The Royal Institution
Professor of Chemical Nanoscience Neil Champness explores the future of nanoscale machines. Can we build a machine simply from molecules at the nanoscale?
Subscribe for regular science videos: http://bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The idea of building machines that are only nanometres in size is a dream that has formed the basis of Hollywood movies. How realistic is such a goal and how would we go about tackling the challenges that lie in wait? How do we begin to build a machine simply from molecules? Join Neil Champness to explore the future of nanoscale machines.
Neil Champness is Professor of Chemical Nanoscience & Head of Inorganic and Materials Chemistry at the University of Nottingham. He and his research group are interested in chemical nanoscience and all aspects of molecular organisation. His research is highly cited, being one of the top 100 most cited chemists 2000-2010 and last year, this was recognised by being named a Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researcher.
The Ri is on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ri_science
and Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/royalinstitution
and Tumblr: http://ri-science.tumblr.com/
Our editorial policy: http://www.rigb.org/home/editorial-policy
Subscribe for the latest science videos: http://bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Source
Reproduction reinforcements onset. Alchemical hurdles met, begin launching sequences.
The speaker is dressed sloppily as Wells depicted.
NIKOLA TESLA….duh
18:40 that turned out to be true! welcome to internet and cloud services
Peoples negative comments in here, are disrespectful to the professor, if you don't like something clear off and bore some other people, or do one yourself and show us your genius!
2 minutes in and I'm done. tata
as a chemist i thought that was a truly engaging talk 🙂
Speaker is missing the topic, too trivial!
8:40 nano
11:20 DNA is
13:30 #CNT
20:53 Nano chips #MicroFluidics #HumanTransceiver @Outcomes_Matter
23:30 Gutenberg Bible? Big data on a grain of sand
33:10 Who said “Hell of a way to boil water” #Fukushima
Wonder if we will make another Sun
38:50 obtained permission from the journal of Nature
40:00 Self assembly Nano 2003
47:00 good job
Desperately trying to finish watching. Unfortunately, I too have to moving on into the future and this guy is holding me back. Ta-ta you old geezer.
good god I feel sorry for his kid…that guy was a dork….
boring talk
definitely Move speed to 1.25 in the settings
Nanomachines son, they harden in response to physical trauma
@6:38 "…there are many ethical questions…" ….Uhh, not really. Not for those who are science-minded human beings who have this thing called "a coherent philosophy." (Of course, if he's lumping the sociopath power-seekers into his assessment of "humanity" then he has a point, but his "starting line" places him an impossible distance from any "finishing line" other than totalitarian democide.)
Google: Ido Bachelet, and K. Eric Drexler. Read everything at http://www.kurzweilai.net …better than this lecture
Great subject, boring narrator . I'm sorry man but I tried to watch it but ththe dude kept losing me..
SO MUCH CRINGE (but very interesting)
Where he talks about ice floating on water and how important it is that we have that because if not then we have a globlal warming issue.
The thing is, ice takes up the same amount of space, has the same volume as it does when it's in liquid form, i.e water and so that isn't the problem, that's not what causes sea levels to rise.
What causes sea levels to rise in the ice on land that melts and then runs into the sea, that's where water levels rise.
I saw his life vividly as he talked. Probably he was bullied daily at school, had zero real friends and everybody felt sorry for him. Then he went to college and became a doctor in Chemistry and started given lectures to all the new bullies of the new era, since he was too socially awkward to have a career in the industry. And since they needed to pass his class, all of them started to pretend to care about him…To the point where all obeyed his note to show up to his talk dressed like they are in Titanic waiting to dance waltz. And they did. Great talk nonetheless, and I did find it intriguing. Thank you, professor Champness.
Most boring lecture I've ever heard from this venue.
Hope narration is not his day job.
The speaker is bore-some.
Had to remove my like since went off topic into politics – good talk generally though.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Lost in Space in the 50s? I don't think so, try the 60s. As long as you're asking all those questions I've got one for you. What about the interest that your evoking for me on a nanoscale level? Will it cause me to keep watching this after a couple minutes? Answer, no.
I love it when I see children in attendance at science lectures, they are our future and a strong education in science and art is essential to our survival as a species!.Well done, +The Royal Institution and thanks for advancing science globally through your continuing commitment to outstanding, free, educational content that's accessible to everyone! 😀
This mannequin Champness is as funny as Dan Dennett — who laughs to try to get his audience to laugh and doesn't get a twitter.
The chap on the left at 9:32 has already assumed a pose from H. G. Wells' illustration.
EDIT: And the young lady at 17:22 has a scary face hidden in her torso.
2nd EDIT: That banana thing really went nowhere.
I made it to the end!
My conclusion: 1) Most of the comments are correctly critiquing the volume of fluff. 2) Nanoscale machines will most likely play a 'large' role in our future.
Very enjoyable lecture. Fuck the haters.
I dont find this issue boring but happens this guy meanders or divagate a lot while talking. So the subject to talk about is lost
I think the way you talk to your son is disrespectful, unencouraging, and I can’t decide whether or not you’re bullying him. You are his father, you are supposed to be his rock and not his earthquake.
This could have been a more interesting subject, but the way it was structured made my mind wander and lose interest in the talk.
Also get rid of the first part about H.G. Wells.
Sorry but Bobby Kennedy was not a great man, and any scientists who allows his politics to affect his research is not much of a scientist.
Snob. That's all.
and infinity in an hour.
This is painful to listen to.
Thanks – very interesting talk…
He said Lost in Space was in the fifties? Don't think so better try late 60s early 70s.
Here are the best molecular machines ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A
I'm not a chemist, but I'm a student and contrary to the other comments made I enjoyed every bit of this lecture.