Talk:Nanotechnology/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)


This page was recently vandalized again. I undid the rude vandalism, I believe, but someone else should probably check the formatting -- I'm not an expert on here, and I could have undone some formatting corrections as well. :) Kaerondaes (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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. 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)


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 (talkcontribs) at 22:06, 30 November 2006

Here's another good external link that may be useful, especially with the recent attention of Google having majority ownership. Nanosolar
User:Caddcreativity —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 9 November 2007 (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 [1]). 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) ITS interesting the concept of nanotechnology is well defined .Now I am also interested in studying about nanotechnology more and more by visiting this site . Nanotechnology will develope and it must develope. user:NANDHINI-17 12:10,15 FEBRUARY 2008(SNS)


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.-- 07:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok , so it is actually around for a while ?

Have a look at 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: [2] and [3] from Quantum dot, [4] from Scanning tunneling microscope, and [5] and [6] 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)

It is a summary of a report of a Scientific Committee of the European Commission with a focus on health risks: "modified Opinion (after public consultation) on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies" produced in 2006 by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). StephanieM 12:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nanotech navbox

Part of the article series on

Popular culture
List of topics

Subfields and related fields
Molecular self-assembly
Molecular electronics
Scanning probe microscopy
Molecular nanotechnology

Part of the article series on

Carbon nanotubes
Fullerene chemistry
Popular culture
Carbon allotropes

Other materials
Quantum dots
Colloidal gold
Colloidal silver

See also

Part of the article series on
Molecular Nanotechnology

Molecular assembler
Grey goo
K. Eric Drexler
Engines of Creation
See also: Nanotechnology

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

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

Craigrosa 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another proposd external link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studies the potential health effects of nanotechnology and nanoparticles. I would like to add a link to the NIOSH Safety and Health Topic: Nanotechnology page, or link directly to important publications: Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplaceand/or Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology. Anyone opposed to this/these? Perhaps we could divide the external links section into different categories or lists (schools, programs, articles on different topics).

Societal implications

I had bulleted the section, which seemed more appropriate for the listing (particularly for the nano optimists but not necessarily for the nano pessimists). If constructing more readable paragraphs rather than bullets is preferable, I would be happy to write them for the page. --Kenneth M Burke 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Recording request

I reviewed the recording request for this article and have it under my yes-I-can list. However, I am quite confused at *why* you need this article to be recorded. Since it is too technical, I am surprised how that is a reason why it should be recorded when half the stuff won't be understood anymore than sitting in a lecture hall with a professor. Also this article is constantly under dramatic change, to what extent would you *like* it recorded in terms of what material needs to be heard (ie: intro, which sections?). Thanks. .:DavuMaya:. 10:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The request was made circa two year ago when the article had the "needs expert attention"-template (I must have assumed that a professor would volunteer immediately), but now it seems to be most understandable and it should be brilliant in the hands of an experienced recorder. --Funper 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm not brilliant but I do very well. Sure, I'll start on it. .:DavuMaya:. 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

External link opinions

Opinions would be appreciated on whether this link: Nanotechnology videos Nanotechnology videos generated from Scanning Probe Microscope images and SPIP software would be an appropriate addition to the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

About Origins of Nanotechnology

The first use of nanometer for scaling particles was made specifically by Zsigmondy in 1910. He offered his classification of dispersed systems introducing range from 20 nm up to 1 micron as a special class. He offered serious arguments for this classification. He used ultramicroscopy for studying nano-particles down to 10 nm. Ultramicroscope is actually the first tool for studing nano-particles. The first measurement of surface forces that control nano-particulates have been performed in 1951 by Derjaguin. If you read early comments, many of them express confusion with the subject of nanotechnology. It is impossible to justify it without introducing notion of interface, a special state of molecules on interface. Role of interace dramatically increases with decreasing size. That is why interfaces control properties of nano-particulates. There are many special effects that are related to interfacial properties. Electrokinetic phenomena. Electroacoustic phenomena. All of this and many more is subject of Interface and Colloid Science. If one ignores this, he would be doomed of repeating and rediscovering existing knowledge. I think that it is extremely important to stress the link between Interface and Colloid Science and Nanotechnology. Even including proper references to the History part.

If anybody has any objections, please post them on my user page. .:AndreiDukhin:. 12:00, 30 October 2007

Navbox redux

The nanotech navbox has gotten quite cluttered and somewhat drab over the last few months. I'm proposing a design change at Template Talk:Nanotech. Please post there if you have any comments. Antony-22 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been about a week, so I will make the change shortly. Antony-22 18:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm developing a navbox for nanoelectronics over at Talk:Nanoelectronics - any comments would be appreciated! Antony-22 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Intellectual poverty

Hi, I didn't bother reading the article, I already know what its about, like Wikipedia generally is. Its cataloging consepts, like reading the Abc. As a scientist I'm interested in scientific speculations, what I can find in academic publications. The people who understand information as a list of definitions fail to speculate about alternative definitions and will also make political declarations of their own interests. That's why Wikipedia as a open community and without open and critical review is not worth reading. Its unprofessional, essentialist and bious. Its too uncivilized, like learning to do what others say, not learning to know how things are. Internet in general and all the media is the same kind of forum for opinions, not genuine debate. There can be no credible information before it starts to produce them via debate. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that nobody dared to answer this somehow disqualifying and polemic comment, but such statements should not be left unreviewed. I give it a try:
  • Information in fact IS a list of definitions. "Hard facts", as scientists say, although there are rarely hard facts produced. Everything has to be questioned and discussed (that's what we are doing here), but you can not say that "credible information" is only produced through a debate! We could debate about a lot of things, all fictitious. Would you say that it will produce credible information, if we debate about how it looks like inside a black hole? Nobody can tell unless he was there (and even then he couldn't tell us...).
  • Especially WP as an open community critically reviews all edits. Think of 999,999 users who are reviewing what one user has edited...
  • Why is it uncivilized to learn something, what others say? If you had not learned something somebody told you, you would not be able to write/say a single character/word...
  • Who REALLY knows how things are? Nobody!
I hope this helps balancing this biased comment. Kind regards and keep on good work, editors! — Tirkfltalk 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tirkfl. Not to mention, Teemu Ruskeepää made quite a few spelling mistakes. In my opinion, you can always tell when someone isn't taking the time to think out their arguments - they make many errors (both spelling and grammatical).

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

References and external links

Maybe there's something I still cannot get about the article page, but there are no reference and external links lists. Could somebody explain why? Thanks in advance.

It was a minor syntax typo. A user added a few paragraphs but ended a reference with <ref> instead of </ref>, which made the rest of the article invisible. I have fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up! Antony-22 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nanotechnology Recommended Practices/Working Groups

IEST, founding member of the ANSI-accredited US TAG to ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies have two Working Groups which is currently working on writing Recommended Practices related to Nanotechnology. IEST-WG-CC200:Overview: Planning, Design, Construction, and Operational Considerations for Facilities Engaged in Research or Production at the Nanometer Scale and IEST-WG-CC205: Nanotechnology Safety: Applying Prevention through Design Principles to Nanotechnology Facilities will be meeting in May to discuss a nanotechnology road map. If you want more information on these Working Groups, go to To join one of these volunteer groups, contact us at —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environ1561 (talkcontribs) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

I noticed that parts of the article are copies of (or copied to) [7]. — Tirkfltalk 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The link is dated Friday, October 19, 2007, and the Wikipedia material predates that, so the blog is a copy of the Wikipedia article. I notice that the link does not make an attribution or specify that the text is under GFDL, I'm not sure if that's something they're supposed to do. Antony-22 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
They are supposed to do that. This is part of the new breed of bottom-feeding internet slime. Blogs + scraping + ads = profit. If you feel like it, you can probably get their hosting terminated by reporting it to their host — TheBilly(Talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
ah, didn't even realize it was blogspot. Even more likely you can, then :) — TheBilly(Talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nanotechnology links

We have an informative website with published papers, images and an overview of a unique dynamic etalon utilizing nano technology. The webpages are not highly technical. The images are incredible and worth viewing by everyone. I would like to add a link to our site: Pinestone (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Important missing fact

Nanotechnology doesn't exist as a separate science. See [8] --Vuo (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New template for talk pages, expecially the larger ones

Nanotechnology/Archive 2

Some pages, such as this one have lots of post, and it requires some work to see what has been answered or acknowledged. therefore I have helped make the {{Unanswered}} template that can be put above a section allowing one to quickly glimpse what has been answered. If you were waiting for an answer but never got one as the post in somewhere in the middle tag it! please voice any queries or comments in the talk Template:Unanswered (links, talk) and not here. Cheers --Squidonius (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regulations chapter

Nanojames recently added information about the (legal) regulations of nanotech. I suggest to exclude this chapter into a new article and only keep a short paragraph in the main article. — Tirk·fl  “…”  09:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? The question of regulation is integral to considerations of the future of this potential technology and was not currently discussed in any detail on this page. The questions of environmental and health assessment had been flagged, but not developed. I consider this a highly relevant and appropriate development of the page.
--Nanojames (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The material is definitely long and in-depth enough to be split into its own article. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style -- for a broad article like this, generally each section is a one-three paragraph summary of the more-detailed subarticle. (Almost all of the sections in the Nanotechnology article are already summaries of subarticles, and what we're suggesting here isn't any different.)
There's also a lot of information in Implications of nanotechnology that can be merged in to a new article, especially the section A need for regulation? Nanojames' contribution is quite well-written and referenced, and I think it would stand by itself very well as the core of a Regulation of nanotechnology article.
Antony-22 (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition's nanotech report should be discussed in here. The organization has been integral in developing a lot of landmark environmental policies and they've taken on nanotechnology regulation as a major thrust. Plus, their report has something like 50+ authoritative references and is chalked full of good information for anyone looking for information on the potential health impact of nanotechnology.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by David44357 (talkcontribs) 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bannano Tech

Does anyone think that Bannano Tech deserves its own page our subheading? It has clearly made an impact on the Nanotech Community and TIP as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Portals Link Addition

Submitted for your approval: National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network ( The NNIN is an integrated partnership of 13 universities, supported by NSF, which provides extensive support in nanoscale fabrication, synthesis, characterization, modeling, design, computation and hands-on training. The NNIN replaces the former National Nanofabrication Users Network. CinderSue (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

External links don't go in portals. — Bility (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo in Fundamental concepts?

I don't know what it should be, but there is a sentence with a missing word at the end. "In the "bottom-up" approach, materials and devices are built from .In the "top-down" approach..." Avaviel (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Health and environmental concerns

Corrected the link to Nature Nanotechnology InsertNameHere (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


"Nanoscience" redirects to "Nanotechnology" but this seems absurd, for the same reason as it would seem absurd if "Science" redirected to "Technology." Please discuss. Drttm (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were to write a Nanotechnology and a Nanoscience article, how different would they be? Surely they would end up referencing each other dozens of times. Nanotechnology is a good title for a page that summarizes the physical inventions and the ideas involved. If someone wants details on the hard science that goes into nanotechnology, they can look at more specific articles, e.g. self-assembly, atomic force microscopy, microfluidics, et cetera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
"Nanoscience" and "nanotechnology" are used fairly interchangably, and haven't really been used to describe substantively different fields. If there were to be a nanoscience article, it would mostly focus on how different authors define nanoscience; there's just not any technical material which isn't included in nanotechnology to begin with. Antony-22 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that nanoscience and nanotechnology are used interchangeably by anyone actually working in the field(s). Anything with the word "technology" in it should not be characterized as the "study" of something. Technology is an application; nanoscience is the study of objects at the nanometer scale, and how they behave. Nanofabrication is the process used to create nanoscale objects, and nanotechnology is the application of the unique properties nanoscale objects to solve problems. Incidentally, the current definition nanotechnology is essentially the definition of a subfield of Chemistry, which wikipedia differentiates by calling "the science of matter and the changes it undergoe." To me, "the study of manipulating matter on an atomic and molecular scale," therefore sounds like nanotechnology is a form of Chemistry. (I would argue that nanoscience is in fact an offshoot of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, but I doubt that is an opinion held by a majority of people.) ChezChemistry (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is, that so long as Wikipedia does not have an article called "nanoscience" this is the only sensible place to redirect someone who has typed that in the search box. Do you have an alternative suggestion for where nanoscience should redirect? There is nothing stopping anyone, other than motivation, from writing an article at nanoscience and then we will be able to see if there is a difference between the content there and here. Until that happens, it is far preferable that readers are redirected here rather than left hanging. SpinningSpark 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there's already an article on Nanoengineering, which has been a stub since it was started in 2001 (by Larry Sanger (!)), and I fear that any article on nanoscience will remain similarly undeveloped. Microstubs were actually created for Nanoscience in 2003 and again in 2007, and both times they were quickly reverted to redirects.
I'd be amenable to an attempt to create a new nanoscience article, but the trick is it must cite sources to establish that nanoscience is notably different than nanotechnology, these sources must agree enough that the article doesn't become original research, and the content of the article must cover substantially different material than this article. It can be done, but doing it well enough for it to stay a separate article would take a fair bit of care, time, and effort. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, laughably, the first stub actually said it was a synonym of the article it was linking to! Not surprising that one got redirected. The second one was a dicdef which is also against guidelines. SpinningSpark 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How could it delete (-64,839) ??

Can someone review the last pages ,I guess something is wrong but I couldn't see.Did someone delete information? (Ertugrul.Bülbül April 2009)

Not too sure what this refers to but the pages (talk and article) seem ok with no major losses of info from April to August 2009 and stable between 53,000 and 55,000 bytes Chaosdruid (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Box cleanup

I have removed the To-do list, which hasn't been used and is mostly cluttering up the top of the talk page. The text is at Talk:Nanotechnology/to do, and if anyone wants to put it back they can just add "{{todo}}" in the appropriate place. I have also removed a Spoken Wikipedia request which has been unfulfilled for several years. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 03:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

External Link suggestion

Does this merit inclusion in the external links for this article?:


"Without nanotechnology, BlackBerries would not be possible along with flash drives, digital cameras, and even MP3 files." - Doesn't make any sense. MP3 is a file format. That has nothing to do with nanotech. The whole section looks bad. --Arebenti (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Coffee table magazine lazy jounalism. Delete. SpinningSpark 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Selected articles and images for Portal:Nanotechnology

The nanotechnology portal has laid abandoned for quite some time. I'm going to set it up to automatically rotate through a selection of articles and images over the course of a year, and I'd like some input on which content should be used. If interested, please discuss at Portal talk:Nanotechnology/Selected article. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 05:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2012

Nirmalgvr (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Lock on article imposes unnecessary restraints to use and improvement of this and other articles, please explain.

Please explain why this article, on an important and rapidly changing subject, is locked. I understand individuals in this field (and their trainees) have decided perspectives on the subject, but its locking (i) hinders use of materials (images, quotations, references) in this article, in other related articles, and (ii) hinders addition of links here to other articles through simple edits (e.g., addition of a phrase linking Nanotechnology to to other areas involving supramolecular assembly, or tying it to biological and medical applications). Professionals and other busy contributors simply do not have time to engage in proposals/requests over matters of simple access (or even, at times, to log) when on the run between commitments. Make this easy, or do not expect contributions from the busiest (and sometimes most knowledgable) editors. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is locked because it attracts a lot of vandalism. Do you actually want to edit it now? I will unlock it if you do. SpinningSpark 19:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, the article is only "semiprotected", meaning that only unregistered users are unable to edit. If you create an account, you will be able to edit this article (after making 10 other edits and waiting 4 days). Editing under a registered name is also more anonymous, since your IP address is no longer publicly recorded. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
My edits are a mix of logged and not-logged for practical and personal reasons, including desire to make a quick edit while in transit, and past experience with abuse at hands of a wiki editor misusing UserTalk information (identified my institution, made disparaging public comments, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Bottom line, this article needs work from experts, and the harder it's made for experts—who are often not regular wiki editors—to access and edit quickly, when time permits and mood strikes, the less authoritative the article will remain. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You could have logged on two dozen times in the time it took to write that response. And not logging on does not protect your privacy - just the opposite in fact. If you want to discuss the principles of protecting pages, please comment at my talkpage (or somewhere else), this is not an appropriate page. SpinningSpark 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Key to the future

Regarding this edit (which I have just reverted). I don't much care for the "key to the future" phrase either but removing it renders the whole passage meaningless. Fastener technology, for instance, has many potential uses, but that has not meant that governments have seen fit to invest billions in it. Billions are being invested in nanotechnology because of its potential importance to the future of industry, and hence to the economies of the countries doing the investing, to say nothing of the possible military applications. The edit I reverted had completely lost this point. SpinningSpark 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, then we should mention industry, economy and/or military. That point is also missing as is, unless we assume that's all the future holds. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
There's a broad range of motivations behind government funding of nanotech research (some countries see an opportunity to join the forefront of scientific discovery, others are focused on nanomedicine, and still others on the potential for social transformation through better technology). So I put “industrial and military” in parentheses -- still less vague than "key" and avoids the inaccuracy of stating that there are only two government motivations. Cibits (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The technology

How is it possible to create the nano molecules and structures? For example,how can we produce c60 in it's solid form, or how are nano tubes produced? --Reza M. Namin (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Try the Reference Desk. Alternatively, there are some details about this on Buckminsterfullerene and Carbon nanotube i think. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

While I do not propose any changes to the article as is, I would welcome an "understandable to the common man" pre-amble that actually explains what Nanotechnology is to those who don't have science degrees. This is an Encyclopedia for the normal person, not a textbook or scientific paper. I am a well educated and academic person working in a different field, and I cannot really glean any usable material here for my own understanding. This article has lost me by the end of the second sentence and as such fails totally to fulfil its purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I have not explained mySELF very well there. Let's say this article was about not Nanotechnology, but about Music. This is how it would read.....

"Music is the deliberate organisation of air vibrations which fall generally into the spectrum that can be perceived by the human ear, namely between 30hz to 21 khz. The majority of Western music is formed of 12 established frequencies and multiples thereof. Different frequency sets exist in Eastern and African cultures. Music is created using acoustic, electric and electronic resonators...ete etc etc."

All basically true, yet totally inappropriate in the context of an Explanation. This (like the Nano Tech article) is an supposedly expert analysis. I am relying on you good Wikipedians to provide me with information I can use and understand. That DOES develop and lead me further into the subject. Please look at Encyclo Britannica's first line on Nanotech which is focussed, understandable and entirely more suitable. Many Thanks. My Name is Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)