I'm working on a short presentation for my university communications
class on molecular manufacturing.  I have a very short time to speak
and I'd like to include information that will motivate people to
research this on their own.  I'm hoping to include either the
percentage or number of jobs that could be lost in a worst case
scenario if MM was released completely unregulated.  That is, as far
as jobs focused on manufacturing, transportation, storage, and sales
are concerned - rather then the economic fallout scenario.

Is this data available anywhere?  Or how might I go tracking it down?

Thanks, in advance, for any help.
Max

Thank you

okerdavid wrote:
>             Actually, this might be more like what your looking for!
>  http://www.physorg. com/news14043832 6..html
>



       Get your preferred Email name!
Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com.
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/

Dear Colleagues,

How to teach nanotechnology? - Answers by Hans P. Mikelson:

Blog, ppt-s:
http://www.nanopaprika.eu/profiles/blog/list?user=2zaik0ftnj764
Part 1.:
Teaching Nanotechnology at the Community College Level
Part 2.:
First Week of Intro to Nano
Part 3.:
Intro to Nano Outline
Part 4.:

The Nanoscale
Part 5.:
Nanochemistry
Part 6.:

Argus Lab
Part 7.:
Waves and Light
Part 8.:

Test Time

Part 9.:
PowerPoints, Learning Guides and Labs, Oh My
Part 10.:
Quantum Mechanics Part 1
Part 11.:
Quantum Mechanics Part 2
Part 12.:
Program Considerations
Part 13.:
POVRay Images
Part 14.:
Tools of Nanoscience
Part 15.:
Optical Microscopy
Part 16.:
Scanning Electron Microscopy

Part 17.:
Transmission Electron Microscopy

Part 18.:

Atomic Force Microscopy

Blog, ppt-s:
http://www.nanopaprika.eu/profiles/blog/list?user=2zaik0ftnj764


Best regards

A.P.

--
András Paszternák
creator and editor of The International NanoScience Community
Web: http://www.nanopaprika.eu
E-mail: editor@...

Would the report on nanotechnology in the UK hinder research and
progress? Or will everything still resume as normal, but just with
more regulations

Thanks

Bologna seems to be one of the greatest cities of all time.  It was
founded by the Etruscans which evolved into the Roman world. Later, it
was conquered by the Lombards whom named it Bologna.  It went through
all the medieval period gyrations; and then, with the crusades and the
translations of Greek and classical civilization books in Spain around
1000 A.D., Bolongna was at the center of it all again.  Petrarch is one
early pre-Renaissance(1500s) name.  Cardano also learned and taught
medicine there.  Today, Bolongna is considered one of the five top
cities of the world!  Not bad historical and contemporary value to say
the least!  Why all this about Bologna though?

Well, this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtI-hWUQI7w&feature=related

i thought i'd give that link first since it is the start of the show!
But, really, what I'm poining out is in the second part of this youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCGEE1FzhCQ&feature=related

Well, between the history of mathematics I read and this video, I took
a little bit of an interest in Bologna; and, I noticed the
correspondence between some of what James Burke says about Bologna in
this second part(the second link above) and CRN's "System of Three
Ethics."  As James Burke says it, around 1050, Bologna was growing
again, and they were amongst the first to his the problem; he stands in
I'm guessing a(possibly 'the') major social/political center of
Bologna; and he points out how the place is set up; i mena he's
standing in a square concrete center with fountains and all . . . and
various great buildings which as James Burke points out correspond to a
division of various social/political concerns of a given city-state;
there is the emperor building, the town council building, church, and
merchant building(notice, there's no university building(s)!  As he
says, all of them wanted to run the place, nobody was strong enough to
do it by themselves; so, with all this political back and forth,
humdrum concerns like "who threw the boiling oil" took precedence!

As Mr Burke says, the trouble was they were trying to run before they
could walk; they didn't understnad things; they didn't have education!
(not to mention, they were all split up; you can't funciton when you're
all split up!)

I'm not argueing against the 'System of Three Ethics'; i'm arguieng
that the points about the 'system of three ethics' is incomplete; who's
in charge?  The military?  THe scientists? Or, the business people?
CRN and really the founding fathers of the U.S.A, prove the system of
three ethics; but, I'm thinking we have a choice amongst the three(or
four, if your counting the religion!) activities of . . .
civilization.  Let me point out that Nano-manufacturing and its
associated nanotechnologies allows a given person or group(I would
think a given person would chose not to be lonely) to do away with
economics. Military?  If you need it.  Let me point out something else;
who's going to maintain all this potentially wonderfull technologies?
Nano-manufacturing allows a given person(s) to forget about the world;
a given person(s) could grow rather forgetfull of the science and
technology we as human beings need to survive in this world; we are the
technologically dependent species; we forget that, and the
nanotechnologies break(including the nanomanufacturing system) the
nanotechnology dependent humans . . . become extinct!

In a previous post, I've pointed out that at the same time a given
state comes up with a primitive nanomanufacturing system, all the stats
of the world will have sufficient nanotechnologies to surive on their
own. There are two possibilities here.  One, soembody thinks they've
got to conquer the world to prevent nano-wars(and to feed all the poor
people of the world . . . finally); the other is to not because you
don't need to; you have all the necessities of the world and nobody is
going to bother with you(except that your living in the same land as a
previous nano-era state).  The previous possibility leads to world war
three; not just a nuclear war anymore; a nano-war; in this war, you
have no idea who's going to win out because you don't know what the
other side knows.  The second possibility could lead to wars; but will
it lead to the extermenation of the whole species? I think not.

There will be great pressure to just expand out in space because nobody
knows what hundreds of nanotechnology states are going to do.  I for
one prefer this second possibility.  Why?  Because in this world,
nobody can conqure the rest of the world, and two, nobody becomes
complacent with their nanotechnologies.  I don't think the majority of
the nanotechnology states will wage war; and really, I have an interest
in space; i'm not going to worry about nano(and nuclear) wars, because
I'm going to be billions if not trillions of miles away.  My only
concern is not having others to give insights that I cannot(becaue
everybody has insights others can't have); i'm more worried about not
having a social group that enjoys exploring the universe with me.  I
know that all knowledge is incomplete and that we are dependent on
learning ever more.  My goal is to set up an Isaac
Asimovian 'Foundation.'  And, I'm not worried about all these other
nanotechnology states expanding in opposite directions because I know
that even if they are anti-my Jacob Bronowski scientific humanism
because they are dependent on that science and technolopgy and over
time due to the pressures of existence in this universe and the fact
that they are human beings, they will change over time.

My worry is world war three with nanotechnology and nuclear
weapons . . . and roman republic/and empire and Nazy Germany stuff;
Republics and Democracies that vote out democracy and science.

I'm propsing an Isaac Asimovian 'Foundation" which chooses science
amongst the system of three ethics with Arthur Kantrowitz's science
courts to keep those military, economic, and supernatural/vagueness
gmaing religious influences form steering my Isaac
Asimovian "Foundation" from going wrong.  We should be collecting,
analysing, and synthesizing the world's knowledge in an Isaac
Asimovian "Foundation" before the nano-era really kicks in; and if some
of our group concludes the data differently, they can exapond out in
space in opposite directions . . . and we'll see who's right or wrong
about the data because those who are wrong will run into one
contradiction after another; the moral thing to do is in their court;
to change their ways.

By means of this poocess, humanities(and intelligence in the universe)
is secured in the universe; because 1) dogma does not take over and
complacency does not blidn us the breakdown of the bewildering
nanotechnologies that nobody is ever going to understand it all, and/or
number two,  supernova and other astronomically energetic events
doesn't wipe us out because we have all our eggs in one basket here on
Earth.

Fear not!

Number one . . . i remember a stats page at the Foresight Institute
showing the number of countries that visit the site and how often; i
remember reading of countries I've never heard of before or since!
That was a long time ago; i can't even remember how many years ago
they took down that stats page!

Point is number two . . . every country is investing in nano this
and nano that; by the time anybody brings out the first assemblers
(primitive) . . . even if the economy is affected, all those
countries will have enough various nanotechnologies to take care of
themselves.

Whoever comes up with the first primitive assemblers would be stupid
to wage war because all those other countries will have plenty of
nano this and nano that; it would be futile not to mention insane
considering that country will be able to live 'off the grid' so to
speak; they won't have to get money and trade with other countries
to survive.

Worries about that first country performing genocide on its
population?  Well, number one there . . . i think it is highly
improbable; most countries just won't; they'll fear what they look
like to others and other such social politics.  And if they do . . .
well, I'm sorry, but so long as you didn't do it; what  are you
worried about?  Somebody blaiming you for the genocide; so long as
you didn't do it, your on teh moral highground.  I'm sorry, but
causing world war three is not justified for preventing what others
are going to do to their own people.  Your business is what social
group you choose to be with!

What else this is leading to deserves another thread.

" . . . the originators of new ideas are too protective of their
brainchildren to develop them properly; creativity impliies a
corresponding lack of perspective." - Paul Dirac

Going from one mathematical science development after another
reveals a lot of different slants and takes on this; for instance,
Archimede's integral and differential calculus was hampered by his
use of geometric algebra and arithmetic; while some like Frederick
Gauss argued and wondered why and how come Archemedes didn't think
to make the hindu/arabic numerals; well, I'd argue that Archemedes
certainly developed his ideas 'improperly', but considering lifes
pressures and that he could(obviously) see how to get the results he
wanted without travelling all over the world . . . stumbling on
India's invention of zero . . . hanging out with the arabs to see
them symbolize algebra and arithmetic(really this didn't happen till
Vieta anyways!) . . .and all this while managing to live for a
thousand years or more; well, I think you get the point.

Newton's invention of the Calculus is actually a good example of
what Mr Dirac had in mind; Galileo had the idea of average speed,
Fermat had done the tangent to the line thing, and his initial
teacher and as teacher to Isaac Newton as he could be Barrow had
much of the various calculus theorems like the derivative of the
sum, multiplication and so on; but, Barrow could not see how to put
it all together; even here, Newton actually could not see how to do
all of the basic calculus students learn today; he did not know
rolle's theorem and the proving of all the basic derivative
formula's by means of limits that Cauchy did in the eighteen
hundreds.

What to make of it all? Just goes to show you that you can never
confine mankind in a finite box and expect to learn the universe
(kind of a necessity for us humans I would say!

Concerning the use of fabricators to assemble progressively larger
machines: Won't these machines require at least some parts of
progressively larger size? As these parts get larger, they will no
longer have the immunity that atomic scale parts have to wear and
fatigue. I would think the machines would have to be fully
self-repairing before such a bootstrap process is possible.

Readers of this group might be interested in a recent themed issue of Science
for Environment Policy focusing on Nanomaterials
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/12si.pdf).
The issue addresses the difficult question of health and environmental risks
that might arise from novel nanomaterials and how these could be tested. The
news alert highlights recent research ranging from the potential of carbon
nanotubes to cause lung disease to the effects of sunscreen nanoparticles on the
skin. A must for the nano-interested.

For a few years now, just the fact that CRN folks have ignored history of like
the Greeks with the Spartans, Persians, and then the Romans; and then, the
history of the Romans with the Christians murder of Hypatia and the burning of
the Alexandrian library . . . and then the history of the medieval period and so
on and so forth has kind of bothered me.  They mention terrorism in the
backfield, but they don't understand it; i've put it in terms of some rather
interesting ideas about rationality which they've just kind of ignored or played
silence games.

But, couple that with the facts of these two new technologies(and the news of
some recent middle eastern governments that have been voted out by terrorist
organisations), and you know these guys are that socially bound up; i mean when
you point out things like socially bound up and they do exactly those behaviors,
you have to conclude they are irrationalists.  They are plato's who combine
their mathematics with mythologies(witness the Gospel of John's "jesus is the
'word' of god to see the influence of Plato's rational mythology); Plato's modo
of taking advantage of those who want to be believe in falsities to protect
their fragile minds is also seen in Eusebius's Preparatio Evangelica(Eusebius
was Emporor Constantine's right hand man during the Necine conferences to decide
which gospels and other books were to be considered cannonized New Testament
material; after it was decided, those who were excluded were hunted down; some
'Gnostic' gospel people managed to hide their 'Gnostic' gospels in the Egyptian
sands to be uncovered around 1930s) were Eusebius essentially says on a chapter
heading "on how it is o.k. to make up superstition for those who want to be
decieved."  You see, this is what compelled Bill Joy and the Unabomber to write
and do what they've done; because they see that mathematical science will become
victorious if mathematical science and technology continue on the pace they are.

Well anyways, at first, upon hearing about these brain reading and cloaking
technologies, I felt stronger than ever that mankind must not be confined on
Earth so that Democracies such as the Roman Republic with Julius Caesar and the
Germans when the Nazies were voted in, and recently some middle eastern
states(and recently, America had voted in rather irrationalist Republican
organisation) don't get voted out; so that the true human spirit that every
human child is born with is never beat down and mindwarped, space colonization
and expansion must be established.  Lifeboats goal of protecting the Earth is
one thing, but permanent human confinement is quite another.  CRN's paranoia of
others getting their hands on nanotechnologies is taken without question by the
lifeboat group and probably others who fear other human groups from developing
one way or another.  Just listen to Mike Treder and his 'disruptive
technologies' talk; if nanotechnology happens, the industrial past will be swept
aside; oh no!  Not!  I can't wait till the industrial past is swept clean! This
'disruptive' technologies will only lead to disruptive thought; meaning, oh no,
this guy just disproved me; he's disrupting my thinking!  and, and, my way of
life!  whaahhhh! CRN's 'disruptive' talk is about preserving the irrational past
and can only lead to a new dark ages with all the associated inquisitions.
Nanomanufacturing naturaly lends towards decentralization; the permanent freeing
of mankind from mental/social fear group slavery and space expansion, and
Drexler, Mr's Phoenix/Treder/Joy/Kurzweil and the list goes on and on . . .
either originating the idea or blindly going with it because they've never had
to deal with social terrorisms(there's a reason they've become who they are now;
because the social group they were in supported and helped them along; a fact
they have zero appreciation for); they don't understand the fear mongering and
social anti-science that goes on with the rest of humanity; around puberty time,
most humans are too weak minded to notice and say no to the irrationality
mongering that starts to be accepted around those times . . . getting back to
those cloaking and brain reading technologies . . . now, I see that they can be
used to make the natural decentralized nano-world safe out in space(or even on
Planet Earth).

Today, we've taken on a nuclear standoff to prevent nuclear war; CRN argues that
won't work with nano-manufacturing.  Even argueing with them on that point, I'm
thinking now that cloaking and even brain reading technologies can due in the
nano-world what the nuclear standoff did for the twentieth century. For
instance, out in space, maybe somebody has some ideas he'd like to share; but,
he does not know the other social groups; both groups are cloaked(and out in
space, these cloaking technologies can be even more effective); one guy either
wants help solvin some mathematics problems are wants to join in with solving
some mathematical science problems; neither has to uncloak; both can send their
ideas to a determined location and uncloak there with neither revealing the true
location each other is in; well, there can be lots of different ways of making
all this work.  But, much the same idea can happen with brain reading
technologies; one group can agree(if they so choose) to enter a brain reading
room to those who they trust(if they feel they can trust each other; it's their
choice); there the person can see whether this social group is benign or not;
really, I'm thinking that the brain reading technologies should be able to
advance enough to where both can see and read each others thoughts and know
where each other stands.  This can even be done while both parties are cloaked.

The truth is that there's only one way humanity is to learn to deal with the
nano-future rationally; and that is to become scientific; and, there's only one
way to make humanity scientific; to put it in an environment where it grows up
knowing it better by scientific about things, and that is out in space.  One of
Eric Drexler's last chapters of his 'Engines of Creation' book is about
'avoiding' lazyness, stupidity, and evil' more or less; out in space, we can
certainly avoid two of those; and I would say with the cloaking and brain
reading technologies, we can avoid most evils; and, out in space, I think most
and almost certainly all given enough time, social groups will learn how to see
that there's something bigger than their small petty concerns they learned how
to fight over on Earth.

Dear Sirs,

If I denied admission with any of the universities in India, On the ground that
I did Open University  Masters, and is not recognized  I wish to send a copy of
my  thesis to American Cancer Society , British Coma Recovery cell, German
Paralytic Society and wish to transfer my findings  for further research at free
of cost and they can patent my findings in their name!!! since no university 
India is willing to  admit me as a scholar for Ph.D.


If I get a name and fame, the Indian People or Government can not share the joy
with others to be proud.

If my findings are acknowledged and taken for further research, that is more
than enough.


   I enrolled myself for  PhD, with Utkal University of Culture  in Nov 2007.
topic

"Vedas- A New Critical Analysis with Special Reference to Human Body and
Health."


Not only that I found that Ravana the Lankathipathi  also wrote commentary in
Rig Veda  and authored "Arka Prakasa"  which talks about Child birth  and this
was reproduced in Charka samhita written in 5th Century A.D. and repeated in 9th
century. by Jeevika  and spread in China.

Through this I found the NaNo rays can cure cancer, Coma, paralysis (this day we
can say this as Supportive therapy).

These rays are by burning oils that created Uranium rays, that strengthen the
Iron in blood.

This I shared with American Cancer Society, who offered me a Membership at free
of cost (without paying any money)  and asked me to send my thesis to them for
Review.

Once I present this thesis I am sure the entire medical and astronomy field will
get a shock, and they will take an U turn in their approach.

I expect my thesis to be presented by March 2010. with Utkal University of
Culture, Bhubhaneshwar.

But I am yet to get the Registration Number from the University.

The Education systems in our country is very very in awkward condition. The
Universities prefers to give honorary Doctorates to Politicians, Cine Artists
who didn't do any research and helped the society  but  to get publicity the
Universities are  behind the Cine Artists and to gain personal confidence  and
earn a name the Committee members of the Universities prefers to recommend
candidates for Honorary doctorates. There is no validity in this.

On the other hand if a person who passed the Masters degree in Open
Universities,  Joined M.Phil., and  wish to join Ph.D., on the knowledge he has,
and he hopes that the presentations of his thesis will help the public and
innovation he makes  will be appreciated by the world of intellectuals,  the
Universities close their eyes and says that he is unfit since he didn't hold a
Bachelor degree.

The presentation of the thesis even if  is excellent and challenging the
authorities are closing their eyes and throwing Gems and diamonds in to dust
bin.

When this will Change?


Regards

--
Ramachandran

Hello all. I described the nanofactory concept to someone and they responded
with the following statements. I would like you all to examine this and pick
apart their claims.

Here is what they said to me:

  "Thanks for your article. I haven't read too much on the subject, but one of
the obstacles I see to making this a practical reality is the energy it would
take to make things. I would imagine that is why solar is one of the prefered
choices. That said, you would need an enormous amount of stored solar energy to
make even a small object. Here are some of the reasons I see for this.


When we manufacture something, let's say a watch to keep things small, you first
need the correct amounts of raw materials...various metals, glass, perhaps
plastics or silicon if it has a computer chip in it. In a tradtional factory,
you simply fashion the raw materials into the parts you need (often made in
several other factories dealing with different raw materials) and then assemble
them according to the design spec for that watch.


With nano tech, you will still need the same raw materials in molecular rather
than atomic form. The reason is that the raw materials just would likely not be
as abundant in nature in a pure state as you would need. Every metal has to be
refined to make it as pure as possible before it can be used. This means you now
need the energy to decompose molecules into their respective atoms and separate
them into their own storage containers. The molecular decomposition is probably
were chemical eneregy comes in. The problem now is that you introduce danger
during what I'll call the "un-manufacturing" process due to the unstable nature
of many elements and the use of the chemicals needed to achieve this.


Once you have your elements separated, you now need to supply the energy to run
the machine that will inject the correct amounts of each to fashion the
molecules and compounds containing mixtures of molecules (basically getting back
to your original raw materials), and assemble them correctly.


I think that the computer processing required for this would be far greater than
we currently have available as well. I could just imagine Google's entire server
farm of several thousand networked computers being needed to make that one watch
over a period of several hours or even several days. It can take a full day to
render a 2-hour video from the raw source on my Mac Pro running a 2.93 GHz
quad-core processor and 8 GB of RAM.


Now let's take a step backward and consider what it would take if you could use
"anything" to make something with nano tech. We'll put in my old running shoes
and get out a steaming cup of hot chocolate. You have just dramatically
increased the energy, size of machine, and time/processing as well as danger
involved. Now you are no longer talking about breaking apart molecules into
atoms and reforming them, but now you have to change non-edible plastics and
rubbers into edible water and chocolate. You are going subatomic now and
removing or adding electrons. Forget about unstable elements...now we have a
potential nuclear explosion on our hands. It would take tremendous energy to
break away an electron from the atom. Then you have the stray electron floating
around causing a release of nuclear energy. Keep in mind that for every electron
you strip away from an atom, you need to take away a proton in most cases to
maintain a stable atom. If that weren't impossible enough, try taking loose
electrons and protons (which shouldn't exist on their own) and cramming them
into an atom to form a heavier element. You are looking at a recipe for atom
smashing, aka a nuclear reactor, no matter how you look at it.


I don't believe that nano tech in the form of 3D printers will be able to give
Captain Pickard his cup of hot chocolate on the USS Enterprise, but it may be
most practical in the form of nano machines in the medical field, for example,
to eliminate a virus from the body or repair a damaged blood vessel, dissolve a
blood clot, repair damaged cartilage in a knee, etc. Of course there are many
dangers to this as well. Many disseases could be cured, but new ones could be
created either unintentionally or intentionally for terrorist means. For many
medical conditions, nano tech will never be able to do better than what the
human body can already do through adult stem cell treatments. Just imagine
getting an injection of nano machines meant to dissolve a blood clot, but
instead you react differently to it and end up with anemia or worse like
internally bleeding to death."

How would you all answer this skeptic on nanotechnology?>

"Thanks for your article. I haven't read too much on the subject, but one of the
obstacles I see to making this a practical reality is the energy it would take
to make things. I would imagine that is why solar is one of the prefered
choices. That said, you would need an enormous amount of stored solar energy to
make even a small object. Here are some of the reasons I see for this.


When we manufacture something, let's say a watch to keep things small, you first
need the correct amounts of raw materials...various metals, glass, perhaps
plastics or silicon if it has a computer chip in it. In a tradtional factory,
you simply fashion the raw materials into the parts you need (often made in
several other factories dealing with different raw materials) and then assemble
them according to the design spec for that watch.


With nano tech, you will still need the same raw materials in molecular rather
than atomic form. The reason is that the raw materials just would likely not be
as abundant in nature in a pure state as you would need. Every metal has to be
refined to make it as pure as possible before it can be used. This means you now
need the energy to decompose molecules into their respective atoms and separate
them into their own storage containers. The molecular decomposition is probably
were chemical eneregy comes in. The problem now is that you introduce danger
during what I'll call the "un-manufacturing" process due to the unstable nature
of many elements and the use of the chemicals needed to achieve this.


Once you have your elements separated, you now need to supply the energy to run
the machine that will inject the correct amounts of each to fashion the
molecules and compounds containing mixtures of molecules (basically getting back
to your original raw materials), and assemble them correctly.


I think that the computer processing required for this would be far greater than
we currently have available as well. I could just imagine Google's entire server
farm of several thousand networked computers being needed to make that one watch
over a period of several hours or even several days. It can take a full day to
render a 2-hour video from the raw source on my Mac Pro running a 2.93 GHz
quad-core processor and 8 GB of RAM.


Now let's take a step backward and consider what it would take if you could use
"anything" to make something with nano tech. We'll put in my old running shoes
and get out a steaming cup of hot chocolate. You have just dramatically
increased the energy, size of machine, and time/processing as well as danger
involved. Now you are no longer talking about breaking apart molecules into
atoms and reforming them, but now you have to change non-edible plastics and
rubbers into edible water and chocolate. You are going subatomic now and
removing or adding electrons. Forget about unstable elements...now we have a
potential nuclear explosion on our hands. It would take tremendous energy to
break away an electron from the atom. Then you have the stray electron floating
around causing a release of nuclear energy. Keep in mind that for every electron
you strip away from an atom, you need to take away a proton in most cases to
maintain a stable atom. If that weren't impossible enough, try taking loose
electrons and protons (which shouldn't exist on their own) and cramming them
into an atom to form a heavier element. You are looking at a recipe for atom
smashing, aka a nuclear reactor, no matter how you look at it.


I don't believe that nano tech in the form of 3D printers will be able to give
Captain Pickard his cup of hot chocolate on the USS Enterprise, but it may be
most practical in the form of nano machines in the medical field, for example,
to eliminate a virus from the body or repair a damaged blood vessel, dissolve a
blood clot, repair damaged cartilage in a knee, etc. Of course there are many
dangers to this as well. Many disseases could be cured, but new ones could be
created either unintentionally or intentionally for terrorist means. For many
medical conditions, nano tech will never be able to do better than what the
human body can already do through adult stem cell treatments. Just imagine
getting an injection of nano machines meant to dissolve a blood clot, but
instead you react differently to it and end up with anemia or worse like
internally bleeding to death.
"

These are good questions. First, the proposals do require supplying the needed chemical elements - no atom smashing. Plastic and food and plants have mostly the same elements, but you couldn't turn rocks into food.

Second, the feedstock supply might be prepared by traditional, reasonably efficient chemical processes, and only need nanotech for the final purification steps, which would not require much power.

Third, the mechanochemical synthetic operations can be reasonably efficient (on the order of combustion energy) even for robot arm systems with careful design, and somewhat more efficient for mill-style systems.

Fourth, it is true that we can't afford nearly one CPU cycle per atom. But with modular design, computations can be re-used a lot.

Bottom line: These are good questions and reasonable concerns - and they have been thought of and (at least conceptually) solved - and the solutions are pretty simple to outline, and need to be studied in detail, but don't appear brittle to me. A lot of info on them can be found scattered through my Primitive Nanofactory paper.

Chris

On Dec 12, 2009 8:27 AM, "solidstatefusion" <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:

 

How would you all answer this skeptic on nanotechnology?>

"Thanks for your article. I haven't read too much on the subject, but one of the obstacles I see to making this a practical reality is the energy it would take to make things. I would imagine that is why solar is one of the prefered choices. That said, you would need an enormous amount of stored solar energy to make even a small object. Here are some of the reasons I see for this.

When we manufacture something, let's say a watch to keep things small, you first need the correct amounts of raw materials...various metals, glass, perhaps plastics or silicon if it has a computer chip in it. In a tradtional factory, you simply fashion the raw materials into the parts you need (often made in several other factories dealing with different raw materials) and then assemble them according to the design spec for that watch.

With nano tech, you will still need the same raw materials in molecular rather than atomic form. The reason is that the raw materials just would likely not be as abundant in nature in a pure state as you would need. Every metal has to be refined to make it as pure as possible before it can be used. This means you now need the energy to decompose molecules into their respective atoms and separate them into their own storage containers. The molecular decomposition is probably were chemical eneregy comes in. The problem now is that you introduce danger during what I'll call the "un-manufacturing" process due to the unstable nature of many elements and the use of the chemicals needed to achieve this.

Once you have your elements separated, you now need to supply the energy to run the machine that will inject the correct amounts of each to fashion the molecules and compounds containing mixtures of molecules (basically getting back to your original raw materials), and assemble them correctly.

I think that the computer processing required for this would be far greater than we currently have available as well. I could just imagine Google's entire server farm of several thousand networked computers being needed to make that one watch over a period of several hours or even several days. It can take a full day to render a 2-hour video from the raw source on my Mac Pro running a 2.93 GHz quad-core processor and 8 GB of RAM.

Now let's take a step backward and consider what it would take if you could use "anything" to make something with nano tech. We'll put in my old running shoes and get out a steaming cup of hot chocolate. You have just dramatically increased the energy, size of machine, and time/processing as well as danger involved. Now you are no longer talking about breaking apart molecules into atoms and reforming them, but now you have to change non-edible plastics and rubbers into edible water and chocolate. You are going subatomic now and removing or adding electrons. Forget about unstable elements...now we have a potential nuclear explosion on our hands. It would take tremendous energy to break away an electron from the atom. Then you have the stray electron floating around causing a release of nuclear energy. Keep in mind that for every electron you strip away from an atom, you need to take away a proton in most cases to maintain a stable atom. If that weren't impossible enough, try taking loose electrons and protons (which shouldn't exist on their own) and cramming them into an atom to form a heavier element. You are looking at a recipe for atom smashing, aka a nuclear reactor, no matter how you look at it.

I don't believe that nano tech in the form of 3D printers will be able to give Captain Pickard his cup of hot chocolate on the USS Enterprise, but it may be most practical in the form of nano machines in the medical field, for example, to eliminate a virus from the body or repair a damaged blood vessel, dissolve a blood clot, repair damaged cartilage in a knee, etc. Of course there are many dangers to this as well. Many disseases could be cured, but new ones could be created either unintentionally or intentionally for terrorist means. For many medical conditions, nano tech will never be able to do better than what the human body can already do through adult stem cell treatments. Just imagine getting an injection of nano machines meant to dissolve a blood clot, but instead you react differently to it and end up with anemia or worse like internally bleeding to death.
"