General discussion


1867 nanomachine now reality

By DanLM ·

I just think its cool that something that was probably considered the mumbelings of the crazed at the time he said it has become a reality.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

These have been available

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to 1867 nanomachine now real ...

For some time now but as everything is/was Silicon Based they had wear problems which dramatically shortened the life expediency of these machines.

I have seen different reports of advancements in this field over the past 10 or so years.


Collapse -

I remember reading about advancements also

by DanLM In reply to These have been available

I like following stuff like this, especially when it relates to predictions from people.


Collapse -

Check Out Yoodlers Predictions

by FluxIt In reply to I remember reading about ...

Man is that guy out there or what?

Collapse -


by FluxIt In reply to These have been available

Where can I find those reports?

Collapse -

If one subscribes to the Scientific Publications

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Where?

One can gather quite a lot of information on what is being developed.


Collapse -

I Read A Lot

by FluxIt In reply to If one subscribes to the ...

It helps if you point to the journals you have read as there is so much out there.

Collapse -

As a general purpose Mag New Scientist is a good starting point

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to I Read A Lot

But I get the national Scientific Publications that get generated by the Federal Government and I see quite a lot in those particularly things developed by the CSIRO.

You are up against it in the US as the Media there is controlled by a couple of people who seem to think that they are only responsible for Entertainment/Fiction and not any real Science so very little Real Science gets published. I was watching a BBC doco last night where that Tobacco industry lobbied for years that smoking wasn't harmful and there where no proven scientific links to Lung Cancer and then I was amazed to see the same people who where claiming that Smoking has no proved harmful side effects being the same ones who are supporting that Man Caused Pollution isn't adversely affecting the Climate. Seems that there are still plenty of people prepared to Prostate themselves for the sake of their Funding suppliers.

Then the media gives a false idea that there is some kind of difference of opinion between major scientific groups when actually you have the main Scientific Group claiming something and the Wacko Fringe Element claiming the opposite and getting more coverage than the Popular Opinion.

However it's now been proved beyond any doubt to me that Man isn't responsible for pollution it's all the rubbish that Mother Nature Produces that causes pollution.


Collapse -

Cool Thanks !

by FluxIt In reply to As a general purpose Mag ...

I'll look up some stuff on nano-technologies.

So you do not believe in Global Warming?

I think that man has done some damage to the environment in the past and we've spent alot of money and time correcting those issues. However, these Global Crisis like global warming, global deforestation, and I saw in some postings global dimming, global cooling seem to be jokes having political agendas behind them.

One posting I saw caught my attention. They calculated the volume of the atmosphere then compared that to EPA estimates. The number was absurdly miniscule. I even went further and compared it to the standard pressure and found the percentage pollution based on EPA estimates was neglibly small. It was something like 3 times 10 to the minus 7th percent.

The Global warming crisis is nothing more than news hype. What amount of realistic greenhouse gases would it take to raise the temperature one degree? Certainly significantly more than what I found!

Collapse -

Well lets put it this way

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Cool Thanks !

If the ones screaming out about Climate Change are wrong what damage will be done? Sure a bit of pain but much better technology for the consumption of Fossil Fuels and if the others are wrong what will be the result?

I prefer to ere on the side of caution and hope for the best. After all if they get things wrong we'll just have more efficient Coal Fired Power Stations and the like and if nothing is done we'll be running out of coal that much sooner.

As Tom Backer said when he was playing Dr Who Humans are so Funny with their use of fuels till they realise that using Hydrogen is the only possible fuel they will continue to mess up the place till they kill themselves off as a species.

Now after several Fuel Crises and whatever else those words are sounding good and reasonable. :)

But they also claimed that Man wasn't responsible for Pollution either I guess that one's no longer believed either.


Collapse -

Global Dimming is real too

by Dr Dij In reply to Cool Thanks !

It's real easy to understand; all the cr*p haze in the atmosphere,

particularly near countries who burn coal alot without pollution controls, such as china, and India where few pollution controls on cars, industry. The Andaman islands off india are one example. There is virtually NO local pollution but sunlight is reduced upwards of 10%, affecting plant growth, due to vast clouds of pollution sweeping west off the southern Indian coast.

And some towns in China are upto 20% less sunlight due to vast amounts of pollution and virtually NO pollution controls. The controls that they do have are subverted by the crony process; i.e. industries pay off party members to look the other way.

Do you actually understand the scale of what humankind is doing? It's something like 950 millions tons of CO2 a year. And it didn't start 'poof' last year. It's been slowly ramping up over more than a hundred years.

Not all of that has stayed in the atmosphere, as some is dissolved in the sea, acidifying it. Some coral deaths are attributable to more acid seawater, dissolving shells of diatoms too, which are primary producers of oxygen.

Given the right conditions, CO2 in ocean may eventually settle out to the ocean floor combined into limestone but earth hasn't had major limestone forming period for a while.

Interesting to know, that the last major global warming event millions of years ago, oxygen levels dropped from 21% to about 10%. Plant matter was wiped out by volcanism shading, reducing drastically their turning CO2 into O2. (carbon dioxide into oxygen).

This causes big thick haze. Blocks sunlight. It's still hotter.

Why should you care about global warming:
(sure we'll survive, at least some of us)

weather patterns will change more than usual, likely to cause mass starvation.
200 million people will fairly soon be displaced. Displaced people cause instability beyont their numbers, as they migrate to new areas, try to obtain land and jobs. Large conflicts likely.
70% of people live in cities or houses quite near shores. A good chunk of these (many in developed world) will have houses / cities flooded.
Flooding won't happen slowly where you can slowly add an inch a year to a dam around your place. More heat at the equator and subtropics means more heat moving to poles to escape. So seas, typhoons, tornadoes, hurricanes will all be more violent. E.g. weather patterns around NYC mean that it is very likely huge tides driven by storms can pile upto 20 feet high given GW conditions.

As the Chinese say in a curse, may you live in interesting times. Looks like we're in for them.

Related Discussions

Related Forums