Let the Nanotech Wars Begin!
David B. Hughes writes "The debate over whether molecular manufacturing and nanoassemblers are feasible has turned into a PR war. With billions of dollars of research funding and industrial profits at stake, both sides are taking their ideological clash to the public. So far, Eric Drexler and the Foresight Institute own the moral and scientific high ground. But his critics at the National Nanotechnology Initiative hold the purse strings. And they don't play by the same rules."
Dr. K. Eric Drexler has his game face on. I'm in Palo Alto, watching him sit on a panel discussion of "Nanotechnology: The Money, Science and Politics of the Next Big Thing," sponsored by the Cato Institute, a national anti-regulatory watchdog group. Drexler is defending his vision of molecular nanotechnology (MNT).
Strangely enough, Drexler's chief detractors are representatives of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the government program pouring nearly $3.7 billion into nanotech research and development programs over the next four years. The NNI program legislated by Congress also authorizes public hearings and expert advisory panels, including the American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center to study the emerging technology's potential societal and ethical effects. But no funds are appropriated to study Drexler's molecular manufacturing proposals; the NNI contends that Drexler's ideas are 'too far out' to merit even a feasibility study under the present round of funding-that they are, in fact, 'science fiction.'
The high irony of this is, of course, that Drexler, along with Arthur R. von Hippel, Richard Feynman and Marvin Minsky, is one of the founding fathers of molecular nanotechnology. He practically single-handedly transformed nanotech from a gleam in Feynman's eye into a rigorous scientific discipline in its own right with his landmark 1992 book Nanosystems . His farsighted vision of nanotechnology centers on the consequences of MNT, specifically molecular nanoassemblers, a profoundly disruptive technology that, when mature, will transform almost every aspect of human life.
Unfortunately, the NNI doesn't approach nanotechnology with such a long-term vision or revolutionary focus. NNI has broadened its definition of nanotechnology far beyond MNT to include almost anything on the scale of the ultra-small, from synthetic nanomaterials chemistry to nanoelectronics to MEMS to bioengineering, and focused its vision on nanotechnologies with a relatively quick payoff. Very little of the huge research funding bill recently signed by President Bush will go towards enabling technologies for MNT or molecular manufacturing.
Clearly, Drexler is pleased with neither the policy direction of the NNI, nor the http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/nano/debate.htm #response">unscientific tone of the criticism recently directed against his work by NNI chief scientist Richard Smalley, whose argument concludes that Drexler is "http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/nano/deb ate.htm#scared">scaring our children" with his vision of a powerful, transformative MNT in the near future. When a rival panelist derisively refers to Drexler's Foresight Institute as a 'religion,' Drexler ripostes: "That's a slur! That's the third slur today…This is not a scientific discussion."
Indeed, it is not. As evidenced by the seminar's title, as nanotech shifts gears from theory to applications, the tone of the field's policy dialogue has changed from a sober, disciplined scientific discussion into a multi-sided, viciously competitive political and economic fray. Huge amounts of money are at stake: not just the government research grants, but the potentially enormous profits of commercial nanotech spin-offs from the research they will support.
The government is also wary of the perceived scariness of some potential consequences of MNT, such as economic dislocations caused by cheap nanomanufacturing, formidable nanoweapons of mass destruction, and the notorious gray-goo scenario. NNI people therefore take care to distance themselves from any research that might cause a politically inconvenient public outcry against nanotechnology.
Apparently this strategy includes stooping to discredit Drexler publicly, for example by using Nobel laureate http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/nano/debate.htm #text">Richard Smalley to claim that Drexler's vision is scientifically infeasible. That makes about as much sense as the AEC trying to ruin Einstein's career. By attacking Drexler, the NNI is sawing off the very limb they're sitting on, and it's making them look pretty dumb.
The NNI's no-holds-barred, hit-'em-below-the-belt spirit ran high at the seminar, which was attended about equally by Drexler supporters, enemies, and fence-sitters, many of whom wondered out loud at the feckless acrimony of the panel discussion. To his credit, Drexler conducts himself in this highly polarized atmosphere as a gentleman and defender of scientific idealism, principle and rigor, a polished presenter of his point of view. But he also seems drawn out of his element and outflanked by better-funded and far less scrupulous adversaries.
Drexler's seniority in the field and the scientific logic of his position are unassailable, while that of his detractors is questionable. For more detail on this, see Chris Phoenix's and Ray Kurzweil's analyses of Smalley's position. Essentially the NNI's objection to funding Drexler is bureaucratic: because Drexler has no experimental work to show for his theories, there is no concrete proposal to merit a technology feasibility review.
Drexler patiently responds, "Fine. I made a detailed, concrete proposal in Nanosystems. So fund some basic research on molecular manufacturing," in tones similar to a grade-school math teacher going over the rules of long division yet one more time.
The stock NNI reply: Drexler can't get experimental funding because there has not been a feasibility study, and he can't get funding for a feasibility study because there is no experimental work. Does this remind anyone besides me of Catch-22?
Then the discussion moves back to whether Drexler has even made a proposal detailed enough to base a feasibility study on. Drexler rolls his eyes, as if to say, "Don't these yahoos get it yet?" and again brings up the detailed 1992 proposal for MNT he made in Nanosystems.
Like a couple with irreconcilable differences, the two sides go round and round the same arguments, seemingly unable to agree on anything. Certainly, Drexler's opposition gives the strong impression that they have not read his work very closely, or perhaps not even read it at all. The elephant in the room here is that, in more than a decade since Nanosystems was published, no critic has demonstrated a serious scientific flaw in it.
Actually, all the moves in this dance were choreographed long before the seminar, in discussions between Drexler and NNI personnel such as Smalley, and the positions and arguments of both sides are http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/nano/debate.htm ">available online. There were substantially no new issues brought to the table in the seminar. Actually, the most interesting part of the event was strolling around during the breaks, listening to attendees' impressions of the panel discussion.
The consensus seems to be that Drexler and his opponents are not communicating very well, because they are speaking two different languages. Drexler is a scientist and refuses to budge from high-minded scientific and academic principles, and standard protocols of open inquiry and fair discussion. The NNI is a political animal, speaking evasive bureaucratese and always mindful of their constituents. Ne'er the twain shall meet, conceptually.
Many attendees commented on the perceived lack of principle of Drexler's rivals. I repeatedly heard phrases such as 'straw-man,' 'circular arguments,' 'bait and switch,' 'moving the goal posts,' and the like applied to the NNI position and debating strategy. It seems pretty clear that Drexler owns both the moral and scientific high ground in the argument, though many seem to think he's politically in over his head, outflanked and outnumbered, and ultimately can't win.
It may be that, in founding the potentially explosive scientific field of nanotechnology, Drexler has grabbed a tiger by the tail. Whenever big money, big government and big politics get involved, things can get gnarly fast. The truth tends to become the first casualty in any war, and the war over the spoils of nanotech is likely to be no exception.
The most interesting comment overheard in my lunchtime pilgrimage from table to dessert tray was, "This is all bullshit. It's been over ten years since Drexler showed in theory how to build nanoassemblers. By now, the military must have a black program to develop MNT before the Chinese or Arabs or Russians get it. This is just disinformation to throw everybody off the trail by making the impression that we're not interested in pursuing [molecular manufacturing and self-replicating nanobots]."
Given the powerful potential military applications of MNT, this idea is credible. During the 1940s and 50s, the U.S. government publicly decried the feasibility of nuclear fission and later, fusion, while covertly pouring tremendous resources into nuclear weapons research. Perhaps there is a secret nano-Manhattan Project going on somewhere.
After the seminar, I happen to bump into Drexler and have a rare opportunity to speak with him alone. I bring up the possibility that there could be a secret military project to develop nanoassemblers, and the current government position in the nanotech debate is a disinformation program.
Following the briefest of pauses, Drexler looks me in the eye and replies in the same high, clear voice I'd heard him use during the panel discussion, "Those things are hard to know about." He still has his game face on.
December 15th, 2003 at 6:47 AM
Inconsequential skirmishes in the PR layer.
David Hughes' article is spot on. After all these years of largely wasted political effort, I hope that nobody in the MNT fraternity still harbours the illusion that this is a scientific battle which can be won with appeal to mathematics and observation and logical reasoning.
I have little interest in PR wars except for occasional fun, because long ago I lost the innocence of believing that what is said is done and that what is done publicly bears much relationship to the real story. The world doesn't work as advertised on the packet. The world is about pressure and liaisons and influence and money, and above all about power.
That is why there will never be genuinely useful and rational consensual agreement on anything in this area forthcoming through the political sphere, because public politics is merely a thin PR layer over the real workings of the world which are much more sordid. MNT cannot be divorced from power and money even in these early days of nanoscale materials research, which reduces to impotence any discussions at the token PR level. You might win the odd PR skirmish, but it will be worth nothing in practice.
There seems to be no shortage of people willing to engage in the PR debates, and more join by the day. Perhaps some of them will be able to wield the same disregard for facts and logic as MNT opponents regularly do, an approach which is perfectly valid when the battleground does not reward scientific integrity. (This is a bit like taking up arms for defence, despite being totally averse to the taking of life. If compromising on one's ideals is not acceptable then the only path left open may be self-imposed exile.)
In contrast to the good supply of debating skills, technical skills are far more rare in the field of MNT. There may be some perverse comfort to be gained though from our very visible failings to win the PR arguments in any practical sense (as opposed to the claimed high grounds). If it is accepted that PR debates are largely a waste of time and effort, then hopefully Drexler and our other very capable scientists and engineers will be able to divorce themselves more from that waste of their talents, and instead assist the world more directly on the technical tasks before us.
December 15th, 2003 at 10:08 AM
Re:Inconsequential skirmishes in the PR layer.
Drexler ignored us who saw this coming; i hope he now shuts his mouth and uses his 600grand(according to Ed Regis in his "Nano" book) to build his own mnt, and not to mention the Forbes Wolf who is a billionare.
I hope Drexler learns that maybe those people are not worth dragging into the future. People like us have been scratching our heads for awhile now at Drexlers irrational rationality; when will he get a clue? Apparently, you have.
December 15th, 2003 at 12:09 PM
The safe bets
I've spent some time over the last week talking to congressional staff people regarding HR 766 and S 189 and how they evolved. In the House bill, the molecular manufacturing study was generally friendly/supportive of MNT. It got significantly modified in the House-Senate conference committee and became much less useful in the final version due to its emphasis on self-assembly.
The two primary reasons cited were (a) lobbying by trade groups — so there seems to be some pressure by people who want to protect traditional manufacturing methods; and (b) a desire to avoid the sci-fi aspects of MNT in floor debates of the Senate or the House. This suggests the problem of "third-rail" politics — i.e. one must never touch the third-rail of social security (or ones political career is toast). It would appear that MNT has become a third-rail.
Ways to deal with this are: (a) Take every opportunity to confront people involved in the NNI, NRC, etc. at conferences and force them to point out objections to MNT. Make the elephant in the room so big that they have a hard time avoiding it; and (b) confront the manufacturers, trade experts and public with respect to the advantages that MNT can provide — yes MNT is dangerous — so is the gasoline that one has in ones lawnmower in the garage. The question is whether the advantages (saving 10s of millions of lives a year with for example "vasculoid" organs) outweigh the potential hazards?
December 15th, 2003 at 12:37 PM
Re:The safe bets
The U.S. funded NNI is not the only source of money in the world. Why do we think that if a feasibility study is not done within the NNI framework that no one would ever do it? Or even if it is necessary? Progress on the molecular manipulation front will lead to precursor molecular manufacturing work which will in turn lead to more. Much relevant work can be done even in the current environment as long as people are tactful on how they present their work and its goals.
December 15th, 2003 at 1:35 PM
Re:The safe bets
like some anti-science people having to learn the hard way that science and technology is needed by humanity, these people will learn the hard way that science and technology will get funded anyways. I think the real reason the foresight guys are screaming is because they are all in their fifties and want to shoot for the stars now; but, didn't Chris Pheonix show that daimondoid mnt isn't going to be practical for governments till 2010 anyways? Yet, they want the governments of the world to spend trillions on a manhatton project right now. I think I'll say no more and not worry about these people!
December 15th, 2003 at 1:36 PM
Re:The safe bets
If your second paragraph is accurate, then I'm not sure that asserting "yes MNT is dangerous" and then discussing vasculoids is the way to go. Maybe it would be better to focus the discussion on the potential short-term benefits to traditional industries. Modest advances in molecular positioning systems might be useful in assembling molecular electronics or even Kane-type quantum computers. Advances in mechanosynthesis might permit the production of stereochemically pure products while being environmentally more friendly than current synthesis technologies, thereby reducing costs associated with pollution control and waste management. These sorts of examples, when turned into concrete proposals, sound less "science-fictiony" than vasculoids. I'd steer away from any discussion of vasculoids, respirocytes, etc. Even if it's technically sound – and it's 'way too early to know that yet – this sort of thing sounds very fringy, and I'd guess that nothing you say after the word "vasculoid" will be taken seriously, no matter how sensible and technically sound it is.
December 15th, 2003 at 2:30 PM
MNT is already being developed.
It's the truth. The only problem is, it's being developed in the manner that everyone, including Drexler, feared would happen when the idea first came to mind – it would be developed in secret, and would only be available to a select few.
This is how the world works, and anyone who thinks otherwise is only deluding themselves. Most people are only out for their own self interests, and I find it funny that people continue to believe that the majority of the people are 'good' people and would sacrifice themselves, if need be, for the sake of the species. These people need to get a clue – most people are evil at heart and don't give a damn, regardless of what you see on TV or outward appearances.
Though Drexler and people like Robert Bradbury and Marvin Minsky are very capable people, there is always someone out there who is better than they are and don't like to be vocal at all. It is these non-vocal, secretive people who creating the world's first MNT assembler, as we speak.
If Drexler, and everyone else, wants to be a part of the big picture, the time to act is NOW…and that doesn't mean wasting precious time trying to convince a worthless, lying government that we need funding in creating the most important technology mankind has ever known – there's no point in trying to convince them, because they already know…which is why, in their minds, they think they NEED to beat us to it for their sake.
Funding lies elsewhere, Drexler. In fact, there is funding out there in abundance if you only knew where to look. Your problem, as well as the majority of the people on this forum, is the fact that you are so obsessed with making sure that the United States is the one to create this technology before anyone else – it is this mentality that is your one main downfall, and in the end, it will only lead to failure on all accounts. Though I consider you a technological visionary, that is all I consider you at the moment – you simply do not look far ahead enough in regard to the state of the world during the nanotech revolution. The world, especially this pathetic country, can NOT remain as it is now…that's where the main problem lies. Everyone wants great technological advances with no huge impacts to society – where people go about their daily lives working like slaves, without even realizing it. This is the kind of society the government wants (and already has) – one that doesn't question authority – and this is the reason why it is out to create the first MNT assembler before we do, because it knows that if it fails to do so that the status quo and all the lies it created to keep the people in their current state of ignorance will fail and anarchy will reign supreme.
Therefore, to get the ball rolling, I propose that we create a foundation that will accept funding and technical help from every nation around the world. MNT should be created in unison, not in division. Granted, if we go this route, we will be considered as a terrorist organization by the United States…but let's face it…the United States is one big lie and we shouldn't care about what it thinks – it's not going to exist in 9 more years anyway. We're scientists, not politicians – it's time we start acting like it.
December 15th, 2003 at 2:51 PM
Re:MNT is already being developed.
of course, it is entirelly possible that Drexler is playing psychological games as well; read around, you might find that he agrees with more than he'd feel comfortable agreeing with you.
December 15th, 2003 at 2:58 PM
Fictional Pentagon Brief
What I Would Do If I Were a Four-Star in the Pentagon
by Hopefully Anonymous Coward
Let me make a couple assumptions about my imaginary military career. First I achieved my status at a relatively young age, say early 40's. Second, I have on my staff a competent, open minded, scientifically astute officer whose sole purpose is to scan the horizon for any possible breakthroughs or ideas that could have military or security implications.
In 1992 my young scientific scout brought to my attention some extremely fantastical ideas wrapped up in a hyperlink entitled "Engines of Creation." I skimmed through the details until I came upon a far reaching statement that piqued my curiosity. "If engineering and fabrication at the molecular level is physically possible then it is also inevitable." Within the next few years my newly appointed task force determined that not only was molecular technology worth looking into, but several other interests and a couple of countries were likely well into a detailed feasibility study already.
By 1996, I had in my hand a thoroughly prepared feasibility report detailing the most likely path to the first primitive molecular assemblers and the major obstacles both from a theoretical perspective and an engineering perspective. The report concluded that though the obstacles would likely prove difficult, none of them seemed impossible to overcome based on known physics.
I had my team develop criteria for recruiting the right kind of minds that together could solve some of the more difficult aspects of the MNT objective. By the end of 2003 my MNT team includes several hundred minds from various scientific fields. Many of these were recruited directly out of leading graduate programs and have been trained again by us. Others work for us on a part-time basis while they carry on with the universities or companies where they conduct their primary research.
Several surprising innovations have emerged from the teams efforts to facilitate this project. Not the least of which is a somewhat formalized collaboration paradigm that greatly increases the effectiveness of mind sharing among those of disparate disciplines. All of the teams that have been disciplined by this collaborative system experience qualitatively and quantitatively revolutionary increases in effectiveness.
The team has made few minor theoretical breakthroughs. Much of our effort so far has been focused on codifying the existing body of relevant scientific knowledge into a systematic knowledge base. We summarized each domain of knowledge at a very high level. The summary can then be expanded down to at least five levels deep until one sees a listing of all known papers around that particular area of knowledge. The investigative researcher may contact consultants or experts to ask questions or for elaborations. The resulting dialogue may then be incorporated into the knowledgebase. This allows our researchers to 'self teach' themselves the exact set of skills they need in order to carry on their specific line of research. All members of the team add to and refine this knowledge base at every summary level. Specially assigned team members edit the content for readability and crosscheck it for contradictions.
Both of these enabling knowledge sharing systems are in embryonic stages as of 2003. Once refined, it should easily scale up to a very large set of researchers. By the end of 2004 we hope to triple the number of highly effective researchers working on this project.
At this stage, we can't easily predict when our first primitive assemblers might be ready. We expect that with about 2000 dedicated, extremely cohesive, specially trained researchers, we should have some very primitive working prototype assemblers by 2015. These first prototypes will have a limited set of application but will help enable the next few generations. This very speculative estimate is constrained by several variables that are exceedingly difficult to pin down but we strongly believe that by systematically enabling mind sharing, we will out perform any interests or countries that might pose a risk to our national security and have a ready answer to any threat.
– — – –
This highly speculative account represents my uneducated view of what I would do were I in the pentagon. I humbly submit it for your collective comment or ridicule. I only hope that something like this is in place and have every reason to believe it is since probably every general in the armed forces is more intelligent and more savvy than me.
BTW I love Drexler's comment on whether this scenario could be true.
"Such things are hard to know." This highly ironic statement indicates several things to me. 1) He does know. 2) It is happening. 3) He does not like to answer a direct question with a lie. 4) He thinks he is pretty clever.
Of course I readily admit I could be wrong on all counts and he just likes to be mysterious, but I can't help a stifled giggle nonetheless.
December 15th, 2003 at 4:03 PM
Re:Fictional Pentagon Brief
This is a good analysis of what real military programs look like. We know, for example, that the SR-71 and B-2 were operational for nearly a decade before the Pentagon acknowledged their existence. My only addition would be to point out that during the Manhattan Project, the work was compartmentalized so that no one knew what they were actually working on. The only people with an overview were the planners and technology integrators who assembled the final product from the components developed by many other teams. Perhaps the current nanotech scene is simply a distributed development effort for MNT precursor technologies, funded by a black military budget disguised as venture capital. Or then again, maybe the government is actually clueless and we will be blindsided by a nanowar in the future. One thing's for sure: the people who really know aren't talking.
December 15th, 2003 at 4:57 PM
Tie up Drexler in more PR effort?
Maybe one can cure some of the ills in the system with additional PR effort, but there's a cost/benefit issue to consider. The possible benefits seem remarkably slim when (i) the battle in popular memespace has already been won, massively [yes, it's badly distorted, but that's not unusual with technical memes], (ii) the battle in commercial memespace has already been won [doesn't need explaining], (iii) the battle in military memspace has already been won [that seems to have preceded even commercial acceptance], and (iv) the battle in politico-business memespace CANNOT be won, because establishment power structures will not let themselves be subverted by mere logic from upstarts. (*)
Despite that, people may still wish to keep politicians and lobbying groups under pressure for reasons of checks and balances, fair enough. What isn't fair though is if this uses up our valuable technical resources to achieve so remarkably little. I think the word waste is entirely appropriate in this context, even if the people concerned are actually enjoying spending their time playing the political game.
I'll just reiterate what I said earlier. We need their technical expertise, we need their time. We can make far better use of it than any non-technical forum could, and their time and effort would be hugely valued and would yield immediate results, instead of being discounted and ignored or even ridiculed. Don't waste this precious resource on a platform where it can no longer do any good, as it is not a relevant instrument.
(*) You can win on point (iv), but only by doing and demonstrating, not through argument.
December 15th, 2003 at 5:08 PM
Re:Fictional Pentagon Brief
I'd like to say(I'm not the ananymous coward who came up with this pentagon scenario) that being former military, I found our military leadership sane on the officer level more often than on the masterchief on down level. I feel pretty comfortable with our military leaders(although i can't say anything about other countries military leaders mostly because I don't really know them) doing such a thing . . . .
December 15th, 2003 at 5:18 PM
in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
he mentions redundancy of design. Now, assuming somebody is doing something in secret, and wondering if they are doing so for no good reason, if they are not designing with redundancy, then they will not succeed which means I wouldn't worry to much about any evil doing; only a designer with good intentions is likely to successfully make an assembler. This leads me to think of something else; that if you want to design a redundant design which effectivelly means having an institution designing it that is based on redundancy, then the design of the assembler is effectivelly out of the hands of anybody but the institution. Now, if our institions are not interested in mnt, then that means they are too conservative(consider the fact that we can't elect a pretty liberal president; what does that tell you?). This means that we should not look to start designing an assembler with american institions, or if we do, we do so inside its institutions but not including them. I'm thinking of once again an Asimovian foundation. You need to start with those who value your values, and build there and not including those who do not value your values; a little natural selection goes a long ways.
December 15th, 2003 at 6:35 PM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
A secret military nanoassembler project may not necessarily be a bad thing. In the current conservative political and social climate, it might be the only way a government-sponsored MNT project could happen. Of course we'd all rather see an open-source project. And we may still, when the private sector gets around to seeing how profitable nanoassemblers will be. In the meanwhile, nanoassemblers are probably better off in the hands of the military, who aren't hobbled by what the public might think about the scary aspects of MNT.
December 15th, 2003 at 10:04 PM
Re:Fictional Pentagon Brief
We know, for example, that the SR-71 and B-2 were operational for nearly a decade before the Pentagon acknowledged their existence.
This is probably true (I don't know the dates), but my impression is that such aircraft are usually about as secret from the aerospace community as the existence of clouds. I seem to recall seeing accurate models of the B-2 well before it was formally unveiled. (This doesn't invalidate your point, it's merely a remark.)
…during the Manhattan Project, the work was compartmentalized so that no one knew what they were actually working on.
I think you mean that people weren't told. I'd guess that many of them knew.
December 15th, 2003 at 11:23 PM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
David Hughes writes:
In the meanwhile, nanoassemblers are probably better off in the hands of the military, who aren't hobbled by what the public might think about the scary aspects of MNT.
Sad as it may sound, the hands of the US military are probably much safer than the hands of the US politicians whose idea of progress is the DMCA and whose idea of protectors of freedom is the RIAA. Yet, Foresight's roadmap is (or maybe, hopefully, was) predicated on a blind and totally unjustified faith that their input to the political system would yield practical dividends.
It's the start of the third millennium, and the US founding fathers are not here anymore. Use the scientists in you, observe what is going on, assess the precedent, and let that be the basis of the path you take. Faith may be a good foundation for religion, but it's out of place here.
December 17th, 2003 at 4:19 AM
PostPlank/PostOil World
1. I can't understand why continual say about thumb, finger, when in RNA use filament extrusion device/spinning nozzle and strand (f.e. nanowire and dimonid spinning nozzle). Other type of mechanics – foton a pair of tweezers.
2. ACS (American Chemical Society) make best in world nanopictures (see f.e. Nanoletter – http://pubs.acs.org/journals/cmatex/index.html, Chemistry of Material – http://pubs.acs.org/journals/nalefd/index.html). Namely from side ACS (Smalley) exist solid groundbase for advertise & ideology etc. Make conclusions…
3. Is right say that hidden problem of discursion (no money!) are:
Semiconducting era are result changing Physical World in in consequence of our Knowledge (anthropological physical ontology). So next physical world will include:
A. Understanding origin|construction of life/intellect?
B. Physic far away from Plank constant and light velocity?
Astachine Vladimir
Project "Artificial intelligence and Nanotechnology in Context of Russian Idea"
http://astachine.narod.ru
December 17th, 2003 at 9:26 AM
Re:Fictional Pentagon Brief
Sounds like a great script for a prequel to the Matrix, or maybe a new X-files season.
December 17th, 2003 at 1:28 PM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
David, at this time I don't think even the military can afford it. I do some ball park estimates in Protein Based Assembly of Nanoscale Parts (See Table 4). Using the only technology that is currently available (biotech) even a single nanorobot is off the scale of something the Defense Department could reasonably consider. However the costs will decrease (as I discuss). Whether they will decrease at the rate I propose will depend upon whether funds are invested in some of the technologies required. Alternatively there is the path that Drexler outlined in Nanosystems Table 16.1 — but at this time I think Eric's path is behind the path I outline from a development timescale perspective.
And it isn't even worth discussing this with most people (chemists, physicists, etc.) because in most cases (a few exceptions come to mind such as Goddard's group at Caltech and NASA Ames) they haven't read the literature necessary to have an informed conversation.
All you can do is walk up to every government, military or academic you run into at these conferences and ask them a set of questions like the following.
a) Can you describe the path to Nanomanufacturing outline by Drexler in Nanosystems, particularly Table 16.1?
b) Can you describe the path to Nanomanufacturing outlined by Bradbury based on existing or near term biotechnological capabilities?
c) Can you describe the path to Nanomanufacturing outlined by Phoenix in his proposal for a Primitive Nanofactory?
d) Can you describe the basic ideas behind the Freitas and Phoenix nanorobotic vasculoid system and how many lives such a system would save annually?
If they can't answer these questions then it is perfectly reasonable to inform them that they don't know squat about nanotechnology and that they ought to go do their homework.
Robert
December 17th, 2003 at 3:49 PM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
Robert writes:
If they can't answer these questions then it is perfectly reasonable to inform them that they don't know squat about nanotechnology and that they ought to go do their homework.
Well put, but now extrapolate from that observation to yield a figure of merit for current PR action.
If the 4-point RJB MNT Clueness Validation Suite is applied to all relevant government minds, what proportion of result sheets will show ticks in all four boxes? Let's be extraordinarily generous and optimistic and say 0.1%, because it is just barely possible that 1 person in 1000 who is in politics may have had the technical background from a previous life and the time and inclination in the current life to delve into those 4 works of engineering and understand them.
Then take that 0.1% and factor in the likelihood that this particular politician is still the idealist from his or her political youth, instead of the party line supporter or self-serving powermonger or tool of big business that is the reality of current day politics. There's not much light between the figure you get and zero.
The question then is why bother trying to inject all this PR effort into a national political system when it simply cannot yield dividends, realistically. There is ample work for MNT devotees, promoters, and educators in the global arena, talking to scientists, engineers, industrialists and venture capitalists. It's a worldwide opportunity — including the US, but not treating it as a US issue. That, I submit, is much more fertile ground than banging one's head against unhelpful political systems.
December 17th, 2003 at 5:54 PM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
And it isn't even worth discussing this with most people (chemists, physicists, etc.) because… they haven't read the literature necessary to have an informed conversation. All you can do is walk up to every government, military or academic you run into at these conferences and ask them a set of questions like the following… If they can't answer these questions then it is perfectly reasonable to inform them that they don't know squat about nanotechnology and that they ought to go do their homework.
Could you please explain to me why this is a wise course of action? It seems to me that it will offend a lot of very smart and very knowledgable people very quickly. I don't see how it accomplishes anything positive. At a guess, I'd say it was likely to discourage interest in the literature you mention.
December 18th, 2003 at 2:28 AM
Re:PostPlank/PostOil World
NEMS|N-A 1. Why NEMS not nano-assambler? 2. In nonothings main is idea of artificial intelligence/life. Having this idea possible create strategy, concentrate force and receive result. 3. Will have NEMS/nano-assmbler full-controlled complexite/full understanding? 3.1 Namely which system class of nano-assembler? 3.3 What write Bertalanfi about nono-assembler?
December 18th, 2003 at 6:24 AM
Cold Fusion
Cold Fusion
So, some facturing:
1.
Russian scientist S. Pereslegin appoint, than desinformation compain has before era aircraft construction (Afterword on Stanislav Lem's "Summa Technologia").
2.
My be such compain going now contra colf fusion.
3. By the way my be such type of discursion/attitude to Drexler is result publishing by Forsight Institute work about cold fusion:
"Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions: In Atomic Scale Accelerators" Brian T. Donovan, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Abstrac ts/Donoabst.html)
4.
File "Omega": http://www.think-aboutit.com/omega/files/index.htm
5.
File "Orion" http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/orion.htm
6.
About demolition of WTC to say/visualisation ten yeasrs.
By the way in project "AI_NANO" exist devision "Methological problem of XI.IX". On base of attack on WTC concerning hyper hystorical block (in Greece "eonic").
Very interest in this exelent work
Frank R. Ankersmith Narrative Logic. A Semantic Analisys the Hitorian's language.
This work made for analizyng of very danger situation of Russia. May be this theory will be usefull for analizing corner nanoepoche and|or new energy.
A.V.
7.
Some attempt understanding deep intention of DARPA made in project AI_NANO in "DARPA-Questionary" and "DARPA-Russian Dictionary": http://astachine.narod.ru
A.V.
December 18th, 2003 at 7:13 AM
The power of evidence
I'd go further and say that there is no need for a divisive approach, quite apart from it being counterproductive.
Scientists and engineers are best convinced by letting them see, think, and decide for themselves. Force feeding doesn't help at all, and is likely to create personal resistance which is then very hard to wipe away. Combine demonstration with information and a small amount of subliminal advertising to generate some "That's neat, and I don't want to get left behind" factor, and there's a good chance that science-based people will get on the train of their own accord.
The power of demonstrations is immense — we are still in the grip of the IBM xenon atom demo, after all these years. We need many more such high profile examples, marking the way and showing progress towards MNT. Papers describing physical demonstrations like Hla's biphenyl mechanosynthesis and mechanical cleavage of iodobenzene could be abstracted into short presentations for popular access, and are hugely more convincing than mere words.
December 18th, 2003 at 7:14 AM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
Ok, lets review — if what you are have been doing doesn't work you have 3 possible courses — more, better and different. Eric's PNAS paper is now 22 years old (and we will not talk about Feynman's talk). EOC is 17 years old. Nanosystems is 11 years old. Nanomedicine VI is 4 years old.
While it is certainly great that we have a NNI and that there is lots of funding in the pipe for nanomaterials research — I still have congressional staffers telling me bills are getting tailored (e.g. the self-assembly "study") so that the science fiction aspects can be avoided in floor discussions. And yet we have important politicians attending the 100th anniversary of heavier than air flight (which was also supposed to be "impossible" according to the NY Times if I recall correctly).
It looks to me like "more" and "better" are only having limited success. In that case it may be reasonable to do "different" — and if that means actually telling someone to their face, preferably in front of other people, that they have not done their homework (when there certainly has been enough time for them to do it) might produce enough "shock and awe" that they might just consider solving that problem. Then we might get to the point where there aren't any "sci-fi" aspects to the discussion but the serious realization that there are simply some really difficult (landing a man on the moon) class of problems. But we have solved those before!
December 18th, 2003 at 7:30 AM
Why we do it.
And if people look offended if you tell them they have not done their homework — you look them straight in the eye and quote:
December 18th, 2003 at 7:00 PM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
I kind of thought that those who knew me could recognize me . . . i just hope they can distinguish me from other anonymous's; i actually just post like this becuase I'm lazy and at school. But, anyways, I take it you don't consider the new dna placing of nanotubes as a primitive assembler?
February 14th, 2004 at 10:53 AM
Re:in rereading drexlers engines of destruction
It is reasonable to consider this to be a form of nanoassembly. One is generally assembling nanoscale precision pieces in a precise way. *But* it would be a mistake to consider this to be a true nanoassembler because it lacks the precise atomic (or small molecule) placement that assemblers are likely to require. Better examples of primitive assemblers would be DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and particularly the ribosome. They typically work with smaller molecules, generally have some error correction capability, etc.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Dear Sir. It is quite a long I have been “speculating” on such aspects of “cold” nuclear fusion, using linear accelerators and making their beams collide in a foccusing point. I was already curious about that when studying in BERKELEY, and in 1978 I had a chance to have a close look in the linear accelerator of Stanford University with some friends (you are to see some details mentioned or reproduced on that in the text of the patent of invention FUSOGINO DE INVENCAO, written at the end of 1981, and deposited in March of 1981 in Brazilian Patent Office, now a document of Public Domain, in which I make a lot of MOCKERY about TOKAMAKS and similar devices… as if DEVIL’s devices joining side by side HELL and HEAVEN, separated by a very thin silk courtain…). I already have presented many contributions to the ANTI-GRAVITY “FORUM”, and to many others, manly of USA and some of EUROPE (there you are to find SAVELLI, but are my distant relatives…). I am totally against the Einstein theory of relativity, as it is nowadays believed: only at some very limited case it could approach being of some usefulness. Thus never “tangigle mass” increases with velocity, but some type of “gravitational inertial which increases”, thus we can evaluate mathmatically magnetism, electricity, gravity and other type of magnetism, all undergoing interaction (already posted on that). Thus never it is possible to have “BLACK HOLE”, and other practical things foresaw by theory of gravity are WRONG…
SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:
Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan*
An abstract of a poster presented at the Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology. – November 5-8, 1997; Palo Alto, CA
http://www.islandone.org/Foresight/Conferences/MNT05/Abstracts/Donoabst.html
Such article is the “modernized” version of my patent of invention FUSOGINO OF HYDROGEN, as written in 1981. Such article is about a sub-nuclear resolution microscopic accelerator just a few centimeters long and only a few nano-meter wide that might theoretically initiate individually controlled fusion reactions without requiring thermonuclear temperatures or confinement”
(but in 1981 there was not something as micro-sized accelerators…
thus I used, in the concept of normal protonic microscopic accelerators, in the drawings and description/summaries and explainings…). I also pointed out that it was absurd/unfeasible the concept of TOKAMAK in using PLASMA at huge pressure and temperature, as if in the core of our SUN STAR. When NUCLEAR FUSION could be done at modest (“cold”) fusion temperature (by organized collisions), and with RECYCLE of not fused particles (making a LOOP), and recovering particle energy (as direct electricity energy) from fused particles and also from not collided particles… That is in Patent of 1981/82.
TOKAMAK devices are like having DEVIL’s HELL next to GOD’s HEAVEN, living side by side, separated by a very thin silk wall: almost absolute zero degree Kelvin = Hell in one side and in the other side=Heaven having almost the inverse of zero degree Kelvin = infinite degree temperature=Sun….
Devil’s trap prevents Heaven to “work”, stealing all nobleness as they scape from Heaven…It is Devil’s trap for conventional Physics: slaved to Relativity…
Quote:
“(from Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan)”: Variations of these structures might be assembled to create an atomic scale particle accelerator capable of accelerating a tritium nucleus and a deuterium nucleus and accomplishing their collision with sub atomic, sub-nuclear, or even sub-proton, accuracy. Conventional fusion reactors are all based on confining the reaction products at a high enough temperature and pressure to achieve a statistical probability of enough high energy random collisions to induce a sustainable fusion reaction.
In contrast, individual atoms collided with sub-nuclear accuracy can be induced to fuse with only 51 KeV of energy.
.
That was exactly the concept behind the COLD NUCLEAR FUSION PROCESS FOR HYDROGEN ISOTOPES and others TO FUSE in SPACE and on EARTH PLANTS, as SHOWN in ABOVE drawing with POWER PLANTS. For sure, if “light” radiation (as for making photossynthesis on Earth and planets and Moons) is not important, all radition generated from fusion is to be used to generate useful energy (electricity, thermal, light, etc.), not being wasted (as to space): as shown to space, in the figure shown above.
Quote:
“(from Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan…)”: Nuclear fusion with nuclear accuracy atomic scale accelerators does not require extremely high temperatures and confinement required by thermonuclear reactions:
Thermonuclear reactions take advantage of E=(3/2)kT. Thus, using a standard formula for deriving temperature from average molecular collision energy, assuming 10 KeV collisions taking place in a 1015 density plasma the temperature must be:
T=2/3(Joules)/1.38×10-23J/K
T=2/3(104 eV)(1.6×10-19 J/eV)/1.38×10-23J/K
T=77M degrees K
Thus we are moving toward “COLD” NUCLEAR FUSION PROCESS:
Quote:
“(from Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan…)” The potential electrostatic repulsive energy of deuteron centers 3 nuclear radii from each other is 2.72×105 eV from a standard handbook.
E=kQ1Q2/R. Q’s are in coulombs and R in meters. k = 9×109
Thus 51 KeV will force deuteron nuclei to overlap closely enough to fuse. By comparison, Tokamaks have reached the equivalent of 20 KeV and the NOVA laser system has reached only 3 KeV particle collision energies.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - — – — – - – -
The Deuterium-Deuterium reaction is a good reaction to start with since it is well understood and creates less radioactivity then tritium deuterium reactions. Another disadvantage of tritium is that it must be made in a reactor using lithium and thus is not as common as deuterium.
It would be, of course, be good to eliminate any radioactivity. The following reactions are reported to be completely Non-radioactive:
1H1 + 11B5 => 4He2 + 8.68 MeV. b
Boron 11 and 1H1 are the dominant isotopes and both are common.
Another possible radiation free reaction is:
2H1 + 3He2 => 4He2 (3.6 MeV) + 1H1 (14.7 MeV)
- – - – - – - – - – - – — – - – - – -
GENERATING AMOUNT OF POWER
The author of Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan, shows the computation of how big show big the size of a
power plant based not on a TOKAMAK like concept (like of a CLOSED SUN) but on a collision of accelerated beams, generating an “OPEN SUN” (if in a
great vaccuum, as orbiting far away our Earth). It is made the design of a power plant able to provide 100 HP (100 kW) with consumption of .455 g of deuterium/day from 13 kg/day of sea water.
More or less the same ideas, concepts and PHILOSOPHY from the not so MODERN POWER PLANT from “FUSOGINO DE HIDROGENIO” (DEVICE FOR COLD NUCLEAR FUSION PROCESS OF HYDROGEN, patent year 1982).
celsosavelli
http://www.geocities.com/celsoprofessor3ufpr/GENERATOR_NUCLEAR_COLD_NUCLEAR_FUSION_HYDROGEN_to_FUEL_and_HEAL_EARTHandPLANETS.jpg
Anonymous Coward Says:
December 18th, 2003 at 6:24 am
Cold Fusion
Cold Fusion
So, some facturing:
1.
Russian scientist S. Pereslegin appoint, than desinformation compain has before era aircraft construction (Afterword on Stanislav Lem’s “Summa Technologia”).
2.
My be such compain going now contra colf fusion.
3. By the way my be such type of discursion/attitude to Drexler is result publishing by Forsight Institute work about cold fusion:
“Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions: In Atomic Scale Accelerators” Brian T. Donovan, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Abstrac ts/Donoabst.html)
4.
File “Omega”: http://www.think-aboutit.com/omega/files/index.htm