Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole

Posted by michael on from the grey-goo dept.

pillageplunder writes "A very informative interview with Kristen Kulinowski who is an executive Director at the Federally funded Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University. A good well balanced read."

11 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't have the smallest interest in nanotech.

  2. DNA Robot Walks by mgoulding · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Speaking of nanotechnology - some chemists at NYU have made a walking DNA robot. Read about it here.

  3. Grey goo by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

    We've had a lot of rubbish about nanotech here in the UK, including the belief that a flesh-eating grey goo will take over the world. Honestly, our tabloid papers will report anything...

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  4. Wishlist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reply with your wishlist of what you want nanotech to do in the future.

    Here's mine:
    - "Atomically" precise manufacturing, for the cost of energy and material.
    - Greatly improved materials research.
    - Ultra cheap and efficient solar cells.
    - Recycle nearly anything for raw materials.

  5. Nanotech is already here... by StevenMaurer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have it in your PCs and disk drives. This form of nanotech has a bright future.

    What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly.

    Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.

    1. Re:Nanotech is already here... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.

      There already exist entitites that make others of their type, operate on chemical energy from the enviroment, and are self-repairing. We call them "bacteria".

      It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Nanotech is already here... by Eagle5596 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.

      Not unreasonable? Next thing you know you'll be telling me that we'll be able to make flying machines! How absurd! Even if we could make such "flying machines" as you suggest, I see no use for them what so ever. Whats next? Suggesting we could send voice over wires? ABSURD I TELL YOU! What use would such a device have?

      Nanotechnology indeed, if we can't do it today, I find it highly unlikely it could ever be accomplished. Harumph!

    3. Re:Nanotech is already here... by Acy+James+Stapp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Self-assembly is probably a long way away. But an automated 'Assembler' that can create many structures (at least diamondoid structures) is most likely completely feasible. The physics and chemistry have been laid out rather well in Eric Drexler's excellent 'Nanosystems'. Noone, including Dr. Smalley, has so far managed to provide any evidence that Drexler's assembler is not feasible.

      Of course, self-assembly is more difficult. For the initial assemblers, raw material processing, waste processing (what little there will be), energy gathering, etc. will all be more easily solved as seperate, bulk mechanical systems (although potentially perfectly manufactured by an assembler).

      As an aside, Nanosystems also goes into some detail on failure mechanisms and failure rates. You can expect nanomanufactured artifacts to have extremely long lifetimes, especially for human-scale devices.

      --
      -- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
    4. Re:Nanotech is already here... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly.

      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...

  6. Not much said by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She sure didn't say much, but then the questions weren't exactly thought provoking and the answers were likely trimmed for space. I am glad there is attention and concern about the long-term affects of nanomachines, rather than complete focus on the short-term results possible.

    Personally, I think Sci-fi does a better job of presenting the many possible hypes and fears about nano-machine than she did, and the many ways of handling the issues. It seemed like she was trying to prevent public rejection of nano-technology by providing the most minimal information possible. What sort of controls is the FDA looking at? How does she propose to prevent the problems the public fears most?

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  7. Near Nanotech Future by pr0t0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I just started looking into going to grad school for Materials Science Engineering. I called a local thinktank and spoke with their Advanced Materials guy. He told me that one bright area for nanotech for the foreseeable future is how it applies to homeland security. He told me about a researcher creating a material that gave a visible reaction in the presence of various noxious chemicals.

    He also said many in the field are thinking carbon will be the Next Big Thing(tm). Just as steel was in the 1800's and silicon has been for the last 30 or so years, Carbon will be for the next 30+ years.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.