Talk:Nanotechnology/Archive 1

message: There should be some special wikipedia marker for a "buzzword" or a word primarily used to palaver.  Nanotechnology is definitely such a word.  The definition given in this article is a good example.  It is so broad that it can be used to credit Eric Drexler or Richard Feynman or whoever with the invention of agriculture for who would deny that using evolutionary methods to select nanoscale structures is out of bounds to the nanotechnologist?  People were doing such selection when they started selecting the first cultagens for their grain value thousands of years ago. Nor is this an unreasonable generalization of the definition.  Artificial life simulations are already used to find reasonably optimal solutions used in many mass market devices and there is little distinction between such methods and the methods used to cultivate highly productive grains.  Jim Bowery 20:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am considering reducing this article down to a list of things (linked to the appropriate article) that have been tagged with that buzzword. Most of the text of this article would be moved to the specific field to which it applies. What do you think? --DavidCary 14:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buzzword

message: Someone wrote, "[Drexler] ... failed to address issues related to the massive numbers and [of?] atoms needed to create even primitive molecular machines. Currently (and in the foreseable future) no computational methods exist to determine the reaction coordinates and other information needed for the mechanochemistry proposed [1]. " I disagree with both statements. First, many issues related to the number of atoms involved in building nanomachinery are discussed in Nanosystems, including appropriate approximations when many atoms are involved. The author of this statement should clarify which issues are not addressed, and also how many atoms are a "massive" number.  Second, computational studies of mechanosynthesis have been carried out; more are underway. Methods of determining reaction coordinates and potential energy surfaces are well-known. The computational results obtained so far for mechanosynthesis have not (to the best of my knowledge) been tested directly against experiment, and it may well be that new, specialized models must be developed; but the implication that mechanochemistry is somehow noncomputable for the forseeable future is false. 
I would like the author of these statements to rewrite them to clarify what issues related to atom number and computation are of concern. Alternatively, if there is no action and no objection in the next few days, I will rewrite them.
Physicist 04:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  molecular machines ... cannot be computed ? 

message: "In the field of microelectronics, the drive towards miniaturization continues and transistor gate lengths of 65 nm are routinely fabricated in prototype circuits."
:This is outdated. I didn't correct it as I'm unsure of the correct data at the time but I'm pretty sure we're past the 45nm in prototype transistor size. 65nm is already a comercial size in Samsung memories. Also important is to refer that there are several ways to measure the transistor, including gate lenght and channel lenght, which provide different values. I believe the comercial designation used by the semiconductor companies is based on the width of the hole transistor and not only the channel (which would be a much lower value). --nunocordeiro 20:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is scientifically true, but since the name nanotechnology was coined as the use of technology at the smalest scales possibles (hence, nanotubes and the sort) it is the name given at technologies at those dimensions irrelevantly of the actual size. You shouldn't take the name to literally. 10^(-10) is called an Angstrom (not really sure about the spelling) and those are the dimensions an atom possess (2 to 5 I believe) - the point being that Angstrotechnology as a buzz/hype word sucks... Although it shouldn't, that kind of thing becomes important when titling white papers... --nunocordeiro 20:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Errors, Bias 

message: As I am aware of, this might be a little confusing, but hear me out.
When I was reading this article, I read about how we can construct objects bit by bit, atom by atom, on the microscopic scale. In parallel to that, I thought about the process that we write articles for Wikipedia. Then I said, "What if we made articles like they make objects with nanotechnology, bit by bit?" What I meant was, why can't we make an article sentence by sentence, each one written by a different author? I thought that sounded suitably ironic, especially if we did so with one on Nanotechnology. I may not know if this sort of unorthodox method would be practical, but i know one thing for certain: it wouldn't be biased.
Just wanted to say this, but thanks for reading it.
-J
: That is essentially how many wikipedia articles are written. Some of the big, important ones are the collective work of dozens of people over the course of several years. But we don't work at the clunky sentence-by-sentence level - very often editors tweak a single word, evem just a character. Take a look at the "page history" link beside each article, and hit the appropriate "last" link to see each contributor's individual delta. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 02:03, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanotechnology and Wikipedia 

message: "Since the progress of computers is growing expotentially it is believed that it will develop into nanotechnology in the near future."
What?  Nanotech is already involved in quantum computing, spintronics, etc.  Computers are used for all aspects of nanotechnology research, too.  I didn't want to just delete this but...
: Obscure Moores Law (original version) reference, maybe? Kim Bruning 22:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence doesn't make sense 

message: Just a quick thought. I'm almost certain that some researchers in the field have sucessfully created molecular nanites on a scale of less than a micron. Is this not so? I remember seeing something on the science channel that these two guys had built primitive nanobots roughly the size of viroids, that were a T shape, with the vertical bar being the means of propulsion. Wouldn't that be actual Micro Nanotechnology and not something "thought to be possible in the future? Just curious.
: I haven't heard anything about this. Sounds interesting. Could you give us any information at all about this ? The names of these people ? What company or university they are at ? What city they are in ? A link to the science channel ? --DavidCary 22:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular Nanotech 

message: Why do we need nanotechnology?????Wat makes it so important???Is it impossible to live without it????
:[Why care?] might intrest you --Zarutian 01:59, 3 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY??? 

message: Why no link to tech singularity article? After all, its shock level 3 tech, its real powerful potentially
and some argue it may be requied to create the hardware for AI.
:I'm of mixed opinion about this. On one hand, these two terms tend to be used by the same people, but on the other hand, nanotechnology ultimately is a label, even if rather vague, for describing certain types of technology while a technological singularity is a belief system. Ultimately, I don't see a good reason to link the two articles from the nano-technology side.
:Also, ["shock level"] is a poor way to describe social adjustment to new technology because it is subjective what one is "shocked" by. For example, I have a suspicion that certain types of brain damage would reduce one's ability to be shocked. If I have a bad day at work, maybe I'm more likely to be shocked. -- KarlHallowell 17:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to tech singularity article 

message: I notice this section is now quite long in itself - is it worth seperating it into its own article? Average Earthman 12:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might be a good idea. Fuelbottle | Talk 15:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanotechnology in fiction 

message: There are a few things that seem quite wrong here.
First is the comment about how proteins are self assembling. They do not assemble themselves; they are manufactured by a transcription process involving DNA, RNA, and specialized proteins. Is this some origin of life fantasy leaking into a factual definition?
Second are the statements revolving around self-replication. It seems to come off as saying that self replication is the state of technology (which it is not), rather than presenting it as an important goal (which it is).
I won't get into the evolution part, seeing as any discussion of its validity on Wikipedia seems to degenerate into pointless galleries and descriptions of Darwin/anti-Darwin fish. I will say that, in the future, it will be some fun to watch any nano-engineers that try to apply it in a useful fashion.
: Proteins are self assembling to the extent that the folding of the amino acid chain into the protein's particular functional geometry is done by the molecule itself after it has been created. DV8 2XL 17:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  -errors 

message: Can someone make a possible applications section?  To a reader who knows nothing about nanotech, it would help give them an impression on why development of nanomachines is important, and how useful they can be. The "New materials, devices, technologies" section just talks about a few trinket nanos various companies have built, it doesn't really tell the reader what nanomachines can do for mankind.  Lengis 08:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many potential applications are described in the science fiction.  Perhaps the main article on nano-whatever (because it includes nanoengineering, nanobiology, etc.) main article should focus on several points:
* What applications covered in this fiction?
* How did this contribute to our understanding, when the novel first came out?
* How is this fiction notable in the genre'?
User:AlMac|(talk) 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible applications? 

message: Hi, The article doesn't enlighten me on the practicalities of making large volumes of nanotechnology materials EG How do they make a ton of the nano-tech sunscreen? or if, utilising different properties of materials at a nano level, I made glass with the strangth of steel how would I make 1x1x20 foot girders of it? AllanHainey 15:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making large volumes of nanotechnology materials

message: I had a look for some cites on this statement - I actually found a paper saying that TiO2 is indeed markedly effective at killing off a certain type of colon cell - Ls-174-t human colon carcinoma cells (World J Gastroenterol  2004 November 1;10(21):3191-3193). Can anyone find a paper detailing TiO2 killing of colon cells you wouldn't want killed off? In the mean time, I've added a reference to a recent summary paper on TiO2 toxicology. Average Earthman 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colon cells and TiO2 

message: * Keep it simple. If we go into long tangents on everything, the reader will soon get bored. The weapons section was based on societal risks from a theoretical use of nanotechnology, so it's not really essential. Toxicity is a genuine and current concern, so I largely left that section untouched. If we want to go into great detail, I'd suggest a separate article (e.g. Risks of nanotechnology) rather than a huge section here. Average Earthman 09:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for shortening the potential risks section 

message: I've removed the whole thing. This article should be describing nanotechnology as a whole, not go into certain, specific topics of research (and apparently randomly selected), as there are far too many of them. Average Earthman 06:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Developments section 

message: I removed this. It was copy-pasted verbatim from, among other places, here. Even if it weren't copyright infringement, I would question whether it really belongs in this article. Eecon 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nano Bomb Section 

message: I added significant content to the "Benefits" and "Risks" sections. The Benefits section might appear a bit long now but it includes all the relevant areas for today's research and applications.  I deliberately did not include suggested benefits for advanced nanotechnology as this area is hotly debated and might be too much sci-fi right now. Also tweaked the title to include applications.
In the Risks section I left the two previous paragraphs on molecular manufacturing and societal risks intact; but they could benefit from some editing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.145.244 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2006 June 10
:Thanks for the good work!  Please remember to sing your posts on talk pages with ~~~~.  It makes it easier for other edits to communicate with you about improving these articles.  Thanks again! Johntex\talk 07:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Benefits and Risks 

message: I personally like articles much more with lots of pictures.  I would suspect a lot of us do.  I think it would be a good addition to this article to have some good pictures, such as perhaps the one on the right?  It just seems boring without them. Nicholasink 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I would agree with you. However, the pictures should be relevant to the text where they are added. Randomly adding a picture about molecular gears at the top of the Nanotechnology article doesn't add anything - but it might confuse a novice reader who now begins to think that nanotechnology is just about nanomachines and molecular assembly. I would prefer to remove that image. I think it is a better idea to have a separate section "Images". Besides, by using Google Image Search you could probably find more images and pictures than can ever be added to a wiki article.Nwerk 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Images? 

message: Impalefection, which links to this page, is in need of an expert. please improve Impalefection if you can. Thanks, Republitarian 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impalefection

message: The article Transfersome concerns an example of medical nanotechnology. It is currently up for deletion, and a rewrite for readability by any editors interested in medical research or nanotechnology would help. Plus comments at the deletion debate would be good as well. Carcharoth 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any nanomedicine experts out there? 

message: Could they?  It would cure a zillion different diseases from HIV to the common cold.  Malamockq 15:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could nanomachines kill RNA viruses 

message: "Nanotechnology is a field of applied science focused on the design, synthesis, characterization and application of materials and devices on the nanoscale. Developments in nanotechnology have led to improved suntan lotion and water repellant pants."
Suntan Lotion and waterproof trousers? Is this really the best we can come up with as an overview of nanotechnology? Thats like saying the development of plastic allowed us to make lighter weight clothes pegs. Damburger 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Opening Sentences 

message: With the caveat that i know little about Wiki and less about nanotech: The section opens, "Nanotechnology reaches back to the late 19th century, when colloidal science first took root."  Critical early moments are citd as happening in 1959, 1974, "the 1980s".  
The authors mean either that the events happened in 1859, 1874, the 1880s, or that nanotechnology reaches back to the late 20th century. Or the article fails to mention some crucial earlier event (but that seems unlikely to me).  This 1900s/nineteenth century confusion is repeated throughout the history section, and perhaps the entire article. 151.201.158.240 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History of Use" Error 

message: Substituted at 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment