Nanotech

[pipme]

CLICK HERE More steps toward the grey goo ?
Nanometre is it just a big fuss over one-billionth of a meter or a millimicron.
Told you there'd be a fuss over it !!

 

[felix]

A nanometre is, as you say, a billionth (US not UK) of a metre or a thousandth of a micron. To give you some idea of how small that is, a hydrogen atom is about 0.1nm in diameter - but maybe that doesn't help!

Nanotechnology is about building things out of atoms; sticking them together one at a time like lego bricks or, to use a better analogy, that magnetix toy. Believe it or not there are ways of doing this. The secret is an incredibly accurate pointed probe. It's tip is a single atom and it moves over the surface of an object sensing the atoms below by measuring a tiny electrical current. This device has produced the first 'pictures' of atoms - they appear as fuzzy blobs - but that's not the end of it. That probe can pick an atom up and put it down somewhere else.

 

[AdamW]

A nanometre is, as you say, a billionth (US not UK)

As you say, 1,000,000,000 is not traditionally called a billion in the UK, rather it is called a "milliard". I am not sure what it becomes if it is the equivalent of a "billionth". A "milliardth"? Doesn't look right!

Nanotechnology is about building things out of atoms

I'm not sure if I agree with your definition of nanotechnology though Felix. My definition would be that nanotech is about influencing the structure of materials on an atomic scale. So you could make something on a macroscopic scale using nanotechnology, but you would be controlling the structure of that item down to an atomic scale.

I agree that your definition is included in this, and indeed IIRC things have been made through manipulation of individual atoms, but building something appreciable out of individual atoms would take longer than one of my DIY projects!

 

[pipme]

nanometres -- nano being extremely small One-billionth or, one over ten raised to the power nine or 10^(-9)
and of course the price of fish comes to mind ... As it may do for the subjects of the original post having a link to Nanotech promise for global poor

 

[AdamW]

The panel said nanosciences could also significantly improve agriculture.

Not having 6.5 kids could drastically reduce the amount of food you need to feed your family properly...

I know it sounds heartless, and I have said it before, but surely it makes sense that if you reduce your litter by just one or two kids, then those you DO have will have a better chance of survival, more food etc. etc. At least it makes sense to me (albeit as an overweight first-world resident sitting here reading about it)

Another thing, we're always being told that the reason they don't get enough food in a lot of places is because of the politics. Some nutter will take over the country, spend all the money on guns, take away people's means to grow food and steal whatever food is brought in as aid. What, is nanotech going to rid Africa of megalomaniacs?! Or will nanotech food somehow be resistant to being taken by dictators? Or is the plan to grow so much food that they can't possibly take it all?!

I'm very much for helping the Third World but I think there are means already at our disposal that don't require nanotech!

Nanotechnology is the new internet: politicians honestly believe that the more times you say the word, the more people will like you. Oh, and Prince Charles is scared of it (seriously, he believes the grey-goo theory)

 

[pipme]

John Majority was head, grey goo honcho wasn't he ? ......
Made of grey chocolate ... til Eggwina lit his fire -- hence the goo !!

 

[AdamW]

That is just wrong, on so many levels

Of course, Thatcher had children... who do you feel more sorry for, Dennis or the midwife? I know Cherie is no looker, but at least Tony has the luxury of that gob, you could get your back wheels in!

 

[WoodYouLike]

Not having 6.5 kids could drastically reduce the amount of food you need to feed your family properly...

I know it sounds heartless, and I have said it before, but surely it makes sense that if you reduce your litter by just one or two kids, then those you DO have will have a better chance of survival, more food etc. etc.

Didn't we figure out last week that 6,5 kids was caused by the Pope (not literally of course

 

[felix]

Fair enough. "Nanotechnology is about building things out of atoms" was a simplified definition for a non-technical audience.

Nanotechnology is the new internet: politicians honestly believe that the more times you say the word, the more people will like you

Can't argue with that.

What, is nanotech going to rid Africa of megalomaniacs?! Or will nanotech food somehow be resistant to being taken by dictators? Or is the plan to grow so much food that they can't possibly take it all?!

And I can't argue with that either. Megalomaniacs everywhere will be more interested in what kind of weapons they can make out of it. Borg nanoprobes perhaps? This is a serious threat for the future and we'd better be ready for it.

History shows that our ability to make something invariably runs ahead of our ability to use it wisely. When Nobel invented dynamite he declared that it would make war impossible. Fat chance. To be fair, he was on the right lines but we had to wait for plutonium before the warmongers thought twice.

Not having 6.5 kids could drastically reduce the amount of food you need to feed your family properly...

This is self evident but ---

We are in no position to complain about overpopulation. Last time I looked at an Atlas the greatest population density (because that's what really matters) was right here in our little corner of Europe.