Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech Products Hitting the Market
stdin writes "Saw this on SFGate. Nanotech's first fruits are nearing the consumer market." Not little machines, yet, but a variety of products using very small components.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Wait don't eat that apple, that's my Web Server!!!
You're assuming nanomachines use ejection-based engines. Perhaps it would be better to use less-efficient forms of propulsion like propellers or even legs. Also, you're neglecting the fact that (in general) the machine is makings its way through a relatively dense medium. Most of the force would be spent displacing the thousands or millions of atoms in the path it is trying to follow.
"We need to see a technology that can lead to real products," explained Zwi Vromen, whose Israel-based Millennium Materials Fund has made 19 nanotechnology investments to date."
So now, not only do we have nanotechnological fruits, but we have nanotechnological fruits that shall battle for the Holy Land inside my colon! Jihad!
--Chag
Hell with that... how about Zinc oxide? works great and has a SPF of 60 bajillion.
Oh boy.. over engineered sunscreen... what's next? nano-tech toilet paper? or tub cleaner that really has scrubbing bubbles?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If silicon micromachines are considered nanotech, these products have been commercially available for years: microfluidic valves, accelerometers for airbag systems, the DLP (digital light processor) from Texas Instruments that is the basis of many video systems.
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. If we rearrange the atoms in coal we can make diamond. If we rearrange the atoms in sand (and add a few other trace elements) we can make computer chips. If we rearrange the atoms in dirt, water and air we can make potatoes. Todays manufacturing methods are very crude at the molecular level. Casting, grinding, milling and even lithography move atoms in great thundering statistical herds. It's like trying to make things out of LEGO blocks with boxing gloves on your hands. Yes, you can push the LEGO blocks into great heaps and pile them up, but you can't really snap them together the way you'd like.
In the future, nanotechnology will let us take off the boxing gloves. We'll be able to snap together the fundamental building blocks of nature easily, inexpensively and in almost any arrangement that we desire. This will be essential if we are to continue the revolution in computer hardware beyond about the next decade, and will also let us fabricate an entire new generation of products that are cleaner, stronger, lighter, and more precise.
It's worth pointing out that the word "nanotechnology" has become very popular and is used to describe many types of research where the characteristic dimensions are less than about 1,000 nanometers. For example, continued improvements in lithography have resulted in line widths that are less than one micron: this work is often called "nanotechnology." Sub-micron lithography is clearly very valuable (ask anyone who uses a computer!) but it is equally clear that lithography will not let us build semiconductor devices in which individual dopant atoms are located at specific lattice sites. Many of the exponentially improving trends in computer hardware capability have remained steady for the last 50 years. There is fairly widespread confidence that these trends are likely to continue for at least another ten years, but then lithography starts to reach its fundamental limits.
If we are to continue these trends we will have to develop a new "post-lithographic" manufacturing technology which will let us inexpensively build computer systems with mole quantities of logic elements that are molecular in both size and precision and are interconnected in complex and highly idiosyncratic patterns. Nanotechnology will let us do this.
When it's unclear from the context whether we're using the specific definition of "nanotechnology" (given here) or the broader and more inclusive definition (often used in the literature), we'll use the terms "molecular nanotechnology" or "molecular manufacturing."
Whatever we call it, it should let us
Get essentially every atom in the right place. Make almost any structure consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry that we can specify in atomic detail. Have manufacturing costs not greatly exceeding the cost of the required raw materials and energy. There are two more concepts commonly associated with nanotechnology: Positional assembly. Self replication. Clearly, we would be happy with any method that simultaneously achieved the first three objectives. However, this seems difficult without using some form of positional assembly (to get the right molecular parts in the right places) and some form of self replication (to keep the costs down).
The need for positional assembly implies an interest in molecular robotics, e.g., robotic devices that are molecular both in their size and precision. These molecular scale positional devices are likely to resemble very small versions of their everyday macroscopic counterparts. Positional assembly is frequently used in normal macroscopic manufacturing today, and provides tremendous advantages. Imagine trying to build a bicycle with both hands tied behind your back! The idea of manipulating and positioning individual atoms and molecules is still new and takes some getting used to. However, as Feynman said in a classic talk in 1959: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." We need to apply at the molecular scale the concept that has demonstrated its effectiveness at the macroscopic scale: making parts go where we want by putting them where we want!
The requirement for low cost creates an interest in self replicating manufacturing systems, studied by von Neumann in the 1940's. These systems are able both to make copies of themselves and to manufacture useful products. If we can design and build one such system the manufacturing costs for more such systems and the products they make (assuming they can make copies of themselves in some reasonably inexpensive environment) will be very low.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
And that's why bacteria are so hard to kill - they are moving fast.
Guess I should mention a crazy little thing call sarchasm now...
Nanobots will use those devices anyone who has looked at bacteria has seen. Little spinning appendages, or little waving appendages, or little oscillating appendages, or possibly a gas turbine. Ha ha only serious.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
While these may seems trivial, I can think of at least one product not mentioned here that may benefit from this:
contraceptive devices
This is not meant to be funny... this is a dept. seriously lacking in safe products.
As the article said, they've developed the tools and are now working on manufacturing materials using these tools. The next step is to build more advanced systems using nanotechnology. I was impressed by the description of the nano-scale lithium-ion film that they are proposing. They didn't mention how many slices of the film you can pile into a single source, but the prospect of a higher-efficiency, longer-discharge battery should appeal to any /. user. Not to mention the initial use they're considering as a power source for implants. Any step that advances a technology that makes such possibilities as safe and effective artificial hearts more feasible is a good thing!
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
And don't forget friction!
how about the protection of zinc oxcide, but nearly clear, and can last all day?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I enjoyed the article. It makes an interesting point very clear, that nanotech is showing up first in rather technologically boring places. Converse to all the visions I've heard of self-assembling machines and the like it is a real technology that is being used for real applications.
I've heard increasingly frequent use of nanoscale devices in the Bio arena and for medical purposes, but far from the "submarine" concept. One of the more interesting ones was in a Scientific American or Science News article recently (can't find the article) talking about a small square chip that makes thorough and useful chemical tests doable in one step instead of hundreds of seperate ones. Imaging the chip using a basic camera provides a detailed readout on the exposure of many thousands of tests. Another interesting application involves carbon nanotubes, a much touted revolution in circuit building and such.
It seems that many people (geeks included) have been spouting the broader, long term vision of building complex nano machines that invade our bodies or self replicate, it's refreshing to hear a realistic perspective on nano technology.
Although I do admittedly get tired of the constantly pro-tech mindset that occurs in these articles, how about someone mentioning the detriments of these technologies occasionally? (grey goo theory anyone)
__ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
Umm, forgive me, but I don't think the "gray goo" syndrome referred to the stuff you squeeze out of a bottle of sunblock.
Huh?
Your calculations make no sense. Where did you get 2v/d from? How did the atomic radius enter into the picture at all?
That calculation clearly involves a -lot- of assumptions, most of which I doubt you know/remember, and are not applicable to the situation you describe.
If I have a machine with 100 atoms, and propel it by ejecting a single atom at velocity V, the machine will be moving at ~V/100 in the opposite direction.
This is ignoring the numerous other methods for propelling an object, without ejecting a propellant. Various forms of electromagnetic fields do a damn good job.
The advances mentioned in the article seem to be improvements in grinding substances finely. The article claims that there is some kind of continuum from this grinding to actual nanotech machines, and that cautious investors are starting at the easy end of the continuum.
I don't see how this could be. It seems that if you want to approach the kind of nanotech described in Stepehenson's The Diamond Age you would probably work with tiny machines and assembly techniques and gradually push the size envelope downwards - which is how it happened with silicon. Or work with subtractive etching techniques that could remove material to leave behind movable parts. Merely grinding up tiny nondescript particles - in other words soot or dust - doesn't seem like a step on this road at all.
Of course my understanding of nanotechnology is firmly grounded in science fiction.
Nasa has an interseting nanotechnology gallery With some pics and videos of the technology in action
[alk]
nanotech Fruit Roll-Ups!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Maybe with nanotechnology they can design a webserver that will survive slashdoting?
-- Adam
I already use products that are essentially nanotech. For instance, an electronics project of mine uses an Analog Devices ADXL202, a two axis accelerometer that uses MEMS technology to measure acceleration. It's amazing stuff, they took a device that used to be the size of a big box and made it small enough so that 5 can fit on a dime. The nano-tech part of it is that all the moving parts that were in the original accelerometers have been replaced with a tiny series of tuning fork-like assemblies measured in nanometers that somehow impart movement information on an almost molecular scale.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I didn't know atoms had shoulders. About how many Libraries of Congress can that hold?
Guess I should mention a crazy little thing call sarchasm now...
Sarchasm: (n) The gap between reality and the information implied.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
...taken from here: http://www.zyvex.com/Publications/sites/MerkleNano . tml
In case you're not too familiar the intricacies your physics (or your spelling:) this is a troll. My own physics isn't perfect and I might have some mnior details slightly off but I have taken several first year physics which is sufficient for the purpose of debunking this troll. Aside from the fact that he doesn't actually give any numbers lets look at a more accurate description of thrust. Thrust is more or less caused by impulse, this is the change in momentum of an object. When a particle goes out the back of an engine the velocity to which the impulse will accelerate that craft is described by the equation McVc=MpVp (c=craft p=particle). Therefore if you start from motionlessness and have a particle of propellent shooting out the back at 1/100000 c (c = speed of light) or 3000m/s, your craft made of 10 particles of the same mass will go at 1/1000000 c or 300m/s not 300 km/s as he would have you believe. Keep in mind also that I have chosen a very large value to shoot out my particle and the engineers could easily shoot their propellent on the scale of nanometers per second which would result in very manageable velocities. The only problem I could see is in storing propellent, it is much more likely that they would have some sort of electrical motor to drive legs or something like that. There could be some errors in my calculations or in the equations I used, if you find errors please post corrections, but I can assure you that the above post is a troll (I ran into one of his a while ago where he invented what can only be described as the opposite of an event horizon:).
I stole this Sig
Great! Now we can have mobile phones that recharge themselves.
Macka
The DLP chip family from Texas Instruments have up to 1.3 million moving mirrors for high luminance TV projection systems for conference rooms, home and theatre digital TVs. These have been on the market for four years. This is nano tech if I ever saw it.
So you see we are poised to be the leader in nano fruit creation. Leveraging our high tech nano-enabled orchards or our "green tech" as we like to call it - we can have the highest quality output available in the US today. We focus on our core-competancies and get our arms around the solutions of the future in nano fruit production. By getting mind-share through advertiusing with strategic partnerships we will soon be the standard in quality fruit. Our b2b network supports a global fruit production infrastructure which can produce product on a scale that will put our competitors far behind.
Our seed funding was provided by the US goverment through a seed bill - the "US anti-terrorist new business development fund" which provides funds to new companies who develop products that can aid in any form with the fighting of terrorist in this post 9-11 economy. Our nano fruit growing technology is used in our "Fruit for the Troops" program to feed troops and refugees displaced by the terrorists in the US and abroad.
We are looking to raise 15 million in capital by Q2.
Ralph's agenda is long term. We'll get there eventually, but before we do, we'll spend a lot of time puttering around with simple bacteria. Tom Knight is already starting that effort, which he calls microbial engineering. This is very cool, commendable work.
But there are limitations. You can make cells do logic operations, but they do them very slowly. Each cell has a very limited number of usable state variables. As long as we are starting with life, we are stuck with the limitations of cells. Cells can easily be programmed to make proteins, which don't have very desirable material properties, but to make more interesting stuff like tooth enamel or spider silk you need much more cleverness.
What's nice about cells is that they are inexpensive replicators that work today. What's bad about them is that humans never got a vote on the basic design, simplicity was never a design goal, programming them is hard, and the range of things they can be programmed to do is limited.
Ultimately we want a human-designed replicator that comes with a manual, is easy to program, and can do lots of different things.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?