Beep Boop Bip
[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 1946)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: BMP, CSS, EPUB, FLAC, FLV, GIF, JPG, OGG, PDF, PNG, PSD, RAR, TORRENT, TXT, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 746 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 157417929091.jpg - (224.94KB , 850x598 , __original_drawn_by_nekojarashi_yuuga__sample-f6ab.jpg )
1946 No. 1946 [Edit]
Nanotechnology! It's the future of everything. Every machine can either be replaced or greatly improved upon by nanotechnology, including the human body. From medical delivery to computing. Nanotechnology also has a lot of applicability in weapons. The hypothetical "pure fusion" bomb doesn't require fissile material, which is a major barrier for making nuclear weapons now, but creating it requires pressure and heat that's not practical with current technology. Nanotechnology however could create the necessary conditions and massively reduce the weight of the bomb. Then there's the grey goo scenario where in one day self-replicating nanobots designed to "take things apart" dismantle the entire planet. Are you terrified or excited?
>> No. 1947 [Edit]
>>1946
Are there any commercial developments in this area, as in something that's been put into production? It seems like nanotechnology is one of those things that's always eternally 10 years away. The closest thing I can think of that's actually been made available is MEMS related things which could be considered an outgrowth of nanotechnology related research.
>> No. 1949 [Edit]
>>1947
Why do you measure progress by consumer goods? By that yard stick, soviet scientists did basically nothing.
>> No. 1950 [Edit]
>>1949
They basically did nothing.
>> No. 1951 [Edit]
>>1950
Uh, huh: Probability theory, linear programming, primordial soup theory, lasers, superconductivity and superfluidity theory, carbon nanotubes, Cherenkov radiation + a million smaller contributions all over the place = nothing. /navi/ isn't for shitposting.

Post edited on 20th Nov 2019, 4:54pm
>> No. 1952 [Edit]
>>1949
Not necessary consumer goods, just something that's beyond research stage. In much the same way you hear about breakthrough battery technologies every few years that haven't yet come into fruition, it doesn't seem much use getting hyped over something (particularly in the material sciences-esque fields) until one can be confident that it'll actually be tangibly viable.

I'm not sure why you bring up the Soviet scientists, since that seems orthogonal to the intentions of my comment. I never implied that theoretical research is of no use, just that it seems counterproductive to be "terrified or excited" about the potentials of nanotechnology when it still largely hasn't moved beyond research stages yet (although if I'm mistaken on this point I'd love to be corrected!).
>> No. 1953 [Edit]
>>1952
Nanotechnology in medical delivery has been approved by the FDA and is used. Doxil is encased in liposomes to extend their period of effectiveness for example. There's also titanium dioxide in sunscreen. Nanotechnology is also used to improve products which alredy exist like bandages fused with silver nanoparticles. Here's an entire website about this.
http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/

Nanorobots however do still seem stuck in the research phase.
>> No. 1954 [Edit]
>>1953
That's a neat website! Thank you for sharing it.
>> No. 1974 [Edit]
Nanotech engenieering student here, yes ,nanotech has been since 1990s, in a lot of products most of it casues cancer,, there are a lot of nanomaterials, i hate nanomedicine but it is one of the most advanced areas, besides nanoelectronics, nanomagnetism is the future, idk what tell, some examples of nano in your everyday lives are titanium dioxide as a catalizer for som windows or as a food aditive which causes cancer but no enterprise want to aknowledge it, uh there are a lot of nanocarbon composites in some products uhhh have i mentioned carbon fiber?, nanotransistors etc etc etc
>> No. 1975 [Edit]
>>1974
Is nanotechnology your actual major, or is it material engineering? Would you say a biomedical engineering major could get in the field?
>i hate nanomedicine
Why?

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]