Real world uses
One nanotechnology-based development which has been widely discussed recently is IBM’s Millipede storage technology. Millipede can achieve a storage density of up to one trillion bits per square inch. This is 20 times larger than the best storage densities that can be achieved with conventional magnetic media. IBM achieved this feat by using thousands of 10-nanometre tips to punch data onto a plastic recording surface treated with a nanometres-thin silicon coating.
“Since a nanometre-scale tip can address individual atoms, we anticipate further improvements far beyond even this fantastic terabit milestone,” said
IBM Fellow and Nobel laureate Gerd Binnig “While current storage technologies may be approaching their fundamental limits, this nanomechanical approach is potentially valid for a thousand-fold increase in data storage density.” IBM hopes to release a more substantive commercial prototype based around Millipede technology in 2003.
Nanotechnology is also impinging on processor design. Recent linked studies by Harvard in the US, Delft University in Norway, and Lucent’s Bell Labs division have constructed working molecular logic circuits using a variety of methods. Harvard built its circuits by overlaying nanowires (thin ridges comprising just a few atoms) to create simple connections. Delft concentrated on using nanotubes capable of conducting electricity to build the circuit, while the Bell team built its circuit organically by applying a chemical to a silicon surface. Although the circuitry built so far is fairly simple in each case, these first steps make it more likely that a practical means of building processors at the atomic level will eventually appear.
Whether that will be necessary in the near future is debatable. Intel has demonstrated processors that work on a nanometric scale still being designed using traditional silicon-based methods. With models already boasting structures just 20 nanometres in size, the processor giant argues that change won’t be needed any time soon. “We still have not found a fundamental limit for making silicon transistors smaller,”
Intel Fellow Dr Robert Chau declared last year. “The pace of silicon development is accelerating, not decelerating.”
Other uses continue to emerge in materials science. Research by the University of Texas has uncovered a method of purifying natural gas using “nano-sand”, a specially developed polymer membrane.
Conventional purification methods use large amounts of energy, making the new technology more environmentally friendly and cheaper to implement. General Motors in the US has already begun using a “nano-clay” thermoplastic olefin (TPO) composite, including flakes that are just one nanometre thick, to build a step used on some new model vehicles released in 2002. Compared to conventional plastic, the nano-clay version is lighter, more resistant to cold and easier to recycle, and costs about the same to manufacture.
“Although the step-assist is a simple, low-volume part, we see this as a significant and exciting first step that opens the door to increased use of TPO-based nanocomposites in future vehicles,” says Alan Taub, executive director of science for GM Research and Development.
On a more personal level, a company known as Nano-Tex is working with “molecularly engineered textiles” that, for example, minimise wrinkling, or absorb sweat particles and don’t release them until they come in contact with a detergent. The practical upshot?
You can wear the same clothes to go jogging for a week without stinking up the neighbourhood. Potentially, such fabrics could also make use of nanoscale circuitry to measure your heart rate while you jogged.
Perhaps the most commercially successful example of nanotechnology in action has been the development of nano zinc oxide, used to produce see-through sunscreen and other healthcare products. Developer Nanophase credited the product with boosting its revenues by 172 percent when it introduced the product in 2000, and it continues to be a strong seller for the company.
Whether driven by an urge to minimise BO, cut sunburn, or store more data, nanotechnology is already starting to attract significant investment dollars. The NanoBusiness Alliance, an industry association, estimates that US nanotechnology startups will receive US$1 billion in funding this year alone, while the US government will pour US$1.3 billion into nanotechnology research over the next two years. The Japanese government is even keener, assigning US$14 billion for nanotechnology efforts to help bolster its key electronics industries.
Those nanotechnology dollars are on top of the sums spent by major technology vendors such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel, all of whom have recently announced innovations and research based on nanotechnology concepts. Even Microsoft has distracted itself from legal woes and .NET spruiking to explore the potential applications of nanotechnology. Oddly, Microsoft research sociologist Marc Smith is exploring the potential impact of medical nanobots, sagely predicting: “We will be eating a lot of computers in the future.” (Whether Windows causes people to vomit remains to be seen.)
Few scientists are willing to turn away scarce research dollars, but some are concerned that the growing interest in nanotechnology (especially where it overlaps with trend-hungry Silicon Valley) may ultimately cause more problems than it solves. Just as Internet companies frequently took themselves public without establishing a clear market for their products, nanotechnologists are facing pressure to form public companies and explore commercialisation opportunities well before their research is completed.
Indeed, many newly developed degrees in nanotechnology explicitly include a business component, moving the emphasis clearly from scientific advancement to commercial potential. The concern amongst researchers is that over-eager scientists may take funding and fail to produce results, thus reducing the available pool of capital for future research. “We all hope we can avoid the painful foolishness of the Dot Boom cycle,” Vic Kley, president of General Nanotechnology, wrote recently.
Nano technology will change in orders of dimension the way things are done today but has considerable dangers if used improperly.
The CSIRO already has protoypes and patents using 'nano materials' to measure forces on all types of materials that can be used for a wide range of practicle applications.
However, what Austrlia needs is its ability to commercialise its R&D and retain talent that works at the stage of commercial product development, that follows on from organisations like the CSIRO. Taking it from pure research to commercialising product is something Australia needs to get a lot better at and provide incentives for.
Australia's (and all other countries for that matter) challenge will be whether it is able to develop large scale complex commercial software that meets real market needs, is robust and maintainable, to exploit the enormous power available. Currently its software development practices and management need considerable improvement (there are some pockets of excellence) at leading, managing and making good use of the high tech software talent that exists in this country. The U.S certainly isnt showing leadership in this area, but it appears that India is one that is.
So the real issue will be needing strong management leadership talent to utilise and retain the high tech R & D talent within Australia that works at the commecialisation end of the process. It needs to be able to compete in a very competitive global market where the likes of India appears to be taking more the market share in large scale software development.
Perhaps with more government support of software R & D using nano technology beyond pure research and emphasis within the software industry on management leadership talent/skills in addition to pure tech skills, we may be able to move towards being world leaders in this area and retaining both our management/leadership and high technical talent pool.