Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech or Nano-Not?
LabRat007 writes "CNN has a story on the current status and future of nanotechnology. This infromative overview on the technology talks about current research and when we can expect nano-parts for our geek gear."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
While some are all go for nanotechnology, others see potential for danger. Remember, people were afraid of vaccines, but they were also afraid of CFC's.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Would this involve the sort of things in Metal Gear Solid? Such as nanocommunication, via thoughts, and controlling of medication amoung other things?
... "Young Lady's Illustrated Primer" for any female children I may someday have. That's all I ask.
Freedom: "I won't!"
The whole "industry" or "line of research" is at risk from reckless advertising/marketing and unending vaporwear.
The whole "nano" buzzword has been so prostituted that unless companies start getting serious about it and stop treating it like another sales pitch, it's going to go the way of the "dot com" or "nuclear", where the mere use of the word will condemn the technology.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
The only nanos I'm okay with are nanoseconds.
Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
what else?
Drexler wrote Engines of Creation back in 1986. This is where a lot of the ideas of world destruction by a mass of self assembling nanobots - aka "grey goo" - came from. It is a rather scary thought, but its rather unlikely, IMHO. Btw, we are already using nanotechnology in PC's, according to Scientific American.
I've discovered a remarkable proof, but this margin is too small to contain it...
I can sense some similarities between the belief in nanotechnology (and why not biotech.) and the belief in nuclear power in the fifties.
When asked why, the answer is almost always: "It's 2014".
bhs.k12.nj.us/coltech04
Get paid to read spam
This infromative...
maybe some nanotech spell bots for our keyboards would be more handy...
- Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
I am hoping to persue a Ph.D. in the cross over point between nano and bio technologies.
Basically, Nanotech can be seen from two different points, one, where the individual nano-structures are built atom by atom, and the other (where biotech comes into play), where nano structures build, replicate and repair themselves.
A gross example are the structures of "Self Assembled Monolayers", where lots of alkanethiols create a carpet of lipids on a gold surface (all by themselves).
By crossing these self assembling structures with advanced artifically designed amino acids to create complex nano-structures, the need to actually "build" anything is removed. You merely design lego blocks that assemble together in a certain way, and then mix them in a test tube and stand back.
I'm not soo concerned about potential dangers, I just wonder if it's actually feasible at all. If you're creating little machines at the atomic scale, then what is the size of a processor required to manage this device? I've seen little motors and joints and so forth being developed, but how much easy is it to say "Grip gold atom, place it next to the other one, let go, repeat"? Wouldn't even the smallest nano-processor be thousands of times larger than the size of the nano-bots people envision? Perhaps they'd be better named "nano-blimps". ;-) But seriously how much processing power do they need to work in a 3-D environment? And how small could that amount of processing power actually get?
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
I don't know about you, but the prospect of moving a planet out of its orbit and into another sounds like a fun thing to try. I know this is an article about nanotech, but after hearing that example written in there, we should put more research into moving around planets. I think that would be awesome.
talks about current research and when we can expect nano-parts for our geek gear I don't know about you guys but I don't need nano parts for my geek "gear" ;).
All the emphasis on the "potential dangers" of nanobots or "gray goo" just drives me nuts. Sure, the image of a nanobot doing manufacturing or curing cancer can be compelling, and also frightening. But not only are we no where near such technology, the fear of it stigmatizes genuine nanotech being done right now, which often has no relation to tiny robots.
Nanotechnology now means any process for determining structure or composition at a molecular scale. It means creating fuels or drugs with carefully selected chemical compositions. It means creating self-healing structure in which tears tend to seal simply because the material is made that way. It means making computer chips faster and smaller by growing very small features directly onto the chip, using molecular carbon or silicon.
These applications are much more real than self-replicating nanobots which can take over the world, and some of them could easily be on all our desks in five years. Do a Google search on Field emission displays: new flat panel displays, as bright as a CRT display at a fraction of the power usage, with a better image and wider field of view than an LCD.
Could there be environmental dangers even in these applications? Sure, any new material has potential problems, and nanomaterials should be studied all the more closely because of our limited experience with them. But we're a long, long way from nanobots which can self-replicate and take over the world, and the nanotech industry as it stands now is no more dangerous than any other advanced materials.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
I had always understood that a scanning eletron microscope made an image by acanning an electron beam a bit like a CRT.
A tunneling electron microscope uses a probe on a piezo base. You increase the tension on the probe until....pop.....an electron jumps the gap. You move the probe around with varying the voltage on the piezo base, and plunk....you can drop the electron down again. A tunneling electron microscope is what I would have been expected to be associated with nanotech.
But what is this "scanning tunneling" device reffered to......a new technique or a blunder?
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
here at purdue they are currently constructing a nanotechnology building, should be done in a few years. Nanotechnology is coming around, dont think they woulda built an entire building dedicated to it without thinking about where its going.
So far, humanity can manage the first step, just barely.
I'd be much more interested in knocking asteroids and comets into Mars until it has the same mass and average chemical content as Earth.
Clearly a reference to Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, a novel (fiction) about nanotechnology.
It's gotten so bad that true nanotech had to rename itself "molecular manufacturing" in order to avoid confusion with the nifty materials science stuff.
--
Power to the Peaceful
a reference to a book "inspired by" X _is_ on the topic of X!
and by the way - the reference is hardly "obscure" -- _A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer_ was the subtitle of the book!
-calyxa
Decay! Decay! Decay! -Helium
I think we will have a ways to go before the any grey goo manages to endanger the green goo that already infests the planet. Actually the scenario that seems more theatening than grey goo is a grey fog. We already do a pretty good job of producing that already. Imagine if something airborne were released that could replicate and either obscure the sun or create a greenhouse problem.
The CNN article is pure filler. What I get out of it is 'don't go to CNN for science news'. "Nanotech turns some long-held principles of physics upside down" uh huh.
When you look at it, it is much like cryptography. Sure, people like terrorists can use it, but then again, we can as well. If, on the other hand, someone other than us developed it (because we weren't allowed, for example), who is to say that we would have access at it. So when you look at it, either way its going to eventually be used for something bad, its just a matter of weather or not we get a chance to use it for something good as well.
Sig is a crazy old German guy.
2 is easy. Use solar panels.
"Georgia Tech physics professor Uzi Landman said he expects it will be five to 10 years before nanoscale "parts" are common in electronic devices; perhaps five to eight years for medical uses. " This prediction seems similar to the claims made by the MEMS (Micro-electrical Mechanical Systems) researchs a few years ago. There is a huge jump between something working in a laboratory, and placing it on the manufacturing line. The two major obstacles facing the manufacturing end (facing the researchers as well, for that matter)for nano-tech are similar to MEMS, as they are the precurser for nano-tech. For one thing, assembling things at the "nano", or even the "micro" level, is that unless you are making a crystal, things move around quite a bit from where you want them. Even with crystals, it must either be a single crystal or defect free - rather difficult to do. The other major problem is testing and debugging a design. The MEMS researchers both at my current university and where I went for undergrad were consistently plauged by the fact that there is no feasible way to debug thier designs. This is why they're still working out basic gears and motors. On the subject of nano-probes, while this does seem likely to occur in a couple of years given its relative simplicity, the search for a bio-compatible crystalline substance that does not dissolve and can be easily manipulated at the atomic level I don't believe has been accomplished. One final point, while they may be assembled at -455 degrees F, they will be operating at room temperature where atomic vibrations, movements, and the like will be highly prevalent. I'm curious to see how this is dealt with. All in all, while I think that this technology will be introduced into the mainstream well within our lifetime, 5-10 years seems rather short term.
The problem is that the work that actually gets done, in materials or computing or other fields, isn't as "exciting" to the media as the fanciful ideas presented in Hollywood and science fiction. Why talk about a new kind of flat-panel display or the technology that will create your next computer, when you can shock the public into fearing tiny robots that will disassemble the world? I'm a big fan of science fiction, but I must admit that I'm incredibly disappointed in their portrayal of the field.
I'm a physics student myself, an undergrad doing some research which makes limited use of carbon nanotubes, and both of us probably got our real knowledge of nanotechnology from our classes and work in the field. With more applications in general use, the situation may improve, but the media definitely has to stop portraying fantasy as fact. Otherwise, real research could easily get a bad rep--there are already people calling for a ban on all nano research, including a lot of work which they don't understand is relatively harmless.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
Actually, temperature isn't that big of an issue. A bigger issue is mechanical vibrations. The world we live in is very very noisy. Too noisy to do STM in. These vibrations must be filtered out in an atomic-resolution microscope. There are several methods to do this including Springs and Mecanical tables. I am working on a maglev method which is highly experimental. Temperature is somewhat of an issue still as if it gets HOT (like anything... think of melting your CPU) then the nano-structure will be lost. Even at room temperature, structures of a few dozen atoms are stable as long as the electronic structure of the surface is inert. If you have valance gaps in the surface, the temperature will result in the atoms having enough energy to jump well potentials and reassemble in a form that may not be desired. Trick here is to plan your materials so that the surface isn't reactive, and then you should be fine even at or above room temperature! In reality, the issue of vibrations and thermalization isn't that big a deal for nano-science. There is, however, always room for improvement. Hope that answers your question
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
5. ???
and
6. Profit!
That's right. All your base.
Hi.. I work on an STM for my Masters, if you are interested, I have pictures of the STM and a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) from the lab. (Two totally different things) http://stevenhorn.kicks-ass.net/cpg/index.php?cat= 7
Enjoy... please don't leech them without sourcing.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
The truth is, while many new academic centers are going up because the research funding is there, little or no real nanotech is being done. The grant-writers know what to go after. Noble speeches are given at groundbreaking. But the core of the federally funded "nanotechnology" movement is allergic to the concepts put forth first by Richard Feynman, and developed by Drexler and others since. The movement is owned and the vision scripted by chemists beholden to their own particular culture and party line. It's financial opportunism pure and simple. It's fine that scientists will get some funding to do some work, but unfortunate that the most ambitious long-range research will be cut out of this process.
Nanotechnology *now* means any process for determining structure or composition at a molecular scale.
It didn't used to. The problem isn't that the public doesn't understand what nanotech is. The problem is that the chemist have redefined it and are catching flack because public conciousness hasn't caught up.
Nanotech, as originally defined, really does mean nanoscale universal assemblers. Grey goo, of course, is universal assemblers gone amock. Neither is of great concern right now as actuall implimentation is far, far off and may always be.
Researchers started labling physical chemistry "nanotech", probably because it sounded cool and got people excited. That helps for getting funding, recognition, etc but it also creates fear in the public.
If the "new nanotech" community is concerned about negative publiciy, then I really have no sympathy. If you co-opt a pre-existing sci-fi'esc term, you take the good with the bad.
Like one of the above post says, a nano device would need only the computationnal power needed for its purpose. Like for example, a nanorobot who's main purpose would be to find and destroy a "type" of cancer. It would only need to be able to recognize and destroy the desired disease or family of disease. Do we really need a nanite that has intensive fpu, cpu power? Wouldn't it be better, if we had multiple little devices with unique function that can be called at ease? Big really complex nano devices surely can exist and probably will, but what would be the point?, but again if you look closely at the human body you have billions of molecules (nano devices) who interacts and have different purpose and function and are kinda complex, but they exist solely for one thing, and don't have that "many" function. I don't mean that a nanorobot shouldn't have somekind of cpu. But if you believe in One Nano CPU to rule them all...
It's funny how I make sense to others and not myself...
I'd say there are now a lot of humans with nanoparticles in their lungs.
Anyone who was around the bombing of the Twin Towers probably has some wierd stuff inserted.
Nanotubes perhaps?
I am not going to vent my own bitterness about how stupid the grey goo/nanobots crowd is. Instead, read this extremely interesting and insightful article that contains a discussion on the subject between Drexler and Richard Smalley. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counte rpoint.html
OK, I am going to vent a little bit of my bitterness: Drexler is a moron, and in that article, Smalley exposes him as one.
Playing the alien, wasn't there an actor who use to say that all the time?
Anyway, I wan some nano built Guitar Strings.
Will I need to have a special pick so that my flesh remains intact when plucking?
Wonder what they would sound like?
The resonance should be incredible.
Maybe that's how we will drive our vehicles...with the sound of a resonating string to move particles from one state to the next?
That's why some people are opposed to nanotechnology.
So blame Matt Groening; it's his fault.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
That's the funniest thing I've read today. Thanks!
... is not "gray goo", but the collapse of our economic system.
;p), just as oil companies routinely do.
Think about it. Right now the objective value of music, movies and software is nil. After all, you can get an exact copy for the mere cost of its material substrate (ie at under $1 per Gb, not much).
(now if you really like an artist and are willing to buy the original CD and go to her/his concert to support her/him, this is another matter. But I'm talking about objective value, not subjective value here. Nothing prevents me but morals from downloading her/his works off Kazaa although I do really love them after all!)
Fast forward to 2050. As the first company starts mass-marketing home universal replicators, hardly anyone remembers of those petty cartels known as the **AA. Hardly anyone expects the turmoil ahead.
Just as the **AA failed to realize it was doomed because what the objective value of what it was selling suddenly dropped to zero (or to rather the mere cost of its material substrate, which is -> 0 with infinite recycling), every industrial company on the planet goes Chapter 11 as the concept of rarity vanishes with them.
While the collapse of our current economic system wouldn't necessarily be a Bad Thing, it would definitely be to Big Business and Big Government... Thus I expect such breakthroughs to be swept under the rug in any manner deemed necessary (buy-out, assassination...
Or it could happen, provided the **AA manages to pull off a massive and effective DRM scheme which would then be reused to prevent you from building your own Ferrari in your garage for $100 worth of aluminium... or was it your own Flying Anthrax Spreading Device? (sound of black helicopters hovering nearby)
For some reason I don't believe in the technical efficiency of DRM - every Maginot line has its flaw that will eventually be found out. The **AA will die a painful and well-deserved death. To put it in a nutshell, I for one do not yet welcome our new nanobot overlords.
I don't know what country this article comes from, but 'minus 455 degrees fahrenheit'? What third world country still uses that scale?
It takes a bit of work, but it's not that expensive.
See these guys, or google around.
http://sxm4.uni-muenster.de/stm-en/
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
10 years ago I missed the bandwagon on microtechnology.
Now I'm missing out on the nanotech money.
As of today, I am jumping the gun and writing proposals to study areas which will give insight into the upcoming picotech field. If things go well. I will be pulling in femptotech money by the end of the decade.
Try this
Aside from social needs (hospitals, internet service, transportation, government) there won't be a whole heck of a lot left for people to do. Expect the cost of physical labour (and people's incomes from that) to dwindle. Expect the cost of goods to do likewise. "Knowledge workers" who design new items, the recipes for which can be sold over the Internet will do well. These will be people who know How Things Work, and who are currently emplloyed in the manufacturing industry, so at least some people will make the transition nicely.
In a lot of ways it will be good. It will remove a lot of resource bottlenecks such as food, water, oil, .. chocolate. :-) How it will impact our need for energy depends on the efficiency of the technology. Will the energy cost to make a barrel of oil be higher than a barrel of oil? If not, we're in good shape. If so, then we would be in for interesting times.
[ReidNews]
nanobrain.
>I'd be much more interested in knocking asteroids and comets into Mars until it has the same mass and average chemical content as Earth.
To the martians, that would be terrorforming!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
WTF are you talking about?
I'm not being mean, I just don't understand your post.
The Intel Pentium 4 processor uses a 90nm-process to put the features onto a wafer of silicon, and by some definitions, technology with features smaller than 100 nm are "nanotechnology." The amount of engineering that is required to go into modern day processors is absolutely amazing, and even more so when you consider they are making patterns that are smaller than the wavelength of the light used to imprint them (diffraction!)
check up on the current State Of The Art with nifty things like dendritic polymers, self-assembling organic liquid-crystal matricies, &c.. the times, they are a'changing.