Comments on: Is policy uncertainty the cause of anemic growth in nanotechnology innovation?

By: Devora Malango

Devora Malango — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:18:23 +0000

Sorry, unfortunately I have to firmly oppose with this posting. But nevertheless, I fully understand that we all may have our unique position.

By: John Tolley

John Tolley — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:34:03 +0000

There is one solution we have suggested the industry follow and that being to adopt the model of self-regulation particularly at the level of supply and procurement of nanomaterials. Our model here at INSCX (Integrated nano-Science & Commodity Exchange) is to structure the buying and selling process through security industry qualified brokers acting on behalf of trade customers who can bid (Purchase) or offer (Sell) nanomaterials and nano-enabled commodities over a live trading platform. The exchange also helps support suppliers and downstream users obtain SHE Accreditation, an EHS standard delevoped over in Europe and supported by global insurance syndicates. In addition every time a trade occurs on the exchange each trade generates a unique transaction ID which is then sequenced forward through the supply chain to end product. Regulators seeking to investigate a trade can apply like they do in the case of established commodity markets through the courts to order disclosure of the actual trade supplier or downstream user in the event there is a concern. This system of self-regulation has the support of the global investment community who understand the concept. Quite apart from the commercial benefits (price transparency, capital financing supports, trade flexibility etc.,) this system might help regulators see exactly what is going on in nanomaterials and regulate accordingly as opposed to engaging in blanket bans or curtailments based on innuendo or a percieved bias. So far some twenty global suppliers have joined the exchange since launch at the end of 2010 and interest from traditional commodity sectors of the economy (metals, mining, polymers, fuels etc) has been strong on the buy side. The supervisory board of the exchange combines experience in nanoscience with practical knowledge of commodity trading. All of this of course depends on how you view nanomaterials of course or more importantly how any potential industrial buyer will regard them.

Of course the unique attributes are noted, but what of commercial usefulness? In the community we all trumpet the potential, but how do we expect to deliver it when the price difference between the high and low end in say 100nm Ni powder in % terms is some 50% across the supplier base, or where there is no independent inspection of supplied materials to prove quality? These are simple norms in the commercial world on which decisions are made to gear industry to depend on a raw material. That in our view is what will drive trade in NMs – industrial dependence based on clarity at the point of supply and procurement.

We suggested and developed the exchange simply because we felt NMs needed an organised, structured process of trade to go anywhere in a commercial context. The process now in place enables the following;

Open Price Discovery
Independent Characterisation and Inspection
Anonymous Trade
Nominee reporting of trade
Trade Finance and Project Finance to support supplier capacity

Anyone interested can obtain more information. Simple e-mail: info@inscx.com

Kind Regards

John Tolley
Registrar
INSCX exchange

By: Shopfloor | A Manufacturing Blog Reporting on Manufacturing Policy and Politics

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:07:51 +0000

[...] We always turn to Instapundit to catch up on the latest developments in the technology and policy, and in doing so this morning, spot this post: WELL, IT’S CAUSING A LOT OF OTHER PROBLEMS: Is policy uncertainty the cause of anemic growth in nanotechnology innovation? [...]

By: flashgordon

flashgordon — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:55:12 +0000

I’ve seen the picking and placing of nanotubes; it was at nanowerk. I don’t think I can recover the article there, as it is burried under so much news since then!

By: NanoMan

NanoMan — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:22:27 +0000

Have you all seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ebzezSV6s&feature=related

Pick and place of nanotubes

By: darwinian roadkill

darwinian roadkill — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:47:56 +0000

I think Robin Hanson may have some insight about this.

See:

http://vimeo.com/9508131

http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity

Although heretical, it really might be that Drexlerian molecular manufacturing is not the next big thing in the grand scheme of things and investment has been anemic because the powers that be and the market has implicitly decided that manufacturing technologies (whatever the level of sophistication) has reached the point of diminishing returns.

By: NanoMan

NanoMan — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:33:37 +0000

Thank you for the link. That is exactly the type of thing that is needed! It just goes to show the wide range of possibilities in the nano realm.

By: flashgordon

flashgordon — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:39:32 +0000

I would think you’ve(nanoman) have seen this; but, I thought I’d bring it up in relation to your work.

http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2010/09/exceptionally-stiff-organic-nanostructures.html

By: flashgordon

flashgordon — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:37:37 +0000

As Dale Holling quotes,

“Having learned nothing from the impact of punishing the innocent with Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress has unleashed an open-ended rulemaking frenzy under Dodd-Frank. ”

By: NanoMan

NanoMan — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:23:59 +0000

These are very good points, Jim, flash, and others, and, I think it could be a combination of all three issues. However, I think the human apathy aspect is big, too big. Yet, molecular nanotechnology IS “inevitable”, as long as human technology continues in the least.
This is an issue that my friend and colleague, Steve Bridgers, of the INCA Naut Challenge, has been facing for years. And perhaps you all can stand with us on this issue, which is very good for Foresight to get behind.

http://www.incanautchallenge.com

The essential information is all there, Bridgers has patented a universal building block, based on the carbon atom and the geodesic fullerene buckyball. With this system, we can construct materials that collapse and expand and yet are very strong, and, a whole range of new electro-mechanical machines and mechanisms.

Please feel free to email me about this. This is not an ad, rather, this is an opportunity to help speed molecular manufacturing along, and I greatly enjoy donating to Foresight Institute, and working with you all. Thank you.