Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Is this stuff for real? Keywords: reality nanotech questions Message-ID: Date: 1 Mar 91 04:34:38 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NCI Supercomputer Facility, Frederick, MD Lines: 127 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ms@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Morgan Schweers) writes: > How much of nanotechnology is vaporware/dreaming? Can anyone point me >to a solid and *REALISTIC* exploration of PRESENT DAY research on this topic? > * 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? Enzymatic digestion is an example. The proteins are joined by a 'peptide linkage; add water and they come apart. So the rebuttal is: Eat your dinner: it gets disassembled at the molecular level! > * Nano-Assemblers - The same problem, really. Even when people > manage to accept the idea of dissassembly, they > rarely accept the idea of reassembly. DNA is copied into RNA in the cell. That is, for the set of the chemical "letters" in DNA (the bases a,c,g,t separated by deoxy ribose sugars and phosphates), the set of RNA "letters" (the bases a,c,g,u separated by ribose sugars and phosphates), is created. Then sets of three RNA bases are read to insert amino acids in a growing chain in the process of "translation". The string of amino acids folds up into proteins that are involved in all these steps plus many other wonderful things (like sensors and feedback control systems!) So the answer to your friends is: what you eat makes you grow! > * NanoProgramming - Is it REALLY possible to actually *PROGRAM* > something that small? What *IS* the size that we > are talking about? This one is harder to give an example of, because 'program' has the specific meaning of using a high level language such as C or Pascal on a general purpose computer. But consider all the instinctive behavior that animals do. It is 'programmed' by the genes. Temporary Rebuttal: teach fido to get the stick. > * Movement - How does something that small MOVE? Nobody knows how muscles work, but they do work at the molecular level! Rebuttal: a good punch in the nose should do the trick! > * Power source - Obvious. What's their power source? In biology, the triphosphate nucleotides, mostly rATP are energy sources. But to get the ATP, lots of other tricks are used, sunlight being the main one. Rebuttal: dab their bloody nose with cotton balls. The cotton was grown using solar power and constructed by molecular machines. > * ETA - What are the optimistic assessments of when > this technology will be available? The pessimistic? > Or is all this just a joke? Lesee - I forget. Just how long has life been around on the planet? At least a billion years. So the optimistic assesment of when we can use nanotechnology is about a billon years ago! Of course I understand you mean: when can we begin to direct it for our own use. Well, we've made bread since ancient times; we make drugs, we now modify enzymes... It's here folks! Of course the full general assembler idea of Drexler is not yet, but I wouldn't bet more than 50 to 100 years at the rate we are going. > Any other information on the *REALITY* of nano-hacking would be greatly >appreciated. Read lots and lots of molecular biology. A good source is: @book{Watson1987, author = "J. D. Watson and N. H. Hopkins and J. W. Roberts and J. A. Steitz and A. M. Weiner", title = "Molecular Biology of the Gene", edition = "fourth", year = "1987", publisher = "The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc.", address = "Menlo Park, California"} Well, I was planning on waiting to see when people would notice my latest two papers, but it looks like people aren't willing to post references or don't look where I put them... Anyway, all of you budding nanotechnologists (molecular machinists) will have a fun time reading: @article{Schneider.ccmm, author = "T. D. Schneider", title = "Theory of Molecular Machines. {I. Channel} Capacity of Molecular Machines", journal = "J. Theor. Biol.", volume = "148", number = "1", pages = "83-123", year = 1991} @article{Schneider.edmm, author = "T. D. Schneider", title = "Theory of Molecular Machines. {II. Energy} Dissipation from Molecular Machines", journal = "J. Theor. Biol.", volume = "148", number = "1", pages = "125-137", year = 1991} In these papers you will find plenty of references. (Note: figure 1 is on page 97, but should be placed just after page 84.) The second paper proves that it will be possible to create ACCURATE computers built out of molecular parts. > -- Morgan > P.S. I've read Blood Music, and consider it nonsense. Perhaps you should read it again. Tom Schneider National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Mathematical Biology Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 toms@ncifcrf.gov