Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: John.S.Novak@xxxxxxxxx, III <jsn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:31:31 -0000
In article <11qk99qb0ml6c55@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, cyclintom@xxxxxxxxx
says...
> Now when I'm reading about nanotechnology I'm not seeing that
> "classical nanotechology" but instead see this term being applied to
> materials development, molecular designs and that sort of thing.
> So, the question is: what is the present definition of nanotechology?
The problem is, there are almost as many definitions of
"nanotechnology" as there are people interested in it. Some of this is
a fairly honest expansion of the term into several new niches, while
some is just opportunistic relabelling of old research to fall under the
aegis of new funding streams. I will not attempt to tell you where that
line falls.
Some groups get themselves exercised about the mis-use and perceived
mis-use of the terms; they will tell you exactly what the definitions
are, or should be, or will attempt to redefine terms in an attempt to
keep linguistic purity. I think these efforts are futile-- people are
going to use the terms however they like. When there's a good research
and societal consensus, the silliness will stop. But not before then.
At present, I see nanotechnology used in roughly the following ways:
1) "Molecular nanotechnology" which often refers to the classic Drexler
vision of nano-electromechanical systems, assemblers, self-assemblers,
and so forth. This would include, but is not limited to, the mechanical
computation devices described in Drexler's early works.
2) "Nano-electronics" which usually refers to using single (or systems
of very very few) molecules to achieve effects that we currently use
transistors to achieve such as switching or amplification.
3) "Nanobiology" which is a biological variant of, usually, molecular
nanotechnology above, but rather than trying to design a mechanical
device atom by atom, ex nihilo, already existing biological systems are
investigated, characterized, coaxed, or re-assembled into new structures
with new-- or better directed-- effects.
Sometimes the biological signal systems are invesitgated or tweaked,
making this a sort of nano-bio-electronics.
4) "Nano particles" which usually refers to novel uses of things like
buckyballs, carbon nanotubes, "nanoclusters" (which are small handfuls
of usually metal atoms that produce novel effects), quantum dots, etc.
Adding to the confusion, some of these applications are electronic in
nature, such as carbon nanotube transistors, and some of the
applications are biological or medical, such as tailoring nanoparticles
to find cancer cells in vivo and deliver medication.
As you can see, the term is... highly overloaded, to say the least.
--
John S. Novak, III
The Humblest Man On The Net
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: Oliver 'Ojo' Bedford
- Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- References:
- Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: Tom
- Nanotechnology Redefined
- Prev by Date: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Next by Date: Administrivia: Welcome to sci.nanotech!
- Previous by thread: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Next by thread: Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
