Re: nanotech timeline

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: phil osborn

And don't forget,

1. Rosalita Associates publishes John Sundman's Acts of the Apostles (see www.wetmachine.com for first 13 chapters)a nanotech thriller about Gulf War Syndrome and technocrazed extropians, fostering a decidedly darker view of the silicon valley religion of turbo-capitalist-informationtology than one generally sees on this panglossian list.
2. Invisible swarm of flying nanomachines released from Foresight Institute dismantle Sundman's server, stack of unsold books and subsequently Sundman himself, thereby silencing last senior in the class refusing to go out for nanocheerleading.

Rah!

jfxs

>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <newstrom@newstaffinc.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: Re: nanotech timeline
>Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:10:31 -0500
>
>Spike Jones <spike.jones@lmco.com> wrote:
> >
> > > a nanotech timeline.
> > >
> > > What should I put in there?
>
>Anders Sandburg replied:
> > Maybe the invention of the STM, and the famous IBM-logo of xenon
> > atoms. The first re-engineering of a bacterial protein to do something
> > useful. The first self-replicating chemical.
> >
> > I don't have the years for those, though.
>
>
>See the reference dates for IBM's work with the Scanning Tunneling
>Microscope at <http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/library.html#ref2>.
>
> 1990: Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope.
>35 Xenon atoms spell IBM.
>
> 1993: Confinement of electrons to quantum corrals on a metal surface.
>Imaging standing waves in a two-dimensional electron gas.
>
>Take a look at <http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html> for more
>information. This is IBM's nanotech gallery. They discuss the science and
>art of creating things one atom at a time.
>
>--
>Harvey Newstrom <mailto://newstrom@newstaffinc.com>
><http://newstaffinc.com>
>Author, Consultant, Engineer, Legal Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.
>

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: phil osborn