Mankind's Future I : Nanotechnology - General

[QUOTE]"COAL AND DIAMONDS, sand and computer chips, cancer and healthy tissue: throughout history, variations in the arrangement of atoms have distinguished the cheap from the cherished, the diseased from the healthy. Arranged one way, atoms make up soil, air, and water; arranged another, they make up ripe strawberries. Arranged one way, they make up homes and fresh air; arranged another they make up ash and smoke." - K. Eric Drexler[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"The principles of physics do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." -- Richard Feynman[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In 1981 the invention of the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope or STM, by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer at IBM's Zurich Research Labs, and the Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) five years later, made it possible to not only take photos of individual atoms, but to actual move a single atom around. Soon after, John Foster of IBM Almaden labs was able to spell "IBM" out of 35 xenon atoms on a nickel surface, using a scanning tunnelling microscope to push the atoms into place. [IMG]http://www.cite-sciences.fr/english/ala_cite/exhibitions/nanotechnologies/images/diapo01/03-stm10.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] Imagine a singularity of consciousness...a self replicating fractal image of its own entity.....is it God....is it you....is it me?[/QUOTE] [B]What is nanotechnology?[/B] Well, technically its the ability to create machines or manipulate matter at the molecular level. What is nanotechnology really about? For the most part, the ideals of nanotechnology are machines that can create anything -- Anything -- when supplied with the proper instructions and base materials, making manufacturing perfect and cheap and recycling a trivial matter, machines that can assemble anything, atom by atom, with all the precision the laws of physics allow, to create machines and computers with >99% efficiency. Imagine having hair-thin filaments capable of supporting hundreds of tonnes of steel, cities and vehicles of mechanosynthetized Carbon, nanocomputers embedded into our clothes, or even our brains. Spacecraft made out of dirt and rock, fullerene arcologies and diamond wires taking payloads into space... [B]Molecular Assembly[/B] [IMG]http://www.kheper.net/topics/nanotech/molecularassembler.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]"Today we make things at the molecular scale by stirring together molecular parts and cleverly arranging things so they spontaneously go somewhere useful. In the future we'll have molecular "hands" that will let us put molecular parts exactly where we want them, vastly increasing the range of molecular structures we can build." --Ralph Merkle [/QUOTE] I should begin by telling you, nanotechnology is very real, and we have finally reached the point where we can start seeing applications in the market, and this will continue for the next decades. And it can actually do a lot of what science-fiction writers crack it up to, but it's not going to work in the way they think. Within this century, we probably won't have self-replicating robots that can build anything. [IMG]http://www.businessweek.com/bw50/2002/art_bw50/bw50_hype.gif[/IMG] What will we have? Macroscopic machines will nanoscale parts, which will probably be telescoping booms or nanoscale gears, conveyor belts, and tooltips. It won't work the way most people think it will, but it will work, and that's enough. [IMG]http://www.kheper.net/topics/nanotech/drexler2.gif[/IMG] So, on the topic of molecular assemblers: A nanofabricator (Nanofab, Nanofactory, molecular assembler, assembler, Drexler, et cetera...) is a machine capable of assembling anything. Sure they will tell you that an assembler can be a robot that can put together certain molecules, but I think the real (Ultimate) assembler will be a multi-purpose, reprogrammable Drexlerian molecular assembler, the "machine capable of building anything". And we'll have it within our lifetimes. [QUOTE]The basic general-purpose assembler, as proposed by Eric Drexler (above, left) and Ralph Merkle (above, right), would essentially be a stiff telescoping molecular robotic arm, anchored to the substrate and immersed in feedstock. The free end would grab molecular fragments in the feedstock and hold them stiffly enough for them to react with (join) the object being assembled. Such a device would be about 100 nanometers (one ten-thousandth of a millimetre) long and contain about 4 million atoms, about the size of your average virus. It would have six degrees of freedom of movement, and because of its tiny size, be able to move astonishingly quickly.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.transhuman.de/dvdnano36.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE] Atoms are the Lego set of the Universe, out of which any physical thing can be built. Nanotech will make feats that seem entirely impossible to us today will become commonplace in the world of tomorrow. Nature already uses nanotechnology in the molecular machinery of every living thing. Nature's designs are working examples to us of what can be made. However, rather than using trial and error, we can apply intelligent design principles to our creations.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"Potatoes, lumber and wheat are agricultural prducts use self-replicating manufacturing base. Costs ~$1 per pound. Molecular manufacturing will make almost any product for a dollar per pound or less, independent of complexity (design costs, licensing costs etc not included)" --Ralph Merkle [/QUOTE] [B]How do we make one?[/B] [IMG]http://vigilantcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/628911_8a81edcac3_m.jpg[/IMG] Well, there are many approaches, the problem is that the perfect way to make a molecular assembler is by having another molecular assembler work on the damn thing. So yeah. Molecular assembly is a bitch, even AFM nanofabrication which is pretty cool is still far away. But once we get the first assembler, we can make it build copies of itself. I will discuss this later on. The two main approaches: [B]- Top-Down:[/B] You start from the top and work your way down, this is what we can see in the computer industry. Basically we had vac tubes, we shrank them, so much that eventually we made them so small they couldn't hold the vacuum. So then; we invented the integrated circuit. And we have been miniaturizing that shit for decades now, Moore's Law et cetera. We have reached the limits, the point where electrons start to fucking teleport because our gates are so small. The solution? Well, we could move in the third dimension since current chips are flat, but other than that, we will have nanocomputers. See below. [B]- Bottom-Up:[/B] Here's where REAL MEN work, they MAN UP and forget miniaturization and try to hack an assembler together by using optical tweezers and such to build this ridiculously complicated tools to build even smaller tools and so on and on. But don't worry, we're going to make it there, and build an assembler. [IMG]http://www.somewhereville.com/blogimages/nanohedron_october2007.jpg[/IMG] [B]When?[/B] [QUOTE]Perhaps the most commonly asked question about nanotechnology is: how long will it take to develop? Although prediction is a risky business, Ralph Merkle observes that if the trend in miniaturisation in the computer industry continues, nanotech is likely to come about "in the 2010 to 2020 time frame." James Von Ehr answered "more than 5 years" to the goal of a working prototype Drexlerian assembler. Expect something soon. But don’t hold your breath. However it is achieved, one thing is certain; with the invention of the working assembler, we will witness a technological revolution unparalleled in human history; a revolution that will quite possibly occur within our lifetimes.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Nanotechnology: The next technological revolution. According to futurist and inventor, Raymond Kurzweil, the Nanotech Age is expected to begin between 2025 and 2050 bringing an end to the current Information Age which began in 1990. Humankind is poised at the precipice of the single greatest innovation in the history of science and technology. Coming is a Nano Revolution that will be at least as transformative as the Industrial Revolution (perhaps much more so), but packed into just a few years. Well beyond present-day nanotech applications, mature "molecular manufacturing" or "molecular nanotechnology" will enable us to manifest our dreams (or nightmares). We are nearing the ability to build molecules out of atoms mechanochemically, and to use these molecular building blocks to construct virtually any substance or device we can conceive of. This most powerful technology of all will radically transform and extend the capabilities of practically every area of human endeavor by exploring the ultimate limits of fabrication. It is a potential answer to all of our problems, and it hands us the power to destroy ourselves and our home more easily than ever before.[/QUOTE] So, don't hold your breath and don't bet on the shortest possible date, keep it in the back of your mind... Working towards it. [B]Carbon: Because the future won't be "chrome, chrome everywhere", more like "Buckminsterfullerene, buckminsterfullerene everywhere"[/B] [QUOTE]Nanomaterials is a branch of the field of materials science which deals with materials having morphological features smaller than 100 nm in at least one dimension. This classification includes thin films, quantum dots, etc. When matter is reduced to the nanoscale (1 - 100 nm,) the effects of increased surface-area, in tandem with quantum effects, begin to dominate material properties. As a particle's size decreases, a greater proportion of its atoms are found at the surface compared with those inside. Larger surface area equals greater reactivity. Quantum confinement results in size-dependent property changes, meaning materials with nanoscale dimensions (nanomaterials) can start to exhibit very different optical, electrical and magnetic properties, (especially as the structure or particle size approaches the smaller end of the nanoscale) compared to what they would on a macroscale. This effect has been likened to an expansion of the entire periodic table of the elements out into another dimension; as though we now have access to many new primary elements which did not exist before, enabling unique/novel applications. For instance, when made into nanoparticles, opaque substances may become transparent (copper); inert materials attain catalytic properties (platinum); stable materials turn combustible (aluminum); solids become liquids at room temperature (gold); insulators turn into conductors (silicon). Materials such as gold, which are chemically inert at normal scales, can serve as a potent chemical catalysts at the nanoscale. Much of the fascination and potential of nanotechnology stems from these unique surface area and quantum phenomena exhibited by matter at the nanoscale. Nanomaterials are not simply another step in the miniaturization of materials. They often require very different production approaches. There are several processes to create nanomaterials, classified as "top-down" or "bottom-up." Although many nanomaterials are currently at the laboratory stage of manufacture, a few of them are being commercialised.[/QUOTE] Don't you just love that word? Buckminsterfullerene. BUCK-MINSTER-FULLERENE. BUCKMINSTERFULLERENE! :science: [B]Nanomedicine[/B] [QUOTE]"Nanotechnology should let us economically build a broad range of complex molecular machines (including, not incidentally, molecular computers). It will let us build fleets of computer controlled molecular tools much smaller than a human cell and built with the accuracy and precision of drug molecules. Such tools will let medicine, for the first time, intervene in a sophisticated and controlled way at the cellular and molecular level. They could remove obstructions in the circulatory system, kill cancer cells, or take over the function of sub cellular organelles. Just as today we have the artificial heart, so in the future we could have the artificial mitochondrion. Equally dramatic, nanotechnology will give us new instruments to examine tissue in unprecedented detail. Sensors smaller than a cell would give us an inside and exquisitely precise look at ongoing function. Tissue that was either chemically fixed or flash frozen could be analyzed literally down to the molecular level, giving a completely detailed "snapshot" of cellular, sub cellular and molecular activities." [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] The field of cryonics depends upon the precise control over molecular structures in order to repair the delicate structures of cells damaged by both storage at extremely low temperature, and the reversal of toxcicity induced by the cryoprotectant agents used. Advanced nanotechnology could make this as routine a procedure as anesthetic in surgery is today, and could even make manned long-distance space travel more practical in the future. Nanotechnology is expected to find application (in concert with genetics and robotics) in medical diagnostics, aging/life extension, engineered organ (even cellular/sub cellular organelle) replacements, disease treatments, advanced pharmacology and many other areas. [/QUOTE] Our current surgical tools, much like our manufacturing ones, still cut up people with knives and lasers. What if you had a robot that could go down there? Or infinitely precise, fractal robotic arms that could heal tissue atom by atom? [QUOTE]The medical nanorobot (nanobot for short) is expected to become the ultimate tool of nanomedicine. A nanobot is a still theoretical robot the size of a bacterium, composed of molecular-size parts, such as gears, bearings, and ratchets. "Medical nanorobotics holds the greatest promise for curing disease and extending health span. With diligent effort, the first fruits of medical nanorobotics could begin to appear in clinical treatment as early as the 2020s." -- Robert A. Freitas Jr.[/QUOTE] What if you had an artificial blood cell that could carry 236 times more Oxygen than a normal, inefficient one, and be a fraction of the size? If you replaced 25% of your blood cells with the artificial ones you could stay in a pool underwater for four hours or go to the olympics. [IMG]http://www.thenanoage.com/images/Respirocytes_nanotecnology.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.thenanoage.com/images/Respirocyte.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.thenanoage.com/respirocytes.htm[/url] [B]Nanocomputers[/B] [QUOTE]"In the future we'll pack more computing power into a sugar cube then the sum total of all the computing power that exists in the world today." --Ralph Merkle [/QUOTE] Fuck transistors we've got quantum nanocomputers bitch! 2 trillion terabytes of data per cubic millimeter, not trolling. A current supercomputer, occupying an enormous warehouse and using ten megawatts could be shrunk to a cubic milimeter, or less, and use two watts of power to do the same. Remeber Moore's Law? The thing that says processing power grows exponentially? It will continue, until we hit the barrier of transistors, then move on to memristors, and eventually the nanocomputer that processes information with ultimate efficiency. [B]Energy[/B] High efficiency solar cells and ultralight solar panels are allright, but lets move on to something greater: Charles Pellegrino, Jim Powell, and Isaac Asimov suggested the "Asimov Array" concept: Send self-replicating molecular assembler robots to the Moon or Mercury (Not necessarily nanorobots, just big robots with molecular assemblers mounted on top) and have them use the local resources to replicate until you have an army of millions of worker robots using local materials to build a Moon-wrapping (If you use the Moon, it can be Mercury too as I said before or whatever) carpet of high-efficiency photovoltaics, beam the energy to Earth using microwave lasers... ... Which will only be done once you convince people to stop basing their knowledge of ethics in science from Hollywood, and to understand the scientists and engineers seek, behind those complex equations (To quote Einstein), only to improve the lives of all men not to fry people from space with fucking harmless microwaves. [B]Environment[/B] Molecular assembly will allow us to effectively create ultimate-efficiency machines and turn all sorts of waste into their compounding atoms, we could turn shit into diamonds and piss into robots. Cleaning up the world will be a menial task once we have nano, not saying we shouldn't start now, though. [B]Eric Drexler[/B] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Eric_Drexler_2007.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.eurekalert.org/images/essays/Drexler.jpg[/IMG] Look at this badass motherfucker. This guy here is the father of nanotechnology. He came up with the ideas of the assembler and helped develop the concept decades after Richard Feynman proposed it for the first time. This guy, we pretty much own the future to him. And to Charles Pellegrino, Craig Venter, et al. Look at that fucking beard. Fucking nanowisdom. [B]LINKS[/B] [url]http://www.zyvex.com/[/url] [url]http://www.developnanotechnology.com/bridge/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.kheper.net/topics/nanotech/nano-revolution.htm[/url] [url]http://www.thenanoage.com/[/url] Eric Drexler's Blog: [url]http://metamodern.com/[/url] Stronger than carbon nanotubes: Polyynes and the prospects for carbyne: [url]http://metamodern.com/2010/09/29/stronger-than-carbon-nanotubes-polyynes-and-carbyne/[/url] Evolutionary refinement of engineered molecules: [url]http://metamodern.com/2010/10/05/evolutionary-refinement-of-engineered-molecules/[/url] Out of the memory-hole: A historian speaks out on nanotechnology: [url]http://metamodern.com/2010/09/24/out-of-the-memory-hole-a-historian-speaks-out-on-nanotechnology/[/url] Forcible, reversible mechanochemistry: [url]http://metamodern.com/2010/09/12/forcible-reversible-mechanochemistry/[/url] [B]THE FUTURE[/B] Within our lifetimes, we will have the technology to assemble matter atom by atom. We will have the technology to clean up the world, to revolutionize human civilization within decades, to augment, improve, modify ourselves, to build spacecraft out of backyard materials and open up the frontiers of a fixed humanity to more than a few corporations. Forget common computers, forget rockets, forget normal recycling, forget large, bulky machines and gigantic factories: We're living through the Singularity, not a Singularity of AI, but one of accelerating change. The Nanotech Revolution will put this all into overdrive. [I][B] And there you have it. In our lifetime: interstellar flight, Star Trek – call it what you will; and we shall have it too, if only we are wise, and pay attention. Power and peril. Promise and responsibility. This is the world we are coming to, and it is not for the timid. There are wonders, out there, of which you and I have scarcely begun to dream; and some of them are closer than you think. -- Charles Pellegrino, on Relativistic Robots and the Feasibility of Interstellar Flight [/I][/B]

the title looks like a backwards :I face also instant ignore list: * Katsuie * WaLLy3K * cccritical * maurits150 * Inacio * HarryG321 * Ze_Ghost * Hypernova * luverofJ!93 * [EG] Pepper * butters757 * Firefox42 * Khyour * kayOkay * Lord_Skellig * Fblade * ricktrolled * Mr.Dounut

Anyone remembers grey goo? [quote]The term was first used by molecular nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler in his book Engines of Creation (1986). In Chapter 4, Engines Of Abundance, Drexler illustrates both exponential growth and inherent limits by describing nanomachines that can function only if given special raw materials: Imagine such a replicator floating in a bottle of chemicals, making copies of itself....the first replicator assembles a copy in one thousand seconds, the two replicators then build two more in the next thousand seconds, the four build another four, and the eight build another eight. At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six new replicators, but over 68 billion. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets combined - if the bottle of chemicals hadn't run dry long before. In a History Channel broadcast, grey goo is referred to in a futuristic doomsday scenario: "In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."[citation needed] Drexler describes grey goo in Chapter 11 of Engines Of Creation: early assembler-based replicators could beat the most advanced modern organisms. 'Plants' with 'leaves' no more efficient than today's solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an inedible foliage. Tough, omnivorous 'bacteria' could out-compete real bacteria: they could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop - at least if we made no preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies. Drexler notes that the geometric growth made possible by self-replication is inherently limited by the availability of suitable raw materials. Drexler used the term "grey goo" not to indicate color or texture, but to emphasize the difference between "superiority" in terms of human values and "superiority" in terms of competitive success: Though masses of uncontrolled replicators need not be grey or gooey, the term "grey goo" emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be less inspiring than a single species of crabgrass. They might be "superior" in an evolutionary sense, but this need not make them valuable. Bill Joy, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, discussed some of the problems with pursuing this technology in his now-famous 2000 article in Wired magazine, titled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us". In direct response to Joy's concerns, the first quantitative technical analysis of the ecophagy scenario was published in 2000 by nanomedicine pioneer Robert Freitas.[/quote] That made me shit bricks.

"With new nanotechnogy this 145 year old man can achieve a full erection!" [editline]16th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=nanutek;25446736]Anyone remembers grey goo? That made me shit bricks.[/QUOTE] Rememberthe Power Puff Girls episode those years back.

For a second there I thought there were death stars in the dudes bloodstream. Now that would be impressive.

[QUOTE=nanutek;25446736]Anyone remembers grey goo? That made me shit bricks.[/QUOTE] See OP: [QUOTE] I should begin by telling you, nanotechnology is very real, and we have finally reached the point where we can start seeing applications in the market, and this will continue for the next decades. And it can actually do a lot of what science-fiction writers crack it up to, but it's not going to work in the way they think. Within this century, we probably won't have self-replicating robots that can build anything What will we have? Macroscopic machines will nanoscale parts, which will probably be telescoping booms or nanoscale gears, conveyor belts, and tooltips. It won't work the way most people think it will, but it will work, and that's enough. [/QUOTE] There won't be grey goo, not soon, because at first we'll only have large machines with small parts rather than clusters of billions of intelligent, socializing, self-replicating machines.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;25446704] [B]Nanocomputers[/B] Fuck transistors we've got quantum nanocomputers bitch! 2 trillion terabytes of data per cubic millimeter, not trolling.[/QUOTE] :aaaaa:

I swear every day there's a new, incredible breakthrough in technology. Fuck why aren't we in space yet.

[QUOTE=ffffff-;25447697]I swear every day there's a new, incredible breakthrough in technology. Fuck why aren't we in space yet.[/QUOTE] Because rockets are horribly inefficient and crazy ignorant congressmen axing NASA's budget only to afterwards complain about it doing nothing. I swear to Sagan, after the Nanotech Revolution, I'm going to grab a nanofabricator and make a little spacecraft out of some backyard materials and fly the fuck out of here.

[QUOTE=ffffff-;25447697]I swear every day there's a new, incredible breakthrough in technology. Fuck why aren't we in space yet.[/QUOTE] That's because the incredible breakthrough is always based on something that we already did in the eighties

[quote]self-replicating robots that can build anything[/quote] [img]http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content08/stargate-replicator.jpg[/img] [editline]16th October 2010[/editline] :aaaaa:

Science is amazing.

2 years ago this bitch was announced [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs[/media] SELF CLEANING? Drop in dirt ???? Profit [editline]16th October 2010[/editline] Optimistic, stop rating everyone

Future tech takes a long time to research... But seriously this is some awesome stuff right here. I love those self replicating robots.

Glad I should experience nanotech in my lifetime.

The artificial blood sounds cool, wouldn't need a diving suit would you ?

It saddens me that to truly understand just one of the thousands of fields that modern technology can be applied to, one requires years of education. I think that distances breakthroughs from immediate application of the technology; it's not obvious how to use it or what its implications are to those that understand it.

When nano technology can be used to repair us if we get damaged i get proud. Like if we get shot, the nanobots would just remove the bullet and fixing the wound.

[QUOTE=Nuggi1994;25448585]If we get shot, the nanobots would just remove the bullet and fix the wound.[/QUOTE] That makes it sounds creepy, i suddenly don't like the idea of having tiny robots onjected into my body, who knows what could go wrong

[QUOTE=medal-12;25448709]That makes it sounds creepy, i suddenly don't like the idea of having tiny robots onjected into my body, who knows what could go wrong[/QUOTE] The designers of the robots would know exactly what could go wrong and they could take the necessary steps to ensure that it doesn't go wrong. The modern approach to medicine and generally everything that ends up inside you involves rigorous testing - well, if it's a new innovation, anyway.

Fuckin sweet

This is why I am going to school to get a degree in materials engineering. The first big thing, electronics wise, that will come of nanotechnology new battery technologies, this will change the way the world works. Very exciting stuff.

The only problem with carbon nanotubes is that they appear to have a similiar effect to asbestos on the respiratory system. You then also have the problem of using untested substances, which show radically different properties to larger, yet similarly composed substances, around people. I think nanotech is awesome, but there realistic downsides to it as well.

[QUOTE=ffffff-;25447697]I swear every day there's a new, incredible breakthrough in technology. Fuck why aren't we in space yet.[/QUOTE] Makes you wish you were born 50 years later. So you could grow up when all of this shit became a reality.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;25448943]The only problem with carbon nanotubes is that they appear to have a similiar effect to asbestos on the respiratory system. You then also have the problem of using untested substances, which show radically different properties to larger, yet similarly composed substances, around people. I think nanotech is awesome, but there realistic downsides to it as well.[/QUOTE] They only do that when they're flying around unattached which has no application at all.

I'm both excited and terrified.

I'd rather not have nano technology.

[QUOTE=Reborn9;25449056]They only do that when they're flying around unattached which has no application at all.[/QUOTE] Asbestos is also required to be airbourne to be dangerous, but guess what? It's still dangerous. You have to be extremely mindful of safety concerns when implementing new tech. Like I said, I think nanotech is good, and it is where a large portion of new innovations and the like is gonna stem from, but every silver lining has a cloud.

To Eudoxia I love you and your science threads.

[QUOTE=PopLot;25448969]Makes you wish you were born 50 years later. So you could grow up when all of this shit became a reality.[/QUOTE] Now is an amazing time to be alive.