Slashdot Mirror

The work of Cyrano Sciences http://www.smalltimes.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=267768 commercialized the 1990's work at Caltech. Cyrano Sciences was acquired by Smiths Detection in 2003 http://www.rusticcanyon.com/portfolio/cmp_cyrano.html.

This particular method has more to do with processing bulk quantities of nanotubes, rather than producing them. The closest connection to advanced electronics applications of NTs, is that selectively coating NTs with polymers and/or biomolecules is considered a promising route for purification and separation between conducting and semiconducting ones (the former are good as connectors, but the latter are needed for diodes and transistors). Selective attachment of a few biomolecules can also be useful for making self-assembling circuits. This particular method, however, produces a rather thick (30-50 nm) coating and not very specific attachment sites for biomolecules, so it lacks the features that would make it useful for electronics applications. The thick polymer layers are also likely to degrade contacts either between NTs or NTs and CMOS devices, which of course will reduce the possible operational frequencies for such hypothetical electronic components. Just a couple of reasons why using thinner polymers and/or biomolecules, such as DNA, to wrap NTs is currently considered as a more promising approach for electronics applications.

On the other hand, using these coated NTs for biosensors is indeed promising. The requirements for biosensing are significantly different compared to those for electronic components, and having a relatively thick polymer layer, which can be functionalized with many biomolecules, is in fact an advantage.

AO originated to increase the resolution of orbital platforms. The ones looking in, not out. And a bunch of SDI research probably contributed as well. The first bit, at the very least, is widely known, and no particular secret. See pages such as http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?sec tion_id=29&document_id=9011

Or just Google around.

There was a much better class than this directed at students at Rice called Nanotechnology: Content and Context. I never took the class (I'm a grad student, not an undergrad), but from the syllabus it seems like a great course idea.

Now, the poster says nanotech seems like a good career path. Here are some things I can tell you right now that I never did as an undergrad that I should have:
1) Take chemistry. Lots of it. Even if you do physics, take at least up through organic, if not physical chem.
2) Take solid state physics. And no, solid state electronics is not the same thing. This isn't necessary, but it's helpful.
3) Do some reading. Start with Small Times and work up from there. I came to Rice without really knowing what "nano" area I wanted to go into. There are a million nano areas out there and different schools do lots of different things. For example, Rice is very very good at nano chem, especially nanotubes and nanoshells and molecular electronics, and quite good in a lot of nanoscale physics studies, such as nanoscale plasmonics and whatnot. Its nano engineering work leaves much to be desired, though, and there's no nano robotics work and very few surface scientists. Knowing things like that about a school are important.
4) Do an REU (NSF research experience for undergrads) one summer. That's invaluable. Seriously. If I'd known about the program I would have done that. As it were, I volunteered at UTD one summer working for some PhD guy. A more structured program would have been cool. Your department/physics/chem counselor can guide you towards these things.
5) Beware of hype. We're in a time of an impending "nano tech bubble," so beware. Try not to read Wired for views on nanotech. Hell, try not to read Wired period. There's one mag subscription I won't renew!

Okay, done ranting. Mods, do your worst!

> Machines only do what you design them to.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen bugs make software do things it was not designed to do. Sure, a good programmer can avoid some such issues, but most programmers are not good these days.

> if the raw materials are not available in the right form, they cannot replicate.

Sure, but what if your machine uses cellulose as the raw material? You know some idiot will do that. And some evil mad scientist is certainly going to try.

> Self-replicating machines are prohibitively complex.

You must have missed this article

> an evil mad scientist would not have the funding
> or resources to develop a self-replicating machine.

I should remind you that evil mad scientists are not necessarily getting paid for their research. Never underestimate just how cheap research can get when you don't have to pay for the researcher's time. If someone estimated how much money it would take to develop the theory of relativity, I bet nobody could afford to do it either.

> The real problem with nano machines would be simple design flaws, not replication.

Would you consider an infinite loop in the replication routine a design flaw?

> But a decade of testing on any given design would happen before it was used in humans.

Unless it happens to be designed by a mad evil scientist who tells it to look for healthy cells and kill them. Remember, there is a lot of hate in the world. And to say that nobody but the government is capable of developing nanobots, is to say that all researchers are either hate-free or stupid. At this point I would like to mention the iraqi scientists who made WMDs in Iraq, and let you decide into which category they fall.

Actually, I read an article about a new manufacturing process to make hi-res monitors/tvs where they essentially poor a liquid component over a backing material and it then 'grows' itself into crystalized tubes that will route light similar to fiber optic cabling, only much, much smaller.

They could make the tubes before, but the trouble was getting them all perfectly aligned to emit the light out in the same direction. With this process they would all grow 90 degrees from the mounting surface.

It will allow for the creation of monitors that are something like 3-4 times the pixel density of plasma HDTVs, and cost int he hundreds of dollars for a 42" rather than the thousands.

If I recall, the hold up was making the electronics to control it. I'm gonna see if I can find that article now...

Rob

Press release from a manufacturer

ZDNet article about the underlying NanoTube technology

Still can't find the original article I was referencing, tho. Oh well...

These things might make cool rave lights since they would glow so when people dance! And they wouldn't run out, so they would be reusable for the next event.

But seriously, PiezoElectric power will likely be used as a parasitic power source for lots of small devices. Self-charging laptops, Forever Flashlights, etc. It might be the only way to power nanoscale devices like found in The Diamond Age

I think it will be like this:
If we find present life on Mars extra care will be taken to sterilize everything on a manned mission. But if we realize that we can't sterilize everything 100%, that wont stop us from going to Mars.
If we don't find present life before a manned Mission, it doesn't mean there aren't any, so extra care will still be taken - maybe just as much as in the first case.

But with *sigh!* more than 20 years before a manned mission will take place I'm sure that science will find a way to sterilize everything - perhabs with some "magic" nanocoating sprayed on everything before you exit a habitat :)

btw: as far as I'm informed the warmest temperature on Mars is'nt 100 deegrees (20C)but rather 70, and the coldest around -270 (-170C)...

Growing pains. We're like birds shitting in our nests before we're big enough to leave it.

I used to be an environmentalist (more of a sentamentalist, actually), until I started to view humankind's technology and its impact as a natural extention of our evolution.

We'll eventually reach the end of our dirty industrial phase (without killing ourselves), and begin a green nanotech phase where we're not forced to rape resources in the conventional top-down way, because we've got complete control over 100% recyclable matter, and where we can actually reverse all the environmental damage we've done at the molecular level.

--

Nanotechnology can be really good, but I still find it kinda scary.

Take a look at this:
Here

From the article:
"an atomic manipulation facility, unique in the world. This atomic manipulation facility will enable a new generation of experiments to unfold. It will allow McGill researchers to construct new devices atom by atom, thus developing the science and technology required for future electronic and biochemical systems."

Actually, most modern nanotech doesn't need power. The largest nanotech markets are not for bots or other active devices, but for monodispersed crystals or ceramic dust. The cosmetics industry buys large quantities of nanotech for use in makeup and skin creams.

Here you go

You Have to think in the future here. At the end of 2006, there just might be some really cool cheap projectors out there. Who knows? I think there will be. Maybe you don't have to keep your room "dark like that" (dark like what?)- isn't that just a question of setting the gamma/brightness of your future projector? A big wall? Can't you just scale the image to fit the place where your old (HD)TV or monitor once resided? And/Or get a roll down thingy to cast the image on? Lots of cool technology are on the way for your future home theater anyways: OLEDS, DLP. Hmmm lots... ok I could mention 2 :)

Yeah, "Prey" might scare the beejeebees out of people, but maybe get a few interested in real nanotechnology. For that, they can take a look at Small Times, which has covered the environmental issue extensively both in this article and in its upcoming dead-tree-edition cover story.

Yeah, "Prey" might scare the beejeebees out of people, but maybe get a few interested in real nanotechnology. For that, they can take a look at Small Times, which has covered the environmental issue extensively both in this article and in its upcoming dead-tree-edition cover story.

It's another step toward The Mesh, covered very well in a Small Times cover package last year.

Completely off topic, but I saw the following in the article:

Mike Horton, Crossbow's president and CEO, said the company tested the technology with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory in March 2001 at the Twentynine Palms Marine base in Southern California.

At least Smart Dust's developer, Kris Pister, is thinking of all of this. In a Small Times article from August 2001 he states: "We're pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. There's profit to be made and advantage to be had. Let's get people aware of it so we do it right. Well, we'll never do it completely right, but we don't want to do it horribly, horribly wrong."

It's another step toward The Mesh, covered very well in a Small Times cover package last year.

I'd like to add that there exist digital projectors, today, with over a million tiny mirrors that switch very rapidly. link

Company Counts On Hot Sales For Smaller and Cheaper Chills
By Jack Mason
Small Times Correspondent

Go look at this article concerning nano-computers. Near the bottom, Small Times it discusses GOVERNMENT funding of transistor research. Not to say that private business couldn't have done it, but they wouldnt have, not without knowing the benefits. And notice, in my post I DID say they were trying to find a route to Asia. The thing about known benefits refering to a shorter sea route to Asia, of course.

As this article actually has no proof of these 'rumours' I would like to provide some proof that he's actually wrong.

Why would the US Gov, recently release plans to vastly increase spending on nanotechnology?

A quick Google search shows some press releases from from 1999 and 2002.

• Small Times, 2002
• EE Times, 1999

I think even the ignorant in the white house realise that not assisting the nanotech businesses would be suicide for the economy. As a result they need to provide research money and keep everything in the open, not behind closed doors.

... other countries have R&D programs too.

Small Times just ran an article last week on this same thing. There's no distribution cost to the studios, while the theaters are the ones who pay for the cost of the upgrade. Another problem? Theaters switched to digital sound systems in the early 90s, and that didn't pay off for them either. If you're interested in more information on the technology behind DLP check out the Small Times article.

Where does the GORE-TEX fit in? The sensors for the devices need to be able to monitor water and/or air without being damaged by water, so they're put in waterproof packages with GORE-TEX covering the openings. The water stays out; the vapors to be tested pass through.

Full article can be found at Small Times.

Where does the GORE-TEX fit in? The sensors for the devices need to be able to monitor water and/or air without being damaged by water, so they're put in waterproof packages with GORE-TEX covering the openings. The water stays out; the vapors to be tested pass through.

Full article can be found at Small Times.

This Small Times article says it all. To me, whether or not IT actually ends up getting used by the mainstream, the technology is amazing. A sidenote: have any of you watched the video footage of the wheelchair Kamen developed? My own preference would be for the $100M to have been sunk into getting the wheelchairs into the mainstream. People really NEED *that* technology.

Small Times has a decent article today on use of the Teragrid for cancer research, including mapping cellular structures. All pretty spiffy.

There's got to be something that comes before this (they always say the PDAs are first): "While the molecular transistor technology is still in its infancy, the scientists expect that the first applications of organic semiconductors will be in flexible flat screens-PDAs, for instance, that could be folded up and put in a pants pocket. Ultrafast, ultracheap, plastic microprocessors would likely follow many years later." See Small Times

There's already a great deal of R&D going on in small tech (nanotechnology, MEMS, etc) that could prove incredibly useful in anti-terrorist efforts. Given the horrible events today, the government may be spurred to push more money into research in this area. Small Times has an interesting article already today on some of these technologies. -Bob

This link from July 24th on the same site is actually a good description of some further applications of nanoscale crystals, ranging from lasing to solar cells to bone implants.