[extropy-chat] Did Smalley change his mind?

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> > So it is interesting that Robert F. is selectively quoting Smalley
> > with respect to what works and ignoring what Smalley thinks
> > will not work.
>
> Yes. Ouch !

Not so much -- Robert F. could not really get into extensive
discussions of the Drexler v. Smalley debates in NM V. I.
There was too much material that needed to be covered.
There is a complex balance that is required between depth
and breadth.

Of critical importance is precisely *where* anything Smalley
says contradicts what Drexler says in Chapter 8 of Nanosystems.

I strongly suspect Smalley hasn't even read Chapter 8 of NS.
If he cannot point to a place where Eric's assumptions or
conclusions are wrong then he doesn't have a strong leg
to stand on.

While I'm not going to go through Smalley's papers tonight
I seem to recall at some conference that researchers said
that they had created nanotubes a decade or more before Smalley
ever encountered them.  I also don't seem to recall
any evidence that Smalley ever actually set out to
create buckyballs or buckytubes.  He just may have been
sufficiently observant to have discovered something that
was always there.  If so I would question whether this
is something that deserves a Nobel prize.  It seems
to belong more in the class of the fellow who discovered
gold in some creek in California.

In contrast it would seem that the Wright brothers or
even Lindburgh put a lot more effort into their
accomplishments.

Someone correct me if the can find evidence that this
perspective is flawed.

I have no doubt that Smalley is a good chemist -- but
I would love to stack up Smalley's PhD thesis against
Nanosystems and see just how well they compare.

Robert