There is no such thing as Nanotechnology

gmol · 17th February 2003, 11:18 AM

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 · 17th February 2003, 03:59 PM

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 · 17th February 2003, 06:14 PM

[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....

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 18th February 2003, 01:03 AM

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

scotth · 18th February 2003, 06:29 AM

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 · 18th February 2003, 06:43 AM

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 · 18th February 2003, 07:12 AM

Quote:

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.

18th February 2003, 10:13 AM

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 · 18th February 2003, 10:22 AM

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.

Quote:

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 · 18th February 2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

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.

18th February 2003, 10:31 AM

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 · 18th February 2003, 12:46 PM

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

Walter Wayne · 18th February 2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th February 2003, 02:22 PM

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 · 18th February 2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th February 2003, 09:26 PM

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

Quote:

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 · 18th February 2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

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 · 19th February 2003, 02:06 PM

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.

17th February 2003, 11:18 AM	#1
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87	There is no such thing as Nanotechnology 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!
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87

17th February 2003, 03:59 PM	#2
espritch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,380	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.
	__________________ "I'm the master of low expectations." - G. W. Bush

17th February 2003, 06:14 PM	#3
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87	[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.... Quote: 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. Quote: 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'.
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87

18th February 2003, 01:03 AM	#4
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,357	This man http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~cben/ExecDir.shtml would beg to differ.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

18th February 2003, 06:43 AM	#6
DrMatt Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 1,422	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.
	__________________ Music: Splendor in Sound CD No.3 is out!

18th February 2003, 06:29 AM	#5
scotth Atheist Political Candidate Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DFW, TX area Posts: 1,801	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.

18th February 2003, 07:12 AM	#7
Oso Thinker Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 170	Re: There is no such thing as Nanotechnology Quote: 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.
Oso Thinker Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 170

18th February 2003, 10:13 AM	#8
rwald Guest Posts: n/a	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?
rwald Guest Posts: n/a

18th February 2003, 10:22 AM	#9
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87	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. Quote: 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?
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87

18th February 2003, 10:28 AM	#10
scotth Atheist Political Candidate Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DFW, TX area Posts: 1,801	Quote: 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.

18th February 2003, 10:31 AM	#11
rwald Guest Posts: n/a	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.
rwald Guest Posts: n/a

18th February 2003, 12:46 PM	#12
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	There is so nano. I've got some here. Dang! Must have dropped it. Anyone got a microscope?
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

18th February 2003, 01:47 PM	#13
Walter Wayne Wayne's Words Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,442	Quote: 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

18th February 2003, 02:22 PM	#14
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	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.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

18th February 2003, 05:25 PM	#15
Bruce Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Columbia, Missouri Posts: 7,522	Quote: 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!
	__________________ Indeed, anything past the ring finger is prohibited. -bpesta

18th February 2003, 09:26 PM	#16
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87	Great example. That consultant may just have been my boss Quote: 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!
gmol Scholar Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 87

18th February 2003, 09:43 PM	#17
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,277	Quote: 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...
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

19th February 2003, 02:06 PM	#18
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	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.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885