Month: July 2002

Eucomed Medical Technology, a trade organization based in Brussels, Belgium that ìrepresents the interests of the majority of the non-pharmaceutical European medical technology industryî, has a lengthy article ("Exploring the incredibly small") in its Medical Technology Focus newsletter (Issue 14, July/August 2002) devoted to the implications of nanotechnology in the medical field, particularly advanced nanorobotic devices.

Gina Miller writes "Physical Review Focus has a story: Splitting Up Cooper Pairs July 15, 2002. Smitha Vishveshwara and coworkers at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) have claimed in the 15 July print issue of PRL to have come up with a solution for separation of the problematic Cooper pairs of joined electrons in superconductors. Using electrons with different ground states to produce quantum entanglement instead of insulation tunneling, which is the usual technique, but doesn't break the pairs, the group is opting for the electronic structure of the carbon nanotube. These new conditions, which produce Luttinger liquid, effectively split the Cooper pairs."

A pair of articles from United Press International by UPI correspondent Scott Burnell describe interesting presentations by NASA officials at the NanoSpace 2002 conference:

• "Federal tech transfer turns to nanotech (27 June 2002) reports that "National laboratories and federal entities such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are paying more attention to nanotechnology as they look to commercialize ongoing research . . . Sandia National Laboratories, in Livermore, Calif., is even creating a Center for Integrated Nanotechnology to focus its efforts, said Mark Allen, a manager in the lab's technology commercialization office. The center would have facilities at both Sandia and at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico, he told a session at the NanoSpace 2002 conference.
  "We're trying to create a 'mega user facility' that will be attractive to industry, universities and other potential collaborators," Allen said. "We'll have major projects funded by the Department of Energy, but we will also be seeking partnerships … where we can achieve better results for all parties."
• "Nanotech could turn planes into birds" (29 June 2002) deals with more speculative applications of nanotech to aerospace engineering: "Darrel Tenney, director of the Aerospace Vehicle Systems Technology Program Office at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., understands how nanotechnology . . . can yield the lightweight, strong materials necessary for next-generation airplanes. He leads $100 million worth of basic investigations into advanced research topics, including advanced vehicle concepts, aeromechanics of highly maneuverable vehicles and noise reduction."
  "Because of the tremendous potential for strength and stiffness, far exceeding the best graphite fibers we have today, we're obviously interested in (nanotech) from a structural materials application, to see if we can use that to take weight out (of aircraft designs)," Tenney said. "We know it's in its infancy in terms of mechanical properties, and whether or not we ever get there is a big question. It's a high-risk area and that's why it's legitimate for government to be investing in it."

Earlier UPI articles about presentations given at the NanoSpace 2002 conference were noted in a Nanodot post from 26 June 2002.

Gina Miller writes "U.S., Russian Nanotechnology Finally Come in From the Cold by Jayne Fried on the Small Times web site reports on recent and coming meetings that showcase US-Russian cooperation and the role of Russian scientists and companies in developing nanotechnology. Quoting Mark Modzelewski, founder of the NanoBusiness Alliance, "Russia is definitely one of the five global leaders in nanotech, along with the United States, China, Japan, and Switzerland."

Gina Miller writes "In Patently Absurd on Forbes ASAP, lawyer Gary L. Reback argues for change in the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office operates. He says, "The patent as stimulant to invention has long since given way to the patent as blunt instrument for establishing an innovation stranglehold." These abuses of the patent system put "vast sectors of the economy off-limits to competition, without any corresponding benefit to the public." Reback attributes the excesses of the past 20 years in large part to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeing its job as generating revenue for the government through patent fees rather than optimally balancing incentive and competition for the benefit of the economy."