LISTEN
To This Issue.
Give those eyes a rest...
Quote of the Week.
What a difference 55 years
makes. About the
same amount as the next 5-10?
NanoTech Nightmares?
The Ultimate Tool -- the 'goods'
and the 'bads...'
Tidbits...
All you ever wanted to know about
CDs,
and more; and
If you think our storage is dense NOW,
look what's coming!
From Out of the Ether...
More on the apparent disproving
of the
"Second Law of Thermodynamics."
New Surfers Say The Darndest Things.
If Art Linkletter focused on the
Internet Age...
About "The Harrow Technology Report"
LISTEN
To This Issue.
Do you prefer to let your ears do the work of
keeping you in-touch with, and thinking about where
technology is taking us? If so, "The Harrow
Technology Report" is also available in an
audio-on-demand, Web-based, MP3 version.
If you have an MP3 player on your system (and
most do, such as Window's Media Player, RealPlayer,
etc.), clicking on the link below will either stream
the file to you, or, depending on how your system is
configured, it might download the file before
playing it. Alternatively, if you specifically want
to download the file, simply right-click on the
link, and choose "Save Target As..."
Also, to learn how you can listen at whatever
speed is most comfortable to you, check out the FAQ
at
http://www.theharrowgroup.com/help.htm
.
So, if you wish, just click on the following link
to listen to this issue!
http://www.theharrowgroup.com/articles/20020909/20020909.mp3
.
Back to Table of Contents
"NOW, AND THEN: Bridging this nanometer-wide gap
(above, arrow)
with a metal-containing molecule creates a
transistor.
---
End-to-end, 10 million of those molecules would span
the footprint of the first transistor..."
W. Liang et al./Nature
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020810/bob9.asp
Not bad -- a ten-million-times size reduction in
a span of 55 years.
Now, imagine where we'll be 55 (or 25, or 15, or
even 5) years from today, considering how the
RATE of innovation, driven by the increasing
body of knowledge and the Convergence of new fields,
continues to accelerate...
Back to Table of Contents
The idea of building things from the atoms-up,
rather than by crudely machining substances down as
we've done since the dawn of tools, holds
fascinating potentials. As scientists are learning
to move individual atoms around "just so," and are
even learning ways to cause the atoms to
automatically form up in explicit formations that
would make any drill instructor proud, we're poised
on the edge of a revolution that, if it matures in
ways that many believe, holds the potential for
dramatic change in almost every field!
The Seemingly Probable Future.
Consider cloth that repels water, regulates
temperature, changes its appearance to blend in with
its surroundings, stiffens-up into a cast over an
area that has been damaged, or even stiffens-up on
command to harden the edge of a palm about to
deliver a Karate chop.
Or how about machines far smaller than blood
cells that will patrol our bodies on
seek-and-destroy missions, targeting cancerous or
other unfriendly cells.
Or wires just 20 billionths of a meter in
diameter that instead of simply transporting
electrons from one circuit to the next, actually ARE
the circuits.
Or, how about a "Quantum Confined Atom" (QCA),
which is an atom trapped within a "nanocrystal cage"
(a tiny cage made from the atoms of a semiconductor)
where the semiconductor atoms of the cage alter the
properties of the trapped atom. (That is the
opposite of today's semiconductors, where the
trapped atom alters the properties of its
semiconductor host). These developments could lead
to ultra-dense quantum dot storage far beyond
anything we use today.
(http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,54093,00.html)
In fact, quantum devices may not be as far away as
many expect, considering that University of
Wisconsin researchers believe that they can create
quantum structures using existing semiconductor
fabrication technology by building on-chip vertical
structures to contain the quantum dots (http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20020806S0030
- with thanks to reader Raoul Teeuwen.)
On another front, one DARPA team believes that
their molecular self-assembly process will enable
them to demonstrate a 12.5 gigabyte, one
centimeter-square storage device -- in 2004! (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020804-124925-6113r
- with thanks to reader Dana
Hoggatt).
These are just a few of the growing number of
stepping stones that we're creating on the road
towards the tiny and we should consider them well,
because the premier laboratories around the world
that are working on these things, such as at MIT,
have a track record of changing lots of rules.
The Ultimate Tool?
Perhaps the most speculated-about, and the most
important "enablers" of a world of nanotechnology
manufacturing, is the "nano-assembler" -- a tiny
nanobot whose purpose is to use the atomic detritus
around it to build the actual nano-machines that
will eventually do our bidding. Some envision a
nano-project as beginning with a single
nano-assembler that is "programmed" with what it's
supposed to build. It sizes up the problem and
scavenges atomic raw material in its vicinity to
build another nano-assembler. The second
nano-assembler joins in this task, as does every
subsequently-built nano-assembler, dramatically
increasing the pace until an optimally-sized fleet
of nano-assemblers is ready. At that time they quit
replicating themselves and begin the actual
construction project.
This idea of, nano-assemblers, may seem like good
science fiction. But reader Kenneth LaCross brings
our attention to an interesting timeline in a July
15 "Nanotechnology Now" article titled
"Ten-Year Assembler Timeline and Weather Forecast"
(http://nanotech-now.com/chris-phoenix-assembler-article-071502.htm).
Chris Phoenix makes the case that nano-assemblers
(or as he calls them, an "industrial revolution
in a box") aren't an "if" question, but only a
"when" question determined by research dollars and
(hence) by political will, which might well come to
fruition in ten to fifteen years!
The Problem.
The problem, though, is what if a nano-assembler's
programming went awry! Instead of building what we
wanted it to build and then shutting down or going
into maintenance mode, suppose that it and its
progeny continued savaging the atomic material
around them to build an unchecked swarm of
nano-assemblers, which in turn build more
nano-assemblers, ad nauseam. Consider that if these
nano-assemblers have the ability to build
nano-things, then they must necessarily also have
the ability to UN-build the things around them as
they mine atomic resources to feed their now
out-of-control project!
This is the "gray goo" scenario previously
popularized by Bill Joy
(http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html)
and by several science fiction writers, and which is
being explored in some new detail by Sean Howard in
the August "Acronym Institute" article
"Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: The Need for
an Inner Space Treaty"
(http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd65/65op1.htm).
He sums up the issue, while pointing out that
nano-accidents aren't the only consideration:
"Processes of [nano]
self-replication, self-repair and self-assembly are
an important goal of mainstream nanotechnological
research. [But] either accidentally or by design,
precisely such processes could act to rapidly and
drastically alter environments, structures and
living beings from within. In extremis, such
alteration could develop into a 'doomsday scenario',
the nanotechnological equivalent of a nuclear
chain-reaction - an uncontrollable, exponential,
self-replicating proliferation of 'nanodevices'
chewing up the atmosphere, poisoning the oceans,
etc.
While accidental
mass-destruction, even global destruction, is
generally regarded as unlikely - equivalent to fears
that a nuclear explosion could ignite the
atmosphere, a prospect seriously investigated during
the Manhattan Project - a deliberately malicious
programming of nanosystems, with devastating
results, seems hard to rule out. As Ray Kurzweil
points out, if the potential for atomic
self-replication is a pipedream, so is
nanotechnology, but if the potential is real, so is
the risk:
'Without
self-replication, nanotechnology is neither
practical nor economically feasible. And therein
lies the rub. What happens if a little software
problem (inadvertent or otherwise) fails to halt the
self-replication? We may have more nanobots than we
want. They could eat up everything in sight. ... I
believe that it will be possible to engineer
self-replicating nanobots in such a way that an
inadvertent, undesired population explosion would be
unlikely. ... But the bigger danger is the
intentional hostile use of nanotechnology. Once the
basic technology is available, it would not be
difficult to adapt it into an instrument of war or
terrorism. ... Nuclear weapons, for all their
destructive potential, are at least relatively local
in their effects. The self-replicating nature of
nanotechnology makes it a far greater danger.'"
(Personally, I'm rather glad that the Manhattan
Project did consider the potential of igniting the
atmosphere; it would have been SO embarrassing if
that had turned out to be a real possibility...)
Don't get me wrong -- I believe that the
potential benefits of nanotechnology are immense,
and that nanotechnology will eventually (positively)
transform both us and our world. But as we are now
just beginning this journey, THIS is the time
to be thinking about not only its benefits, but also
about the dangers of this radical shrinking of our
"Tinker Toys." THIS is the time to build-in
protections to keep the grey goo at bay. (Of
course, if you believe that software errors in
nano-assemblers' code could never happen, then this
isn't worth worrying about...)
WMD vs. KMD.
There's one other aspect of this move towards
nanotechnology that we should be considering.
Today, many nations are having to deal with the
threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), but
historically it's taken the resources of
nation-states to develop WMDs such as atomic bombs
and biological weapons and their traditional
delivery systems. Unfortunately, it was
demonstrated about a year ago that technology had
advanced to the extent that "off the shelf" devices
could all too easily be subverted to a WMD role.
Now, as we're on the cusp of NBIC convergence
(Nanotechnology, Biology, Information sciences, and
Cognitive sciences), Moore's Law and its fallout
could conceivably enable the "desktop creation" of
nano-devices, and even totally new strings of DNA
(such as the Polio virus which was recently created
from scratch -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/2124354.stm
- this short article is WELL worth reading).
As we can appreciate, this demonstrated ability
to create deadly viruses from recipes downloaded
from the Internet, and by using only components
ordered by mail, could be used for both good and for
ill. Bill Joy coined the term "Knowledge-enabled
Mass Destruction" (KMDs) to describe this offshoot
of the Knowledge Age, and it warrants considerable
attention. Terrorism aside, imagine what little
Suzy might unintentionally do with a "Home Life
Creation Kit." (Remember your "mixing and matching"
with your first chemistry sets?)
Sean Howard also explores several related ideas in
his thought-provoking and interesting article
(http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd65/65op1.htm),
which I believe is worthwhile reading. Not because
KMDs are an issue today, but because, due to the
exponential growth of the related NBIC technologies,
and because by definition, exponential results sneak
up on us before we're ready, we really don't want to
be surprised by the potential of "Knowledge-enabled
Mass Destruction". Howard concludes, as do I:
"The danger of new
means of mass destruction emerging from the
development of nanotechnology is, by definition, as
yet neither present nor clear. By the time it is,
[though,] it may be too late to either eliminate or
control.
While there is no realistic possibility of early
arms control negotiations to tackle the threat, the
international community should at least take
cognizance of the issue - in all its aspects, to use
the appropriate diplomatic term for far-reaching,
open-ended and open-minded deliberation."
DO -- please -- blink!
Back to Table of Contents
·
Under the CD's Covers -- If
you've ever turned out "coasters" while trying to
burn a CD-R or CD-RW disk (and who hasn't), or if
you've wondered why SOME disks (with different
colored "bottom sides") seem to work in SOME
computers and in SOME players (but not all, and not
always the same), or if you've ever wondered about
those strange "Disk at Once," and "Close Session"
and "UDF" choices in your CD-burning software, then
I've got some answers for you. Actually, it's Mike
Mrichter who has these answers; probably far more
answers than you ever had questions about the
mysterious and unbelievably complex world of our
seemingly simple CDs.
What makes Mike's tome particularly interesting is
that, unlike the myriad standards books that define
(mostly) what goes on under the polycarbonate
covers, Mike's commentary is both very readable, and
interesting to boot. Increase your CD IQ at
http://www.mrichter.com/cdr/primer/primer.htm
.
·
Storage Update -- In a recent
issue, we explored the idea of "atoms as bits" that
could potentially yield 250 terabits/square inch of
storage, or the equivalent of 7,800 DVDs in a square
inch (http://www.theharrowgroup.com/articles/
20020812/20020812.htm#Storage).
The only problem is that this is a very early
laboratory experiment with lots of work ahead of it
before it (may) become a commercial reality.
Seagate, however (with thanks to reader Alan
Conroy), indicates that they have now created a
technology called "Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording"
(HAMR) that they believe leaves the
"superparamagnetic limit" in the dust (that's a
theoretical maximum density for magnetic storage
because, below a certain size, magnetic domains tend
to lose their minds). Although not as dense as the
250 terabits/square inch mentioned above, Seagate
believes that they can commercialize the HARM
technique within ten years to yield 50
terabits/square inch, allowing the entire contents
of the Library of Congress to be packed into one
square inch (http://sci.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19209.html).
Which is not bad at all!
The seemingly simple HAMR technology, which they
recently demonstrated, uses a laser to heat the
magnetic surface directly below the write head,
making it easier to change its magnetic state).
After writing, the area immediately cools down to
keep it stable. Of course there's a bit more to
it... (Additional details are at
http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/
newsroom/releases/article/0,1121,1503,00.html).
Bottom line is that until recently, "everyone knew"
that the superparamagnetic limit imposed a death
knell for magnetic storage. But all it took was
someone thinking "outside the box" to say "Nah!,"
and to find a way to slip past "the limit" by as
much as 100-times. Which is why I believe that
EVERY "limit" deserves similar attention. In
general, we only "limit" ourselves!
Back to Table of Contents
Your
Feedback is Important!
I'd
like to understand your interest in The Harrow
Technology Report, how you make use of it, and
the value you feel it provides to you, your career,
and to your company.
Please send your comments to me at
Jeff@TheHarrowGroup.com .
I
look forward to hearing from you!
And,
if you know of other folks who might find value in
"The Harrow Technology Report," I'd
appreciate your letting them know that they can
subscribe at
http://www.theharrowgroup.com/signup.asp
.
Jeff Harrow
Back to Table of Contents
·
More On "The Second Law" -- In
a recent issue (http://www.theharrowgroup.com/articles/
20020729/20020729.htm#_Toc15357626), we
explored the surprising news that scientists had
reported that, for tiny things during a very short
period of time, entropy moved backwards towards
"order," rather than forward towards chaos as is the
norm, in apparent violation of the "Second Law of
Thermodynamics."
Of course if the Second Law is truly false and
things could generally move from chaos towards
order, interesting "impossible" things would be
arising, such as perpetual motion machines. Yet not
one such machine has (so far) withstood independent
scientific scrutiny. So what's going on?
This apparent conundrum has been explained by
several of you who munch on physics problems with
your morning cereal. Consider, for example, this
paraphrase of an explanation from reader Robert Dana
Kelly:
"Quantum physics
says that energy (and sub-atomic particles) are
continually appearing and disappearing. But it all
averages out over the distances and times that we
can normally observe. What these folks have done is
demonstrate that if you make a system so small in
time and in space that statistics do not apply, then
statistics do not apply. It's the "observation"
they accomplished that is noteworthy here, which is
hard to do and does deserve a pat on the back.
But if you scale up
to sizes we can observe more easily, then the
spontaneous oddities of quantum physics average out
and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is still a
correct description of reality.
You have a good
point that as we push hard on Moore's Law, devices
could cross into regions where the "usual" rules may
not apply. But contrary to the popular press
coverage, don't expect any fuel-less cars from
this."
Reader Michael Shulman
helps us understand this in a different way:
"The demonstration
of the violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
you mentioned is important, certainly, and the
implications for nanotechnology are good to keep in
mind, but it is not really the Earth-shattering
discovery that it may seem.
I suppose many
physics professors probably present the Second Law
as "A Given" without any caveats, but an
investigation of the statistical underpinnings of
thermodynamics shows that the Second Law is not, and
never was, anything but a probabilistic law. The
correct statement is not "entropy must always
increase in a closed system," but rather "in a
macroscopic closed system, entropy is astronomically
more likely to increase than to decrease."
For example,
consider the classic nonreversible process: the
expansion of a gas into a larger volume. There is
no physical reason why all the molecules of a gas
might not spontaneously end up in a smaller volume,
but (assuming that the molecules move randomly), the
odds against it are ridiculously high -- so high
that we would expect the universe to end several
times over before it would happen once. But those
gigantic odds come only from the gigantic number of
molecules in the system, so it makes perfect sense
that on very small scales and over very short
periods of time, entropy might increase rather than
decrease.
Thanks again for a
great newsletter! Keep up the good work!"
And reader Ron Benton
points us to "Law and Disorder: Chance
Fluctuations Can Rule the Nanorealm" in the July
27 ScienceNews Online
(http://www.sciencenews.org/20020727/fob1.asp),
which provides additional insights into the
experiments that have caused this hullabaloo, and
which explores what this may mean to our growing use
of ever-smaller "things."
Bottom line? These
scientists didn't find a violation of the Second
Law, but for the first time they were able to
measure its effects at the tiny scale of
nanomachines, where the probabilities we're used to
don't necessarily apply. This doesn't make their
findings any less important. In fact, they are
exceedingly important, because as we get better at
creating things that operate in these tiny
probability-challenged backwaters, we're going to
have to learn to deal with those times when things
wind-up, instead of down. And that's likely to keep
physicists happy and busy for quite some time!
Back to Table of Contents
Finally, from an article in the April 11 issue of
the R&D Newsflash by Gerry McGovern, these are
"supposedly real quotes from real people:"
Customer: "I'd like to buy the Internet. Do you know
how much it is?"
Customer: "How much does it cost to have the
Internet installed?"
Customer: "Can you copy the Internet for me on this
diskette?"
Customer: "I would like an Internet please."
Customer: "I just got your Internet in the mail
today..."
Customer: "I just downloaded the Internet. How do I
use it?"
Customer: "I don't have a computer at home. Is the
Internet available in book form?"
Customer: "Will the Internet be open on Memorial Day
tomorrow?"
Customer: "Are you sure that the Internet isn't
closed for the night?"
They do sound funny, and they're very probably
real. I can think of many times that I've launched
myself into a new job or new hobby or new technology
(including, years ago, the Internet) and found
myself making similar seemingly-silly comments until
I learned more. It's HARD to assimilate a new
environment. Which is why Gerry goes on to
demonstrate that good design -- good human factors
engineering -- can turn such problems into a
positive experience for us all:
"People can't spell.
Google recently published a very long list of the
misspellings of the Britney Spears name. You'd be
amazed at the amount of ways a name can be
misspelled.
Did Google sit back and laugh? No. Google
implemented a function which, if it thinks you have
misspelled something, it suggests the correct
spelling.
That's good design."
Indeed. The customer is happy, and even if
he/she doesn't realize why, they're drawn to the
product or service. For example, Microsoft Word's
squiggly red underlines have taught me far more
about spelling than my third grade teacher ever did.
It's tempting to chuckle at peoples' mistakes.
It's more valuable to keep your customers from ever
experiencing them.
About
"The Harrow Technology Report"
"The Harrow Technology Report" explores the innovations and
trends of many contemporary and emerging technologies, and then draws some less
than obvious connections between them, to help us each survive and prosper in
the Knowledge Age.
"The Harrow Technology Report" is brought to you by Jeffrey
R. Harrow, Principal of The Harrow Group.
http://www.TheHarrowGroup.com .
Where To Find "The
Harrow Technology Report:"
- Via Email -- Sign up for automatic delivery of this journal
(which you can also use as a notification that a new issue is available on
the Web, if you prefer to
read it there), by one of these methods:
- The fastest and easiest method is to go to this Web
page http://www.theharrowgroup.com/signup.asp
and follow its instructions.
Or,
- Send an Email message to TheHarrowGroup@SendMeMore.Net
with the word SUBSCRIBE in the Subject line.
- On
The Web -- You can, of course, also read this journal directly on the
Web at www.TheHarrowGroup.com
.
-
Additionally, to support automated access schemes, the most current issue of
the journal will always be available at this persistent link: www.TheHarrowGroup.com/current.htm
.
Copyright (c) 2001-2005, Jeffrey R. Harrow. All
rights reserved.
Jeffrey R. Harrow maintains that all reasonable care and skill has been used
in the compilation of this publication. However, he shall not be under
any liability for loss or damage (including consequential loss) whatsoever
or howsoever arising as a result of the use of this publication by the
reader, his/her/its servants, agents or any third party.
All third-party trademarks are hereby acknowledged.
