Read Jack Uldrich at Motley Fool

The Biggest Economic Opportunity of This Century

Read Bo Varga at Nanotechnology Now

Nano Solar News: Global Warming & 2015 Cost Trends

Richard LoNigro Interview, October 2005

First, definitions:

How would define nanotechnology to an average person?
RR: I would start by telling them that there are several definitions. Today, there are at least three popular definitions, defined by different groups, each with their own agenda.

"Nanotechnology" has evolved over the years via terminology drift (and purposeful misapplication) to mean "anything smaller than microtechnology," such as nano powders, and other things that are nanoscale in size, but not referring to mechanisms that have been purposefully built from nanoscale components.

This "evolved" version of the term is more properly labeled "nanoscale bulk technology," while the original meaning is now labeled "molecular nanotechnology" (MNT) or "molecular manufacturing (MM)."

As originally envisioned by nanotechnology visionary Dr. K. Eric Drexler, "nanotechnology" meant "The ability to construct shapes, devices, and machines with atomic precision, and to combine them into a wide range of products inexpensively." Despite no viable criticism to the underlying hypothesis, this technology remains "on the drawing board" and is not being purposefully pursued by any known entity, but is being promoted by several. It is yet to be proven, primarily because there has been no substantial investment in developing a proof of concept (usually referred to as an assembler (1)).

Today, the materials industry has adopted the term to mean "materials created at the nanoscale (0 - 100 nanometers) that because of their size have characteristics that differ from their macroscale cousins." Again, this is more properly labeled "nanoscale bulk technology," or "nanomaterials technology."

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) created this definition for nanotechnology, which makes sense for today's use of the term:

1. Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 - 100 nanometer range.
2. Creating and using structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size.
3. Ability to control or manipulate on the atomic scale.

And the third "definition" comes from the nano-charlatans of the world who have hijacked the term and are using it to promote their products; products that are neither nanoscale mechanisms nor nanoscale materials (that meet the materials industry's definition). Read the news most any day and you will find one or more nano-poser promoting their wares, none of which are "nanotechnology" in any meaningful sense of the term. Their definition: "anything we can slap the label nanotechnology on and get away with."

What kind of impact will molecular nanotechnology have on medicine?
If/when we get to the stage of being able to build nanorobots, as laid out by Robert A. Freitas Jr., then the impact will be mind-boggling. Consider just a few of his nanorobots:

• Clottocytes -- Artificial Mechanical Platelets (artificial platelets)
• Respirocyte -- in medical nanorobotics, a theorized bloodborne spherical 1-micron (nanorobotic) device having a 1000-atm pressure vessel with active pumping powered by endogenous serum glucose, that serves as a mechanical artificial red blood cell.
• Vasculoid -- a single, complex, multisegmented nanotechnological medical robotic system capable of duplicating all essential thermal and biochemical transport functions of the blood, including circulation of respiratory gases, glucose, hormones, cytokines, waste products, and cellular components.

Of more near-term impact will be the work by university scientists such as the work with nanoshells being done at Rice by Dr. Naomi Halas and Dr. Jennifer West. The process: during your regular checkup, your doctor injects you with nanoshells, then shines a "near-infrared" light over your body, briefly. Then a program on their laptop indicates location, shape and size of any new early-stage tumors. Once located, each tumor can then be hit with the same light, at higher energies, killing the tumor, and not damaging the surrounding tissues.

To quote Dr. Halas "Imagine if cancer could become trivial." I believe that within the next decade, it will.

Click here for details.

When do you believe the "nanotech revolution" will begin? -what advancements are necessary for this revolution to begin?
If you mean the molecular manufacturing revolution, then I'd be surprised if we had not developed a nanofactory by 2020, and not surprised if we did so by 2012. What advances are necessary? Mostly proof-of-concept stuff, which will depend on how much money government and businesses are willing to pump into research. As the years go by, this figure will grow ever smaller, such that while now it would take the concerted (monetary) efforts of a large government, in just a few years a large corporation (think IBM or GE) could fund it with just their R&D budgets.

What are the potential benefits of building a "space elevator"?
I'm going to point you to a special report I did on the Space Elevator. Feel free to pull from it (with proper attribution of course). Click here.

What companies are involved in molecular nanotech research?
Very few, if we're talking about companies that are actively involved with actual R&D. Among them are Zyvex, and the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing. Zyvex is still at the "tool making stage" and IMM is "conduct(ing) and support(ing) research on molecular systems engineering and molecular manufacturing." Nobody, as far as the public knows, is working on assemblers, much less a nanofactory, except conceptually.

What kind of nanotechnologies are being developed today? -who is developing them?
Primarily, only nanoscale materials, by mostly your run-of-the-mill materials companies and university labs.

With the creation of nanofactories, the world economy will surely be altered. Do you think nanofactories will bring down the value and power of money, or reinforce it?
Consider this: it is estimated that the cost of products will run around $1 per pound (1) with a true nanofactory (2). I'll use a quote from my friends at CRN "imagine the economic, environmental and humanitarian benefits, when nearly any product can be manufactured on the spot for about $1 per pound. No more shipping costs or time spent waiting. No more wasted resources or hazardous byproducts. No more starvation, homelessness, or poverty."

So, the answer to your question is this: money may become meaningless, and trade/barter all-important. Crafts and personal touch may come back as the main ways one makes a living - things that machines cannot do, or replicate - crafting unique items, or skills such as massage.

What is the significance of Carbon Nanotubes? What makes this advancement so important?
Some CNT's (4) weigh as little as 1/6th that of steel, and are projected to be as much as 100 times as strong; they are known to act as conductors or semiconductors; have an estimated tensile strength of 200 Giga Pascal; exhibit electrical conductivity as high as copper, and thermal conductivity as high as diamond. CNT's are a materials scientist's dream material! Now we just have to make them in quantity, separate them by type, economically, and make them functional (which we're rapidly doing).

What existing products can be made better through nanotechnology?
If we're talking just the materials end of things, anything that needs to be: stronger, lighter, more heat-resistant, more electrical conductive …. Consider the $40,000 per pound we now spend to propel stuff out of our Earthly gravity well. It is entirely conceivable that one simple change - that of using nanoscale materials, like CNT's, in the construction of our launch vehicles - could lower the cost-to-orbit to as little as thousands of dollars per pound (and that does not consider the Space Elevator, where the figure drops to hundreds of dollars per pound).

Are there any negative aspects of self duplicating technology like nano-factories?
Every enabling and disruptive technology has the potential for both good and bad uses, and some would say the likelihood for both. History is replete with examples (think nuclear). I will point you to two great articles, one on the "good" and the other on the "bad." See Benefits and Dangers

(1) Assembler - A nano-robotic device controlled by an onboard computer that can use available chemicals to manufacture nanoscale products. It has been proposed that advanced designs could communicate, cooperate, and maneuver to build macroscale products. (CRN)
(2) link
(3) link
(4) link

© Copyright 2007 - 2009 Last Update 24 August 2009 website design by bir consulting

Articles by
Access Team Members