[abraxas]

In a way the story of nanofabrication seems like a tale of disappointment. Many decades after Feynman's "Plenty of room at the bottom" or Drexler's "Engines of creation" and we have very little to show in a way of progress. What happened? Why were knowledgeable minds like Feynman too optimistic about our ability to make this happen?

[tiazumdove]

Its a scaling problem. You can do a lot of cool things with fib/ebip etc. but the process itself is very slow and requires patience unless you want to destroy your structure via codeposits or other side effects. Kinda like the AI field back in the 80s the hardware still isn't there to really make use of the ideas.

[KK7NIL]

> we have very little to show in a way of progress. What happened?

Our semiconductors have had features below 100 nm for a while (actual features, not just process node names), so that's been wildly successful.

Why nanofabrication hasn't been as commercially successful outside of semiconductors is a much harder question to answer.

[abraxas]

Yes, of course the etching on silicon process has been refined to a level nobody thought possible. But this is more like a CNC process at a tiny level. What we don't have is additive manufacturing at nano scale. The nano assembler that Drexler and Feynman thought were possible is not panning out.

[volemo]

Talk's cheap.

The feats we've archived in miniaturisation of logic and memory is already mind-blowing, in my opinion.