Skip to comments.
How Nanotechnology Will Work (Molecular-sized nanoscopic machines will build products.)
HowStuffWorks ^
| Unk
| Unk
Posted on 04/19/2003 1:24:06 AM PDT by Diddley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Scientists will build nanoscopic machines (assemblers) that can manipulate individual atoms into desired positions.
Then they will build replicators that can be programmed to build more assemblers.
Trillions of assemblers and replicators will fill an area smaller than a cubic millimeter, and will still be too small for us to see with the naked eye.
Assemblers and replicators will work together like hands to automatically construct products
1
posted on
04/19/2003 1:24:06 AM PDT
by
Diddley
To: Diddley
What about the Grey Goo?
2
posted on
04/19/2003 1:58:27 AM PDT
by
ffusco
("Essiri sempri la santu fora la chiesa.")
To: Diddley
I wonder what revenge these nano machines will unleash on humanity when they lose their jobs to cheaper foreign nano machines.
3
posted on
04/19/2003 2:05:48 AM PDT
by
Hillarys Gate Cult
("Read Hillary's hips. I never had sex with that woman.")
To: Diddley
Some senior scientists have misrepresented the facts about this -- for a recent response, see:
An Open Letter to Richard Smalley. Note that the proposed technology is more about guiding chemical reactions to do molecular assembly than about tiny hands manipulating atoms.
To: Hillarys Gate Cult
SARS is nano-machines.
nano-nano
To: forewarning
Thanks for the link to that letter.
Note that the proposed technology is more about guiding chemical reactions to do molecular assembly than about tiny hands manipulating atoms.
Wow! I didn't think that anyone (Smalley?) would think that it was a digital (finger) process, but rather a molecular (chemical process). Go Figure.
6
posted on
04/19/2003 2:13:35 AM PDT
by
Diddley
(Liberal: “I support the troops, but not the war” = I support the police, but not fighting crime.)
To: Hillarys Gate Cult
LOL
7
posted on
04/19/2003 2:14:41 AM PDT
by
Diddley
(Liberal: “I support the troops, but not the war” = I support the police, but not fighting crime.)
To: Diddley
Smalley has been putting Nobel prestige behind his straw-man impossibility argument for years. The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative has followed his lead and pretty much ignored the sort of powerful nanotechnology you describe. This places the U.S. at increasing risk of a nasty technological surprise.
To: forewarning
This places the U.S. at increasing risk of a nasty technological surprise. I had no idea. This is serious. Thanks for the heads-up.
9
posted on
04/19/2003 2:30:34 AM PDT
by
Diddley
(Freedom is not a zero-sum game [we have it, and Iraq can too].)
To: Diddley
Bump
To: Diddley
Thanks for the link to that letter. Another recent item:
"Molecular manufacturing will bring both great opportunities and great dangers. Nanocomputers will extend desktop computational power by a factor of a billion or more. Nanoscale sensors, computers, and tools will bring surgical control to the molecular level, enabling a revolution in medicine. Light, strong, and inexpensive aerospace structures will make spaceflight easy.
But the future's faster, cheaper, cleaner production of better products will also bring disruption. Advanced lethal and nonlethal weapons, deployed quickly and cheaply, could make the world a more dangerous place. The list of consequences is long, much of it sounding like science fiction."
The Future of Nanotechnology: Molecular Manufacturing
To: *tech_index; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Bump
To: forewarning; Sparta; freedom9; martin_fierro; PatriotGames; Mathlete; fjsva; grundle; beckett; ...
13
posted on
04/19/2003 11:00:43 AM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
To: forewarning
These are great references. Thanks.
As with most technology, this is a two-edged sword.
14
posted on
04/19/2003 11:07:05 AM PDT
by
Diddley
(Freedom is not a zero-sum game [we have it, and Iraq can too].)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
All of you are posting great references. Thanks.
15
posted on
04/19/2003 11:08:41 AM PDT
by
Diddley
(Freedom is not a zero-sum game [we have it, and Iraq can too].)
To: Diddley
DARPA is pursuing multiple nanotechnolony applications. One such area is the MEMS micro elctro mechanical systems! Imagine a wankel engine the size of a penny that is coupled to a generator that produces one watt of electrical energy. A one kilowatt power source for an electric car would require the space not much larger than two ordinary bricks and would run on propane. You could light a cigarette, barbaque a steak and power your car with the same fuel!
The Army has speced a jet turbine engine that has a turbine diameter of a human hair. The Army wants this power sources to provide electrical energy for their lap tops, night vision gogles, GPS receivers and all the other battlefield electronics that are now battery powered. One of the battlefield logistic nightmares for the current Gulf War is the amount of Energizer Bunny batteries. Every film clip we watch contains at lesat on of these devices hanging off the soldier's uniform. DARPA MEMS: "Its a Small Small World!
To: Diddley
Art Bell interviewed an expert on intelligent materials just last night. Computing atoms. Great stuff.
17
posted on
04/19/2003 11:41:10 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
To: Young Werther
DARPA is pursuing multiple nanotechnolony applications. One such area is the MEMS micro elctro mechanical systems! MEMS systems are cool, but very different from nanotechnology. Micro => micrometers, nano => nanometers, so nanosystems are a factor of 1000 smaller in linear dimensions, and 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000,000 times smaller in volume.
It's nanotechnology that will work with molecules to build things from the bottom up, and turn our whole technology base upside down. This is a technology race that we can't afford to lose.
To: Diddley
Nanos are leggos for microbes.
19
posted on
04/19/2003 11:59:38 AM PDT
by
Consort
(Use only un-hyphenated words when posting.)
To: Diddley
Doesn't Waldoes Inc. have the patent on these?
20
posted on
04/19/2003 12:01:05 PM PDT
by
TC Rider
(The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson