From 1996 part of the claim about making centimeter lenths of carbon nanotubes within the year and a mention about spooling them. Smalley claimed that the spooling was just around the corner as well. Carbon nanotubes have a billion dollars or more per year industry for some time and have had over a billion spent on R&D. We are now at about 1000 tons per year for total world production and the common lengths are usually a millimeter or less. Centimeter lengths are still rare. Nanocomp technologies is one of the main companies working with longer than millimeter or centimeter lengths and making a few tons per year of those lengths.
This is from the author, Brian Wang. If you look in the comments you will see that Locklin replied on my site. He did not address the fact that funding was not provided but just said that my article was increasing his faith in the US government for choosing not to fund molecular nanotech. As for my authority, I do not say believe me because of my background or my certifications. I provide the logical connections and historical facts which are not dependent upon authority. As for how much I know about molecular nanotechnology. I have lectured at the Singularity university twice on the subject but the nature of the lecture was to provide a review of the latest developments in the field. I show that I am current what is happening by writing 99% of the articles on the website nextbigfuture. There are a few hundred articles on nanotechnology and a few dozen on molecular nanotechnology. I believe that I am qualified as a scientific journalist who covers advanced technology and proposed advanced technology. I had the link to Locklin's site until he would not engage in a reasoned discussion. He did not publish any of my comments on his site and if you look at his article and discussion thread on his site you will see that the level of discussion is one of flamewars. Frankly he just annoys me.
As for Smalley. There have been mechanosynthesis experiments which have broken and made covalent bonds. So anyone who claims there is a scientific flaw in the concepts of mechanosynthesis needs to address this evidence. Also, Smalley promised rocking chair carbon nanotubes for transforming the electrical grid. But tens of millions have been spent there and there has not been one commercial watt transmitted with carbon nanotubes. I am aware that there is slow progress but there are huge gaps between what Smalley promised back in 1995 and what has been done. I was also present when Smalley was giving a talk at one of the Foresight conferences and said that within a year he would be creating carbon nanotubes so long that they would be spooled onto a spindle. Meters long. It was about 13 years later that anything approaching that length was produced and it was done by Windel at Cambridge and only for a few strands. Of course Smalley died but it was not Rice University.
This is just to show that Smalley (nobel prize winner) and his authority does not make him immune from being wrong. So neither does any authority claimed by Locklin. And I do not expect any authority from me to make a case. I expect facts and logic to make the case.
currently there is a project by Philip Moriarty in the UK to try and prove the computational chemistry work of Merkle and Freitas. There has been a delay getting the equipment and the perfectly smooth surface acquired. the equipment took a little over a year and is there now but as of a conversation with Merkle and Freitas a few months ago, they indicated that Moriarty indicated the atomically smooth surface was holding up the main experimentation.
You did not fund molecular nanotech and let billions of funding go to buying new buildings at universities and for chemistry research. Molecular nanotech has been excluded from funding since the 2003 start of major funding. When you buy your Ford SUV, do you send your complaints about it to Ferrari when you did not buy a race car?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/09/eric-drexler-ralph-merkle-o...