RSS
Twitter
Nano Suddenly A Gigantic Label
from the everything's-nano dept
When people first started talking about nanotechnology, they really were talking about building machines or robots at the molecular level. However, since the term has caught on (especially with those doling out the money) the the term nanotechnology is suddenly being applied to much broader scientific research. Someone I know who works at a "nanotechnology" company has always said that it's purely a marketing term. All the company really does is standard chemistry work. This seems to be going on in plenty of companies (and universities) that want a piece of the money allotted to "nanotechnology research". Of course, plenty of useful things are still likely to come out of this research, but it's nothing all that new. As for nanotech robots? "There's no real credible research in nanobots. Zero."
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
Mork from Ork knew this one years ago:
"Nano, Nano!"
- AC
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
There is. We're working on it here at MIT. Have been for years. Robots aren't quite nanolithic yet though. At the moment they're the size of air gun pelletes and they live in a vat of protein. Last year they were as large as golf balls. It's only a matter of time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nanobot research...
I don't think that building nanobots like scaled-down cars is quite the right approach....
Personally, I think "nanotechnologists" are missing out on doing fundamental research on self-assembly. People should learn from nature and how bacteria assemble themselves. Nature doesn't use lithography. Just my $0.02 worth....
But really, who cares what you call it as long as you make useful stuff? :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment