Recently in Nanotechnology Category

Here's the news story: Computer World

They have produced a "fingernail sized memory chip, about 45 nanometers wide -- about 1,000 times smaller than a red blood cell." What makes this interesting is how much memory they can put inside a memory stick. I've read other nanotech based articles recently which discuss advances to memory that (theoretically) will make "disk drives" obsolete. The nanomemory being experimented with can actually hold-state, and be supplied by an internal power source. This particular memory that Intel has produced doesn't discuss the specifications, but they do say that power consumption is greatly reduced, that means computers running cooler. The first question that comes to mind is:

What happens to my computer?
1. it runs much much cooler
2. Everything becomes RAM based.
3. No more personal lap heaters
4. Smaller batteries can be used - by the way, there's another article in the recent Scientific American about nanobatteries... this is a HUGE advancement; particularly if the two are coupled together... Imagine the power.
5... the list goes on.

What happens to my RDBMS? (these are my predictions - opinion only)
1. One step closer to a nanohouse, while nanohousing may not be "true to life" (in other words, a nano-scaled data warehouse complete with software/hardware mixed together), the RDBMS will begin using nanomemory.
2. DATA PARTITIONING WILL GO BY THE WAY-SIDE
3. Arguments over VLDW/VLDB and MPP vs SMP will dissipate.
4. Performance and tuning will become highly specialized, and finally "disappear"
5. Data Layout and data modeling will become more abstracted, as freedom to experiment will take place because of the faster RAM storage.

Remember the article on the DoD (department of defense) and DNA computing? Nanotech based computing with carbon nanotubes and other such devices is catching up, they'll be able to store hundreds of terabytes on what is equivalent to a memory stick today.

In fact, I predict that manufacturers will completely remove "storage" from their internal offerings, and produce a "plug an play" storage device interface that is highly parallel, and will scale to access the terabytes of nanomemory. You'll be able to "take your information with you" in your shirt pocket. "Laptops" will become stationary, and these memory devices will plug and play with the next generation "Ipod" or "Windows CE devices".

In fact audio, and video equipment will be adapted - just plug in the memory (all your "hard-drive information") and select your functionality, away you go. Of course this gives a whole new meaning to the term: SCOPE CREEP, and Spread-Marts - every "storage device" will essentially be a spread mart of corporate information. Which in turn states that corporations must begin NOW thinking about how to manage, and regulate these storage components. Security will get harder, not easier.

I'd love to hear your whimsicle thoughts about where this could take us. Please post your comments.

See you next time,
Dan L

The article can be found here. I've spent a lot of time writing about the nature of convergence, and the fact that I believe "wet-technology" or the mix between natural world models and our electronic models is coming together. Nothing is more evident here. In this particular case we have electronic gates / switches that we normally use to play tic-tac-toe, only they are placed into DNA enzymes. This raises some very interesting questions:

1. How parallel is this DNA computer?
2. If it has so many parallel operations, how fast is it in terms of "operations per second?"
3. What would happen if we took multiples of these tic-tac-toe boards, and tied them together for a game of Othello? If we did this for Chess, what would need to change?

We're always molding our natural world into models that we see to fit our needs, for instance - moving the tubes into a sequence to represent tic-tac-toe. What if instead, we utilized a single strand of folded DNA in three dimensions to represent a tic-tac-toe board? Could the single solution with a single DNA strand play the game on a much smaller level?

This is the type of question that would lead deeper into the Nanohouse abilities. The ability to control a single DNA strand, and utilize a model that already exists to achieve our goals. We would have a much larger scale repeatable model if we could do this.

The thought experiment:
Say for an instant that you had 120 train tracks back to back, and 120 trains (1 on each track). Now say, each train has 120 cars - each one uniquely different, and each trains engine was unique - color, size, shape, horsepower, motor drive, etc.. Now suppose within each train, a series of cars represented a "square" on the tic-tac-toe board. In other words, 20 cars from each train represented one square. Each train represents a different tic-tac-toe board.

Now suppose we released 120 people, told them to go "take" six cars from each train - the only requirement is that they need to all choose a different 6 car set. This might represent the chemical release to a DNA strand, and each of the "people" or incoming chemical mix matches with a specific DNA place in the chain. By repeating this process, and having the "computer" or the "game" choose other car sets, you've effectively re-created a logic gate computing device at the DNA strand level.

The other thing we've done here is suggest that the computations occur in parallel, and that data sets can be different for each "action" - told to attach itself to DNA at different parts of the strand. We've effectively re-created the possibility to play an very large number of finite "games", all in parallel. Very quickly the "winning pattern" will emerge, these may become the rules that are applied to the next engine going forward - in other words, spot the "learning pattern".

Of course, change the game - and we have to start all over again. The learned rules for Tic-Tac-Toe don't necessarily work for checkers or chess.

Some of the other questions still rolling around in my head are:
1. Is DNA Computing (or will it ever be) faster than electron based spin technology?
2. What are the pros and cons of DNA computing versus electron spin technology?
3. What are the recent strides that electron spin technology has made?

It seems to me that electron spin computing has a ways to go, and isn't making advances as fast as DNA computing, but that remains to be seen. It also appears to be a more difficult challenge, as DNA molecules are much larger than electron based control at the atomic level. However - I must ask the question, if we can search 10^8 Terabytes of DNA solution in 3 seconds, how fast (if it ever can be done) will electron spin computing device search 10^8 terabytes? I must also ask, is it really worth the cost or difficulty of overcoming its (electron spin) obstacles to make it happen?

I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas.

The first is: "Neuroscientists break code on sight" In this unbelievable article, the neuroscientists actually figured out (at least started to figure out) a way to encode images, or found some of the mechanisms within the brain that are responsible for encoding images that are seen.

Why is this important to me?
From a business perspective, it could mean that a. we could build better visual recognition systems, b. we could encrypt or encode images in extremely compressed formats. Imagine, if all we needed were the "neuron imaging program" to rebuild the image from a very small set of data, then this would change the entire nature of compression / decompression. In other words - what does it take to constitute a particular image with precise information? Notice that the article houses the images in black and white, there must be another component of the neural network that processes colors, however this shows a recognition of depth through hue and saturation.

From a business intelligence perspective it could mean a. much better data visualization, b. new ways of abstracting information, c. a combination of form and function where data points represent the neural network - resulting in "learning something new" rather quickly. Think about it this way: what if we constructed the worlds ONLY "universal data model" with specific functions attached to each point, and then by lighting up those points with different intensities (applicability scores) we could end up with an image or a thought or a fact? This is the way I see this particular advancement. More on how that might work, later...

The next story comes from a company I've been watching for the past two years: Nanosys.
"Nanosys Announces Issued Patent Covering Fundamental Nanowire Heterostructures"
This story is also interesting in what Nanosys has accomplished. When we read the intro blurb about the development, notice what Nanosys says about the application of this technology:

"This technology covers a broad variety of devices including Field Effect Transistors (FET), light emitting devices including Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and nanolasers, solar cells, thermoelectric devices, optical detectors, and chemical and biological sensors."

What's interesting here is that Nanosys has proven with this one device, that nanotechnology does indeed cross many different aspects of life; from the technology sector, to the chemical and biological sector. This underscores the importance of convergence, something I've been blogging on for over a year. The next quote from this story raises some very interesting questions in my mind...

"The technology to integrate different materials at the nanoscale enables us to create nanostructures that perform as devices with multiple functions rather than just materials," said Calvin Chow, Nanosys' Chief Executive Officer. "This significantly increases the value of our nanostructures while simplifying their incorporation into products."

The questions I have are:
1. If nanostructures enable the creation of multiple devices with multiple functions, then when does a device begin and a material end?
2. Will we be able to tell the difference between a nanodevice and a nanomaterial?
3. Is it safe to say that a nanomaterial is now a nanodevice and vice-versa?

Assuming that a nanomaterial is now also a nanodevice at the same time, then we now have the ability to create the product (or part of it) known as Wellstone (Hacking Matter, Will McCarthy). We could also conceivably create a piece of "wood" made of nanomaterial, that can change its' composition to a piece of fabric or steel based on programmatic arrangement. Maybe these nanowires are not yet that advanced. Maybe we only have the ability to create a "computationally smart coffee table." None-the-less this is a very important discovery.

Here's a fun one: "Molecules that suck"
The interesting part of this, is the notion that molecules can "pick up" and then be told to re-arrange, and "release" other molecules. In other words, it sounds as if it's temporary bonding. If I extrapolate the thought process, this could potentially provide a battery operated surface for gloves and shoes, where it can "bond" with metal molecules, say a steel wall, then released, and re-bonded again. Could it lead to nano-devices for "walking up walls"?

And finally: "Study shows nanoparticles could damage plant life"
This article is very interesting, in that it discusses how nanoparticles actually damage other natural world particles. It brings to the fore-front (in my mind) the potential danger of nanotech. In this case, they've actually shown that nanotech can in fact have harmful effects on the natural world. They admit to not knowing "how" this happens yet, but one can speculate that it's like clogging of the pores in your skin, that the aluminum nanoparticles block the water absorption pores of the plant root, or maybe that they are absorbed as a part of the water and then somehow block the oxygen creation process within the plant.

We are already aware of the dangers of aluminum particles in the human body, causing everything from memory loss to Alzheimer’s disease - basically that the aluminum is absorbed through the skin, and lodges itself in the brain and blocks normal activity. It's no surprise that a metal like this is dangerous to plants as well. But it begs the question: are there circumstances where trace amounts of aluminum nanoparticles could be helpful? And if so, where should they be applied and under what circumstances? If there was a way to keep them from floating through the air when "sprayed on", maybe we have the next generation weed killer, as long as we don't inhale or get it on our skin.

Nanotech itself is a phenomenal field of discovery and advancement, each of these pieces I've included highlights different areas of nanotech and their applications or the affects there-of. It will only become more exciting as we dive in to next year, and begin to see business applications of these components in every-day life.

Don't get me wrong, the computational side is very important as well, and in fact - to get the scalability, FORM AND FUNCTION MUST CONVERGE, and the FORM (the data models) must be flexible, and dynamic in nature. This is where Nanotech and Biotech comes in; they are currently defining the use of "wet-technology" or natural world models in our current technological world.

"Computational Mechanisms in Bio-Substrates... Leverage massive parallelism, Harvest Nature's toolkit." (1)
"Computational models of Cells - Natural Computation" (1)

The study goes on to discuss how DNA computing is scalable, programmable, and can exist in a 2D and 3D landscape; they also discuss the nature of self-assembly - a concept reserved for Nanotechnologists. In one of my earlier papers and references to DNA computing, 1 gram of DNA can store multiple terabytes of information. This certainly leads to the notions of a compact nanohouse.

The impact of 3d modeling has already been discussed, in the ability to fold relationships, see data in a new light, and begin to program systems based on "landscape" notions, or proximity in height, width and depth. The notions of "model driven development" are central to the development of nanotechnology.

A parallel can be drawn when we look at business development and understanding, particularly in terms of SOA. When we go to build SOA, the "data models" underneath make all the difference in terms of scalability, and flexibility. When I look at VLDB / VLDW - it's the same thing all over again, MPP systems are the tip of the ice-berg, and shared-nothing architectures rely HEAVILY on the model of the data underneath in order to achieve maximum performance of the queries.

If we add the DARPA term: SPATIO-TEMPORAL modeling to the mix, we can begin to uncover the power of 3D modeling. "Capturing interactions in the network of Gene-protein interactions"(1) - If we can capture the affects of interactions between data sets, and weigh their significance using neural computation models we can begin to dynamically compose and decompose relationships in massively parallel fashion. Beyond that, we can also begin to establish those that are of more importance to us based on historical content and knowledge or small-context discovery. This would be the self-assembly component of the Nanohouse.

(2) lists many different programs that DARPA is involved in, while many of these remain closed to the public, their titles are informative and show a heavy convergence in the Nanotech area.

Another report:
"An overview and categorization of existing research in DNA based computation, the possible advantages that different models have over conventional computational methods, and potential applications that might emerge from, or serve to motivate, the creation of a working Bio-molecular Computer." (3)

Shows that bio-molecular computing requires specific modeling methods, and that models can have an impact in both the type of computing as well as the abilities of the computational device - to serve it's purpose. The Nanohouse is built from the neural model in the brain, as a massively parallel system tied together with specified form and function, it can scale beyond our current dreams.

If you have some interesting links you'd like to share, or thoughts about the future of Nanohousing, I'd love to hear them.

Sources:
1. DARPA Military Briefing, http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/solicitations/closed/01-26_briefing1.pdf
2. DARPA Listing of Programs, http://www.darpa.mil/dso/programs.htm
3. http://publish.uwo.ca/~jadams/dnaapps1.htm

Imagine, slower melting snow - made from nanotech. Snow that still melts, so it doesn't harm the environment and nature still can experience the seasons - but something that might be able to be created on the ski-slopes on the first of September every year, and doesn't melt until late may or June.

Maybe it's a silly idea, but maybe just maybe there might be something to it. Imagine if we could keep a water molecule crystallized for just a little bit longer than usual - get it to release heat less quickly, or get it to absorb heat slower. What kinds of applications could this lead to?

Let's speculate for a moment - I know nothing (other than what I've seen on Nova) about avalanches, and how they are caused by melting sheets of snow - turning top layers of snow to water on warm days, freezing at night into ice sheets - then new snow fall on the ice sheets; eventually the weight causing the layer of snow to "slide" off the ice, starting an avalanche.

Suppose this type of extreme crystallization could be stopped or prolonged - in other words, suppose the snow melts more slowly, less water, less ice at night. Do you think that the sheets could be "thinned" out enough to be crushed under the weight of new snow rather than cause a slide? Maybe.

Or how about slow-melting ice in drinks, (but still melts); let’s just say I'm in to the old-fashioned ice cubes, rather than the plastic re-freezable ones. Well, back to snow. If we could construct slow melting snow molecules we might have longer lasting ski seasons.

What are some of the dangers?
If the clouds are seeded, we'd have one heck of a time getting this snow off the roads, or it would require the fast-melting molecule to be introduced on the roads. In this case, we'd want to make sure that the chemical reaction caused by fast-melting applied to slow-melting doesn't cause a toxic reaction, and that it doesn't rust metal.

Another possible danger is the slow-melting snow, if applied to bare-ground, might actually trap heat in the ground - because it doesn't absorb the heat as fast as regular snow. I'm not sure of all the impacts, but at first glance, this doesn't sound good.

Well, here's one more possibility: Slower melting snow may actually hold a colder internal temperature than regular snow, so if you got it on your hands or down your back - it would be colder to the touch. However - that requires a heat absorption rate within the snow molecule itself. Now that I think about it, to the touch - this slower melting snow may not feel as cold (not sure about this one).

Here's an interesting (possibly dangerous) use: applying slower melting snow (or some offshoot) to warmer ocean waters that have traditionally been "cold". What if it could be used to slowly lower the temperature of what are supposed to be cold regions of water?

Of course this is a silly idea, and one made from a fictional thought - but I just thought maybe, someone was daydreaming (like me) about a longer ski-season.

Thoughts? What do you see as the dangers, or possibilities of this type of idea? What makes it infeasible/feasible?