Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (1438)	5/18/2003 8:07:47 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4905

I've seen the "small motors", buckytubes and stuff discussed -- show me a commercial product. It is true -- the thing is -- nano is a "catch-phrase" popularized by those awarding government contracts for scientific research. There is a very good rebuttal on the whole issue that appeared in Sci Am about 2-3 years ago -- so far what the fellow has stated has proved to be 99% accurate. There are natural chemical limitations to what can be done on small scale. If I can find it, I'll scan it and post it -- it is really worthwhile reading for any one who would consider "investing" in "nano" desiring "macro" returns. I'm not saying you can't flip some penny stocks and make a few $s. Some of the dreams of "self-assembling" nano-machinery are just plain laughable to anybody with a physics background. Biotech holds 100 times more promise.

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (1438)	5/18/2003 8:44:18 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4905

new editor of Sci Am has ruined that magazine -- can't find that article online -- going to copy it at the library and scan it. I guess if something isn't popular they don't keep it around <g> It's interesting when you look on-line -- many technologies that were around well before the word nano-technology was invented -- are now being claimed as "nano-techs" -- atomic force microscopes, scanning tunneling microscopes, etc. If folks who are caught up in the frenzy of "nano-tech" are going to appropriate those inventions to the category -- then everyone is going to have to admit "nano" is already a whopping success, but that's revisionism, IMO. When I say nano -- I am talking about a couple of things at least. Precise assembly at the molecular scale carried on to produce macro quantities -- the idea is physically moving the molecules (as opposed to simply chemically reacting them) -- most of the hype is about these "small robotic" assemblers -- so far it all remains a dream -- nothing commercial having been manufactured. Again, you could talk about molecular beam epitaxy, where materials are laid down almost layer by layer as assembly on a small scale, but that was around well before folks started using the term "nano-technology." Show me a commercial product resulting from nano -- something currently manufactured and sold. When I get a minute, I am going to try to find something out about funding of this reasearch. My guess is that it is almost 100% funded by government.