Barrie Gilbert on the single nanotube radio

A one nanotube radio? Certaily, I put a similarly complex, albeit much larger version when I was quite young. Except that it used a single galena crystal. Just like others ask, where are any details? The "effective aperyure" question would be number one, as it is certainly correct that to detect a signal one must first intercept some of said signal. So there must be a lot of details that need to be reported beofre this new idea can be assumed to posess any validity. Aside from that, I pose the point that Scientific American has published more than a few articles by folks who have way to much time n their hands, and should instead be doing something worthwhil for a living.

No, David, I equated the NEBULOUS CHARACTER of the announcements regarding this development at Berkeley with the similarly VAGUE CLAIMS made for cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons, twenty years ago. Both prematurely announced what could amount to a major leap in technology, and both were equally notable in their lack of detail. Andy T. reminded us that a good piece of Science requires a sufficiency of explication, such that other workers can first accurately assess the probability of a claim to a legitimate advance, then, absorb and perhaps even extend the key principles and while fully replicating the published results. In the best cases, the original work proves to be only the start, the seed of something of enduring importance. I understand nanotube devices well enough to know what they promise; and that is clearly not the imminent demise of today's largely silicon-based electronics industry, nor even the early emergence of fully-viable alternatives to current technology using nanotube structures. And I understand the physics of radio systems well enough to be highly suspicious of the claims made by Berkeley, heightened precisely by the fact that the details were so very scant, and even more so by the irrelevant mention of the musical material used to "prove" operation. (Of course, after decades have passed, we don't mind learning how Bell summoned his assistant using a novel tele-phonic apparatus). Given a much more detailed statement of the DC power provisioning, the array of instrumentation that was used, the applied RF power (and the distance between the source and the device), the power level of the audio output and much else of this sort, I may yet become keen to support this work. By the way, it surely hasn't escaped the notice of this smart body of readers that the most important requirement of a receiver is its ability to SELECT one out of numerous carriers, many of which are far larger than the desired carrier. The latter are called "blockers" for a very good reason: in a poorly designed receiver, they completely preclude the reception of the wanted signal. (Mere "interferers" just make listening tedious or degrade BER). I would be very surprised to learn that the applied signal in these experiments consisted of a typical set of equipowered channels, spread out over the standard range of FM broadcast frequencies. Rather, we can safely assume that only a single frequency was used. Then there is the little matter of um.. modifying, shall we say, the Berkeley one-nanotoober to receive and decode digital signals. But then, that's probably hibernating in a Berkeley Grant Proposal. Some limited utilization of nanotube devices is to be expected, perhaps in the sensor field, within a few years. I doubt nanoscale radio receivers will be among them. The mention in the Scientific American article of implantable monitoring systems based on nanotube devices is a bit irrelevant, inasmuch as the key to value here is the primary sensor technology, and also its method of installation. I trust no one plans to allow nanodradios to freely flow in the blood stream. As for David's hopes for the self-assembly of a wide variety of high-performance electronic elements, well, that would be a very nice step in our journey toward the mimicry of organic thinking systems - which of course are fully analog neural networks, equipped with the nonlinearities needed for decision-making and structures for the organization of information on a massive scale. The recent work of Pamela Mosier-Boss, reported to the ACS, simply stated that there is evidence of low-energy neutron emission from the deuterium contained in room-temperature heavy water. That is a long way from promising nuclear fusion. And whenever work is funded by tax-payer's money it can afford to take a very-long-term outlook.

[font=Gill Sans Heavy Ironic] Nanotoob radios are for playing toons. He spelled Barry wrong too. [/font]

Science used to be all about disclosing sufficient facts that experiments could be both repeated, understood, explained, and enhanced. Though doubt and disbelief by experts and esteemed colleagues is a healthy part of the peer-review scientific process, obfuscating setups and materials is nothing short of discovering, or attributing, Spaghetti Monsters in observed phenomena. Have we lost our Scientific Method, something that we taught our 7th graders, to excess pressure from the University administration''s MBAs that forces "science" to attention-whore for the next round of research grants? If so, when does the "B"-ark set sail?