That animation of hitting the computer to reveal its contents is too similar to that one game where a person keeps punching its computer because its broken
"nanomaterial" ≠ "nanotechnology". "Atomically-precise manufacturing" more accurately matches what the public thinks "nanotechnology" means. But the term "nanotechnology" has become corrupted since research labs figured out including "nano" in their grant proposals improved their chances of getting funding. Source: K. Eric Drexler's "Radical Abundance".
In addition to messing up nanomaterials and nanotech, the video doesn't actually spend significant time or effort explaining the "mighty power of nanomaterials". What powers? What materials? The only relevant tidbit I heard was that gold nanoparticles have vivid colors based on the particle-size. The rest is mostly hand-wavy pop-sci that may be discussed in polite conversation, but is utterly un-educational.
Nano materials are promising but comes with a high cost I don't know what is the next step in material science would be but I think by 2021 we would have a yocto material 😂 😂 after all what we need is a material suitable for the application for a very low cost ( it won't matter if you have a sewing Needle made of titanium if plastic can get the job done with higher efficiency less cost )
Though the way people talk about the experiment makes it sound way easier than it really is. Like you just stick scotch tape to a pencil and you get graphene. In reality, you need an extremely pure form of graphite, and you only get micrometer sized fragments of graphene lost in a sea of graphite and glue. You have to search for it using Atomic Force Microscopy, but it scans so slowly that you would never find it unless you narrow down the region where it might be. What Novoselov and Geim discovered was that if you transfer the graphite to a silicon wafer coated with 300nm of silicon dioxide, the single-layer graphene stands out under optical microscopy. If the SiO2 layer thickness is off by only a few nm, the graphene becomes invisible. That was the actual breakthrough. The scotch-tape technique itself (or micromechanical exfoliation) had been used for years on other materials (see the 1966 paper "Single Crystals of MoS2 Several Molecular Layers Thick", by R.F. Frindt for example), but nobody knew if it worked for graphene, or even if graphene actually existed at all. In any case, it was a great idea that allowed scientists to isolate graphene and study its properties (tens of thousands of papers on it have been published since), but it is anything but simple. That's why 14 years later we still don't have a way to mass produce graphene. But we're getting there.
I have been watching this series over the past few weeks and the host has seemed a bit off to me I just couldn't pinpoint why. But I believe I've figured it out: the intervals between her blinking are oddly long. Just something I've noticed.
Wait - "Don't let fear of the unknown keep us from moving forward," is what you say when you're on an adventure, or trying to step out of your comfort zone. It's NOT meant to be applied to situations which could cause irreversible harm to people or the environment! You have GOT to be able to weigh the severity of consequences with your actions, and far too often people haven't done that - they used to dump nuclear waste into the ocean right off the east coast, for example. If something like this has the risk of possible harm, it should be tested in its entirety first before introducing it to people and the environment. Greed keeps people from doing what's necessary to protect people and the environment, and it sounds like this is another example. Greed makes people disregard potential destructive consequences and go forward anyway to find out the hard way. Humans are pretty smart - we could develop a new way of doing things if we wanted. It's only greed that prevents people from doing so. Gotta get those nano-materials to market, right? Sounded interesting until you revealed that no one knows how much harm they could cause. We have a responsibility to figure that out first when introducing man-made things into the environment.
Yes she very smart also. But actually she British/southeastern asian more specifically she's Indian and English. I'm black american and I can tell the difference, ..........come on now how you not see that man.....
This narrator is terrible. This does not seem like a crash course at all. It feels like an introduction for kids. The information content is low and slow. I would say that it was probably the writer but I felt the same way about Crash Course physics. This narrator wasted so much time just with the stupid cute little asides and she talks way too slow.