salsbury@acsu.buffalo.edu (patrick g salsbury) (12/05/90)
HI!
This is my first post to this group. I've been trying to
follow nanotech for a while, and something I've noticed is what
appears to be a lot of (no offense) daydreaming going on about what
is/can/will be done with nanotech.
I see lots of posts about "people can make anything they want"
and "everything will be free," etc., but it seems like we're
forgetting one vital fact. (Or else *I'VE* been kept in the dark about
something!) That fact is that NANOTECH IS NOT NEARLY THAT ADVANCED!
I've heard of one, maybe two, nanomachines thus far. One was a
"Pentad" and was composed of 5 atoms. It didn't do too much.
Nanotech is not going to be a cure-all right away. You aren't
going to be able to put together anything under the sun with any
generic nanomachine.
As I understand it, once you begin to work on the molecular
and atomic level, you are operating on principles much akin to
organics. You will have to "grow" your (macro)machines. And given the
general trend in organics towards non-euclidean form, you won't be
able to "grow" a car, or a computer. More likely, you will grow large,
relatively amorphous, or at least dissimilar, macro-things. :) (Like
people who come in all shapes and sizes.)
The other thing is, everyone is talking about what they can do
with nanotech as if we've had it for a long time. It's like saying
"Well, all we need to do is hook up the hyperspace drive to the
interstellar transport, and we can set up our atmospheric processors
on T Tauri-4." That's all fine and good, except that WE DON'T HAVE ANY
OF THAT STUFF!
I'd like to know what is actually being done with nanotech.
CURRENTLY. What is our state of development? What sort of constructs
can we build/grow? Any?
And on an even more specific level, I'd like to know about the
medical application/usage of nanotech. Specifically as regards
"cleaning" the body of various accumulative pollutants, like
cholesterol, carbon monoxide, various heavy metals, and other toxins.
This could be very useful on the microscopic level as an aid towards
longevity research.
I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. I like to dream, too! :)
I just like to dream along targetable goals, and have something to
work towards.
Thanks!
-Pat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick G. Salsbury V291NHTP@UBVMS (Bitnet)
State University of NY @ Buffalo SALSBURY@AUTARCH.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
Disclaimers are silly. ;^)robertj@uunet.uu.net (Young Rob Jellinghaus) (12/06/90)
In article <Dec.4.22.59.43.1990.24411@athos.rutgers.edu> salsbury@acsu.buffalo.edu (patrick g salsbury) writes: > I see lots of posts about "people can make anything they want" >and "everything will be free," etc., but it seems like we're >forgetting one vital fact. (Or else *I'VE* been kept in the dark about >something!) That fact is that NANOTECH IS NOT NEARLY THAT ADVANCED! You noticed! Rats, and here we all were deluding ourselves. This newsgroup has a fairly broad charter. Some readers are blue-skyers, some are real-worlders. There's room for both. The blue-sky stuff is easier to write about, especially for all us computer scientists who really don't know too much about quantum mechanics--ergo there's more blue sky than grim reality in this newsgroup. Also, nanotech has the potential to make an awful lot of SF dreams real in the next fifty years. That generates a lot of excitement and speculation! > I've heard of one, maybe two, nanomachines thus far. One was a >"Pentad" and was composed of 5 atoms. It didn't do too much. You haven't heard about some work that was done at Indiana State or some other institution, I disremember which. This group created a molecule, with some similarities to chlorophyll, with 100+ atoms. The molecule had two "arms"; it could absorb photons at one end, and send a positive charge down one arm and a negative charge down the other. 83% of the original photon evergy was converted into charge energy. Creating this molecule involved detailed knowledge of how energy is transferred between quantum atomic states. This information appeared in a recent Foresight Update, I think it was #9. "Foresight Update"? There is an organization named the Foresight Institute that puts out a more-or-less-quarterly publication--the "Foresight Update"-- that contains lots of news about what's going on in the real world of primitive nanotech. Join the FI if you're really interested in this stuff! I don't have the address, but I bet JoSH does--JoSH? [FI's address is: Foresight Institute Box 61058 Palo Alto, CA 94306 they also have an email address: foresight@cup.portal.com --JoSH] > As I understand it, once you begin to work on the molecular >and atomic level, you are operating on principles much akin to >organics. You will have to "grow" your (macro)machines. And given the >general trend in organics towards non-euclidean form, you won't be >able to "grow" a car, or a computer. More likely, you will grow large, >relatively amorphous, or at least dissimilar, macro-things. :) (Like >people who come in all shapes and sizes.) Sorry, you haven't thought the problem through. Nature builds things the way Nature does because Nature only has certain materials to work with, and because Nature's forms have to grow from a small seed. Nanomachines will be able to build other larger machines, and manufacture large objects by assembling them out of smaller parts, the way we do now. The only difference will be that the parts are created with atomic precision. > I'd like to know what is actually being done with nanotech. >CURRENTLY. What is our state of development? What sort of constructs >can we build/grow? Any? Oh my yes. There's lots of excitement around the world about molecular en- gineering. It's a very fast-moving field. > And on an even more specific level, I'd like to know about the >medical application/usage of nanotech. Specifically as regards >"cleaning" the body of various accumulative pollutants, like >cholesterol, carbon monoxide, various heavy metals, and other toxins. >This could be very useful on the microscopic level as an aid towards >longevity research. Yes, this is one thing nanomachines (or in fact micromachines) would be very good at. There are lots of possibilities, and thinking about them may help direct us towards the good ones. > I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. I like to dream, too! :) >I just like to dream along targetable goals, and have something to >work towards. Me too! I'm lucky--I'm working on the Xanadu project, which will have a sizable impact on the speed of transmitting knowledge in human culture, and will therefore enhance our chances of reaching full nanotech without killing ourselves.... I feel happy that my skills can be applied to the problem of bringing us to, and through, the Breakthrough. > Patrick G. Salsbury V291NHTP@UBVMS (Bitnet) >State University of NY @ Buffalo SALSBURY@AUTARCH.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Have you read _Engines_of_Creation_ yet? If not, you're wasting your time reading this newsgroup--you've missed the best and most thorough exposition of nanotechnology to date. Reading it should be TOP PRIORITY. IMHO, of course.... (Lord knows if I hadn't read it three years ago I wouldn't be here at this job now!) -- Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or Autodesk, Inc. | a bad decision being made out of sheer robertj@Autodesk.COM | ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext." {decwrl,uunet}!autodesk!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_