Lachlan passed away in January 2010.  As a memorial, this site remains as he left it.
Therefore the information on this site may not be current or accurate and should not be relied upon.
For more information follow this link


(This Webpage Page in No Frames Mode)

(Inspired by receiving one too many nano-junk nano-investment nano-hype nanoSPAM nanoE-mails: on nanotechnology nanomedicine involving nanorobots by nanomedical nano-researchers - including nano-robot-red-blood-cells (making it possible to survive for hours without breathing), nano-robot-white blood cells (also called nano-submarines : only minutes to find and clear the entire human body of pathogens), nanobots for unlimited human life extension, etc, etc, etc. Pretty much all of which are based around Greater Fool Theory)

NanoShite

"The Next Big Thing Is Also Really Small Shite"

(**NEW**(ish): Check out the Automatic Nanotechnology Grant Application Generator)

(Even though Australia has no First Amendment or charter of rights and freedoms protecting free speech: A nano-apostate webpage dedicated to the slimey cancerous hype flim-flam-barnum-and-bailey-charlatan delusional bollocks nanosleaze / nano-sleaze of the Great God "Nano" - Deity of Nanotechnology / Nano Technology)
"The foolish body hath said in his heart : There is no Nano, only Nanoshite" - Psalm 53 of the Church of nano-ology
The Nanoshite homepage is at http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/nanoshite/

"One of the most salient features of our culture
is that there is so much bullshit.
Everyone knows this. Everyone contributes his share.
But we tend to take the situation for granted.
Most people are rather confident of their ability to
recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it." . . .
"And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation
of what it means to us. In other words, we have no theory."
- from page 1 of "On Bullshit" by Harry G. Frankfurt
(Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University)
(2005, Princeton University Press, ISBN: 0-691-12294-6)
In the Land of Bullshit
It stinks so much
You lose your sense of smell
What is Bullshit?: "it consists in a lack of concern for the difference between truth and falsity. The motivation of the bullshitter is not to say things that are true or even to say things that are false, but in serving some other purpose. And the question of what he says is true or false is really irrelevant to his pursuit of that ambition. The bullshitter is not necessarily a liar, what he says may very well be true; and he may not think that it's false. I was careful to try to make a distinction between; make clear the differences as I understand it between bullshitters and liars." - Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University
"During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of it did." - CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988). (Link 1) | (Link 2)

(Definitions of NanoTechnology / NanoShite: 1. a form of shaman charlatanism: making mundane, ordinary science and/or delusional scientific concepts sound like revolutionary scientific "innovation" and/or look feasible by putting the word "nano" somewhere in the title or within the text; 2. a flim-flam method by which temple-prostitutes use to extract grants from gullible and clueless scientific funding bodies by putting the word "nano" somewhere in the title or within the text.


[Back to Lachlan's Homepage] | [What's New at Lachlan's Homepage] | [New Nanoshite] | [NanoShite PRESS RELEASES]
[Relevant References] | [Press Releases] | [Nanoshite NanoBuzzwords] | [Some Feedback] | [Resistance to the Nanoshite Borg] | [I want to Vomit] | [Scientific Corruption in China] | [One Trillion Dollars] | [NanoCar] | [Nano Grants (including auto-generator)] | [Nano Links] | [NanoToast]

Relevant References:

  • Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds by Charles MacKay (1814-1889) (First published: 1841)
    • At http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne001.htm
    • At http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macEx.html
    • From the PREFACE to the first 1841 edition :

      THE OBJECT OF THE AUTHOR in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes.

  • There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom - An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics - by Richard P. Feynman (talk delivered on December 29th 1959)

  • CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman, Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.

  • Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (2002) By Robert L. Park

  • The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science By Robert L. Park

  • Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science: in the name of science (1957) By Martin Gardner

  • "On Bullshit" by Harry G. Frankfurt; Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University (2005, Princeton University Press, ISBN: 0-691-12294-6)
    • At http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

    • Page 1: One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Everyone contributes his share.

    • Page 49, 50: "the consequences of being caught are generally less severe for the bullshitter than for the liar"

  • Book Review of "On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt"
    • At http://www.bookfinder.us/review9/0691122946.html

    • Jane Eisner, The Philadelphia Inquirer: "the trouble with bullshit is that it undermines cultural respect for the truth. And what else does a democracy have? "

    • Frankfurt, one of the world's most influential moral philosophers, attempts to build such a theory here. With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

      Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

  • Video interview with Harry G. Frankfurt "On Bullshit"
    • At http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/

    • Interviewer: "That is your theory of Bullshit? What is Bullshit?" :
      Harry G. Frankfurt: "Well, it consists in a lack of concern for the difference between truth and falsity. The motivation of the bullshitter is not to say things that are true or even to say things that are false, but in serving some other purpose. And the question of what he says is true or false is really irrelevant to his pursuit of that ambition. The bullshitter is not necessarily a liar, what he says may very well be true; and he may not think that it's false. I was careful to try to make a distinction between; make clear the differences as I understand it between bullshitters and liars." - Harry G. Frankfurt

    • Interviewer: "What brought you, as a professional philosopher, to [write about] bullshit?" :
      Harry G. Frankfurt: "It was largely because I think that respect for the truth and a concern for the truth, these are among the foundations of civilization. I was for a long time kind of disturbed by the lack of respect and concern for the truth that I seem to observe in much of the speech and writing that was being produced; and bullshit is one of the deformaties of these values. So, I thought, try and find out more about it. Try to find out what it is. I was trained as an analytic philosopher. And analytic philosophy is characterized by a special concern for clarification of concepts. And this was a concept that seemed to me to be an important one. It referred to a significant feature of our culture. And not only a significant feature, but a feature that in my view pose certain dangers to the foundations of civilization. So I was interested in analyzing the concept and trying to find out exactly what we are talking about and talk about this." - Harry G. Frankfurt

  • Honesty, its importance for scientific advances
    • At http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/ttruth.html

    • Wolf-crying.

      Politicians in the UK have a long track record of making "positively definitive statements" about issues in the public domain. An example from recent years is the issuing of statements about the safety of BSE-infected beef, and again about the safety of salmonella-infected eggs, or more recently the financial probity and even the veracity and basic honesty of various political figures who need not be named here.

      They have brought the considered opinion of genuine experts into disrepute, particularly when it transpires that they have "spun" the opinions of the experts for their own political ends. This is another example of the negative effects of deliberate dishonesty in public life. Now, nobody can offer a sound scientific opinion, for example about the relative safety of mobile phone base stations when compared to the hazards of the handsets, without being disbelieved and discounted by the Public.

    • Harold B. worked between WWI and WWII in London in a mechanical engineering firm which produced the models required by the Patent Office in those days, before issuing a patent. He told me they had many people come to him with drawings of perpetual motion machines; he also told me they knew none of these would work, but because they were being paid to make them they kept a respectful silence and just took the money. The problem for him was, the inventors of these machines always blamed the constructors when the machines did not work.

      Harold would have known sufficient basic Physics to discount these inventions; in the modern age we are less well off, for Scientists and Engineers propose impossible projects and can now claim validity for their schemes on the strength of a few suspect computer simulations or the predictions of imperfectly verified mathematical models.

  • "The Great Crash: 1929" by John Kenneth Galbraith (First Published 1955)


Press Releases

1) NASA Sponsors Research into Civilisation Destroying Applications of NanoTechnology and 2) World's First Functioning Nanobots!

(a press release of the Centre for Nanoethical Nanononesense (CNN) of El Dorado State U.)


PRESS RELEASE on the nanotechnological development of Nanorock, Nanoscissors and Nanopaper nanorobots

(a press release of the Advanced Research Centre for BioNanotechnology, Nanoethics, Nanoenvironment and Nanorobotics at El Dorado State University)

Friday, March 4th 2005 note received from the author - Re lack of nano-tech simulation images in version 1 of this document: "As the images are being laid down atom-by-atom, the full Nanolithographical Nanotoolbox renderings are currently not completed. It is predicted that by another two beers significant progress on these images could be made."

Sunday, March 6th 2005: press release is released. (2 beers later?)


Nanoshite NanoBuzzwords / Buzzwords relating to Nanotechnology found in the Literature, Webshites and SPAM E-Mails

(Most "scholarly" scientific Nanotechnology / Nanoshite / NanoBuzz found by searching back issues of "Nature" and other similar nano-rags. Odds are if there is new flim-flam-barnum-and-bailey-charlatan NanoShite, it will get a major outing/hype session in "Nature". Anonymous additional NanoBuzz received with gratitude. "Comments" are from people who submitted the respective NanoBuzzword, either their phrasing, or the publication from which they extracted the buzzword.)
  • bioactive organic-inorganic nanohybrid
  • biomimetic flying-swimming nanobots
  • bionano
  • bionanocomputers
  • bio-nanodevices
  • bionanomachines
  • bionano robotics (Comment: "aim is to research bionano controllable robots. at the moment, results are limited to an impressive amount of computer animation of bionano robots killing evil infections..")
  • bio-nano-scaffold
  • bio-nanotechnology
  • bionanotechnology IRC (Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations)
  • biovorous nanoreplicators (Comment: "it appears that (for example) a full-blown worldwide atmospheric infestation can be cleaned up with a mere 88,000 tons of pre-built, non-replicating dragnet robots.")
  • blue goo (Comment: "opposite of Grey goo. Beneficial tech, or "police" nanobots.")
  • buckyonions
  • bristled nano centipedes
  • nanobiotechnology construction
  • carbon nanocoils
  • carbon nanoballs
  • carbon nanoflake
  • carbon nanohorn
  • carbon nanonoodles
  • carbon nanospring
  • carbon nanotorus / carbon nanotori
  • carbon nanotube forests
  • carbon nanotube ramen
  • carbon nanowalls
  • clay nanocomposites
  • claytronics
  • colloidal nanocrystals
  • computational nanophotonics
  • conducting polymeric nanostructures
  • crystalline boron nanoribbons
  • CuNT (Copper NanoTubes - Cu NanoTubes) (Chem. Commun., 2007, 1733-1735; The Royal Society of Chemistry 2007)
  • dental nanotray
  • dentifrobots
  • dendrimer nanoclusters
  • diamondoid nanorobots (Comment: "Note that diamondoid nanorobots are already "classical" even though they're figments of imagination")
  • diamond nanowire structures
  • DNA-based nanomachines
  • ecophagic nanorobots
  • electrospun nanowebs
  • functional nano-fillers
  • functional nano-interconnection
  • functional nano organic-inorganic hybrids for optoelectronics
  • functional nano-spotology (Comment: "who knows?")
  • functional supramolecular nano-architectures
  • functionalized nano-monoliths
  • functionalized nano-mechanical membranes
  • functionalized nano-robot end effector
  • giant aurothiol nanoclusters
  • gimballed nanogyroscopes
  • gold nanodots
  • graphite nanocraters
  • graphite nanofibers
  • green goo (Comment: "Nanomachines or bio-engineered organisms used for population control of humans")
  • hierarchical zno nanonail structures
  • hydrophobic gold nanotapes
  • inorganic nanotubular structures in carbon nanotubes
  • macro-nano
  • macroscale nanoorgans
  • magnetite nanoparticles
  • Magnetic Quantum Cellular Automata (MQCA)
  • metallic nanocrystals
  • metallic nanogaps
  • metallic nanoshell
  • metal oxide nanoarchitectures
  • molecular nanopatterning
  • molecular nanotechnology (mnt)
  • multilayer nanostructures formed by nanotransfer printing
  • nanoactuator
  • nano-aluminum
  • nanoaero
  • nanoagents
  • nanoagriculture
  • nanoagro
  • nanoantennas
  • nanoapparel
  • nanoarchitectures
  • nanoarchitectures incorporating self-organized protein superstructures
  • nanoassemblies
  • nanoastro
  • nanoauto / nanocar / nanoautomobile (Comment: refer to information listed below on original pedegree of the term, "nanocar")
  • nanoavionics
  • nano-babble
  • nanobacteria
  • nanobalance
  • nanoballoons
  • nanoballs
  • nanobatteries
  • nanobeads (Comment: "Polymer beads with diameters of between 0.1 to 10 micrometers. Also called nanodots, nanocrystals and quantum beads. >0.1 microns Scarcely nano now is it really?")
  • nanobeam imaging
  • nanobelt
  • nanobes (Comment: "similar to nanobacteria")
  • nanobiochemistry
  • nanobiodevice
  • nano-bio-hemostat
  • Nano-Bio-Micro Interfaces
  • nanobiotechnology
  • nanobiology
  • nanobone
  • nanobots
  • nanobot-enhanced bodies
  • nanobouquet
  • nanoboxes
  • nanobrick
  • nanobridge
  • nanobrush
  • nanobubbles
  • nanobulbs
  • nanocable
  • nanocable aligned nanocrystals
  • nano-cages
  • nanocalcium phosphate cement (cpc)
  • nano-cantilever
  • nanocapsules
  • nanocar (Comment: refer to information listed below on original pedegree of the term, "nanocar")
  • nanocarbon
  • nano-carpet
  • nanocart
  • nanocartography
  • nanocatalysis
  • nanocatalysts
  • nanocatalytic systems
  • NanoCells
  • nanocement
  • nano centipedes
  • nanocentrifuge
  • nanoceramic
  • nanoceramics
  • nanochannel
  • nanochannel fabrication
  • nanocharacterization
  • nanochemistry
  • nano christmas tree
  • nanocillium
  • nanoclass
  • nanoclay
  • nano-clothing
  • nanoclusters
  • nanocluster-based
  • nano-coatings
  • nanocognitive
  • nanocoil
  • nanocolumns
  • nanocombs
  • nano-composite
  • nanocomposite magneto-rheological fluids
  • nano-computing
  • nanocone
  • nanocontact elaboration
  • nanocontainers (Comment: "Micellar nanocontainers" or "Micelles", these are nanoscale polymeric containers that could be used to selectively deliver hydrophobic drugs to specific sites within individual cells.")
  • nano-corrugated
  • nanocraters
  • nanocritters
  • nanocrystal
  • nanocrystal aggregates
  • nanocrystal quantum dots
  • nanocrystal light-emitting diodes
  • nanocrystal transistors
  • nanocrystalline alpha-al2o3
  • nanocrystalline chains
  • nanocrystalline films
  • nanocrystalline thorium oxide
  • nanocrystallization
  • nanocubes
  • nanodentist
  • nanodentistry
  • nanodentology
  • nanodetectors
  • nanodetergent
  • nanodevices / nanodevice
  • nanodiscs
  • nanodissection
  • nanodonut / nanodoughnut
  • nanodots
  • nanodumbells (Comment: "gold-tipped nanocrystals shaped "somewhat" like mini-weightlifting bars")
  • nanodynamics
  • nano-eggshells
  • nanoelectrometer
  • nano-electronic
  • nanoelectricity
  • nanoelectronics
  • nano-electrospray
  • nanoemulsion
  • nanoencapsulation
  • nano-enhanced
  • nano-engineers
  • nanoengineered
  • nanoeye
  • nanofabric
  • nanofabric formation
  • nanofabricated / nanofabrication
  • nanofabrication of organic/inorganic hybrids
  • nanofiber dna injection
  • nanofibrous carbon
  • nanofiltration
  • nanofilters
  • nanofinger
  • nanofinger arrays
  • nanofinger factories
  • nano fixers
  • nanoflake
  • nanoflight
  • nanofluid
  • nanofluidics
  • nanofluidic module
  • nanofluidic channels by nanoimprinting
  • nanoflowers
  • nanofoam
  • nanofood
  • nanoforces
  • nanoforests
  • nanofraud / nano-fraud / nano fraud
  • nano-fuel : (Comment: "Fresh from the People's Daily"; Media Quote:"The only nano-fuel technology in the world has been successfully developed in Beijing" . . . "it has been through the test of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology too (currently the world's authority in nano-scientific research and standards establishment). It has demonstrated that the fuel processed by ESP device has completely become nano-fuel, tending to full combustion and drastically increasing the energy utility.")
  • nanofusion
  • nanogaps
  • nanogates
  • nanogeo
  • nanogeography
  • nanogeo-chronology
  • nanogiant pulses
  • nanograss (Media Quote: "nanograss is an invention of lucent technologies' prestigious bell labs.")
  • nanograting fabrication
  • nanogravimeter
  • nanoguitar
  • nanoguzzling
  • nanogyroscopes
  • nanohand
  • nanoharp
  • nanohelixes, nanosprings, and nanorings of piezoelectric nanobelts
  • nanoholes
  • nanohorn
  • nanohorns
  • nanohorse (for pulling a nanocart)
  • nanohouse
  • nanohybrids
  • nanoimpacts
  • nanoimprint lithography
  • nanoindentation
  • nanoindentation of silver nanowires
  • nano-indenter
  • nanoindentation behaviour
  • nanoinnovation
  • nano innovation platform
  • nanoinstruments
  • nano-integration
  • nano-islands / nanoisland
  • nanojet
  • nanojunction
  • nanoknives (Comment: has been coined to describe the cutting action of asbestos (in lungs!!!))
  • nanoknot (Comment: "a thread made out of nanotubes")
  • nanolamp
  • nanolawns
  • nano lasers / nanolaser
  • nanoleaves
  • nano letters
  • nanolights
  • nano-lightning
  • nanoliquid chromatography
  • nanolithography
  • nano-lubrication
  • nanomachining
  • nanomagnet
  • nanomagnetism
  • nanomask
  • nanomaterials
  • nanomaterial solutions
  • nanomechanics
  • nanomechanical oscillations
  • nanomechanical mass spectrometry
  • nanomechanical metrology
  • Nanomechanics of Functional Nano-structures
  • nanomedical
  • nanomedicine
  • nanomedicines
  • nanomesa quantum dots
  • nanomesh
  • nanometallurgy
  • nanometric holes
  • nanomineralogy
  • nanominerals
  • nanomodification
  • nanomold
  • nanomolding
  • nanomolecules
  • nanomolecular properties
  • nanomotor
  • nanomountains
  • nanomushroom
  • nanonail
  • nanoneedle
  • nano-necktie
  • nano-network
  • nano-neurosurgery
  • nano-newbie
  • nano-nonsense
  • nanonoodles
  • nano-octahedra
  • nano optical
  • nanooptoelectronics
  • nano-optical biosensor chips
  • nano-optics
  • nanooptical phenomena
  • nanoorgans
  • nano ornaments
  • nanopants
  • nanoparticles
  • nanoparticles armored by a nanometer-scale organic/inorganic network
  • nanoparticle arrays
  • nanoparticle dimers
  • nanoparticle chains
  • nanoparticle film sensors
  • nanoparticle shake
  • nanoparticle self-assembly
  • nanoparticulate
  • nano-patterning
  • nanopatterns
  • nanopatterned biosilica (Comment: apparently pores in diatoms can no longer be called pores in diatoms)
  • nanopeapod (Media Quote: "This is the first example of a nano pea pod containing functionalized fullerenes")
  • nanopen / nanopens - "nano pen": (Comment: (AKA: Atomic Pencil); Media Quote: "Analogous to using a quill pen but on a billionth the scale", and may transform dip-pen nanolithography.")
  • nanopencil
  • nanopendulum
  • nanopetro
  • nanopharmaco
  • nanophenomena
  • nano-photonics
  • nanophotonic fabrication
  • nanophotonic technology
  • nanophotonic devices
  • nanophysics
  • nanopic
  • nanopillars
  • nanopipes
  • nanopipettes
  • nano-pistons
  • nanoplant
  • nano-plasmonics
  • nanoplotter (Comment: A multi-tip nanopen)
  • nanoplumbing
  • nanopolymer
  • nanopoo
  • nanopores
  • nanoporous tio2
  • nanoporous membrane
  • nanopore pump
  • nanoportrait
  • nanopowders
  • nanoprimer
  • nanoprobes
  • nanopsychology
  • nanopyramid
  • nanoquartz
  • nano range
  • nanorattle (Comment: "Now, nano-sized people can play the Rhumba!")
  • nanoreactors
  • nano-refrigerator
  • nano-researchers
  • nano-reefs
  • nanoresonator
  • nanoribbons
  • nanorice ("A Hybrid Plasmonic Nanostructure")
  • nanorings
  • nanorisk
  • nanoroad
  • nanorobots
  • nanorobot-nanorobot mechanocompatibility
  • nanorods
  • nanorods for nano-optoelectronics and nanosensor arrays
  • nanoroof
  • nanorope
  • nano-rubbing
  • nano-satellite (Comment: "People's Daily strikes again. Bullshit for the People. Good for those Chinese space experts."; Media Quote: "China develops first nano-satellite" . . "China successfully sent into space Nano-satellite I, the first nanotechnology-based satellite ever developed by the country independently, early Monday.")
  • Nanoscaffold / Nano scaffold
  • nano-scale
  • nanoscaling
  • nanoscale materials
  • nanoscale patterning
  • nanoscale photonics
  • nanoscale platform
  • nanoscale titanium dioxide
  • nanoscience
  • nanoscopic
  • nanoscopy
  • nanoscratch
  • nanoscrewdriver
  • nanoscrolls
  • nano sea-urchin (Comment: "It's just a small spiky clump of gold.")
  • nanosensing
  • nanoserrated edges / nanoserration (Comment: "not yet cited - but I bet they will happen shortly ; bionanorobosurgergy ain't out there yet either")
  • nanosexuality
  • nanoshell
  • nanoshell tubes
  • nanoshuttles
  • nanosieves
  • nanosieving
  • nanosieve membrane
  • nanosignal
  • nano-sized
  • nanosized photonic materials
  • nanosoap
  • nanosolid
  • nanospace
  • nanospheres
  • nano spin
  • nanospintronics
  • nanospoons
  • nanosprings
  • nanostar
  • nanostarch
  • nanostrings
  • nanostroll
  • nanostructures called quantum dots
  • nanostructured ceramics
  • nanostructured hybrid films
  • nanostructured organic/inorganic networks
  • nanostructured pentacene thin films
  • nanostructured titania
  • nanostructural
  • nanostructure of natural fibrous protein
  • nanostructuring conjugated materials
  • nano-stuff
  • nano submarines
  • nanowire superlattice
  • nanosynergy
  • nanotable
  • nanotechnology
  • nanotech nightmare
  • nanotechnological nightmare
  • nanotechnology dating
  • nano-teflons
  • nanoterror
  • nano-test-tubes (Media Quote: "CNT's opened and filled with materials, and used to carry out chemical reactions.")
  • nanotheory
  • nanothermometers
  • nanothing
  • nanotip array fabrication
  • nano tool box
  • nano-tsunami
  • nano-transistor
  • nanotray
  • nanotree
  • nano-tribometer
  • nanotribology
  • nanotubes
  • nanotube nanoelectrode
  • nano tweezer
  • nanotweezers
  • Nanovector Trojan Horses (NTH)
  • nano-velcro
  • nanoviruses
  • nanovoid
  • nanowalkers
  • nanowares
  • nanowineglass
  • nano-washing machine
  • nanowater / nano-water
  • nano wheat field
  • nanowheels (Comment: "(they self-assemble) so says Nature")
  • nanowieres
  • nanowineglass
  • nanowires
  • nanowire and nanoribbon lasers
  • nanowood
  • nanowool
  • nanoworm (Media Quote: "Scientists have developed nanometer-sized "nanoworms" that can cruise through the bloodstream without significant interference from the body's immune defense system and-like tiny anti-cancer missiles-home in on tumors.")
  • nanoxerography
  • nano yeast
  • nanozeitgeist
  • nanozone
  • natural nanocomposite material
  • NE3LS / NE^3LS : (Nano Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social issues / nanotechnology's ethical, legal, and societal implications)
  • non-layerd nanoparticle
  • non-nano bone replacement products
  • novel nanostructured supports
  • organic-inorganic nanostructured colloids
  • organized nanorod-superconductor composites
  • plasma etched nano imprint lithography
  • plasmonic nanolithography
  • Phase-segregated Nano-templates
  • polymer based nanocomposites
  • polymeric nanotubes
  • polymer nanofibers
  • porous nanowires
  • propeller-driven nano-submarine
  • quasi one-dimensional nanoparticles
  • quantum beads
  • quantum fortresses (Comment: "surface blemishes due to contamination have become "quantum fortresses"")
  • self-assembled carbon nanotube
  • self assembling "nano lego" components
  • self-assembling nano-ram
  • self-assembling nano-transistor
  • self-assembled polyoxomolybdate anion nanowheels
  • self-replicating nano-robots
  • semiconductor nanocrystals
  • silica nanotube
  • silver nano-noodles
  • sol-gel nanocasting technique
  • solid lipid nanoparticles (sln)
  • solid lipid nanodispersions
  • stain resistent nanopants
  • subnano
  • sub-nanometer
  • superhard nanocomposite coatings
  • toroidal carbon nanotube
  • transport properties of nanosystems
  • ultranano
  • utility fog
  • vanadium oxide nanotubes
  • vortex nanoliquid
  • zinc sulfide nanocoating
  • zinc oxide nanobelt

Feedback (Edited to protect the sane from the nano-delusionally insane)

From a person in private industry

To: lachlan@melbpc.org.au
Subject: Nanotech feedback
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:45:43 -0600

Your sense of humor is welcome.   [stuff deleted]

Suffice to say - there is much BS in nanotechnology, and since VC's
won't fund it, nanotech companies turn to government porkbarrells for
funding. We are now in a "nanotech race" and have to compete with China,
Japan, etc. and I suspect we'll see stupid projects like the Star Wars
initiative from the Reagan years.

Keep up the good work!

Reported Resistance to the Nanotechnology Borg / Borg of Nanoshite, and its minions

  • Navy query on Brownian motion, Maxwell's Demon
    • http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/12/006252&mode=thread

    • "A small Navy project is at stake because a 74 Years old PhD is arguing to management that research in nano machines is ridiculous and a waste of money. He has seen only recently some of Drexler's designs on the web and also read the recent article that Mr. Daniel Goldin from NASA published in Mechanical Engineering magazine on Molecular Nanotechnology. He claims that Mr. Goldin does not know what he is talking about and that he feels sorry for him because he has embarrass himself by publishing this article. Some of his questions are familiar to anyone in the field: 1. The construction of molecular machines of the kind proposed by nanotechnology does not take into account Brownian Motion and the famous Maxwell's Demon. 2. How we can assemble a robotic arm for example, manipulating atoms and how we can "clamp" such a structure to another object. Is there any particular section of Nanosystems or scientific papers out there that address the Brownian Motion and Maxwell's Demon issues. I really appreciate any help to answer some of his questions. Thanks"

  • U.S. Naval Research Lab : Nanoscience and Technology (including an image of the 22nd Century "NanoJet" Fighter)


"I want to vomit when I hear a word "nano""

  • View Thread : Is glorified science machine in decline?
    • http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-40654

    • dixonmassey

      There are so many hopes on the saving power of science these days that I want to laugh. Why? Well, cause I work there and I know more or less how things work. I know what is the main product of the scientific machine these days (Ans: BS).

      The amount of the useful innovations (especially in fundamental sciences) is drying up. Hype, hard "used car" sale techniques, old boys network, fraud, deliberate futility, etc. fill the gap left by the "real stuff". I want to vomit when I hear a word "nano". "Nano boom" is the most disgraceful hype frenzy science has ever seen. Me (modest worm) know several science crooks successfully milking nano cow. People are putting word nano in every hole because that is where funding is. Transforming science into mass bread winning profession did more harm than good to the progress (in the long run).

      Here is my list of "why's" the modern science sucks and will suck more in the future.

      1) Salemanship is #1 skill "successful" scientist MUST have. If you are not a naturally born salesman, stay away from science careers. Your chances to succeed are close to zero independently of everything else you have.

      2) Successful modern scientist should be a narrow minded zombie pecking his topic 24/7 until funding is there. Otherwise, somebody else, pecking the very same topic, will get funded. Being a science zombie is a good thing on one side (24*7>>8*5). On the other side, being a zombie does not play well with creativity. To be truly creative person one must be as well rounded as he can. You never know where that "spark" in your brain will come from. Certainly, it rarely comes from the continuous pecking at the same spot.

      You'll be amazed to know what simple/elementary things renown scientists with 20 something years of experience do NOT know.

      3) Modern science is a bullshit factory. Amount of papers, information is amazing BUT most of it is repeating itself BS. Why? Cause, scientists must publish to survive, keep his job, get funded in the future. Sure, one can publish a lot by doing superb cutting edge research every other week. But science is not a manufacturing plant. So, folks have chosen simpler ways to boost their paper counts. #1 trick is to publish as many papers as one can based on a single modest result, or NO significant results whatsoever. Fraud, comes the second. "Massaging/forging data" sounds disgusting? Well, it doesn't if you want to keep your paycheck coming.

      4) Competing for funding. Sounds as a very free market approach, which should work well in science. Well, not if >70% of work time MUST be spent on the writing multiple proposals, reports, BS papers to show that funding $ were well spent. Having the most original idea does not guarantee a funding at all. Why? Cause, clerks in funding offices judge merits of your proposal based on the names of authors and research institutions they work at. Peer reviewer may kill your proposal just to "steal" ideas. In two words, names of authors of a proposal, names of institutions they work at DO count; Content of a proposal counts for less. Reseach tzars with dozens of low paid slaves in labs will always win funding competition. Why? Cause, tzar may forget about doing everything else (including research) and write proposals, shake hands, manage slaves and lab, etc. Less blessed in the slave department scientists (who actually do some science themselves) have no chances to compete with tzars for funding independently of the merits of their research.

      5) You'll say scientists have freedom of what to study. I'll say hell NO. Government clerks, etc. decide indirectly what scientists will study by allocating $. Academic freedom is largerly fiction. Academic prostitution is a more precise word to describe things. Scientists follow hype directions as a flock of sheep follow a leader goat to a buthcery, trampling everything in their way. Secondly, mainstream interpretation of results is encouraged. Indirect or direct critique of somebody's else work is discouraged (you never know who'll review your proposal next). So, if you want to keep funding $ coming, you better keep your head on the average mainstream level (if you do not have big name support).

      6) Oversaturation of science labor market. Fresh Ph.D.s in postdoc spots are treated/paid as sh*t. It's cheaper (no obligations too) to hire a postdoc slave than a technician with HS education. Results are straightforward: fresh Ph.D.s are used mostly for brain numbing jobs (technicians should do). When I worked in a National Lab, I have observed up close and personal a record set by a 60K/year technician who did NOTHING for 3 straight weeks, while 4 times cheaper (counting overhead) Ph.D. slaves of science did all the work he's supposed to do. Such a sweatshop system discourages well rounded folks, which have interests beyond a narrow topic they work on, from pursuing science careers. Some (not all) determined science "zombies" survive sweat shop system by sacrificing larger portion of their best years to "pecking". Creative potential of the science work force diminishes.

      The news about abysmal job prospects in sciences is spread more or less well. As a result, majority of the best and brightest (even from poor countries) try to avoid science careers.

      7) Even successful science "zombies" start their independent careers well into their 30th (on the average). Their best (from new idea generation standpoint) years were sacrificed to save a few bucks for their $ conscious supervisors by doing brain numbing work instead of technicians, etc. What a waste of the human potential/life modern science machine is.


Scientific corruptions happening in China: "China is leading in the development of nano-technology"

  • The Corruption of Chinese Scientific Community
    • http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/science/yanjiang-eng.txt

    • Since last year, we have investigated and exposed dozens of scientific corruptions happened in China. They can be divided into four categories:

      1) Commercial schemes promoted as new scientific developments and involved scientists, for instance, health fraud and "nano-products". You can find many types of products in Chinese market claiming using nano-technology, such as "nano-washing machine", "nano-refrigerator", "nano-clothing", "nano-water", "nano-necktie", etc, supported by scientists. It is said that China is leading in the development of nano-technology and products in the world, and is entering the "nano-age".


"ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!": The Economic Claims of Nanotechnological Nanoshite

Dr Evil with finger

  • Nanotechnology - The Science Behind Better Supplements: A technological revolution that will irreversibly alter the way people live and work.

  • NSF (National Science Foundation): Nanotechnology Initiative National Nanotechnology Initiative Overview - Research Directions II - September 8, 2004

  • Taiwan Nanotechnology Output to Soar - Researcher
    • http://forbes.z2c.net/rd4/ck/3072-13370-1839-293?m=11-0&e=2f517c002918

      TAIPEI (Reuters) - Backed by strong government funding, Taiwan's output of a wide range of products using nanotechnology will jump 10 fold by 2008 to T$300 billion ($10 billion), a top researcher said on Tuesday.

      Nanotechnology deals with manipulating particles one-billionth of a meter in size, and promises benefits from a coating of paint that lasts decades, to faster-acting and more effective medicines, to golf balls that go further and straighter.

      "The government has targeted nanotechnology as the most important strategic industry for Taiwan's future economic growth," Su Tsung-tsan, the general director of the NanoTechnology Research Center (NTRC), told Reuters.

      Su said Taiwan will produce T$1 trillion of goods using nanotechnology by the year 2012, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the island's US$350 billion economy.

    • Dr Evil with finger

      The NTRC, which gets about half of its budget from the Taiwan government, is home to about 150 researchers who cooperate with private companies and academic institutions to find commercial applications for their research.

      According to data from research company Venture Analytics, Taiwan nanotechnology research funding ranked number eight in the world in 2003 at US$115 million.

      The island is ahead of France and India, but far behind regional competitors like China and South Korea.

      "Nanotech is crucial for Taiwan's goal of becoming a knowledge-based economy," said Su.

  • Nanotechnology products to bring $2 trillion by 2014:
    • http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=6917_0_6_0_C

      Dr Evil with finger while threatening the United Nations

      Estimates of nanotechnology's financial impact range from about $20 bln to $50 bln in revenues today, jumping to as much as $1 trillion by 2010 and more than $2 trillion by 2015. Lux Research forecasts products incorporating nanotechnology by 2014 will account for $2.6 trillion worth of products 15% of global manufacturing output.

  • Revenue from Nanotechnology-Enabled Products to Equal IT and Telecom by 2014, Exceed Biotech by 10 Times: $2.6 trillion in products will incorporate emerging nanotechnology in 10 years :
    • http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20041025/NYM11625102004-1.html

      NEW YORK, Oct. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Sales of products incorporating emerging nanotechnology will rise from less than 0.1% of global manufacturing output today to 15% in 2014, totaling $2.6 trillion. This value will approach the size of the information technology and telecom industries combined and will be 10 times larger than biotechnology revenues, according to a new report from Lux Research entitled "Sizing Nanotechnology's Value Chain." However, sales of basic nanomaterials like carbon nanotubes and quantum dots will total only $13 billion in 2014: Nanotechnology's economic impact will arise from how these fundamental building blocks are used, not from sales of the materials themselves.

      The report refutes the popular misconception that nanotechnology is an industry or a sector -- it isn't. Instead, nanotechnology is a set of tools and processes for manipulating matter that can be applied to virtually any manufactured good. Rather than envisioning a mythical "nanotechnology market," Lux Research recommends that executives focus on how nanotechnology is being exploited across industry value chains, from basic materials to intermediate products to final goods. The report presents separate forecasts by each value chain stage as well as by sector and region.

      "Over the past several years, companies have selectively applied nanoscale innovations to products ranging from the Chevrolet Impala to Merck's anti-emetic drug Emend," explained Matthew Nordan, Vice President of Research at Lux Research. "These initial deployments have proven the value of nanotechnology, setting the stage for an explosion of applications. In 2014, we project that 4% of general manufactured goods, 50% of electronics and IT products, and 16% of goods in healthcare and life sciences by revenue will incorporate emerging nanotechnology."

      Lux Research predicts that nanotechnology's growth will occur in three phases:

      • In the first phase, ending this year, nanotechnology is being incorporated selectively into high-end products. In 2004 revenues from products incorporating emerging nanotechnology will total $13 billion, $8.5 billion of which lies in automotive and aerospace applications.

      • Through 2009, commercial breakthroughs will unlock markets for nanotechnology innovations, with revenues rising to $292 billion. Electronics and IT applications will dominate as microprocessors and memory chips built using new nanoscale processes come to market.

      • From 2010 onwards, nanotechnology will become commonplace in manufactured goods, with revenues rising to $2.6 trillion in 2014. Healthcare and life sciences applications will finally become significant in this period as nano-enabled pharmaceuticals and medical devices emerge from lengthy human trials.

      The widespread use of nanotechnology in mainstream products will have profound ripple effects. Ten million manufacturing jobs worldwide in 2014 -- 11% of total manufacturing jobs -- will involve building products that incorporate emerging nanotechnology. Nanotechnology will shift market shares and introduce unconventional competitors: For example, silicon nanowire display printing technologies could cut capital requirements for flat-screen display plants by an order of magnitude, tempting fleet-footed manufacturers like Dell to enter the market. Supply chains will simplify as highly functional materials eliminate steps in manufacturing processes, negatively impacting sub-assembly manufacturers and transportation companies while making value-added taxes more productive for governments than sales taxes.

      "Nanotechnology's increasing relevance creates clear mandates for business and government leaders," said Nordan. "Corporations need to develop an explicit nanotechnology strategy -- apart from leaders such as DuPont and Praxair, few companies coordinate their nanotechnology activities at all today. Investors should focus on nanotechnology applications in the middle of industry supply chains where profit potential is highest, and consider laying nanotech as a long-term secular trend. Public sector leaders should focus on fostering nanotechnology demand, not just supply, and establish informed regulation to address health and safety issues."

      For "Sizing Nanotechnology's Value Chain," Lux Research built bottom-up, top-down, and evolutionary models of 42 product segments impacted by nanotechnology. The report team populated the models through exhaustive secondary research; interviews with more than 100 executives, researchers, and academics working to commercialize nanotechnology; and integration of macroeconomic data from organizations such as the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the World Bank. Additionally, Lux Research partnered with UK-based Volterra Consulting -- founded by Paul Ormerod, influential economist and author of "Butterfly Economics" -- to build advanced evolutionary models that measure how nano-enabled solutions compete for market share with alternatives.

      The report is available immediately to clients of Lux Research's Nanotechnology Strategies advisory service. For information on how to become a client, contact Rob Burns, VP of Sales at (646) 723-0708.

      About Lux Research:

      Lux Research is the world's premier research and advisory firm focusing on the business and economic impact of nanotechnology and related emerging technologies. Lux Research provides continuous advisory services, customized consulting, and reference studies to corporations, start-ups, financial institutions, and public sector organizations. Our founders and our research staff are the most widely recognized nanotechnology visionaries throughout the world. Visit http://www.luxresearchinc.com/ for more information.

  • The Nanotechnology "Industry"
    • http://www.cientifica.com/blog/mt/

    • A few years back the National Science Foundation and its National Nanotechnology Initiative proclaimed that the “Nanotechnology Industry will be a $1 trillion industry by 2015.”

      Since that time, this figure has been quoted by nearly everyone to justify just about every commercial endeavor in the area of nanotechnology.

      We here at Cientifica have always maintained that no such “industry” exists and that there isn’t much use in trying to define one. At first, we were a lone voice in the woods, but more and more people are coming around to this realization.

      Well, now the US Government has addressed the issue in the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recently released report, “The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.”

      Here’s the part that captured our interest:
      “Any credible attempt to define a nanotechnology “industry,” therefore, will have to establish a threshold contribution level and explain why that level was chosen. This report does not attempt to choose or defend such a threshold.”

      So, finally we have some responsible thinking here. Perhaps the entire value of a Mercedes Benz automobile should not go to calculate the value of nanotechnology just because its coatings may have some nanoparticles in it?!

      If the PCAST now thinks it prudent to step away from defining a “nanotechnology industry”, do we still have to labor under that $1 trillion nanotechnology industry number? Can’t the NNI or the NSF say: “By the way, we had no real way of coming up with that number, so don’t quote us on that anymore.”

      Not likely, we know, but it would be nice.

  • Debunking the trillion dollar nanotechnology market size hype - Posted: April 18, 2007
    • http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1792.php

    • (Nanowerk Spotlight) There seems to be an arms race going on among nanotechnology investment and consulting firms as to who can come up with the highest figure for the size of the "nanotechnology market". The current record stands at $2.95 trillion by 2015. The granddaddy of the trillion-dollar forecasts of course is the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) "$1 trillion by 2015", which inevitably gets quoted in many articles, business plans and funding applications. The "nanotechnology market" as a unified market was first quantified by the NSF in its massive 280-pages report from March 2001 (Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, pdf download 3.1 MB). The problem with these forecasts is that they are based on a highly inflationary data collection and compilation methodology. The result is that the headline figures - $1 trillion!, $2 trillion!, $3 trillion! - are more reminiscent of supermarket tabloids than serious market research. Some would call it pure hype. This type of market size forecast leads to misguided expectations because few people read the entire report and in the end only the misleading trillion-dollar headline figure gets quoted out of context, even by people who should now better, and finally achieves a life by itself.

      Today, there isn't even a clear definition of what nanotechnology is. The CRN blog covered this confusing picture quite nicely in a recent post. But taking every product that has anything to do with nanotechnology, however miniscule or remote, adding up the entire value chain of these products, and claiming this is "the market for nanotechnology", isn't very helpful either. On the contrary, it contributes to the confusion: first we are told how revolutionary nanotechnology is going to be (think molecular nanosystems such as nanorobots). Then we hear that actually there is quite a discussion going on among experts as to when or whether it's going to happen. And now we read that nanotechnology will be an almost three trillion dollar market within the next 8 years!

      First of all, these market size forecasts are dealing with what is called evolutionary nanotechnology. The goal of evolutionary nanotechnology is to improve existing processes, materials and applications by scaling down into the nano realm and ultimately fully exploit the unique quantum and surface phenomena that matter exhibits at the nanoscale. This trend is driven by companies' ongoing quest to improve existing products by creating smaller components and better performance materials, all at a lower cost. Just look at what happened in the computer industry over the past 20 years; and by definition of the nanotechnology research analysts, because chip design structures have broken the 100 nanometer range, the semiconductor industry is on its way to becoming a nanotechnology industry. Due to this ever continuing trend of "smaller, better, cheaper," the number of companies that are, by the same definition, "nanotechnology companies" will grow very fast and soon make up the majority of all companies across many industries – and they will have familiar names such as Kraft, L'Oreal, Toshiba, GE, BMW, Nokia or Bayer.

      By contrast, truly revolutionary nanotechnology envisages a bottom-up approach where functional devices and entire fabrication systems are built atom by atom. There is no way today to put a market value on this visionary technology and its hypothetical products and it is therefore not covered in any of the nanotechnology market size reports.

      Secondly, these market size reports don't measure the value of actual nanotechnology products, materials or processes. They compile the value of nanotechnology-enabled products (a fact that the reports do point out). This fine distinction is worth trillions of dollars. Here is a typical nanotechnology market size forecast:

      Original graphic removed

      Lux Research has threatened legal action against Nanowerk if we didn't remove the graphic that we previously showed here. They claim it violates their copyright, although the material we used didn't contain any copyright or usage restrictions and the material is freely available for download. A presentation document that contains this graphic can be downloaded here (pdf, 820 KB – look at page 6). A link to this presentation document can be found here at Rice University's International Council of Nanotechnology. The graphic basically is a simple graph that plots the Lux Research forecast of sales of products incorporating nanotechnology from 2005 to 2014. It starts at around $300 million in 2005 to become $2.9 trillion by 2014.

      Breaking down the market size figure into nanomaterials, nanointermediates, and nano-enabled products shows that actual nanomaterials contribute less than 0.5% (this share is so small that it doesn't even show up in the above chart - which of course now you can no longer see because Lux Research forced us to removed it). Lux Research estimates the market for pure nanomaterials (carbon nanotubes, nanoparticles, quantum dots, dendrimers etc.) to grow to approx. $3.6 billion by 2010 (from $413 million in 2005). In comparison, the Lux forecast for the entire "nanotechnology impact" by 2010 is roughly $1,500 billion.

      The latest Cientifica white paper ("Half Way to the Trillion Dollar Market") starts out quite reasonably by stating:

      In 2000 the National Science Foundation estimated that the market for nanotechnology products will be over one trillion US dollars by 2015 and that the industry would employ over 200 million workers. These numbers have been subsequently quoted from funding applications to government policy documents, but at the halfway point many of the revolutionary and disruptive technologies predicted have failed to emerge. Indeed, seven years on from the inception of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, there appears to be little sign of a nanotechnology based industry, although significant amounts of R&D are being undertaken by various industries.

      Then the report goes on to estimate the "Global Nanotechnology Market" by 2015 as $1.5 trillion excluding semiconductors and $2.95 trillion including semiconductors.

      Somewhere in the text of the Cientifica report is this key sentence: "It should be noted that this is not the total value of nanotechnologies included in products, but the total value of the products. Thus a tenth of a gram of nanomaterials costing 10 cents may be included in a drug costing $100 per dose."

      Just to be clear here: this means that the nanotechnology market size, as compiled by Cientifica and others, includes the $100 for the entire drug dose, not it's actual 10 cents nanomaterial ingredient. In this example they are therefore expanding their definition of "market" by a factor of 1,000 simply by including the entire product's value, not just the nanotechnology component in it. This methodology is then consequently applied to all industry sectors.

      If you were to research the U.S. market size for, say, color pigments, i.e. various organic and inorganic particles such as carbon black or iron oxide, you would come up with a figure of about $2 billion to $3 billion per year. This is the actual value of pigments sold. Color pigments are used for a myriad of products such as paints and coatings, printing inks, plastics, ceramics, glass and minerals, textiles and leather, toner, cosmetics and toiletries, paper and paperboard. Now, if all these pigments were nanoparticles, the nanotechnology analysts would tell us that the market size of "color pigment-enabled products" was many hundreds of billions of dollars; because now they would include the end products that the pigments were used in. Nobody today claims that the market size for color pigments is hundreds of billions of dollars or talks about a color pigment-enabled market. But when the pigment size moves from the macro- to the nanoscale, some analysts would do exactly that – although apart from the pigment size nothing has changed. It is difficult to see the logic in this.

      There is an argument to be made that nanotechnology should not be looked at as a product industry but rather as a set of enabling technologies that supports many existing industries (basically applying the "nano" label to existing technologies – electronics, optics, composite materials, pharmaceuticals etc.). However, the nanotechnology analysts apply their magic trillionizer trick to this area as well. Let's say that a laboratory device for blood testing contains a microfluidic component and that component gets reduced in size to a nanofluidic device. All of a sudden, the market value for nanofluidic devices would not just be the value of the actual component but include the entire value chain of blood testing – because it is now "nanotechnology-enabled".

      Lux Research in a recent report ("Sizing Nanotechnology’s Value Chain") makes a similar stretching exercise as Cientifica by predicting a $2.9 trillion nanotechnology market by 2014. They correctly identify this number as "Sales of products incorporating nanotechnology". According to their example, the value of all Chevy Impalas – just because the car contains a component that contains nanoparticles – would be considered part of the nanotechnology market. That's got to be an even higher scale-up factor than the 1,000 for the drug in the Cientifica example.

      Nanotechnology Value Chain

      Original graphic removed

      Lux Research has threatened legal action against Nanowerk if we didn't remove the graphic that we previously showed here. They claim it violates their copyright, although the material we used didn't contain any copyright or usage restrictions and the material is freely available for download. A presentation document that contains this graphic can be downloaded here (pdf, 820 KB – look at pages 5 and 7). A link to this presentation document can be found here at Rice University's International Council of Nanotechnology. Our graphic was a composite of the value chain that Lux Research uses and two examples for that value chain, one a "nano-enabled" Chevrolet Impala and the other "nano-enabled" mobile phones from Nokia and Samsung. It's worth going through the whole document, you can also find nice pictures of a (presumably "nano-enabled") Hummer H2 and an entire oil drilling platform.

      So what is the point of coming up with the market size for "nanotechnology-enabled" products? It's difficult to see the practical value apart from creating headlines that help sell these reports. If you want to convey the message that nanotechnology will revolutionalize many processes and products, there must be a better way doing that than generating eye-popping, headline-grabbing, trillion-dollar market size figures.

      Of course it helps tremendously in writing business plans and funding applications. It might be very useful in politically justifying the billions of dollars that have already gone into infrastructure and basic R&D. Unfortunately, it can also be abused for marketing slogans by the kind of investment advisors who push nanotechnology investments as a get-rich-quickly promise: "Wow, look - this company makes a new nano product/application/material/whatever. It is a player in a trillion dollar market. If they only get 0.1% market share that would be 1 billion dollars!"

      But seriously, what is the practical value of knowing the market size for nanotechnology-enabled products if soon almost everything will be nanotechnology-enabled (at least by the definitions used in the market sizing reports)? The recent Cientifica paper states: ... an enabling technology that supports other industries will not ever be considered a stand-alone industry.... Quite rightly so. So why then try constructing an artificial market for of a wide range of enabling nanotechnologies by adding up the value of all products that somehow benefit from these technologies?

      Farming, for instance, has been one of the truly revolutionary enabling technologies invented by mankind. However, nobody compiles a "farming technology" market report. And if they did, they most likely wouldn't include derivative areas like restaurant furniture, bread slicing machinery or beer glass manufacturing, all of which wouldn't exist without farming. Well, maybe the nanotechnology research analysts would...

      I guess the point I am trying to make here is that these trillion-dollar forecasts for an artificially constructed "market" are an irritating, sensationalist and unfortunate way of saying that sooner or later nanotechnologies will have a deeply transformative impact on more or less all aspects of our lives.

      By Michael Berger, Copyright 2007 Nanowerk LLC

  • Overhyped Technology Starts to Reach Potential: Nanotech to Impact $3.1 Trillion in Manufactured Goods in 2015

Original Pedegree of the term, "Nanocar"

  • To: l.m.d.cranswick@dl.ac.uk
    From: M.T. Michalewicz
    Subject: glorious nanoshite contribution
    Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:43:44 +1000
    
    Please do not overlook my contribution to this fad. In 1997 I tried to
    see how blind people are in funding and allowing me to go to a
    conference. I also wanted to see how far one can go with bogus ideas and
    submitted this stuff to The Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular
    Nanotechnology.
    
    To my great delight the paper was accepted, and hence I believe I can
    claim "fatherhood" to the ideea of a "nanocar".
    
    I note with sadness that there are so many nanocar "projects" around
    (check any search engine), but my original impetus and idea is not
    acknowledged.
    
    I would be grateful if you helped restore the true perspective on the 
    originality of this idea by listing it on your website.
    
    To the best of my knowledge it was like this:
    
    R. Feynman -        Microcar
    M. T. Michalewicz - nanocar.
    
    Is this a fact????
    
    Here are the links:
    
    At The Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, Palo 
    Alto (1997 Nov 5-8) I presented a contributed poster:
    
    M T Michalewicz, "Nano-cars: Feynman's dream fulfilled or the ultimate 
    challenge to Automotive Industry"
    
    The abstract can be found on the Foresight Institute website:
    http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Abstracts/Michabst.html
    
    Subsequently I published a more expanded and researched version of this
    paper:
    
    M.T. Michalewicz "Nano-cars: Enabling Technology for building Buckyball Pyramids'',
    Annals of Improbable Research, Vol. IV, No. 3 March/April 1998
    NB. Bonus: this is a Special Swimsuite Issue of AIR!
    
    You can download this artice from: 
    http://www.quantum-pi.com/papers_list.html
    
    Take care and all the best,
    

Nano Grant Applications vs Scientific Grant Applications (Automatic Nanotechnology Grant Application Generator)

Automatic Nanotechnology Grant Application Generator


Nano-article links

  • Civilisation safe as nanobot threat fades (June 9, 2004)

  • Nanotech guru turns back on 'goo'

  • Received E-mail with following link

  • Nano-technology takes weather warfare into a new dimension

  • http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/6571.asp

    • The weather warfare has taken new dimensions. Now the military scientists all over the world are secretly working on applying nano-technologies to weather manipulation to produce devastating effects on adversaries like never before.

      Methods of artificial weather control are a potential weapon of war. Methods like Cloud-top seeding can confuse you and make you believe that such techniques are primitive. But such methods when integrated with nano-bacteria technologies can produce devastating effects.

      Tiny particles linked to a number of painful and sometimes deadly diseases may spread across the globe by hitching a ride in clouds, claim researchers in a recent issue of the Journal of Proteome Research. But cloud steams across the globe can also be controlled by artificial means. This means artificial clouds with nano-bacteria can be created and spread in a specific region by covert human hands.

      Counter nono-weather actions are also in effect. Classified and secret projects are in place to counter this new devastating technologies. Many coutries wary about artificial weather control by their potential adversaries are busy looking into all possibilities which can make their skies, air, soil and water dangerously polluted, compromised, biologically affected and vulnerable.

  • Fraud is alleged in use of 'nano' label
    • http://www.iht.com/articles/514458.html

    • What exactly is nanotechnology? The definition is no longer academic as more investors become attracted to anything that carries a nanotech label.

      Last week an investment firm known as Asensio faxed a letter to the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, charging that misuse of "nano" has become a favorite tactic for fraudulent stock promotion. Asensio asked Spitzer to investigate Merrill Lynch for including many companies that have little or nothing to do with nanotechnology in an index of 25 publicly traded nanotechnology companies that Merrill introduced on April 1.

      "Investors are being harmed on a daily basis," said Manuel Asensio, chief executive of the investment firm, which is based in New York.

  • A tale of two cultures by Peter Dobson
    • http://www.materialstoday.com/nanotoday/opinion.pdf

    • The recent ‘discovery’ that material can be manipulated at the atomic scale must fill many scientists and engineers with despair. I know, I am one of them! Here we are, working away at a subject we have loved for the past 40 years and along comes a new generation all hyped up on the mission statements of the new nanotechnology revolution. What’s more, these ‘usurpers’ apply for and win large grants to buy the latest toys to shuffle around atoms and create pretty computer-generated pictures. Where is it all going?

  • Pinheads: Bursting the nanotech bubble
    • http://www.johnshirley.net/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=123

    • The nanotech in Diamond Age made for a ripping yarn, and it played a crucial role in the plot of Virtual Light. Now lately, nanotech's gone mainstream. USA Today and Newsweek write about it. Venture capital companies invest in it. Pundits mouth off about the wonderful future that's in store. It's the Next Big Thing.

      Or not.

      For those who came late to the show, let me summarize it for you. At some point some person with lots of degrees got it in his head that molecule size robots were going to clean out the cholesterol from your USDA Choice-ridden innards, lower your taxes by reducing the cost of space exploration, and restore the polluted environment so we could pollute it with impunity. A bunch of people got interested, they held conferences, the military funded some stuff, and the thing went basically nowhere.

      Then, the Internet bubble burst in April 2000. Investors got depressed and hid under the covers for a year. When they emerged, they didn't like what they saw. Blue chip telecom companies teetering. No Hollywood movies over broadband. No trillion dollars in e-commerce.

      There was no Next Big Thing so they manufactured one. They did it by co-opting the word the futurist visionaries had coined, not having day jobs some of them--nanotechnology. As of now, the Official Future consists of nanotechnology-enabled sensors, batteries, solar cells, and anything else they have to say to get you to buy into the idea.

      The same mentality that fueled the Internet bubble is fueling the nanotechnology bubble. The same "greater fool theory", as in "I may be a fool to invest in XXX but there's a greater fool somewhere who'll buy it from me for more than I paid." History shows that, yes there is always a greater fool, until the day there isn't anymore.

      Another mentality we're seeing again from back then--it is so 90s--is the "moving the goalposts" theory. Namely, when something flops you don't say it flops, you say that the segment as a whole is a tremendous success--so when mobile Web browsing is choked to death by everyone concerned, and you're stuck there with a bunch of loser investments, you brag about haw many jillions of teenagers are sending text messages to each other. (Regrettably, however, teenage allowances aren't enough to rescue the telephone industry.)

      LIkewise when the nanorobots aren't showing up in your arteries, you stand there with a straight face and say that nanotechnology is going gangbusters. Stuff that didn't used to be nanotech suddently becomes nanotech--like cosmetics. Overnight, Revlon became the world's leader in nanotechnology (their milling processes yields particles sized in the right range to be called "nanotechnology"--a few tens of billionths of an inch).

      Remember Buckyballs, those molecules of carbon shaped like a geodesic dome? You might have read about them in the 1980s. Yep, they're called nanotechnology now. No robot surgeons, no restoring the environment...in fact, some are worried that geodesic-inspired carbon molecules are themselves a health and environmental hazard. If you liked asbestos, you'll love carbon fiber nanotubes in your lungs.

      And since carbon fiber nanotubes might prove useful in making fuel cells--which are supposed to eventually replace the batteries in your cell phone and notebook PC, etc, promising dozens of hours of use before recharging--suddenly nanotech will enable cell phones to rely on portable fuel cells (which themselves look like another bubble ready to burst, or at least explode...if you like carrying around live hand grenades, you'll love keeping a fuel cell in your pocket).

      And since some companies are improving their lithium-ion batteries and calling +those+ fuel cells...and obviously, since batteries are made of molecules, and molecules are nano-sized, voila! Next year, expect batteries that are 10% better than this years', and expect them to be hailed as a nanotechnology breakthrough. Any molecules in car paint? Dental fillings? Don't thank me, thank nanotech.

      Borges tells a story (originally by Kierkegaard?) of certain Danish clergymen who preach that a trek to the arctic will revive their parishoners' spiritual well-being. Later, realizing that not everyone is capable of travelling in the arctic, they announce that some other cold weather expedition will suffice. And eventually, they decree that any journey--a Sunday ride in a horse-and-buggy, perhaps--qualifies as the spiritual equivalent to travelling in the arctic.

      If you don't get the point of that little homily...I have a hot tip on a nanotech investment for you.

  • Nano Startup Success Factors

  • Nanotechnology business directory Nanovip.com: Products and applications

  • Nanotech frauds imminent, warns VC

  • Nanotechnology: the next revolution

  • Ultrananocrystalline Diamond Films
    • http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/22/0025250

    • "Preliminary tests show that ultrananodiamonds are 1,000 more wear-resistant than silicon, and 1 million times denser than conventional crystals. This makes them a practical base material for micromachines and other devices that had only been theoretically possible before. Maybe this will mark the real beginning of Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age."

    • E-mail comment received on the above:

    • "We're not worthy! The Dr Evil nanoeconomics pictures are fantastic!  

      Thought you may like this one. Remember ultrananocrystalline diamonds (now called ultrananodiamonds)? This is presumably what all self-assembling nanobots will be made of, since if nanobots are ~nm scale, they can either only be made out of particles as big as themselves or smaller. Anyway, interesting stuff, and a lot harder than other abrasives. So we have a better sandpaper. But according to the originator of this article ultrananodiamonds are 1 million times denser than conventional crystals!  

      This corresponds to the density of a white dwarf. This would mean that nanobots would cause massive gravitational anomalies and rather than being undetectable will be very readily detectable by conventional instruments; e.g. by triangulation with gravimeters.   

      One can only imagine the earthquakes that may be set off by these superdense nanobots crawling through the ground. However, thoughts of nanoflying bots, such as envisioned by Freitas, now seem well clear of the mark. Presumably we are well on the way to building our own nano-neutron stars or even nano-black holes. This seems worrying that nanoethicists have not picked up this potential hazard of nanotech."   

  • Nanomedicine Taxonomy

  • US Government's National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)

  • Trouble in nanoland

  • It’s time to expose the nanotechnology hype

  • The First Church of the Grey Goo

  • 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act

  • Overused, misused nano- becoming pervasive prefix

  • Nanohouse Brings Nanotechnology Home

  • The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schön - transcript
    • http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/hendrikshontrans.shtml

    • RAY KURZWEIL: One nanobot doesn’t do much, you need trillions of them, how do you get trillions of them? Well you need them to self replicate, you need one nanobot to turn in to two, to four, to eight, and scale itself up to trillions.

      NARRATOR: Ray Kurzweil is one of those who believe that in the future huge numbers of these self-replicating machines could be programmed to target every diseased cell in our body.

      RAY KURZWEIL : Our immune system of course keeps us alive but they’re very slow, I actually watched my white blood cells destroy a bacteria and it took like an hour and a half. A nanorobot can do the job in seconds. It would be far more powerful like destroying pathogens in cancer cells.

      NARRATOR: Trillions of these tiny machines could even be swallowed in pill form. Their tiny onboard computers controlled perhaps by tiny molecular transistors will direct them through even the smallest blood vessels to destroy any infection they come across. And though the technical know-how may be decades in the future one has even been given a name, a respiracyte. Respiracytes could be injected in to the victims of drowning. Once in the blood stream these nanobots would break down the excess molecules of carbon dioxide, and release oxygen in to the blood. They could mean the difference between life and death.

      RAY KURZWEIL Ultimately we’re not going to go to doctors that have visits in the way that we do today, we’re going to have systems in our body that are continually monitoring our body, detecting problems and fixing them immediately.

      NARRATOR: This then is one vision of what the brave new world could be like for our children. A vision where all diseases could be fought. Their lives could be extended by decades. All because of nanotechnology. But there could be another use for nanotechnology. Doctor John Alexander advises the Commander of US Special Operations. He believes that in decades to come war would be fought using nanobots.

  • Results of inquiry into the validity of certain physics research papers from Bell Labs

  • The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schön - transcript

  • USC lab launches project to create nanobot swarms for ocean research
    • http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/10/1743228

    • According to a press release (9 January 2002), the Laboratory for Molecular Robotics (LMR) at the University of Southern California School of Engineering has received $1.5 million research grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) to create swarms of microscopic robots. The application envisioned for such a system is to monitor potentially dangerous microorganisms in the ocean.

      According to Ari Requicha, a USC professor of computer science and the project's principal investigator, the project spans the fields of nanotechnology, robotics, computer science and marine biology, but is centered on the development of the ultra-small robotic sensors and software systems to control them. Requicha said it will be possible to build nanoscale devices with electrical and mechanical components so that the devices could propel themselves, send electronic signals and even compute. While individual nanoscale devices would have limited computing power and capability, the plan is to have vast numbers of them operating in concert.

      Requicha said that nanotechnology today is at the same stage of development as the Internet was in the late 1960's. "The idea that we'll have swarms of nanorobots in the ocean is no more far-fetched than the idea of connecting millions of computers was then," he said. "I don't think these robots will be confined to the ocean. We will eventually make robots to hunt down pathogens or repair cells in the human body."

    • David Caron, professor of biological sciences and a co- investigator on the project, said ocean robots needn't be terribly complicated or powerful to be useful. A single robot might sense only whether the water is fresh or saline and communicate by a faint radio signal only with other robots closest to it, which would then relay the information to other robots in the network linked to the Internet by still more robots. In the next year, Caron hopes to attach an antibody to a [scanning] microscope tip. He recently created an antibody that binds to the toxic algae known as Brown Tide. "That test takes a day in the lab, which is an improvement over current testing, but it's still not fast enough," said Caron. The microscope should detect the algae the instant a microorganism binds to the antibody on its tip.

      Requicha estimates that it will be a decade before the researchers can build and deploy nanoscale robots in the ocean capable of the kind of instant and specific test like Caron's for Brown Tide. Along the way, he hopes the project will spin off technology in marine biology and other areas. The end goal of the project will be to create robots that are as small as the microorganisms that they seek to monitor

      "Today, we commonly do experiments with five or ten robots," said Gaurav Sukhatme, USC assistant professor of computer science and a co-investigator on the project. "But we'll need algorithms to coordinate a million or more robots. That is a daunting problem, and we must start laying out the foundations for large numbers of robots long before they are a reality."

  • Nanohouse Brings Nanotechnology Home

  • Nano-tool box

  • Shape-Shifting Robot Nanotech Swarms on Mars: NASA Astronaut Journal, Mars, 2034:

  • Nanotechnology - The Science Behind Better Supplements: A technological revolution that will irreversibly alter the way people live and work.

  • Nanotechnology Initiative National Nanotechnology Initiative Overview - Research Directions II - September 8, 2004
    • http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/nni_overview_rdii.pdf

    • "Estimation on revenues from nanotechnology: Reaching $1trillion in 2015 worldwide, and the estimations moving closer because of accelerated development; growth >25% per year. "

    • "US has about 2/3 of world NT [Nano Technology] Patents (USPTO database) using "Title-claims" and "Full-text" search for nanotechnology by keywords (using intelligent search engine, after J. Nanoparticle Research, 2004, Vol. 6, Issue 4)"

  • Nanotechnology: The Promise of the Future or Pandora’s Box?
    • http://www.sagecrossroads.net/Default.aspx?tabid=55

    • TREDER: It’s unfortunate, in fact, that they—if you put it “the self-replicating nanobot” it’s an attention-grabber. It has gotten into science fiction novels and movies and television shows. It’s stimulating. But the problem is it sort of diverts attention from the more serious and more likely implications of the technology. Even though, as you said, the potential for self-replicating nanobots may be far in the future. It may not even be necessary. The person who essentially founded the interest in nanotechnology, Eric Drexler, who is the author of Engines of Creation back in 1986, and then a textbook on nanosystems in 1992, recently published a paper co-written with the director of research of my organization, Chris Phoenix, in which they examine that whole issue about self-replicating nanobots. They determined that there is really no reason for them, because everything that can be done or will want to be done with molecular manufacturing can be done without self replication of little tiny nanobots. So there really isn’t that risk that was originally imagined. But the attention paid to that takes away from the attention that needs to be paid to the other-the other economic implications and military applications of the technology.

  • IndiaNano: Accelerating Innovation

  • Center for Electron Transport in Molecular Nanostructures

  • Dream big: Figure 2.: (Exploring the Molecular World: ASSEMBLER WITH FACTORY ON CHIP)

  • Nanotechnology researcher claims "Nanotechnology is Here!" : But there are good reasons to be skeptical of these premature proclamations
    • http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jun/bch20030630020616.htm

    • A number of nanotechnology conferences and forums have sprung up during the past several years. These forums, such as the Nanoengineering World Forum, have been spreading the gospel that nanotechnology is already here. These conferences are attended by electrical engineers, biologists, chemists, and venture capitalists, all hoping to profit from what many see as a potentially revolutionary technology. Stephen Fonash of the Penn State Nanofabrication Facility claims that "nanotechnology is here today." These scientists are not talking about the radical vision of molecular assemblers and nanobots that the Foresight Institute endorses. Rather, these individuals have generally adopted the somewhat misleading description of nanotechnology as anything less than 100 nanometers. Such a broad and arbitrary terminology allows all manner of researchers, businesspeople, corporations, and institutions to maintain that they are doing work in nanotechnology. Intel, for instance, claims that it is already using nanotechnology because it is making microprocessors with 90 nanometer transistors. Venture capitalists are now funding companies with "nano" in the name almost as readily as they were funding "dot.com" companies in the 1990s. The same is true for government funding of nanotechnology, which is growing rapidly. Similarly, researchers increasingly believe that they need to describe their work as nanotechnology-related in order to maintain or increase funding. As a result, many of the claims of nanotechnology research are inaccurate and often misleading. A company doing work on actuators added the "nano" prefix to its name specifically in order to get funding. The tactic was effective and the company received funding, despite the fact that the actuator technology does not and cannot operate at the nanoscale.

    • I can just see it now:

      The NASDAQ will be up over 5000 within 6 months, only to be followed by an 18 month decline, to bottom out at 1200 or so.

      Lets try to be realistic this time around, people, so we don't end up detonating an economic "nanobomb."

    • Marketing creeps destroying the language (10:27am EST Mon Jun 30 2003)

      Through the lands, there are men, hollow shells of men, who think of nothing but how they can gain, how they can win. They will stop at nothing, except getting caught, to further their mission to increase their wealth at anyone else's expense.

      This is known as "Marketing" and no one excels at it like the U.S. The best in the world in style over substance, they will twist and corrupt the language in order to dazzle you and bamboozle you into forking it over.

      They are lairs. Big reeking piles of lairs.

    • yeah, hype... (8:49am EST Tue Jul 01 2003)

      Yes. Hype. I work at a Tier-I research university, and although there are plenty of good things going on here, a significant fraction of the labs prefer to stretch the truth. I've seen NASA do it too. Their product is actually what they can put in Powerpoint, not what is reality. Sad truth is, it works. There are enough people out there to buy it to make it a successful short term strategy. If your reading it in the popular press, I would give it a 50/50 for being worth a damn.

  • Nano World: Dealing With Too Much Hype
    • http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-04zzzp.html

    • You have to control the hyperbole and the exaggeration or it could fuel a backlash or a boycott, David Berube, associate director for nanoscience and technology studies at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, told UPI's Nano World.

      Berube will talk about nano-hype at a Foresight Institute conference on advanced nanotechnology Sunday in Arlington, Va.

      There is no doubt nanotechnology promises dramatic advances in everything from electronics to medicine. Governments, corporations and venture capitalists will spend more than $8.6 billion on nanotech research and development worldwide in 2004 alone, according to nanotech firm Lux Capital in New York. That level is expected to rise in coming years.

      Everyone with a chance to gain from nanotech - from businesses to academia to the media, the government and non-profits - has an incentive to cash in. The prefix nano has become a buzzword for bringing in the money.

      Josh Wolfe, co-founder and managing partner of Lux Capital, urges caution. For years, he has lambasted companies that appear to use the nano prefix to pump up their stock prices, such as NanoPierce Technologies, which he noted was previously called Sunlight Systems and Mendell-Denver.

      They've got nothing to do with nanotechnology, he noted in a report.

      Some businesses that had nothing to do with nanotechnology did quite well when (President) Bush signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Berube said.

      The act, signed Dec. 3, 2003, authorizes $3.4 billion in federal nanotech spending over fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

      What ended up happening was companies that had nano as a prefix, their stock values went up, he said. It's gotten so bad that the investment firm Asensio filed a complaint with Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general in New York, to investigate some of the investment houses promoting a nano-index, claiming it was a scam.

  • The Next Big Thing Is Really Small
    • http://www.pcauthority.com.au/review.aspx?CIaRID=1474&CatID=61

    • The Next Big Thing is Really Small, by Uldrich and Newberry, is a strange beast. Hyping the upcoming "nanotechnology age" and how businesses should prepare, the book is part nanotechnology primer, part prophetic tome, part educational text and 100% nanotech hype. Suffering from more than a bit of 'isn't nanotechnology great!' which particularly pervades the early chapters, the authors have their work cut out for them as nanotech has yet to really manifest.

      Yet, as they point out, large companies (American, mainly) are already embracing nanotechnology and integrating processes into their manufacturing. While big business is already there, the goal of the book is to give a heads-up on the coming nanotechnology wave for the rest of us. The overriding message is simple: when the nanotechnology age arrives, businesses savvy in the new tech will prosper, unprepared companies will suffer.

      It's pure hype, but hyped well, with some impressively large figures and statistics bandied about, and although it's a simple read that's light on the science this reader can't help but wonder if the message is premature

  • Trauma and Transcendence: Psychosocial Impacts of Cybernetics and Nanotechnology

  • A Tentative Probe into the Nano-Selenium Rich Tea for Assistance to Aids Succor Net for Aids
    • http://www.369.com.cn/En/ATentative.htm

    • Succor Net for Aids was founded by Qu Shaozhong, deputy fellow researcher, in 2001 and obtained congratulatory symptoms of trend after three years' assistance work, with the job summarized as follows:

      - Recipients

      All the recipients are help seekers on the Internet, among whom 75 are females, 24 females with a total number of 99. The age range is from 7-51, with 36 cases feverish, 38 diarrheas, 12 liver and spleen tumescent, 9 stomatic respiratory infection, 47 weight loss and 17 lymph tumescent.

      - Succor method

      With the treatment method corresponding to the symptoms, 5 varieties of nano-teas manufactured by Qinhuangdao Taiji Ring Product Company Limited are adopted, among which dark-green tea, white tea and green tea are made from the selenium rich tea unique to Enshi of Hubei, China . The average size of nano-teas is 100nm, distributed between 10-200nm for above 95% ( of which some tea particles are very close to viruses in size, and others are so tiny that they can penetrate viruses). Based on the major symptoms described by the help seekers, different varieties of nano-teas are used, with the table shown as follows:

    • Suitable quantities for intake of Nano-Selenium Rich Tea: wall-breaking, steaming, condensing and drying nano ballmilling methods are adopted for this group of case and 10-100nm nano particles are obtained with

      selenium content exceeding 25ppm, i.e. each gram of tea contains 25micrograms of selenium. Shishu nano-selenium rich tea. When taken, one should start from 1g of selenium rich tea two times a day and selenium content in blood should be measured when used, after which an increase of 0.5 g of selenium rich tea should be implemented each time and selenium content in blood is monitored with liver function indexes and body signs when increased to 2.5g each time. If no response, an increase of quantity should be effected continuously.

      When increased to response of body signs such as flush face, smell of metal or garlic in the mouth, slight falling-out of hair, rise of GPT, restlessness in emotion, the quantity of intake should be reduced to 1g if there is one of the above-mentioned signs. If responses disappear, it proves to be the person's resistance to selenium, i.e. it is the fatal dosage for viruses or cancerous cells (hypodermic sarcoma). This is also the time when poisoning needs watching closely so as to avoid abnormalities for individualities, and timely treatment can be arranged thereinafter. The method of use should be summed up as "increase incrementally on a trial basis and decrease in case of response".

      - Summary of succor

      Tentative Summary for Treatment of Aids by Nano-Tea

    • It can be seen from the table that nano-selenium rich tea has received obvious results in relieving and removing major symptoms, and the most congratulatory is that HIV turned negative for 5% of the cases (not included in the table).

      Discussion:

      1 ) A relatively large of number of anti-virus and anti-cancer cases for tea products (green tea in particular) have been reported at home and abroad, which is mainly attributed to the chemical composition of tea and the function of polyphenol in the tea. This website adopts the absorbent physical effect of small particles and small-size surface to absorb and eliminate viruses as well as the penetration effect (tunnel effect) of nano particles to penetrate cell walls so that viruses can be removed through penetration, which hasn't yet been read at home and abroad. This has blazed a new road for defeat of Aids viruses in terms of methodology

  • Bell Labs president projects long-term nanotech

    • Lachlan's Note: More Email received (2nd Oct 2005) with some very world class "inspired" nanoshite (a potential rival to the 'vision' of "intelligent yogurt" (yogurt made intelligent by the use of nanotechnology - for human benefit), and the lesser 'vision' of replacing people's DNA with 'more reliable' nanotechnology).

      Comment from person: "I like the prediction that nontech will bring us phones we don't need to speak to. I thought that was the definition of a phone: for spoken communication. Perhaps nano can give us food we don't need to eat, but only look at etc...":

      Kudos to the person who passed this on. You know who you are, and I am in awe of your olifactory abilities with respects the sniffing of new, true nanoshite.

    • http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2033
    • Phones that can smell, minus the breath mints: http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200509/13/200509132231215209900090609061.html

    • "In the next five to 10 years, mobile phone users will be able to detect changes in the facial expressions and even in the smell of the person they are talking to, according to Jeong Kim, president of Bell Labs, the research arm of the U.S. firm Lucent Technololgies.

      "As part of a five-day business trip here, Mr. Kim met with reporters in southern Seoul yesterday to introduce cutting-edge future technologies and offer predictions on the world’s information-technology industry.

      "Elaborating on the new cell phone technology developed by the laboratory, Mr. Kim said that smell-transmitting sensors, lenses that follow the movement of eyeballs and microphones as narrow as a human hair already exist, and would be on sale within a decade.

      "Mr. Kim said nanotechnology - techniques used to create structures as small as one-millionth of a millimeter - had played a key role in the development of the new technologies.

      "Mr. Kim predicted that nanotechnology could bring huge changes to the way humans live, citing the example of a new computer that will enable simultaneous translation of telephone conversations.

      "'If nanotechnology maintains its current pace of development, it will give birth to a computer that has the information processing capacity equivalent to every human brain combined by 2060,’ he said.

      "Mr. Kim said that while communication technologies have so far mostly focused on speed, future developments will look to improve their convenience. Eventually, he added, phones will no longer need to be touched or even spoken to, but will instead respond to mental commands."

  • China develops superior nano ink
    • http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/876516.cms

    • BEIJING: China has claimed to have developed a superior colour ink using nano technology which is considered ideal for both black and colour printing.

      The nano ink's pigment particles have a maximum diameter of only 200 nanometres.

      Pigment particle size is the key in producing ink for printers. The particle diameter should be less than 500 nanometres for high quality print.

      However, traditional Chinese ink did not reach this requirement, China Radio International reported.

      After three years of research, Tsinghua University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences here have co-developed this new ink by applying nano technology.

      The minimum diameter of the pigment particles is only 20 nanometres, which is considered to be ideal for both black and colour printing.

  • Nanotechnology

  • December 1, 2003 - NANOTECHNOLOGY : Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against 'molecular assemblers'

  • R.E. Smalley

  • Nano Apostacy - a review of this humble webpage

  • Of Chemistry, Nanobots, and Policy
    • http://crnano.org/Debate.htm

    • In September of 2001, Richard Smalley published an article in Scientific American titled, Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots," and subtitled, How soon will we see the nanometer-scale robots envisaged by K. Eric Drexler and other molecular nanotechnologists? The simple answer is never." Smalley asserted that chemistry is not as simple as Drexler claims - that atoms cannot simply be pushed together to make them react as desired, but that their chemical environment must be controlled in great detail. Smalley contrived a system that might do the job, a multitude of magic fingers" inserted into the working area and manipulating individual atoms. He then asserted that such fingers would be too fat to fit into the required volume, and would also be too sticky to release atoms in the desired location. He concluded that since his contrived method couldn't work, the task was impossible in a mechanical system.

  • Great scams of the academic community
    • http://www.hulver.com/scoop/story/2004/6/21/95856/7557

    • What are the great scams that have been perpetrated by academics and other 'pundits'? I'm not going to bother with non-sciences, or even the soft sciences, where perpetrating a scam is about as interesting as holding an obfuscated Perl competition. What about the 'harder' subjects like engineering, computer science or physics? The big one at the moment is nanotechnology.

  • National Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN)

  • The Use of Nanofibers in Space Construction : The Highest Home: Super Colonies and the Ultimate Human Habitat
    • http://www.distant-star.com/issue13/jan_2001_nanofibers.htm

    • It seems more sensible -- unless human beings abandon physical organic life altogether for cybernetic life forms -- that future civilization would try to develop technologies to produce large contiguous habitats in space that duplicate the best and most comfortable Earth-like environment possible, regardless of the natural state of any particular location.

    • Perspectives on the feasibility of an orbital tether have changed dramatically in the past few years. Since the advent of nanofibers (also called "Bucky Fibers") derived from the 60-carbon Fulerene molecule (http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/bucky), more commentary on this subject has been developed in the literature because the tensile strength of this new material seems to meet the demands of a tether for a space tower. Carbon-based nanofibers can have a tensile strength several hundred times that of steel. There also now appears to be an emerging consensus that mass production of nanofibers is possible. As a result, a space tower may soon be feasible, even perhaps before the end of the 21st century.

  • Nanalyze
    • http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1076ੱ

    • It looks like yet another company may be attempting to use the word "nano" to attract investors. Nano Superlattice Technology Inc., formerly Wigwam Development Inc., is issuing quite a few "nano related" announcements, yet they don't even have a website yet.

      The below was taken from a Wigwam Development Inc. 10-Q filed on February 2nd, 2004:

      Our current cash balance is $22. Revenues were -0- for the quarter ending December 31, 2003 and -0- for the same quarter ending 2002. Operating Expenses were $1,686 for the three months ended December 31, 2003 and $2,186 for the same period in 2002. Wigwam Development, Inc. is a development stage company involved in the business of providing consulting and supporting services to individuals and companies that are in the start-up phase of operations of restaurant establishments. The Company plans to implement and offer its consulting services in all specialized areas for the creation, development and ongoing management of a restaurant establishment. This will include consulting in the areas of concept development and design, menu and product development, alcoholic beverage licensing, and manager training.

      Eight month's later, the company makes the following claim regarding their business focus:

      Although our primary business focus is the superlattice nano-coating industry, in order to facilitate, maintain and make viable our business plan we have engaged in a number of sales activities in the role of a trading company involving a variety of wire and cable products as well as related manufacturing machinery. We conducted these business activities to fund the continuation of our development process and further the research and development of our core nano-coating technology as well as to better achieve our Company's overall business objectives.

      Is there any reason to believe this is anything but a scam?

  • Anti-gravity and Nano-technology research in India provide medical breakthroughs
    • http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-17-05.asp

    • ndia is advancing very rapidly in applications of Nano-technologies and anti-gravity techniques with some solid breakthroughs in Healthcare fields.

      Most of the research is still classified but indications coming out from sources close to the researchers are surprising.

      Anti-gravity devices are nothing new. Most of the developed world has implemented the same in some form to reduce or eliminate the effect of gravity and hence create a weightless environment. Using the same technology for genetic assembly, curing heart disease especially noninvasive methods of cleaning the artery, alternative to bypass surgery is new.

      Nano-technology is also advanced in many countries including Germany, America and Japan.

      The advanced implementation of nanosensors in bloodstreams to gather medical information and monitor health is unheard before. In addition research is being done to perform molecular-scale surgery with nanorobots. Noano-technology is also being researched to cure type I and II diabetes. These nanobots are used to manipulate other molecules, destroying cholesterol molecules in arties, destroying cancer cells and constructing nerve tissue atom by atom in order to end paralysis.

      The biggest breakthrough expected in a few years from Indian medical scientists is in the area of noninvasive body scanning to detect cancer-forming cells at a very stage. This may even lead to cancer cure and effective treatment of the same.

      India’s advanced in anti-gravity and Nano-technologies in healthcare applications are absolutely remarkable. India soon will be ready to tap into $4 Billion emerging market of Healthcare. Medical devices, advanced procedures, drugs and noninvasive advanced medical monitoring systems can replace the current traditional medical systems.

      Some of the drug manufacturing companies are implementing drug development through nanoparticle formulation services. This is provide early stage breakthrough in life saving and other critical drugs.

      Things are becoming clear now why India agreed to WTO (World Trade Organization) requirements of implementing Product patents. These new products and procedures will push way ahead of other countries in medical technologies.

  • Committee Hearings - 106th Congress

  • Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN)

  • An Interview on Nanoweapons: A Glimpse Into China's Post-Nuclear Super-Weapons: Lev Navrozov Interviewed by Ryan Mauro for www.worldthreats.com
    • http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/25/210250.shtml

    • I am thankful to Lev Navrozov, an expert in post-nuclear superweapons, as he calls them, for granting this interview.

      Ryan Mauro: Mr. Navrozov, your "nano weapons columns” on Newsmax.com and WorldTribune.com are intriguing. What is nanotechnology and how can it neutralize the U.S. means of nuclear retaliation?

      Lev Navrozov: The word "nano” means "one billionth.” Nanotechnology is a field of many fields, some of them civilian, dealing with such small systems. What is of interest to us is tiny systems (they are called "assemblers”) of molecular nanotechnology. Such assemblers can penetrate molecules and transform or destroy them.

      The world peace has been based on Mutual Assured Destruction. That is, every nuclear power such as the United States, Russia, or China has had means of nuclear retaliation, which an enemy nuclear attack cannot destroy. Thus, nuclear weapons can destroy New York, Moscow, or Beijing, but they cannot destroy submarines deep underwater, carrying nuclear missiles, underground nuclear installations, or bombers on duty high in the air carrying nuclear bombs. Nano assemblers are expected to be able to find these means of retaliation and destroy them by penetrating in between their atoms. Thus an attacked country can be destroyed safely by nuclear weapons because it has no means of nuclear retaliation to retaliate after the enemy nuclear attack and destroy the attacker by way of Mutual Assured Destruction.

      RM: If nanotechnology is to be used as a weapon, how does it work?

      LN: Let me recall the description a nanotechnologist has e-mailed to me. A molecular assembler I spoke about is a device capable of breaking and creating the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules. Since a molecular assembler is by definition able to self-replace, the first could build a duplicate copy of itself. Those two then become four, become eight, and so on. This compounding capital base could lead to a massive and decisive force within days. As Eric Drexler described it in his book – which he published in 1986! – "a state that makes the assembler breakthrough could rapidly create a decisive military force – if not literally overnight, then at least with unprecedented speed.”

      Such a device is capable of rapidly manufacturing and deploying billions of microscopic/macroscopic machines at relatively little cost. These machines could comb the oceans for enemy submarines and quickly disable the nuclear arsenals they carry. Similar acts of sabotage could be carried out simultaneously against land-based nuclear facilities and conventional military forces in a matter of hours, if not minutes.

      The race to build a molecular assembler, if won by China, will result in its worldwide nanotechnic dictatorship. We are certainly at a crucial juncture in history, not unlike 1938 and its nuclear scientists who foretold the atom bomb. This time, we cannot afford to be caught sleeping

    • RM: What do you believe are going to be China’s next steps in terms of acquiring territory?

      LN: In contrast to Hitler, who stupidly grabbed the rump of Czechoslovakia in 1939, China has been very cautious in its territorial claims, since the position of China now is the best for the development of "Superweapon No. 3,” such as the nano superweapon.

      RM: Who does China see as allies and enemies?

      LN: The worst enemy is the democratic West, whose very existence produces Tiananmens able to destroy the Chinese dictatorship. The best ally is the democratic West, supplying China with everything necessary for the annihilation or subjugation of the democratic West.

      RM: Are the other post-nuclear weapons being researched to this day? If so, are they known? If not, can you enlighten us?

      LN: Since the nano "Superweapon No. 3” is a hypothesis, and not an absolute certainty, the Chinese Project 863 has been engaged in genetic engineering and at least six or seven other fields.

      RM: If China has or is close to, molecular nanotechnology to be used in war, what is the purpose of having a large, advanced conventional army and "traditional” nuclear weapons?

      LN: Eric Drexler, the Newton of nanotechnology, alive and enriching us with his wisdom, discusses the problem in his historic book of 1986 "Engines of Creation.” My assistant Isak Baldwin says that, according to Drexler, "A nation armed with molecular nanotechnology-based weapons would not require nuclear weapons to annihilate a civilization. In fact, it seems that a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps could be developed--leaving the nation’s infrastructure intact to be repopulated.”

      Nevertheless conventional weapons might be useful even on the "D-day,” after nanotechnology has been successfully weaponized. Conventional non-nuclear weapons have been useful even after 1945. Please recall that two "atom bombs” were delivered in 1945 by conventional U.S. bombers with conventional machine guns and all.

      RM: What beliefs or desires are motivating the rulers of China? The belief that Communism must triumph over Capitalism?

      LN: A New York taxi robber risks his life, life imprisonment, or death sentence to acquire the taxi driver’s $200. Hence the bulletproof partitions in taxis. The dictators of China defend not $200, but their power, which is worth trillions of dollars, apart from what cannot be expressed in terms of money (royal grandeur, cult, and glorification). Remember the French king who said, "The state – it is me”? Many dictators have been saying and can always say: "Communism/capitalism/democracy/freedom/socialism/national socialism/our great country/the meaning of life/the goal of history – it is me."

      RM: If the U.S. is the most technologically advanced country, does this mean we have been surpassed?

      LN: The "most technologically advanced country” is an ambiguous generality. In the 1950s, Russia was still a technologically backward country, with most of its population deprived of running water, to say nothing of passenger cars. Yet it did not prevent Russia from outstripping the United States in space rocketry, when the Soviet space satellite was launched before its American counterpart. In its annual "Soviet Military Power,” to which I subscribed, the Pentagon could not help praising certain Soviet weapons as second to none in the world.

      RM: What today is holding China back from becoming overtly aggressive and reshaping the geopolitical world?

      LN: The dictators of China are not insane! China’s government-controlled "capitalist corporations” have been penetrating the entrails of the Western economies, absorbing the latest science and technology – or sometimes entire Western corporations, induced to operate in China on cheap local labor.

      To become "overtly aggressive”? What for? To invade Taiwan? To perish, along with the West, in Mutually Assured Destruction? No, the dictators of China are not insane! They are developing superweapons able to annihilate the Western means of nuclear retaliation.

  • Wednesday, 22 November, 2000, 18:58 GMT: 'Bug-driven robots' to administer drugs
    • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1035344.stm

    • Scientists are in a race to create the first microscopic "submarines" which can whizz through the bloodstream attacking disease.

      Nanotechnology researchers in both Europe and the US have created computer simulations of the mini subs and some believe prototypes are less than a year away.

      A team from Utah State University is examining the prospect of using bacteria to propel small structures to deliver drugs to particular parts of the body.

      According to Eldrid Sequeira from the university's mechanical engineering department, bacteria such as salmonella and E. coli may be the perfect "motors" for the subs.

      Tiny biomotors

      As the bacteria swam through the bloodstream they could push or pull a tiny disc, sealed within a liquid-filled cylinder.

      These discs could be drugs to treat tumours or break down the material lining blocked arteries.

      Speaking at the Foresight conference on nanotechnology in Maryland, he said: "Depending on the design we implement and with recent advances in nanoscale fabrication techniques, we could conceivably have micro-organisms power nanomachinery for extended periods of time."

      Eventually, the Utah team believe they could build biomotors using only the flagella from the bacteria which would mean the biomotors would be even smaller - around 100 nanometres (billionths of a metre).

      Various methods

      The team hope that their current computer simulations will be followed up with a prototype in a few months, probably using a wild strain of the salmonella bacterium.

      According to New Scientist magazine, commercial manufacturers are also working on similar technology.

      US company Renaissance Technologies plans to start making medical robots smaller than a millimetre in diameter within a year. And a German firm, MicroTEC, is exploring the use of external magnetic fields as a power source for microscopic motors to travel around the body.

      In the UK, one of the main areas of work is in seeking effective systems that will target powerful drugs directly at tumours without causing side effects throughout the body.

  • Subject: How to fly (Using Nano)
    • Subject: How to fly

    • > Anybody have any ideas as to how nanotech could make Superman-style personal > human flight possible? Crazy ones are welcome. > Fill the air around you with utility fog. I don't think there would be any other way, unless we are able to use Nanotechnology to build antigravity engines. [ Moderator's note: Please stick to known physics, folks! Thanks. -JimL ]

      >> Anybody have any ideas as to how nanotech could make Superman-style 
      >> personal
      >> human flight possible? Crazy ones are welcome.
      
      Fill your flight path with utility fog and have each nanomachine hurl you 
      forward and the ones in front get out of the way and hurl you faster. You 
      could even have the ones in front create a partial vacuum in front of you as 
      they move aside.
      

  • Formation of Si nanodot arrays on the oxidized Si(1 0 0) surface
    • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2004.09.063

      "Self-organized formation of Si nanodot arrays on the oxidized Si(1 0 0) surfaces has been studied using scanning tunneling microscopy. The growth of the oxide layer and subsequent Si deposition have been conducted under ultra-high vacuum conditions. Number density of the grown Si nanodots was in the range from 3×1012 to 8×1012 cm-2 and their average size varied from 3 to 5 nm. Effect of the SiO2 layer thickness (0.2-2.2 nm), amount of deposited Si (0.5-7.5 ML) and growth temperature (60-450 °C) on the Si nanodot number density and size distribution has been determined. "

  • Citation source for "quantum fortresses"

  • Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988) quotes

  • Nano Tsunami

  • The Molecular Foundry at LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)

  • interesting letter only vaguely connected to nano, but very anti-LBNL, Berkeley: LETTER TO SENATOR DIANE FEINSTEIN CONCERNING THE MOLECULAR FOUNDARY PROJECT AT LBNL

  • Re:Yet another article with no meaning whatsoever
    • http://nanodot.org/comments.pl?sid=04/09/17/0336218&cid=5

    • > Would it not be more efficient (for a 'command' economy')
      > to say *this* is what we are going to focus on and excel at?

      Centralized "command" economy may sound attractive to those who have never lived in one, but I know from personal experience just how inefficient it is. You see, the "command" principle never stays up at the top tier for long. It always diffuses downward until "command" supercedes all other considerations for everyone, and in that climate creativity of any kind is quickly replaced by obedience. A scientist can not obey and think simultaneously; he can either take his superiours or nature as his authority, not both. If he chooses the former, he will be forced to follow their plans, wrought by people who know nothing of science. If he opts for the latter in defiance to authority, he will be punished, either directly or through lack of funding.

      The people in power seldom know anything about science. They rose to the top by using very different skills of mooching, ass-kissing, and being as uncontroversial as possible. How can we ask such people, be they in China or in the US, to chart the course of scientific research? Especially research in such a complicated field as nanotechnology (by which I only mean MNT{[molecular nanotechnology]}, not nanomaterials), where even the scientists themselves must posess an unprecedented breadth of knowledge across many disciplines. Is it any wonder that the only thing that is coming out of "nanotechnology" these days is new surface coatings, which are about as revolutionary as paint?

      > "We choose to go to the moon... Not because it is easy but because it is hard."

      We chose to go to the moon to "prove" we are better than the Russians. There was no other real reason, and that is why nobody ever went back. "Going to the moon" was a prestige issue, something that people in power understand very well, while MNT {[molecular nanotechnology]} has incredible (literally) benefits that look like magic, with any steps in between completely undefined. We can see the paradise over the chasm, but no way to build the bridge.

      > It leads one to question whether a "western" survival
      > of the fittest paradigm will work within an environment of rapid change?

      What rapid change? There is no real progress in MNT {[molecular nanotechnology]} because nobody is working on it, except perhaps for Zyvex who appears to be making those exponential assembly manipulators. Everyone else either does nanomaterials (=chemistry with a fancy new name) or nanotube architecture, which won't make you any assemblers because a nanotube can't make a nanotube, and thus anything built from nanotubes can not replicate any better than anything built from legos.

      > It is however worth noting the awareness of the
      > technologies at a commercial and governmental level.

      Yes, isn't it? What exactly are they aware of? They think nanopants are "nanotechnology". There are so many "nano-preachers" who cry out that "nanotechnology" will solve all our problems, give everyone a house, food, and a pony, and all of that for free. They forget though that those benefits can only come from replicating assemblers, while their "nanomaterials" can never get them there. And to preach "nanomaterials" as the way of getting to the assemblers, is simply a vicious fraud.

  • Nanotechnology May be Over-Hyped
    • http://www.you.com.au/news/1047.htm

    • Nanotechnology will require sustained investment over at least the next decade, as well as more commercial applications, if it is to deliver on its initial promise.

      Nanotechnology, which is the design and manufacture of extremely small electronic circuits and mechanical devices built at the molecular level of matter, has been touted as an emerging sector for some time now, but a white paper published on Thursday has said that the technology is over-hyped and a long way from delivering on its full potential.

      According to the report, which was published by investment firm 3i in association with the Economist Intelligence Unit and the UK-based Institute of Nanotechnology, nanotechnology is at the heart of applications that are making money, but it has not made the impact it should have in areas such as pharmaceuticals, clothing and artificial bone.

      To remedy the situation, the report called for increased investment in the technology over the next 10 to 20 years from governments. While the report noted that governments in Japan, the US and Europe have increased their financial commitments to the area, it said that more money needed to be pumped into the sector, particularly in Europe.

  • Renaissance Potters were Nanotechnologists

  • Development of nanotechnologies by Ann P. Dowling
    • (got sent the PDF - trying to find a direct link to it)

    • This article summarizes the key findings and recommendations of the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering Report on Nanotechnology.

  • Our future lies in nanotechnology

  • Nano This and Nano That
    • http://www.nanotech-now.com/nano-this-nano-that.htm

    • We've all seen articles, papers, and predictions based on Nanotubes - they seem to be everywhere these days. Here is just one prediction: "Nanofibers (nanotubes) may offer the potential for creating some astoundingly large and strong space structures; they may make the prospect of rotating orbital colonies feasible." See The Use of Nanofibers in Space Construction for one speculative view.

    • Nanocontainers: "Micellar nanocontainers" or "Micelles", these are nanoscale polymeric containers that could be used to selectively deliver hydrophobic drugs to specific sites within individual cells.

  • UK orders another nanotech review
    • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4294681.stm

    • Tuning tubes

      Carbon nanotubes are sheets of graphite (carbon) that are rolled up on themselves.

      Just a few nanometres across, these ultra-strong cylinders can make composite coatings for car bumpers that better hold their shape in a crash.

      The tubes can also absorb hydrogen, which should enable more efficient storage of future fuels.

    • [click on top photo and scroll through images.]

      Solar cells

      Hydrogen Solar's Tandem Cell uses sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

      The cells have nanocrystalline metal particles on their surface, giving them a vast surface area with which to collect the Sun's energy.

      Currently, it converts just over 8% of the Sun's energy into pure hydrogen.

      Hydrogen is potentially a clean source of fuel.

    • [click on middle photo and scroll through images.]

      Easy clean

      Pilkington coats the surface of its Activ glass with titanium oxide nano-particles.

      Sunshine on these special windows triggers a chemical reaction which breaks down dirt.

      When water hits the glass, it spreads evenly over the surface, instead of forming droplets, and runs off rapidly taking the dirt with it.

    • [click on top photo and scroll through images.]

      Strong screws

      Nanotechnology has enabled the development of coatings that can make normal materials ultra-strong.

      The steel screws holding this fractured bone together are coated with a layer of nano-sized diamond crystals a 1000th of a millimetre thick.

      Bodies are less likely to reject the screws because diamond is a pure form of carbon and so are our bodies.

  • Produced by the Belize Development Trust
    • http://belize1.com/BzLibrary/trust318.html

    • For example, let us consider the USA. With a growth rate last year of 7.9% mostly in technically innovations and products, the USA is doing very well indeed. But it takes heavy investment in 15,000 Universities, GRANTS for researchers in basic sciences and other things to bring new technologies to the forefront in a manufacturing climate to export to other countries of the world. We can look at nano-technology for instance. This is a new technology. Pretty soon in about ten years, you are going to have a sheet of paper made of computerized nano machines smaller than an atom. Those are the projections! You will talk to the paper and it will pull from memory whatever subject you want from it's encyclopedia and form the atoms in the paper to make the printing and pictures of the information you asked for. It is already in the labaratories. The President of the USA and his industrial advisors are earmarking specialized increased research GRANTS in the hundreds of millions, to bring these technologies along to the manufacturing stage. The estimated time is 10 to 15 years.

  • THRONG (The Heavenly Righteous Opposed to Nanotech Greed)

  • Images of the desktop nanofactory are available for use

  • Design of a Primitive Nanofactory (Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 13 - October 2003)

  • Bootstrapping a Nanofactory: From Fabricator to Finished Products

  • Nanofactory Proliferation
    • http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/nanofactory_pro.html

    • Because of the largely unexpected transformational power of molecular manufacturing, it is urgent to understand the issues raised. To date, there has not been anything approaching an adequate study of these issues.

      CRN believes that at least thirty essential studies should be conducted immediately. Today we will examine study #22: "How can proliferation and use of nanofactories and their products be limited?"

      Note: This is part of the third segment of studies, on "Policies and Policymaking". Recommended studies in this section assume the existence of a general-purpose molecular manufacturing system. All preliminary answers are based on diamondoid nanofactory technology.

  • Nanotubes crank out hydrogen
    • Comment received: "i.e. a total efficiency of 0.325% of energy across the sun's spectrum. Well done nanotech

    • http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/020905/Nanotubes_crank_out_hydrogen_Brief_020905.html

    • Pure hydrogen fuel is non-polluting. Current methods of extracting hydrogen, however, use energy derived from sources that pollute. Finding ways to use the sun's energy to split water to extract hydrogen would make for a truly clean energy source.

      Several research efforts are using materials engineered at the molecular scale to tap the sun as an energy source to extract hydrogen from water.

      Researchers from Pennsylvania State University have constructed a material made from titanium dioxide nanotubes that is 97 percent efficient at harvesting the ultraviolet portion of the sun's light and 6.8 percent efficient at extracting hydrogen from water.

      The material is easy to make, inexpensive, and photochemically stable, according to the researchers. The 97 percent efficiency is the highest reported, according to the researchers. There is one catch -- only five percent of the sun's energy is ultraviolet light.

      The researchers are working to find a way to shift the response of the nanotube arrays into the visible spectrum.

      The key to making titanium dioxide nanotubes that efficiently harvest the energy from light is controlling the thickness of the nanotube walls, according to the researchers. Nanotubes 224 nanometers long with 34-nanometer-thick walls are three times more efficient than those that are 120 nanometers long with 9-nanometer-thick walls.

      The researchers made the titanium dioxide nanotube material by mixing titanium with acid and electrifying the mixture, which caused the tiny tubes to grow, then heating them to cause the material to crystallize.

      The material could be ready for practical use in two to five years, according to the researchers. The work appeared in the January 12, 2005 issue of Nano Letters.

  • How Stuff Works: "How Nanotechnology Will Work"
    • http://science.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology.htm

    • In the early 20th century, Henry Ford built a car manufacturing plant on a 2,000-acre tract of land along the Rouge River in Michigan. Built to mass-produce automobiles more efficiently, the Rouge housed the equipment for developing each phase of a car, including blast furnaces, a steel mill and a glass plant. More than 90 miles of railroad track and conveyor belts kept Ford's car assembly line running. The Rouge model was lauded as the most efficient method of production at a time when bigger meant better.

      The size of Ford's assembly plant would look strange to those born and raised in the 21st century. In the next 50 years, machines will get increasingly smaller -- so small that thousands of these tiny machines would fit into the period at the end of this sentence. Within a few decades, we will use these nanomachines to manufacture consumer goods at the molecular level, piecing together one atom or molecule at a time to make baseballs, telephones and cars. This is the goal of nanotechnology. As televisions, airplanes and computers revolutionized the world in the last century, scientists claim that nanotechnology will have an even more profound effect on the next century.

    • How Stuff Works: "How Nanotechnology Will Work" - Building with Atoms : http://science.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology.htm

    • How Stuff Works: "How Nanotechnology Will Work" - A New Industrial Revolution : http://science.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology.htm

    • The promises of nanotechnology sound great, don't they? Maybe even unbelievable? But researchers say that we will achieve these capabilities within the next century. And if nanotechnology is, in fact, realized, it might be the human race's greatest scientific achievement yet, completely changing every aspect of the way we live.

    • How Stuff Works: How Self-healing Spacecraft Will Work : http://science.howstuffworks.com/self-healing-spacecraft.htm

    • How Stuff Works: How DNA Computers Will Work : http://computer.howstuffworks.com/dna-computer.htm

  • FIGURE 11: IMMUNE MACHINES (with image)
    • http://www.foresight.org/UTF/Unbound_LBW/chapt_10.html

    • Medical nanodevices could augment the immune system by finding and disabling unwanted bacteria and viruses. The immune device in the foreground has found a virus; the other has touched a red blood cell. [image] Adapted from Scientific American, January 1988.

      Here, it is useful to think in terms of medical nanomachines that resemble small submarines, like the ones in Figure 11. Each of these is large enough to carry a nanocomputer as powerful as a mid-1980s mainframe, along with a huge database (a billion bytes), a complete set of instruments for identifying biological surfaces, and tools for clobbering viruses, bacteria, and other invaders. Immune cells, as we've seen, travel through the bloodstream checking surfaces for foreignness and—when working properly—attacking and eliminating what should not be there. These immune machines would do both more and less. With their onboard sensors and computers, they will be able to react to the same molecular signals that the immune system does, but with greater discrimination. Before being sent into the body on their search-and-destroy mission, they could be programmed with a set of characteristics that lets them clearly distinguish their targets from everything else. The body's immune system can respond only to invading organisms that had been encountered by that individual's body. Immune machines, however, could be programmed to respond to anything that had been encountered by world medicine.

  • Military Uses of Nanotechnology - the coming scary cold war of Nano-bots and Nano-materials - the invisible deadly Nano-bombs
    • http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1732.asp

    • Scientists at the Indian Institute of Science as well as defense research organizatrions are working on understanding the impacts of Nano-technologies in military application in coming years. While Nano-technologies can provide enormous benefits, it can also be used by the militaries of the world in creating weapons of mass destruction that we cannot even imagine with a conventional mind set.

      Nanotechnology is the generic name given to the production or use of very small, or "nano" particles. These are particles that are less than 100 nanometers or about one-thousandth the width of a human hair. A nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter.

      Nanotechnology is likely to be extremely important in the future as it allows materials to be built up atom by atom. This can lead to the development of new materials that are better suited for their purpose. There are several branches of nanotechnology, but most of them are in an early stage with the only nanotechnologies that are commercially available at present being ultra fine powders and coatings. These are used in a variety of products including sunscreens and self-cleaning glass, but the list of materials being developed commercially using nanotechnology is likely to grow at a very fast rate.

      Other forms of nanotechnology being developed include tiny sensors called nano-units, of which some simple types are available: "smart materials" that change in response to light or heat; "nano-bots" - tiny mobile robots that have yet to be developed but are theoretically possible; and self-assembling nano-materials that can be assembled into larger equipment.

      Military use of Nano-technologies in immediate use can be classified in three main ways. Militaries of many countries have established weapons with Nano-techs.

      First, nano-materials massively damage the lungs. Ultra fine particles from diesel machines, power plants and incinerators can cause considerable damage to human lungs. This is both because of their size (as they can get deep into the lungs) and also because they carry other chemicals including metals and hydrocarbons in with them.

      Second, nano-particles can get into the body through the skin, lungs and digestive system. This may help create free radicals that can cause cell damage. There is also concern that once nano-particles are in the bloodstream, they will be able to cross the blood-brain barrier.

      Third, the human body has developed a tolerance to most naturally occurring elements and molecules that it has contact with. It has no natural immunity to new substances and is more likely to find them toxic.

      Fourth, the most dangerous Nano-application use for military purposes is the Nano-bomb that contain engineered self multiplying deadly viruses that can continue to wipe out a community, country or even a civilization.

      Militaries all around the world is about to embark upon the use of Nano-materials, Nano-bots and Nano-technologies that will make current Weapons of mass Destruction look miniscule.

      Armies of enormous strengths can be wiped out slowly without even fighting a single battle. The soldiers may never know that they have been nano-poisoned.

  • LotsO'Buckyballs
    • http://www.nanospace.org/new_page_83.htm

    • LotsO’Buckyballs

      The Scoop

      In 2001, Mitsubishi Chemical (MUCCY) spun off Frontier Carbon to manufacture fullerenes. Today, they have 350 Japanese customers and a capacity of 40 metric tons per year. But, as they prepare to expand capacity almost 40-fold, talk of environmental/health effects (and a lack of demand) are worrisome.

      The Sci/Tech Saga

      Originally thought to be a medically useful free radical scavenger, buckyballs, as it turns out, actually generate the reactive molecules in the body. Whoops. With the debate over genetically modified (GM) food freshly on their minds, the folks at Mitsubishi don’t want to be the Monsanto of this decade.

      The Invest/Biz Buzz

      With $18B in ’04 sales, the company is no small fry. But the investment to be the world’s largest producer of fullerenes could be a setback if the customers don’t show up. On the other hand, Mitsubishi will be lauded as visionaries if they do.

  • Utility Fog: The Stuff that Dreams are Made Of
    • http://discuss.foresight.org/~josh/Ufog.html

    • Nanotechnology is based on the concept of tiny, self-replicating robots. The Utility Fog is a very simple extension of the idea: Suppose, instead of building the object you want atom by atom, the tiny robots linked their arms together to form a solid mass in the shape of the object you wanted? Then, when you got tired of that avant-garde coffeetable, the robots could simply shift around a little and you'd have an elegant Queen Anne piece instead.

      The color and reflectivity of an object are results of its properties as an antenna in the micron wavelength region. Each robot could have an "antenna arm" that it could manipulate to vary those properties, and thus the surface of a Utility Fog object could look just about however you wanted it to. A "thin film" of robots could act as a video screen, varying their optical properties in real time.

      Rather than paint the walls, coat them with Utility Fog and they can be a different color every day, or act as a floor-to-ceiling TV. Indeed, make the entire wall of the Fog and you can change the floor plan of your house to suit the occasion. Make the floor of it and never gets dirty, looks like hardwood but feels like foam rubber, and extrudes furniture in any form you desire. Indeed, your whole domestic environment can be constructed from Utility Fog; it can form any object you want (except food) and whenever you don't want an object any more, the robots that formed it spread out and form part of the floor again.

      You may as well make your car of Utility Fog, too; then you can have a "new" one every day. But better than that, the *interior* of the car is filled with robots as well as its shell. You'll need to wear holographic "eyephones" to see, but the Fog will hold them up in front of your eyes and they'll feel and look as if they weren't there. Although heavier than air, the Fog is programmed to simulate its physical properties, so you can't feel it: when you move your arm, it flows out of the way. Except when there's a crash! Then it forms an instant form-fitting "seatbelt" protecting every inch of your body. You can take a 100-mph impact without messing your hair.

      But you'll never have a 100-mph impact, or any other kind. Remember that each of these robots contains a fair-sized computer. They already have to be able to talk to each other and coordinate actions in a quite sophisticated way (even the original nano-assemblers have to, to build any macroscopic object). You can simply cover the road with a thick layer of robots. Then your car "calls ahead" and makes a reservation for every position in time and space it will occupy during the trip.

      As long as you're covering the roads with Fog you may as well make it thick enough to hold the cars up so they can cross intersections at different levels. But now your car is no longer a specific set of robots, but a *pattern* in the road robots that moves along like a wave, just as a picture of a car moves across the pixels of a video screen. The appearance of the car at this point is completely arbitrary, and could even be dispensed with--all the road Fog is transparent, and you appear to fly along unsupported.

      If you filled your house in with Fog this way, furniture no longer need be extruded from the floor; it can appear instantly as a pattern formed out of the "air" robots. Non-Fog objects can float around at will the way you did in your "car". But what's more, your surroundings can take on the appearance, and feel, of any other environment they can communicate with. Say you want to visit a friend; you both set your houses to an identical pattern. Then a Fog replica of him appears in your house, and one of you appears in his. The "air" fog around you can measure your actions so your simulacrum copies them exactly.

      The pattern you both set your houses to could be anything, including a computer-generated illusion. In this way, Utility Fog can act as a transparent interface between "cyberspace" and physical reality.

      Tech Specs

      Active, polymorphic material ("Utility Fog") can be designed as a conglomeration of 100-micron robotic cells ("foglets"). Such robots could be built with the techniques of molecular nanotechnology (see Drexler, "Nanosystems", Wiley, 1992). Using designs from that source, controllers with processing capabilities of 1000 MIPS per cubic micron, and electric motors with power densities of one milliwatt per cubic micron are assumed.

      Each Foglet has twelve arms, arranged as the faces of a dodecahedron. The central body of the foglet is roughly spherical, 10 microns in diameter. The arms are 5 microns in diameter and 50 microns long. A convex hull of the foglet approximates a 100-micron sphere. Each Foglet will weigh about 20 micrograms and contain about 5 quadrillion atoms. Its mechanical motions will have a precision of about a micron.

      The arms telescope rather than having joints. The arms swivel on a universal joint at the base, and the gripper at the end can rotate about the arm's axis. The gripper is a hexagonal structure with three fingers, mounted on alternating faces of the hexagon. Two Foglets "grasp hands" in an interleaved six-finger grip. Since the fingers are designed to match the end of the other arm, this provides a relatively rigid connection; forces are only transmitted axially through the grip. When at rest, foglets form a lattice whose structure is that of a face-centered cubic crystal (i.e. an octet truss).

      For a mass of Utility Fog to flow from one shape to another, or to exert dynamic forces (as in manipulating objects), a laminar flow field for the deformation is calculated. The foglets in each lamina remain attached to each other, but "walk" hand over hand across the adjacent layers. Although each layer can only move at a speed differential of 5 m/s with its neighbor, the cumulative shear rate in a reasonable thickness of Fog is considerable, up to 500 m/s per centimeter of thickness.

      The atomically-precise crystals of the foglets' structural members will have a tensile strength of at least 100,000 psi. As an open lattice, the foglets occupy only about 3% of the volume they encompass. When locked in place, the Fog has a more or less anisotropic tensile strength of 1000 psi. In motion, this is reduced to about 500 if measured perpendicular to the shear plane. As a bulk material it has a density of 0.2 g/cc.

      Without altering the lattice connectivity, Fog can contract by up to about 40% in any linear dimension, reducing its overall volume by a factor of five. (This is done by retracting all arms simultaneously.) Selective application of this technique allows Fog to simulate shapes and flow fields to a precision considerably greater than 100 microns.

      An appropriate mass of Utility Fog can be programmed to simulate most of the physical properties of any macroscopic object (including air and water), to roughly the same precision those properties are measured by human senses. The major exceptions are taste, smell, and transparency. The latter an be overcome with holographic "eyephones" if a person is to be completely embedded in Fog.

      Consider the application of Utility Fog to a task such as telepresence. The worksite is enclosed in a cloud of Fog, which simulates the hands of the operators to assemble the parts and manipulate tools. The operator is likewise completely embedded in Fog. Here, the Fog simulates the objects that are at the worksite, and allows the operator to manipulate them.

      The Fog can also support the operator in such a way as to simulate weightlessness, if desired. Alternatively, the Fog at the worksite could simulate the effect of gravity on the objects there (in any desired direction).

  • 'Nano' Suddenly a Gigantic Label
    • http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,59181,00.html

    • 02:00 AM Jun. 16, 2003 PT

      Nanotechnology has become one of the hottest areas in scientific research, pulling in billions of dollars in government, corporate and foundation cash. But the scientist who coined the term "nanotechnology" says a lot of what passes for nano is just plain ol' science, gussied up with a fancy name to rake in the bucks.

      "'Nanotechnology'" has now become little more than a marketing term," said Eric Drexler, founder of the Foresight Institute, the leading nanotech think tank. "Work that scientists have been doing for decades is now being relabeled nanotechnology."

      For good reason. Congress recently earmarked $2.4 billion for a National Nanotechnology Initiative. In May, South Korea announced its own $2 billion nanotechnology development program. The National Science Foundation sees a $1 trillion nanotech market by 2015.

      Little, if any, of this money is going to fund the kind of projects Drexler envisioned when he came up with, and popularized, the word "nanotechnology" in the '80s. Based on the theories of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, nanotechnology was supposed to be a discipline in which individual atoms and molecules are manipulated to make ultrasmall machines. One day, Drexler and others speculated, robots could swim in human bloodstreams to zap cancer cells, chew up pollution and construct materials from the atom up.

      Instead of that pursuit, scientists are doing small-size chemistry, biology and materials science and "using the name 'nano' -- dressing (their research) up," said Mark Ratner, author of Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea.

      It's not that the researchers are fibbing. "Nano" comes from nanometer, a unit of measure one-billionth of a meter long. At that scale, much of traditional, Newtonian physics falls apart, and key properties of materials can suddenly change. But since many molecules are that size, big chunks of chemistry, molecular biology, materials science and other disciplines can be included under the "nano" umbrella.

      The National Science Foundation, which has a big say in where the government invests science research dollars, seems to prefer the broader definition.

      Even studying the Earth can come under nano's wing. The foundation has pledged nearly $1.7 million in nanotech research money to University of California at Berkeley's Jillian Banfield, who is looking at how microbes are affected by their geochemical surroundings. Another $400,000 is earmarked for Texas Tech University geochemist Moira Ridley, who is studying how minerals in the Earth's crust interact with watery solutions.

      National Science Foundation representatives were unavailable for comment.

      Industry has been eager to hop on the nano train, too. CMP Cientifica estimates $249 million in venture capital was invested in nanotech startups in 2002. Advanced Nano Technologies is a collaboration between Samsung Corning and Advanced Powder Technology of Australia. But its only "nanotechnology" product so far is ZinClear, a see-through sunblock based on tiny zinc particles.

      The Army also is investing in nano, sinking $50 million into MIT's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies. At the opening of the institute a few weeks ago, generals and scientists promised the press that mite-size machines would one day imbue soldiers with superhuman strength, heal their wounds and render them invisible to attackers. One of the showcase examples, however, was Karen Gleason, a chemical engineer at the institute who is figuring out how to keep soldiers from getting wet by attaching tiny bits of Teflon to cotton fabrics.

      "If research on waterproof fabric coatings is 'nanotechnology', then the term has become almost meaningless," Drexler said in an e-mail interview.

      Gleason did not respond to requests for more comment on her research.

      But many defended a broader interpretation of nanotech. Drexler's vision of tiny machines, they say, is pretty much impossible.

      "Most people think this field is about nanobots. That's a big myth," said Chad Mirkin, director of Northwestern University's $80 million Institute for Nanotechnology. "There's no real credible research in nanobots. Zero."

      He added, "It's not clear that you could ever make these structures. Most of the (science) in this area is snake oil."

      But fascination with the itty-bitty is making research into other fields possible. For example, Northwestern University neurobiologist William Klein believes a neurotoxin, ADDL, causes Alzheimer's disease. He thinks that by attaching a few molecules of the ADDL antibody to a tiny dot of silver, he can devise a blood test for the disease.

      Until recently, Klein had "never even heard of nanotechnology," according to his colleague, Mirkin. But now, Klein is using National Science Foundation money to help fund the development of the Alzheimer's exam.

      "What we're giving the nanotech people is a reality check," he said. "We're showing it's good for something important."

  • Scholars Probe Nanotechnology's Promise and Its Potential Problems
    • http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-6/p30.html

    • With a revolution in everything from toys to tumors on the horizon, scientists in the nanotechnology arena are working to gain the public's trust.

      Hoping to both anticipate pitfalls and head off a publicity fiasco, policymakers and scientists are promoting research and public discussion on environmental, ethical, economic, and other societal implications of the burgeoning field of nanotechnology

      Loosely defined as the purposeful creation of structures 100 nanometers in size or smaller, nanotechnology "is a real revolution because it is changing in a fundamental way how we build things," says Mihail Roco, who chairs the White House subcommittee that coordinates the multiagency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Scientists predict that applications of nanotechnology will go far beyond their current uses—in sunblock, stain-resistant clothing, and catalysts—to, for example, environmental remediation, power transmission, and disease diagnosis and treatment.

      But realizing nanotechnology's potential requires public trust, says Vicki Colvin, director of Rice University's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology. The human genome project set a good example, she says, with 3-5% of its federal funds earmarked for studying implications of the research. That's in contrast to the nuclear energy and genetically modified organism industries, which are hobbled by bad public relations, she adds. "In GMO, they belittled the concerns of the people, and didn't take the risks seriously. I'd like nanotechnology to be a field that learns from the past."

      To that end, some countries are beginning to invest in research into the broader impact of nanotechnology. This year, investment in nanotechnology by governments worldwide exceeds $3.5 billion, Roco says. NNI's fiscal year 2004 budget is $961 million, of which 11% goes to research on health and the environment; additional money is allocated to other studies relating to societal implications. Scholars in the humanities "were very encouraged by the language coming out of the NNI asking for there to be examination of implications early on," says Davis Baird, a philosophy professor and associate director of the University of South Carolina NanoCenter. "Roughly speaking, if you look at a new technology after it's gotten rolling, it's much more expensive to change things. At this stage, if you ask the right questions, you have more chance of nudging the technology in the right direction."

      Magical materials

      When matter is manipulated on the atomic scale, optical, electrical, magnetic, and other characteristics of materials change. "It's quantum mechanical in nature, and quantum mechanics is magic," says Stanley Williams, director of quantum science research at Hewlett-Packard Co in Palo Alto, California. "The new properties come out and make themselves available—and a lot of the time they are technologically useful. For example, if you take a hard material, a clay or a ceramic, and powder it down to the nanoscale, and mix it with a polymer, you wind up with a nanocomposite that can have a combination of hardness and toughness never seen in the natural world."

      Other features that contribute to nanotechnology's promise are the expectation of cheap, low-polluting mass manufacturing and the possibility of making things, on the scale of biological building blocks, that could imitate or augment living systems. So far, most applications involve enhancements of preexisting materials, but new developments are in the works. A sampling includes lighter, more fuel-efficient cars, iron particles for immobilizing pollutants, and a liquid slurry that, when painted onto a surface, would collect solar energy.

      Richard Smalley of Rice University, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in discovering fullerenes, talks about using conducting carbon nanotubes for efficient power transmission, and quantum dots and other nano-sized probes for testing and localizing disease. "We are imagining a time," he says, "maybe in just a decade or two, when the average person can go to a clinic and get a scan that tells the state of health in a noninvasive, low-cost way. This would have tremendous impact." In the more distant future, computers might be connected directly to the brain as a memory aid, he adds. "It would change what it means to be human."

    • The concern that has generated the most attention in the popular press has been gray goo—self-replicating nanobots that could hypothetically get out of control. Such a scenario is widely dismissed by scientists as closer to science fiction than science fact. "No one with half a brain takes that seriously," says Williams. Self-replicating nanomachines can't be made, adds Smalley, whose debate on the matter with Eric Drexler, author of Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (Anchor Books, 1986), is available at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html.

      For his part, Drexler, the most visible proponent of what he calls "molecular assemblers," maintains that "nanoscale machinery that would be more productive than macromachines and would have the ability to make atomically precise products" can be manufactured. It's "possible but will require the development of new tools" and, he says, would fulfill the vision Richard Feynman famously described in 1959. The term nanotechnology has steered off course to less exciting developments, he adds. "Through the quirks of politics, the mainstream has rejected the original goal. We are raising a generation of researchers who have been told that molecular manufacturing will threaten their careers."

  • Nobel Winner Smalley Responds to Drexler's Challenge
    • http://www.foresight.org/press.html#20031201

    • Nobel Winner Smalley Responds to Drexler's Challenge:

      Fails To Defend National Nanotech Policy

      Palo Alto, CA – December 1, 2003 — Rice University Professor Richard Smalley has responded to a longstanding challenge by Dr. Eric Drexler to defend the controversial direction of U.S. policy in nanotechnology. Drexler, Chairman of the Foresight Institute, authored the books that defined the original goals for nanotechnology. Drexler fears that national policy — which currently rejects those goals — is hampering dialogue, increasing security risks, and failing to deliver on revolutionary expectations. Smalley, a specialist in carbon nanotubes and the leading advocate of national efforts in nanoscale science and technology, has been the most vocal detractor of the original goals. Their four-part exchange, sponsored by the American Chemical Society, is today's Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) cover story. As described by Deputy Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, the controversy centers on "a fundamental question that will dramatically affect the future development of this field."

      The controversy over the Feynman vision

      In his famous 1959 speech, "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom," physicist Richard Feynman articulated a vision later called 'nanotechnology'. Feynman proposed that mechanical systems (now termed molecular assemblers) could direct chemical reactions, building atomically precise products. This molecular manufacturing process will enable digital control of the structure of matter, revolutionizing areas ranging from medical to military, from environmental to economic. This vision of nanotechnology helped launch the current global surge in research and spending, including the multi-billion dollar U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Molecular manufacturing has been the focus of Drexler's work. However, as Baum points out, "Smalley has a dramatically different conception of nanotechnology from Drexler, one that doesn't include the concept of molecular assemblers."

      Molecular manufacturing misrepresented

      Contrary to Feynman, in a 2001 Scientific American article Smalley claimed to prove the impossibility of molecular assemblers — a claim used to defend the U.S. NNI leadership's rejection of the goal. Smalley had incorrectly argued that molecular assembly requires tools that will forever be impossible: "'There's plenty of room at the bottom'," he wrote, "But there's not that much room," because "To put every atom in its place... would require magic fingers."

      In the current C&E News exchange, Smalley now agrees that assemblers (without impossible "magic fingers") could use something like enzymes or ribosomes as tools for doing precise chemistry. Yet Smalley continues his vehement rejection. He now says that molecular manufacturing will forever be severely limited — alleging that it must use tools that closely resemble enzymes, and that enzymes can work solely in water, making only materials like "the meat and bone of biology." Besides misrepresenting molecular manufacturing, these assertions reveal an understanding of enzymatic chemistry that is 19 years out of date: Scientific experiments since 1984 (A. Klibanov, MIT) have proven that many enzymes function effectively in non-aqueous environments. Smalley's alleged limits on molecular manufacturing clearly do not apply.

      Metaphors and empty arguments

      Ralph Merkle, nanotechnology pioneer and Distinguished Professor of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, identifies additional failings: "Smalley hasn't acknowledged the extensive scientific and technical literature on mechanosynthesis — a literature which includes designs for molecular tools, ab initio quantum chemistry calculations of specific tool-surface interactions, and implementation strategies. My research colleagues and I have published many papers in this new and exciting area, and this work sharply contradicts Smalley's sweeping dismissal of the field. Smalley is just not addressing the issues. Instead, he veers off into metaphors about boys and girls in love. He describes mechanosynthesis as simply 'mushing two molecular objects together' in 'a pretend world where atoms go where you want.'"

      "Actually," Merkle says, "Ab initio quantum chemistry calculations don't involve love, or mushing, or pretending. For example, a carbon-deposition reaction which a colleague and I studied using standard quantum chemistry methods moves a carbene tool along a barrier-free path to insert a reactive carbon atom into a dimer on a diamond (100) surface. The tool is then twisted 90 degrees, breaking an internal pi bond, and pulled away to break the remaining sigma bond, leaving a single carbon atom bonded to the dimer on the surface." Merkle adds, "Further computational chemistry research into fundamental mechanosynthetic reactions should be an integral component of any national nanotechnology program. Smalley's metaphors merely cloud the issues."

      Baum further observes, "Smalley's objections to molecular assemblers go beyond the scientific. He believes that speculation about the potential dangers of nanotechnology threatens public support for it." Indeed, in his closing remarks, Smalley laments danger scenarios that he says have "scared our children." He urges others in the chemical community to join him in dismissing these dangers by embracing his chain of reasoning.

      Restoring the vision

      Drexler concludes, "We now have publicly available, after months of preparation, Smalley's defense of the U.S. NNI position on molecular manufacturing. He offers vehement opinions and colorful metaphors but no relevant, defensible scientific arguments, hence no basis for crucial policy. Smalley has struggled for years to dispel public concerns by issuing false denials of the capabilities of advanced nanotechnologies. That campaign has failed. It should be abandoned."

      Commenting on Smalley's position, Ray Kurzweil, recipient of the 1999 U.S. National Medal of Technology, states "Denying the feasibility of both the promise and the peril of molecular assembly will ultimately backfire, and will also fail to guide research in the constructive direction that is needed."

      Regarding U.S. policy, Drexler warns, "In the global race toward advanced nanotechnology, the U.S. NNI leadership has its eyes closed, refusing to see where the race is headed. This creates growing risks of a technological surprise by a strategic adversary, while delaying medical, economic, and environmental benefits. It's time to remove the blinders and move forward with public dialogue and vigorous research, embracing the opportunities identified by Richard Feynman."

      Why the general public should care

      Last week, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act passed through Congress and is awaiting signature from President Bush. The act authorizes $3.7 billion for research and development programs coordinated among several federal agencies. The legislation further provides funding for public hearings, expert advisory panels and established an American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center, which will study nanotechnology's potential societal and ethical effects. This Act and the accompanying funds should be applied to long-term research that will ensure that the U.S. is not left behind, and that our society can enjoy the benefits more quickly. It is crucial that molecular manufacturing be an integral component of these nationally