I have always found it interesting that electron microscopy, which predates Feynman's delivery, or more recently the various forms of tunneling and force microscopy (STM, AFM etc.) were never called nanoscopy. The driving force and trends of Moore's law have not changed dramatically over the last decade or two, although the ability to visualise structures and devices fabricated in a "top down" approach has been greatly improved. Is this nanotechnology?
Our understanding of matter on the nano and smaller scales was massively influenced by the work of Rutherford, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, and many others since then, who have helped to understand the physics of quantised electronic and magnetic states in molecules, and matter, and how they evolve as the size of the system increases towards the bulk. Chemists have known how to make molecules and colloids on these scales for centuries, but the insights of the early 20th century dramatically increased our understanding of how and why the physico-chemical properties can be varied and therefore controlled on this scale. The property of having an optical absorption which is tunable based on size is often quoted as a "unique" property of nanomaterials, although the phenomenon is best demonstrated in homologous series of organic oligomers such as the acenes. Is this nanotechnology?
In the 1980s and even early 1990s, quantum dots, quantum wires, multiple quantum wells, quantum tunneling, quantum cascades etc. were the hot topic, all facilitated by the emergence of molecular beam epitaxial processes for top down approaches, and self assembly techniques for bottom up approaches, and the increasing accessibility of tools such as AFM, with which to visualise them. The techniques also allowed virologists and bacteriologists to better visualise and understand the behaviours of the respective ubiquitous species which also operate on a nanoscale.
The production of large conjugated carbon structures from laser ablation of, or arc discharge from, graphite, exploded a new field of "fullerene based" science, and although it cannot necessarily be blamed for it, this co-incided with the recent prevalence of the term nanotechnology. The surge of activity in the production of nanoparticles has raised concerns over potential detrimental effects on health and the environment, and the field of nanotoxicity, although the field of toxicology of Ultrafine particles was already well established. Electron, and atomic force, etc. microscopies have allowed virologists and bacteriologists to better visualise and understand the behaviours of the respective ubiquitous species which also operate on a nanoscale. Understanding and controlling these species is increasingly critical for human health, while being able to tailor them, or synthesise similar structures to interact on a cellular level for the betterment of health would have a massive impact on the human condition, and perhaps the most important impact of so-called nanotechnology.
The drive to understand and manipulate on the smallest possible scale is age old.
It seems to me that Nanotechnology is a buzz word, which Feynmann didn't even use.
I have always found it interesting that electron microscopy, which predates Feynman's delivery, or more recently the various forms of tunneling and force microscopy (STM, AFM etc.) were never called nanoscopy. The driving force and trends of Moore's law have not changed dramatically over the last decade or two, although the ability to visualise structures and devices fabricated in a "top down" approach has been greatly improved. Is this nanotechnology?
Our understanding of matter on the nano and smaller scales was massively influenced by the work of Rutherford, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, and many others since then, who have helped to understand the physics of quantised electronic and magnetic states in molecules, and matter, and how they evolve as the size of the system increases towards the bulk. Chemists have known how to make molecules and colloids on these scales for centuries, but the insights of the early 20th century dramatically increased our understanding of how and why the physico-chemical properties can be varied and therefore controlled on this scale. The property of having an optical absorption which is tunable based on size is often quoted as a "unique" property of nanomaterials, although the phenomenon is best demonstrated in homologous series of organic oligomers such as the acenes. Is this nanotechnology?
In the 1980s and even early 1990s, quantum dots, quantum wires, multiple quantum wells, quantum tunneling, quantum cascades etc. were the hot topic, all facilitated by the emergence of molecular beam epitaxial processes for top down approaches, and self assembly techniques for bottom up approaches, and the increasing accessibility of tools such as AFM, with which to visualise them. The techniques also allowed virologists and bacteriologists to better visualise and understand the behaviours of the respective ubiquitous species which also operate on a nanoscale.
The production of large conjugated carbon structures from laser ablation of, or arc discharge from, graphite, exploded a new field of "fullerene based" science, and although it cannot necessarily be blamed for it, this co-incided with the recent prevalence of the term nanotechnology. The surge of activity in the production of nanoparticles has raised concerns over potential detrimental effects on health and the environment, and the field of nanotoxicity, although the field of toxicology of Ultrafine particles was already well established. Electron, and atomic force, etc. microscopies have allowed virologists and bacteriologists to better visualise and understand the behaviours of the respective ubiquitous species which also operate on a nanoscale. Understanding and controlling these species is increasingly critical for human health, while being able to tailor them, or synthesise similar structures to interact on a cellular level for the betterment of health would have a massive impact on the human condition, and perhaps the most important impact of so-called nanotechnology.
The drive to understand and manipulate on the smallest possible scale is age old.
It seems to me that Nanotechnology is a buzz word, which Feynmann didn't even use.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry