Comments on: American public remains uninformed about nanotechnology

By: Michael M. Butler

Michael M. Butler — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:08:24 +0000

Attempting to treat the closest thing to quantitative criticism provided, in as non-smarmy a manner as I can manage:

In the studies I’ve undertaken, when one speaks of “the laws of thermodynamics”, there are generally said to be three, and the shorthand for them is sometimes given as “you can’t win; you can’t break even; you can’t get out of the game”.

I am at a loss as to understand which of these laws is violated by anything Drexler has ever published. Net over-unity? No. Zero loss? No. A violation of the statistics of entropy? No.

Perhaps there is some generally accepted law of thermodynamics other than those three which my education didn’t introduce me to. I’m only aware of Onsager reciprocal relations being sometimes called the “fourth law of thermodynamics”, but it too doesn’t seem to relate to your claim.

Or maybe you really were just handwaving.

By: Michael M. Butler

Michael M. Butler — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:57:22 +0000

Mister Locklin: Eric Drexler has taken a serious shot at addressing the matter of thermal positional uncertainty, and the matter of delivery and disposal of energy in systems, which do not appear to violate any physical law, including your from-the-hip shibboleth use of “the laws of thermodynamics”.

His calculations are in principle falsifiable as incomplete or erroneous, but vague handwaving non-quantitative appeals are mere rhetoric. “Writing a science fiction book is not the same as inventing a technology” is true, but you’ve done nothing to show that the sentence applies to the matter at hand.

A germane response to the quantitative work he’s published could be substantive. In the years since you posted your most recent comment I’ve waited for your substantive criticisms of what is actually in print in /Nanosystems/.

I take it that you haven’t got any.

By: Scott Locklin

Scott Locklin — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:19:40 +0000

Some very small guy wrote:
“Molecular Manufacturing is true Nanotechnology and it does NOT VIOLATE THERMODYNAMICS.”

This may or may not be true, but we’ll never really know, since nobody has managed to invent such things yet. Writing a science fiction book is not the same as inventing a technology.

As for Mr. Butler’s smarm; thanks for parroting Drexler’s “you can’t prove we can’t do it” non falsifiable piffle at me. I remember being impressed with such reasoning when debating people who believe the world was created 7000 years ago.

Allow me to revise my original statement: “if we make artificial life forms using the magic of the Schroedinger equation, the future will be super great and we’ll have mighty and epic super powers! Please donate generously!” Meanwhile, the only “nano” applications which exist are paint and suntan lotion, so the public doesn’t need much more “education” than it already has about paint and suntan lotion.

By: Michael M. Butler

Michael M. Butler — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:58:57 +0000

Scott, great to see your exemplary work here. You managed to state a fact about the marketing BS / co-option of the term. Good for you on that.

I’m sure you’ll be publishing your detailed proof of your thermodynamics claim any day now, right? Or maybe you could provide a JSTOR cite of work you’ve already published?

Kthx.

By: Radha

Radha — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:45:03 +0000

I believe the popularity received by areas of astronomy, space mission, particle physics, Big-bang or Genetics, human genome etc in science is absent in this wider, all-encompassing area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Someone earlier (referred to in foresight.org) rightly commented that nanotechnology is not just another technology but is a movement that has to gain momentum. And yes, it is up to us, workers in this field to contribute in building it up.

By: Nanoman

Nanoman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:40:11 +0000

Molecular Manufacturing is true Nanotechnology and it does NOT VIOLATE THERMODYNAMICS. Drexler style Nano Mechanisms work like natural bio nano machines because they will have 1 Information via computers, 2 Materials via atoms and 2 Energy via solar, chemical, and other forms. In order for something to violate thermodynamic law for real it must create energy from NOTHING, no pre existing energy, and, it must operate within a closed system and not break down. Nanomachinery will use energy and will operate within the known laws of thermodynamics.

By: Scott Locklin

Scott Locklin — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:42:41 +0000

The general public doesn’t know about it because nanotech is mostly imaginary fairy dust which violates the laws of thermodynamics. The few recognizable “nano” applications out there are known by more common names, like “paint” or “suntan lotion.”

By: spinoneone

spinoneone — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:47:29 +0000

Well, looks like you guys had better get in gear and inform the American public. Why? Because if you don’t then environuts will invoke the “precautionary” principle and try to put an end to your efforts. Many on the left are already thinking about this, and they tend to be the people who know something, correct or not, about nanotechnology.

By: Nanoman

Nanoman — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:20:49 +0000

Alright then I have a question, Jim, Christine, anyone else reading this: Is this a good idea or useless? I was thinking of finding a cheap printing company, and having them print up a few hundred thousand or so paper leaflets with a short basic message about Molecular nanotech, and perhaps weblinks such as Foresight and others, so people can learn more about nanotech, and setting up a table when I have some free time, on a busy street or park, and giving people the leaflets. Will this help somewhat to get the people more aware?