Characterizing devices at low current levels requires knowledge, skill, and the right test equipment. Even with all three, achieving accuracy in these measurements can be a challenge because the current level is often at or below the noise level of the test setup. To ensure measurement accuracy, it is important to know the type of test equipment to use, the different sources of measurement error, and the appropriate techniques to minimize these errors. Examining several test examples, such as characterization of a field-effect transistor (FET) and a carbon nanotube, can help in the learning process.

The term low current is relative, of course. A current level considered low for one application, such as 1mA, may be high for a device operating at 10nA. In general, an instrument’s noise level will establish its low-level sensitivity, with low current measurements referring to those made near an instrument’s noise level. Trends in portable and remote electronic devices, along with advances in semiconductors and nanotechnology, are requiring greater use of low current measurements. Small geometry devices, photovoltaic devices, and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are a few examples of devices designed to operate at extremely low current levels, and all of these devices must be characterized in terms of their current-voltage characteristics (I-V measurements).

A number of instruments are available for low-current measurements, depending on the type of device under test (DUT) and the level of current to be measured. Perhaps the most ubiquitous tool on production lines and in field service is the digital multimeter (DMM), which typically provides capabilities for measuring current, voltage, resistance, and temperature. The range of commercial products is wide, from low-cost units with 3½-digit readout resolution to rack-mount and benchtop high precision laboratory units. The most sensitive DMMs available can measure current levels as low as about 10pA.

When greater precision is needed, various forms of ammeters are available to measure current. These can be as simple as older types that measure current flow from the mechanical deflection of a coil in a magnetic field. More modern digital ammeters use an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to measure the voltage across a shunt resistor and then determine and display the current from that reading. Newer picoammeters typically use a feedback resistor, which allows more accuracy in current measurements at such low levels. They are available in various configurations, including high-speed models and logarithmic units capable of measuring a wide range of currents. While they are extremely versatile, it is useful to understand the performance limitations of feedback ammeters.

Feedback Ammeter Performance. A simple feedback ammeter can be modeled with a small number of parameters. The current source is modeled as a voltage source in series with a parallel RC circuit, i.e., the source resistance (RS) and parallel source capacitance (CS). The feedback ammeter is modeled as a feedback amplifier with a parallel RC feedback circuit across it (i.e., RF and CF), with the two amplifier inputs being the external current source and the internal voltage noise source, VNOISE. The capacitances in the source and measurement circuits are parasitic elements associated with the resistances and circuit wiring. Using this model and ignoring capacitance, the noise gain of the ammeter circuit can be found from:

Output Voltage Noise = (Input Voltage Noise) x (1 + RF/RS)

As this equation implies, the output of a feedback ammeter circuit is a voltage, which is proportional to the input current. As the source resistance decreases in value, the output noise increases. When RF = RS, the input noise is multiplied by a factor of 2. If the source resistance is too low, it can have a detrimental effect on the noise performance of the measurement system. The optimum source resistance is a function of required measurement range for an ammeter, with a minimum value of 1MegOhm to measure nanoamps of current, compared to a minimum value of 1GigOhm to measure picoamps of current.

However, source capacitance can also affect the noise performance of a low current measurement instrument. In general, as the source capacitance increases, the noise gain also increases. This means that the equation above should be modified by substituting the feedback impedance (ZF) for the feedback resistance (RF) and the source impedance (ZS) for the source resistance (RS).

Additional current measurement instruments include electrometers and source-measure units (SMUs). An electrometer is essentially a voltmeter with a high input impedance (1TOhm and higher) that can be used to measure low current levels. It can be used as an ammeter to measure low current levels even at low voltages, and can also be used as a voltmeter to make voltage measurements with minimal effect on the circuit being measured. As an ammeter, an electrometer can measure currents as low as the instrument’s input offset current, as low as 1fA in some cases. As a voltmeter, an electrometer can measure the voltage on a capacitor without significantly discharging the device, and can measure the potential of piezoelectric crystals and high-impedance pH electrodes.

The SMU is an innovation for making low-current measurements. It combines precision current sources and voltage sources with sensitive detection circuitry for measuring both current and voltage. An SMU can simultaneously provide a source of current and measure voltage or provide a source of voltage and measure current. A well-equipped SMU may include a voltage source, current source, ammeter, voltmeter, and ohmmeter and is also programmable for use in automatic-test-equipment (ATE) systems.

Minimizing External Noise. All of these measuring instruments are effective tools for measuring current, but their sensitivity to low levels of current will be limited mainly by sources of noise, both within and external to the instrument. The DUT also affects the level of current that can be accurately measured with a given instrument, because the DUT’s source resistance (RS) establishes the level of Johnson current noise (IJ), which is low-level noise caused by temperature effects on electrons in a conductor. Johnson noise, which can be expressed in terms of either current or voltage, is essentially the voltage noise of a device divided by the device resistance:

IJ= √(4kTB/RS) / RS,

where

k = Boltzmann’s constant (1.38 × 10–23 J/K),

T = Absolute temperature of the source (in ºK),

B = the noise bandwidth (in Hz), and

RS = the resistance of the source (in ohms).

Both temperature and noise bandwidth affect the Johnson current noise. A reduction in either parameter will also reduce the Johnson current noise. Cryogenic cooling, for example, is often used to reduce noise in amplifiers and other circuits but adds cost and complexity. The noise bandwidth can be reduced by filtering, but this will result in slowing the measurement speed. The Johnson current noise also decreases as the DUT’s source resistance decreases, but this is not often a practical or even possible option.

Ideally, a current measurement would be just that of the DUT source. However, current noise from various unwanted sources can make it difficult to read a low-level DUT source current. One of these unwanted sources is part of the measurement system itself, i.e., the coaxial cables used to interconnect test instruments to each other or to the DUT. Typical test cables can generate as much as tens of nanoamps of current as a result of the triboelectric effect. This occurs when the outer shield of a coaxial test cable rubs against the cable’s insulation when the cable is flexed. As a result, electrons are stripped from the insulation, and added to the current total. In some applications, such as nanotechnology and semiconductor research, the current generated by this effect may exceed the level of current to be measured from the DUT.

Triboelectric effects can be minimized by using low-noise cable, with an inner insulator of polyethylene coated with graphite underneath the outer shield. The graphite reduces friction, and provides a path for the displaced electrons to return to their original locations, eliminating random electron motion and their contribution to the additional noise level. Excess current flow from triboelectric effects can also be minimized by reducing the length of the test cables as much as possible. The test setup should be isolated from vibration to minimize unwanted movement of the test cables, by positioning test cables on top of vibration-absorbing material, such as foam rubber. Test cable movement can also be minimized by taping the cables to a stable surface, such as the test bench.

Piezoelectric effect is another source of error in low-current measurements. It causes spurious current generation due to mechanical stress on susceptible materials. The effect varies by material, although some materials commonly used in electronic systems, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) dielectrics, can produce a relatively large amount of current for a given amount of stress and vibration. Ceramic materials are less affected by piezoelectric effects and produce lower current levels. To minimize current generated by this effect, it is critical to minimize mechanical stress on insulators and construct the low-current test system using insulating materials with minimal piezoelectric properties.

Insulators can also degrade low-current measurement accuracy by means of dielectric absorption. This phenomenon occurs when a high-enough voltage across an insulator causes positive and negative charges to polarize. When the voltage is removed from the insulator, it gives up the separated charges as a decaying current, which is added to the total amount measured during a test. The decay time for the current from dielectric absorption to dissipate can be from minutes to hours. The effect can be minimized by applying only low-voltage levels to insulators used for low-current measurements.

Insulators can also degrade low-current measurement accuracy due to contamination from salt, moisture, oil, or even fingerprints on the surface of the insulator. Contamination effects can also plague printed circuit boards in a test fixture or in the test setup when, for example, excessive flux is used when soldering. On an insulator, the contamination acts to form a low-current battery at a sensitive current node within the insulator, generating noise currents that can be on the order of nanoamps. To minimize measurement errors from insulator contamination, an operator should wear gloves when handling insulators or simply avoid touching them. The use of solder should be minimized, and solder areas should be cleaned with an appropriate solvent, such as isopropyl alcohol. A clean cotton swab should be used for every cleaning, and cotton swabs should never be reused or dipped into the cleaning solution after having been used for cleaning.

It is critical to make low-current measurements in the absence of magnetic fields, because such fields can induce current flow in conductors. This is typically due to variations in magnetic field intensity, or motion of a conductor within a magnetic field. Both cases should be avoided to maintain measurement accuracy, which is best accomplished by properly shielding the measuring instrument or system.

Minimizing Instrument Offset Current. An instrument used for low-current measurements should show a zero reading when its input terminals are left in an open-circuit condition. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case due to a small current known as the input offset current. It is caused by bias currents of active devices in measuring instrument circuitry, as well as leakage current through insulators in the instrument or test system. Most instrument manufacturers specify the input offset current on their products’ data sheets for comparison purposes, and this small amount of current must be taken into account in any low-current measurement. In other words, the instrument’s reading is actually the sum of the DUT source current and the instrument’s input offset current.

The input offset current can be found by capping the input connector and selecting the lowest current range available on the measuring instrument. The reading shown by the instrument, after it has properly settled to a stable value, should be within the specification shown on the instrument’s data sheet and can be subtracted from DUT readings. On some instruments, a current-suppression function can partially null input offset current.

Another way to subtract input offset current from a low-current measurement is to use a relative function found on some measuring equipment, such as ammeters. The relative function stores the reading of whatever residual offset current is being measured with the input terminals left in an open-circuit condition; this reading is treated as the zero point for subsequent readings.

Application Examples. Some examples of practical low-current measurements include characterization of field effect transistors (FETs) and CNT devices. A more common FET test involves evaluation of a device’s common-source characteristics. Even at low current levels, the drain current can be studied using a simple test setup with a two-channel SMU, such as the Keithley Series 2600A System SourceMeter instrument. A two-channel SMU has the capability to source current or voltage and measure current or voltage simultaneously. To characterize a FET, it is mounted in a test fixture that allows secure ground and bias connections. One SMU channel supplies a swept gate-source voltage (VGS) to the FET while the other supplies a swept drain-source voltage (VDS) and measures the FET’s drain current (ID). This simple test setup allows the measurement of drain currents as low as 10nA or less.

Electronic materials such as photovoltaic wafers and CNT sheets are typically characterized in terms of their current density—the amount of current they can generate for a given area of material. Researchers from South Korea’s Seoul National University, conduct such tests to evaluate multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWNT) devices fabricated on an arc-discharge CNT substrate using a Keithley Model 6517 electrometer. In these studies, current densities as low as 10–4/cm2 were measured at applied electric fields of 5V/μm and less. Practical analysis of the I-V characteristics of CNT-based electronics can also be performed in a manner similar to that for the FET by using a pair of SMUs to sweep drain and gate voltages while measuring and plotting the drain current as a function of gate voltage.

The required resolution and accuracy of low-current measurements will dictate the type of measurement tool used. When accuracy is less of an issue, a basic DMM may suffice. But for more demanding requirements, a precision electrometer or SMU may be needed. These precision instruments are optimized for low-current measurements, providing measurement resolution as small as 1fA. More techniques and tips on low current measurements are contained in Keithley’s Low Level Measurements Handbook.

Carbon Nanotubes with their extraordinary properties in terms of strength, thermal and electrical properties are poised to have a big impact on the future of material sciences, electronics and nanotechnology. Owing to their specialized structures and minute diameter, they can be utilized in the creation of ultra-thin energy storage devices which in today’s world where electronics is getting smaller could redefine the electronics market and replace capacitors and batteries they way we see them now. Research and development around carbon nanotubes is moving ahead yielding new forms, new applications and new material based on this unique structure and we take a look into this breakthrough in science and the innovation that surrounds it as it promises to be a large part or small devices of the future.

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs; also known as buckytubes) are allotropes of carbon with a cylindrical nanostructure. Nanotubes have been constructed with length-to-diameter ratio of up to 132,000,000:1, which is significantly larger than any other material. These cylindrical carbon molecules have novel properties that make them potentially useful in many applications in nanotechnology, electronics, optics and other fields of materials science, as well as potential uses in architectural fields. They exhibit extraordinary strength and unique electrical properties, and are efficient thermal conductors.

Nanotubes are members of the fullerene structural family, which also includes the spherical buckyballs. The ends of a nanotube might be capped with a hemisphere of the buckyball structure. Their name is derived from their size, since the diameter of a nanotube is on the order of a few nanometers (approximately 1/50,000th of the width of a human hair), while they can be up to 18 centimeters in length (as of 2010). Nanotubes are categorized as single-walled nanotubes (SWNTs) and multi-walled nanotubes (MWNTs).

The researchers of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have uncovered a new phenomenon of carbon nanotubes. They found that carbon nanotubes discharge powerful waves of electricity under certain circumstances. MIT team named it as thermopower waves. They are pinning their hope on thermopower waves to produce electricity to be utilized in small electrical appliances or maybe in large-scale applications too. This project was funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the US National Science Foundation (NSF).

This discharge of electricity from carbon nanotubes is a very rare occurrence. Traditionally we derive electricity from water, sun, wind, coal or heat produced by burning of fossil fuels. The thermopower wave, “opens up a new area of energy research, which is rare,” said Michael Stranowho is MIT’s Charles and Hilda Roddey associate professor of Chemical Engineering. His work was published in scientific journal Nature Materials.

Carbon nanotubes are submicroscopic structures. They are just billionths of a meter in diameter. Carbon nanotubes resemble honeycombs. For the past twenty years scientists are focusing their energies on carbon nanotubes, graphene sheets and buckeyballs. They find these three most promising for clean and green energy research. These three substances can be valuable for the medicine, nanotechnology, geoengineering, biology, and for the electronics industry.

Researchers associated with this project find the whole phenomenon quite unusual. They have observed that as the moving pulses of heat pass through the carbon naotubes, electrons also travel along. This movement of electrons is responsible for generation of electric current. Strano says, “There’s something else happening here. We call it electron entrainment since part of the current appears to scale with wave velocity.”

Researchers coated carbon nanotubes with a layer of reactive fuel that can generate heat by decomposing. This fuel was then ignited by a laser beam or high voltage spark at the one end of the nanotube. This ignition resulted in fast moving thermal waves. When this thermal wave enters into carbon nanotube its velocity increases thousand times than the fuel itself. When heat waves contact the thermal coating they produce a temperature of 3,000 kelvins. This ring of heat runs to the length of the tube 10,000 times faster than the normal spread of this chemical reaction. The unusual occurrence is that electrons also travel with the heat inside the tube. Strano says that events like this “have been studied mathematically for more than 100 years” but he was the first to envisage that such waves could be guided by a nanotube or nanowire and that this wave of heat could thrust an electrical current all along that wire.

Strano explains, “There’s something else happening here. We call it electron entrainment, since part of the current appears to scale with wave velocity.” He confirms that the thermal waves are behaving like ocean waves. We have observed that when ocean waves travel they carry the debris on their surface. Strano thinks that this property is responsible for the high power output by the system. Strano suggests the possible use of this discovery. He says that one possible use could be enabling new kinds of ultra-small electronic devices having sensors or treatment devices that would be injected into the body.

Ray Baughman, director of the Nanotech Institute at the University of Texas at Dallas, shares his views regarding the whole project that it “started with a seminal initial idea, which some might find crazy, and provided exciting experimental results, the discovery of new phenomena, deep theoretical understanding, and prospects for applications.” Because it revealed a previously unknown phenomenon, he says, it could open up “an exciting new area of investigation.”

What limits the behaviour of a carbon nanotube? This is a question that many scientists are trying to answer. Physicists at University of Gothenburg, Sweden, have now shown that electromechanical principles are valid also at the nanometre scale. In this way, the unique properties of carbon nanotubes can be combined with classical physics – and this may prove useful in the quantum computers of the future.

“We have been studying carbon nanotubes theoretically, in order to see how they behave when they are stimulated to behave according to the laws quantum mechanics. The results provide a completely new platform for scientists to stand on”, says Gustav Sonne of the Department of Physics at the University of Gothenburg.

Every day we use a number of different microelectromechanical components for various forms of detection, to determine whether a certain process has taken place or whether a certain substance is present. These cannot be detected without instruments. One example is the detection of rapid accelerations that is used to activate the airbag in a car during an accident. What all of these components have in common is that they combine mechanical and electronic properties in order to react to external stimuli.

Gustav Sonne has taken research down to a whole new dimension – from the micrometer scale to the nanometer scale – and he has studied the younger brothers of these components: nanoelectromechanical systems. The studies have been based on tiny nanotubes suspended between two electrical contacts. He has subsequently calculated how small vibrations in the suspended tubes can be coupled to a current that is led through them.

“Our research has focussed mainly on how these systems, which consist of a tiny, super-light mechanical oscillator (the suspended nanotube), can be described in quantum mechanical terms, and what effects this has on the measurements we can carry out. We have been able to demonstrate a number of new mechanisms for electromechanical coupling that should be possible to observe experimentally. This, in turn, may lead to extremely exotic physical phenomena in these structures, phenomena which may be of interest for research into quantum computers, and other fields.”

Interest in nanotubes is based on their outstanding properties: they are among the strongest materials known, weigh next to nothing, and have extremely high conductivity for both electric currents and heat. Carbon nanotubes can be used to manufacture composite materials that are several orders of magnitude stronger than currently available materials.

As far back as the 1990s, long before anyone had actually isolated graphene – a honeycomb lattice of carbon just one atom thick – theorists were predicting extraordinary properties at the edges of graphene nanoribbons. Now physicists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), and their colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley, Stanford University, and other institutions, have made the first precise measurements of the “edge states” of well-ordered nanoribbons.

A graphene nanoribbon is a strip of graphene that may be only a few nanometers wide (a nanometer is a billionth of a meter). Theorists have envisioned that nanoribbons, depending on their width and the angle at which they are cut, would have unique electronic, magnetic, and optical features, including band gaps like those in semiconductors, which sheet graphene doesn’t have.

“Until now no one has been able to test theoretical predictions regarding nanoribbon edge-states, because no one could figure out how to see the atomic-scale structure at the edge of a well-ordered graphene nanoribbon and how, at the same time, to measure its electronic properties within nanometers of the edge,” says Michael Crommie of Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division (MSD) and UC Berkeley’s Physics Division, who led the research. “We were able to achieve this by studying specially made nanoribbons with a scanning tunneling microscope.”

The team’s research not only confirms theoretical predictions but opens the prospect of building quick-acting, energy-efficient nanoscale devices from graphene-nanoribbon switches, spin-valves, and detectors, based on either electron charge or electron spin. Farther down the road, graphene nanoribbon edge states open the possibility of devices with tunable giant magnetoresistance and other magnetic and optical effects.

The well-tempered nanoribbon

“Making flakes and sheets of graphene has become commonplace,” Crommie says, “but until now, nanoribbons produced by different techniques have exhibited, at best, a high degree of inhomogeneity” – typically resulting in disordered ribbon structures with only short stretches of straight edges appearing at random. The essential first step in detecting nanoribbon edge states is access to uniform nanoribbons with straight edges, well-ordered on the atomic scale.

Hongjie Dai of Stanford University’s Department of Chemistry and Laboratory for Advanced Materials, a member of the research team, solved this problem with a novel method of “unzipping” carbon nanotubes chemically. Graphene rolled into a cylinder makes a nanotube, and when nanotubes are unzipped in this way the slice runs straight down the length of the tube, leaving well-ordered, straight edges.

Graphene can be wrapped at almost any angle to make a nanotube. The way the nanotube is wrapped determines the pitch, or “chiral vector,” of the nanoribbon edge when the tube is unzipped. A cut straight along the outer atoms of a row of hexagons produces a zigzag edge. A cut made at a 30-degree angle from a zigzag edge goes through the middle of the hexagons and yields scalloped edges, known as “armchair” edges. Between these two extremes are a variety of chiral vectors describing edges stepped on the nanoscale, in which, for example, after every few hexagons a zigzag segment is added at an angle.

These subtle differences in edge structure have been predicted to produce measurably different physical properties, which potentially could be exploited in new graphene applications. Steven Louie of UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab’s MSD was the research team’s theorist; with the help of postdoc Oleg Yazyev, Louie calculated the expected outcomes, which were then tested against experiment.

Chenggang Tao of MSD and UCB led a team of graduate students in performing scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) of the nanoribbons on a gold substrate, which resolved the positions of individual atoms in the graphene nanoribbons. The team looked at more than 150 high-quality nanoribbons with different chiralities, all of which showed an unexpected feature, a regular raised border near their edges forming a hump or bevel. Once this was established as a real edge feature – not the artifact of a folded ribbon or a flattened nanotube – the chirality and electronic properties of well-ordered nanoribbon edges could be measured with confidence, and the edge regions theoretically modeled.

Electronics at the edge

“Two-dimensional graphene sheets are remarkable in how freely electrons move through them, including the fact that there’s no band gap,” Crommie says.

“Nanoribbons are different: electrons can become trapped in narrow channels along the nanoribbon edges. These edge-states are one-dimensional, but the electrons on one edge can still interact with the edge electrons on the other side, which causes an energy gap to open up.”

Using an STM in spectroscopy mode (STS), the team measured electronic density changes as an STM tip was moved from a nanoribbon edge inward toward its interior. Nanoribbons of different widths were examined in this way. The researchers discovered that electrons are confined to the edge of the nanoribbons, and that these nanoribbon-edge electrons exhibit a pronounced splitting in their energy levels.

“In the quantum world, electrons can be described as waves in addition to being particles,” Crommie notes. He says one way to picture how different edge states arise is to imagine an electron wave that fills the length of the ribbon and diffracts off the atoms near its edge. The diffraction patterns resemble water waves coming through slits in a barrier.

For nanoribbons with an armchair edge, the diffraction pattern spans the full width of the nanoribbon; the resulting electron states are quantized in energy and extend spatially throughout the entire nanoribbon. For nanoribbons with a zigzag edge, however, the situation is different. Here diffraction from edge atoms leads to destructive interference, causing the electron states to localize near the nanoribbon edges. Their amplitude is greatly reduced in the interior.

The energy of the electron, the width of the nanoribbon, and the chirality of its edges all naturally affect the nature and strength of these nanoribbon electronic states, an indication of the many ways the electronic properties of nanoribbons can be tuned and modified.

Says Crommie, “The optimist says, ‘Wow, look at all the ways we can control these states – this might allow a whole new technology!’ The pessimist says, ‘Uh-oh, look at all the things that can disturb a nanoribbon’s behavior – how are we ever going to achieve reproducibility on the atomic scale?’”

Crommie himself declares that “meeting this challenge is a big reason for why we do research. Nanoribbons have the potential to form exciting new electronic, magnetic, and optical devices at the nanoscale. We might imagine photovoltaic applications, where absorbed light leads to useful charge separation at nanoribbon edges. We might also imagine spintronics applications, where using a side-gate geometry would allow control of the spin polarization of electrons at a nanoribbon’s edge.”

Although getting there won’t be simple — “The edges have to be controlled,” Crommie emphasizes — “what we’ve shown is that it’s possible to make nanoribbons with good edges and that they do, indeed, have characteristic edge states similar to what theorists had expected. This opens a whole new area of future research involving the control and characterization of graphene edges in different nanoscale geometries.”

Nanomaterials for energy production and storage, nanoparticles for drug delivery and biosensors for diagnostics… Nanotechnology is an emerging technology with applications in almost all sectors, and it is expected to lead the future of technological development. However, as a relatively new field, the use of research results is still in its early stages and there were no good practices identified, especially from a multidisciplinary perspective (research centers, venture capitalists and experts in intellectual protection).

Models of traditional technology transfer were probably not applicable for the “nano” area. Therefore, it was considered fundamental to carry out a research project in this subject because transfer models are essential for any sector related to R&D in order to market and protect the research results appropriately.

As Intellectual Property Rights can be applied to different stages of the product development, from basic research to commercialisation, the first step was to examine the value chains and the appropriate IP model for the technology transfer for twelve selected case studies from five industries: electronics, energy, life sciences, materials, and water and environment. The Nano2Market partners then conducted a Technology Mapping exercise in order to list the areas of the “nano” innovations. Models and strategies were validated by a panel of experts.

As a result, the project has provided an Intellectual Property Guide for nanotechnology research, which develops guidelines for licensing agreements and consortium and comments and suggestions to manage IP in nanotechnology projects. The guidelines depend on the type of application, level of development of the research, and the size of the organisation (small or large research institutions, or small, medium or large enterprises). The size is important because partners found that smaller organisations employed different strategies because the funds were not available. People are generally more confident working, investing and collaborating with larger institutions or enterprises but the smaller ones must wait until the technology is in a more advanced stage before licensing.

Nano2market has also designed an interactive Toolbox, which provides tools for companies that wish to collaborate on nanotech projects and tools for investors (business angels, venture capitalists and corporate venture capitalists). This instrument offers best practices reports for businesses and useful information on how to place a development in the market thanks to an adequate business plan for entrepreneurs.

Coordinated from the Office of International Projects at the University of Alicante (Spain), the project Nano2Market (Best Practices for IPR and Technology Transfer in Nanotechnology development) lasted a year and had a budget of 700.000 euros, financed by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme.

Harnessing the power of tidal currents has the potential to provide unheard of clean, renewable energy production. Nanotechnology, with its innovative approach and non-surpassed success rate, may be the conduit needed to perfect the viability of ocean-current power as an alternative energy source. Ocean currents are a natural phenomena located along most coastlines. The only requirement for harnessing their power is that the currents amalgamate under the surface of the ocean at depths of between eighty to two hundred and thirty feet (25 – 70 meters) with a flow of between five to ten feet per second. Harnessing this type of natural energy production it is not only a feasible undertaking, but is also quite an efficient way of supplying a clean, alternative energy source.

Although tidal power is an amazing concept, wave power also offers a much needed link to cheaper, cleaner power and its availability and conversion is being investigated vigorously in the ongoing race to market an economical, clean, renewable source of energy. Concerting above ground wind turbine units to meet undersea performance is technologically possible and, with a few adjustments, present day wind turbines are easily adapted to harness the awesome power of the sea.

Physicists have studied the gravitational pull of the moon and its effect on ocean currents for eons. Ocean tides are predictable, constant, natural occurrences that are easily forecasted for years in advance. This awesome and essentially untapped source of alternative power is not negatively affected either by adverse weather conditions or climate changes – which makes it ideal for further investigation and implementation.In order to harness the full power of the ocean, nanotechnology may be just the ticket needed to successfully construct man-made tidal dams designed to control the flow as the tides ebb and recede. Predetermined openings would allow ocean currents to flow up through these gaps into a bay or estuary where the water is collected in the dam-like barrage and then released via a series of sluice gates and through a turbine which in turn generates electricity.

This alternative energy source is well established in La Rance France where a 240 megawatt facility has been operating since 1966. In addition, other, smaller sites have also garnered some success in Canada and in South Korea plans are underway to construct a plant larger than the one in France. However, there is one drawback to this type of power harnessing. Naturalists and environmentalists are concerned with the effects that constant flooding of the barrages has on the delicate ecosystems within the bays and estuaries where they are located.

Nanotechnology scientists are working in close liaison with forward thinking ecologists to correct this deficiency by designing a type of tidal lagoon to house the turbines. Instead of creating dams within the estuary itself, they propose to take advantage of strides in nanotechnology in order to erect man-made lagoons just off shore which would be built up from the seabed and reach out at least one meter above the high tide level. In this type of construction, the turbines would be situated in a wall close to, but not interfering with, the seabed itself.

The concept is simple and very effective: the water would flow in through the turbine during high tide filling the lagoon, at low tide the flow would be reversed and the turbines turned in the opposite direction. The result is a generation of electricity in both directions four times a day. Careful placement of the lagoon would be determined by the differential between the maximum heights achievable between high and low tides. Producing energy by this means is anticipated to cost less than any coal fired facility, while protecting and encouraging a positive ecological environment.

Plans are underway to begin construction in several locations off the coast of Wales and China. This combination of conventional technology in partnership with nanotechnology advances has put environmental and ecological issues to rest, yet there is still a viable concern that this type of energy plant may have an adverse effect on shipping lanes. However, these concerns have also been considered and development of barrage ocean turbines that operate independently with little or no interference to ship traffic is well into production stages.

Because narrow passages promote the fastest movement of currents, the feasibility of harnessing huge amounts of power via ocean turbines offers an excellent alternative to nuclear and coal fired energy generating plants. With the reduced threat of ecosystem damage, advanced technology, co-operation between industry and environmental agencies and the almost unlimited locations that can potentially provide ideal conditions for tidal/ocean power harnessing, this type of energy source is generating serious attention worldwide.

Therefore, this begs the question: Is it really necessary to expose our planet and its people to constant ecological threat by continuing to provide nuclear power and its associated danger to the environment? The answer is, unequivocally – No. For those of us who care about living in a cleaner, safer world, it is imperative that we embrace nanotechnology assisted methods of energy generation which are proven to exceed present energy output while reducing the threat of pollution and destruction of our ecosystems.

Nanotechnology materials are in the process of revolutionizing the manufacturing industry and our lives in ways that we can only begin to imagine. There are already a number of products available on the market which make use of this new scientific approach to tackle everyday problems. In basic terms, nanotechnology materials are a new substance created from the manipulation of molecules and atoms at the molecular scale. A nanometer is actually one millionth of a meter. Though the atoms and molecules that are being used are common to most people, their small scale manipulation results in a different behaviour to what would normally be expected. For example, nano-materials are perhaps most famous for their inherent strength.

As atoms and molecules are the fundamental building blocks of all material in our universe, being able to create your own customized products in terms of design, purpose, and material is inherently beneficial. There are constant advances in this field, which only add to the potential for life changing discoveries being made.

It is not just the manufacturing industry that can benefit from the wide spread uptake of nano-materials, the fields of agriculture, the military, electronics, IT, medicine and pharmaceuticals may also be rapidly transformed over the next decade by the latest breakthroughs.

Nanotechnology is already common place in the world around us. Everyday items are now on the market which are made from the latest nano-compounds, this includes batteries, kitchen appliances, automobile parts, clothing, sunscreen, and cosmetics. There are more items that are being approved for use on a constant basis, in the future the use of nano-materials in our homes and lives will seem completely normal.

Though there is some chatter amongst scientists as to the safety of nanoparticles, there is no evidence to say that they can be harmful to human health. In fact, the technology is already responsible for huge developments in the healthcare industry, which has helped to save countless lives. It is even hoped that cures or vaccinations against some of the world’s deadliest diseases can be found by adapting nanotechnology. Scientists are currently researching the molecular manipulation of virus protein covers as a way of administering anti-cancer drugs directly into the body.

There are certain periods in science when new areas of specialty offer up almost never-ending potential, this is the world of nanotechnology today. It’s the little things that will make the biggest difference to our future lives.

There is no specific answer to who’s invented nanotechnology, but the word ‘nanotechnology’ was coined by Professor Norio Taniguchi in 1974. In 1959, Richard Feynman delivered a lecture at the American Physical Meeting Society about how molecules and atoms could be manipulated using specially-designed instruments. This was simply a proposition without a term for it yet, making Richard Feynman the one who invented nanotechnology as an idea. But in 1974, Professor Taniguchi wrote a paper describing the process of combining or separating atoms or molecules. It was then that he gave the process a term. Yet, the term was popularized by Dr K Eric Drexler through his book The Engines of Creation (1986), which was the first book of this subject.

Nanotechnology followed on in the 1980s when different sciences began to emerge, as well as the existence of STM, or Scanning Tunneling Microscope. With that, in the mid-80s, fullerenes were discovered and manipulated. Semiconductor nanocrystals were also developed, further improving the field of nanotechnology. In 1987, the first protein was engineered through the technology, which subject was brought up during a symposium. The next year, universities began to offer courses in nanotechnology. With nanotechnology the new hype, in 1991, the atomic force microscope was created, as well as the use of carbon nanotubes were increased.

Despite nanotechnology still being a new area, many scientists often refer to it to produce benefits. With nanotechnology, cleaner, purer water can be created, while plants or agricultural products that are genetically engineered can see to safer products for consumption. It is also known to be able to produce cheap energy, manufacture without pollution, and create drugs and medicines that are more effective because of their nanoparticles which can absorb into cells better. The marketing trend now is to use words like nanotechnology which even household people would happily buy after.

Have you ever studied complex mathematical design? Well it is indeed quite fascinating to do. Okay so, let’s discuss the hypercube, but if you do not know what that is, go to Google Images and look it up so you can visualize this. Not long ago, I was having a discussion on this design, which can be used for various purposes, one concept I came up with is an electromagnetic hypercube energy generation device. Is it possible to trap a small cubed molecule inside a slightly larger cube and allow the slightest vibrations to keep the smaller cube inside spinning round and round?

If each point of the inner cube held a charge opposite to that of the energy running through the outer cube it would be quite possible, and since the inner cube could spin on multiple-axis it could never reach true equilibrium once it started. Why you ask, well as soon as it started to, it would come close to one of the walls and thus, be propelled to start spinning again, perhaps in a different sequence, direction, or pattern of resonance.

Best of all, such a system is completely scalable, big or small, provided you had the right materials. All you need is the slightest vibration, something, or anything above absolute zero – to get the cube rolling, moving, and spinning. As long as the outer cube shell is charged and the inner edges the opposite, the game will continue. How could you keep the outer shell charged? Perhaps, by way of friction, frequency, or alternative power source.

Would this work? Could it work? I believe so, best of all there are several molecular structures which would allow us to do this. Should we use a different shape? Sure we could also use a pentagonal shape, perhaps a carbon based molecular scheme, picture a soccer ball (buckyball) within a soccer ball (buckyball) too. Nevertheless, the hyper square does have advantages for several reasons, which any very bright physics PhD might readily see.

Now then, we might also take this to a very large size, and make a satellite out of it, or even bigger, perhaps a space ship, or even bigger, an orbiting space hotel, with its own perpetual-like gyroscopic engine within. There are lots of applications if you will only sit back and allow your mind to imagine the future, and visually see the potential. Please consider all this and send me your thoughts on this topic.