Comments on: Which way(s) to advanced nanotechnology? http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Arthur http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-616627 Arthur Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:00:16 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-616627 > ... the range of environments in which rigid nanomachines could operate, if they operate at all, would be quite limited. If, for example, such devices can function only at low temperatures and in a vacuum, their impact and economic importance would be virtually nil. Vacuum, low temperatures. Sounds like most of the universe. > … the range of environments in which rigid nanomachines could operate, if they operate at all, would be quite limited. If, for example, such devices can function only at low temperatures and in a vacuum, their impact and economic importance would be virtually nil.

Vacuum, low temperatures. Sounds like most of the universe.

]]> By: Will nanobots be soft or hard? It does not matter. They will be. | the will to exist http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-616123 Will nanobots be soft or hard? It does not matter. They will be. | the will to exist Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:16:10 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-616123 [...] The worlds that can become are fascinating to me. I am a neophyte transhumanist, futurist, and adherent to the idea of the singularity. When I read about nanotechnology, I am most excited not by trying to guess what form nanobots will take, but by the fact that educated people in some scientific and intellectual circles are taking for granted that they WILL appear on the scene in my lifetime. If biology can produce a sophisticated nanotechnology based on soft materials like proteins and lipids, singularitarian thinking goes, then how much more powerful our synthetic nanotechnology would be if we could use strong, stiff materials, like diamond. And if biology can produce working motors and assemblers using just the random selections of Darwinian evolution, how much more powerful the devices could be if they were rationally designed using all the insights we’ve learned from macroscopic engineering. [...] [...] The worlds that can become are fascinating to me. I am a neophyte transhumanist, futurist, and adherent to the idea of the singularity. When I read about nanotechnology, I am most excited not by trying to guess what form nanobots will take, but by the fact that educated people in some scientific and intellectual circles are taking for granted that they WILL appear on the scene in my lifetime. If biology can produce a sophisticated nanotechnology based on soft materials like proteins and lipids, singularitarian thinking goes, then how much more powerful our synthetic nanotechnology would be if we could use strong, stiff materials, like diamond. And if biology can produce working motors and assemblers using just the random selections of Darwinian evolution, how much more powerful the devices could be if they were rationally designed using all the insights we’ve learned from macroscopic engineering. [...]

]]> By: JamesG http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-613872 JamesG Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:23:50 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-613872 Interesting debate here, however the evidence that bot-like nanotech is not possible is highly dubious, if a cell can replicate and function with these brownian motions and so on, then a robot made of diamond would have no problems with the same. The fact that they don't 'get' this says a lot about what they do know (i.e. they don't know much obviously). Interesting debate here, however the evidence that bot-like nanotech is not possible is highly dubious, if a cell can replicate and function with these brownian motions and so on, then a robot made of diamond would have no problems with the same. The fact that they don’t ‘get’ this says a lot about what they do know (i.e. they don’t know much obviously).

]]> By: “The diamondoid mechanosynthesis approach is only in the very early stages of computer simulation” | TNTlog http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-613205 “The diamondoid mechanosynthesis approach is only in the very early stages of computer simulation” | TNTlog Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:28:20 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-613205 [...] According to the Foresight Institute, “the diamondoid mechanosynthesis approach is only in the very early stages of computer simulation” whereas ten years ago it was being pushed as advanced technology. [...] [...] According to the Foresight Institute, “the diamondoid mechanosynthesis approach is only in the very early stages of computer simulation” whereas ten years ago it was being pushed as advanced technology. [...]

]]> By: Richard Smith http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-613188 Richard Smith Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:03:20 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2761#comment-613188 I look forward to the day when molecular manufacturing and synthetic nanotechnology drive our synthesis processes. I have not seen, in the fifteen years that I've been associated with nanotechnology, any proof or even any convincing argument that synthetic nanotechnology violates the laws of physics. And as someone who now works in field of microelectrochemical systems, I pay a great deal of attention to the question. BUT...I also don't see any reason to suggest that finding ways to manipulate biomolecules such that they conform to structures, designs, and purposes that are controlled by humans. A bionanobot ( configuration of biomolocules that performs tasks under program or remote control) can be every bit as useful as a mechanosynthesized nanobot. It comes down to manufacturing efficiency, molecular precision, quality control, safety, etc. We may yet find better ways than creating diamondoid or using DNA as hardware/software/and I/O. But any thought that we won't get to a workable nanotechnology or that nanotechnology will never be more than the use of dumb nanoscale particles seems pretty shortsighted to me. I look forward to the day when molecular manufacturing and synthetic nanotechnology drive our synthesis processes. I have not seen, in the fifteen years that I’ve been associated with nanotechnology, any proof or even any convincing argument that synthetic nanotechnology violates the laws of physics. And as someone who now works in field of microelectrochemical systems, I pay a great deal of attention to the question. BUT…I also don’t see any reason to suggest that finding ways to manipulate biomolecules such that they conform to structures, designs, and purposes that are controlled by humans. A bionanobot ( configuration of biomolocules that performs tasks under program or remote control) can be every bit as useful as a mechanosynthesized nanobot. It comes down to manufacturing efficiency, molecular precision, quality control, safety, etc. We may yet find better ways than creating diamondoid or using DNA as hardware/software/and I/O. But any thought that we won’t get to a workable nanotechnology or that nanotechnology will never be more than the use of dumb nanoscale particles seems pretty shortsighted to me.

]]>