http://medialab-prado.es/article/nanogarajes_especulaciones_sobre_fabbing_ab
ierto

http://www.edithdekyndt.be/presentperfect.html

http://www.nanopaprika.eu/group/nanoslideshowsontheinternet

http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/introduction/introduction_to_nanotechnology_1.html

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/sidor/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2971&Artikel=2080496

Chalmers

I was leafing through IVA-aktuellt and happened to see a short article about a project that is planned to probe the negative effects of nano-particles. The project, named nano-Sphere, is supported by Formas and based at Chalmers and Göteborgs University.

NanoSphere: Centre for interaction and risk studies in Nano-Bio-Geo-Sociotechno-sphere interfaces - leds av Martin Hassellöv, forskare vid institutionen för kemi vid Göteborgs universitet. Målet med projektet är att få till stånd bättre riskbedömningar vid tillämpningar av nanoteknik.

More information can be found at  http://chalmersnyheter.chalmers.se/Article.jsp?article=14067

Call for NanoFormgiving workshop nr.2 October 31st- November 1st led by Arijana and Björn. The aim of this workshop is to develop 2-3 creative projects dealing with nanostructures. These will be realized under the coming year with a final presentation in Apr-May 2010.

Please take some time to look through our website and blog before the workshop to update yourself.

http://web.me.com/koler/NanoFormGiving/home.html

To enter the site enter type in name: (available in email)

password: (available in email)

Ulrika will also send a link to the Albanova workshop films.

Please reply to this email before October 13th to let us know you received this mail and that you are coming so we can order materials, food and plan the groups. Since all activities in this workshop will define and drive the projects in this second phase (09-10) it is important that as many people as possible can come and stay the two full days!

Warm Welcome!

Arijana, Björn, Cheryl and Ulrika

MIT

Edith sent out the following letter concerning a seminar in New York City by Laurel Braitman from the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at MIT. I thought I would throw it up here for the sake of discussion and documentation.

From: Meg Rotzel <mrotzel@MIT.EDU>
Date: July 21, 2009 9:32:14 AM EDT
To: Meg Rotzel <mrotzel@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Laurel Braitman at Cabinet in NYC

/// Cabinet Magazine Event Space presents CAVS graduate affiliate Laurel Braitman \

“Nanotechnology and the American Supersoldier”
A talk by Laurel Braitman

Date: Wednesday, 22 July, 7 pm - 8:30 pm
Place: Cabinet, 300 Nevins Street, Brooklyn
Free. No RSVP necessary.
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/events/eventspace.php

In 2002, MIT partnered with the US Army and a small group of military contractors, such as Raytheon, to make a battlesuit for the Future Force Warrior—a project that sought to use nanotechnology (or the purposeful manipulation of matter at nearly the atomic scale) to create an invincible American soldier. This battlesuit was not just any new soldier uniform—it was, in essence, a superhuman suit that would give its wearer the ability to become bulletproof at light speed, to jump great distances or lift heavy weights, to monitor vital signs and perform CPR if the soldier needed it, to detect chemical and biological weapons and deliver an antidote (custom made from a library of ingredients stored within the suit), and to sense explosives as well as a trained bomb-sniffing dog. Almost seven years later, the supersuit is still in development, but one aspect of it—a handheld synthetic dog nose called Fido that allows soldiers and security personnel to “sniff” explosives—has left the lab and is being implemented everywhere from our nation’s airports and harbors to military checkpoints in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Laurel Braitman, a doctoral student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an affiliate at the Center for Advanced Visual Studies, is a historian and anthropologist of science and has been researching the story of the supersuit for the last three years. She will discuss nanotechnology, the development of the synthetic dog nose, and our ongoing national efforts to create superheroes to save us from ourselves.

Drinks will be served.

Meg Rotzel
Center for Advanced Visual Studies
http://cavs.mit.edu/
In the Office M,T,W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
265 Massachusetts Avenue, N52-390
Cambridge, MA 02139
617.253.4415

'What is Life?' by Erwin Schrödinger.

I was reading Erwin Schrödinger’s book ‘What is Life?’ and was really surprised by a question that he asks right at the beginning, namely ‘why are atoms so small?’. Here are a few paragraphs that I found interesting

WHY ARE THE ATOMS SO SMALL?
A good method of developing ‘the naive physicist’s ideas’ is to start from the odd, almost ludicrous, question: Why are atoms so small? To begin with, they are very small indeed. Every little piece of matter handled in everyday life contains an enormous number of them. Many examples have been devised to bring this fact home to an audience, none of them more impressive than the one used by Lord Kelvin: Suppose that you could mark the molecules in a glass of water; then pour the contents of the glass into the ocean and stir the latter thoroughly so as to distribute the marked molecules uniformly throughout the seven seas; if then you took a glass of water anywhere out of the ocean, you would find in it about a hundred of your marked molecules. The actual sizes of atoms lie between about 1/5000 and 1/2000 the wave-length of yellow light. The comparison is significant, because the wave-length roughly indicates the dimensions of the smallest grain still recognizable in the microscope. Thus it will be seen that such a grain still contains thousands of millions of atoms. Now, why are atoms so small? Clearly, the question is an evasion. For it is not really aimed at the size of the atoms. It is concerned with the size of organisms, more particularly with the size of our own corporeal selves. Indeed, the atom is small, when referred to our civic unit of length, say the yard or the metre. In atomic physics one is accustomed to use the so-called Angstrom (abbr. A), which is the 10lOth part of a metre, or in decimal notation 0.0000000001 metre. Atomic diameters range between 1 and 2A. Now those civic units (in relation to which the atoms are so small) are closely related to the size of our bodies. There is a story tracing the yard back to the humour of an English king whom his councillors asked what unit to adopt -and he stretched out his arm sideways and said: ‘Take the distance from the middle of my chest to my fingertips, that will do all right.’ True or not, the story is significant for our purpose. The king would naturally I indicate a length comparable with that of his own body, knowing that anything else would be very inconvenient. With all his predilection for the Angstrom unit, the physicist prefers to be told that his new suit will require six and a half yards of tweed -rather than sixty-five thousand millions of Angstroms of tweed. It thus being settled that our question really aims at the ratio of two lengths -that of our body and that of the atom - with an incontestable priority of independent existence on the side of the atom, the question truly reads: Why must our bodies be so large compared with the atom? I can imagine that many a keen student of physics or chemistry may have deplored the fact that everyone of our sense organs, forming a more or less substantial part of our body and hence (in view of the magnitude of the said ratio) being itself composed of innumerable atoms, is much too coarse to be affected by the impact of a single atom. We cannot see or feel or hear the single atoms. Our hypotheses with regard to them differ widely from the immediate findings of our gross sense organs and cannot be put to the test of direct inspection. Must that be so? Is there an intrinsic reason for it? Can we trace back this state of affairs to some kind of first principle, in order to ascertain and to understand why nothing else is compatible with the very laws of Nature? Now this, for once, is a problem which the physicist is able to clear up completely. The answer to all the queries is in the affirmative.

THE WORKING OF AN ORGANISM REQUIRES EXACT PHYSICAL LAWS
If it were not so, if we were organisms so sensitive that a single atom, or even a few atoms, could make a perceptible impression on our senses -Heavens, what would life be like! To stress one point: an organism of that kind would most certainly not be capable of developing the kind of orderly thought which, after passing through a long sequence of earlier stages, ultimately results in forming, among many other ideas, the idea of an atom. Even though we select this one point, the following considerations would essentially apply also to the functioning of organs other than the brain and the sensorial system. Nevertheless, the one and only thing of paramount interest to us in ourselves is, that we feel and think and perceive. To the physiological process which is responsible for thought and sense all the others play an auxiliary part, at least from the human point of view, if not from that of purely objective biology. Moreover, it will greatly facilitate our task to choose for investigation the process which is closely accompanied by subjective events, even though we are ignorant of the true nature of this close parallelism. Indeed, in my view, it lies outside the range of natural science and very probably of human understanding altogether. We are thus faced with the following question: Why should an organ like our brain, with the sensorial system attached to it, of necessity consist of an enormous number of atoms, in order that its physically changing state should be in close and intimate correspondence with a highly developed thought? On what grounds is the latter task of the said organ incompatible with being, as a whole or in some of its peripheral parts which interact directly with the environment, a mechanism sufficiently refined and sensitive to respond to and register the impact of a single atom from outside? The reason for this is, that what we call thought (1) is itself an orderly thing, and (2) can only be applied to material, i.e. to perceptions or experiences, which have a certain degree of orderliness. This has two consequences. First, a physical organization, to be in close correspondence with thought (as my brain is with my thought) must be a very well-ordered organization, and that means that the events that happen within it must obey strict physical laws, at least to a very high degree of accuracy. Secondly, the physical impressions made upon that physically well-organized system by other bodies from outside, obviously correspond to the perception and experience of the corresponding thought, forming its material, as I have called it. Therefore, the physical interactions between our system and others must, as a rule, themselves possess a certain degree of physical orderliness, that is to say, they too must obey strict physical laws to a certain degree of accuracy.

Där guld glimmar blått.

While preparing for the meeting at Grythyttan, I was surfing the net and happened to find a page at VR (The Swedish Research Council) concerning a collection of popular science books on contemporary areas of research. The book that caught my eye was, of course, ‘Där guld blimmar blått’ which covers various aspects of nanotechnology, ranging from historical summaries, contemporary areas of application, environmental questions et cetera. If you want a quick summary of where nanotechnology was last fall, I can really recommend this book,… but know that it doesn’t touch on other issues like aesthetics or haptics. If you want to borrow it, just drop me an email and I’ll send it to you!

Pocketerad populärvetenskap - http://www.vr.se/pop

http://www.interface.ufg.ac.at/christa-laurent/WORKS/FRAMES/FrameSet.html