A nice display of serendipitous artistic images found while doing science, at Princeton: Hat-tip to Eurekalert.
Archive for the 'Found On Web' Category
I suspect many readers have seen Neil Gershenfeld’s TED talk on fab labs, or read his book. In particular, notice the part where he comments that fabs are following the track of computers, currently in the minicomputer stage. You can see the same progression in my keynote for a SME meeting a couple of years [...]
20 years ago, in the wake of the cold fusion excitement-turned-debacle, I noticed an interesting fact. The people doing the experiments were divided into two classes: The electrochemists who believed that fusion was happening were doing their experiments in plastic tubs and glassware, whereas the physicists who believed that no fusion was really happening were [...]
Once upon a time, or so the story goes, there was a young man who was hauled up before the court on charges that he had killed his father and mother. He readily confessed to the crime, but nevertheless pled for clemency: after all, he pointed out, he was an orphan. Recently on his blog [...]
Will realization of the seriousness of climate change push the development of molecular nanotechnology?Posted by Jim Lewis on January 6th, 2009
The answers of 151 thinkers and visionaries to the Edge Annual question for 2009 have been posted. The question: “WHAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING?” As phrased by John Brockman, Editor and Publisher, “What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?” In his answer, nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler points to a role [...]
One of the main reasons that we are confident in the overall predictions of molecular manufacturing is that there are many pathways to it from current technology and using currently understood science. It is thus something of a milestone that we have arrived at a fork in the road about which there is room for [...]
Two stories report new tools that should accelerate nanotech development by providing scientists with faster determination of molecular structures.
Keith Gillette writes "Nanotechnology research at the University of Wisconsin–Madison provides the subject for the cover story of the Spring 2005 edition of On Wisconsin , the UW-Madison alumni magazine. From the examples used, the article appears to use the term nanotechnology in its popular sense, drawing no distinction with molecular nanotechnology."
Given years of history with open source software we already know how to solve this problem. This is pointed out by Bryan Bruns, a sociologist with the Foresight Institute, who promotes better policies on intellectual property, including full publication of publicly-funded research in ways that are accessible and affordable.
This feeds into a complex development problem. In an ideal world developments paid for by the public should be available to the public. At the same time business will be disinclined to push those developments to the marketing stage without some exclusive rights on the market. How does one resolve this problem?
Richard A. L. Jones, author of Soft Machines: nanotechnology and life is documenting a debate about the feasibility of mechanosynthesis between Philip Moriarty, a nanoscientist from Nottingham University, Chris Phoenix, Robert Freitas with some comments by Hal Finney. There may have even been some comments by Eric Drexler though he appears to requested those not be included in the documented exchanges.
The debate with archived discussions and current comments is here.
The company basically claims it can drastically improve the performance of your mobile phone battery with what amounts to a stick-on decal. The spurious and unscientific descriptions of the technology (allegedly) involved are nothing special, apart from the association with nanotechnology.
It would seem that it's not just manufacturers of sunblock, tennis rackets and trousers that have cottoned on to the "magical" properties of putting a *10-9 in your product blurb. If this becomes commonplace, what kind of damage will it do to the funding prospects of projects promising similarly outrageous (but scientifically feasible) benefits as a result of genuine MNT?"
Ed. Note: Hmmm… a "nano-ceramic" — aren't most ceramics "nano-" in nature?
SpaceDaily based on UPI is covering how scientists from Luc Jaeger at UCSB to Ned Seeman at NYU (and others) are creating grand plans to use DNA and related chemical molecules to do everything from assembly to analysis.
Sounds like the combination of the fact that the hardware to do the synthesis of these molecules exists and the fact that there are a lot of things these molecules can manage via self-assembly is giving these methods a lead in the "real" molecular nanotechnology arena.
The LANL/Sandia "Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies" is providing a database of solicitations for future funding by the government (including DARPA and military) for nanotechnology R&D.
This will give you some idea of where all of those $ billions will be going…
Julie Hillan writes "Visit our new site and register (its free, no spam) to meet others interested in FN4 AI topics.
Frontiernumber4 (FN4) was founded in 2004 to create and maintain an online community of researchers, students and interested individuals from varied academic backgrounds to examine and discuss social, philosophical and ethical issues surrounding the development of Embodied Intelligent Agents (EIA) and Socially Intelligent Agents (SIA). http://www.frontiernumber4.com"
As was pointed out in this article brought to our attention by Christine Peterson, Europe seems to be picking up the nanotech pace in a serious way.
We can divide the world up in terms of expertise. Perhaps the U.S. has the crown with inventiveness. But Europe has the Ariane (which still happens to be flying), Mercedes, Bentleys and Rolls (all of which are very good examples of fine engineering). The Asian collective has a unique ability to turn ideas into mass appeal products and make them affordable enough that they can sell millions.
[*Yes*, I am grossly generalizing here but please take it within the context of the conversation.]
So the question becomes — *who* will be the developers of and subsequently who will dominate the nanotech markets?
Gina Miller writes "Government Support for Nanotechnology in Silicon Valley with Congressman Mike Honda presented by IEEE SF Bay Area Nanotechnology Council will be held January 18, 2005 in San Jose, California, USA. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org to RSVP or with questions."
Richard Jones, a physicist in the UK and author of the book: Soft Machines: nanotechnology and life, has a rather extensive blog detailing a number of aspects of the debate between the ETC Group, CRN, Drexlerites (esp. Merkle & Freitas) and the majority of nanoscale scientists at this time.
Well worth a look.
Christine Peterson points out a letter from Greenpeace UK Chief Scientist Doug Parr to the editors of the Times regarding comments from Tracy Brown from Sense About Science asserting that Greenpeace is opposed to nanotechnology. It appears that is not entirely accurate. They may support nanotechnology if a case can be made that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Chemists at U.C. Riverside have apparently discovered a carborane (a complex molecule of boron, carbon, chlorine and hydrogen) that they are claiming is the world's strongest acid. Details are here. Perhaps this provides an additional tool for the chemistry path to molecular nanotechnology.
The New York Times (registration required) is reporting in Tiny Ideas Coming of Age that "nanotechnology" is now a legitimate patent category (Class 977).
The problem is that the definition "one dimension of an invention be less than 100 nanometers" is so general that its questionable whether or not it will be useful (for example all drug molecules fall into this category). And then of course there is the quote, "a number of overlapping patents have already been issued".
Is this an improvement or just one more sign that in a world as complex as ours currently is the patent system is fundamentally flawed?