Talk:Microtechnology

Microtechnology and Nanotechnology

What exactly is the difference between Microtech and Nanotech? Is Nanotech really 1000x smaller, and better than Microtech?

nano tech is more about producing object at a molecular level which take advantages of molecular effects, this can be used to generate selfcleaning coatings, or molecule sized machines

micro technology is more about the miniturisation of machines which use more conventional mechanincal effects.

From reading this article it is just a question of size, whereas the correct definition is present in the unsigned comment above (nanotech= molecular technology where quantum effects start to give strange proprierties, a microchip or microarray with 100nm resolution are still microtech). This article may be of interest to a viewer to get the definitions right, so having a bad definition is not a good idea --Squidonius (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The terms microtechnology and nanotechnology are often misused. Sometimes people wrongly describe MEMS as nanotechnology and in some cases the notion of microtechnology and nanotechnology overlap. The historical evolution of certain devices from macro to micro (like accelerometers) and from micro to nano (like transistors) does not help to make clear-cuts between the notions. All this leads to a confusion.
Microtechnology is the technology related to manufacturing and application of microstructures, that is structures having the dimensions typically within the range of 10-4 to 10-7 meters. It is considered to be a new category of technology because the design of devices on microscale has to be adapted. One can't simply take something from macroscale, reduce its dimensions to microscale (just because the microfabrication techniques are available) and hope that the small device will be efficient. The usual design sometimes does not work at all on the microscale or at least is not so efficient but on the other hand some devices would not be so efficient on the macroscale (see comb drive). This is mostly due to the different surface to volume ratio, which becomes an important issue on the microscale.
Nanotechnology is smaller than microtechnology and 1nm (nanometre) is 1000x smaller than 1um (micrometre) but this again is only one of the superficial characteristics. What is more important are again the physical effects which appear once you produce so small objects. In microtechnology, these effects are linked to the surface to volume ratio. In nanotechnology these effects are quantum confinement effects. Nanotechnology is not just thousands times smaller than microtechnology and millions times smaller than macrotechnology, but it brings new very interesting properties, which can't be observed nor on the macro nor on the microscale. Twisp (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are superficial and physical definitions for technology at both scales. A physical definition for the micro scale is often where the relative strength of forces or phenomena changes due to confinement or due to scale. One example is a relative dominance of surface tension in two-phase fluid microdevices where momentum would dominate at the macro scale. The superficial definition, 1-1000 um holds where no physical scale presents itself. Tjcognata (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

micro turbines

is there any more information on this? i have seen that these turbines are mostly based around normal bladed radial designs, however the tip losses on the blades are significant. has any resurch been put into using the viscous shear of the fluid, which wouldbe relitivly large at this scail, to impart or extract energy from the fluid?

Needs an update

"projected sales of MEMS to reach $12B by 2005" Since it is now 2011, how about an update someone? Did sales reach $12B? What are sales projected to be in 2015 or 2020? 192.122.237.11 (talk)