| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Nanotechnology Forum » Assembler in ten years?
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:30 pm |
|
|
|
|
Could massive funding, perhaps on the scale of the Manhattan project,
or Apollo program, bring us the assembler in a decade or so?
If so, why aren't we doing more to speed up its development?
This one device could end poverty, eliminate all disease and provide
near immortality to all. Why isn't the government taking it seriously?
You would think that with over two decades of research, we'd be there
by now, right? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perry E. Metzger |
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Asking about assemblers, the.sandwich.king@gmail.com writes:
Quote: You would think that with over two decades of research, we'd be there
by now, right?
I would suggest that, to those who have spent time actually working in
real laboratories, the answer to that question is obvious. To those
who have not, the answer is probably not really enlightening, but I'll
give it anyway: in the real world, science and engineering are
difficult tasks that consume vast amounts of effort and resources, are
filled with missteps. It is routine to realize in frustration that an
accident or mistake has ruined the last N weeks of work, but it is not
routine to make breakthroughs. It is also far easier to talk than it
is to do.
Perry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Gregg |
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jesse Spencer wrote:
Quote: the.sandwich.king@gmail.com wrote:
Could massive funding, perhaps on the scale of the Manhattan project,
or Apollo program, bring us the assembler in a decade or so?
Being that nanotech breakthroughs could be so bebeficial in other
fields, that idea is tantalizing to strip funding elsewhere by 10% and
increase nano funding. Might just make sense.
Example: You might get that colony on Mars faster by developing the
necessary materials rather than by spending trillions on crude tech
rocket ships.
Reduce across the board research monies by 10% and add it to current
nanotech research.
I don't believe the politicians and bureaucrats favor logic however.
I remember the high temp superconductor craze...................
It was going to solve all of the worlds problems...
I also remember hearing a talk by Rustum Roy where he emphasized that if
the they took the money they spent on high temperature superconductor
research and spent it on increasing the life of asphalt by 10% - the
benefits to public would be huge - he gave numbers during the talk, but
I can't recall them. Anyway - the payback would have more than paid for
the research in a year. or less.
The problem is that nobody wants to work on mundane projects even if the
potential benefits are huge and the risks are low.
There are a lot of mundane projects with huge potential benefits to the
public that nobody cares about.
1. use of herbal replacements for some prescriptions meds
2. more efficient waste water treatment systems
3. more efficient methods of producing potable water.
4. longer lasting asphalt etc.........
Don't get me wrong - I think high risk research needs to be funded -
but funding some mundane low risk projects with large returns could
certainly save enough monies to fund a lot of high risk projects.
Gov. research funding needs to logically targeted toward low risk high
return projects to benefit the public pocket book, health and defense.
In the not so long run, you'ld have saved enough money (in theory) to
pay for a lot of cool research.
-buts that's in a perfect world -
Gregg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:53 am
|
|
