sci.nanotech FAQs
(Frequently Asked Questions)

Your Browser appears to be broken. Please use one that can display Web Pages properly.

Index : FAQs : Section I, II, III, IV, V : Credits

Introduction:

What it is and who knows about it.


1) What is nanotechnology?

The prefix "nano-" is used in the SI system of scientific units to denote "one billionth" (1nm = 10^-9 m), but has come to mean anything much smaller than our current standard capabilities. Hence aerospace engineers speak of "nanosatellites" that mass a few kilograms -- even though that's merely one one-thousandth ("milli-") of current ton-scale satellites.

Norio Taniguchi of Tokyo science University first defined the term nanotechnology in 1974 (N. Taniguchi, On the Basic Concept of 'NanoTechnology', Proc. Intl. Conf. Prod. Eng. Tokyo, Part II, Japan Society of Precision Engineering, 1974).

Its meaning was soon diluted, however, so Eric Drexler introduced Molecular Nanotechnology through his book Unbounding the Future in 1991 to reinforce their essential molecular precision, and "Molecular Manufacturing" to portray their use in tiny assembly lines (not so different from those in Detroit, or on the surface of an intracellular membrane). To build macroscopic products like steak tartar, artificial hearts or automobiles, a great many manufacturing lines would have to pool their products, creating progressively larger subassemblies; this he called "convergent assembly." To go from a single replication-capable ur-nanomachine to the billions needed to staff those assembly lines, Ralph Merkle added the term "Exponential Manufacturing" in [[date?]]. In the scientific literature, you'll find reference to Nanoparticles, Nanolithography, Nanites, and Nanprobes.


2) What is the difference between Drexlerian Nano and Non-Drexlerian?

Before Drexler, there was a talk by the physicist Richard Feynman (There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom) where he envisioned the possibility of building things with atomic precision. He didn't flesh out the implications of self-replicating assemblers, as has since been done by Drexler and others. Feynman did imagine a path for getting to a working nanotechnology. He imagined building a set of machine tools (lathes, mills, drills, etc.) which could be used to build a second set of machine tools, one-tenth the size of the first set. You'd also need to build controls that would allow you to operate the second set of machine tools, either manually or with computer automation. Then you'd use the second set to build a third set, one-hundredth the size of the first set, along with any necessary controls. You continue this until you get tools that can directly push atoms around, and make and break chemical bonds.

(However,) some things scale linearly, some quadratically, and some as the cube or even the fourth power. So as you shrink a design, things that could be neglected at one scale grow to dominate, and you have to use new principles. However, in many industries, this is a well understood engineering problem, and is usually dealt with by building a small prototype plant, getting the bugs out, building one several times the size, dealing with the new problems, then scaling up again. Common examples include oil tankers, power plants both nuclear and fossil fueled, etc. {WW} and {RIE}


3) What is the relationship of pico or femto engineering to nanotechnology?

These are scales 1000 (picotechnology ~= 10^-12 m) to 1 million (femtotechnology = 10^-15 m) times smaller than atomic sizes. These would probably deal with nuclear and quark physics, respectively. Because of the disparities of the energies involved, there is no direct relationship.
Neither violate the laws of physics. We don't yet know if either are possible or if possible whether they are technically useful. Even so, rest assured beyond our nanotech future there lie additional realms of possibility! - {JoSH} and {WMK}}


4) When is nanotechnology going to happen?

It is already happening. It does depends on what one considers the defining moment for nanotechnology though. We already have simple working devices operating at the nanometer scale, from spray on active molecular coatings to electroptic circuits to mechanical motors. These appeared 4 years in advance of our best predictions (of 2005-2015). Dates for actual controllable assemblers or robotic systems range from 6 years upward. {AJ}

On our list of public predictions:

9 Jan 2002: Full assembler by 2008-2012
An actual programmable assembler capable of making eutactic diamond machines at least as complex as an internal combusion engine will arrive in 8+-2 years: between 2008 and 2012. And a tabletop factory capable of making kg-scale nanomachines will arrive only 0.5-2 years later. {CP}
9 Feb 2003: Full household items by 2008-2010

In five years... I think we're going to see a lot of common objects that just plain old work better and last longer. There's a lot of definitions of "nanotechnology" but a very generous definition is, "Objects created that depend on features that are approximately a nanometer in length."

We have to guess when fullerenes are going to be mass producible. But it will have to be a special kind of mass production. We know, of course, that fullerenes come in all sorts of special sizes: buckyballs can have 60, or 70, or however many carbon atoms. Buckytubes can have this radius, or that radius, or have so many shells, or be twisted one way or the other.... There are more types of these fullerenes than I can easily count, and each one has a slightly different property that might be useful.

So, we need to start figuring out ways to make *exactly* this type of buckyball, and *exactly* that type of buckytube, in large amounts. That's not easy. But from what I've read.... I'll guess we'll be able to do some of this in about 5 years. It usually takes a year or two to go through a product design to start selling things in department stores. So to get really common household use of things like this, I'll guess... 5 to 7 years. {JSN}

To which we have to say: "Sorry John, I guess you don't play tennis (Racket by Midwest Sports, Balls by InMat) or use suncreen (Maxlight) or cosmetics (foundation, lipstick, body oil, and lotion by Maxlight and Four-High) or sleep on a mattress cover (Sealy) of use Vinyl Flooring (surface cover by Nanophase) or water filters (Millenium H2O) or drive a GM Ford (Sideboard by Nanocor and Southern Clay). All of which are currently available at the time of prediction and conform to that 'common household nanotechnology' definition.

Update: In 2003 we can now buy self-cleaning clothing from Levi, Gap, and others.


5) What is the current state of nanotechnology?

The field of nanotechnology is so wide and currently undergoing a period of expansion that any answer to this question is sure to be outstripped quickly. The Nanotechnology Opportunity Report as of November 2001 is the best and most up to date overview and development map of the state of fairly recent activities. For an older perspectives there is the WTEC reports from early 2001. We are keeping a record of the current development state of the Universal Assembler. {AJ} and {CM}


6) What molecular nanotechnology products exist today?

None. At least, no molecular "Drexlerian" nanotechnology products.

Self-assembling molecules are now commonly in use in many materials industry processes. Spray-on self-cleaning cloth coatings, paints, and greasing fluids are now made from self-assembling molecular structures.


7) How can I evaluate nanotech claims for plausibility?
    What are sure signs that the speaker doesn't know Fact One about nanotechnology, and should be handled cautiously?

To tell when someone does not understand anything you have to know a fair bit about that subject yourself. Nanotechnology is no different. The reading materials listed on the newbies page will give you enough understanding to identify those who don't know anything, although not enough to make you an expert yourself either.

  1. "There are a million nanometers in a meter" - There are a billion, (a nm is -10^9 m).
  2. "it doing things smaller than atoms" - its doing things WITH atoms (via molecules).
  3. "nanotechnology started when Democritus proposed the concept of the atom" - atoms are not functional and therefore not a technology.
  4. "You could just scan an object, record the locations of the atoms, then rebuild it with an assembler" - at present there is no known way to identify the atomic coordinates of every atom in a solid object that does not possess perfect long range order, such as a perfect crystal. BUT this one is also quite tricky as some more advanced theories dealing with mature nanotechnology and MNT use this as one of the assumed future developments. Mostly though the experts link it with some proposed system whereby the object being scanned is pulled apart in the scan (or something like that).
  5. "assemblers can place atoms in just the right places to build any structure imaginable" - not without violating the quantum physics that governs what bonding arrangements can take place. Atoms are either inert (like marbles) or inherently sticky, and hence the promising pathway is through chemical synthesis - assemblers will only be able to build structures which obey the laws of chemistry and quantum physics. You may hear an expert use a similar phrase but they will not use the words "anything imaginable". They will say "anything physically possible" or similar wording placing limits on their sentence.

{SL} and {CM}


8) Who are the respected authorities in nanotech?

Some recognized authorities (not a comprehensive list by any means):

{IFO} and {JS}


9) Who will control nanotechnology? Can it be controlled? Should it be?

We exist in a world not ruled by one government. This alone makes controlling nanotechnology nothing more than a fantasy. There are over 200 nations in this world. Each one wants its economy to grow. Each one knows that technology is key to this. No country wants to lag behind any other. No country will accept dictates from another country to slow down their development of nanotechnology. In fact, if some nation were to try to force its policies on another country, the only result would be aggressive defiance by the put-upon country that would only further spur on their research into nanotechnology. What this breeds and is currently breeding is a race among nations to be the first nation to develop nanotechnology. This will only increase as leaders of nations realize more and more that nanotechnology is the next technological revolution. That we are about to move from the Information Age into the Nano Age.

However, you still might be wondering what would happen if some nation tries to outlaw the development of nanotechnology in their country. As far as nanotechnology is concerned, not much. Even if that Luddite nation was the USA, the development of nanotechnology wouldn't have a noticeable slowing of pace. There are just too many labs (both academic and commercial) around the world racing after this brass ring. The only outcome that would result from a nation trying to outlaw nanotechnology is that nation being behind all the rest of the nations technologically. History has long shown what happens to technologically inferior nations and there's no reason to think this would be any different.

And the same goes for any nation trying to "simply" slow down the pace of development of nanotechnology in their country. It doesn't matter what reasoning they give for wanting to hamper nanotechnology development. It can be "to enable society to smoothly adjust to its introduction", "to prevent the horrors of [insert nanotech horror scenario of one's choice ... the most popular being gray goo]", "to insure responsible development", "to protect nature", "to prevent economic upheavals", or whatever. The reasoning really doesn't matter. What does matter is that nation trying to put the breaks on nanotechnology in their country. In other words, trying to regulate it. Other countries won't and nanotechnology will flourish in those countries and they will profit from the fruits of their unregulated labor. For those that tried to slow down nanotechnology in their country, the end result is almost as bad as the Luddite nation that outlawed it. They'll trail behind the other more advanced countries. However, the more likely scenario will be that their nation's leaders will see them lagging behind, panic, dump the regulations, and hope and pray it isn't too late to catch up with the pack.

Now let's add one more aspect to this equation. The individual. During nanotechnology's early stages, it will be developed and controlled by major corporations and universities. However, once the programmable self-reproducing nanites becomes a reality, the individual will take over at this point. Corporations and governments will try to protect their nanites from piracy, but that will be just as effective as it has been for computer games. Actually, it will be even less effective since there will be far more incentive for the individual to pirate nanites. Nanites will make your life a LOT better and no matter how low corporations price them or government subsidize those price reductions, there will always be a sector of the public that will not be able to afford it or do not believe corporations and governments can claim rights to the technology since key components of that research were funded with taxpayers' dollars of which they're taxpayers.

Enter the nanite pirate. In the Nano Age, the nanite pirate will be viewed by the public like Robin Hood. Hated and hunted down by corporations and governments yet loved by the masses. Expect Hollywood to eventually jump upon this idea for future science fiction movies.

Does this mean that those corporations that invested billions of dollars into nanotechnology will lose money? Not likely. They'll profit from the early stages of nanotechnology several times over. Can corporations stop programmable self-reproducing nanites from being created to prolong their profit margins eternally? Not in the slightest. See the first paragraph in this answer and simply add "and corporations" after each time "nations" appear. Oh, also multiply the "200" at least a few fold while you're at it.

Lastly, nanites will not be like nuclear weapons which need hard-to-find, hard-to-process materials that are even harder to hide from watchful eyes. Nanites, by their very definition, will be too small to see. This in and of itself guarantees that no one will be able to control them for long. No totalitarian nation will be able to prevent them from crossing their borders and getting into the hands of their citizens. Think about it. If the USA cannot stop or even slow the flow of such bulky things like marijuana and cocaine, what could it possibly do to prevent something so small you cannot even see it with the naked eye.

The best any government can do at this stage is probably five things:

  1. Open up the floodgates for funding of nanotechnology research. The morethey spend on nanotechnology research, the better their chances at being at the head of the nanotechnology pack.
  2. Reimburse any college student (or more likely their parents) for the cost of getting a nanotechnology-related doctorate. You cannot push the nanotechnology envelope if you don't have any foot soldiers doing the pushing. ;-)
  3. Give full citizenship to any nanotechnology scientist or doctorate graduate wishing to join them. If you cannot grow them, steal them.
  4. Give incentive to corporations to develop nanotechnology.
  5. Pass laws to prevent state/provinces and local governments from trying to regulate nanotechnology in their areas of control.

Oh, there's one more. 6) Buckle up and hold on! It's going to be quite a ride! :-)

{STJ}

Your Browser appears to be broken. Please use one that can display Web Pages properly.