NanoTechnology in real Life ... Its almost here.

I was asked a few time in the game if i thought it was goingto be possible in real life, Nano Technology. So here is an explination on how this works.
Just an information page is all this is.

The 10th Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, October 11-13 2002, Bethesda Maryland.
The Fifth Alcor Conference on Extreme Life Extension, November 15-17 2002, Newport Beach California.
Richard Smalley says "nanobots" are "not possible," claim rebutted by Institute for Molecular Manufacturing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next few paragraphs provide a brief introduction to the core concepts of molecular nanotechnology, followed by links to further reading.
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. If we rearrange the atoms in coal we can make diamond. If we rearrange the atoms in sand (and add a few other trace elements) we can make computer chips. If we rearrange the atoms in dirt, water and air we can make potatoes.
Todays manufacturing methods are very crude at the molecular level. Casting, grinding, milling and even lithography move atoms in great thundering statistical herds. It's like trying to make things out of LEGO blocks with boxing gloves on your hands. Yes, you can push the LEGO blocks into great heaps and pile them up, but you can't really snap them together the way you'd like.

In the future, nanotechnology will let us take off the boxing gloves. We'll be able to snap together the fundamental building blocks of nature easily, inexpensively and in almost any arrangement that we desire. This will be essential if we are to continue the revolution in computer hardware beyond about the next decade, and will also let us fabricate an entire new generation of products that are cleaner, stronger, lighter, and more precise.

It's worth pointing out that the word "nanotechnology" has become very popular and is used to describe many types of research where the characteristic dimensions are less than about 1,000 nanometers. For example, continued improvements in lithography have resulted in line widths that are less than one micron: this work is often called "nanotechnology." Sub-micron lithography is clearly very valuable (ask anyone who uses a computer!) but it is equally clear that lithography will not let us build semiconductor devices in which individual dopant atoms are located at specific lattice sites. Many of the exponentially improving trends in computer hardware capability have remained steady for the last 50 years. There is fairly widespread confidence that these trends are likely to continue for at least another ten years, but then lithography starts to reach its fundamental limits.

If we are to continue these trends we will have to develop a new "post-lithographic" manufacturing technology which will let us inexpensively build computer systems with mole quantities of logic elements that are molecular in both size and precision and are interconnected in complex and highly idiosyncratic patterns. Nanotechnology will let us do this.

When it's unclear from the context whether we're using the specific definition of "nanotechnology" (given here) or the broader and more inclusive definition (often used in the literature), we'll use the terms "molecular nanotechnology" or "molecular manufacturing."

Whatever we call it, it should let us

Get essentially every atom in the right place.
Make almost any structure consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry that we can specify in atomic detail.
Have manufacturing costs not greatly exceeding the cost of the required raw materials and energy.
There are two more concepts commonly associated with nanotechnology:
Positional assembly.
Self replication.
Clearly, we would be happy with any method that simultaneously achieved the first three objectives. However, this seems difficult without using some form of positional assembly (to get the right molecular parts in the right places) and some form of self replication (to keep the costs down).
The need for positional assembly implies an interest in molecular robotics, e.g., robotic devices that are molecular both in their size and precision. These molecular scale positional devices are likely to resemble very small versions of their everyday macroscopic counterparts. Positional assembly is frequently used in normal macroscopic manufacturing today, and provides tremendous advantages. Imagine trying to build a bicycle with both hands tied behind your back! The idea of manipulating and positioning individual atoms and molecules is still new and takes some getting used to. However, as Feynman said in a classic talk in 1959: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." We need to apply at the molecular scale the concept that has demonstrated its effectiveness at the macroscopic scale: making parts go where we want by putting them where we want!

The requirement for low cost creates an interest in self replicating manufacturing systems, studied by von Neumann in the 1940's. These systems are able both to make copies of themselves and to manufacture useful products. If we can design and build one such system the manufacturing costs for more such systems and the products they make (assuming they can make copies of themselves in some reasonably inexpensive environment) will be very low.

There is a brief and accessible video introduction to the basic idea of nanotechnology (Windows Media Player 38 kilobits/second or 165 kilobits/second) from Big Thinkers "Ralph Merkle: Nanotechnology"

This is certainly drifting off-topic. This isn't a story discussion, this is a post about nanotechnology.

* * *

I hate to say this, but this is just a definition of what nanotechnology is and why it would be cool if we had it.

Broad, sweeping statements like this are not evidence that we have such technology, or that we can necessarily make any commercially viable use out of it.

The giveaway is the opener to paragraph two:

'In the future...'

Well, in the future we will be able to harness stars to power our hovercars and have TVs plugged directly into our brains.

In the future we will all evolve into giant mushrooms because our brains will get so big!

See, saying 'in the future...' is easy. It's like a magic 'I can say what I like and you can't disprove me' shield.

However, the article is a good layman's definition of what nanotechnology is. There is some really interesting research going into this, and some very interesting results. Back when I was at university (years ago!) some real leaps and bounds were being made in molecular computing - logic circuits that you could measure the atomic weight of without having to have an e^100 on the end.

Nanotechnology is indeed something that is real today. At the moment - in certain areas of science - we are able to manipulate things to a level that dimensions are measured in nanometers and picometers. The key there is 'certain areas'.

We took the boxing gloves off a long time ago. Lithography is by no means the 'smallest commercial science' - just talk to anyone who works in commercial pharmaceuticals or genetics.

A better way to put it is 'right now we can only touch the white bricks - to play with the other LEGO blocks we need to build something that can do that using the white bricks we already have.'

Luckily for us, most atoms come with convenient hand-holds, which makes grabbing them and moving them easier than you'd think. The ones that don't come with hand holds aren't that useful.

Thank you for your imput. Im still in school and you are very right it is off topic, just want to give the best answer i coud. Some people have said a few things in the game about it. I also take it you are in this field some why or another? I seen a few things you wrote that i have not read in class yet.. thank you. University of Missouri Rolla Nuclear engineering

Nope, not in the field at all. My knowledge of nanotechnology comes from a combination of reading scientific magazines, watching the news and having a basic grounding in science (Freshman level, really).

Just a 'keen amateur' would be the best way to describe me.

Another 'keen amatuer's input here (heavy reader of scientific american and various science/physics-based sites)...

I think the closest thing we have to nanotechnology right now is the concept of molecular computing. It is a VERY highly studied topic, since molecular computers would--in theory of course--allow all of the data currently available on the entire internet to fit into a hard drive the size of a sugar cube. And no, that's not exaggeration, that's actually considering the physical size of the "storage" atoms that could potentially be used to contain the information.

The one huge drawback right now is power source. Students and scientists have created several viable layouts for exactly how a molecular computer would work, but there is still no way to conveniently supply the power neccessary to make it work.

Obviously, the amount of power is insignificant. A molecular computer could feasibly run off a person's body heat and function at 100% efficiency. It's the channeling of the power--how it is transferred from the source to the computer--that is currently a massive and potentially permanent roadblock in the field.

Nanotechnology is Possible, but due the fact that the nanobots are so small (Molecular sized), that it is so hard to manufacture them due to the fact that so much precision is needed, So, the idea was to create nanobots that would replicate themselves, this was shot down due to the thought that they would learn by mass replication that humans could be taken down quite easily, due to the fact of their smallness, We breath one in, they go to our hearts, We = deadz0rz. just a little addition for the ub3r playas out there.

There are already lots of nanobots that manufacture themselves by direct manipulation of subsets of atomic structure.

We call them 'cells' and they tend to be quite prolific in living organisms.

The whole concept of nanotechnology is perfectly fesable, but one fundamental truth is that for any given atomic construct you want to build you have to design a particular molecular builder for the job. After all, you cant just grab an atom with a claw - you have to use other atoms, temporarily form molecules and all that kind of stuff.

To be honest, the technology required to get a bunch of atoms and stick them together in a physically possible arrangement of our choosing is something we can already do - and relatively easily. Custom designing molecules isn't that hard - that's how we make Cubic Zirchonias, for instance (manufactured diamonds for those who care).

We still have a long way to go - it could be more precise. However, the issues come in more with such things as providing the necessary parts of the system to do things (as Tarryk said) like provide power to the little tykes. After all, a bunch of 'circuits' is no use without energy to make it go.

Cells again provide a good point to work from. They're tiny, efficient and have the whole power deal already figured out.

There's a reason molecular computers are also called 'organic computers' - they're usually made out of molecules you can do interesting stuff with; organic molecules.

ch2oh + h2o + malty flavour is one example of the interesting stuff you can do with organic molecules :)