Deathly quiet here

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Yes, well, hmmm.

      Not enough members yet to reach self-sustaining dialogs.

      I'll see about creating some videos that link back here, but it would be a couple weeks at a minimum to get something into the pipeline. I need to figure out subjects that are both interesting and can be reduced to videos with minimum efforts. Ideas welcome.
       
    • Just video tape hot babes in bikinis.  That's all you need.   ;)

      Orrrrrrr do you mean videos about nanotechnology?  If so, have the hot babes wear very very very small bikinis.   :-D

      Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, just do simply explanation videos.  "What's nanotechnology?"  "What's a nanite?" 
      Stuff like that.  Do you already have a YouTube channel?  If not, that's the first place you should start.
       
    • >> JimL: "Unless it involves a [molecular] wardrobe malfunction, I'm not sure what would compel anyone to view such videos." (from an earlier thread)
      >> Snowman: "Orrrrrrr do you mean videos about nanotechnology?  If so, have the hot babes wear very very very small bikinis."    

      If you're so hell bent on sex-sells how about that:

      The key to reliable success when trying to reach the desired reaction:
      • stiff tools
      • forceful and skillful interaction
      • well bond partners
      • pressing in repeatedly
      Mechanosynthesis is hot!

      Bad joke aside - the key to generating interest is quality content (in small chunks).
      One has to archive the miracle of high density information mated with first class entertainment.


      >> Snowman: "Or...r, just do simply explanation videos. "What's nanotechnology?" ... " 

      I think we should not try to reclaim the term "nanotechnology".
      A term that was annexed from others** because it lacks specificity.
      (**people doing unrelated research on non atomically precise nano-scale stuff)
      In his new Book "Radical Abundance" Eric Drexler tried to introduce the new term "atomically precise manufacturing (APM)" shunning the term he used earlier namely "molecular nanotechnology". IMO "atomically precise manufacturing" is too much of a mouthful. I'm not sure it will find widespread use.
      If we want to refer to the advanced diamondoid stuff only (explicitly excluding e.g. DNA origami) we still need another term. By composing E.Drexlers terminology we would arrive at "diamondoid APM" - even more of a mouthful. A term I came up with recently was "Gemstone Meta-material Technology" or more catchy and exemplary "Gem-Gum Technology" - new terms are not usable for search keywords though - any further ideas for terms are welcome.
      I collect existing terminology and ideas for new terms on this page:
      http://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=APM_related_terms


      >> Snowman: "Or...r, just do simply explanation videos. ... "What's a nanite?" "

      There are a lot of terms for more or less free floating nanorobots around already but most of them (including "nanite") do not concretize on what exactly they mean. They are just chosen to sound cool in a SciFi setting.
      Instead they spawn faulty associations with living cells/bugs. Common are:
      • faulty assumption of existence of mutations
      • faulty assumption of capability of "digesting" a very wide variety of "food"
      • faulty assumption of the necessity that they must be capable of self replication 
      Major exception are Robert Freitas medical nanorobots like e.g. his respirocyte.
      Also J.Storrs Halls utility foglets. (Those are still rather general though.)

      What people probably most often think when they hear the common terms for nanorobots though are "molecular assemblers" but those are by now considered:
      • impractical (inefficient and harder to reach than nanofactories)
      • undesirable (because of real forms of grey goo - less crazy than the SciFi depictions but still bad)
      • but not fundamentally impossible (advanced nanofactories should be programmable to build them)
      These opinion is now held from all the core experts including E.Drexler & Co
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS3FPP3n2VU&t=11m8s    
      1992...2015 => molecular assemblers are by now 22 years out of date
      Robert Freitas too - as you can hear in this video:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UVet-OCFdI&t=6m05s

      There are several other types of more or less autonomous and more or less freely movable nano-robotic devices:
      •  elasticity emulating microcomponents (specialised weaker form of utility foglets)
      •  microcomponent maintenance devices for low throughput maintenance purposes in products. While the products are actively running they could e.g. exchange radiation damaged parts and keep the products (e.g. motor material inside infrastructure) functional for arbitrary long spans of time. In contrast to molecular assemblers they would be incapable of self replication or mechanosynthesis.
      •  lots and lots of further ones ... 

      Nanorobots are only a small side dish to the so much overlooked diamondoid metamaterials though.
      Those are the real basis for the gro of advanced diamondoid APT products.
      I'am collecting my findings about diamondoid metamaterials here:
      http://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=Diamondoid_metamaterial
    • Sorry, but we're stuck with the term nanotechnology if we want the public to understand anything close to what we're talking about.  It has entered common usage.  If we use another term, we'll spend all our time trying to turn the Titanic around and will never succeed.  This forum is simply too small to do so.
    • Hello :)

      Well, "molecular nanotechology" has attained quite some usage (easily checkable by google image search - in quotes!) and I think that Eric Drexler has at least some influence on terminology so I'am not sure whether "Atomically precise manufacturing" will or will not be adopted.

      The issue is that people tend to cling to a save haven where they think they have some knowledge but this always invariably leads conversations astray.
      E.Drexler tries to condense this down here: http://metamodern.com/2014/04/04/five-kinds-of-nanotechnology/
      He writes:
      I count five kinds of nanotechnology, ... This situation makes it extraordinarily difficult to have a productive conversation about what really matters.

      Other terms certainly cannot be used in an introduction or as a tag for others to find it. Thats why I wrote:
      " ... - new terms are not usable for search keywords though - ... "

       
    • I am merely saying that we're stuck with the term nanotechnology, whether we like it or not as far as this forum is concerned.  This forum is called "Sci.Nanotech" after all.  We can naturally modify the term or even use a different one in discussions here (and argue over what would be a better replacement term) but we need to keep using the common usage term so when the general public do search for it, they will hopefully find us.  That is all I'm saying.
    • Luckily its called "Sci-Nanotech" which is used nowhere else (brand like). If the forum where called more bland and generic "The Nanotechnology Forum" that would IMO pose a problem.

      About that it is necessary to use common terms in public awareness work - agree -
      The serious problem is that searching with the term "nanotechnology" has become like moving a magnet ball through an iron maze on a balancing board (excuse the analogy).
      I think the usefulness of the term "nanotechnology" has already dropped to the level of the lesser known alternatives (but out of this different reason)

      People who are seriously searching will hopefully come across other terms then just "nanotechnology".
      (another keyword would be: "molecular sciences")