Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

The Nanotech Nose: Towards A Smaller Future 90

Posted by michael from the bigger-and-better dept.
Farrax writes "One of the first steps to nanotechnology, either strong or weak, is the ability to even talk about materials on this scale with precision. Thursday, with the successful test of a nano-tech "nose," that step was achieved: weight fluctuations of 5.5 femtograms were detected on a bar of gold. The dream of nano-technology moves forward: maybe we'll see it by 2020 after all."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Nanotech Nose: Towards A Smaller Future More

The Nanotech Nose: Towards A Smaller Future

Comments Filter:

  • We won't see it by 2020 .. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2003 @03:45AM (#6198106)
    unless we use a microscope...
    • I think we'll see the comerical application of BioWare/MeatWare (powered by nanotech) by 2013. The guys who implant this stuff will be titled ripper docs and will work in strip malls rather than hospitials and security/police forces will be Solos.

      OR maybe I played too much CyberPunk 2013/2020 when I was growing up. Also looking forward to 2035 when it becomes legal to put heavy machine guns on your car.

  • yeah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LBArrettAnderson ( 655246 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @03:45AM (#6198108)
    i just can't wait till everything is super dense and super fast. One of the things i'd like to see is how they stabalize stuff like that. stuff so small i'd imagine it can get very weak easy to break. then again it can't build up very much momentum to cause breaking away from something that's holding it.

    • Re:yeah (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @05:37AM (#6198274)
      Actually, on this scale things are very, very mechanically strong, depending for their strength on atomic bonding.

      Think of trying to break a particle of talcum powder, rather than a tiny little teacup.

      Besides, you don't rely on just one or two of the thingies, you make them up in the millions and if you lose a few it doesn't matter.

      KFG

  • we need to get one (Score:4, Funny)

    by ThePeices ( 635180 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @03:49AM (#6198118)
    I need to get my hands on one of these sensors...itl finally prove that we can smell CowboyNeal from across the atlantic.

  • Dangers of nanotech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rebeka thomas ( 673264 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @03:54AM (#6198126)
    I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time. Read information here [etcgroup.org] When people are injured by normal technology, they are just injured or killed and the rest of the world moves on. When people will be injured by nanotech, the changes will be small perhaps undetectable even, but could involve controlled changes to things as basic to us as humans as our DNA, the food we eat, and our brain systems Government rewiring of our brains some day? Can't be too far in the future.

    • Feeling paranoid? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Government rewiring of our brains some day? Can't be too far in the future.

      It's probably already happened. Best fit your foil helmet V3.1
      • That may explain why when I saw this headline, I thought it was about Michael Jackson's nose... apparently I need to upgrade the liner notes in my tinfoil hat.

    • Hmm... I wonder what it will feel like to be overwhelm by nanorobots
      maybe it would be like a slashdot effect on organic matter =)
    • I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time. Read information here When people are injured by normal technology, they are just injured or killed and the rest of the world moves on. When people will be injured by nanotech, the changes will be small perhaps undetectable even, but could involve controlled changes to things as basic to us as humans

    • Re:Dangers of nanotech (Score:2, Interesting)

      by qbwiz ( 87077 )
      We already have this. They're called "bacteria" or "viruses." I don't see how human-made stuff will be that much better.

    • Re:Dangers of nanotech (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Saeger ( 456549 )
      The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place...

      Regulations won't don't do squat.

      There's only a couple ways to prevent extinction from some nasty bio or nano-disaster (whether intentional or accidental): 1) Permanently move some eggs off our basketcase-planet; 2) Hope that benevolent AI and IA (human Intelligence Amplication) emerges before full-blown nanotech, to safely handle it better than any stupid & selfish humans could; 3) Luck.

      "The Fermi Paradox refers to the ques

    • Ever read diamond age? Gota love Neal Stephenson for his insight.

      First off, if your thinking about self replicating combined with nanotech, its not going to happen anytime soon... we still can't get it right at the macro level let alone micro or nano.

      "protocol" - diamond age defined protocol as something that weighs enough not to float into airliners (eg plastic bags stronger than steel, thinner than air) and as levels of nanotech that are safe for humans.
      "toner" - in short nanotech smog. When people de

  • That's it. We're all doomed ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by pantropik ( 604178 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @03:57AM (#6198129)
    ... last one to turn to grey goo [sfgate.com] please turn off the lights.

    Or green goo [gardenweb.com].

    Too tired to (attempt to) make any more jokes. Check here [nanotech-now.com] and I'm sure you can come up with some of your own.
    • From the article about grey goo:
      "-- Space itself, an invisible froth of subatomic forces and short-lived particles, might undergo a "phase transition" like water molecules that freeze into ice. Such an event could "rip the fabric of space itself. The boundary of the new-style vacuum would spread like an expanding bubble," devouring Earth and, eventually, the entire universe beyond it."

      Greg Egan's latest book, Schild's Ladder [netspace.net.au] is a great story penned from this premise.

  • Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nepheles ( 642829 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @04:02AM (#6198136) Homepage
    It's difficult te feel excited, or indeed surprised, by announcements such as this thanks to the unending stream of similar stories. How many articles on nanotechnology have you read in the past year, all showing how it was just around the corner? More than you care to remember, no doubt.

  • Excellant Article on Nanotech (Score:5, Informative)

    by Michael's a Jerk! ( 668185 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @04:02AM (#6198138) Homepage Journal
    is Here [techworthy.com]

    magine a world where microscopic biomechanical devices are used to cure diseases, control our computers, and power the vehicles we drive. In this brave new world, minuscule techno-agents would have incredible computational power--power that is completely imperceptible to the human eye. Devices like these could become commonplace over the next fifty years as new innovations in molecular engineering--also known as nanotechnology--may help establish a new molecular age.

  • In case of slashdotting.. (Score:1, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Nano-nose sniffs out smallest particles

    By Rupert Goodwins
    Special to CNET News.com
    June 12, 2003, 4:11 PM PT

    Researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have claimed a new world record for weighing tiny amounts of stuff.

    At the U.S. Department of Energy lab, they were able to measure variations in the resonant frequency of tiny gold-coated silicon bars just two microns long and fifty nanometers thick by vibrating them with the heat of a solid-state laser at a speed of about two million time

    • Re:In case of slashdotting.. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wake up, moderators...


      The last line of the real story reads


      "is the same kind as those used in portable CD players."

  • One of my nanotech dreams. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2003 @04:05AM (#6198143)
    I imagined from the moment I heard of nanotech, that we could have devices implanted in ourselves that, when we're in the sun, could bring chlorophyll to the surface of our skins and create food from it. That way we can all use up CO2 from the atmosphere to offset the CO2 emissions of industry, and help industry along all the more!

    We get the benefits of industry, with free food, and a way to combat one of the current downfalls of industry!

    My other nanotech dream is that nanobots in my body could change me into a lesbian and I could go have hot lesbian sex each night, but I don't mention that one much

    • Hmm, it would be interesting being able to use GE to give us chlorophyll to process CO2, but wouldn't that kind of create a type of perpetual motion? I mean, don't we breath out CO2? So if our lungs could process O and had chlorophyll to process CO2 we couldn't kill ourselves by putting plastic bags over our heads anymore... now where's the fun in that?

  • how small is too small? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by maliabu ( 665176 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @04:09AM (#6198155)
    i wonder if things will eventually reach a point where it's no longer beneficial to get any smaller?

    for instance, mobile phones nowadays are a great improvement from a 1-foot long cellphone our grandparents used, but if things get too small for human-beings to use it properly, then we won't use it.

    so with all these nano techonologies going on, even if we can build all the components for a mobile phone so small, don't we still need something reasonable sized to use it?
    • don't we still need something reasonable sized to use it?

      Not at all. I imagine that one day cellphones will merely be chips implanted into us. It's not that hard to concieve, though. (OTOH, maybe I have been playing to much Metal Gear Solid as of late.)

    • Re:how small is too small? (Score:4, Informative)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @05:50AM (#6198295)
      People don't use nanotech in the sense that they use a phone. If anything nanotech would be used on people.

      A grain of sugar is too small to use. . .unless you ingest it. Then it manages to power your body.

      Your body does this by using nanotech machines, called enzymes. You couldn't call your girlfriend on an enzyme, but you'd be in deep shit without them and I wouldn't advise not using them because they're too small.

      KFG

    • Re:how small is too small? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2003 @05:51AM (#6198299)
      You're forgetting that it's a lot easier to put a small thing *INTO* a larger container, rather than trying to squeeze something big into a smaller space.

      It's true that you'll never see a standard cell phone the size of a postage stamp, but if you can make a single chip with all the functionality of a cell phone, you can then build it into any form factor you choose -- why not build an entire phone INSIDE an ear bud (Uhura-style)? Suddenly you no longer need to have any big bulky parts extending all the way to your mouth.

      And if all the functionality of a cell phone fits into something the size of your fingernail, that makes it easier to incorporate it into a more complex device, like a PDA or wristwatch or whatever.

      Functionally, the latest-and-greatest Ford Compensator is no different than a Geo Miniscule with a lot of empty space added to it.

      Similarly, there's nothing stopping you from integrating a PDA-on-a-chip into a 17" tablet format to get a considerable savings in power consumption, etc.

      Just because it's small doesn't mean it can't still be used effectively.[*]

      * - "At least that's what I tell my girlfriend..." Ba-da-BING!

  • I don't have the links on me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aerojad ( 594561 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @04:12AM (#6198160) Homepage Journal
    And I'll be a bad slashdotter and not look for them (I'm tired!) but I do believe that a couple years back, a professor in England released a tech timeline that would document the progression of technology for the next century and beyond. He was something like 80% correct in his predictions up till that point, so they sort of carried weight. Anyhow... sure nanotech will be a great thing, but I quiver to think of the applications of this in war... which I believe in that timeline came quickly after the devlopment of the tech. Links, anyone, anyone?

  • But... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2003 @04:34AM (#6198191)
    Can it measure how much I care? Maybe once it can detect one trillionth of a billionth of care..
  • Those variations reflected any extra weight that was loaded onto the bars--in this case, masses as low as 5.5 femtograms could be detected. A femtogram is a billionth of a billionth of a gram, or roughly the mass of 122 gold atoms.

    Or to put it another way... "Extremely Small".

    • Re:Size (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Resistance is futile ( 246019 )
      A femtogram is a billionth of a billionth of a gram, or roughly the mass of 122 gold atoms.

      This is a misunderstanding on the part of the article's author, I am sure. There are 10^15 femtograms to a gram in my book?

      I am time and time again confused by the meaning of the word "billion" on either side of the North Atlantic but I take that the Usonian value is 10^9, right?

      Sorry, just confused.

      • Re:Size (Score:3, Informative)

        by Melchior_of_wg ( 633494 )
        You got it right. A billion over there is 10^9 (or a Giga). Femto is 10^-15. Which means that the original 'explanation' is off by a factor of one thousand...So, I guess someone has mixed grams and kilograms (which you generally base it on, for whatever reason).
  • Nancy the Nanobot sez:

    P.U. You smell fat.

  • Reading a wee bit too far into this, are we? (Score:5, Informative)

    by klasikahl ( 627381 ) <klasikahl@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @05:42AM (#6198280) Journal
    Maybe it's the fact that I am reading this at 0330 (MST). However, I think a lot of the /.ers commenting on this article are reading into the potential just a little bit too far. People are talking about stuff anywhere from losing their jobs to nanotechnology all the way to robots taking over the world. This article is about a nano-scale being able to weigh ~122 atoms of gold. This article is not talking about a nano-scale that was able sense the weight, then reflect about it in its /. journal or develop a mastermind scheme on how it will take over the world.

    And unless this ity-bity scale was merely crafted by engineers and never programmed (thus being able to program itself), then I think the human race has nothing to worry about. That's right, /.ers, save your conspiracy theories; they have no weight in comments about being able to measure gold.

  • They should ask my girlfriend for help (Score:5, Funny)

    by jabbadabbadoo ( 599681 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @05:49AM (#6198291)
    She can detect weight fluctuations of 2.5 femtograms!

  • Nanotech "nose" seems a funny term. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by questamor ( 653018 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @06:08AM (#6198329)
    Curious term - considering changes of weight in a gold bar was measured using lasers and the changing vibration of silicon (to condense things badly)

    I don't know about anyone else, but when weighing, lasering, or vibrating things... using my nose is one of the last options I'd consider

    Maybe it's just me.
    • I don't know about anyone else, but when weighing, lasering, or vibrating things... using my nose is one of the last options I'd consider"

      The trick is this. You coat the bar with something chemically 'sticky', then you blow sample gas past it. Any target molecules present adhere to the bar and presto! You have a nose. Obviously, you would have to have an array of these little bars, each coated with a different 'glue'. Exposure to a particular compound would (ideally) lead to a unique 'spectrum' of we

  • Don't confuse nanotech with nanoscience (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hak hak ( 640274 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:30AM (#6198481)
    I attended a lecture the other day by an expert on nanoscience. One interesting thing he noted is that while nanoscience is making rapid progress, real successes in the field we should call nanotechnology are still far away. We can `see' and `feel' atoms now, but it will take a while before mass-production of molecule-sized devices will be feasible.
  • Successful test of a nano-tech "nose"... should be... Towards A Smellier Future
  • Was I the only person who immediately thought of Michael Jackson?
  • I am the only one who sees nanotech + stem cells as a way to stop ageing ? If this could be achieved, then I think its worth taking the risks.
    You know, atomic bombs could extinct humanity too, but they haven't.
  • I want to detect small differences in left and right breasts via nano-touch.
  • Now someone's going to have to invent a nanofart for it.
  • This goes hand in hand with another nanotech announcement about a year back, where I beleive a group at MIT successfully created a transistor from a couple of atoms.

    As we all (should) know, a processor is quite dependent on transistors, so if we can create atomic transistors, can you imagine how many of those little suckers can fit on a 1" square piece of silicon.
    Even if this means waiting until 2020, it's worth it. Imagine fitting what today's super computers do, in a PDA.
    That's where nanotech benif
  • I thought that should be...

    The Nanotech Nose: Towards a Smaller Smeller

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close