• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed

  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Googling for Nanotechnology | Main | Nanotechnology vs. Climate Change »

January 30, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Richard Jones

The IoP journal Nanotechnology is, of course, where the Drexler/Phoenix paper "Safe exponential manufacturing" was published, so it's not right to say that "they don't publish molecular manufacturing theory". The relative scarcity of such papers is just a reflection of the fact that not much of this kind of work is being done.

Niels Boeing

>>They focus on research, which means lab work, which means they don't publish molecular manufacturing theory.<<

That's utterly funny though not intended by you. MNT and research are two different things... Apart from that this distraction about definitions of NT is getting a bit sectarian. NT is a new phase of technology in general that deals with nanoscale phenomena and materials. So surely any STM is NT, too. Where is the problem? You have already a specification, that is molecular NT, just stay with that but don't keep being astonished about the "false" use of the term NT. After all, it was not Eric Drexler who coined it.

Chris Phoenix, CRN

In fact, Eric Drexler did coin it. Taniguchi also coined it. Taniguchi coined it first, and included it in a paper on micro-machining. Drexler introduced the term to the world in 1986 (pre-web; not easy to search barely-related fields to see whether you were the first inventor of a word.)

I didn't hear Taniguchi mentioned until much later, when the technical objections to molecular manufacturing had started to fizzle, and a few mean-spirited people were looking desperately for any rumor to discredit Drexler with.

I didn't say or imply anything about "true" or "false" definitions. I don't know why you think I'm astonished by the fact that the word has two meanings. I do think it's interesting to see which sites oppose MM and which are willing to talk about it. If you think it's uninteresting, why did you comment?


The comments to this entry are closed.