From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:51:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Aug.21.18.37.23.1992.20506@planchet.rutgers.edu> ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian) writes:
>
>I think you've missed the point about what kunich meant !  Obviously we can
>see thousands of uses for a *fully functional* nanotechnology.  That's
>relatively easyto imagine.  What kunich was talking about was the start-up
>period.  I think the point he was making was that the initial steps in nanotech
>would inevitably be expensive and that they would not be well funded unless
>they had an *immediate* use for it, ie. there was an parctical, economic,
>profitable use for the first, crude nanoproducts.
>
>Perhaps it's a subject we should be considering here:
>
>	"To what uses can crude nanodevices be put ?"
>
>n.b A crude nanodevice might be a microdevice of some kind.

Ahh, someone actually understands! Most of the 'science' that was developed
in the past generated additional information simply as a side issue.
This information maybe sat around for a long time before someone made
use of it. What this _looked_ like was that all of this science had
been accomplished as a hobby or altruistically. This simply wasn't the 
case.

If you want nanotechnology you _must_ have a need for it. We have
technology _now_ to develop and mine the sea beds. We don't have
any economic pressures to do so. Therefore the technology lays
dormant.

Nanotechnology is a far more serious matter. The technology isn't here
now. It requires great amounts of capital to develop, _if_ it
can be developed at all. Personally I have a hard time believing
that you can build _anything_ substantial an atom at a time.
It doesn't take much figuring to see the scale is all to small
even for nanotechnology -- you can't make atom size magnets. I'm
not sure that you can make atom sized conductuctors and you
certainly can't make atom sized smiconductors. Even molecule
sized stuff probably won't work because of quantum effects.

So the nanotech '486 won't work. Some other sort of control mechanism
will be necessary to develop. Who's going to pay for this completely
new science? And why?
>
>[It depends a lot on how far ahead you're willing to look for your payback.
> In fact a whole lot of science would not be done if a direct payback
> were required;  on the other hand, humans *are* capable of sinking 
> enormous current effort into activities that will not come to fruition
> for a decade or two (having children for example).
> --JoSH]

If we can't look far enough ahead to see the payback on space stations
how do you expect something that would need another order of
magnitude development time?

[As I understand it, most of the applications of space with immediate
 economic value can be satisfied much more cheaply with unmanned launch
 vehicles; the payback on space stations will be largely experience
 gained toward the ability to start colonizing space.  Nanotechnology
 has more immediate and apparent benefits, and will get here sooner.
 Most of what stands between us and nanotechnology is lack of knowledge,
 and that knowledge will be useful in a huge number of different fields.
 This is why we've advanced so far so fast towards nanotechnology 
 without any directly targetted research (until very recently, and 
 still very small).  STMs, molecular CAD, surface physics, molecular
 biology, and the list goes on, are all aimed at other things than 
 rod logic computers and sub-micron robot arms.  In fact, there are
 a lot worse ways to do nanotech research than simply collating the
 steady flow of new knowledge coming out of these fields.
 --JoSH]