http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-838978 Fri, 01 May 2009 02:01:38 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-838978 H45Ybg <a href="http://pfcquzmsluqr.com/" rel="nofollow">pfcquzmsluqr</a>, [url=http://tpmftaylhuxu.com/]tpmftaylhuxu[/url], [link=http://wbrdoyizwdhg.com/]wbrdoyizwdhg[/link], http://slujsmouyzqv.com/ H45Ybg pfcquzmsluqr, [url=http://tpmftaylhuxu.com/]tpmftaylhuxu[/url], [link=http://wbrdoyizwdhg.com/]wbrdoyizwdhg[/link], http://slujsmouyzqv.com/

]]> http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-832978 Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:42:00 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-832978 How researchers expect to drive or build things at nanoscale using a mechanical approach only? Its a naive idea assume that the environment works similar at nanoscale. Erick Drexler before writing his book on nanotechnology was a space researcher working with solar sail boats, so he know that a outside Earth the physics work differently. Therefore is no surprise that at nanoscale is another world and different rules apply. To start with Brownian Motion penalise heavily any type of motion at nanoscale. Water is every where and if you think about the size of water molecule is much bigger than the nanoscale device, hence the viscosity is another strong barrier. The Van der Walls potential literally move everything towards your device, stick anything stick to the surface. A hard device will probably not survive after been constantly shaking about, suffering high friction and strong collisions. At some point it will collapse. However a soft device would be much more comfortable and resistant at such condition, that why bacteria, sperm, any other cell are soft and can adapt to any situation. Just think about. Leandro How researchers expect to drive or build things at nanoscale using a mechanical approach only?
Its a naive idea assume that the environment works similar at nanoscale. Erick Drexler before writing his book on nanotechnology was a space researcher working with solar sail boats, so he know that a outside Earth the physics work differently. Therefore is no surprise that at nanoscale is another world and different rules apply. To start with Brownian Motion penalise heavily any type of motion at nanoscale. Water is every where and if you think about the size of water molecule is much bigger than the nanoscale device, hence the viscosity is another strong barrier. The Van der Walls potential literally move everything towards your device, stick anything stick to the surface. A hard device will probably not survive after been constantly shaking about, suffering high friction and strong collisions. At some point it will collapse. However a soft device would be much more comfortable and resistant at such condition, that why bacteria, sperm, any other cell are soft and can adapt to any situation. Just think about. Leandro

]]> http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-815655 Accelerating Future » The Debate Between Advocates of Soft and Rigid Nanotech, June 2008 - February 2009 Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:57:08 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-815655 [...] In a recent post on his blog, Jones responds to a response from Robert Freitas and Dr. Ralph Merkle to Jones’ article “Rupturing the Nanotech Rapture”, published in the IEEE Spectrum special issue on the Singularity from June 2008. (I made a response of my own shortly after the article was published.) The general gist of Jones’ position is that molecular nanotechnology based on mechanical engineering principles and rigid structures will never be successful, and that organic and soft structures are the future of nanotech. Meanwhile, Rob Freitas and Ralph Merkle have been championing the rigid, mechanical engineering-type approach for well over a decade. This blog post by Jones is the most recent message in a round of debating that has been ongoing between the soft approach and the rigid approach for two decades. [...] [...] In a recent post on his blog, Jones responds to a response from Robert Freitas and Dr. Ralph Merkle to Jones’ article “Rupturing the Nanotech Rapture”, published in the IEEE Spectrum special issue on the Singularity from June 2008. (I made a response of my own shortly after the article was published.) The general gist of Jones’ position is that molecular nanotechnology based on mechanical engineering principles and rigid structures will never be successful, and that organic and soft structures are the future of nanotech. Meanwhile, Rob Freitas and Ralph Merkle have been championing the rigid, mechanical engineering-type approach for well over a decade. This blog post by Jones is the most recent message in a round of debating that has been ongoing between the soft approach and the rigid approach for two decades. [...]

]]> http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-785132 Nanodot: Nanotechnology News and Discussion » Blog Archive » Fast and precise control of AFM tips may enable nanotechnology memory devices Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:57:49 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2875#comment-785132 [...] The researchers note that even with this impressive progress, a “millipede” type memory might not be competitive with flash memory. Regardless, the techniques for rapid and precise control of arrays of AFM tips might be of use to proposals for mechanosynthesis with AFM (see this post from two weeks ago and this one from three weeks ago).—Jim [...] [...] The researchers note that even with this impressive progress, a “millipede” type memory might not be competitive with flash memory. Regardless, the techniques for rapid and precise control of arrays of AFM tips might be of use to proposals for mechanosynthesis with AFM (see this post from two weeks ago and this one from three weeks ago).—Jim [...]

]]>