Self-assembling monolayers productized
from the name-to-live-up-to dept.
eeex brings to our attention the Nanomechanical Research and Development Center opened in Quebec by NanoWorld Projects Corporation. Staffed by 15 researchers, they plan to commercialize applications of their self-assembling monolayer technology. The company website points out that "We are not at the point of creating some of the fantastic nano-machines that some enthusiasts see as an eventual result of monolayer research. But there are other technological applications of monolayer technologies that seem within our grasp or just around the corner." CP: The enthusiasts cited may be confused; I haven't heard of a monolayer pathway to nanomachines. Also: how are these monolayers "nanomechanical", anyone have thoughts on this?
September 11th, 2000 at 1:41 PM
Confused
I suspect the researchers involved likely think what they do is at the center of the nanotechnology universe and whenever they read speculation about nanotechnology future advances, they filter it in terms of their monolayer research. Perhaps they are ones who are confused. Perhaps they think we are talking about monolayers when we are discussing Drexlarian MNT.
September 11th, 2000 at 3:49 PM
Potential Applications
I can immediately think of two applications for this. One is flat panel displays and the other is solar-cells. The problem with the displays is that the driver circuitry must be integrated in the manufacturing process. So, this process would have to be integrated with the one the produces the driver electronics. Perhaps this process can be integrated with the one that Reed and Tour (Molecular Electronics Corporation) are developing, in order to produce ultra-thin, ultra-large, ultra-cheap displays. Same for the solar cells
September 12th, 2000 at 5:27 AM
Monolayers
I can think of 2 reasons why monolayers could be related to nanotechnology. In a recent Scientific American there was an article on the use of nanotubes in flat panel displays.They formed a monolayer of tubes attached by one end onto a gold layer with the hope that eventualy each tube could be used as a pixel in the display. The other reason is that already existing bio-nanomachines, i.e. cells and bacteria, use a lipid bilayer to separate the inside of the cell from the outside. By incorporating a wide variety of molecular pumps, sensors, motors, etc. in the lipid bilayer, cells can perform an amazing number of functions. Medical nanobots might be coated in an artificial lipid bilayer containing the appropriate molecular machines to perform their specific tasks.
September 12th, 2000 at 10:05 AM
not so confusing
I think the keyword here is "self-assembling," not "monolayer." Using the same forces (van der Waals, hydrogen bonding, etc) nanomachines in large groups could position themselves to form larger-scale structures. For that matter, components of nanosystems could self-assemble into nanosystems, although the resulting structure would be rather weak. This might be corrected by using condensation reactions as a sort of "molecular welding" technique to form stronger structures connected by covalent bonds.
September 12th, 2000 at 5:46 PM
Re:not so confusing
The most serious flaw I saw in the article follows:
DTLF equipment which can produce continuous monolayer sheets that can be as little as one molecule thick.
And here I was thinking that was the standard thickness of a monolayer…
September 12th, 2000 at 6:24 PM
They're probably just disclaiming…
Imagine this: you're a scientist working with very small particles. You get them to do something interesting, self-assembling into fairly complex structures. But… you're working for a company with an active marketing department. The company calls your work "nanomechanical."
If I were them, I'd be afraid of the Nanotech Bandwagon coming to my door, and reporters asking "How long till you can make the Star Trek nanites?" I'd be afraid that my fellow scientists would think I thought I was doing molecular manufacturing, when all I ever wanted was a better method of creating thin films. Perhaps they've already had all their friends ask them about it at cocktail parties, and they're sick of the subject.
So if I were them, I'd say something like, "This work is not anywhere close to the amazing self-replicating nanodevices you've read about."
Ironically, that backfired, because now we're complaining that they compared themselves to us at all! Perhaps they protested too much, but I can see why they would have done it.
As to how the films are nanomechanical, I don't think they are–but the process of producing them is nanomechanical. They've managed to get the fluid moving so gently that it will make molecules bump into each other, form a monolayer, not collapse, then move around a bend and onto a surface. They don't have a lot of degrees of freedom, but they are in fact moving individual molecules around mechanically.
Chris
September 12th, 2000 at 6:27 PM
Re:not so confusing
I don't think this is a mistake. They produced monolayers of plastic beads. Those layers were one bead thick, but far more than one molecule thick.
Chris
September 17th, 2000 at 2:46 PM
Nanotechnological City = Trois Rivieres
Hi, Well maybe you will ask, why there is 2 companies in Nanotechnology, in Trois Rivieres? There is Atomasoft and Nanoworld Project, I think we will create a more high tech area than Palo Alto for Nanotechnology. We work toward that, the big luck for us is that, all is cheap, all is big, there is no big city around, all is for construction, 2 great and big university, and the mayor work toward this Nanotechnological city, we will announce that project soon, maybe in 2002. Our model is Palo Alto and RTP. 2 Great companies in a Nanotechnological City, with no taxes and alot of students. It could be the Nanotechnological City.
September 25th, 2000 at 1:11 AM
Nanobots?
What is the hang up with "self replicating nanomachines"? What is the difference between creating your sapphire engine one atom at a time using nano robots and creating it one monolayer at a time using a stereo lithography process? As long as the end result is the same, we should not get hung in the method. Flying with wings strapped to our arms might seem sexier but it did not hold a candle to the incremental scientific method employed by the Wright Brothers. We know life is nothing more than nanomachines. perhaps we could learn to program them by cut and paste gene splicing. One day a scientist will say "this is my self replicating assembler". Are you all going to say "No, that is a genetically modified strain of penicillin"? What about after he uses it to make a computer to design the next generation of nanomachines? What if that computer prints out a copy of our own DNA and says "This is the pinnacle of self assembling machines." Could a billion years of evolution have gotten the design of a self replicating assembler that wrong? What if The perfect computer was a big fat wet glob of gray matter with a life support system for it? The design spec did not specify mobility or procreation. As poor taste as it might be to say it, we already have Stephen Hawking. Accept these peoples work for no other reason than it is a step toward your goal of manipulating and building on a molecular scale with no ethical controversy associated with it.