Lance Birch wrote:
> 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?

Well, I'd say a pipe is more a device than the water flowing thru it. It 
may not be very active, but as I say, I consider "nanotech" to be based 
on the physical structure of the item rather than the chemical behavior 
as such.  I.e., if it's a nanotube because it's cylindrical and hollow, 
it's "nano". If it's a nanotube because it's made out of carbon, then 
that's chemistry.

I don't think the reality of the objective world is such that you can 
separate the two concepts reliably. Things are what they are, and 
chemical reactions happen because of the shapes of the molecules. So 
it's kind of a pointless discussion that nobody is "right" about.

Feynman, the guy who invented the concept as such, described nanotech as 
essentially that which you used nanotools to build. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message