Slashdot Mirror
World Class Nanotechnology Research Center Opens
Eh-Wire writes "The University of Alberta and Edmonton are mighty proud to be home to the new National Institute of Nanotechnology. The $52.2-million(Canadian) facility is designed to provide the optimal conditions for nano-scale research and to foster collaboration between researchers. Apparently it is Canada's quietest space and engineered that way to minimize vibration and acoustical noise. Even the electrical wiring has been twisted to reduce electro-magnetic interference. Curiously enough the head project architect, Donna Clare of architectural firm, Cohos Evamy was also the head project architect for Edmonton's highly acclaimed Winspear Centre, a concert hall designed specifically to enhance acoustics. There's likely going to be some big things coming from this state-of-the-art research facility for the really really small."
Bloody Stupid Johnson – it's so small, you can get lost just looking for it!
Curiously enough the head project architect, Donna Clare of architectural firm, Cohos Evamy was also the head project architect for Edmonton's highly acclaimed Winspear Centre, a concert hall designed specifically to enhance acoustics.
What's curious about that? If you want a quiet building, I'd think you'd want to hire a guy who's an expert in sound and architecture.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Never say "Johnson" and "it's so small" in the same sentence!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There's likely going to be some big things coming
This is done in all the high precision instruments and the facility in which they are installed. TEMs and electron beam lithography tools often have a separate foundation isolated from the rest of the building to minimize vibration issues.
Probably they should mention about the tight control over temperature, humidity and airflow as well.
Careful not to step on it!
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
You might be interested by the recently launched european equivalent : Minatec.
"What's curious about that? If you want a quiet building, I'd think you'd want to hire a guy who's an expert in sound and architecture."
Seems they got off on entirely the wrong foot with head project architect Donna Clare, then.
Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
U of A does have some nano technology expertise. On the other hand, this does sound like some administrator dreamed up a way to tap the 'obscene' pile of money in Alberta.
Call me a cynic but I've seen this happen too many times. If you use the right sexy words, senior administrators and politicians are willing to dump huge amounts of money in your lap. Public money should go into pure research (nano technology in my mind is mostly applied research because most of it seems aimed at applications). That's where it's needed and that's where private industry is least willing to donate.
Once upon a time, the National Research Council of Canada was run by someone who gave the scientists license to pursue their own interests. The result was at least one Nobel prize and maybe a couple of more if you count people who once worked there. Then the 'professional' administrators took over and it all went to hell in a handbasket.
I'm not against government money for applied research. Look at all the good stuff that resulted from the space race. That effort had a focus. This thing at U of A just looks like someone trying to build an empire.
Errr... That was the gender-neutral 'guy'. :)
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
I think we should focus on building a nanotech device that will build nanotech devices that build nanotech devices. My worry is that this has already happened. How would I know?
It would have been done sooner if a major investor hadn't backed out:
Derek Zoolander: What is this? A nano-research center for ants? How can we expected the researchers to learn about nano-technology... if they can't even fit inside the building?
Canada: Derek, this is just a small...
Derek Zoolander: I don't wanna hear your excuses! The building has to be at least... three times bigger than this!
Mozy, free online backup service
--
The University of Massachusetts in Lowell is building a new $23 million dollar nanotechnology center, with area for corporations to rent for use as assembly systems:4 6.html
http://www.uml.edu/Media/News%20Articles/article3
(ta dump dump)
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
There are some grandious title on doors that turn out to be wood shops if you open them. The Condensed Matter Physics labs. I found that very funny.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Apparently it is Canada's quietest space and engineered that way to minimize vibration and acoustical noise.
w s/20060523/reporters_harper_060523
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe
I thought, the quietest place in Canada was Stephen Harper giving press release in Ottawa.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
The $52.2-million(Canadian) facility [...]
And before you write stupid comments about how that's really 5$ worth of "real" money (i.e. US$), just you have a look at http://www.xe.com/
I saw the new nanotechnology building a few months ago... and its a lot bigger than I expected.
1 voice in a sea of voices
Georgia Tech is building an $80 million, 188,000 square foot Nanotechnology Research Center Building (NRCB). It won't be done until late 2007 but seems worth mentioning.
For example, looking at atomic level resolution of material surfaces using an Scanning Tunneling Microsope which is fairly routine for a nanoscience experiment requires very low vibration so that the ultra fine tip does not drift with time. Usually this is accomplished by installing these multi-million dollar machines in the basements of research buildings. Lower vibrational thresholds would be always be welcome.
God is a nanotechnologist.
-- Cheers!
Its 160,000 sq ft with 30,000 sq ft of clean rooms. Of course it won't be done till the summer of 2008 and cost $80M. The biggest private contribution has been from Bernie Marcus, one of the founders of Home Depot, for $15M.
Georgia Tech Nanotechnology Research CenterNanotech @ Tech
http://www.boredandblogging.com - yes, another pointless blog.
Nor "Johnson" and "Bloody", please.
Firehed - Unfortunately, thanks to medical breakthroughs, common sense is not as common as it once was.
If you want to do research that actually will have an impact on people's lives, get the heck out of universities as fast as possible. Given the vast amount of money that the government pours into research, it is obvious that SOME useful things will come of it. However, this amount is incredibly small given the money put in.
Having not so long ago switched from the academic lab to the corporate lab, let me just say I am thrilled with the relative effectiveness and sensibility of R&D at the corporate level, where you do what your customers need, drop projects that are going anywhere, don't thrive on grad-student and post-doc slave labor, but rather just invest in capital, etc. My company spent more on capital items I needed to do my work in the first month than my graduate advisor did in five years. Needless to say, my research goes a lot faster when I don't spend half my time fixing crap equipment, and when it DOES have problems, one of the technicians will probably take care of it.
Private R&D is about 60% of the total, but probably results in 80% of the technologies that you actually use.
The distinction between the fundamental and applied research at the nanoscale is basically that between nanoscience and nanotechnology. But this distinction is currently a lot fuzzier than similar boundaries in the more traditional branches of science (e.g., fundamental life sciences vs. biotechnology) simply because there has not been enough nanoscience done yet to enable most of the nanotechnology, especially in the way the latter is typically presented to the general public.
Take electronics, for example. For all the fundamental research that goes on in semiconductor physics, the actual technology has evolved a lot more conservatively, changing the processes only when being faced with insurmountable limitations of the existing methods. In fact, while fundamentally GaAs may indeed be a superior semiconductor, Silicon will rule the day in technology simply because it is a more studied material from an applied prospective.
But if we now think about a single-electron (or a nanotube-based) transistor, the distinction between the fundamental and applied research is minimal, simply because neither has advanced enough in terms of making practical devices. So until the first generation nanoscience and nanotechnology actually establish commercially-viable processes, materials, and devices, the choice of the "science" vs. "technology" (or "fundamental" vs. applied") moniker will be mostly up to personal preferences of individual researchers.
err, perhaps a link to the actual Nanotech Institute website would be helpful? http://nint-innt.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/home/index_e.html
I had a chance to tour the original NINT facility (not the new one), and I recall a few interesting facts from it. Perhaps most interesting is that the original facility resides at a higher level (read: not basement or 1st floor), and while that means little to most of us, apparently the vibration of a building at that height - in MICROmeters - does effect NANO-research. I suppose that when you do research that's so intensive, factors you've never considered become critical in design, and the essential need for shielding from vibration and electrical interference is partially the reason for the cost of the building.
Wikipedia:o r_Nanotechnology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_f
Press Release:= 47344
http://www.engineering.ualberta.ca/news.cfm?story
It's interesting to note that this center was built using "soft money", i.e. limited time funding that is actually expiring at more or less the same time that it is opening. There are other things of concern with this center, such as how the investment is dwarfed by investments being made by other countries... This is not the only example of photo ops masquarading as research initiatives staged by the federal government. The uncertainty over future funding is causing the NRC to re-evaluate everyting that is does. The danger is that political considerations could overshadow scientific issues.