Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Results for ""molecular nanotechnology""

We found 253 results for your search.

"Pick-and-place" nanoassembly system wins prize

from the 1,000,000-dpi dept.
epw wrote in about the "Pick-and-Place" Nanoassembly System that was discussed on Slashdot as "Hubert's Interesting Nanoassembler." Brian Hubert won the Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for this invention, as reported by Nando Media/AP. His Úwebsite has good pictures and diagrams. It's not molecular nanotechnology as in precise control of individual atoms, but still seems like an interesting development using atomic force microscopes. Read more for the introductory text from the website. "Unlike the prior art, this system can be used to pattern essentially any type of material. …"

Can we have "some" regulation of nanotech?

from the strategies-for-survival dept.
ChrisPhoenix writes "Human societies have felt the need to regulate, or try to regulate, many different kinds of technologies. All of these technologies have been far less powerful than a mature nanotechnology. Is regulation of nanotech a good idea? If so, what form could it take? If not, is it preventable? Is limited, effective regulation a possibility?"

Read more for the rest of Chris's essay and invitation to discussion.

Zyvex profiled by Forbes

from the megabucks-for-nanogoals dept.
Senior Associate Ralph Merkle, Principle Fellow at Zyvex, notes that Forbes.com has an article on the company: "Zyvex, billing itself as the first molecular nanotechnology company, is aiming for nanoproducts that are at least ten years from realization, if they are even possible. Von Ehr started up in 1997, buying ten powerful microscopesóone for $350,000óand building a chemistry lab, machine shop and clean room in a 20,000-square-foot factory that hasn't shaken its new-car smell. Zyvex grew from 15 people in 1999 to 29 last year, and Von Ehr plans to double in size annually for the next several years. What started out as a plan to spend $2 million to $3 million a year for ten years has evolved into an ambitious effort to raise and spend $300 million over eight years."

Overview of nanotechnology: yesterday and today

from the getting-oriented dept.
A well-done brief overview of molecular nanotechnology by University of Georgia chemist Dennis Rouvray is available at chembytes: "[Most] scientists were persuaded that nanotechnology was an unobtainable objective. Indeed, it was not until the second half of the 20th century that a few intrepid individuals risked raising their head above the parapet to question entrenched authority on the subject…Even with our current rudimentary chemical nanotechnology, it has been possible to fabricate a surprising range of simple nanomachines. These include abacuses, batteries, brakes, gears, plugs, rotors, ratchets, sensors, shuttles, sockets, switches and wires."

Nanotech & MEMS working together

from the MEMS-helps-with-NEMS dept.
A recent article in Technology Review, Nanotech Goes to Work, looks at near-term (mostly top-down) research. Excerpt: "The reliance on AFM tips and cantilevers illustrates a decidedly mechanical bent in much of today's nanotech research. Indeed, the strategy of using small silicon-based machines called MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) to manipulate nano devices is turning out to be an especially promising area." Includes obligatory (for TR) swipes at those interested in molecular nanotechnology ("enthusiasts", "purists").

Navy query on Brownian motion, Maxwell's Demon

from the don't-need-a-PhD-to-answer-this-one dept.
Waldemar Perez writes "A small Navy project is at stake because a 74 Years old PhD is arguing to management that research in nano machines is ridiculous and a waste of money. He has seen only recently some of Drexler's designs on the web and also read the recent article that Mr. Daniel Goldin from NASA published in Mechanical Engineering magazine on Molecular Nanotechnology. He claims that Mr. Goldin does not know what he is talking about and that he feels sorry for him because he has embarrass himself by publishing this article. Some of his questions are familiar to anyone in the field: 1. The construction of molecular machines of the kind proposed by nanotechnology does not take into account Brownian Motion and the famous Maxwell's Demon. 2. How we can assemble a robotic arm for example, manipulating atoms and how we can "clamp" such a structure to another object. Is there any particular section of Nanosystems or scientific papers out there that address the Brownian Motion and Maxwell's Demon issues. I really appreciate any help to answer some of his questions. Thanks"

Alcor offering vitrification — nanotech not needed?

from the glass-not-ice dept.
sjvan writes "Alcor is now planning on vitrifying rather than freezing all new neurosuspension patients. This represents a major improvement in the quality of preservation, and consequently the probability of recovery. Look here for more details." CP: In that piece, Fred Chamberlain writes that this new procedure may eliminate the need for molecular nanotechnology in reviving these patients.

Foresight conference stimulates "Future Lust"

from the lusting-for-nanotech dept.
An item by digitech posted on slashdot by Senior Associate Jeff "Hemos" Bates brings our attention to a piece at Reason titled "More More More: Nanotechnology and the Law of Accelerating Returns" by Ronald Bailey on the recent Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology. Excerpts: "[Kurzweil's keynote] predictions of superfast progress received a sympathetic hearing at this gathering of around 400 nanotechnologists. That's hardly surprising of course: That's exactly what they are working to achieve…the fact is that very few practical nanodevices have made it out of the labs yet. Still, given an inkling of what the future may hold, I suffer not from Future Shock, but Future Lust."

Feynman Prizes in Nanotechnology & Journalism Prize given

from the win-prizes-galore-in-nanotechnology dept.
We tried to wait until after the presidential election was over before sending out this press release. Who could guess that a week later would still be too early? Anyway, here it is: Uzi Landman of Georgia Tech won the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (Theoretical) and a team of three won the Experimental Prize: James Heath of UCLA with Phil Kuekes and Stan Williams of HP Labs. On the journalism front, the first-ever Foresight Prize in Communication went to Ron Dagani of Chemical & Engineering News. Harvard's Christopher Love won the Distinguished Student Award. Kudos to all. Read More for the full release.

Kurzweil's predictions at nanotech conference

from the blunt-talk dept.
Senior Associate John Gilmore forwarded a message from Politech about a Wired News story on Ray Kurzweil's talk at the Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology: "If he's right, exponential progress in science and engineering will allow us to merge with machines. We will become resistant to diseases, think faster, live better, and become transhuman in ways that would make even Superman green with envy…Identifying himself only as a graduate student in quantum computing, a bearded fellow questioned Kurzweil's commitment to humanity, saying 'this is the most hideous message that has been proposed in human history.' But most of the audience — if the widespread giggles during the question were any indication — seemed unalarmed."

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Podcast Spotify
0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop
    Continue Shopping

      Search Foresight Institute