• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nanotechnology

jay gw

Unregistered
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
Nanotechnology is next big thing in electronics and manufacturing

By Jennifer Bails
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, January 21, 2005

The next big thing could come in the smallest package imaginable -- so tiny, in fact, it is invisible to the naked eye.

Nanotechnology is the science of working with things that are one-billionth of a meter, or more than 1,000 times narrower than the diameter of a human hair.

This nascent, interdisciplinary field is expected to become a trillion-dollar industry within the next decade, said CMU physics professor Randall Feenstra, who studies material properties at the nanoscale.

Federal support for nanotech research and development has risen sixfold, from $116 million in 1997 to an estimated $961 million in 2004, according to the National Nanotechnology Initiative, an inter-agency federal program that coordinates U.S. nanoscience investment.

The promise of nanotechnology lies in how materials behave in the size range of 1 to 100 nanometers, where they can only be seen with the most powerful microscopes, McCullough said. At that size, the laws of quantum mechanics that apply to bulk materials are no longer in effect.

Normal, macroworld properties break down, and as a result, materials take on strange chemical and physical traits. For example, ultrasmall cylinders of carbon atoms called carbon nanotubes are one-sixth the weight of steel but about 100 times stronger.

In a 1959 lecture to the American Physical Society, late physicist Richard Feynman said, "There's plenty of room at the bottom" -- meaning scientists could manipulate atoms and molecules, then the smallest known particles, to do humanity's bidding.

That is essentially the goal of nanotechnology -- to figure out how to take advantage of the remarkable properties of nanomaterials to design new and useful devices, molecule by molecule, atom by atom.

"Nanotechnology is more than simply making things smaller," said CMU engineering professor Ed Schlesinger, who directs the university's Data Storage Systems Center. "This is the scale where we can really control the properties of materials."

The next challenge is to engineer robust machines from the growing number of nano-sized building blocks such as carbon nanotubes and tiny, fluorescent crystals called quantum dots, Pitt engineering professor Hong Koo Kim said.

"We have reached the fundamental limits of the evolution of microtechnology," said Kim, who co-directs Pitt's Institute of NanoScience and Engineering. "Now we need to prepare for more revolutionary technology, but we can't do that without understanding the unique phenomena that happen at the nanoscale."

Kim is trying to integrate optic and electronic devices on a nano-sized chip made from semiconductor material. Schlesinger is working to use nano-components to develop data storage technology that can hold about 1 trillion bits of information a square inch. At that size, it would be possible to store a black-and-white-photo of every person on earth on a compact disc-sized disk.

Among the other nano-gadgets in the works are thin films to measure blood-sugar levels and other body chemicals, tiny cages of atoms to trap pollutants and chemical weapons in water and soil, next-generation cancer treatments, minuscule computers and cell phones and longer-lasting tennis balls.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_295352.html
 
I would be curious why someone would vote no. Do they think the whole thing is hogwash and won't happen? Or did they interpret the word "Invest" to mean buying securities in companies engaged in the business and conclude that it would be a poor investment?

Personall, I thing it will/is happening. Whether it would be a good investment - only time will tell.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I would be curious why someone would vote no. Do they think the whole thing is hogwash and won't happen? Or did they interpret the word "Invest" to mean buying securities in companies engaged in the business and conclude that it would be a poor investment?

Personall, I thing it will/is happening. Whether it would be a good investment - only time will tell.
I don't think you can say investing in nanotech would be a good or bad investment. It's like saying 30 years ago "Investing in Personal Computers is a good/bad investment." Some companies will be good investments, others not so much.
And I also believe nanotech will be a reality. How soon and how powerful, can't tell, but it's very promising.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I would be curious why someone would vote no. Do they think the whole thing is hogwash and won't happen? Or did they interpret the word "Invest" to mean buying securities in companies engaged in the business and conclude that it would be a poor investment?

Personall, I thing it will/is happening. Whether it would be a good investment - only time will tell.
I was the 'no' voter, TCS, and you hit my reason for doing so in your second option. Like you, I agree that nanotech is an advancing technology, and it is one with a future ahead of it. But it is not something I would invest my personal money in -- at least not yet. A claim to be a trillion-dollar industry within a decade sounds like pie-in-the-sky to me. Ultra-high density storage seems the most interesting and most viable of the claims so far.

If I'm wrong, then of course in 2015 anyone who had invested in it now will be able to bask on top of their trillion-dollar fortune and laugh at me. From a great height.
 
At the moment I am of the solid opion that Nanotechnology= give me funding for my project because I slaped a buzz word onto it.
 
Ther are an awful lot of big dreams out there hinging on nanotech. Here's an excerpt from a short interview from one company founder who is not afraid to dream big.
.... So do abalones do nanotech? They do. The hardness and luster is a function of the very, very uniform structure of calcium carbonate, deposited a molecule at a time. That’s also what makes pearls.

Why jump from that to something as complex as microchips? Chips are the dream. We have roughly thirty other shorter-term projects—magnetic storage materials, [solar cells] for energy-efficient lighting, flexible batteries.

The chip-making techniques you’re talking about promise features a tenth the size being achieved with conventional methods. How close are you to something that actually works? We’re making components right now, simple transistors. The next thing is to make useful architectures.

Your company describes its business as “directed-evolution technology.” So the goal is something with potentially very broad application? It’s a platform technology, yes. The aim is to work our way through the whole periodic table and be able to design materials of all kinds in a controlled way. My biggest goal is to have a DNA sequence that can code for the synthesis of any useful material.
But so far you have to use millions of viruses to find one or two that do something useful. Are there shortcuts? That’s what we’re working through now—what the rules are for how viruses interact with materials. But until we achieve that, we’re still making progress through trial and error and a lot more genetic manipulation.

Presumably the answer is, design better organisms and you’ll get better materials. Exactly. And we’re not limited to viruses. We work on yeasts, too.

So a wholly new organism could create a wholly new material? We’re working toward that, yes—new alloys, for instance. ...
I'd like something simple like CH4 (methane), or, the slightly more complex, gasoline to be engineered from coal and water. Hydrocarbon chains from C7H16 through C11H24 are blended together and used for gasoline. It seems like a perfect application for a DNA strand. I wonder if an engineered virus that could do this ever got loose into the environment it would make my food taste oily or would start attacking human beings and turn us all to oil. I hope there are some safeguards engineered into the things to prevent our annihilation. Oil is a good thing but so is humanity.
 
What are the most important things that nanotechnology can do for electronics/materials/computers etc.?

And....I think that the US believes it has the lead, but for how long? If nanotechnology is like personal computers, or anything electronic, it'll go to Asia.

Yes, the original ideas come from the US, but will they make the money too?
 
And....I think that the US believes it has the lead, but for how long? If nanotechnology is like personal computers, or anything electronic, it'll go to Asia.

Yes, the original ideas come from the US, but will they make the money too?

Manufacturing goes to Asia. Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft, nVidia are all based in the US. ATI is based in Canada.
 
Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft, nVidia are all based in the US. ATI is based in Canada.

Do you know who runs those companies? Take a tour of Intel and IBM one day.
 
jay gw said:
Do you know who runs those companies? Take a tour of Intel and IBM one day.
That's called "moving the goalposts." You made a claim, that PCs have gone to Asia. I pointed out that PC manufacturing moved to Asia. Bringing up who works at Intel and IBM is irrelevant.
 
geni said:
At the moment I am of the solid opion that Nanotechnology= give me funding for my project because I slaped a buzz word onto it.

The other thing to note, you dump a billion federal R&D dollars ia year into any narrow area like this and you are going to get some results out of it. The question is whether the money dumped in is going to have a return.

The same sort of thing went on (on a smaller scale) back in the buckyball heyday. People dumped a lot of money into research, and got some results, but never came close to what the claimed potential was. As a friend said back then, you dump that much money into cement research, you are going to get some good results.

BTW, I always meant to comment on your sig: I love the smell of acetone in the morning.

My statement has always been "I love the smell of ethyl acetate in the morning." This is especially true when the students were running a lot of columns. I'd come in in the morn and it _would_ smell like ethyl acetate. But then, I knew they were working.
 
geni said:
At the moment I am of the solid opion that Nanotechnology= give me funding for my project because I slaped a buzz word onto it.

I have a solid opinion on nanotechnology, and this sums it up in one sentence. I think I posted a thread here several months ago on Nanoscience.
 
Bruce said:
I have a solid opinion on nanotechnology, and this sums it up in one sentence. I think I posted a thread here several months ago on Nanoscience.

You mean, there's less to nanotechnology than meets the eye? ;)
 
DangerousBeliefs said:
I just want to say welcome to our nanobot overlords!

You mean that puddle of silver sludge over there that is slowly eating its way to the center of the Earth?
 
We may be farther along the road to nanotech than many think. Google "Quantum Dots" for one. There are a few other very interesting developments in this area.

There is some argument wheteher or not these are technically nano-technology or not, but they're under the same general umbrella.
 
That's called "moving the goalposts." You made a claim, that PCs have gone to Asia. I pointed out that PC manufacturing moved to Asia. Bringing up who works at Intel and IBM is irrelevant.

The people that work in technology companies are irrelevant? Um.....ok.

The 'PC manufacturing going to Asia' is exactly what I said. You just repeated what I said earlier that even if the EU or US originates ideas for nanotechnology, the only place that can make it for the right price is Asia. Which means it may become a 1 trillion dollar industry, but the profits will be China's.
 
The Economist had a recent Survey (e.g. 20 page article) on Nanotechnology. One of the thing that it stresses is that nanotechnology is a diverse field.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3494722
Nanotechnology does not derive from a single scientific discipline. Although it probably has most in common with materials science, the properties of atoms and molecules underpin many areas of science, so the field attracts scientists of different disciplines. Worldwide, around 20,000 people are estimated to be working in nanotechnology, but the sector is hard to define. Small-scale work in electronics, optics and biotechnology may have been relabelled “nanobiotechnology”, “nano-optics” and “nanoelectronics” because nano-anything has become fashionable.
...
If there is one thing everyone agrees on, it is that nanotechnology is neither an industry nor a market. Lumping together different nanotechnology firms may be as sensible as assembling a group of firms whose names start with Z. A company selling nano-improved fabrics has little in common with one developing solar cells.
As far as investments, if you guess the company right, you can retire. If you guess wrong, you will have nothing.

CBL
 

Back
Top Bottom