Small tech investment is suffering from a name space collision – which is a fancy way of saying: two completely different technologies have the same name and it’s confusing the heck out of everyone. The name is “nanotechnology” and the contenders are: Feynman/Drexler (FD) nanotechnology and nanoscale (NS) nanotechnology. In the interest of preserving our collective comprehension, it’s time to rename one of these two important technologies.

Contenders

FD nanotech is concerned with the mechanical assembly of atomically precise structures. In contrast, NS nanotech is concerned with the assembly of nanometer scale structures. (I.e. for NS nanotech, either the assembly process is not mechanical, or the final structure is not atomically precise.) To make this difference clear: NS nanotech would be happy to produce a metallic cube with a width of 10 nanometers (i.e. about 100 atoms) – but FD nanotech would want to specify the type and location of each of the one million atoms that make up that cube. Thus, FD nanotech is about a million times more ambitious than NS nanotech!

Given its vastly greater ambition, it’s not surprising that FD nanotech differs radically from NS nanotech in promise, peril and realization.

Promise: FD nanotech promises artificial white blood cells – actually micrometer sized robots – that would be thousands of times more efficient than the natural versions. These robots would quickly eliminate infections that would be fatal with even the best of today’s antibiotics. In contrast, NS nanotech promises the ability to attach metallic nanoparticles to cancerous cells. These attached nanoparticles would then be used to assist in the early detection and treatment of cancer.

Peril: FD nanotech raises the specter of out-of-control replicating nanobots eating through the biosphere. Perhaps more realistically, it raises the prospect of nanoweapons dangerous enough to put the scare into even the most ardent FD nanotech advocate. In contrast, NS nanotech raises concerns about effect of nanoparticles on the biosphere (i.e., “nanopollution”).

Realization: While FD nanotech is vastly larger than NS nanotech in promise and peril, it is correspondingly smaller in realization. Many NS nanotech applications have already moved from research to commercial production, but FD nanotech is primarily limited to theoretical studies – with only a few experimental demonstrations of rudimentary abilities. The FD nanotech artificial white blood cell is nothing more than a technical study at this point, while the NS nanotech cancer detection and treatment technologies are already in medical trials.

Confusion

Newspaper and magazine articles on nanotechnology often start with a description of the FD nanotech “atomic control” paradigm, but then continue with descriptions of NS nanotech applications. Because these two distinct technologies have the same name, no clear distinction is made between them. Thus the promise and peril of FD nanotech is often mistakenly ascribed to NS nanotech, while the realization of NS nanotech is often mistakenly ascribed to FD nanotech.

By mistakenly ascribing the promises of FD nanotech to NS nanotech companies, we run the risk of overvaluing these companies – and thus driving a boom/bust cycle in NS nanotech. This misplacement of hope is what some commentators are calling hype in nanotech investing.

By mistakenly ascribing the perils of FD nanotech to NS nanotech, we run two risks: 1) being overly cautious in developing NS nanotech, and 2) being insufficiently cautious (after dismissing the first cry of “Wolf”) in developing FD nanotech.

Competition

Given the cost of confusion, and thus the need to to remedy it by renaming one of the two “nanotechnologies”, how good are their respective claims to that name?

FD nanotech leads by the measure of priority. The general public’s introduction to “nanotechnology” was clearly provided by Eric Drexler’s 1986 book, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology.

However, NS nanotech leads by the measure of etymological merit. “Nanotechnology” clearly implies “nano” i.e., nanometer scale technology – which is the definition of NS nanotech. In contrast, FD nanotech can be well defined without even using the word “nano”. Furthermore, while NS nanotech is constrained to lie in the nanometer scale, FD nanotech is not (e.g., micrometer sized artificial white cells).

In addition, NS nanotech greatly surpasses FD nanotech by the measures of realization (as detailed above) and public and private funding. Almost the entirety of public funding (e.g., the US government’s $680 million NNI program) is directed at NS nanotech. Commercial funding of nanotech is also almost entirely directed to NS nanotech. (Even Zyvex, the only company established with the explicit aim of developing FD nanotech, has recently backed off from that vision to focus on more intermediate technologies.)

Mechutechnology

So, with FD nanotech getting its butt kicked in the name game, what should it be called?

When Drexler wishes to distinguish FD from NS nanotech, he uses the adjective “molecular”. Unfortunately, the resulting phrases: “molecular nanotechnology” and “molecular manufacturing”, are long, broad and inaccurate. Inaccurate: FD nanotech components are not molecules. Broad: much of NS nanotech is also “molecular” – e.g., molecular electronics. Long: Even Drexler’s close associates use “nanotechnology” in preference to the awkward “molecular manufacturing”.

Mechule: FD nanotech is concerned with the mechanical assembly of atomically precise structures. These two key concepts: mechanical and atomically precise are well suggested by a single word: mechule (pronounced mech-yule). To put a definition to this new word: a mechule is a mechanically assembled, atomically precise structure. Mechules are precisely defined like molecules, but like crystals, may be constituted of a single element, and may exist at varying length scales (nanometer scale for small gears, micrometer scale for artificial white blood cells, and even megameter scale for ambitious “elevator to space” applications.)

Thus, FD nanotechnology can be renamed to mechutechnology (mech-you-technology). And its definition becomes: the technology of assembly and use of mechules.

Note that the mechu (mech-you) root can be used in additional terms: mechular (relating to mechules), mechutech (short for mechutechnology), mechubot (mechular robot), mechuchine (mechular machine), mechufacturing (creation of goods by mechular machinery), mechumedicine (mechular medicine), etc.

In Short

Mechutechnology can be distinguished from nanotechnology by a single, two syllable word: mechule. Mechules are mechanically assembled, atomically precise structures. Mechutech is concerned with making and using them, nanotech isn’t.

Nanotech research is well funded and has already resulted in successful commercial applications. It may have some dangers, but replicating nanobots, terrible nanoweapons and great social upheaval are not among them.

In contrast, mechutech remains a largely theoretical technology, with few demonstrative experiments, and no commercial applications. It has much greater promise than nanotech, but also much greater peril.

Hopefully, this precise and easily stated distinction between nanotech and mechutech will clear up much of the confusion surrounding these two remarkable technologies.

Note: Those who are strongly committed to mechutechnology should see Nanotech vs. Nanotech (Part 2) for additional arguments and technical details.