From: mckendre@sal-sun132.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:18:59 GMT


In article <Aug.19.20.14.31.1992.28110@planchet.rutgers.edu> portal!cup.portal.
com!kr@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Markus Krummenacker) writes that in article
<11654.3.728.1 Snowballing nanotech>(8/18/92) tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H.
Kunich) asks what the purpose of nanotechnology would be, and Markus
Krummenacker provides a passionate list of benefits from nanotechnology, 
along with a plea that people read ENGINES OF CREATION (Drexler, 1986),
and perhaps UNBOUNDING THE FUTURE (Drexler, Peterson & Pergamit, 1991).

I would suggest, however, that Thomas Kunich is illustrating a real issue.
How can a company properly consider nanotechnology within the context from
which such companies are forced to think (largely a focus on the immediate
future, where long term can mean three-to-five years)?  It may be correct to 
assert that the companies are wrong, and they need to look over (say) a 20 year
time horizon, because that will let them include the realistic prospect
of nanotechnology, but it is not enough to just tell companies they are wrong.

One misguided approach for virtually any company right now is to look
at the concept of mature nanotechnology, and ask "Where can we find an
application for that right now?"  Except for special cases (e.g. books
about the future) there is no current commercial use, because there is
no current feasible technology.

In part the answer for companies is to think of steps between here and there.
I expect a booming market in consultants able to discuss nanotechnology
with upper management well before anyone gets 1000 MIPS out of a .4
micron cubed volume.  (Anyone who believes that I could be of any use
as such a consultant, please contact me.  Email address is below....)
As another example, Autodesk clearly had a clue when deciding to get
to the market with something like HyperChem.

Another part of the answer is to do some math.  Say nanotechnology will
increase wealth by three orders of magnitude, and will arrive in 20 years.
If so, even if all that wealth creation occurs in the last year, the
effect at the end is equivalent to a 40% annualized rate of return.
Now, will nanotechnology increase wealth by more than three orders of
magnitude?  Will it take less than 20 years?  Make estimates and then
calculate equivalent annualized rates of return.  (For comparison,
I spoke with an investment banker in 1990.  He was discussing the
difficulty of financing long-term projects like space development.
His bank, at the time, was making 40% per year financing the growth of
a pizza chain in Great Britain.)
Payouts from nanotechnology could all be a long way off, but clearly it is
something that any company would want to be involved with were it to occur.
Are companies losing the opportinity to be part of this because they are not
paying some nominal costs (e.g. attendind seminars, discussing the subject in
upper management)?  At this point, companies really just need to
digest what nanotechnology is, when it might occur, and begin thinking
how it will affect their industry, and what they want to do about it.


Tom McKendree                            mckendre@chaph.usc.edu

W: (714) 896-5901

Physical mail: 12171 Amethyst Cir.
               Garden Grove, CA  92645