Talk:Nanotechnology

Archives: Archive 1

Article fixup

Well, from the page history, it seems that no edits have been made to this talk page since September 6th 2006. Also, there doesn't seem to be a steady stream of core contributors to this page. I'll take this as an invitation to be bold - others most welcome to join in. I've archived the previous talk page in the first archive above. Judging from the material in the article, there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done. --HappyCamper 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Colloidal science

I reverted this edit here, which presents the idea that colloidal science is somewhat central to nanotechnology. This is a bit too restrictive I think, although, what would be better is simply state somewhere that there is an important role for colloidal suspensions and such. --HappyCamper 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence later - hm...I think Wikipedia can use some help with developing an article related to colloidal science. --HappyCamper 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page is being vandalized, but I don't have the experience with wikipedia's interface to properly revert the changes, or locate vandalism. I'm hoping someone else with more experience using Wikipedia will be able to fix the problems. I've tried, but I think I may have made things worse. 69.58.143.118 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. That flurry of vandalism seems to have ended for now (with blocks, at least). Unfortunately the Nanotechnology page seems to get vandalised quite a lot in general for every useful contribution, so it'd be good if a few people could spare a space for it on their watchlist. — blobglob talk 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Count me in on the vandalism watch. Rob (Talk) 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah can you fix the vandalism at the start of the article?

Last sentence of the origins part needs fixin'

Article needs more science focus

The article currently strikes me as having a bit too much of a focus on societal implications, and not enough on the hard science behind nanotech. Specifically, I think the following two issues need to be addressed head-on:

1) Why is nanotechology notable: specifically, why is it different from previous lines of scientific inquiry? The current discussion seems to focus more on a materials standpoint than a molecular one, while both are important.

2) The term "nanotechnology" is exctremely broad - I think the US Gov't defintion for funding purposes is simply that it operates on a scale smaller than 100 nm - and so it is made up of a number of disparate subfields. The article really needs a list of these fields and how each fits in with the whole and where they overlap.

I might suggest using the Nanotechnology article for the hard science and making a new article for Societal implications of nanotechnology at some point in the future when the current article itself is a bit more coherent. I'll probably rearrange the current sections along those broad lines once I start making edits.

Just want to hear your thoughts before I start plodding around changing things myself. :-)

Antony-22 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the sections around into a grouping I think makes more sense. I tried to separate the hard science from the speculation, as well as for the societal implications. The individual sections don't each necessarily fit into one or the other, so it would be helpful if anyone could go through and move around/alter text on a finer level then I just have. I also added a skeletal "Current Research" section to link to the various subfields. I did this off the top of my head and with a cursory search of what Wikipedia article were out there, so again additions would be great. I think this section should eventually be expended to a short paragraph for each subfield. Alright, that's all for today. Antony-22 02:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Article introduction needs to be "dumbed down"

I got redirected here looking for an idea of what nanomaterial was. The term "nanotechnology" is a popular term, and I found the introduction confusing with overly technical jargon.

My first question from the very first sentence was "what's nanoscale?" A search for a nanoscale wikipedia entry led right back here. I just think that a lot of what might be under "Use of the term" would be better served in the intro. How about providing a good concept or analogy about the scale that nanotechnology deals with? "100 nm" is hard to conceive.

The second sentence of the intro just got me feeling really lost. Colloidal? Do I really need to look up another term at this point?

I just think that nanotech is such a "popular" term that at least the intro needs to be easier to understand. Thanks -- Vudicarus 08:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I revised the intro along these lines, and moved some of the more technical stuff down into "effects of nanoscale". Tell me if you think it works better.

I do think there needs to be a separate nanomaterials article, but it's not my area of expertese, so the most I could do is move some of the current text to a new article and add short sections on various materials used in nanotech (fullerines, metallic nanoparticles, DNA). It'd be a start, but it would need attention from someone actually working in that area. Antony-22 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, much better thanks! I did find using the word "dangerous" strange, though. Is it necessary? If so, why? I didn't find an explanation in the intro. Thanks! -- Vudicarus 10:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That word was added later by another user... I have slighly reworded it to bring it more in line with WP:NPOV. (The user changed the first sentence to "Nanotechnology is dangerous term [sic] describing...." I moved the mention of possible dangers to the end of the first paragraph. Remember, WP:AGF.) Antony-22 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Drill Analogy

Is this really necessary? It is also a different style from the rest of the article, more textbook than encyclopedia,if you ask me - imperial units as well! I'd like to know more about the techniques than the slight difficulties.--Wikierpedia 23:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be condensed to a few paragraphs and moved into "effects of nanoscale". I do like the drill analogy but a lot of it is redundant and very wordy at this point. Antony-22 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I reduced the drill analogy (pun intended) from six paragraphs down to three. I've integrated text from three different sections into the "materials perspective" section by now, so the flow probably still needs to be improved.

Also, I deleted this sentence, but I can't bear to lose it completely. "One very basic problem facing nanotechnology, a problem which is widely ignored, is the issue of scale." Isn't scale the whole point of nanotechnology? Antony-22 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nanoproducts

I added a link to a nanotechnology product directory in others. I belive this gives a bit more hard effidence what nanotechnology is. I would like to see a bit more about the potential benefits. User:Harry2big4u

Potential benefits and risks for developing countries

In the above section, could we have links to each of the mentioned countries work in the field.

Many developing countries, for example Costa Rica, Chile, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia, are investing considerable resources in research and development of nanotechnologies. Emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India, Pakistan and South Africa are spending millions of US dollars annually on R&D, and are rapidly increasing their scientific output as demonstrated by their increasing numbers of publications in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

While this is informative, there is nothing backing it up, and so adding Uganda and Rwanda as countries with Nanotech developements has the same wieght as the orginal countries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.217.39 (talk • contribs) at 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment and Suggestion

I came to this page a while back as I am very interested in nanotech, and am going to take a degree in it, and now I visit it again, I have to say it has been improved significantly, so congratulations. One bugbear though - I noticed Tools and Techniques is under the general heading of Current Research... I think this is a little confusing, as clearly, a lot of the tools and microscopes named are already in normal usage. Personally, I think that the tools and techniques that are in research should go under Current Research with the title of Tools and Techniques, whilst the other, normal, tools should be under their own general heading, e.g. Nanotechnological Microscopy/Tools/Techniques - pick the one you like. I would have changed it, but I just thought I'd get a general consensus of whether that should be done.

Chimpman 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been moving stuff around a lot. I've not been quite sure myself where to put "Tools and Techniques"; it's variously been under Fundamental Concepts or its own section; I put it in Current Research recently. You do make a good distinction between tools used to do the current research and new tools being developed by the research, though the border between the two is sometimes fuzzy. Anyway, feel free to move the section or split it as you've described. Antony-22 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Biological applications

Is there any research into nanotechnology's possible biological applications? For instance, could nanorobots be used to regenerate lost tissue or organs, since they could multiply and replicate so rapidly? Scorpionman 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nanorobots are still very speculative and a long ways off, if it's even physically possible to build them at all (there is debate about this - see Molecular_assembler#Drexler_and_Smalley_debate and [2]). Much of the public conciousness of nanotechnology is about these kinds of speculative, futuristic applications, but the actual research going on is much more mundane, at the level of moving molecules and inorganic clusters around and studying their properties. Antony-22 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That is mundane. I'm pretty sure they'll develop something in the near future, though. Ratso 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Concentrate on reality. No need to talk to much about stuff nobody understand. The is already to many complex wording. What is dip pen nanolithography ?? User:Harry2big4u

• An AFM tip is used to transfer molecules to a surface via a solvent meniscus (Science, 1999, 283, 661-663). It is definitely reality in science labs, but needs to be explained clearly (probably in a separate article with pictures). Average Earthman 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading the "definition" twice, I'm still clueless as to what this whole nanotechnology thing is about.--80.227.100.62 07:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Ok , so it is actually around for a while ?

Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg quite a good video to explain manufacturing at the nanolevel. Of course it's pure since fiction but very well made. Seems worth a link. Let me know your thoughts.

Maybe we should start a page for such research and one for existing products. In general, the site is a bid worn out meaning not to much new stuff here. While you can keep the main page with a base explaination we than update the research or the material/product info. More than happy to help with content on the material/product area. Science is not my expertise but I believe some of you guys are just right for that. User:Harry2big4u

That's a pretty nifty video and a good explanation of what the molecular nanotechnology people want to do... a link would be better placed on that page IMO.

There is a List of nanotechnology applications article but it's unsourced and doesn't clearly distiguish between whats on the market/in development/theoretical, so that could use some work if you're familiar with what's out there. There also needs to be a Nanomaterials article (right now it's just a redirect) but as I'm a chemist I only have limited insight on that. Antony-22 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no mention of Richard P. Feynman User:todd74

Feynman was originally mentioned in this article, but now its gone. It should be added back in, "There's plenty of room at the bottom" is pretty much how nanotech got started. Also, HALF THE ARTICLE is on the risks and negative aspects of nanotech. That section is way too large. It should be moved

The Feynman bit got moved to the History of nanotechnology article. IMO it would be better placed in an "origins" section here, since nanotechnology isn't mature enough for there to be a clear history of it. Also, I agree that it's time to fork the risks/implications into its own subarticle... If I get some time I'll work on these. Antony-22 01:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Mite

Another user added commentary to the mite picture, which wasn't really suitable for the article, but they have a point - the picture isn't really that suitable either. It's MEMS rather than NEMS, and I suspect it was a promo image rather than anything actually practical. Is it worth keeping this picture, or is it just giving an inaccurate impression? Average Earthman 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice picture, but it's waay off the nano scale. And it suggests that gears and such are practical-- not IMHO a good direction to steer impressionable folks.

Ditto for the molecular gears at the top of the article -- it would be nice though if we could find some other pictures to replace them. Any ideas? Antony-22 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed we should remove the mite picture then? Average Earthman 02:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. A quick survey suggests that pictures from these pages could be used as replacements: [3] and [4] from Quantum dot, [5] from Scanning tunneling microscope, and [6] and [7] from Fullerene. Antony-22 08:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the mite image and the molecular gear image at the top of the article. I also added an image to the "materials perspective" section. Antony-22 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

External links cleanup

The external links section had become bloated from people adding every individual organization involved in nanotech, so I forked these out to List of nanotechnology organizations. I also added the NoMoreLinks template to keep it from getting bloated again. Someone still needs to go through the remaining links and decide which ones are appropriate to keep. Antony-22 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nanotech navbox

I think there is a need for a nanotechnology navbox. I have put one together at right, feel free to comment or edit it before we actually put in on articles. Antony-22 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also made a nanomaterials navbox. Antony-22 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have made Template:Nanotech, Template:Nanomat, and Template:MolecNano and will begin placing them. Antony-22 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed external link - Nanotechnology overview on PBS

• Nanotechnology Takes Off - KQED-TV, Video & Resources

For your review - I think this 11-minute video is of general interest, provided by PBS.

Craigrosa 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)