toms@ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) (08/24/89)
Reading about utility fog and nanograss, I realized that I'm building up a library of possible nanomachines in my head. Wouldn't it be neat to have a list of all the ones people had thought of? I'm thinking about a book (or hypertext with lots of cross links) which gave at least a short paragraph that described what the proposed machine would do, the person who suggested it and the source. It would make fascinating reading, and I bet it could be published and attain a wide readership. Important ideas wouldn't be lost to the winds of the net, and would be in a single place for future reference. Contributions could be posted here, and the list could be kept in a place accessible by ftp. Science fiction writers and inventors could sniff through it for ideas that the contributers wouldn't have the time/money/interest to develop. Anyone interested in starting the collection? Tom Schneider National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Mathematical Biology Frederick, Maryland 21701-1013 toms@ncifcrf.gov [sci.nanotech *is* the collection so far. I keep a full archives, and hope to produce subject-oriented digest(s) in the not-too-distant future (definitely before Breakthrough :^) --JoSH]
tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) (08/25/89)
In article <Aug.23.23.07.11.1989.26279@athos.rutgers.edu> Tom Schneider wrote: >Reading about utility fog and nanograss, I realized that I'm building up a >library of possible nanomachines in my head. Wouldn't it be neat to have a >list of all the ones people had thought of? Wouldn't it be even neater to have even a single nanomachine which was designed in detail? I could come up with a million ideas for nanomachines, but without some proof of concept, what's the point? Wouldn't it be more fun to write science fiction? There, you can get away with ignoring issues like power storage and dissipation, and reliability. When you claim to be talking about something real, it just makes you look silly. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Skip, witches! Hop, toads! Take your pleasure!" -- Aleister Crowley, THE BOOK OF LIES [Absolutely. Everyone who has carefully worked out, detailed designs for nanomachines of any type, is cordially invited to send them in now... :^) --JoSH]
cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) (08/26/89)
In article <Aug.24.16.09.32.1989.7673@athos.rutgers.edu> tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes: >Wouldn't it be even neater to have even a single nanomachine which was >designed in detail? I could come up with a million ideas for >nanomachines, but without some proof of concept, what's the point? There are two problems with utilizing the full potential of nanomachines. One, of course, is designing them. As soon as we have nanocomputers, even Drexler's mechanical ones, this will be orders of magnitude easier than it is now. And we have Drexler's plans already. The other problem is in thinking of things to do with them. Nanotechnology will put literally unimaginable power within our reach. Obviously problems like power supply can't be ignored, but if we want to get the full use of nanomachines, we have to know how we want to use them. This is very non- trivial. I hate to deprecate the ideas I've heard so far, but I doubt most of them should actually be built for the simple reason that there's better things to build. We need to spend some energy figuring out what they are. -- Chris Phoenix | I'm a paranoid schizophrenic! I'm after me! cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" For every idiot-proof system, a new improved idiot will arise to overcome it. Disclaimer: I want a kinder, gentler net with a thousand pints of lite. [Don't hold your breath. Nanotechnology will let us remake the human race into whatever form we please, and accomplish almost any imaginable lesser goal. You would basically need to know the Ultimate Purpose of the Universe to decide what to do with that potentiality. I have a simpler goal, or rather a direction: let's get more intelligent and learn to understand the knowledge we already have, and maybe we'll have a leg up on taking the *next* step in the right direction. --JoSH]