Talk:Picotechnology

neologism

Speaking as a chemist this is absurd. Chemists work on the scale of atoms and bonds; generally between a picometer and nanometer. The preferred unit of measurement for this work is the angstrom; 1 angstrom = 0.1 nanometers = 100 picometer. IUPAC might state nanometer is SI but the ACS uses angstrom. Anything measured in picometers is well within Van der Waals distance of an atom and thus governed by forces best understood and manipulated through chemistry. That is beside the point this article is science fiction and not science fact. This is fringe at best. I'm going to try to work some sense into this article, I won't be offended by getting some help.--OMCV (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a edit summary it was suggested that chemistry issues be discussed on the talk page. Clearly they have at least been mentioned. There is serious concern that this article doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Not every word that comes out of Ray Kurzweil mouth becomes a term worth recording in an encyclopedia. Please at a reference where this term has been used in an academic journal or the section about nano-scientists using the word should be pulled. As it stands this material should be described as hypothetical scientific musings which is on the fringe of mainstream research at the best.--OMCV (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, picotechnology is not a term that is commonly used to refer to any branch of science (or anything else for that matter). Does anyone see a reason why this page should still exist?Dakane2 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]