Worlds smallest car!
Discussion
Einion Yrth said:
Well thats a spectacular waste of money on a deep thought level.
Who funds these tank tops?
If we can learn how to do it the potential of nanotechnology in virtually all areas of human endeavour is enormous - a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.
Very optimistic of you, im not sure how building a replica 'car' at molecular level helps advance things though, looks to me like these guys are messing around and having a laugh.
Where are the real pictures of this thing anyway, all i see are CGI mockup's and mentions of a paper on it, is it even real, or theoretical?
scorp said:
Very optimistic of you, im not sure how building a replica 'car' at molecular level helps advance things though, looks to me like these guys are messing around and having a laugh.
Yeah let's just throw up our hands and declare it too difficult - building anything at a molecular level is hardly trivial - what could they build that would advance things?
Einion Yrth said:
Very optimistic of you, im not sure how building a replica 'car' at molecular level helps advance things though, looks to me like these guys are messing around and having a laugh.
Yeah let's just throw up our hands and declare it too difficult - building anything at a molecular level is hardly trivial - what could they build that would advance things?
I don't remember saying don't bother to endeavour because it might be difficult, my point was, perhaps something more constructive should be built than a useless toy car which incidently has no evidence to suggest such a thing was ever built.
scorp said:
I don't remember saying don't bother to endeavour because it might be difficult, my point was, perhaps something more constructive should be built than a useless toy car which incidently has no evidence to suggest such a thing was ever built.
The problem with your logic scorp is that many great scientific breakthroughs have been made by scientists exploring areas that at the time didn't have any apparent commercial application.
It's the creative element of science where things are done, just to see if they can be done, that often lead to the breakthroughs, and one of the greatest potential hinderances to scientific advancement is people like you who think that scientists should have to demonstrate that the reserch will have a 'useful' application before it's performed.
timmy30 said:
scorp said:
I don't remember saying don't bother to endeavour because it might be difficult, my point was, perhaps something more constructive should be built than a useless toy car which incidently has no evidence to suggest such a thing was ever built.
The problem with your logic scorp is that many great scientific breakthroughs have been made by scientists exploring areas that at the time didn't have any apparent commercial application.
It's the creative element of science where things are done, just to see if they can be done, that often lead to the breakthroughs, and one of the greatest potential hinderances to scientific advancement is people like you who think that scientists should have to demonstrate that the reserch will have a 'useful' application before it's performed.
Explain to me how exactly building a "car" advances the field of nanotechnology, ive seen for more impressive machines with simple moving parts being experimented with already, this "car" is a step backwards and adds nothing to the field.
I fully understand that we need to experiment to discover things but i can also see the difference between scientific experimentation to prove a hypothesis and messing about.
Perhaps the real achievement is in the construction process, no one has really mentioned this in any great detail. The end product (car) isn't really that usefull is it?
>> Edited by scorp on Friday 21st October 11:46
scorp said:
Explain to me how exactly building a "car" advances the field of nanotechnology,
bringing the subject to people who wouldn't normally have any knowledge of it? advertising? it's how offshoots and new uses for technology happens, a bit like a clockwork radio. Or to use a less popular analogy using a speed measuring device to collect tax
scorp said:
The end product (car) isn't really that usefull is it?
>> Edited by scorp on Friday 21st October 11:46
Re read my first post, I didn't say it was or needed to be 'useful' in the utilitarian sense.
To the other poster, yes of course, I would imgaine the important thing is the skills involved in constucting the object.
Scorp what the
was the point is Rolls flying down a hill in a rudimentary plane with an arm chair strapped to it? Absolutely no use at all 100+ years ago was it? Just some daft toff mucking about. He should have been doing something useful like designing better sprung horse cart right??? >> Edited by timmy30 on Friday 21st October 11:57
timmy30 said:
The end product (car) isn't really that usefull is it?
>> Edited by scorp on Friday 21st October 11:46
Re read my first post, I didn't say it was or needed to be 'useful' in the utilitarian sense.
To the other poster, yes of course, I would imgaine the important thing is the skills involved in constucting the object.
Scorp what thewas the point is Rolls flying down a hill in a rudimentary plane with an arm chair strapped to it? Absolutely no use at all 100+ years ago was it? Just some daft toff mucking about. He should have been doing something useful like designing better sprung horse cart right???
>> Edited by timmy30 on Friday 21st October 11:57
Like i said, the real achievement is the construction process, sadly that part was lacking in detail, and would of been of interest to myself. Instead i am looking at pointless cgi renderings of a pointless molecular car.
I don't want to go into an argument about the differences between an inventors experimentation and scientists experimentation, the two are clearly not the same.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff