Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> I'm not sure how scotch-guard works, and I think 'chemical' is a bit 
>> of a nebulous term.
> 
> Uh, less nebulous than "nanotech" I think.
> 
>> I always thought nanotech refers to discrete artifacts smaller than a 
>> micron (i.e., whose size is best measured in nanometres). 
> 
> You mean, like, molecules? :-)
> 
> I always thought nanotech had to be "devices", like it says on the wiki. 

Not necessarily.  Carbon nanotubes are a good example of nanotechnology 
where initially you'd think that it wouldn't be called a "device".  If 
something is just a physical structure, can it be a device?

That brings up the question of what is and isn't a device: Is a device 
only something with moving parts?  If it is, then what about a laser? 
Most people would consider it a device.  It's a bit of a grey area.  Is it 
a device if it has no moving parts but performs a function by altering 
things on/around it?  Well, then a simple TiO2 nano coating on glass could 
be considered a device, and so could a nanolaser even if, again, it's just 
a physical structure (in this case a nanowire attached to a substrate).

So, a lot of surfaces and physical structures can be considered devices, 
and, if their details are of a nano scale, would fall under the term 
nanotechnology.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message