Thursday, September 10, 2009

Apple Just Announced a Flip-killer, the iPod Nano Video Camera



I've been thinking about putting a Flip video camera high on my Christmas list, so much more convenient than lugging around my old digital video cassette camera for family events. But Apple's intro today of its Flip-killer–a video camera that oh, by the way, is built into an iPod Nano–just sunk that idea. Not just because it's an iPod too (I'm thinking I wouldn't use it for music, I'd be saving the memory for movies), but because I have complete faith in Apple making the user interface easy, I won't need to load more software (Flip requires a special app), and it'll go right into iTunes without the conversion that Flip videos require. Plus it's thinner, boasts a five hour battery life, and is about the same price ($149 for 8 GB). And oh yeah, I like the colors. Which could present a problem--do I want pink, or red, or blue...
Followup: I saw my first video Nano in the wild shortly after 7 p.m., just eight hours after the announcement--in the hands of parent taking videos at a back-to-school event. It was a red one. It got away before I could check it out.

Analysis confirms that nano-related research has strong multidisciplinary roots Mapping nanotechnology


 IMAGE: This figure shows the position of nanoscience and nanotechnology over a base map of science. Each node is one of 175 subject categories in the SCI database, and the size...
Click here for more information.
The burgeoning research fields of nanoscience and nanotechnology are commonly thought to be highly multidisciplinary because they draw on many areas of science and technology to make important advances.
Research reported in the September issue of the journal Nature Nanotechnology finds that nanoscience and nanotechnology indeed are highly multidisciplinary – but not much more so than other modern disciplines such as medicine or electrical engineering that also draw on multiple areas of science and technology.
With $1.6 billion scheduled to be invested in nano-related research during 2010, assessing the multidisciplinary nature of the field could be important to policy-makers, research managers, technology-transfer officers and others responsible for managing the investment and creating a supportive environment for it.
"Research in nanoscience and nanotechnology is not just a collection of isolated 'stove pipes' drawing knowledge from one narrow discipline, but rather is quite interdisciplinary," said Alan Porter, co-author of the paper and a professor emeritus in the Schools of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "We found that research in any one category of nanoscience and nanotechnology tends to cite research in many other categories."
 IMAGE: This figure shows the fields of science cited by nanotechnology papers.
Click here for more information.
The study was sponsored by the National Science Foundation through the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University.
Porter and collaborator Jan Youtie, manager of policy services in Georgia Tech's Enterprise Innovation Institute, analyzed abstracts from more than 30,000 papers with "nano" themes that were published between January and July of 2008. They found that although materials science and chemistry dominated the papers, fields as diverse as clinical medicine, biomedical sciences and physics also contributed.
These "nanopapers" studied by the researchers appeared in more than 6,000 journals that were part of a database known as the Science Citation Index (SCI). The researchers found nanopapers in 151 of SCI's 175 subject categories, with 52 of the categories containing more than 100 such papers.
To explore how well knowledge was integrated across the disciplines, the researchers also studied the journal articles that were cited in the nanopapers. They found more than one million cited references, a mean of 33 per paper.
Using text mining techniques to extract sources from the cited references, they further found that 45 subject categories were cited by five percent or more of the nanopapers – and 98 categories that were cited by at least one percent of the papers. The text mining was done using VantagePoint software developed by Georgia Tech and Search Technology Inc.
Six subject categories dominated both the original nanopapers and the cited references. Each of the six contained 10 percent or more of the original nanopapers and was cited by 39 percent or more of the references. They are:
  • Materials science, multidisciplinary
  • Physics, applied
  • Chemistry, physical
  • Physics, condensed matter
  • Nanoscience and nanotechnology
  • Chemistry, multidisciplinary
The researchers found considerable interdisciplinary representation within those six categories. Though 86 percent of the 3,863 nanopapers in the "nanoscience and nanotechnology" category cited papers in materials science, another 80 subject categories had 40 or more cited papers each.
This representation continued even outside the top six categories. The 808 nanopapers in electrical engineering cited papers in journals from 138 different subject categories, while the 435 nanopapers in organic chemistry cited papers in journals from 140 different subject categories.
The researchers also used a metric they called an "integration score" to gauge how interdisciplinary nature of a particular paper or set of papers. The integration score ranged from zero for stand-alone disciplines that don't cite work from other disciplines to one for highly-integrated disciplines that heavily cite work from other areas.
Integration scores ranged from 0.65 for nanoscience and nanotechnology to 0.60 for electrical engineering and 0.64 for organic chemistry.
"Our results show the multidisciplinary nature of research in nanoscience and nanotechnology, although the integration scores make it clear that much non-nano research is also comparably interdisciplinary," Porter said. "Much of the nanoresearch is also concentrated in 'macrodisciplines' such as materials science and chemistry, and researchers tend to cite work from neighboring fields more often than work in more distant fields."
Understanding the interdisciplinary nature of nanoscience and nanotechnology could be important to creating the right environment for the field to produce results.
"There is a broad perspective that most scientific breakthroughs occur at the interstices among more established fields," said Youtie. "Nanotechnology R&D is believed to be an area where disciplines converge. If nanotechnology does have a strong multidisciplinary character, attention to communication across disciplines will be an important feature in its emergence."
In the future, Porter and Youtie hope to explore other policy-focused nano topics, including:
  • How research and development patterns can forecast likely commercial innovations;
  • The societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology innovations so that potential negative efforts can be mitigated before they occur;
  • How corporations develop their strategies for nanoscience and nanotechnology, and
  • Where nanoscience and hotspots for research and development – called "nanodistricts" – exist around the world.
"A nanodistrict is a regional concentration of research institutions and firms where nanotechnologies are developed," Youtie explained. "Although nanotechnology applications are deployed widely across the world, a smaller number of nanodistrict locations are appearing where nanotechnology research, development and initial commercialization are clustered."
###
The Center for Nanotechnology in Society is part of a broad U.S. effort to anticipate the societal implications of nanotechnology. Georgia Tech's role in the multi-university effort is to characterize the type of nanotechnology research being done and to identify early indicators of emerging technologies in that field.
Youtie and Porter are also part of Georgia Tech's Program in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP), a collaboration of the School of Public Policy and the Enterprise Innovation Institute that advances research and practice in science, technology, innovation and spatial development policy.
The findings and opinions contained in this news release are those of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF).



POSTED BY: DEXTER JOHNSON // TUE, SEPTEMBER 01, 2009
Predicting the end of Moore’s Law and the need to move on past the etched silicon chip is beginning to make me think of the Peak Oil issue. Some say we have already reached Peak Oil and we need to adopt alternative energies more aggressively while others argue that we still have 50 years before it’s reached.
While timetables may differ, sometimes extraordinarily so, there’s no doubt that there is a virtual wall out there for oil and the silicon chip.
The NY Times in its Tuesday science section tackles the debate between the “end is nigh” crowd and the “wait until the next decade” type on the question of Moore’s law and manages to come up with a coherent article.
Of course, from a nanotech point of view it is always interesting to see the nanotechnologies that are trotted out as possible solutions for reducing feature size. We get mention of nanowires and even the latest research on so-calledDNA origami.
What had me a little surprised was that reporter seemed to take the word of the IBM researcher interviewed for the piece unchallenged when she said that growing nanowires that would serve as FinFET switches would be available commercially by 2012.
I don’t want to dismiss this as a very real possibility, but surely there might be some others out there who might think differently on that particular timetable. MIght be worth a second quote.

POSTED BY: DEXTER JOHNSON // TUE, SEPTEMBER 01, 2009
Last year I commented on AskMen.com’s  decision to address the pressing concern on the mind of the publication’s readership: “5 things You Didn’t Know about Nanotechnology”.
It seems the readers of AskMen know twice as much about nanotechnology as your typical Nanowerk reader because this nanotechnology portal felt compelled to address 10 things people should know about nanotechnology after receiving questions such as “Where can I buy nanobots?”
For Nanowerk it’s not so much 10 things you should know about nanotech but 10 fields of interest for nanotech, i.e. how much governments invest, what does the term nanotechnology mean. I am not really sure that’s in keeping with the spirit of this type of list for “things you should know”, but I guess when you get right down to the real number of things you should know about any topic the figures can range between zero and... well, quite a lot.
So, what is the number of things you should know about nanotechnology? As long as we’re going to be completely arbitrary, let’s say 1 trillion. No, that’s not right. That’s the dollar figure that the National Nanotechnology Initiative estimated back in 2000 the nanotechnology market would be worth by 2015.
As long as I deftly raised the issue of market estimates, Nanowerk, of course, takes its regular swipe at assigning market figures to nanotechnology and dismisses the idea that a few pennies worth of nanoparticles used in a drug formulation should take on the value of the entire drug.
While the argument that just because some nanoparticles are in the paint coating of a Mercedes Benz doesn’t mean you can attach the entire value of that car to nanotech is appealing, it doesn’t quite hold up when a few pennies of a nanoparticle are used in a drug formulation.
I have tried to explain this seemingly simple economic concept before, but it apparently bears repeating. If the drug cannot be formulated so it possesses a new and improved delivery system and efficacy without the nanoparticle, then the new drug does not come into being. Therefore there is no value without the nanoparticle but with it there is. Sine qua non. Maybe a little Latin will clear that up.
Anyway, I went through all the 10 sections of Nanowerk’s new section and I still don’t know where I can buy a nanobot.

POSTED BY: DEXTER JOHNSON // WED, SEPTEMBER 02, 2009
There seems to be a universal albeit naïve idea that politics should stay out of nanotechnology, or any technology for that matter. I am not at all sure how this is supposed to be achieved when at the end of last year governments around the world had invested over $40 billion in nanotech research, but scientists and engineers working on government grants either directly or tangentially like to believe they are untainted by politics.
So for those of you certain that political commentary has no place in discussions of nanotech take a deep breath. I came across this little gem in a publication called the Washington Examiner. Since I have never worked or lived inside the DC beltway, I have no idea of the politics of this publication, but the author, Ryan Young, is a Fellow at the think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which I understand to be an organization to promote libertarian ideals.
The article came to my attention because I saw the headline “Nanotechnology: Innovation vs. Corporate Welfare”, which seemed to run contrary to my recent blog entry in which I vent my frustration at the millions being spent on shiny new research centers that enrich well-established construction companies. Meanwhile the financial support needed for bringing a technology from the lab to the market is largely unsupported either by investing models like venture capital or the kind of initial public offerings that fueled the Internet boom.
But Mr. Young sees it differently. And of course he has the advantage of arguing from the vantage point ideology rather than empiricism, which always paints a rather messy picture.
I concede that there may indeed be so-called nanotech companies that may be surviving from one government contract to the next. But would these companies resort to doing this if there were other financial instruments available to them?
Maybe the government should not get into the business of risky investments (tongue firmly placed in cheek) like funding nanotech companies or banks that leverage themselves 30 times to buy financial instruments based on bad loans. Maybe the Russian approach to developing commercial nanotech is not the way to go for bridging the gap between the lab and the marketplace.
But perhaps Mr. Young might offer some private sector funding tool that will get companies with little capital capable of bridging the seven to 10 years from a lab project to a commercial product because the ones out there now don’t seem to be working.

POSTED BY: DEXTER JOHNSON // TUE, SEPTEMBER 08, 2009
Is it physics? Is it biology? Is it chemistry? Or is it all of these and many more? So has gone the line of questioning for those who sought to get a handle on nanotechnology, i.e. how to define it and how to train and educate a new generation of scientists around it.
As though this multidisciplinary characteristic needed some kind of confirmation, some researchers at Georgia Tech are reporting in this month’s edition of Nature Nanotechnology that indeed nanotechnology involves a number of different scientific fields. 
I suppose if there is something slightly surprising from their analysis of research papers it’s that other disciplines such as electrical engineering or medicine are only marginally less multidisciplinary.
While a recognition of nanotechnology’s drawing upon different scientific disciplines is no doubt important to figuring out how one should invest in and support its development, it’s not altogether clear to me how this research clarifies something that was already fairly well accepted and understood. But who knows, maybe some politico needs to see some pretty pictures to convince them of the obvious.
Now I think it might be time to move on to some research that helps make it easier for physicists, chemists and biologists to talk to one another. Or figure out how we pull out of the specialization spiral science has been in for the last half century and get back to more broadly trained scientists.

POSTED BY: DEXTER JOHNSON // WED, SEPTEMBER 09, 2009
At a conference that I had put the program together for a few years back, a speaker during his presentation suggested that maybe he would supply some carbon nanotubes to a bicycle manufacturer and have Lance Armstrong ride the bike in the Tour de France. What a great marketing idea, he thought out loud.
Being an avid cyclist and an even more avid fan of cycling, I explained to him that the professional cycling federation had put a weight limit on bicycles and that maybe there was not much to be gained in pursuing this marketing avenue.
How wrong I was. Since then, which I believe was around 2005, I have become aware of at least three high-end bicycles that employ some kind of nanoparticle in the frame.
The three that I know of are Spanish-based BH Bicycles, Swiss-based BMC and most recently I’ve discovered Italian-based Pinarello has gotten on the nano bandwagon.
What does the nanotech actually do for these bikes other than to raise their asking price slightly north of a new economy car? Well, it’s hard to say except by taking a look at their marketing copy.
Let’s start with the BH G4 bike. Here the marketing copy reads: “BH achieves this magical blend of low-weight, great ride and toughness using Nanotechnology resins.”
“Nanotechnology resins”? After reading the rest it appears what they mean is that they are using carbon nanotubes as a filler material between the carbon fibers. Despite the rather breathless description of how carbon nanotubes “have a strength-to-weight ratio orders of magnitude greater than steel”, they never quite get around to saying whether the CNT-enabled resins make the carbon fiber bicycle any stronger or lighter than any other run-of-the-mill resin.
BMC it turns out is using carbon nanotubes in exactly the same way as BH (not really a surprise to be honest). But BMC does manage to say that the material matrix that is developed using these carbon nanotubes is 20% stronger for practically the same weight. I am a little concerned with the usage of the phrase “practically the same weight”. And for that matter what does “stronger” mean?
Pinarello appears to be much more discrete about their foray into nanomaterials, but they do manage to say the following: “the exclusive 60HM1K carbon by Torayca® with Nanoalloy™ that prevents sudden breakage.”
Wow, now we’ve got a nanoalloy (and it’s trademarked)! From what I have been able to piece together about the “Nanoalloy™” from the bicycle trade press is that:
“Nanoalloy… disperses nanoscale elastomers between the carbon fibers. These elastomers have the ability to absorb impacts and prevent the propagation of cracks as they occur.” The result: Pinarello claims the Dogma frame weighs about 860 grams, 40 grams less than the Prince but is 23 percent more resistant to impacts.
 Could this resistance to impacts that Pinarello describes be the same “stronger” that BMC offers up?
Is there anything to all of this nano talk in bicycles other than a cool marketing angle? Impossible to say outside of conducting some real experiments, and it’s hard to imagine anyone being that interested to bother.
Now if we can develop a material that would be perfect for the rigors of a bicycle frame by using a material by design method and then build the material and the frame atom-by-atom then I might pay a premium price for it. Will I still be able to ride a bike by then? Stay tuned.