Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't to double nano-tech funding
Announced a few days ago, nanotech research currently in the quarter billion dollar US range is set to be doubled by the Federal Government over the next few years. The Feds are recognizing the immense possibilites of nanotechnolgy and want to set up a "peer review process" (Sound familiar?) to allocate the funds best.
Ok, yea, "nano-tech" can mean microfabrication projects, but that's not the hot/intersting feild to hardcore scientists. Microfabrication, which MAY be considered nanotechnology to slashdotters, hopeing for faster CPUs, denser RAM chips, etc, is more of an "engineering" problem, not a fundemental science problem.
What your probably going to see is some stuff that is totally fringe that get's funded based on it's potential. What that means is, probably at least 50% of it will never be in a commercial product, and what does have commercial uses will be at least a few years from seeing your hands ;-)
BUT, that's good, someone has to do the fringe stuff, the fundemental chemistry and physics, because without them laying the groundwork, the engineers have now referance of what directions to go that will work and what won't work.
A lot of the hot funemental science that's considered nanotechnology is based on the discovery of Buckey-Ball, and fundementally Organic Chemistry. A form of carbon (linked in a ball, not a streight chain like life exists from, or in a crystal like diamond) not known to exist until the last few years. Based on this, chemist have developed some very cool little things made of carbon (some doped with metals), including things like bundles of carbon microtubes. Picture a test tube scaled down to like just a few atoms across if you can.
Cool stuff this is used for? Well, some pretty trick synthysis of stuff not normally done... I could go on and on, but, I suppose SlashDotters want to know what applications might be? Well, STM (as I have mentioned before, a very cool method of positioning single atoms on a surface, best graphics on the web I know are from IBM), can use these carbon nanotube for thier "tips" to get more fine control of positioning, and aquireing data about atoms on a surface (IBM is _probably_ looking at very dense data storage possabilities, on the atomic level, but it only works at near absolute zero). Additionally, if you position something as "big" (I say big from an atomic prespective) as a Bucky Ball on the surface, it's shown to be somewhat stable even near room temperatures! Woo... Big Buckyballs are still darn small by comparison to the size a 0 or 1 takes up on any drive YOU have ever seen!
These types of things (there are many) also have numerous biological benifits for manipulating DNA, probing cells, etc... And, the manipulation of DNA itself (or RNA, or any such thing), can in a sence be considered nanotechnology itself.
So, yes, "technically" nanotechnology means small stuff, and included microfabrication, but, I suspect that a very very large precentage of this money may go to more fundemental work and not making new wafers for chips. At least if NFS has any say at all (which they should, but might not), they will push for fundemental science, because it's considered more benificial in the long run. Once there are potential applications, it's pretty much something that Industry does, not the Government or Educational places, because there is potential profit involved. (as well should be, I don't want my tax money spent giveing corporations more money to develop direct applications that they then in turn will charge me to use!)
Forgive my spelling errors, I just got back from lab, doing like injection after injection in my HSGC, brain is fried, and it's 3:20AM... Grad school is hell.
I like the way it's written, but what are you talking about? I get the feeling the other posters here have misunderstood your post a bit; I simply don't understand it at all. Could you possibly clarify things?
You're right; you can't build a computer smaller than the smallest computer core. And we all know, robots by definition need a computer to tell them what to do. So if you want a robot smaller than a computer, move the computer outside the 'bot.
My guess is that the first nanorobots (nanites, nanobots, whatever) won't contain their own programming at all. All they'll have is a rudimentary instruction set; the instructions will then be fed by a larger, external device (probably communicating via radio).
The "enzyme model" (each 'bot works by interacting with individual molecules) is another interesting approach, but not one that I'd think would be practical with today's technology. Plus consider that it would take many 'bots working in tandem to get anything done.
I've actually been thinking about an artifically created life form. Replace various organels with (relatively large) nanomachines, build the cell walls out of . Maybe replace DNA with something more efficient (on an atom for atom scale). Alternatively, make each cell an individual machine, not necessarily on the same scale as biological cells (bigger or smaller).
It may even be possible to create a "cell" that would be powered by nuclear rather than chemical energy. "Food" might be hard to come by, but it would probably last for a long time. Such an organism's stomach would be... interesting. And what would it use for blood? Superconductive fiber to transmit electricity? Fiber optics for light? Both? Neither?
Such an artificial organism might do away with cells all together, but I doubt it. Nanotechnology points to "lots of small things to do a big job": cells.
Evolution can find "local maxima", but the solution evolution comes by might not be the best possible answer. I don't see any enzymes building diamond skin or bones. Evolution HAS come up with many great solutions to many great problems, but there are often better ways of doing things.
--Mark
Even though the given sentence's grammar is poor, so is your criticism.
For the purposes of our analysis, the sentence has one subject, one verb, one participial phrase serving as an adjective, one prepositional phrase serving as an adjective, and one adverb modifying the prepositional phrase. Mistaking a partipial phrase for a verb is bad enough, but mistaking the prepositional phrase / adverb for a verb is patently foolish, since the "currently in the quater billion dollar range" doesn't even contain a word that could act as a verb !
In fact, the sentence only requires two simple corrections.
After those corrections, the sentence would read:
The above sentence is not brilliant, but it is grammatically correct, which is more than most people expect from informal web forums like slashdot.
I certainly agree that the world would benefit from a better understanding and use of grammatical rules. However, a better understanding of the basic principles of sentence construction is both the means and the end to improving one's grammar (just as a better of understanding of computers can be both the means and the end of using Linux !). Your critique only further confuses basic principles (like the definition of a verb).
If you are going to choose the promotion of grammatical correctness as one of you crusades, please at least take the time to treat the subject with care, rather than just taking enough time to belittle (and confuse) those who offend your grammatical sense.
- a proud grammar geek
There are two primary aspects of peer review in science; these two aspects are not mutually exclusive. First, there is the peer review of proposals to such agencies as NSF. While not perfect (nothing involving humans is perfect), it has generally been successful. The main criticisms about NSF peer review are that it does not recognize risky "cutting edge" science, and that it discriminates against the young unproven investigator who is not yet a member of the "old boys club."
The other form of peer review is with regard to publications in scientific journals. One's career can be highly dependent on publishing in prestigious journals. Once again, the two common criticisms with proposals also apply with regard to publications. Furthermore, the ability to get funded is dependent on one's publication record, and one's publication record is dependent on the type of funded research that one conducts.
For most other government agencies (for instance DoD), the decision of who to fund is left to the whims of program managers. Obviously, the abilities and intellect of the program managers is critical; I've seen PM's that range from idiots to enlightened Yodas. Nonetheless, if the these non-peer review program suceed, more funding usually ensues. Conversely, if the programs fail, the PM will start to see their budgets getting slashed.
I hope that this educates you on the basics of peer reviewed research. Your comments were particular misguided. Note that unless all the scientists are in cahoots with one another, increasing funding in a particular topic usually (but always) results in a decrease in funding elsewhere. If you want to see a bunch of scientist get mad, watch what happens when their programs lose funds at the expense of another program.
actually, take a look at nanocomputing (and I don't mean "let's stretch silicon as far as it can go")
:) at
I predict (and it's a good guess) that the earliest nanocomputers will be mechanical, progressing to electric when we get a handle on quantum effects in computing that size (2 nm for the smallest electronic gate, which mechanical can be far smaller). Another thing about these computers: they will utilize reversible logic.
The amount of heat that they would have to dissapate otherwise is approx. ln(2)kT PER bit lost (i.e. 1 per AND or OR gate)
if you're interested in this, email me...
I have a paper in the publication works on nanotech in spacesuit repair (my strategy is not to tell them how old I am
http://mars2012.berkeley.edu/teams/repair/
which seems to be flaky (no, it's not mine...) so if you would like a copy of the paper, I can email it out... I'd like some feedback
Lea
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
> Given that you can produce nanomachines, how the hell do you tell them what to do?
Well, put simply, this is the wrong question. Nanotech machines aren't like PCs, in that they have a bunch of different tools and sensors and a microchip 'brain' that can be programmed. Nanos are usually very single-purpose and very narrowly useful for just that one thing.
It's not that "the code will be embedded", it's that the machines will be programmed only insofar as their mechanical design allows them to perform a specific function. Even a relatively complex nanomachine with multiple gears and sensors and so forth will probably be controlled only by its own mechanical design.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
You should lighten up. Your attitude's a little more annoying than Hemos' grammar.
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." -Rob Malda
I hope you interpret "how you say something" as having a diplomatic tone and open mind instead of having good grammar and spelling.
Peer Review is a fact of life in research. As a matter of fact it is usually the only way you can tell a bogus research project over the ones with real results.
However, peer review is definately not perfect and fails when a large portion of the peers would benefit from a certain outcome (look at the environmentalist movement). Peers will support absurd assumptions and findings to secure more grant funding (ie: "we can band together and cause concern over an issue enough to get more money from the congress!"). This happens a lot.
I wonder if there is a coorelation between that phenomena and open source? Would bands of programmers push an implementation/solution if it promised more exposure or jobs even though it was a faulty solution?
I don't know because the chance of getting a monetary benefit is not strongly present. If money were dangled in front, like maybe the bounty-ware approach, we might see this happening...
There's a realplayer copy of the hearing on nanotechnology last Tuesday here, which led to this government funding. Just click on the View Archive button next to it. Molecular systems research is pretty interesting stuff in my opinion, so screw you naysayers on nanotechnology ;)
Demona's Law - "User data expands to exceed available bandwidth." ("User data" being pr0n, mp3's, vob's,
Of course, then not only will the conspiracy theorists be right(wing), but the nanos will die of severe boredom ...
Will in Seattle
Will in Seattle
Forget the government, what about Microsoft? You'd have to buy service packs once a month or else the MS-Nanobots would extend little blades and start cutting all of your blood vessels. And the MS-Nanobots wouldn't be something you voluntarily purchase. MS would secretly pay Starbucks to dump these things in the coffee by the truckload. Not to mention paying Abercrombie and J. Crew to dust their clothes with them. (after all, if they can afford to spend that much on coffee and clothes, then MS can charge them anything they want...)
Of course, within a week, the FSF/OSS community would whip up GPL'd hunter-seeker nanobots that would kill MS 'bots on on sight, so we'd be all good....