On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In this week's New Scientist an interesting new piece of nanotechnology
>was illustrated. It is a miniature helicopter called the Quattrocopter
>(it has four rotor blades) which can be carried in a brief case. It is
>about two feet wide when assembled and can fly around for 25 minutes
>driven by an electric motor
Ummm, I think you are seriously misunderstanding the term
"nanotechnology". At that size, it doesn't even qualify for "micro" -
"milli" would be the right range, what in the sixties would have
been called "mini".
and can take, and transmit, a video film of
>anything it flies over. It was made by a company in Munich. No doubt such
>spy helicopters will become smaller until they're hand-sized -- or even
>the size of a house-fly.
Now that would be "microtechnology", and in fact this fall a pair
of engineers at UBC had an article in the university newsletter
where they announced they were embarking on a project to build
just such a device. The article was accompanied by an artist's
conception which looked like a mechanical dragonfly. The engineers
are working on the understanding of insect flight and the use of
shape-changing polymers (featured in Sci Am a couple of months ago,
they are much more compact and efficient for small devices than
electric motors). Still a far cry from nanotech, though. A nanotech
flyer would be undetectably inhaled when you breathed in.
> It was demonstrated recently to journalists in a
>Paris hotel who were startled to see the tops of their heads on a giant
>plama screen.
>
>As the following article from the Financial Times says, nanotech is being
>increasingly spoken of as the next new technology which might cause the
>next boom on the stock market.
>
>None of those engaged in nano-technology want that to happen. But it's
>most unlikely anyway because a category mistake is being made in talking
>about it. There is no distinct nano-technology with distinct uses or
>end-products. "Nano-ology" has been the norm in many different industries
>already. Ponderous machine tools weighing scores of tons have become
>pieces of equipment the size of the domestic washing machine and hardly
>any heavier. The mobile phone has shrunk from being equipment carried in
>a van, then becoming a portable item the size and weight of a couple of
>bricks and, in recent months, something hardly bigger than a wristwatch.
>The same applies to computers and so on for a great many other products.
Again, none of this is "nanotechnology". Nanotech is stuff that you
need a microscope to see. If it's big enough to hold in your hand,
it's not nanotech. If the word "nanometre" figures prominently in
the description of components, it's nanotech. Otherwise, not.
>Nanotechnology is already proceeding apace in biotechnology and genetics
>simply because the items they deal with -- molecules -- are already on a
>nano-scale by definition. Indeed, those nano-technologists who, a few
>years ago, were trying to make exceedingly small gear wheels and
>propellors and the like are just realising that all these things already
>exist in the biological cell and thus have organic analogues. The
>ribosome, for example, which makes proteins, is a very small machine --
>millions of them could fit on top of the point of a needle -- taking in
>molecules in two different slots and then spewing out a specific protein
>molecule out of another slot just like a vending machine delivering a
>choc bar.
Yes, now you're in the right ballpark...
-Pete
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
