It seems every chemist is growing increasingly fond of saying Weve been doing nanotechnology for hundreds of years or something to that effect , the even increasing ranks of chemists who are now in danger of outnumbering the physicists at Cientifica ceratinly hold that view.
By extending that logic, lets not just settle for a couple of hundred measly years, lets go for a couple of millennia. Certainly the Chinese and Romans employed nanoclays and gold nanoparticles for the pottery, right?
Its a fun game, and we like to play along, but really being able to know what youre doing on the nanoscale has really only come about in the last twenty years with AFMs and other tools that make it possible to manipulate on the nanoscale. So, we get forced back into the increasingly tedious exercise of defining nanotechnology.
Companies that are developing real products (yes, they exist) by employing nanotechnology arent sitting around waiting for definitions or the okay from someone whether its a worthwhile investment. They know its a safe investment. Does Samsungs reporting of US$779 million in nano-product revenues allay the fears of the doomsayers? Probably not, its such good fun after all. But Samsung and other companies are quite happy to deposit their revenues into their bank accounts while others wring their hands wondering if this might be just like ceramic engines.