You raise interesting points, some of which I agree with. The original definition of Nanotechnology, as coined by K. Erik Drexler is this:
Heterogeneous molecular nanosystems, where each molecule in the nanosystem has a specific structure and plays a different role.
In recent years this term has become twisted to suit the purposes of companies wishing to attract venture funding, much like in the days when dot com
suffix was attached to anything and everything. In many cases, the suffix was just that just a suffix which had nothing to do with what the company in
question was actually doing.
Today the popular definition of Nanotechnology is this:
To manipulate matter at a scale below 100 nm in size.
By this definition, almost everything can be termed Nanotechnology. Microtech fabs, which etch features below 100 nm on a regular basis, can be termed
as such, but we don't. We still consider that Microtechnology.
There are significant applications for manipulating matter at this scale, of which we have not even scratched the surface as of yet, but do the
majority of "Nano" projects deserve this prefix? I don't think so.
There is a fad I agree, but this fad has already released some significant innovations into the market place. Not world changing innovations by far,
but significant nonetheless.
Would you consider adhesive-less tape which mimics the way Gecko's stick to surfaces by engineering polymer hairs upon polymer hair upon polymer
hairs reaching down to the scale of less then 100 nm, to take advantage of van der waals forces? I wouldn't. A better definition for a technological
innovation such as this would be Biomemetics, the field of studying Biological organisms and applying what we learn from them to Engineering.
Would you consider a Buckyball or a Buckytube nanotechnology? I wouldn't. The only way I would consider it "True" nanotech would be if these
particles were used in a molecular fabrication system, building products from the bottom up, molecule by molecule, atom by atom.
Is there a lot we can learn from studying molecules up close and personal? Of course there is, I'm very happy at the amount of funding and attention
it is receiving.
What I'm not happy about is that if you're stated goal is to develop and build Nanobots or Nanofactories, those funding proposals are usually killed
as soon as those words are read by the funders, whether they be government or private interests.
Now why should we be studying this extremely broad field, made possible by Atomic Microscopes? There are many reasons. I'll make a short list, of
which I believe hold the most short term promise:
1. Maxing out Solar Cell efficiency
2. Creating lighter and stronger composites for a number of applications
2i. High efficiency vacuum filled aerostats for cargo and passengers
2ii. Lighter, Stronger building materials with built-in solar collectors
3. Superconducting nanowires, of which the late Richard Smalley was a rather active advocate, he was also one of the primary critics of Drexlers
dream, dismissing them as fantasy and accusing him of scaring the children(OH WON'T SOMEONE PLEEEEAAASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!)
As for wether this whole Technology is a fad, only time will tell. The only fad I agree with, is the fad of labelling everything, including the
kitchen sink as Nano-enabled, of which I've been very critical of on investment forums, though I'm promptly ignored as people are making a buck and
you can't stand in the way of that now can we.
I personally believe that once the "Gee-wizz" factor has worn off, then the real work will begin. It took the "-tronics" fad about a decade to
wear off, the "Bio-" fad took seven years to wear off, the dot com took four to five years to wear off, and as for Nano, the fad could wear off
after a stock bubble burst, of which it's not foregone conclusion.
We have lost sight of the true meaning of the prefix, though I suspect that once the speculative bubble bursts, we will start to go towards his main
dream which WILL change the landscape.
Will it cure all of our woes in the world? Probably not. I am certain that it can solve a few of our woes though, like power generation, better
recycling technologies, ultra efficient alt power generation, and finally the vaunted and feared Nanofactory.
[edit on 11-3-2006 by sardion2000]
[edit on 11-3-2006 by sardion2000]
[edit on 11-3-2006 by sardion2000]