Talk:Nanotechnology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have. The following comments have been left for this page: This article was really helpful. Contents 1 wikipedia 2 Article fixup 3 Colloidal science 4 Vandalism 5 Article needs more science focus 6 Article introduction needs to be "dumbed down" 7 Drill Analogy 8 Nanoproducts 9 Comment and Suggestion 10 Biological applications 11 Comments 12 Comments 13 Picture of Mite 14 External links cleanup 15 Nanotech navbox 16 Proposed external link - Nanotechnology overview on PBS 17 Another proposd external link 18 Societal implications 19 Recording request 20 External link opinions 21 About Origins of Nanotechnology 22 Navbox redux 23 Off-topic 23.1 Intellectual poverty 24 References and external links 25 Nanotechnology Recommended Practices/Working Groups 26 Copyright infringement? 27 Nanotechnology links 28 Important missing fact 29 New template for talk pages, expecially the larger ones 30 45 Nanometer 30.1 Zeigt doch mal "Kohlendioxid" "Sauerstoff" "Kohlenstoff" "Wasserstoff" [edit] wikipedia NANDHINI PREETHIYA (edit)

There is a request, submitted by Funper, for an audio version of this article to be created. See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information. The rationale behind the request is: "too technical, important subject". See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: Mike Nizza. "Lawmaking via Wikipedia", The New York Times Online, 30 May 2007. (details)

To-do list for Nanotechnology:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Copy-edit existing text to improve flow and coherence Keep citations in check Verify/add citations for existing text Use citations in new text Keep formatting of citations consistent (use inline citations) Keep the following in mind: Stick to a coherent plan rather than random additions Concentrate on reality rather than wild speculation Make this article more readable!!! A nanoscientist should not be the only one to understand this! Add little information on EPA regulation on Nanosilver [1] movanet 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nanotechnology article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Archives: Archive 1

[edit] Article fixup

Well, from the page history, it seems that no edits have been made to this talk page since September 6th 2006. Also, there doesn't seem to be a steady stream of core contributors to this page. I'll take this as an invitation to be bold - others most welcome to join in. I've archived the previous talk page in the first archive above. Judging from the material in the article, there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done. --HappyCamper 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colloidal science

I reverted this edit here, which presents the idea that colloidal science is somewhat central to nanotechnology. This is a bit too restrictive I think, although, what would be better is simply state somewhere that there is an important role for colloidal suspensions and such. --HappyCamper 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence later - hm...I think Wikipedia can use some help with developing an article related to colloidal science. --HappyCamper 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page was recently vandalized again. I undid the rude vandalism, I believe, but someone else should probably check the formatting -- I'm not an expert on here, and I could have undone some formatting corrections as well. :) Kaerondaes (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is being vandalized, but I don't have the experience with wikipedia's interface to properly revert the changes, or locate vandalism. I'm hoping someone else with more experience using Wikipedia will be able to fix the problems. I've tried, but I think I may have made things worse. 69.58.143.118 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. That flurry of vandalism seems to have ended for now (with blocks, at least). Unfortunately the Nanotechnology page seems to get vandalised quite a lot in general for every useful contribution, so it'd be good if a few people could spare a space for it on their watchlist. — blobglob talk 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Count me in on the vandalism watch. Rob (Talk) 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah can you fix the vandalism at the start of the article?

Last sentence of the origins part needs fixin'

[edit] Article needs more science focus

The article currently strikes me as having a bit too much of a focus on societal implications, and not enough on the hard science behind nanotech. Specifically, I think the following two issues need to be addressed head-on:

1) Why is nanotechology notable: specifically, why is it different from previous lines of scientific inquiry? The current discussion seems to focus more on a materials standpoint than a molecular one, while both are important.

2) The term "nanotechnology" is exctremely broad - I think the US Gov't defintion for funding purposes is simply that it operates on a scale smaller than 100 nm - and so it is made up of a number of disparate subfields. The article really needs a list of these fields and how each fits in with the whole and where they overlap.

I might suggest using the Nanotechnology article for the hard science and making a new article for Societal implications of nanotechnology at some point in the future when the current article itself is a bit more coherent. I'll probably rearrange the current sections along those broad lines once I start making edits.

Just want to hear your thoughts before I start plodding around changing things myself. :-)

Antony-22 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the sections around into a grouping I think makes more sense. I tried to separate the hard science from the speculation, as well as for the societal implications. The individual sections don't each necessarily fit into one or the other, so it would be helpful if anyone could go through and move around/alter text on a finer level then I just have. I also added a skeletal "Current Research" section to link to the various subfields. I did this off the top of my head and with a cursory search of what Wikipedia article were out there, so again additions would be great. I think this section should eventually be expended to a short paragraph for each subfield. Alright, that's all for today. Antony-22 02:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article introduction needs to be "dumbed down"

I got redirected here looking for an idea of what nanomaterial was. The term "nanotechnology" is a popular term, and I found the introduction confusing with overly technical jargon.

My first question from the very first sentence was "what's nanoscale?" A search for a nanoscale wikipedia entry led right back here. I just think that a lot of what might be under "Use of the term" would be better served in the intro. How about providing a good concept or analogy about the scale that nanotechnology deals with? "100 nm" is hard to conceive.

The second sentence of the intro just got me feeling really lost. Colloidal? Do I really need to look up another term at this point?

I just think that nanotech is such a "popular" term that at least the intro needs to be easier to understand. Thanks -- Vudicarus 08:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I revised the intro along these lines, and moved some of the more technical stuff down into "effects of nanoscale". Tell me if you think it works better.

I do think there needs to be a separate nanomaterials article, but it's not my area of expertese, so the most I could do is move some of the current text to a new article and add short sections on various materials used in nanotech (fullerines, metallic nanoparticles, DNA). It'd be a start, but it would need attention from someone actually working in that area. Antony-22 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, much better thanks! I did find using the word "dangerous" strange, though. Is it necessary? If so, why? I didn't find an explanation in the intro. Thanks! -- Vudicarus 10:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That word was added later by another user... I have slighly reworded it to bring it more in line with WP:NPOV. (The user changed the first sentence to "Nanotechnology is dangerous term [sic] describing...." I moved the mention of possible dangers to the end of the first paragraph. Remember, WP:AGF.) Antony-22 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drill Analogy

Is this really necessary? It is also a different style from the rest of the article, more textbook than encyclopedia,if you ask me - imperial units as well! I'd like to know more about the techniques than the slight difficulties.--Wikierpedia 23:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be condensed to a few paragraphs and moved into "effects of nanoscale". I do like the drill analogy but a lot of it is redundant and very wordy at this point. Antony-22 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I reduced the drill analogy (pun intended) from six paragraphs down to three. I've integrated text from three different sections into the "materials perspective" section by now, so the flow probably still needs to be improved.

Also, I deleted this sentence, but I can't bear to lose it completely. "One very basic problem facing nanotechnology, a problem which is widely ignored, is the issue of scale." Isn't scale the whole point of nanotechnology? Antony-22 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanoproducts

I added a link to a nanotechnology product directory in others. I belive this gives a bit more hard effidence what nanotechnology is. I would like to see a bit more about the potential benefits. User:Harry2big4u

Potential benefits and risks for developing countries

In the above section, could we have links to each of the mentioned countries work in the field.

Many developing countries, for example Costa Rica, Chile, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia, are investing considerable resources in research and development of nanotechnologies. Emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India, Pakistan and South Africa are spending millions of US dollars annually on R&D, and are rapidly increasing their scientific output as demonstrated by their increasing numbers of publications in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

While this is informative, there is nothing backing it up, and so adding Uganda and Rwanda as countries with Nanotech developements has the same wieght as the orginal countries.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.217.39 (talk • contribs) at 22:06, 30 November 2006

Here's another good external link that may be useful, especially with the recent attention of Google having majority ownership. Nanosolar
User:Caddcreativity —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment and Suggestion

I came to this page a while back as I am very interested in nanotech, and am going to take a degree in it, and now I visit it again, I have to say it has been improved significantly, so congratulations. One bugbear though - I noticed Tools and Techniques is under the general heading of Current Research... I think this is a little confusing, as clearly, a lot of the tools and microscopes named are already in normal usage. Personally, I think that the tools and techniques that are in research should go under Current Research with the title of Tools and Techniques, whilst the other, normal, tools should be under their own general heading, e.g. Nanotechnological Microscopy/Tools/Techniques - pick the one you like. I would have changed it, but I just thought I'd get a general consensus of whether that should be done.

Chimpman 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been moving stuff around a lot. I've not been quite sure myself where to put "Tools and Techniques"; it's variously been under Fundamental Concepts or its own section; I put it in Current Research recently. You do make a good distinction between tools used to do the current research and new tools being developed by the research, though the border between the two is sometimes fuzzy. Anyway, feel free to move the section or split it as you've described. Antony-22 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biological applications

Is there any research into nanotechnology's possible biological applications? For instance, could nanorobots be used to regenerate lost tissue or organs, since they could multiply and replicate so rapidly? Scorpionman 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nanorobots are still very speculative and a long ways off, if it's even physically possible to build them at all (there is debate about this - see Molecular_assembler#Drexler_and_Smalley_debate and [2]). Much of the public conciousness of nanotechnology is about these kinds of speculative, futuristic applications, but the actual research going on is much more mundane, at the level of moving molecules and inorganic clusters around and studying their properties. Antony-22 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That is mundane. I'm pretty sure they'll develop something in the near future, though. Ratso 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ITS interesting the concept of nanotechnology is well defined .Now I am also interested in studying about nanotechnology more and more by visiting this site . Nanotechnology will develope and it must develope. user:NANDHINI-17 12:10,15 FEBRUARY 2008(SNS)

[edit] Comments

Concentrate on reality. No need to talk to much about stuff nobody understand. The is already to many complex wording. What is dip pen nanolithography ?? User:Harry2big4u

• An AFM tip is used to transfer molecules to a surface via a solvent meniscus (Science, 1999, 283, 661-663). It is definitely reality in science labs, but needs to be explained clearly (probably in a separate article with pictures). Average Earthman 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading the "definition" twice, I'm still clueless as to what this whole nanotechnology thing is about.--80.227.100.62 07:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Ok , so it is actually around for a while ?

Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg quite a good video to explain manufacturing at the nanolevel. Of course it's pure since fiction but very well made. Seems worth a link. Let me know your thoughts.

Maybe we should start a page for such research and one for existing products. In general, the site is a bid worn out meaning not to much new stuff here. While you can keep the main page with a base explaination we than update the research or the material/product info. More than happy to help with content on the material/product area. Science is not my expertise but I believe some of you guys are just right for that. User:Harry2big4u

That's a pretty nifty video and a good explanation of what the molecular nanotechnology people want to do... a link would be better placed on that page IMO.

There is a List of nanotechnology applications article but it's unsourced and doesn't clearly distiguish between whats on the market/in development/theoretical, so that could use some work if you're familiar with what's out there. There also needs to be a Nanomaterials article (right now it's just a redirect) but as I'm a chemist I only have limited insight on that. Antony-22 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no mention of Richard P. Feynman User:todd74

Feynman was originally mentioned in this article, but now its gone. It should be added back in, "There's plenty of room at the bottom" is pretty much how nanotech got started. Also, HALF THE ARTICLE is on the risks and negative aspects of nanotech. That section is way too large. It should be moved

The Feynman bit got moved to the History of nanotechnology article. IMO it would be better placed in an "origins" section here, since nanotechnology isn't mature enough for there to be a clear history of it. Also, I agree that it's time to fork the risks/implications into its own subarticle... If I get some time I'll work on these. Antony-22 01:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Mite

Another user added commentary to the mite picture, which wasn't really suitable for the article, but they have a point - the picture isn't really that suitable either. It's MEMS rather than NEMS, and I suspect it was a promo image rather than anything actually practical. Is it worth keeping this picture, or is it just giving an inaccurate impression? Average Earthman 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice picture, but it's waay off the nano scale. And it suggests that gears and such are practical-- not IMHO a good direction to steer impressionable folks.

Ditto for the molecular gears at the top of the article -- it would be nice though if we could find some other pictures to replace them. Any ideas? Antony-22 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed we should remove the mite picture then? Average Earthman 02:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. A quick survey suggests that pictures from these pages could be used as replacements: [3] and [4] from Quantum dot, [5] from Scanning tunneling microscope, and [6] and [7] from Fullerene. Antony-22 08:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the mite image and the molecular gear image at the top of the article. I also added an image to the "materials perspective" section. Antony-22 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links cleanup

The external links section had become bloated from people adding every individual organization involved in nanotech, so I forked these out to List of nanotechnology organizations. I also added the NoMoreLinks template to keep it from getting bloated again. Someone still needs to go through the remaining links and decide which ones are appropriate to keep. Antony-22 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I propose the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/nanotechnologies/index.htm

It is a summary of a report of a Scientific Committee of the European Commission with a focus on health risks: "modified Opinion (after public consultation) on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies" produced in 2006 by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). StephanieM 12:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nanotech navbox

Part of the article series on Nanotechnology

Topics History Implications Applications Organizations Popular culture List of topics

Subfields and related fields Nanomaterials Nanomedicine Molecular self-assembly Molecular electronics Scanning probe microscopy Nanolithography Molecular nanotechnology This box: view • talk • edit

Part of the article series on Nanomaterials

Fullerenes Carbon nanotubes Fullerene chemistry Applications Popular culture Timeline Carbon allotropes

Other materials Nanoparticles Quantum dots Colloidal gold Colloidal silver

See also Nanotechnology This box: view • talk • edit

Part of the article series on Molecular Nanotechnology

Molecular assembler Mechanosynthesis Nanorobotics Grey goo K. Eric Drexler Engines of Creation See also: Nanotechnology This box: view • talk • edit

I think there is a need for a nanotechnology navbox. I have put one together at right, feel free to comment or edit it before we actually put in on articles. Antony-22 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also made a nanomaterials navbox. Antony-22 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have made Template:Nanotech, Template:Nanomat, and Template:MolecNano and will begin placing them. Antony-22 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed external link - Nanotechnology overview on PBS

• Nanotechnology Takes Off - KQED-TV, Video & Resources

For your review - I think this 11-minute video is of general interest, provided by PBS.

Craigrosa 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another proposd external link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studies the potential health effects of nanotechnology and nanoparticles. I would like to add a link to the NIOSH Safety and Health Topic: Nanotechnology page, or link directly to important publications: Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplaceand/or Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology. Anyone opposed to this/these? Perhaps we could divide the external links section into different categories or lists (schools, programs, articles on different topics).

[edit] Societal implications

I had bulleted the section, which seemed more appropriate for the listing (particularly for the nano optimists but not necessarily for the nano pessimists). If constructing more readable paragraphs rather than bullets is preferable, I would be happy to write them for the page. --Kenneth M Burke 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recording request

I reviewed the recording request for this article and have it under my yes-I-can list. However, I am quite confused at *why* you need this article to be recorded. Since it is too technical, I am surprised how that is a reason why it should be recorded when half the stuff won't be understood anymore than sitting in a lecture hall with a professor. Also this article is constantly under dramatic change, to what extent would you *like* it recorded in terms of what material needs to be heard (ie: intro, which sections?). Thanks. .:DavuMaya:. 10:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The request was made circa two year ago when the article had the "needs expert attention"-template (I must have assumed that a professor would volunteer immediately), but now it seems to be most understandable and it should be brilliant in the hands of an experienced recorder. --Funper 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm not brilliant but I do very well. Sure, I'll start on it. .:DavuMaya:. 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link opinions

Opinions would be appreciated on whether this link: Nanotechnology videos Nanotechnology videos generated from Scanning Probe Microscope images and SPIP software would be an appropriate addition to the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Origins of Nanotechnology

The first use of nanometer for scaling particles was made specifically by Zsigmondy in 1910. He offered his classification of dispersed systems introducing range from 20 nm up to 1 micron as a special class. He offered serious arguments for this classification. He used ultramicroscopy for studying nano-particles down to 10 nm. Ultramicroscope is actually the first tool for studing nano-particles. The first measurement of surface forces that control nano-particulates have been performed in 1951 by Derjaguin. If you read early comments, many of them express confusion with the subject of nanotechnology. It is impossible to justify it without introducing notion of interface, a special state of molecules on interface. Role of interace dramatically increases with decreasing size. That is why interfaces control properties of nano-particulates. There are many special effects that are related to interfacial properties. Electrokinetic phenomena. Electroacoustic phenomena. All of this and many more is subject of Interface and Colloid Science. If one ignores this, he would be doomed of repeating and rediscovering existing knowledge. I think that it is extremely important to stress the link between Interface and Colloid Science and Nanotechnology. Even including proper references to the History part.

If anybody has any objections, please post them on my user page. .:AndreiDukhin:. 12:00, 30 October 2007

[edit] Navbox redux

The nanotech navbox has gotten quite cluttered and somewhat drab over the last few months. I'm proposing a design change at Template Talk:Nanotech. Please post there if you have any comments. Antony-22 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been about a week, so I will make the change shortly. Antony-22 18:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm developing a navbox for nanoelectronics over at Talk:Nanoelectronics - any comments would be appreciated! Antony-22 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic

[edit] Intellectual poverty

Hi, I didn't bother reading the article, I already know what its about, like Wikipedia generally is. Its cataloging consepts, like reading the Abc. As a scientist I'm interested in scientific speculations, what I can find in academic publications. The people who understand information as a list of definitions fail to speculate about alternative definitions and will also make political declarations of their own interests. That's why Wikipedia as a open community and without open and critical review is not worth reading. Its unprofessional, essentialist and bious. Its too uncivilized, like learning to do what others say, not learning to know how things are. Internet in general and all the media is the same kind of forum for opinions, not genuine debate. There can be no credible information before it starts to produce them via debate. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that nobody dared to answer this somehow disqualifying and polemic comment, but such statements should not be left unreviewed. I give it a try:

• Information in fact IS a list of definitions. "Hard facts", as scientists say, although there are rarely hard facts produced. Everything has to be questioned and discussed (that's what we are doing here), but you can not say that "credible information" is only produced through a debate! We could debate about a lot of things, all fictitious. Would you say that it will produce credible information, if we debate about how it looks like inside a black hole? Nobody can tell unless he was there (and even then he couldn't tell us...).
• Especially WP as an open community critically reviews all edits. Think of 999,999 users who are reviewing what one user has edited...
• Why is it uncivilized to learn something, what others say? If you had not learned something somebody told you, you would not be able to write/say a single character/word...
• Who REALLY knows how things are? Nobody!

I hope this helps balancing this biased comment. Kind regards and keep on good work, editors! — Tirkfl^talk 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References and external links

Maybe there's something I still cannot get about the article page, but there are no reference and external links lists. Could somebody explain why? Thanks in advance.

It was a minor syntax typo. A user added a few paragraphs but ended a reference with <ref> instead of </ref>, which made the rest of the article invisible. I have fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up! Antony-22 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nanotechnology Recommended Practices/Working Groups

IEST, founding member of the ANSI-accredited US TAG to ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies have two Working Groups which is currently working on writing Recommended Practices related to Nanotechnology. IEST-WG-CC200:Overview: Planning, Design, Construction, and Operational Considerations for Facilities Engaged in Research or Production at the Nanometer Scale and IEST-WG-CC205: Nanotechnology Safety: Applying Prevention through Design Principles to Nanotechnology Facilities will be meeting in May to discuss a nanotechnology road map. If you want more information on these Working Groups, go to www.iest.org. To join one of these volunteer groups, contact us at technicaldept@iest.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environ1561 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement?

I noticed that parts of the article are copies of (or copied to) [8]. — Tirkfl^talk 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The link is dated Friday, October 19, 2007, and the Wikipedia material predates that, so the blog is a copy of the Wikipedia article. I notice that the link does not make an attribution or specify that the text is under GFDL, I'm not sure if that's something they're supposed to do. Antony-22 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They are supposed to do that. This is part of the new breed of bottom-feeding internet slime. Blogs + scraping + ads = profit. If you feel like it, you can probably get their hosting terminated by reporting it to their host — TheBilly^(Talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, didn't even realize it was blogspot. Even more likely you can, then :) — TheBilly^(Talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nanotechnology links

We have an informative website with published papers, images and an overview of a unique dynamic etalon utilizing nano technology. The webpages are not highly technical. The images are incredible and worth viewing by everyone. I would like to add a link to our site: http://www.nanomagnetics.us Pinestone (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Important missing fact

Nanotechnology doesn't exist as a separate science. See [9] --Vuo (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New template for talk pages, expecially the larger ones

This question or request has not been resolved Remove this tag when this is resolved.

Some pages, such as this one have lots of post, and it requires some work to see what has been answered or acknowledged. therefore I have helped make the {{Unanswered}} template that can be put above a section allowing one to quickly glimpse what has been answered. If you were waiting for an answer but never got one as the post in somewhere in the middle tag it! please voice any queries or comments in the talk Template:Unanswered (links, talk) and not here. Cheers --Squidonius (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 45 Nanometer

[edit] Zeigt doch mal "Kohlendioxid" "Sauerstoff" "Kohlenstoff" "Wasserstoff"

• Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie Göttingen
• http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/wissen_und_bildung/aktuell/?em_cnt=1338272
• http://news.google.co.uk/news?ned=de&hl=de&ned=de&scoring=d&q=Max-Planck-Institut+f%C3%BCr+biophysikalische+Chemie&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&start=90

194.66.226.95 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)