Nanotechnology
Discussion
A question for the floor, prompted by reading This
Nanotechnology...amazing science with, erm, huge potential or sci-fi style technofear nightmare?
Ties in with the Einstein's Brain programme on C4 last night, when someone suggested fleets of nanomachines could be injected into the blood flow around the brain in order to fully map all the "wiring", thus enabling an artifical version of said brain to be created out of silicon wafers and connected to a computer, resulting in an exact replica... *yikes*
Nanotechnology...amazing science with, erm, huge potential or sci-fi style technofear nightmare?
Ties in with the Einstein's Brain programme on C4 last night, when someone suggested fleets of nanomachines could be injected into the blood flow around the brain in order to fully map all the "wiring", thus enabling an artifical version of said brain to be created out of silicon wafers and connected to a computer, resulting in an exact replica... *yikes*
If they can make proper nanomachines, I will eat my own hand. The order of difficulty, expense and effectiveness of these things is ridiculous.
I am aware that someone made an electric motor which was about 1mm long, but it took them about 6 months to build. It's all very well saying "In the future", but it's a very tall order to manipulate very small things accurately.
What constitutes a machine? Maybe a nano-valve but a nano motor or mechanism, very difficult. The whole material choices are different and may present problems from the properties of the environment.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but some scientists really do have their heads in the clouds. Then again, the earth might not be flat
Thumbs down from this corner.
I am aware that someone made an electric motor which was about 1mm long, but it took them about 6 months to build. It's all very well saying "In the future", but it's a very tall order to manipulate very small things accurately.
What constitutes a machine? Maybe a nano-valve but a nano motor or mechanism, very difficult. The whole material choices are different and may present problems from the properties of the environment.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but some scientists really do have their heads in the clouds. Then again, the earth might not be flat
Thumbs down from this corner.
hornet said:
A question for the floor, prompted by reading This
Nanotechnology...amazing science with, erm, huge potential or sci-fi style technofear nightmare?
Ties in with the Einstein's Brain programme on C4 last night, when someone suggested fleets of nanomachines could be injected into the blood flow around the brain in order to fully map all the "wiring", thus enabling an artifical version of said brain to be created out of silicon wafers and connected to a computer, resulting in an exact replica... *yikes*
Not sure if it is to be believed but there is refference to these sort of things in the Dan 'Di Vinci Code' Brown book that I am reading at the moment. It states in the preface that all of the tecnology he reffers to does exist, and I have to say I couldn't find any flaw in the simmilar comment he made for the Di vinci Code
I know this might sound silly but I get the feeling, and have had it for many years, that it would scare the shit out of me if I knew all the things the powers that be had at their disposal.
Still I do find this one a little hard to believe
>> Edited by rude-boy on Tuesday 18th January 20:30
I would say this sort of thing has massive potential for life saving surgery in places we can't get at the moment. As long as they are 100% reliable, I would have no problem with them.
Imagine the benefit for all us smokers. Fit one with a dragnet and let it trawl the arteries.
Seriously though, one of the major problems with surgery is scarring. Anything that reduces that will improve patient outcome.
I can't see what's to worry about, they're only small machines.
Imagine the benefit for all us smokers. Fit one with a dragnet and let it trawl the arteries.
Seriously though, one of the major problems with surgery is scarring. Anything that reduces that will improve patient outcome.
I can't see what's to worry about, they're only small machines.
love machine said:
If they can make proper nanomachines, I will eat my own hand. The order of difficulty, expense and effectiveness of these things is ridiculous.
I am aware that someone made an electric motor which was about 1mm long, but it took them about 6 months to build. It's all very well saying "In the future", but it's a very tall order to manipulate very small things accurately.
What constitutes a machine? Maybe a nano-valve but a nano motor or mechanism, very difficult. The whole material choices are different and may present problems from the properties of the environment.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but some scientists really do have their heads in the clouds. Then again, the earth might not be flat
Thumbs down from this corner.
Would you like mayonnaise with that? Look at the pace of computing technology and miniaturisation. You have more computing power on your desktop than NASA had to put the first man on the moon.
Can we have your munchfest on PH.TV please
There is some superb nanotechnology stuff in some of Greg Bear's books ('hard' Sci_fi, for the uninitiated).
The military-grade nano is interesting - build anything out of junk by letting the nanites strip it down into atoms and reasemble, and very scary when people's medical nanites are reprogrammed to start attacking their own bodies.
Good stuff.
Not going to happen in my lifetime though, I reckon.
The military-grade nano is interesting - build anything out of junk by letting the nanites strip it down into atoms and reasemble, and very scary when people's medical nanites are reprogrammed to start attacking their own bodies.
Good stuff.
Not going to happen in my lifetime though, I reckon.
Don't think about nanotechnology in terms of tiny robots for the moment - that's a long way away! However, nanotechnology in terms of molecular manipulation to make "very small things" is already reality, e.g. carbon nanotubes, tiny particles of mundane elements, etc.
For me the alarming bit (having recently read an article about this in The Economist) is not the sci-fi "we'll all be gobbled up by grey ooze - nanorobots gone wild..". As they are discovering, a collection of nano-particles of well known elements and compounds have radically different properties from larger lumps, due to their completely different volume:surface area ratios. Therefore these particles are like new elements and new elements equals new health risks. As they commented, carbon nano-tubes are effectively the same shape as asbestos fibres, so try breathing in a cloud and let's see what happens....
For me the alarming bit (having recently read an article about this in The Economist) is not the sci-fi "we'll all be gobbled up by grey ooze - nanorobots gone wild..". As they are discovering, a collection of nano-particles of well known elements and compounds have radically different properties from larger lumps, due to their completely different volume:surface area ratios. Therefore these particles are like new elements and new elements equals new health risks. As they commented, carbon nano-tubes are effectively the same shape as asbestos fibres, so try breathing in a cloud and let's see what happens....
BliarOut said:
If they can make proper nanomachines, I will eat my own hand. The order of difficulty, expense and effectiveness of these things is ridiculous.
I am aware that someone made an electric motor which was about 1mm long, but it took them about 6 months to build. It's all very well saying "In the future", but it's a very tall order to manipulate very small things accurately.
What constitutes a machine? Maybe a nano-valve but a nano motor or mechanism, very difficult. The whole material choices are different and may present problems from the properties of the environment.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but some scientists really do have their heads in the clouds. Then again, the earth might not be flat
Thumbs down from this corner.
Would you like mayonnaise with that? Look at the pace of computing technology and miniaturisation. You have more computing power on your desktop than NASA had to put the first man on the moon.
Can we have your munchfest on PH.TV please
If you are going to talk electronics, then nano-electronics is fine. Try nano lathes, nano milling machines, bearings, etc, etc. Some small scale stuff is allready tricky to do. How are you going to power these things? A nano battery, of course a nano machine will have nano-friction and nano-drag so it follows that it will be so efficient, a cell/battery of an equal order will be required. Or will it be powered by vibrating crystals. Scanning something or looking at it is one thing, actually manipulating it is completely different. The idea is so far fetched, I haven't given it that much thought, just like I haven't really thought about crystal healing. It's total bollocks and that's it. Of course, if there are any nano-machinists here who would care to comment, I would quite happily eat humble pie, put a foot in my mouth and never comment on a PH scientific thread again.
any one read pray by micle criton we dont apear to be at that level yet but given that the eletrical computors hae only been about for 50 years and the distence thay have come what is to say that nanotecknology and nano macheans wont com as far in the same time.
on a side note IBM made the leters IBM frome atoms placed on a sheat viseble with a microscope (scaning I think) in 94 I belave.
ps sory about the speling/gramer
on a side note IBM made the leters IBM frome atoms placed on a sheat viseble with a microscope (scaning I think) in 94 I belave.
ps sory about the speling/gramer
love machine said:
If they can make proper nanomachines, I will eat my own hand. The order of difficulty, expense and effectiveness of these things is ridiculous.
I am aware that someone made an electric motor which was about 1mm long, but it took them about 6 months to build. It's all very well saying "In the future", but it's a very tall order to manipulate very small things accurately.
What constitutes a machine? Maybe a nano-valve but a nano motor or mechanism, very difficult. The whole material choices are different and may present problems from the properties of the environment.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but some scientists really do have their heads in the clouds. Then again, the earth might not be flat
Thumbs down from this corner.
your body does all these things...
Its all possible. Its just a matter of time. Soceity needs people to look to the future for aims and do the legwork to get there.
one thousand years ago the order of difficulty of sending someone to the moon was very high.
The current attempts at nanotechnolgy are concentrating on the creation of nano-scale (1/1000,000,000 of a meter) materials. True nanotechnology as seen in science-fiction is the manipulation of individual atoms and is now referred to as "molecular manufacturing".
This is happening all around us - nature has been doing it for billions of years. If nature managed to do it by accident (evolution) then we can do it a lot better by design. The major stumbling block is the creation of self-replicating 'constructors' which are needed in order to create things on a macro scale.
A single nano constructor creates copies of itself and the copies create copies of themselves until there are enough to begin making the target object.
The best intro is the seminal "Nanosystems" by Drexler.
BTW, this has been a pet interest of mine for the past few years and I've built-up quite a good collection of nanotechnology information. If anyone wants to know anymore then email me and I'll send you some stuff.
This is happening all around us - nature has been doing it for billions of years. If nature managed to do it by accident (evolution) then we can do it a lot better by design. The major stumbling block is the creation of self-replicating 'constructors' which are needed in order to create things on a macro scale.
A single nano constructor creates copies of itself and the copies create copies of themselves until there are enough to begin making the target object.
The best intro is the seminal "Nanosystems" by Drexler.
BTW, this has been a pet interest of mine for the past few years and I've built-up quite a good collection of nanotechnology information. If anyone wants to know anymore then email me and I'll send you some stuff.
BliarOut said:
If they can make proper nanomachines, I will eat my own hand. The order of difficulty, expense and effectiveness of these things is ridiculous.
I am aware that someone made an electric motor which was about 1mm long, but it took them about 6 months to build. It's all very well saying "In the future", but it's a very tall order to manipulate very small things accurately.
What constitutes a machine? Maybe a nano-valve but a nano motor or mechanism, very difficult. The whole material choices are different and may present problems from the properties of the environment.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but some scientists really do have their heads in the clouds. Then again, the earth might not be flat
Thumbs down from this corner.
Would you like mayonnaise with that? Look at the pace of computing technology and miniaturisation. You have more computing power on your desktop than NASA had to put the first man on the moon.
By several orders of magnitude in fact. The onboard computer on the Apollo 11 was less powerful than a Sinclair Spectrum 48k. Your average desktop PC is literally millions of times more powerful in real terms.
Making specific predictions, and ruling things out for the future is very problematic. Computing power is going to develop to the point where we ask a computer how to make nanobots, or warp drive, and if it is possible the computer will tell us how.
To get to this technoloical milestone may take less time than one might think - some say as little as 30 years.
Plotloss said:
Isnt there a universal fear of this in scientific circles?
The grey something or other I believe they describe it as.
Not much help really...
Yeah the world turned into a grey ooze was based on the creation of a small swarm of nanobots able to self replicate using available base material around them (Bit like a DNA molecule when two cells split...), the whole thing running out of control and turning the world into grey mud.
I have to agree with most though, the manufacturability of it at this point, with subcomponents is way, way out of what can be done..
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff