• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nanotechnology

rocketdodger

Philosopher
rocketdodger
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
6,946
I have gotten really interested in nanotechnology lately, namely because I think it is the most viable way we might be able to increase our lifespans to near indefinite lengths (which implies much improved healing ability as well).

Anyone into this topic? What is the current state of nanotechnology around the world? Any interesting projects going on that you people know about?

Theoretical considerations? Anyone care to apply their wisdom about other fields to this topic?

I am going on vacation for a week, I hope this thread has some interesting stuff in it when I get back!
 
Scientific American has a special edition on nanotechnology on the newsstands thru 12/12. One of the articles deals with "applications in biomedical research, disease diagnosis, and, possibly, therapy." I question whether increasing lifespans to near-indefinite lengths is a worthwhile goal, outside of some "Children of Men" scenario. If it is ever realized I'm confident that it will, fortunately, not happen in my lifetime.
 
bokonon said:
Scientific American has a special edition on nanotechnology on the newsstands thru 12/12. One of the articles deals with "applications in biomedical research, disease diagnosis, and, possibly, therapy." I question whether increasing lifespans to near-indefinite lengths is a worthwhile goal, outside of some "Children of Men" scenario. If it is ever realized I'm confident that it will, fortunately, not happen in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is a bad idea?
 
The cryonics people are hanging their entire claim on it, if that's any help.
 
Imagine a type of ant-like nanobot that could go into an area, extract individual atoms from their surrounding molecular matrix, and then stockpile them for pick-up by large bots.

Are you thinking deep-pit mining? No hazard to humans from heat cave-in or noxious gases. Just neat piles of metals, ready for pick-up.

Or are you thinking of a military application? No danger to friendly forces, just neat piles of purified carbon, calcium, iron, and other trace elements found in the human body. And no native population to object to occupation and re-colonization of the area, either...
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
Or are you thinking of a military application? No danger to friendly forces, just neat piles of purified carbon, calcium, iron, and other trace elements found in the human body. And no native population to object to occupation and re-colonization of the area...
Click to expand...

This brings up a topic that I should start another thread on, that of how the thinking caste needs to find a way to prevent the other castes from using the technology they develop until they are responsible enough to do so correctly (and I understand "correct" is subjective, but I am sure we can all touch base to some extent).
 
I don't think nano-robots need to be anywhere near as complex as those that often get described to achieve the same goals.

A large number of simple little devices which are designed to only stick to one kind of surface and do nothing more than that and be detectable by a scan could do all sorts of useful things in medicine, for example. Regular scans could then show heart disease or cancer from the build-up of the devices in certain areas at a very early stage. And then even current medicine could take over and be far more successful because of the headstart in detection.

Nano-devices don't have to cure the disease, just finding it early could do wonders.
 
My current knowledge of nanotechnology is currently limited to the safety concerns of producing carbon nanotubes and nanopearls. I'm currently reading the latest available information on the industrial hygiene aspects of working with nano materials and find that information lacking. The technology is so new that relatively little data exists. Some data exists on respiratory exposures. Little seems to be know about dermal entry routes.

I realize this isn't really what you're looking for, but thought you might be interested nonetheless.

Based on what I know to date, safety and health concerns (among others) might slow down the rapid initial research and development of nanotechnology that some people seem to be expecting.
 
Fnord said:
Imagine a type of ant-like nanobot that could go into an area, extract individual atoms from their surrounding molecular matrix, and then stockpile them for pick-up by large bots.
Click to expand...

Using what- a very tiny pair of tweezers?

My views on nanotechnology are somewhat tainted by hearing an obnoxious high school student lecture me on the possibilities many years ago- he thought such nanobots could be used to make ozone and fix the ozone layer. Presumably, they would have tiny tweezers to put the atoms into place, and even smaller tweezers to move the electrons into the proper bonding orbitals.

A more educated fellow who was also in on this sermon/conversation suggested that they may work similar to a catalyst. Unfortunately, the formation of ozone is thermodynamically unfavourable, so a catalyst would only decompose the ozone more quickly.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
My current knowledge of nanotechnology is currently limited to the safety concerns of producing carbon nanotubes and nanopearls.
Click to expand...

Nanotechnology covers a broad range of topics -- how do things of all sorts behave below micro scale. One area of importance is electronic integrated circuits. As I understand things (and my understanding is limited), as micro-electronics continue to shrink, quantum mechanical effects begin to dominate so all the old design rules start breaking down.

At any rate, my point is that chip manufacturers are keenly interested in nanotechnology research.
 
Madalch said:
Using what- a very tiny pair of tweezers?
Click to expand...

Okay, the analogy isn't perfect.

An army of nanobots disassembling anything organic into its component elements, and then disintegrationg after a set time would bee a very fearsome weapon.

Just don't make them self-replicating.
 
rocketdodger said:
Why do you think [living forever] is a bad idea?
Click to expand...
A couple of reasons. I think old folks need to die off to make room for young folks. The world is plenty populated enough (and the population is still exploding) with current death rates.

A finite lifespan makes it more important to choose meaningful activities in which to spend one's time. It's also a spur to action rather than perpetual planning (fantasizing). I already procrastinate way too much, without the luxury of all the time in the world.
 
jsfisher said:
Nanotechnology covers a broad range of topics -- how do things of all sorts behave below micro scale. One area of importance is electronic integrated circuits. As I understand things (and my understanding is limited), as micro-electronics continue to shrink, quantum mechanical effects begin to dominate so all the old design rules start breaking down.

At any rate, my point is that chip manufacturers are keenly interested in nanotechnology research.
Click to expand...
That was kinda my point. At this stage, I don't know if I'm dealing with "the new asbestos" or not. I don't know if the nano materials can penetrate protective gloves (and then the skin). I do know that a standard lab hood is useless from a practical standpoint to guard against respiratory exposure, since the hood just sucks the nanotubes up the hood and blows them out the roof stack.

jsfisher, if you work for a chip manufacturer, PM me. Perhaps I can put you in touch with someone at my lab that can either do some research that you sponsor or, if you have the capabilities, sponsor some research that you're willing to do that would be beneficial to us.
 
I just had two nanotech* papers accepted last week.

One is on proving that you can load active proteins within polymer based worm-like filaments (80-100nm by a couple micron).

The other was to demonstrate
1.) the spherical counterparts can be targeted to the lungs
2.) That the enzyme in these carriers is protected from premature proteolysis
and
3.) That these particles can protect against oxidative injury.

:)

*My carriers are boarder line "nanotech". The wormlike ones definitely are, the spheres are actuall 300nm in size. This puts them above the 100nm limit set by the NSF. However, the NIH is still willing to call them "nano", mainly because the proteins I'm loading are actually 10nm in size. You can't put a lot of 10nm stuff in a 50nm shell. BUt you can sure put a lot in a 300nm sphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom