACT (from their About page),

FACT (Foundation for Art and Creative Technology) has been leading the UK video, film and new media arts scene for 20 years with groundbreaking exhibitions, education and research projects. The organisation aims to pioneer new forms of artistic and social interaction with individuals and communities.

Frank Swain’s July 1, 2011 article about the exhibition  for The Guardian notes,

Artist duo Semiconductor launch a major exhibition at the Fact [sic] gallery in Liverpool on Friday [July 1, 2011] portraying the subterranean, primeval world of geology.

“We’re really interested in the material nature of the world around us – in what the natural building blocks are of the visible physical world, and how we create an understanding of them,” says Ruth Jarman, one half of British artist duo Semiconductor [Joe Gerhardt is the other half].

One of the works on display features an audio representation of gems being created in the Earth’s subterranean depths. I think they’ve included the sound in their video preview of the show,

As for Swain’s (aka @sciencepunk on Twitter) provocative closing question,

Worlds in the Making is certainly art, but does it do anything for science? Can artists like Jarman and Gerhardt inspire wonder in the same way Brian Cox [BBC science presenter/programme host] does?

I think one of the answers is that there are many ways to inspire wonder and that artists such as Semiconductor and presenters such as Brian Cox can co-exist inspiring wonder each in their unique fashion. Thank you to Frank Swain for asking the question in such a way as to expose a false dichotomy.

FACT was last mentioned here in my October 1, 2009 posting.

BC’s Year of Science and its $1.1M legacy

Leave a reply

The Year of Science in British Columbia (Canada) is almost over and in its final days the provincial government’s initiative is gracing Science World in Vancouver and the Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences, also in Vancouver, with $1M and $100K respectively for outreach projects. From the Year of Science July 4, 2011 news release,

The Province is wrapping up the Year of Science with a $1.1-million investment to create a legacy of science education for British Columbia youth helping prepare them for jobs in the knowledge-based economy of the future.

Science World will receive $1.0 million to support outreach programs such as the Program for Awareness and Learning of Science, [emphasis mine] focussed on improving interest in science for students in grades kindergarten through eight. Additionally, the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences will receive $100,000 to support targeted programs, including math camps and mentorship programs, focussed on improving educational outcomes for Aboriginal students in math.

I’m glad to see this money is going to outreach programmes. In my search for more details about them,  I was surprised to find that Science World does not have a news release of their own about these funds; I was less surprised about the Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences but given the time frames for these sorts of announcements which can run over weeks and months, it seems odd.

I also searched for Science World’s Program for Awareness and Learning of Science and couldn’t find it on their website. They do have many programmes that could fit under that title but their website search engine (it doesn’t seem like a very good one) did not produce any results.

I find the choice of fund recipients  interesting and wonder what the criteria were and which other informal science education institutions/groups in the province were being considered for these fund.

In any event, I hope we hear more about these outreach projects from Science World and the Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences as they progress.

Charged up t-shirts

Leave a reply

There’s been a lot of talk about using t-shirts and other clothing to recharge telephones and other electronic devices but until now everything has been confined to the lab (as per my January 22, 2010 posting [scroll down about1/3 of the way] and my Feb. 15, 2010 posting). The latest edition of the Glastonbury Music Festival in the UK saw the introduction of Sound Charge, a t-shirt that harvests energy from ambient sound to recharge mobile phone batteries.

Here’s how Orange, the telecommunications company behind the Glastonbury experiment did it (from the Orange June 20, 2011 news release,

Following months of planning and development, the prototype, named the Orange ‘Sound Charge’ has been produced in conjunction with renewable energy experts at GotWind. The eco charging device uses an existing technology in a revolutionary way; by reversing the use of a product called Piezoelectric film, allowing people to charge their mobile phones whilst enjoying their favourite headline act at Glastonbury.

Usually found in modern hi-fi speakers, an A4 panel of the modified film is housed inside a t-shirt which then acts much like an oversized microphone by ‘absorbing’ invisible sound pressure waves. These sound waves are converted via the compression of interlaced quartz crystals into an electrical charge, which is fed into an integral reservoir battery that in turn charges most makes and models of mobile phone. As the ‘device’ is worn, a steady charge is able to be dispensed into the phone via a simple interchangeable lead which fits most handsets.

Thankfully given the nature of human sweat and dirt, the film is removable allowing the t-shirt to be cleaned and leaving the components unharmed.

Schematic for Sound Charge t-shirt prototype tested at 2011 Glastonbury Music Festival

As for how efficiently the t-shirts harvest energy and transform it to an electrical charge, there’s still work to be done. From the June 20, 2011 article by Caleb Cox for The Register,

Apparently over the course of a weekend, the T-shirt will only produce enough energy for roughly a single smartphone recharge, so it will probably follow in the footsteps of the wellies by remaining a non-commercial product.

This is not the first joint project between Orange and GotWind, last year they collaborated on ‘rechargeable wellies’ (wellies are rubber boots) for the Glastonbury Festival.