Remember the movie “Fantastic Voyage” about a submarine that was reduced to microscopic size and injected into a dying man’s body so the tiny scientists could operate on him from inside? It had Raquel Welch in a skintight suit and everything!

Now, advances in nanotech and robotics have made it possible for doctors to use ingestible surgical robots so they can operate on patients without having to open up the body even minimally. It’s a technology still in its infancy, and might yet benefit from other rapidly advancing techs such as haptics (touch feedback), but likely to be used more frequently in the near future.

Big-boobed assistants in revealing garments are not covered by your insurance, however, so too bad there.

For centuries, blades made of Damascus steel were know to be among the sharpest and strongest in the world. The steel itself, called wootz, bears distinctive patterns created during the forging of the metal, and the understanding was that impurities in the iron ore used to make the steel were the cause of these patterns. The technique for making Damascus steel was discontinued in the 18th century, but many examples of the metal and the craftsmanship involved in turning it into blades remain.

The journal “Nature” reports that researchers at Dreseden University in Germany have subjected some sample blades to electron microscopy and have discovered that the steel actually contains a type of carbon nanotubes and also nanowires that come from the use of the mineral cementite. The nanostructures are responsible for the added strength of the material, according to the researchers, however there are critics who discount the findings.

Imagine being able to dip a piece of paper into a solution made up of nanotubes and microscopic wires and coming away with a super battery that can last through 40,000 charge-discharge cycles. That’s the promise of Stanford University’s Yi Cui, who has developed the basic process and is ready to take it to commercial development. Being able to use ordinary paper as the substrate material for long-use batteries addresses many of the engineering limitations of current battery technologies for the automotive industry, among others. The batteries even work if the paper is crumpled or even soaked in acid. Paper has an advantage over other materials because of its ability to bond with the nanoparticles, but it’s also likely that other materials could be treated with the nano-ink and turned into batteries or supercapacitors.

Science geeks all over the web are talking about the story on New Scientist.com about atomic force photography. Researchers at IBM have taken the first ever photos of an object at its molecular level. The image above shows an organic compound called pentacene and its five benzene rings (ugh, I just had a painful flashback to the organic chemistry section from high school).

Pentacene is pretty cool in and of itself; it’s used along with our old friend buckminsterfullerene (“Buckyballs”) to make organic photovoltaic devices, and turns up in things like the ultra-thin plastic OLED video display Sony showed off at CES this year. (link goes to YouTube video). But that’s another topic entirely.

Being able to photograph molecules and atoms at the level of resolution IBM has achieved will someday pay off in terms of being able to arrange individual molecules into microscopic computing devices that could make almost any object “smart”.

I haven’t been reading much on the nanotechnology front lately, but this article in The Economist’s technology section was worth a quick look: researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a process for applying a solution containing nanotubes made out of a chemical called Nafion (which is a derivative of Teflon) to cotton fabric. Multiple applications to the fabric allow the nanotube solution to bind to individual cotton fibers. Nafion is conductive, and so the adherence of the nanotubes to the cotton fibers makes the fabric itself conductive. In tests, the researchers have discovered that the coated fabric can detect the presence of blood from its albumin levels, suggesting the possible application for the fabric in sensor garments that can monitor the physical status of medical patients or even soldiers in the field.

The fabric conducts enough electricity to power a single LED, so it doesn’t take much imagination to come up with all the stupid and frivolous applications of “electric cotton”. It also doesn’t take much to think up a variety of scenarios where wearing electrically conductive clothing might be rather less than desirable. So I hope this particular breakthrough gets a good, long, hard look before electric underpants start selling at Sears.

There are a lot of bad tattoos in this world. I don’t get the thinking that makes people want to have them in the first place, nor why the fad has gone on as long as it has, but that’s for another day I guess. The biotech firm Draper Laboratories in Cambridge, MA has announced that they’ve developed an ink that contains nanoparticles which can sense blood glucose levels and change color to indicate the blood sugar level of a person with diabetes. The particles can be embedded in the skin like a tattoo, making it significantly easier for diabetics to monitor their blood sugar and eliminating the need for the irritating needle-pokes they must do with existing monitors. It will probably be a good ten years or so before this could actually be turned into a marketable product, due to the long time frames for medical device research and testing, but a great application of nanotech.

Of course, if you’re going to get a nanotattoo, you’ll need to make sure you don’t put it on the arm with the nanotube bionic muscles. Scientists at the University of Texas in Dallas have published their results with work on developing artificial muscles using carbon nanotubes pulled into ribbons and then twisted into bundles. When stimulated by electricity, the bundles can expand and contract like muscle tissue. There have been other efforts to make artificial muscles out of carbon nanotubes and silicon polymers previously, but these particular experiments show much greater elasticity and hardness, making the material a better candidate for use in prosthetics.

One of the major concerns as nanotechnology continues to be applied to biology and medicine is the lack of understanding about possible interactions between nano-sized objects and living tissue. Much of what is known about toxicity and long-term side effects of many substances is simply not applicable at the sub-molecular level. Much attention in the biomedical world is being given to the use of nanoparticles as drug-delivery devices particularly as a way to more effectively target cancer cells with chemo and radioactive medications without harming healthy surrounding tissue. Researchers at University of California in San Diego have developed a silicon nanoparticle that glows temporarily and then biodegrades harmlessly after a few days. These particles, combined with targeted chemotherapeutic medication, can attach themselves to tumors and cancerous cells, allowing for easier detection by doctors, without some of the lasting harmful effects of other luminescent chemicals currently in use.

I can’t find the post right now, but some time ago I know I had a link to an article about some scientists who had formed a sheet of material made from nanothreads made up of billions and billions of buckyballs. They ended up with a single sheet that was as strong as steel but ten times thinner than paper.

Today, this blog post at Discover magazine says that researchers think they will be able to produce a sheet of what they now call “buckypaper” that will rival the strongest composite materials in production and do it before the end of this year. They think they can have a commercially-usable version of buckypaper developed sometime in 2009 that would be suitable for military applications such as lighter armor or some aviation uses; dreams of building cars, airplanes or even space vehicles out of buckypaper are a bit farther down the road but could happen in less than a decade.

I’ve posted previously about the potential biological hazards of nanotechnology and how little is understood about the possible dangers that could result from indiscriminate use of this technology.

Now there is evidence that long, straight nanowires can cause mesothelioma exactly in the same way that asbestos fibers do. Nanotubes in other form factors do not seem to pose the same threat, so clearly there is something about the physical properties of the nanowires and not some underlying molecular-level chemical reaction, but this should put the brakes on a lot of R&D work trying to commercialize nanotube-based innovations while studies are done to determine what sort of exposure risk there really is. In the case of asbestos, natural degradation of asbestos-containing materials over time caused the release of fibers, and the widespread use of asbestos in insulating and fire-proofing materials made the risk of exposure very high. It may be possible that the ways in which long, straight nanotubes could be applied could be restricted to uses which reduced the likelihood of exposure. With asbestos, even a single inhaled fiber is sufficient to cause mesothelioma, so total prevention is impossible. I presume much the same will be true of nanotubes.

Mother Jones magazine featured this quasi-interview with MythBuster Jamie Hyneman about alternative energy technologies. I say “quasi-interview” because his responses to their questions are so terse that it’s hard to tell if he actually said them or not, except that Jamie is rather short-spoken in the first place. The piece says that he’s really into alt-energy, and on the show the MythBusters have repeatedly demonstrated that most of the “free energy” stuff you see is total hogwash. Something to think about, since this morning everybody has a link to this “$1/gal Ethanol” story in Popular Mechanics.

RetroThing had me all nostalgic the other day for the very first computer I ever owned, the Sinclair ZX81. Mine was not a kit, it came fully-assembled. I bought it second-hand from my high-school best friend Andy, who had moved on to such cutting edge technology of the day as the TRS-80. It even came with the add-on 16K memory module. The post includes a link to this page which tells you how to build your own ZX80/81 with a couple dozen ICs and a circuit board, but if you don’t feel like building one, you can just download an emulator here.

The science journal Nature has this news article about understanding metabolism as a genetic condition. British researchers re-used some urine samples originally collected for another study and used a new form of spectroscopy to completely identify all the chemicals in the samples. They then identified the geographies of the test subjects and graphed specific metabolites and were able to determine that different populations have unique metabolic rates. People in Southern China, they conclude, have the best metabolisms in the world. People in South Texas have the worst metabolisms in the world. Yet more scientific evidence as to why one should stay away from Texas, if you ask me.

You knew I would have at least ONE nanotech link, right? Of course right! Today’s nano-news is this bulletin that tries to sex up the story with the headline “Nanotechnology paves way for super iPods”. Nice try. The underlying story is that a team at University of Glasgow have figured out how to make molecule-sized switches, which in turn will allow for as many as 1 billion transistors to fit on a single chip (up from 200 million today). That, in turn, would increase the density of electronic storage devices without increasing their physical size: 500 terabytes per square inch (compared to about 3 gigabytes now). No actual mention of iPods anywhere in the article. You just have to make the leap of assumption that someday this technology would be used in some future iPod so that you could store every song ever recorded.

Via Jo comes this post from The Kitchn.com about a new gadget on display at the recent International Home & Housewares Show. Cleverly named “KitchenSync”, it’s an ultra-thin web-enabled device that lets you access your favorite online recipes and also input your own recipes. The vertical orientation of the device is more like a traditional cookbook than a laptop, and the built-in WiFi means you aren’t tethered to one particular spot to use it. You can even get it dirty and then just wipe it clean! Personally, I would love to have a thing like this to use in the kitchen instead of a laptop. Sadly, it’s not a real product yet, it’s just a concept project from the industrial designer who was demoing it.

In the more immediate future, the crazy folks at Jones Soda are teaming up with the gigglemeisters at “I Can Has Cheezburger” to put together a contest where submitters can suggest names for a LOLCat-themed variety of soda.

No word as to what FLAVOR the soda might be, but these are the same people who have developed such classics as Brussel Sprout, Christmas Tree, and Turkey & Gravy, so be warned…

This article in yesterday’s Manchester Guardian takes a look at some of the areas where nanotechnology might have an impact on food production. To date, most of the interest has been in the use of nanoparticles to improve shelf-life and “intelligent” packaging, but many food processing companies are unwilling to discuss their nanotech initiatives due to the backlash against GM foods. Nevertheless, they are pursuing such diverse lines of research as using nanoparticles to hyper-target pesticides to delivering additional nutrients or even medications via “nanofoods”. Any use of nanotechnology in food production will come under intense regulatory scrutiny in Europe, but also quite a lot of public resistance in the U.S. as well as the E.U.

The science journal Nature reports that this company in nearby Concord, NH has announced that they were able to produce the largest single sheet made up completely of carbon nanotubes. The sheet, which measures about 2 meters in length and 1 meter wide and is about as thick as a sheet of paper, has almost half the breaking strength of a similar-sized sheet of aluminum. The company says that they expect to find markets in companies that make EMI shielding, electrical conductors, and thermal dissipating devices. There’s probably some future use for materials like this in the space program, I would imagine.

Meanwhile, this story in EETimes says that a California company has announced that they’ve perfected a manufacturing process to make catalytic nanoparticles that could be used in place of metals in hydrogen fuel cells and other things that use electrolysis to produce energy. They claim that due to the vastly increased surface area created by using millions of nanoparticles, the efficiency of the electrolysis can be improved to 85%, besting the Department of Energy’s 75% efficiency 2010 goal for hydrogen fuel cells, and holds the potential of reaching an unheardof 96% efficiency. Efficiency of energy production is critical in taking alternative fuel technologies beyond the experimental stage, and the relative inefficiency of standard electrolysis has been a serious stumbling block for hydrogen-based fuel cells.

I recently received an Apple iPod Touch as a present. On one hand, it’s a serious fun gadget to have; we took it with us on our recent trip to New York City and used the Google Map location feature to find our way around all over Manhattan (thanks to all the unsecured wireless networks people have in NYC), as well as looking up restaurants, bus schedules, and other points of interest. On the other hand, the limitations built into the iPhone/iTouch by Apple are sometimes infuriating (no Flash player, no Windows support, etc). I will undoubtedly go the route of “jailbreaking” my iTouch in the very near future so that I can make use of some of the third-party apps that work when you wrest control from Steverino’s icy clutches.

I read this morning that Apple says it won’t prevent VoIP applications from working on the iPhone/iTouch, which means that I should be able to install Skype or some Skype-like application and add the ability to make phone calls from my otherwise phone-less iTouch. I purposely did not want an iPhone because I wasn’t interested in having to sign on for a 2-year contract with AT&T (or to have to try getting it to work with some other provider), but if I can use Skype, I definitely would give that a go.

I also came across this post at OpenCulture that says that all incoming freshmen at Abilene Christian University in Texas this fall will receive either an iPhone or an iTouch and be able to use the school’s online services via the device to check food service accounts, class schedules, look up faculty/staff directory information and eventually even register for classes and purchase textbooks. They’ll also have access to podcasts of their lecture classes, be able to submit homework, and potentially even participate in class by submitting questions in writing (though I think this means the professors need to brush up on their IM-speak to be able to read the questions). While most colleges and universities have computer requirements these days, and many of them give their students a computer, this is certainly an interesting step up from those kinds of programs.

Remember the satellite that the Navy shot down a couple of weeks ago? Space expert James Oberg posted this article at MSNBC debunking some of the rumors that have already emerged about the shootdown and clearing up some other technical misconceptions that were widely mentioned in the MSM.

Lastly, Science Daily reported that researchers at the University of Alberta have found that humans have a gene that is capable of preventing HIV from assembling inside cells, effectively shutting down the disease. However, the gene is “turned off” by default in our DNA. They don’t expect to be able to turn that gene “on” (might I suggest some soft music, flowers, and dancing?), but they do hope to be able to develop drugs that mimic the effect of the gene and could indeed halt the progression of HIV. If you’re the sort who likes to read this stuff for yourself, the full report can be found here. (I read the abstract, but gave up after that)

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

“They still oppose it,” he says. “They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn’t about informing these people. They are informed.”

Time to go smack my head against the wall for a while.

There are valid reasons to have qualms about nanotechnology.  Many safety concerns remain unaddressed, and quite a bit is still not known about how the small scale of the chemical changes being made actually impacts the properties and behaviors of materials (although I did read recently that a new study shows that nanotubes are not toxic to mice).  But being opposed to this sort of research because your giant invisible grandpa wouldn’t like it is just plain stupid.

Our national tradition of anti-intellectualism is starting to get in the way of keeping things running.  Last week in Salon, Laura Miller wrote about Susan Jacoby’s new book “The Age Of American Unreason” and Jacoby’s claim that fundamentalist religion in the United States is directly responsible for what Jacoby calls “junk thought”, epitomized by the “intelligent design” debate.  Erich Vieth, posting at Dangerous Intersection, also writes about Jacoby, pointing out some factoids which should sound familiar to people reading here: 50% of Americans do not believe in evolution, 50% of Americans believe in ghosts, 15% of Americans do not know that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Stupidity and religious faith walk hand in hand.  We’ve got a Presidential candidate who will pray to end the budget deficit, schools that pray for good grades for their kids, people who believe in miracles, and a President who says God tells him to start wars.  I’ve had people ask me why I can’t just “live and let live” with regard to fundamentalists, and all I have to say is that it’s because these people imperil us all with their appalling combination of stupidity and willful ignorance.  I can’t write this sort of stuff off with a blithe “oh, ha ha, silly fundies” anymore because they are contributing directly to the rapid demise of not just social and political institutions but of enlightened civilization itself.  And they don’t care, because, in their world-view, they’re all going to fucking Disneyland when the Apocalypse comes.

You can’t make people who are willfully and deliberately opposed to knowledge and reason turn around and accept those things by sheer force of will.  I’ve mentioned Nietsche’s words before: “Faith means not wanting to know what is true.”  And consequently nothing will stop them, not even acceptance.  Maybe through resistance it might be possible to get the fence-sitters and the “live and let live” types to see the danger these people pose and convince them to take up the cause.

Via BoingBoing comes this link to a site that is collecting submissions of different possible warning symbols for the likelihood of future problems caused by nanotechnology. I’ve blogged before about the unknown dangers posed by the rapid advancement in nanotech; inevitably there will be unintended consequences from the tech itself or from the processes used to fabricate the materials needed. And so I’m sure the day will come when sites need to be declared as unsafe due to nanotech-related toxicity and other disasters.

The symbol above is one of the ones I liked best. I think in a case like this the symbol needs to be simple and instantly recognizable. This one is a nice variation based on the nuclear hazard symbol and yet different enough that a person probably would not mistake the two. There are a lot to choose from at that link, and you can vote and comment on all of them, so have a look.

As the press release says, silicon batteries were thought impractical because they could hold enough charge in a larger form. Now, by reducing the silicon to nano-wires, the amount of lithium that can be stored in a battery can be exponentially increased, and the nano-wires do not degrade over time. So a laptop battery could last for 20 hours instead of the usual 2-4.

Because the technologies are better understood, the researchers think the time-to-market will not be as long as other nanopower technologies.