Recently in Nanotechnology Category

To be honest, every year, about this time of year, I get inquiries to head-line at conferences having to do with Nano-tech, or Nano-biology. I was recently invited to become a member (of course, for a price) of an "exclusive biotech club"... (this was their words).

The problem? I think they wanted to invite my cousin, not me. I think they also didn't do their search properly.

I do have an interest in Nano-Tech, but am by no means an expert - it's just a research interest for me (which is why I haven't written anything for quite a while now on the topic). I have to learn more before I can publish again.

But being my birthday, I just thought I'd share with you this interesting thought. Typing in my last name alone, provides hits to many different people (apparantly I'm not as alone as I thought I was).... There's Sharon Linstedt, a writer in Buffalo NY, to whom I think I may be related (not yet confirmed) through one of my great great relatives - who immigrated to Manitowoc Wisconsin in 1880 (or so)... Then there's a couple of Linstedt's in Germany, who I've not yet contacted to see if there's a relationship.

My original family name was spelled: "Lindstedt" - somewhere along the line, the "d" in the middle was dropped.

Anyhow, if you're really interested in nano-biology, you'll have to contact my extremely brilliant cousin, you can contact me too - but I'll only re-direct you.

Thanks,
Dan Linstedt

RFID Chip in Passports - Hacked into by Security Expert, Shows flaws of information, discusses the serious nature of release of private information, and one of the surprising things they wrote about is the RFID has no "stop-gap" measures to shut-down, self-destruct, or ward off attacks. I vote for Hitting it with a blunt object so as to smash the chip.

Here's another one that raises questions about the privacy and protection of top-secret personell, top secret locations, and so on...
RFID Spy chip implanted in "hollow coin" appears in Canada

I don't know how you feel about this, but I'm certainly upset.
1. As people in a free country where the government is elected by votes, shouldn't the government be asking rather than telling us that they will implement something this invasive, without a vote, and all in the name of "security".
2. What exactly does it mean to compromise "ethics and privacy" in the name of "security"?
3. By having an RFID tag in my drivers license or passport, how much more "secure" am I really?

Here's a great report from a University on the Privacy Enhancing Technology claims for RFID, and what some of the ethical problems are:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/PETC_RFID_Scrutinised.pdf

I hope someone comes up with a device called "RFID Jammer" that can be embedded into your own clothing, placed into your wallet or stuck to your cell phone, a device that silences the radio waves or burns out the chip electronically.

Anyone can buy an RFID reader on-line, no background checks, no security, no questions asked, for about $921.00

These are questions I have, but alas, no answers. If you have articles on RFID that you'd like to share, I'd like to hear about them.

Thanks,
Dan L
CTO, Myers-Holum, Inc
http://www.MyersHolum.com

Quite a while back I wrote on RFID and what a Database manufacturer would have to do to support RFID. See my article here. Then, there is the notion of RFID as it pertains to privacy and security context (within VLDW). I wrote about that here. But Alas, RFID brings with it tons of problems and issues that haven't been resolved - and may not be. Wal-Mart has quietly pulled back on implementing the RFID across all its suppliers. GM, and Ford have also pulled back, Congress has raised all kinds of issues surrounding the privacy of RFID de-activation.

Here is a simple discussion of these issues: (this is a fictitious example to illustrate a point)

Wal-Mart wanted every item tagged from inception through completion. Suppose these items are "M" earrings. M earrings are tagged as a pair, the pair is put into a carton, their are 24 pair to a carton, then - each carton is tagged. There are 48 cartons put on a single shrink wrapped unit, the unit is then tagged. There are 15 units per palette. Each palette is tagged. Then finally there are thousands of pallets on the warehouse floor.

Now come the questions:
1. What if one of the tags on the earring boxes "dies", how do you locate the dead signal to replace the RFID tag? Furthermore, there are machines for packaging, but no machines for unpackaging. If you do manage to find the dead signal, you have to unwrap the entire palette and all subsequently wrapped sub-components to get to the tag.
2. What if some of the tags interfere with each other? Their signals get crossed, and you can no longer tell which product is which.
3. That many radio signals all require their own frequency - with thousands of palettes on the shipping floor, you have millions of signals - resulting in interference of cell phones, wireless networking, car-radio's, and other items not linked directly to copper wire. Bleed-over into other frequencies quickly becomes an issue.
4. How do you know (electronically) that you want to track the signal or activate only the signal on a palette once all have been wrapped in a unit? How do you shut-off or filter out all sub-signals within a palette? RFID transponders cannot do this, they send radio frequencies across the board, and all the RFID's in range respond - resulting in huge signal overload.

Now on to the ethics side of the questions:
1. As a consumer you probably don't want someone tracking you (the pants / jacket / shirt you're wearing) as you move around in the mall, or your home or car as you pass an RFID transponder sitting on top of a stop-light at major intersections. That is pure invasion of privacy, very similar to the invasion of privacy that the cameras on top of major intersections today also create.
2. Once you leave a store, how do you know that the store has in fact shut-down the RFID or removed the tag? Some of the tags were supposed to be sewn into the material directly - and it's not just clothing - it's coffee, tea, food items, toys, cars, bicycles, and so on.
3. What would happen if you accidentally drank an RFID? You can't see it, and if it gets in to the food item you're making and you ingest it, then what?

Ok, I'm not the only one bringing to light major concerns. Congress is asking tons of questions, as are the retailers. Below are some interesting press releases about RFID and concerns:

RFID Software a “Pandora’s Box”
Fake Products Can Bypass Quality, Safety
Item-Level RFID Tags Cost More than Expected
Report: Major RFID Hurdles Ahead
IPOs in RFID: If Not Alien, Then Who?
RFID & Individual Privacy
Ethical Problems and RFID
Doctor Tagged with RFID worries about privacy.

One problem? I searched and searched for RFID problems, ethics, issues, privacy, and so on - I found many voices speaking of these issues, but it seems as though the big-dogs are not publicly stating what they've found to be issues, nor are they openly discussing why they are backing down. I'll continue to look for this information, and as I find it - I'll post it here. If you can find quality articles from well-known journals that discuss the ethical implications of RFID, I'd love to hear from you.

RFID is not dead, it still will be utilized (good or bad), because it is a technological advancement, and has been proven to be effective at some levels of tracking. And as always, with new technology like this implementation leads the way long before the impacts are known, and legislation can take place.

Hope this was interesting for you,
Dan L
CTO, Myers-Holum, Inc
http://www.MyersHolum.com

Well, I was thinking about my can of soda; yes I drink soda, and it's usually Pepsi, uhhh I mean Coke... Oh Well, I drink both - but anyhow, what if the can's paint could contain a RID and a modified RFID that generated signals? What if Coke/Pepsi cared about geographic location of the can? It is possible to send a satellite signal to each MRFID (modified RFID). This would have to be done using Nanotech, for an internal power source, and a transmitter would have to be embedded, or an encoding device.

In other words, since the power source is usually too weak to respond to a satellite signal, it would have to record where it was (latitude and longitude). Every hour it would record it's lat/long in a DNA computing style by folding DNA elements.

Yea, so what, what if Pepsi/Coke could track the can, and what difference would it make?
Well - from a vendor perspective they could start to discover where the cans went when they left the store. Perhaps a scary thought, perhaps not. In any case, it's bound to happen and not just with the Drink manufacturers, but with cars, clothing, artwork, and so on. In fact with On-Star in GM Cars, it's already happening (only on a larger scale). Imagine what marketing power the cola company would have if they knew that on July 4th many of the cans were not only purchased at Wal-Mart, but driven to a remote location where they were subsequently consumed; in other words, a campground.

If the cola manufacturer could figure out how to open a store closer to that location, they might have a boost in sales, or even a dispenser machine or they drive a truck up to the location to sell or promotionally give away their product; all in the sake of loyalty.

But hey, we're talking tracking of the products that we purchase. This raises serious invasion of privacy concerns. I may not want my cola / pants / T-Shirt producer tracking my activities and locations. They'd quickly find out that I'm not worth tracking - moving around the country to present at IT meetings, and working at home most of the time.

On the other hand, think of what Law enforcement could do from a business intelligence perspective - a criminal purchases a set of pants or a mask that's tagged with MRFID, and all of the sudden the FBI has a fix on their location... Hey maybe it's good for tracking wanted individuals. But we'll leave that alone.

What I'm suggesting is the following:
* This technology will come to pass, like it or not - it will happen within 15 to 20 years (or sooner) Because vendors would have a huge increase in revenue as a result.
* Nanotech is already here, and there are limitless utilizations for it.
* Privacy and Ethics are a hot debate in the nanotech industry
* There are some interesting applications for MRFID in the productized world.

Care to share some ideas? Thoughts?
Daniel Linstedt

The presentation is on the MIT web site.
The implications are profound. The notion of controlling a single DNA molecule from a radio wave is incredible. Let's step off the edge, and look into the future, over the horizon - let's see if we can think of applications and implications of this technology within the DW / BI space. Beyond the obvious applications in bio-tech, and medical science, let's see what we can come up with.

The web blurb talks about the following:

Anyone can imagine controlling a model car or airplane with radio signals, remotely guiding the machine along a prescribed pathway. In this Knowledge Update, readers learn that the same is being done with DNA and other molecules. This Update describes the tools behind this molecular control, which relies on nanotechnology. In addition, readers learn how this technique can control the binding of DNA, which governs biological processes from cell division to switching genes on and off. Consequently, controlling bimolecular operations opens many possibilities, such as using this nano-control for genetic testing, building molecule-size devices that move on command, and much more.

Now, lets' dive into nano-computing for a moment: imagine a computing system containing a few grams of DNA - say within the size of a thumb drive for a USB port. Within that thumb drive are two things: modified DNA with nano crystal antennae, and a computing system that produces super short, very "weak" radio transmission waves; just enough of a wave to reach the localized DNA. Of course the frequency must be localized as well, and the radio wave must be too weak to travel outside the bounds of the thumb drive - maybe the inside of the thumb drive is coated with a shielding material that keeps the radio waves within the device.

Power consumption is low for this kind of thing. It would be very easy to "program" the DNA, especially since the radio waves cut, splice, and control on/off of the molecules. The challenge would be in reading the DNA results. Suppose there are two mechanisms available to "read results", one possibility might be based on a solution, encouraging and discouraging bonding based on ionization of the molecules - then the reading mechanism might be a segment of light that passes through the entire solution, and either shadow and/or intensity of shadow can produce a read-out of the result, or instead of light and colors, maybe additional radio waves are passed through the solution - ones that don't interact with the antennae, what bounces is read into an "imaging" device - the image is then interpreted by standard programmatic methods.

It is possible then, by combining existing technology with nanotechnology into a single device, to see how "exponentially hard" computational problems can be solved through a simple USB plug and play, and that existing technology can be used to "read" the answers, and send the signals in parallel to the actual computation engine. However, now that I think of it, why not use this for simple solutions too? Solved in parallel, all the DNA strands and programmable DNA molecules should come up with the same answer, every time.

Radio waves offer the dynamics of the same signal to each programmable element at the same time, using imaging and light/color/shadowing techniques - the solution could be "read". Localizing the radio waves and shielding the cover would minimize interference.

I'd love to hear from you, and see what you think of this future vision.

Thank-you,
Dan Linstedt

Here's the news story: Computer World

They have produced a "fingernail sized memory chip, about 45 nanometers wide -- about 1,000 times smaller than a red blood cell." What makes this interesting is how much memory they can put inside a memory stick. I've read other nanotech based articles recently which discuss advances to memory that (theoretically) will make "disk drives" obsolete. The nanomemory being experimented with can actually hold-state, and be supplied by an internal power source. This particular memory that Intel has produced doesn't discuss the specifications, but they do say that power consumption is greatly reduced, that means computers running cooler. The first question that comes to mind is:

What happens to my computer?
1. it runs much much cooler
2. Everything becomes RAM based.
3. No more personal lap heaters
4. Smaller batteries can be used - by the way, there's another article in the recent Scientific American about nanobatteries... this is a HUGE advancement; particularly if the two are coupled together... Imagine the power.
5... the list goes on.

What happens to my RDBMS? (these are my predictions - opinion only)
1. One step closer to a nanohouse, while nanohousing may not be "true to life" (in other words, a nano-scaled data warehouse complete with software/hardware mixed together), the RDBMS will begin using nanomemory.
2. DATA PARTITIONING WILL GO BY THE WAY-SIDE
3. Arguments over VLDW/VLDB and MPP vs SMP will dissipate.
4. Performance and tuning will become highly specialized, and finally "disappear"
5. Data Layout and data modeling will become more abstracted, as freedom to experiment will take place because of the faster RAM storage.

Remember the article on the DoD (department of defense) and DNA computing? Nanotech based computing with carbon nanotubes and other such devices is catching up, they'll be able to store hundreds of terabytes on what is equivalent to a memory stick today.

In fact, I predict that manufacturers will completely remove "storage" from their internal offerings, and produce a "plug an play" storage device interface that is highly parallel, and will scale to access the terabytes of nanomemory. You'll be able to "take your information with you" in your shirt pocket. "Laptops" will become stationary, and these memory devices will plug and play with the next generation "Ipod" or "Windows CE devices".

In fact audio, and video equipment will be adapted - just plug in the memory (all your "hard-drive information") and select your functionality, away you go. Of course this gives a whole new meaning to the term: SCOPE CREEP, and Spread-Marts - every "storage device" will essentially be a spread mart of corporate information. Which in turn states that corporations must begin NOW thinking about how to manage, and regulate these storage components. Security will get harder, not easier.

I'd love to hear your whimsicle thoughts about where this could take us. Please post your comments.

See you next time,
Dan L

The article can be found here. I've spent a lot of time writing about the nature of convergence, and the fact that I believe "wet-technology" or the mix between natural world models and our electronic models is coming together. Nothing is more evident here. In this particular case we have electronic gates / switches that we normally use to play tic-tac-toe, only they are placed into DNA enzymes. This raises some very interesting questions:

1. How parallel is this DNA computer?
2. If it has so many parallel operations, how fast is it in terms of "operations per second?"
3. What would happen if we took multiples of these tic-tac-toe boards, and tied them together for a game of Othello? If we did this for Chess, what would need to change?

We're always molding our natural world into models that we see to fit our needs, for instance - moving the tubes into a sequence to represent tic-tac-toe. What if instead, we utilized a single strand of folded DNA in three dimensions to represent a tic-tac-toe board? Could the single solution with a single DNA strand play the game on a much smaller level?

This is the type of question that would lead deeper into the Nanohouse abilities. The ability to control a single DNA strand, and utilize a model that already exists to achieve our goals. We would have a much larger scale repeatable model if we could do this.

The thought experiment:
Say for an instant that you had 120 train tracks back to back, and 120 trains (1 on each track). Now say, each train has 120 cars - each one uniquely different, and each trains engine was unique - color, size, shape, horsepower, motor drive, etc.. Now suppose within each train, a series of cars represented a "square" on the tic-tac-toe board. In other words, 20 cars from each train represented one square. Each train represents a different tic-tac-toe board.

Now suppose we released 120 people, told them to go "take" six cars from each train - the only requirement is that they need to all choose a different 6 car set. This might represent the chemical release to a DNA strand, and each of the "people" or incoming chemical mix matches with a specific DNA place in the chain. By repeating this process, and having the "computer" or the "game" choose other car sets, you've effectively re-created a logic gate computing device at the DNA strand level.

The other thing we've done here is suggest that the computations occur in parallel, and that data sets can be different for each "action" - told to attach itself to DNA at different parts of the strand. We've effectively re-created the possibility to play an very large number of finite "games", all in parallel. Very quickly the "winning pattern" will emerge, these may become the rules that are applied to the next engine going forward - in other words, spot the "learning pattern".

Of course, change the game - and we have to start all over again. The learned rules for Tic-Tac-Toe don't necessarily work for checkers or chess.

Some of the other questions still rolling around in my head are:
1. Is DNA Computing (or will it ever be) faster than electron based spin technology?
2. What are the pros and cons of DNA computing versus electron spin technology?
3. What are the recent strides that electron spin technology has made?

It seems to me that electron spin computing has a ways to go, and isn't making advances as fast as DNA computing, but that remains to be seen. It also appears to be a more difficult challenge, as DNA molecules are much larger than electron based control at the atomic level. However - I must ask the question, if we can search 10^8 Terabytes of DNA solution in 3 seconds, how fast (if it ever can be done) will electron spin computing device search 10^8 terabytes? I must also ask, is it really worth the cost or difficulty of overcoming its (electron spin) obstacles to make it happen?

I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas.

The first is: "Neuroscientists break code on sight" In this unbelievable article, the neuroscientists actually figured out (at least started to figure out) a way to encode images, or found some of the mechanisms within the brain that are responsible for encoding images that are seen.

Why is this important to me?
From a business perspective, it could mean that a. we could build better visual recognition systems, b. we could encrypt or encode images in extremely compressed formats. Imagine, if all we needed were the "neuron imaging program" to rebuild the image from a very small set of data, then this would change the entire nature of compression / decompression. In other words - what does it take to constitute a particular image with precise information? Notice that the article houses the images in black and white, there must be another component of the neural network that processes colors, however this shows a recognition of depth through hue and saturation.

From a business intelligence perspective it could mean a. much better data visualization, b. new ways of abstracting information, c. a combination of form and function where data points represent the neural network - resulting in "learning something new" rather quickly. Think about it this way: what if we constructed the worlds ONLY "universal data model" with specific functions attached to each point, and then by lighting up those points with different intensities (applicability scores) we could end up with an image or a thought or a fact? This is the way I see this particular advancement. More on how that might work, later...

The next story comes from a company I've been watching for the past two years: Nanosys.
"Nanosys Announces Issued Patent Covering Fundamental Nanowire Heterostructures"
This story is also interesting in what Nanosys has accomplished. When we read the intro blurb about the development, notice what Nanosys says about the application of this technology:

"This technology covers a broad variety of devices including Field Effect Transistors (FET), light emitting devices including Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and nanolasers, solar cells, thermoelectric devices, optical detectors, and chemical and biological sensors."

What's interesting here is that Nanosys has proven with this one device, that nanotechnology does indeed cross many different aspects of life; from the technology sector, to the chemical and biological sector. This underscores the importance of convergence, something I've been blogging on for over a year. The next quote from this story raises some very interesting questions in my mind...

"The technology to integrate different materials at the nanoscale enables us to create nanostructures that perform as devices with multiple functions rather than just materials," said Calvin Chow, Nanosys' Chief Executive Officer. "This significantly increases the value of our nanostructures while simplifying their incorporation into products."

The questions I have are:
1. If nanostructures enable the creation of multiple devices with multiple functions, then when does a device begin and a material end?
2. Will we be able to tell the difference between a nanodevice and a nanomaterial?
3. Is it safe to say that a nanomaterial is now a nanodevice and vice-versa?

Assuming that a nanomaterial is now also a nanodevice at the same time, then we now have the ability to create the product (or part of it) known as Wellstone (Hacking Matter, Will McCarthy). We could also conceivably create a piece of "wood" made of nanomaterial, that can change its' composition to a piece of fabric or steel based on programmatic arrangement. Maybe these nanowires are not yet that advanced. Maybe we only have the ability to create a "computationally smart coffee table." None-the-less this is a very important discovery.

Here's a fun one: "Molecules that suck"
The interesting part of this, is the notion that molecules can "pick up" and then be told to re-arrange, and "release" other molecules. In other words, it sounds as if it's temporary bonding. If I extrapolate the thought process, this could potentially provide a battery operated surface for gloves and shoes, where it can "bond" with metal molecules, say a steel wall, then released, and re-bonded again. Could it lead to nano-devices for "walking up walls"?

And finally: "Study shows nanoparticles could damage plant life"
This article is very interesting, in that it discusses how nanoparticles actually damage other natural world particles. It brings to the fore-front (in my mind) the potential danger of nanotech. In this case, they've actually shown that nanotech can in fact have harmful effects on the natural world. They admit to not knowing "how" this happens yet, but one can speculate that it's like clogging of the pores in your skin, that the aluminum nanoparticles block the water absorption pores of the plant root, or maybe that they are absorbed as a part of the water and then somehow block the oxygen creation process within the plant.

We are already aware of the dangers of aluminum particles in the human body, causing everything from memory loss to Alzheimer’s disease - basically that the aluminum is absorbed through the skin, and lodges itself in the brain and blocks normal activity. It's no surprise that a metal like this is dangerous to plants as well. But it begs the question: are there circumstances where trace amounts of aluminum nanoparticles could be helpful? And if so, where should they be applied and under what circumstances? If there was a way to keep them from floating through the air when "sprayed on", maybe we have the next generation weed killer, as long as we don't inhale or get it on our skin.

Nanotech itself is a phenomenal field of discovery and advancement, each of these pieces I've included highlights different areas of nanotech and their applications or the affects there-of. It will only become more exciting as we dive in to next year, and begin to see business applications of these components in every-day life.

Don't get me wrong, the computational side is very important as well, and in fact - to get the scalability, FORM AND FUNCTION MUST CONVERGE, and the FORM (the data models) must be flexible, and dynamic in nature. This is where Nanotech and Biotech comes in; they are currently defining the use of "wet-technology" or natural world models in our current technological world.

"Computational Mechanisms in Bio-Substrates... Leverage massive parallelism, Harvest Nature's toolkit." (1)
"Computational models of Cells - Natural Computation" (1)

The study goes on to discuss how DNA computing is scalable, programmable, and can exist in a 2D and 3D landscape; they also discuss the nature of self-assembly - a concept reserved for Nanotechnologists. In one of my earlier papers and references to DNA computing, 1 gram of DNA can store multiple terabytes of information. This certainly leads to the notions of a compact nanohouse.

The impact of 3d modeling has already been discussed, in the ability to fold relationships, see data in a new light, and begin to program systems based on "landscape" notions, or proximity in height, width and depth. The notions of "model driven development" are central to the development of nanotechnology.

A parallel can be drawn when we look at business development and understanding, particularly in terms of SOA. When we go to build SOA, the "data models" underneath make all the difference in terms of scalability, and flexibility. When I look at VLDB / VLDW - it's the same thing all over again, MPP systems are the tip of the ice-berg, and shared-nothing architectures rely HEAVILY on the model of the data underneath in order to achieve maximum performance of the queries.

If we add the DARPA term: SPATIO-TEMPORAL modeling to the mix, we can begin to uncover the power of 3D modeling. "Capturing interactions in the network of Gene-protein interactions"(1) - If we can capture the affects of interactions between data sets, and weigh their significance using neural computation models we can begin to dynamically compose and decompose relationships in massively parallel fashion. Beyond that, we can also begin to establish those that are of more importance to us based on historical content and knowledge or small-context discovery. This would be the self-assembly component of the Nanohouse.

(2) lists many different programs that DARPA is involved in, while many of these remain closed to the public, their titles are informative and show a heavy convergence in the Nanotech area.

Another report:
"An overview and categorization of existing research in DNA based computation, the possible advantages that different models have over conventional computational methods, and potential applications that might emerge from, or serve to motivate, the creation of a working Bio-molecular Computer." (3)

Shows that bio-molecular computing requires specific modeling methods, and that models can have an impact in both the type of computing as well as the abilities of the computational device - to serve it's purpose. The Nanohouse is built from the neural model in the brain, as a massively parallel system tied together with specified form and function, it can scale beyond our current dreams.

If you have some interesting links you'd like to share, or thoughts about the future of Nanohousing, I'd love to hear them.

Sources:
1. DARPA Military Briefing, http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/solicitations/closed/01-26_briefing1.pdf
2. DARPA Listing of Programs, http://www.darpa.mil/dso/programs.htm
3. http://publish.uwo.ca/~jadams/dnaapps1.htm

Imagine, slower melting snow - made from nanotech. Snow that still melts, so it doesn't harm the environment and nature still can experience the seasons - but something that might be able to be created on the ski-slopes on the first of September every year, and doesn't melt until late may or June.

Maybe it's a silly idea, but maybe just maybe there might be something to it. Imagine if we could keep a water molecule crystallized for just a little bit longer than usual - get it to release heat less quickly, or get it to absorb heat slower. What kinds of applications could this lead to?

Let's speculate for a moment - I know nothing (other than what I've seen on Nova) about avalanches, and how they are caused by melting sheets of snow - turning top layers of snow to water on warm days, freezing at night into ice sheets - then new snow fall on the ice sheets; eventually the weight causing the layer of snow to "slide" off the ice, starting an avalanche.

Suppose this type of extreme crystallization could be stopped or prolonged - in other words, suppose the snow melts more slowly, less water, less ice at night. Do you think that the sheets could be "thinned" out enough to be crushed under the weight of new snow rather than cause a slide? Maybe.

Or how about slow-melting ice in drinks, (but still melts); let’s just say I'm in to the old-fashioned ice cubes, rather than the plastic re-freezable ones. Well, back to snow. If we could construct slow melting snow molecules we might have longer lasting ski seasons.

What are some of the dangers?
If the clouds are seeded, we'd have one heck of a time getting this snow off the roads, or it would require the fast-melting molecule to be introduced on the roads. In this case, we'd want to make sure that the chemical reaction caused by fast-melting applied to slow-melting doesn't cause a toxic reaction, and that it doesn't rust metal.

Another possible danger is the slow-melting snow, if applied to bare-ground, might actually trap heat in the ground - because it doesn't absorb the heat as fast as regular snow. I'm not sure of all the impacts, but at first glance, this doesn't sound good.

Well, here's one more possibility: Slower melting snow may actually hold a colder internal temperature than regular snow, so if you got it on your hands or down your back - it would be colder to the touch. However - that requires a heat absorption rate within the snow molecule itself. Now that I think about it, to the touch - this slower melting snow may not feel as cold (not sure about this one).

Here's an interesting (possibly dangerous) use: applying slower melting snow (or some offshoot) to warmer ocean waters that have traditionally been "cold". What if it could be used to slowly lower the temperature of what are supposed to be cold regions of water?

Of course this is a silly idea, and one made from a fictional thought - but I just thought maybe, someone was daydreaming (like me) about a longer ski-season.

Thoughts? What do you see as the dangers, or possibilities of this type of idea? What makes it infeasible/feasible?