Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: ms@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Morgan Schweers) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Is this stuff for real? Keywords: reality nanotech questions Message-ID: Date: 26 Feb 91 22:12:28 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: McAfee Associates Lines: 83 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu Greetings, How much of nanotechnology is vaporware/dreaming? Can anyone point me to a solid and *REALISTIC* exploration of PRESENT DAY research on this topic? I've gotten a *LOT* of $#!t from people, when I try to explain nanotech to them. The things that got me the most strange looks were: * Nano-Dissassemblers - The idea that something can actually be programmed at that size, and then ACTUALLY HAVE AN INFLUENCE on other items seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people. What sort of materials are REALLY dissassemblable? * Nano-Assemblers - The same problem, really. Even when people manage to accept the idea of dissassembly, they rarely accept the idea of reassembly. * NanoProgramming - Is it REALLY possible to actually *PROGRAM* something that small? What *IS* the size that we are talking about? * Movement - How does something that small MOVE? * Power source - Obvious. What's their power source? * ETA - What are the optimistic assessments of when this technology will be available? The pessimistic? Or is all this just a joke? Any other information on the *REALITY* of nano-hacking would be greatly appreciated. -- Morgan P.S. I've read Blood Music, and consider it nonsense. I've also read a book named something like Down The Sea Of Stars (or something-similar) and it's nano-techs seem to make a *LITTLE* more sense. (but not much) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | I understand perfectly, | | This makes *NO* SENSE! | You simply don't comprehend| | I'm *SCARED*!!!! | my genius. | | -- Morgan | -- Nagrom | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ms@ai.mit.edu OR ms@albert.ai.mit.edu(preferred) OR ms@woodowl OR ... [Read Engines of Creation by Eric Drexler (Anchor Doubleday), now out in a second printing. Look on the /nanotech/papers FTP directory on planchet.rutgers.edu. I could wish there were more discussion of these "lower-level" more technically oriented questions on this newsgroup. Please, anyone with anything to add to these questions, don't hold back just because I've given them a "lick and a promise". With that caveat, the short answers: Assembly/disassembly: Cells (both bacteria and cells that are part of larger organisms) do this all the time. Nanotechnology simply presumes that we can translate mechanical design concepts to the same scale. Programmability: Similarly, cells have a "program" in their DNA. We are assuming that the structures of formal computation can be reproduced at a molecular scale. The nanocomputer, in a crude mechanical version, is actually the most complete actual nanotech design so far. Movement: In many envisioned applications, the nano-robot floats around at random in some solution, making desired contacts with raw materials and other nanobots stochastically. Otherwise it could crawl or have propellors. Power: Most commonly suggested is chemical fuels in solution. Other schemes include tuned antennas converting some wavelength of light to electricity. ETA: Optimistically, 200x. It does depend on the amount of effort expended to that end. Could we land a man on the moon before 2000 (starting from where we are right now)? Will we? --JoSH] Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com