Talk:Molecular nanotechnology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Someone with a thesaurus rescue this paragraph

-snipped from Introduction- While conventional chemistry employs stochastic processes driven toward some equilibrium to obtain stochastic results, and biology exploits stochastic processes to obtain deterministic results based on complex enzyme-catalyzed reaction chains optimized through billions of years of evolutionary feedback, molecular nanotechnology would employ novel (and as yet unspecified) deterministic nanoscale processes to obtain deterministic results. The desire in molecular nanotechnology would be to place molecular moieties in deterministic locations with deterministic orientation to obtain desired chemical reactions, and then to build systems by further assembling the products of these reactions. It has been posited that molecular nanotechnology could offer much cleaner manufacturing processes than today's technologies. -end snip-
I came here to learn, not be confused. Rose Lacy 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done the best I can with it, hope it is easier to understand now. 68.97.9.103 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section on technical debates and current research

I've spent several days trolling the web, trying to determine what the current barriers to molecular nanotechnology are. Mostly, it seems that the significant problems are in the low-level chemistry of mechanosynthesis, which just isn't there yet.

Making any further steps towards mechanosynthesis probably requires CPU-years of ab initio quantum chemistry, and a lot of experimental work. It's not implausible that some reaction pathways exist, but only a few researchers are studying them, and the sheer computational chemistry of it all looks pretty overwhelming to us non-specialists.

Look for more progress when the NNI (or somebody a bit less hostile to Drexler) starts funding Freitas and Merkle (and some serious experimentalists), or in about 5-15 years when computational chemistry gets cheaper.

I've done my best to maintain NPOV throughout my new section, but I'm going to point a few other people (on both sides) towards this article to see if anyone wants to refine it.

To do:

I initially added the mechanosynthesis material here, because it's the unsolved problem which determines whether or not current proposals for molecular nanotechnology are feasible--or simply starry-eyed futurism.

Emk 22:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Error correction in NanoCAD?

I am Will Ware, the author of NanoCAD. In the article it talks about mutation being prevented by error-correction mechanisms such as are present in NanoCAD. I'm as grateful for an ego boost as the next person, but I have to point out that, while such error-correction schemes are well understood and probably easily implemented in nanorobots, NanoCAD has nothing like that.

Mention of error-correction is perfectly appropriate, as would be a mention of the Foresight Guidelines (which talk about similar ideas), and there might as well be a link to Wikipedia articles on error correction.

WillWare Fri Dec 31 23:13:07 UTC 2004

[edit] REDIRECT has contradictory definition, Merge needed, Drexler/Smalley debate

The problem is that "molecular manufacturing" was redirected to "molecular engineering." The two have almost nothing in common, to the point that it's hard to explain the difference: not apples and oranges, but apples and flashlights. "molecular manufacturing" might perhaps be merged with or redirected to "molecular nanotechnology," and I have changed the redirect for now since it's certainly less misleading than the former "molecular engineering" pointer. (The page originally contained a redirect to "nanotechnology".)

"molecular engineering" should be kept completely separate from both molecular manufacturing and molecular nanotechnology. Molecular engineering is about making molecules, by a wide range of current methods. Molecular manufacturing is the so-far theoretical study of making nanoscale machines.

With "molecular manufacturing" redirected to "molecular nanotechnology," there is no reason to involve "molecular engineering" in this at all.

Cphoenix 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (Chris Phoenix, Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology) (modification of earlier comment, upon researching history of "molecular manufacturing" page.)


Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) is nanotechnology using "molecular manufacturing", an anticipated technology based on positionally-controlled mechanosynthesis guided by molecular machine systems.

But that redirects to Molecular engineering, which says

Molecular engineering is any means of manufacturing molecules.

"Any means" would include chemistry, and chemistry is not Molecular Nanotechnology.

How to fix?

Merge needed with Nanotechnology and Nanotechnology

Do not merge. Molecular engineering/nanomaterials are separate and distinct from full nanotechnology also known as MNT also known as Molecular Manufacturing. The difference is made clear at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Hyped up "nanopants" may repel stains but that is not the same as factories that work at the molecular scale and build molecular machines or other products. Wikkrockiana 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


-- I agree: do not merge "Molecular Engineering" with "Molecular Nanotechnology". By the way the "Molecular Engineering" article really does need a clean-up and further completion to include all the synthetic chemical tools used for molecular engineering. The term "molecular engineering" is also used by chemists in other fields, and not only by those in nanotechnology. (M.H.V. Werts, chemist, CNRS, France. June 19, 2006) --


Drexler/Smalley debate needs more data from the WIRED article--how the MNT Feasability study was cut from the congressional bill, Drexler's "Feynman Thesis" takes some hits.

Wikkrockiana 03:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--

[edit] Universal Assemblers vs. Diamond Nanofactories

Should be Diamondoid Nanofactories. Not a factory that makes diamonds but a factory comprised mostly of diamond as a material.

Wikkrockiana 16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Risks of Nanotechnology?

I'm not sure I would describe the risks of nanotechnology as "daunting." Before you can build runaway, self-replicating, nanomachines, you first have to build any nanomachine at all, and then have to build nanomachines that can self-replicate under carefully controlled conditions. The field doesn't seem to be making much progress toward either goal. 66.30.223.61 15:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possible cleanups

The paragraph containing the phrase Drexler's colleague Ralph Merkle has noted that, contrary to widespread legend, [6], Drexler never claimed that assembler systems could build absolutely any molecular structure. may have some slight NPOV problems, and--in any case--it doesn't flow. We should probably keep the material, but rework it to fit better in the article.

The parenthetical (but this seems to outside observers to be damnning with faint praise) may be a bit redundant. I'm not opposed to keeping it if someone has a link to the "outside observers" in question. In any case, the following paragraph is full of pretty severe qualificiations and criticisms.

The phrase note that Drexler had not proposed truly universal assemblers despite his use of the term "Universal Assemblers". Refusing to defend Drexler's original proposal, they may need to be reviewed for NPOV, or at least cited.

Other than that, I'm reasonably happy with the "Technical Issues and Criticism" section.

--Emk 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Instructions

I think something could be added about assemblers receiving instructions from outside. It is not necessary for an assembler to contain its blueprints. Those instructions can be transmitted to the assembler from outside, e.g. using ultrasound. This is a much safer design since it is virtually impossible that a construction error would result in a run-away replicator.

Also we could do with a few pictures here.

--StevenJMUK 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph for article

Here's a good one: .

[edit] Any nanomedicine experts out there?

The article Transfersome concerns an example of medical nanotechnology. It is currently up for deletion, and a rewrite for readability by any editors interested in medical research or nanotechnology would help. Plus comments at the deletion debate would be good as well. Carcharoth 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Daunting risks" of a decadent attitude

"Daunting" risks of molecular nanotechnology, and especially of a sound cybernetic approach regarding self-replicating molecular systems, beyond the fact that the human animal itself is also built of self-replicating molecular machines to the last cell, just as every life we conventionally refer to as "life" to date, is exactly as daunting as the risk of inventing devices exploiting the phenomenon of

- nuclear fission (we did build bombs and also dropped them, but nuclear power plants are still the cleanest and most efficient energy sources - at least until starting to exploit fusion energy -, and did we kill off each other, did we exterminate all carbon based life on our planet, according to the ingorant prophecies of the religioid mental sickness? no we did not. instead, we paid a fair price for what we had to.)

- the fact that earth is a planet, and is moving (we did fight to explore it, many died, even more have been killed - and those who then screamed "daunting risk" again only supported decadent powers to execute fighters and seekers of knowledge, and to destroy the knowledge already explored, in the name of a so-called "god" - but we now know at least a given amount of useful information about planets, for starts, we know why ebbing and flood exists, etc. did some "god" punish, with o his holy anger, humanity for this knowlegde? no it did not. instead, we paid a somewhat less fair price for what we had to.)

- fire (we did use fire to kill each other, and we did also deny it, but without this, we would still run on sight, smell or sound of the first medium sized predator. many have been beaten to death, for thousands of years, simply for using or even only trying to explore benefits of fire as a physical phenomenon, by those who have been screaming "daunting risk" all the way. did the hot shining body of them bad souls eat our children for using it? no it did not. instead, we paid an enourmous price for what we had to.)

Question is, what price are you willing to pay for the greatest future invention of humanity, the basic tool of our first real key techologic revolution, and the ultimate tool towards forging humanity into what it always held in its promises and endless perspectives despite the permanent whining of the majority, an absolute race in its coevolutionary symbiosis, in its eternal syzygy with our creatures, the machines. we have no other way out of being prisoned into time on an insignificant little planet as mere mammals. Even motivation factor is restricted to some generations, at a maximum, thus I consider the thought strongly "daunting", that when its time comes, and it will come, humanity will have nothing to offer for symbiocy.