There is no such thing as Nanotechnology

[gmol]

Despite what some people will try to sell you, I'd have to say there is no such thing as man made "nanotechnology".

It's a convientment and buzzy word to get more funding towards what are pretty what are somewhat broad established paths in fields like molecular biology, chemistry, physics, materials. I'd have to say that I haven't seen a real good example of nanotech being applied towards any sort of useful "coming together" of any of those fields...

So just learn basic science and you should be fine!

[espritch]

Nanotechnology as a mature technology that can be used to solve specific problems does not currently exist. However, a lot basic research is being done on techniques that could one day be used to create such a technology. These include manufacture of tiny gears and engines as well as research into tiny logic gates that could be used to create tiny control circuits. I suspect any real payoff is long a ways down the road and I seriously doubt the kind of utopian world where nano bots can repair damaged cells, etc. is going to happen in my life time if ever.

I do expect to see some practical applications of nano technology in my life time though.

[gmol]

[Sorry didn't mean to start a new thread, must've clicked the wrong button]

Yes you porbably will see some advances in the fields you are talking about; but the people working on them won't be calling it nanotechnology; it's the same 'ol standard science that has been rolling along for a while. My point was that the word "nanotech" is not even a word that fairly characterizes the science being done to create things "nanotech". Scientists aren't sitting around reading Drexler's book; there just repeating the same mantra of smaller,better,faster,cheaper. "Nanotechnology" isn't even an apt vauge unifying theme any subset of science. Great for funding though....

Originally posted by espritch
Nanotechnology as a mature technology that can be used to solve specific problems does not currently exist. However, a lot basic research is being done on techniques that could one day be used to create such a technology. These include manufacture of tiny gears and engines as well as research into tiny logic gates that could be used to create tiny control circuits.


The tiniest logic gates that could forseeably be used would be those made out of quantum dots; it's just standard research in physics. Yes, people have done things like single atom/molecule/DNA; none of those are at all practical.


I suspect any real payoff is long a ways down the road and I seriously doubt the kind of utopian world where nano bots can repair damaged cells, etc. is going to happen in my life time if ever.

I do expect to see some practical applications of nano technology in my life time though.

I expect to see some amazing advances too, but I prefer to give it the usual name: i.e. material science, chemistry and physics.
Even MEMS aren't really all that 'nano' ...cool...but not 'nano'.

[UnrepentantSinner]

This man
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~cben/ExecDir.shtml
would beg to differ.

[scotth]

I would certainly beg to differ.

You will almost certainly see the first truely nano device commercially available by 2005 or shortly after.

Expect to see a new storage media from IBM that will store the data as tiny dents in a polymer surface.

[DrMatt]

A chemist at University of Michigan has formed ring-shaped molecular structures which, when suspended in a soup, tend to preciptate out of solution by forming long tube-shaped crystals. He said he's hoping to be able to use it to make a miniature "syringe" for injecting things directly into cells. A search of www.umich.edu should turn this up.

[Oso]

Originally posted by gmol
Despite what some people will try to sell you, I'd have to say there is no such thing as man made "nanotechnology".


Check your auto's fuel injection system. The latest fuel injection systems already react to nano scale particles. The Nano sized sensors and actuators to make this more efficient are in the works for Formula One race cars. In fact they may already be on the track.

[rwald]

I think what gmol's saying is that when "nanotechnology" is fully developed, it won't be called nanotechnology, but just "the next logical advancement in a given particular field." Basicaly, the idea is that "nanotechnology" is a conceptual idea about a future technology, but when it arrives, it will go by different names and be perceived in different ways. Am I anywhere near right?

[gmol]

Yeah, all of the examples cited so far are normal advancments in their respective fields. It's a misnomer to shove them all under 'nanotech'. It's a mistake to ask 'what should I learn to understand nanotechnology'; if you learn any of (or all ;) of chemistry, physics, chemical engineering or material science you can probably do some research that would be called nanotech to get some funding. But you'd probably working on the same thread of ideas that have been developing in that field from long ago.

To summarize, my point is that nanotech is a funding buzzword. No one goes around getting a degree in 'nanotechnology' and there haven't been any real whizzbangzoom discoveries that were the result of an immdeate convergence of different fields, under the nanotech creed.


Originally posted by rwald
I think what gmol's saying is that when "nanotechnology" is fully developed, it won't be called nanotechnology, but just "the next logical advancement in a given particular field." Basicaly, the idea is that "nanotechnology" is a conceptual idea about a future technology, but when it arrives, it will go by different names and be perceived in different ways. Am I anywhere near right?

[scotth]

Originally posted by gmol
Yeah, all of the examples cited so far are normal advancments in their respective fields. It's a misnomer to shove them all under 'nanotech'. It's a mistake to ask 'what should I learn to understand nanotechnology'; if you learn any of (or all ;) of chemistry, physics, chemical engineering or material science you can probably do some research that would be called nanotech to get some funding. But you'd probably working on the same thread of ideas that have been developing in that field from long ago.



I think if you look at what IBM is working, you would change your tune. This is an entirely new type of device.

[rwald]

But the point is, is it "nanotechnology," or just cutting-edge material science? The idea is that "nanotechnology," as an umbrella term to describe a wide range of different advancements, is a marketing gimmick.

[Soapy Sam]

There is so nano. I've got some here. Dang! Must have dropped it. Anyone got a microscope?

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by rwald
But the point is, is it "nanotechnology," or just cutting-edge material science? The idea is that "nanotechnology," as an umbrella term to describe a wide range of different advancements, is a marketing gimmick. While I believe use of the term has gotten out of hand, I think it is a legimate term.

From a standard dictionary

nan·o·tech·nol·o·gy n.
The science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules.

From a geek dictionary

nanotechnology

/nan'-oh-tek-no`l*-jee/ n. A hypothetical
fabrication technology in which objects are designed and built with the individual specification and placement of each separate atom.

Obviously, using the second definition we are starting to get into a type of fabrication where a different set of forces dominate your thinking.

Walt

[Soapy Sam]

OK. Somebody has to do it, so here goes.

Nanotech has been classified "top secret" by the Gummint. It will be developed for military purposes only. Civilian scientists have vanished from Sweden and Venezuela. At least one was seen to implode and drain through a hole in the floor after eating a tea biscuit.

Currently, all world nano research happens in a very small room in Area 51, known as Area 51.00000001

Most of it is in a cigarette packet under the desk.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by rwald
But the point is, is it "nanotechnology," or just cutting-edge material science? The idea is that "nanotechnology," as an umbrella term to describe a wide range of different advancements, is a marketing gimmick.

You must understand that scientific journalists have a media mentality. The content of the research is not as important as how many magazines you can sell. They latch on to a buzz word or phrase and use it as their theme of the month, or year, or decade.

Right now, if you are a chemist and you want a spot in a premier science magazine, the words "Self-Assmebly" in the title will just about garantee you a published article. Self-Assembly (gag!)! As if chemist up until now have been putting molecules together with molecular tweezers. All chemistry is self-assembled, but the phrase is catchy and trendy and everybody uses it.

My boss even walked in today and bragged about a consultant he hired that's working with self-assembled molecules. Barf!

[gmol]

Great example.
That consultant may just have been *my* boss ;)

Originally posted by Bruce


You must understand that scientific journalists have a media mentality. The content of the research is not as important as how many magazines you can sell. They latch on to a buzz word or phrase and use it as their theme of the month, or year, or decade.

Right now, if you are a chemist and you want a spot in a premier science magazine, the words "Self-Assmebly" in the title will just about garantee you a published article. Self-Assembly (gag!)! As if chemist up until now have been putting molecules together with molecular tweezers. All chemistry is self-assembled, but the phrase is catchy and trendy and everybody uses it.

My boss even walked in today and bragged about a consultant he hired that's working with self-assembled molecules. Barf!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
There is so nano. I've got some here. Dang! Must have dropped it. Anyone got a microscope?

That's what your wife says!!!

Thank you, thank you!! I'll be here all week...

[Soapy Sam]

Wife? Have I been sleepwalking again?

Actually, I was thinking , my boss is in fact made from self assembled molecules. But aren't we all?

I find the idea of "nano machines" (Tiny gearboxes and the like) which periodically surfaces in Popular Mechanics and the like, really a bit silly. That sort of scaling of machinery would have so many problems with surface tension , power and viscosity that it seems to verge into perpetual motion at one end and Asimov's wilder moments at the other. (Remember Raquel Welch in "Fantastic Voyage"?- Now there's a self-assembled macromolecule to conjure with).

I see a subtle slippage in what "nanotech" means recently. Are the photolithographic techniques used to produce chip circuits "nano tech" for example?

I tend to agree with Rwald that it's a convenient label for people hunting investment capital. But honest, it just bounced under the bench somewhere. Give me a minute.