Apologies if this is a duplicate post. Kadamose, where are you getting your info? URL, please? All my searches are turning up is journalistic puffery.

If so, where? Thanks in advance.

But isn't it true that this "theorem" is also applicable to electron flow in other sorts of nanostructures, not necessarily just nanowires? I mean, nanostructures are not theoretical, and neither are current-carrying nanostructures (e.g. nanotransistor research done by Aono, posted recently). Therefore, it seems plausible that this kind of research can be used in the state of the art at present.

It's a theorom to something that doesn't exist yet, and is not something of substance – by the time 'Nanowires' do come into existence, her theorom will be obsolete (if it isn't already)

If it were me presenting something like this, I would be told to 'live in the moment'. It seems like nice advice that I think everyone should listen to.

If what she says is true, something that "measures [current] flow through nanowires better than any technique that existed before," allows collection of data "three to one-thousand times faster than other techniques" and is "$35 worth of equipment in comparison to $100,000" seems like a pretty decent contribution to me.

And just what has this kid offered to the field of Nanotechnology?? Absolutely nothing. All it says in the article is that she thinks Nanotechnology is the future. Give me a break – anyone with a 'working' brain knows that. Now if she actually created the 'Nanowire' that would be worthy of a $100,000 scholarship – but instead, she gives away a stupid theorom that not only is useless but has nothing to do with Nanotech at all. How is this worthy news?

I probably shouldn't be so harsh on the kid – afterall, I have to ask myself what exactly I've contributed to Nanotech so far – when it comes down to it, my resume is just as bad as hers.