background preloader

Nanotechnology Basics

Nanotechnology Basics
Home > Introduction > Nanotechnology Basics Nanotechnology Basics Last Updated: Friday, 14-Jun-2013 09:28:04 PDT What is Nanotechnology? Answers differ depending on who you ask, and their background. Coined as "nano-technology" in a 1974 paper by Norio Taniguchi at the University of Tokyo, and encompassing a multitude of rapidly emerging technologies, based upon the scaling down of existing technologies to the next level of precision and miniaturization. Foresight Nanotech Institute Founder K. In the future, "nanotechnology" will likely include building machines and mechanisms with nanoscale dimensions, referred to these days as Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT). Click image for larger version. This image was written using Dip-Pen Nanolithography, and imaged using lateral force microscopy mode of an atomic force microscope. It uses a basic unit of measure called a "nanometer" (abbreviated nm). There are one billion nm's to a meter. One thousandth of that is a millimeter. Related:  RoboticaThe Singularity

Penn study shows why sleep is needed to form memories PHILADELPHIA – If you ever argued with your mother when she told you to get some sleep after studying for an exam instead of pulling an all-nighter, you owe her an apology, because it turns out she's right. And now, scientists are beginning to understand why. In research published this week in Neuron, Marcos Frank, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neuroscience, at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, postdoctoral researcher Sara Aton, PhD, and colleagues describe for the first time how cellular changes in the sleeping brain promote the formation of memories. "This is the first real direct insight into how the brain, on a cellular level, changes the strength of its connections during sleep," Frank says. The findings, says Frank, reveal that the brain during sleep is fundamentally different from the brain during wakefulness. "We find that the biochemical changes are simply not happening in the neurons of animals that are awake," Frank says. A molecular explanation is emerging.

robot adapts to injury Lindsay France/University Photography Graduate student Viktor Zykov, former student Josh Bongard, now a professor at the University of Vermont, and Hod Lipson, Cornell assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, watch as a starfish-like robot pulls itself forward, using a gait it developed for itself. the robot's ability to figure out how it is put together, and from that to learn to walk, enables it to adapt and find a new gait when it is damaged. Nothing can possibly go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... The truth behind the old joke is that most robots are programmed with a fairly rigid "model" of what they and the world around them are like. If a robot is damaged or its environment changes unexpectedly, it can't adapt. So Cornell researchers have built a robot that works out its own model of itself and can revise the model to adapt to injury. "Most robots have a fixed model laboriously designed by human engineers," Lipson explained.

Artificial Robotic Hand Transmits Feeling To Nerves Astro Teller has an unusual way of starting a new project: He tries to kill it. Teller is the head of X, formerly called Google X, the advanced technology lab of Alphabet. At X’s headquarters not far from the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif., Teller leads a group of engineers, inventors, and designers devoted to futuristic “moonshot” projects like self-driving cars, delivery drones, and Internet-beaming balloons. To turn their wild ideas into reality, Teller and his team have developed a unique approach. It starts with trying to prove that whatever it is that you’re trying to do can’t be done—in other words, trying to kill your own idea. As Teller explains, “Instead of saying, ‘What’s most fun to do about this or what’s easiest to do first?’ The ideas that survive get additional rounds of scrutiny, and only a tiny fraction eventually becomes official projects; the proposals that are found to have an Achilles’ heel are discarded, and Xers quickly move on to their next idea.

Home - Smarthouse Bad Astronomy Well now, this is an interesting discovery: astronomers have found what looks like a "super-Earth" – a planet more massive than Earth but still smaller than a gas giant – orbiting a nearby star at the right distance to have liquid water on it! Given that, it might – might – be Earthlike. This is pretty cool news. We’ve found planets like this before, but not very many! Now let me be clear: this is a planet candidate; it has not yet been confirmed. The star is called HD 40307, and it’s a bit over 40 light years away (pretty close in galactic standards, but I wouldn’t want to walk there). Massive planets tug on their star harder, so they’re easier to find this way. In this case, HD 40307 was originally observed a little while back by HARPS, and three planets were found. We don’t know how big the planet is, unfortunately. That’s exciting because of the prospect for life. Here’s a diagram of the system as compared to our own: Image credits: ESO/M. Related Posts:

Hi-Res Images of Hydrogen Nonmetal, mass: 1.008 u, 2 stable isotopes (1, 2), abundance rank (earth/space): 9/1 Click image to magnify. Vial of glowing ultrapure hydrogen, H2. Original size in cm: 1 x 5. Hydrogen is the lightest and simplest element and, with a ratio of 80%, is the main ingredient of the visible universe. 20% consist of helium, the ratio of the heavier elements is below 1%. Right: The Great Orion Nebula, 80% hydrogen. The images are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, unless otherwise noted. Silicon Chips Wired With Nerve Cells Could Enable New Brain/Machine Interfaces It's reminiscent of Cartman's runaway Trapper Keeper notebook in that long-ago episode of South Park, but researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison may be scratching the surface of a new kind of brain/machine interface by creating computer chips that are wired together with living nerve cells. A team there has found that mouse nerve cells will connect with each other across a network of tiny tubes threaded through a semiconductor material. It's not exactly clear at this point how the nerve cells are functioning, but what is clear is that the cells seem to have an affinity for the tiny tubes, and that alone has some interesting implications. To create the nerve-chip hybrid, the researchers created tubes of layered silicon and germanium that are large enough for the nerve cells' tendrils to navigate but too small for the actual body of the cell to pass through. What isn't clear is whether or not the cells are actually communicating with each other they way they would naturally.

Why are past, present, and future our only options? But things get awkward if you have a friend. (Use your imagination if necessary.) Low blow, Dr. Dave. Low blow... But seriously, I always figured if there was more than one dimension of time, that moving "left" or "right" would be the equivalent of moving to a parallel universe where things were slightly different. That is to say, maybe time really is 2 dimensional, but for all the reasons you mention, we're normally only aware of one of them—and for the most part, the same one that most of the people we meet are aware of. But take, say, a schizophrenic person—maybe they're tuned in differently; moving sideways through time instead of forward... or maybe moving through (and aware of) both simultaneously. They can't form coherent thoughts because they're constantly confronted with overlapping and shifting realities. I dunno... that's all just speculation, of course, but I find that thought fascinating.

Land, Air and Sea - Museum of Strange and Wonderful Vehicles ScienceSeeker The Ultimate Field Guide to Subatomic Particles This is, for the most part, an accurate article, except for a few statements. "Exactly what makes a fermion a fermion is a bit complicated, but suffice it to say that fermions are all the particles that deal with matter. So what about the last group of elementary particles, the ones that don't deal with matter? These are the bosons, and they deal with the fundamental forces of the universe." The statements above can be misinterpreted as suggesting that fermions are defined as particles that deal with matter and bosons are defined as particles that deal with forces. And that is not true. Particles that deal with matter are fermions and particles that carry the fundamental forces are bosons. What fermions and bosons really are have to do with two apparently unrelated (but actually related) particle properties: spin and statistics. "There are four known bosons" See, this is an example of the misconception I just mentioned. According to special relativity, not general relativity.

Related: