Nanobot to build microprocessors
Anonymous Coward writes "The Inquirer posted an article stating that Applied Micro Systems will team up with US company Micromechatronics to create a highly miniaturised set of robots. These robots will be used to build microprocessors and are appearantly capable of moving in nanometers. A potential for "top down" production of further miniaturized nanobots seem probable."
Ed. note: The article seems a bit thin and nikkei.net appears to require registration. Does anyone have any more detailed information? At 3 cm2 this is quite a way from "nanorobots" even if it can move in nm increments. And with chips pushing down into the 70nm and smaller range it is questionable how "nanorobots" of this size could be useful.
January 27th, 2005 at 8:21 AM
How they could be useful
I can think of at least two ways. One is repair: it might be possible to clean specks of dust or deposit metal. I suspect that would be more useful for the masks than for individual microprocessors.
The other is positioning chips to make multi-chip packages.
Chris
January 27th, 2005 at 12:30 PM
Re:How they could be useful
I'm not sure, but I think it is nearly impossible to use nanorobots because they are built of molecules (or smaller: atoms). And molecules can do only two things: react with each other or not reacth with each other. If they react there's formed a new molecule, if they don't, there didn't happen anything.
JJK
January 27th, 2005 at 2:42 PM
Re:How they could be useful
Not bad ideas, but the scales still seem mismatched at this time. I agree with the mask idea particularly if it could be extended to nanoimprint or nanoink methods. If one had a "MEMS-robot" with nm positioning accuracy and an etching/router tool such that it could modify the substrate in defined ways then you might have something. (Think of the Mars Rovers reduced to the sub-micron scale.) One could perhaps extend mask architectures beyond that allowed even by E-beams (e.g. sloped incisions, varying mask thickness, etc.).
Then if you had a large number of them (semi-autonomous) organized by a remote program (like ants?) then you would have a very interesting tool kit. This could lower mask costs by dealing with the lack of E-beam parallelism.
January 27th, 2005 at 2:50 PM
Re:How they could be useful
Sorry but this is way off track. If the molecules (or atoms) react with each other one is dealing with nanoassembly or nanodisassembly. If they do not react with each other there are still a host of ways they can influence each other starting with simply moving the molecules (atoms) which one is not interacting with to another location.
One could for example cite the molecules now being used to coat clothes such that they do not absorb materials that would otherwise stain them. One could call this nanotechnology though it might more properly be considered chemistry at the nanoscale level. But in any case it does not negate the fact that constructing molecules which do not react has useful purposes. As does constructing molecules that do react.
There is no problem constructing nanorobots which have various degrees of reactivity and nonreactivity. Its a simple engineering problem.
January 28th, 2005 at 12:28 AM
Re:How they could be useful
Robert, what are your thoughts regarding the idea of building silicate based MNT devices and nanotech? Do you think that because the silicate solids can be built even in liquid phases, whereas carbon diamondoid has to have inert or vacuum enviroments, then this silicate MNT could be more near term?
January 28th, 2005 at 7:51 AM
Re:How they could be useful
It is not so much that you can manipulate silicates in liquid states (heck the crust of the Earth has been doing that for millions of years) but the fact that our infrastructure (the entire chip industry) is so much more well developed. I'd guess that worldwide one probably has several hundred billion $ invested in the manipulation of Si and SiO2. You aren't going to touch that anytime soon with classical nanotech.
It should be kept in mind that one of the important aspects of classical "diamondoid" is strong (usually covalent) bond density per unit volume. That is one of the key distinctions between say nanotubes [pseudo-diamondoid] and spider-silk [protein based] where one is dealing with a significant difference between covalent bond density and hydrogen bond density.
Though I think I have seen a report about people either speculating on or actually creating boron-nitride nanotubes which would in theory have properties similar to carbon nanotubes I haven't seen anything similar involving silicates. Which is not to say there are not very many interesting properties that silicates can contribute within the nanoscale realm.
With regard to the specific question of "near term", I lean in the direction that silicon based devices have the edge for now. However I am aware of at least one patent under consideration (which I cannot discuss) which could lead to a shift towards the carbon-based side of things.
January 28th, 2005 at 2:26 PM
Re:How they could be useful
One way that they'll undoubtedly be useful: As a learning tool.
Vik :v)
July 28th, 2005 at 6:15 AM
Is there any patent specification or publication of any kind which adequately describes how nanotechnology and nanobots may be used to create dust cleaning devices? Doing research on the same and this is extremely urgent. Thanks
August 11th, 2005 at 10:31 PM
you could get in touch with professor Kennith Albright at MIT under whose able guidance, a team of six research scholars are currently exploring the possible application of nanorobots in consumer electronics.contact number 001-484-9855153
August 14th, 2005 at 8:13 AM
Hi!
Could anyone of you tell me that how could nanobots be used for dust cleaning and to make dust cleaning devices. Also does anyone of you know what was the invention for which patent was granted in the field of nanotechnology?
Thank You
Krishna Dev