You may be confusing a GI (General Issue soldier) with the "special forces".
Special forces means more than just Rangers and SEALs. A friend of mine from high school was in a special forces "psychological warfare" division a few years ago. He was a graphic designer, not anything secret or all that special about it except that he had access to some really great equipment. Similarly, I used to work in fusion science, and there are a number of fusion scientests who also work for the military despite being academics. In both these cases, you have people who would never fit the typical stereotype of "military". The common denominator between them is the desire to play with the coolest toys and do the most advaced work they can (and of course, no moral qualms about the military). It's been my impression that the military is accomodating of people whose skills are necessary and unusual, yet lack that "military" persona. Remember, they're not asking these hackers to be rank and file soldiers, probably just hackers.
Re:The Smalley nanotube effort: the accurate versi
on
Quantum Wires
·
· Score: 1
I was going to post almost the exact same thing (except for the part about being at Rice).
It's kind of a standard disclaimer that I feel goes with any online posting of nanotube research. For some reason, quite a large number of people ignore the laboratory realities of carbon nanotubes.
In nanotechnology, the question of what is a molecule is a hard one. Is a carbon nanotube, which is 1nm in diameter, but perhaps many micometers long, a molecule? It is smaller, in weight, than many proteins, which are undoubtably molecules. Are 2 covalently bonded gold atoms a molecule? 3? 12? 100? Where is the cutoff point? Certainly, we should include things like DNA polymerase and kinesin... things for which motion and interactions on the atomic scale are important, but these can be rather large.
On the basis of size and weight, the Zettl motor is much smaller than many molecules. The idea of having a device which moves atoms around individually to generate motion (without the full presentation, you may not get the sense of how controlled this is), and takes advantage of individual bond defects (don't know if it was mentioned anywhere that the reseviors form there) to define the location of the applied force seems to fit the definition of interactions on the atomic scale. Yet, your view that it is not molecular nanotechnology is probably the dominant one, why?
I think it has to do with who works with molecules. There are very few devices which are admitted to be "molecular nanotechnology" which do not work in water. The Zettl motor is not bio or biomemetic, but can be descibed by terms solid state physicists use. The language associated with that field, like conduction, phonons and phase transition are not associated with nanotechnology, largely because of Drexler, who is a biochemist. Chemically derived words like charge dissociation, conformational change and active site are associated with nanotechnology.
To me the question is, why is molecular nanotechnology limited to biomemetics, and what is a molecule? Who gets to decide this?
Zettl's motor is not biomemetic nanotechnology, and since biochemists coined the term, then maybe it's not fair to take their word and call it molecular nanotechnology. That's why I called it "atomic nanotechnology". In any case, I think it's an arbitrary definition that a chemical combination must be made in solution to be considered a molecule.
Drexler's book was conceptually great and really pumped a lot of interest of the subject into the general public (his second is another thing). However, Engines of Creation makes a few assumptions about the molecular world which have been found to be incorrect. Diamondoids are not as stable a form of carbon at the nano scale as he thought, and materials are inherantly different from the bulk at the nanoscale. For example, a relatively inert metal such as gold becomes extremely reactive when clumped into just a few isolated atoms. The reason nothing has happened to realize Drexler's original vision is that it did not work, his detals were wrong. It's not as easy as drawing lines between carbon atoms to make the shape you want. Since then, Drexler has refined his own definition of nanotechnology into something which can be described as artificial biology in arbitrary environments. This is a common definition of nanotechnology among the majority of people who study it. Like Drexler, most of the people studying nanotechnology come from a biology background. They tend not to like the atomic or solid state approaches used by physicists and engineers, so they call their work "molecular nanotechnology" to differentiate themselves.
Zettl is a physicist, and comes at things from a very different perspective. I had the opportunity to see this research presented at an invited talk a few weeks ago at the last APS meeting. It is most definitely nanotechnology on the level of single atoms. Let me explain:
Their "motor", as presented at APS, consists of a resevior of indium atoms at one end of a carbon nanotube, and an indium crystal on the other end. By driving a current through the nanotube in conjuction with heating from the TEM electron beam, they are able to move the indium from the resevior to the crystal and back. The atoms move very quickly, they do not have the time resolution in the TEM to see them. The crystal, on the other hand, grows very slowly, and they are able to see individual atomic layers being deposited on this crystal which is only a few nanometers in diameter. The height of the crystal they can vary from nothing to microns. The whole motor is actually smaller than the smallest linear biomolecular motor (kinesin), hence the "smallest motor" claim.
Thus the fundamental technology is atoms, and is nanoscale. Furthermore, to call this technology "not nanotechnology" is absurd! This is the technique that may enable atomic construction. The ability to move individual atoms around very, very quickly and in an extremely controlled manner is essential to "Drexler's vision", as you call it. Imagine an array of carbon nanotubes, each with a resevior of a different metal at one end, which can be scanned across a surface like an inkjet printer head, depositing atoms on a surface. You would then have "atomic nanotechnology", which is what Feynman's original vision actually was.
I've always had a problem with the points off for handwriting thing too... until I ended up on the other side of the table as a teacher.
These days, there's no reason not to just type up your math if you can't write legibly or draw a decent curve on a graph. In some cases, it was actually fun asking a student "what is that letter"?
The big secret is that many of these companies simply piggy-back on one another. In the area I work, Cingular put up a bunch of towers and really covered the area in the way it should be done. Note that I do not mean to imply that Cingular regularly does this. Other carriers, not wanting to be outdone by Cingular, but also not wanting to actually do any work, simply made a deal with Cingular to use their towers. The result is an impacted network, and crappy service for all!
If you go to any of the coporate stores to buy a cell phone, they will regale you with tales of the great service you will have when you switch. We are lucky to have an independant cell phone store, which will give you an honest answer, and indeed even show you that many of the different service providers are using the same local signal.
He's only emulating biologists and thier uncanny ability to make up complicated words where existing, simple words work just fine. Sometimes we feel left out in physics, there are only so many particles to name.
There's already electrical power already being delivered to your house. Not to mention biodeisel and ethanol as viable fuel options.
Do we really need another (worse) option? If someone manages to find something better than what we've got now, that's great, but I'm not sure putting this kind of stuff out there is helping. Alternative fuel researchers may be best served by continuing to bring alternative fuel prices down. With rising gasoline prices, it might be only a matter of months before it's cheaper to run a car on ethanol (which is a higher performance fuel anyway).
I've got a Gameboy SP, I've bought one for my brother and some friends bought theirs all around Christmas 2003. None of us have any dead pixels. I don't know anyone with a DS yet, but it can't be that hard to get a small, large pixel portable game screen to work. Nintendo seems to do it for half the price.
Since you're a grad student, you likely already signed a contract giving the school rights to work you produce while you are there. A contract you sign with different parties shouldn't be able to void the existing one with your University. You may want to try your University's legal staff in contacting a lawyer. In addition, programs you have already made public can't be un-made public... well I suppose they could try?
The main problem with this is, the University might just tell you that you are not allowed to take the internship. I know that when certain restrictions are put in to research grants, my University does not allow those grants to be accepted.
Yeah, I guess imaginary auctions really are pretty sad. I can see the distinction there.
However... why issue a press release when a member of the University has already written an entire article? I'm just complaining about an aspect of science culture I don't like. It seems scientests work to insulate themselves from the general public, and this is encouraged by things like vague and often wrong press releases from our handlers.
The original article was in Physical Review Letters, which PhysOrg and this press release you link to both cite. Neither provides a link to PRL. In fact, you almost never see links to original science material in any mass media.
Since when did non-technical (sometimes wrong) summaries become original articles?
I was at a colloquium on cosmology and the issue of dark matter came up. Someone near me in the "peanut gallery" (grad students) asked if we might better describe it as aether. Surprisingly, the cosmologist agreed.
The general GRE was one of the best tests I ever took. The idea that the test can get harder the better you do is something which I really enjoyed. (God, did I just say I enjoyed a test...) I felt that the variable difficulty questions did a far better job of determining my abilities than any fill-in-the bubble test.
In any case, it's too bad they are having issues with the computers crashing. The issues of websites containing unfair test information is something independant of paper/computer nature of the test. Paper AP Calc tests were being published online before the testing date 8 years ago. I think the only reason they've seen big increases in online cheating in the last few years is that they've just started looking. Other security issues really have to do with good testing practices and room security.
Electrochemical reactions happen at extremely low voltages and in this case don't require any fancy reagents. You have the same masking problems with a chemical etch as with an electrochemical etch, but instead of needing a very average DC power supply, now you need something which you really shouldn't allow to touch your skin.
For anyone thinking of using any corrosive to etch metal, look up its MSDS and make sure you know what you're doing. The same can be said of electrochemisty, but we're all pretty comfortable with 12V power supplies.
There are a few options to get paid and get a PhD at the same time. I would recommend looking at companies like General Atomics. I know that at GA, they employ a lot of computational physicists on their fusion project who are also faculty members at various schools around the world. It's possible to have both a job and a research project. On the other hand, there are probably a handfull of such opportunities worldwide.
It makes no sense at all to go out and establish yourself with a company only to throw it away after a few years by leaving to work on a PhD. Getting a PhD in Physics is not easy, and is definitely NOT something you can do while working a serious job.
In addition, you may want to look at what a PhD will get you. It's basically a membership card into the "physics club". This gets you access to government grants, academic institutions and conferences. These things are technically open to anyone... but you really need a PhD just to make the first cut where jobs and money are concerned.
The downside of a physics PhD is that it really doesn't guarantee you that much. You will have a job in physics should you want it. That job will likely pay slightly more than what you could make now. Look at it this way:
Research Fellowship: $15k to $30k/year Postdoc position: $30k to $50k/year Assistant Professor: $40k to $70k/year
It will take about 10 years to get to the Assistant Professor level should you decide to go the academic route. If you want to go industry, why get the PhD if you have the skills you want to use right now? I'm not sure the 6 years of time off are made up for by the added pay.
Also, you obviously did not read the full paper. The first half was on connecting the muscle cells to a cantilever. The second half of the paper deals with a silicon/metal film structure on which muscle cells are grown, which then detached from the bulk silicon and is able to move around on a surface of a chip without being tethered to anything. The power comes from the consumption of glucose which the whole assembly is immersed in.
If you read the paper, the new part of this study has to do with growing the cells in place on a device which is designed to move rather than tricking mature cells into cooperating, or growing static cells.
Don't be so quick to assume everything worth doing has already been done.
You work at UCLA... one of the centers for this kind of research. Get off your butt, go across campus and talk to one of the stem cell researchers if you have an idea for them. What do you want us to do?
For all the talk of corporations getting money for this thing, most of the people in charge are going to be academics who have a big interest in seeing all the research in public domain (published in a journal).
If Nature is the primary source (where the research results were published) is it really "one of many sites?" I'm being really picky here, but there's a huge difference between an article written by the people who dug up the fossils and an article written by someone who simply read about it. Of course, usually, the primary source is not even mentioned here, so I guess I can't complain too much.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be confusing a GI (General Issue soldier) with the "special forces".
Special forces means more than just Rangers and SEALs. A friend of mine from high school was in a special forces "psychological warfare" division a few years ago. He was a graphic designer, not anything secret or all that special about it except that he had access to some really great equipment. Similarly, I used to work in fusion science, and there are a number of fusion scientests who also work for the military despite being academics. In both these cases, you have people who would never fit the typical stereotype of "military". The common denominator between them is the desire to play with the coolest toys and do the most advaced work they can (and of course, no moral qualms about the military). It's been my impression that the military is accomodating of people whose skills are necessary and unusual, yet lack that "military" persona. Remember, they're not asking these hackers to be rank and file soldiers, probably just hackers.
I was going to post almost the exact same thing (except for the part about being at Rice).
It's kind of a standard disclaimer that I feel goes with any online posting of nanotube research. For some reason, quite a large number of people ignore the laboratory realities of carbon nanotubes.
wow, nice
I didn't mean to misquote you, sorry.
In nanotechnology, the question of what is a molecule is a hard one. Is a carbon nanotube, which is 1nm in diameter, but perhaps many micometers long, a molecule? It is smaller, in weight, than many proteins, which are undoubtably molecules. Are 2 covalently bonded gold atoms a molecule? 3? 12? 100? Where is the cutoff point? Certainly, we should include things like DNA polymerase and kinesin... things for which motion and interactions on the atomic scale are important, but these can be rather large.
On the basis of size and weight, the Zettl motor is much smaller than many molecules. The idea of having a device which moves atoms around individually to generate motion (without the full presentation, you may not get the sense of how controlled this is), and takes advantage of individual bond defects (don't know if it was mentioned anywhere that the reseviors form there) to define the location of the applied force seems to fit the definition of interactions on the atomic scale. Yet, your view that it is not molecular nanotechnology is probably the dominant one, why?
I think it has to do with who works with molecules. There are very few devices which are admitted to be "molecular nanotechnology" which do not work in water. The Zettl motor is not bio or biomemetic, but can be descibed by terms solid state physicists use. The language associated with that field, like conduction, phonons and phase transition are not associated with nanotechnology, largely because of Drexler, who is a biochemist. Chemically derived words like charge dissociation, conformational change and active site are associated with nanotechnology.
To me the question is, why is molecular nanotechnology limited to biomemetics, and what is a molecule? Who gets to decide this?
Zettl's motor is not biomemetic nanotechnology, and since biochemists coined the term, then maybe it's not fair to take their word and call it molecular nanotechnology. That's why I called it "atomic nanotechnology". In any case, I think it's an arbitrary definition that a chemical combination must be made in solution to be considered a molecule.
Drexler's book was conceptually great and really pumped a lot of interest of the subject into the general public (his second is another thing). However, Engines of Creation makes a few assumptions about the molecular world which have been found to be incorrect. Diamondoids are not as stable a form of carbon at the nano scale as he thought, and materials are inherantly different from the bulk at the nanoscale. For example, a relatively inert metal such as gold becomes extremely reactive when clumped into just a few isolated atoms. The reason nothing has happened to realize Drexler's original vision is that it did not work, his detals were wrong. It's not as easy as drawing lines between carbon atoms to make the shape you want. Since then, Drexler has refined his own definition of nanotechnology into something which can be described as artificial biology in arbitrary environments. This is a common definition of nanotechnology among the majority of people who study it. Like Drexler, most of the people studying nanotechnology come from a biology background. They tend not to like the atomic or solid state approaches used by physicists and engineers, so they call their work "molecular nanotechnology" to differentiate themselves.
Zettl is a physicist, and comes at things from a very different perspective. I had the opportunity to see this research presented at an invited talk a few weeks ago at the last APS meeting. It is most definitely nanotechnology on the level of single atoms. Let me explain:
Their "motor", as presented at APS, consists of a resevior of indium atoms at one end of a carbon nanotube, and an indium crystal on the other end. By driving a current through the nanotube in conjuction with heating from the TEM electron beam, they are able to move the indium from the resevior to the crystal and back. The atoms move very quickly, they do not have the time resolution in the TEM to see them. The crystal, on the other hand, grows very slowly, and they are able to see individual atomic layers being deposited on this crystal which is only a few nanometers in diameter. The height of the crystal they can vary from nothing to microns. The whole motor is actually smaller than the smallest linear biomolecular motor (kinesin), hence the "smallest motor" claim.
Thus the fundamental technology is atoms, and is nanoscale. Furthermore, to call this technology "not nanotechnology" is absurd! This is the technique that may enable atomic construction. The ability to move individual atoms around very, very quickly and in an extremely controlled manner is essential to "Drexler's vision", as you call it. Imagine an array of carbon nanotubes, each with a resevior of a different metal at one end, which can be scanned across a surface like an inkjet printer head, depositing atoms on a surface. You would then have "atomic nanotechnology", which is what Feynman's original vision actually was.
I've always had a problem with the points off for handwriting thing too... until I ended up on the other side of the table as a teacher.
These days, there's no reason not to just type up your math if you can't write legibly or draw a decent curve on a graph. In some cases, it was actually fun asking a student "what is that letter"?
The big secret is that many of these companies simply piggy-back on one another. In the area I work, Cingular put up a bunch of towers and really covered the area in the way it should be done. Note that I do not mean to imply that Cingular regularly does this. Other carriers, not wanting to be outdone by Cingular, but also not wanting to actually do any work, simply made a deal with Cingular to use their towers. The result is an impacted network, and crappy service for all!
If you go to any of the coporate stores to buy a cell phone, they will regale you with tales of the great service you will have when you switch. We are lucky to have an independant cell phone store, which will give you an honest answer, and indeed even show you that many of the different service providers are using the same local signal.
He's only emulating biologists and thier uncanny ability to make up complicated words where existing, simple words work just fine. Sometimes we feel left out in physics, there are only so many particles to name.
There's already electrical power already being delivered to your house. Not to mention biodeisel and ethanol as viable fuel options.
Do we really need another (worse) option? If someone manages to find something better than what we've got now, that's great, but I'm not sure putting this kind of stuff out there is helping. Alternative fuel researchers may be best served by continuing to bring alternative fuel prices down. With rising gasoline prices, it might be only a matter of months before it's cheaper to run a car on ethanol (which is a higher performance fuel anyway).
As a direct market comparison...
I've got a Gameboy SP, I've bought one for my brother and some friends bought theirs all around Christmas 2003. None of us have any dead pixels. I don't know anyone with a DS yet, but it can't be that hard to get a small, large pixel portable game screen to work. Nintendo seems to do it for half the price.
Since you're a grad student, you likely already signed a contract giving the school rights to work you produce while you are there. A contract you sign with different parties shouldn't be able to void the existing one with your University. You may want to try your University's legal staff in contacting a lawyer. In addition, programs you have already made public can't be un-made public... well I suppose they could try?
The main problem with this is, the University might just tell you that you are not allowed to take the internship. I know that when certain restrictions are put in to research grants, my University does not allow those grants to be accepted.
It appears to be using capacitive actuation for the cantilever movement.
It's absolutely shocking to me that they did this without piezos. It's probably cheaper, but wow.
Thank you for actually referencing primary sources, and not some university or coporate PR generated press release!
what the hell has happened to the Republican party? I remember a time when they used to argue against frivolous regulation.
This post illustrates perfectly the idea that physics, even in the cases where time travel is allowed, does not allow paradoxes to happen.
Yeah, I guess imaginary auctions really are pretty sad. I can see the distinction there.
However... why issue a press release when a member of the University has already written an entire article? I'm just complaining about an aspect of science culture I don't like. It seems scientests work to insulate themselves from the general public, and this is encouraged by things like vague and often wrong press releases from our handlers.
What are you talking about?
The original article was in Physical Review Letters, which PhysOrg and this press release you link to both cite. Neither provides a link to PRL. In fact, you almost never see links to original science material in any mass media.
Since when did non-technical (sometimes wrong) summaries become original articles?
I was at a colloquium on cosmology and the issue of dark matter came up. Someone near me in the "peanut gallery" (grad students) asked if we might better describe it as aether. Surprisingly, the cosmologist agreed.
The general GRE was one of the best tests I ever took. The idea that the test can get harder the better you do is something which I really enjoyed. (God, did I just say I enjoyed a test...) I felt that the variable difficulty questions did a far better job of determining my abilities than any fill-in-the bubble test.
In any case, it's too bad they are having issues with the computers crashing. The issues of websites containing unfair test information is something independant of paper/computer nature of the test. Paper AP Calc tests were being published online before the testing date 8 years ago. I think the only reason they've seen big increases in online cheating in the last few years is that they've just started looking. Other security issues really have to do with good testing practices and room security.
Electrochemical reactions happen at extremely low voltages and in this case don't require any fancy reagents. You have the same masking problems with a chemical etch as with an electrochemical etch, but instead of needing a very average DC power supply, now you need something which you really shouldn't allow to touch your skin.
For anyone thinking of using any corrosive to etch metal, look up its MSDS and make sure you know what you're doing. The same can be said of electrochemisty, but we're all pretty comfortable with 12V power supplies.
There are a few options to get paid and get a PhD at the same time. I would recommend looking at companies like General Atomics. I know that at GA, they employ a lot of computational physicists on their fusion project who are also faculty members at various schools around the world. It's possible to have both a job and a research project. On the other hand, there are probably a handfull of such opportunities worldwide.
/year /year /year
It makes no sense at all to go out and establish yourself with a company only to throw it away after a few years by leaving to work on a PhD.
Getting a PhD in Physics is not easy, and is definitely NOT something you can do while working a serious job.
In addition, you may want to look at what a PhD will get you. It's basically a membership card into the "physics club". This gets you access to government grants, academic institutions and conferences. These things are technically open to anyone... but you really need a PhD just to make the first cut where jobs and money are concerned.
The downside of a physics PhD is that it really doesn't guarantee you that much. You will have a job in physics should you want it. That job will likely pay slightly more than what you could make now. Look at it this way:
Research Fellowship: $15k to $30k
Postdoc position: $30k to $50k
Assistant Professor: $40k to $70k
It will take about 10 years to get to the Assistant Professor level should you decide to go the academic route. If you want to go industry, why get the PhD if you have the skills you want to use right now? I'm not sure the 6 years of time off are made up for by the added pay.
I'm Jewish.
Think about that.
Thanks.
Read that abstract again.
Also, you obviously did not read the full paper. The first half was on connecting the muscle cells to a cantilever. The second half of the paper deals with a silicon/metal film structure on which muscle cells are grown, which then detached from the bulk silicon and is able to move around on a surface of a chip without being tethered to anything. The power comes from the consumption of glucose which the whole assembly is immersed in.
If you read the paper, the new part of this study has to do with growing the cells in place on a device which is designed to move rather than tricking mature cells into cooperating, or growing static cells.
Don't be so quick to assume everything worth doing has already been done.
You work at UCLA... one of the centers for this kind of research. Get off your butt, go across campus and talk to one of the stem cell researchers if you have an idea for them. What do you want us to do?
For all the talk of corporations getting money for this thing, most of the people in charge are going to be academics who have a big interest in seeing all the research in public domain (published in a journal).
If Nature is the primary source (where the research results were published) is it really "one of many sites?" I'm being really picky here, but there's a huge difference between an article written by the people who dug up the fossils and an article written by someone who simply read about it. Of course, usually, the primary source is not even mentioned here, so I guess I can't complain too much.