From the Harrow Technology Report: “Nano” is becoming a prefix in common use, yet it’s still extremely difficult for most of us to viscerally understand and visualize what these new terms, such as “micron” and “nanometer” and more, really mean. Hope, however, is now at hand in the introduction to a new, in-depth report on nanotechnology from LuxCapital. It’s titled “The Nanotech Report 2003,” brought to our attention by reader Dave Hammond. What follows is a short excerpt from the freely-available Introduction and Table of Contents to the paper, located here.
A dime is approximately one (1) millimeter or 1,000 microns thick. If we go down one order of magnitude, to 100 microns, or 1/10th
of a millimeter, we are at the approximate size of a human egg cell.
This means that 10 human egg cells lined up in a row would be the thickness of a dime.
At 10 microns, which is 1/100th the width of a dime, we are at the size of a human red blood cell. It would take 100 red blood cells
to reach the thickness of a dime. If we go one order smaller yet, we find ourselves at one (1)
micron. One micron is 1/1000th of a millimeter. This is the width of an
axon along a neuron. We would have to fit 1,000 axons along the edge of a dime to reach a millimeter again.
At 100 nanometers, which is 1/10th of the thickness of an axon, we are at a viral cell. We can fit 10 viruses inside the diameter of
an axon.
Significant developments in nanotechnology will occur at a scale
of less than 100 nanometers, where we approach a size scale of individual atoms and molecules. From a naturally occurring biological perspective, we’re already there. The membrane of a cell is approximately 10 nanometers,
which is 1/10th of a virus. A DNA strand is just two (2) nanometers across, and an amino acid is even smaller still. At one nanometer, we’re at the equivalent of 10 hydrogen atoms lined up in a row. Each hydrogen atom is approximately one (1) angstrom, with 10 angstroms yielding a single nanometer.”
I haven’t yet read the full 500-page, extensive report. But if you’re
seriously into the “…financial, scientific, and technological
trends
in nanotechnology impacting public and private companies, state and
local governments, policy makers, and academic institutions,”
and if the
public introduction and Table of Contents grabs your attention,
there’s
a lot more reading available to soak up your spare time.
Another particularly interesting (and MUCH shorter) paper that
explores
the history and potential of nanotechnology is
“The
Nanotechnology
Revolution” by Adam Keiper. Among other
topics, he explores some of the differences between the short
(pragmatic) initial industrial uses of nanotechnology, and the
farther-out vision of where an in-depth understanding of
nanotechnology
might bring us.
For example:
“The [more fundamental] Drexlerian notion of nanotechnology
[a term
coined after nanotech pioneer Eric Drexler] differs vastly from
the
nanotech products of today. Compare, for instance, how the two
divergent visions of nanotechnology would differently affect one
small aspect of human life: cosmetics.
Mainstream nanotechnology will soon be [are already being!] used
by
cosmetics companies to help their current products — makeup,
lotions,
sunscreen, and so forth — last longer and work better. But if
Drexler’s version of nanotechnology were to come to fruition, the
beauty industry would be revolutionized: nanomachines could
precisely adjust your hair and skin color to your liking; wrinkles
could be smoothed and excess fat removed; one writer suggests it
would even become possible to mold the face and body to whatever
shape might be desired.
Each person who cared to could achieve his or her own ideal of
physical perfection or, for that matter, whatever frightening or
gruesome effect they wanted. Many who never liked their own
youthful
appearance will opt instead to copy some popular model or other
sex
symbol. It could become very confusing, with dozens of pop-idol
look-alikes crowding the parks and boulevards of our future
metropolis. Some may not relish the prospect, but we may never see
the last of the Elvis clones.
So while mainstream nanotech gives you better eyeshadow, Drexler’s
nanotech gives you a whole new face – yet these two technologies
of
profoundly different potential share one name.”
As we can see, there are many directions, and many sources of
understandable and comprehensive information about this new realm — a
realm which will almost certainly have FAR more impact on how we work,
live, and play than did most of the revolutions in our past. Don’t
let
yourself be surprised! In effect:
Don’t Blink!