Comments on: Feynman’s Path to Nanotech (part 8)

By: Accelerating Future » J. Storrs Hall’s Feynman Path Proposal to MNT

Accelerating Future » J. Storrs Hall’s Feynman Path Proposal to MNT — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:25:14 +0000

[...] now? 6. Some of the Open Questions 7. Outline of the steps to make a Feynman Path roadmap. 8. An example of prior work which suggests that 1/1000th scale is a good place to start on the Feynman … 9. Promising candidates technologies for fabricating key components or steps and considerations for [...]

By: Michael Kuntzman

Michael Kuntzman — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:28:20 +0000

I think that setting the starting point at the smallest scale we can build today may not necessarily be the best choice. You have to consider other factors like how much time it would take to build, how much would it cost, how difficult would it be to design, how hard would it be to characterize and test once it’s built etc. There are many factors to consider. The trick is to find the optimal starting point that would give the best cost-benefit over the entire project (or at least the first X years of it).

For example, if I could build a 10 micron device for 300 million over a month, or a 1 mm device for 3 million over two weeks, I might opt for the 1 mm. Once the first scale is developed, the next scale becomes much easier.

By: Mark O'Leary

Mark O'Leary — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:50:02 +0000

JoSH,

Thanks for this excellent series. You have addressed much of what I commented on a few days back (not realising there were many parts to come!) by pointing to the microscale as the start of the Feynman journey to the nanoscale.

You also earlier pointed out that demonstration of an autoproductive system at any scale is a key hurdle.

The point I would re-iterate is that the microscale is already below where we need to be to subsume the vast majority of current/near term mfrg – chip technology being the main exception.

So wouldnt the development of an “autoproductive microsystem” actually *be* the revolution that changes everything, with slowly emerging nanotech evolving from there? (Just as the first clunky, but general purpose programmable computer was the real IT breakthrough.)

The key would be the cost of bulk mfrg of microfactory feedstocks. This would need to take into account that cheaper milli- and macro- scale feedstocks could form the vast bulk of most products.

Could it be that we dont even need atomically precise nanofactories at all but only limited “nanoforge” subcomponent integrated into a microfactory? (Just as we dont need photolithography to build keyboards and mice.)

Your thoughts? Wait for part 10?