 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Nanotechnology Forum » Nanotech garbage processor?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| STJensen... |
 Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim,
Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? The ability build things atom by
atom. Most nanotechnologists talking building using diamond atoms.
To be able to build atom by atom, we have to have the ability to rip
atoms apart so we can reform them into new collections of atoms.
Scott |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Logajan... |
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
STJensen <RecreationalPoker at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:dda3bf8bdf]Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? The ability build things atom by
atom.
[/quote:dda3bf8bdf]
Molecular nanotechnology is generally about atomic-scale or better
precision, not manipulation of isolated atoms. You don't need to manipulate
individual atoms to be able to build things where all the atoms are placed
where you want them.
I was merely trying to point out that a nanotech garbage processor wouldn't
necessarily operate using the approach you describe. I can see the possible
flaws with your idea but it is always harder to propose alternatives.
That's just the nature of engineering. Also, it isn't clear that a nanotech
world would have traditional centralized garbage collection anyway.
[quote:dda3bf8bdf]Most nanotechnologists talking building using diamond atoms.
[/quote:dda3bf8bdf]
Just to be clear, there is no such thing as diamond atoms. I presume you
mean carbon atoms. Carbon atoms can form crystals that are called diamond.
But I think it is fair to say that takes at least 4 carbon atoms. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| STJensen... |
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 27, 2:06=A0pm, Jim Logajan <Jam... at (no spam) lugoj.com> wrote:
[quote:64158e6519]STJensen <RecreationalPo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? =A0The ability build things atom by
atom.
Molecular nanotechnology is generally about atomic-scale or better
precision, not manipulation of isolated atoms.
[/quote:64158e6519]
If you look at the designs being put out by Drexler and others, it is
very clear they are talking about manipulating individual atoms.
[quote:64158e6519]You don't need to manipulate individual atoms to be able to build
things where all the atoms are placed where you want them.
[/quote:64158e6519]
Unless you want to move a single atom to a specific spot.
[quote:64158e6519]I was merely trying to point out that a nanotech garbage processor
wouldn't necessarily operate using the approach you describe. I
can see the possible flaws with your idea but it is always harder
to propose alternatives. That's just the nature of engineering.
[/quote:64158e6519]
I really wish this newsgroup was alive like it was five years ago so
others would jump into this discussion with their views. *sigh* Not
that I don't appreciate your input, Jim. I do. I just wish this
newsgroup was more alive. That or there was some online forum that
has a lively nanotech community discussing things. Know of any? I've
looked and haven't found anything yet.
[quote:64158e6519]Also, it isn't clear that a nanotech world would have traditional
centralized garbage collection anyway.
[/quote:64158e6519]
What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. The nanotech garbage
disposal system I outlined would be something people would have to be
very careful around. If someone fell onto it, they be instantly rip
apart and "recycled" as well. That's why I had the thing in a special
separate room.
[quote:64158e6519]Most nanotechnologists talking building using diamond atoms.
Just to be clear, there is no such thing as diamond atoms. I presume
you mean carbon atoms. Carbon atoms can form crystals that are
called diamond. But I think it is fair to say that takes at least 4 carbo=
n
atoms.
[/quote:64158e6519]
I'm so used to people referring to the Nano Age as the Diamond Age (in
fact, there was a sci fi novel about nanotech by that title) that I
slipped there. That and many nanotechnologists talk about diamond
nanotech devises that I became sloppy in my language. My apologies to
all. :-)
Scott Jensen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Devereux... |
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
STJensen <RecreationalPoker at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote:7cc51ce43a]On Feb 27, 2:06=A0pm, Jim Logajan <Jam... at (no spam) lugoj.com> wrote:
STJensen <RecreationalPo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? =A0The ability build things atom by
atom.
Molecular nanotechnology is generally about atomic-scale or better
precision, not manipulation of isolated atoms.
If you look at the designs being put out by Drexler and others, it is
very clear they are talking about manipulating individual atoms.
[/quote:7cc51ce43a]
I think that is true for diamondoid-type structures only. I.e., the
"individual atoms" are all of the same type, so that well-understood
and optimised specialised tools can be designed.
I suspect it would be counterproductive to have some kind of
"universal dissassembler" that examined each individual atom,
identified it, then used the appropriate tool to remove it
(somehow). The energy requirements would be enormous.
Of course you could use nanotechnology to enhance a more "traditional"
process. Grinding to dust, dissolving, filtering etc.
[...]
--
John Devereux |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ahem A Rivet's Shot... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:55:58 -0600
STJensen <RecreationalPoker at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:6c95f0c6ec]I really wish this newsgroup was alive like it was five years ago so
others would jump into this discussion with their views. *sigh* Not
that I don't appreciate your input, Jim. I do. I just wish this
newsgroup was more alive. That or there was some online forum that
has a lively nanotech community discussing things. Know of any? I've
looked and haven't found anything yet.
[/quote:6c95f0c6ec]
Speculative nanotech discussion has indeed gone very quiet in the
last few years. I think mainly because of the dearth of visible activity ni
the field - five years or so there was much reporting of simple machines
being made at nanoscale and the like but this seems to have dried up. It is
hard to tell whether this is because nobody is working on this kind of thing
anymore or because those who are working are no longer talking about it. I
rather hope the latter, there was a few years ago a strong impression that
the state of the art was reaching a "critical mass" of technique that would
soon make useful things possible.
On the general subject of "How close are we", I wonder how close we
are now to being able to produce the "Laura S" food synthesiser in some
form - and how many readers there are here who remember it.
[quote:6c95f0c6ec]What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. The nanotech garbage
disposal system I outlined would be something people would have to be
very careful around. If someone fell onto it, they be instantly rip
apart and "recycled" as well. That's why I had the thing in a special
separate room.
[/quote:6c95f0c6ec]
I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic ones) can
be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium from the chlorine in
table salt). General purpose assembley is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk methods.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| STJensen... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 1, 11:43=A0am, John Devereux <j... at (no spam) devereux.me.uk> wrote:
[quote:5e97b59e38]I suspect it would be counterproductive to have some kind of
"universal dissassembler" that examined each individual atom,
identified it, then used the appropriate tool to remove it
(somehow). The energy requirements would be enormous.
[/quote:5e97b59e38]
Or might this be the initial steps to making a universal assembler?
In a way, reversing the process others are trying to achieve and thus
achieving their goal faster this way. As any child which is easier to
do, ripping something apart or putting it together.
And I wonder if you would really need more than two approaches to
ripping apart atoms. One approach for the strongest bounded atoms
which the robotic arms are made of and another approach for all the
other atoms. And I am not talking about ripping apart atoms as in
tearing them apart into their component parts but separating atoms
from each other. Nor am I talking about everything being done by the
same robotic arms, but breaking up the process in stages and having
different robotic arms for each stage. One pair (or trio?) of robotic
arms ripping atoms from atoms. One long series of robotic arms to
move the individual atoms along to the depository. One set of robotic
arms to identify just one element type and picking it and only it out
of the stream of individual atoms streaming past it. A set of
identifying and diverting robotic arms for each element. And for
solids, one set of robotic arms assembling the atoms into rods. For
gas or liquid atoms, they could be just dumped into a vat tank.
[quote:5e97b59e38]Of course you could use nanotechnology to enhance a more
"traditional" process. Grinding to dust, dissolving, filtering etc.
[/quote:5e97b59e38]
How so?
Scott Jensen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| STJensen... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 2, 10:08=A0am, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
[quote:21220f2862]STJensen <RecreationalPo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I really wish this newsgroup was alive like it was five years ago so
others would jump into this discussion with their views. =A0*sigh* =A0N=
ot
that I don't appreciate your input, Jim. =A0I do. =A0I just wish this
newsgroup was more alive. =A0That or there was some online forum that
has a lively nanotech community discussing things. =A0Know of any? =A0I=
've
looked and haven't found anything yet.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Speculative nanotech discussion has indeed gone very quie=
t in the
last few years. I think mainly because of the dearth of visible activity =
ni
the field - five years or so there was much reporting of simple machines
being made at nanoscale and the like but this seems to have dried up. It =
is
hard to tell whether this is because nobody is working on this kind of th=
ing
anymore or because those who are working are no longer talking about it. =
I
rather hope the latter, there was a few years ago a strong impression tha=
t
the state of the art was reaching a "critical mass" of technique that wou=
ld
soon make useful things possible.
[/quote:21220f2862]
Or possibly what has occurred is the same that has repeatedly occurred
in the AI field. Promising more than can be delivered in an
acceptable-to-the-public period of time. Or a lot of excitement about
something new and then the press gets distracted by the next shiny
object and hypes it.
As for this newsgroup, speculation was frowned upon by some of the
regulars. A vote took place and the "serious" advocates pretty much
were voted in as moderators to help Jim. Discussion then simply dried
up because there wasn't anything fun to talk about. Speculation was
and is fun. Reporting the tiny advances in the field got old quick.
Now this newsgroup is mainly about posting when nanotech papers can be
submitted or when nanotech conventions are taking place. My little
thread here heralds back to the time when this newsgroup welcomed and
entertained speculation. Discussed and argued about it. Talked about
how something might be done with nanotechnology and didn't just say it
couldn't be done. Explored different avenues and approaches. I
believe now as I did then that this was and is how to pull in
"average" people and students to the newsgroup and into the field of
nanotechnology in general.
[quote:21220f2862]=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On the general subject of "How close are we", I wonder ho=
w close we
are now to being able to produce the "Laura S" food synthesiser in some
form - and how many readers there are here who remember it.
[/quote:21220f2862]
Refresh my memory. What is a "Laura S" food synthesizer?
[quote:21220f2862]What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. =A0The nanotech garbage
disposal system I outlined would be something people would have to be
very careful around. =A0If someone fell onto it, they be instantly rip
apart and "recycled" as well. =A0That's why I had the thing in a specia=
l
separate room.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible =
either
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic ones) c=
an
be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium from the chlorine in
table salt).
[/quote:21220f2862]
First, you said "either" but only gave one alternative.
Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and making
stockpiles of them. For example, all salt in one vat.
[quote:21220f2862]General purpose assembler is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk methods.
[/quote:21220f2862]
But then you're still left with junk when it breaks down. I don't in
the slightest believe in doomsday gray goo, but, if we don't
disassemble what we build, that might become a form of gray goo.
Nanojunk.
Scott Jensen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ahem A Rivet's Shot... |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:43:15 -0600
STJensen <RecreationalPoker at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:ca0e3e2175]Or possibly what has occurred is the same that has repeatedly occurred
in the AI field. Promising more than can be delivered in an
acceptable-to-the-public period of time.
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
Maybe - but not many people were promising things.
[quote:ca0e3e2175]Or a lot of excitement about
something new and then the press gets distracted by the next shiny
object and hypes it.
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
Oh sure the press lost interest years ago - if you showed them a
fully functional nanofab today there would probably be a critical review
complaining it wasn't fast enough or it took too much power or somesuch.
[quote:ca0e3e2175]As for this newsgroup, speculation was frowned upon by some of the
regulars. A vote took place and the "serious" advocates pretty much
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
Hmm I've been hanging round this newsgroup for quite a while now
and I don't recall it being quite like that. Certainly there was some
discouragement of the really wild speculation.
[quote:ca0e3e2175]were voted in as moderators to help Jim. Discussion then simply dried
up because there wasn't anything fun to talk about. Speculation was
and is fun. Reporting the tiny advances in the field got old quick.
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
It also stopped happening (the reporting of tiny advances that is) -
it's been a long time since I've seen an announcement of some new device
being made at nanoscale. I recall boggling at the wheelbarrow and assorted
tiny motors, and the talk from Zyvex about a set of components. Last time I
looked over the Zyvex site I saw something that implied they were still
working away at nano scale machinery as well as their more commercial stuff
that dominates the site - I can't readily find it now though.
[quote:ca0e3e2175]Now this newsgroup is mainly about posting when nanotech papers can be
submitted or when nanotech conventions are taking place. My little
thread here heralds back to the time when this newsgroup welcomed and
entertained speculation. Discussed and argued about it. Talked about
how something might be done with nanotechnology and didn't just say it
couldn't be done.
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
I too miss that time.
[quote:ca0e3e2175]Refresh my memory. What is a "Laura S" food synthesizer?
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
http://laura-web.tripod.com/laura-web/id6.html
There was a lot of discussion of it in this group around the time
(2001 it seems - was it really that long ago ??!??).
[quote:ca0e3e2175]
What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. =A0The nanotech
garbage disposal system I outlined would be something people would
have to be very careful around. =A0If someone fell onto it, they be
instantly rip apart and "recycled" as well. =A0That's why I had the
thing in a specia=
l
separate room.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't think a general purpose disassembler is
feasible =
either
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic ones)
c=
an
be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium from the chlorine in
table salt).
First, you said "either" but only gave one alternative.
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
Ah I used either in the sense of "as well" - missing comma methinks.
[quote:ca0e3e2175]Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and making
stockpiles of them. For example, all salt in one vat.
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
Now that may well be much more feasible.
[quote:ca0e3e2175]General purpose assembler is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk methods.
But then you're still left with junk when it breaks down. I don't in
the slightest believe in doomsday gray goo, but, if we don't
disassemble what we build, that might become a form of gray goo.
Nanojunk.
[/quote:ca0e3e2175]
Yep and that is indeed a problem, especially if it's been made to
be tough.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Tyler... |
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
STJensen wrote:
[quote:bc9ae5b1ae]How far are we away from this reality? What can already be done?
What is yet to be developed?
[/quote:bc9ae5b1ae]
What we have today are recycling systems, landfills, incinerators and
sewage-processing plants - which work fairly well.
In the future, things will probably look pretty similar, but there will
be a broader range of bacteria-like processing stages - and probably more
things will be automatically picked out for direct recycling - hopefully
leading to proportionally less incineration and landfill usage.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at (no spam) tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| STJensen... |
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
[quote:167b1a8ead]STJensen <RecreationalPo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either[,]
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic
ones) can be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium
from the chlorine in table salt).
[/quote:167b1a8ead]
[snip]
[quote:167b1a8ead]Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and
making stockpiles of them. =A0For example, all salt in one vat.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Now that may well be much more feasible.
[/quote:167b1a8ead]
Great. I'd appreciate yours and anyone else's thoughts on this. That
means yours, Jim! *laugh*
Such as how much easier would it be? How large could the molecules
get? This last question then affecting how wide the pipeline needs to
be.
[quote:167b1a8ead]General purpose assembler is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting=
it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk method=
s.
But then you're still left with junk when it breaks down. =A0I don't in
the slightest believe in doomsday gray goo, but, if we don't
disassemble what we build, that might become a form of gray goo.
Nanojunk.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yep and that is indeed a problem, especially if it's been=
made to
be tough.
[/quote:167b1a8ead]
So how could a universal dissembler tackle such a problem?
Scott Jensen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ahem A Rivet's Shot... |
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:51:51 -0600
STJensen <RecreationalPoker at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:3abcf7c57c]
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
STJensen <RecreationalPo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either[,]
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic
ones) can be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium
from the chlorine in table salt).
[snip]
Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and
making stockpiles of them. =A0For example, all salt in one vat.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Now that may well be much more feasible.
Great. I'd appreciate yours and anyone else's thoughts on this. That
means yours, Jim! *laugh*
Such as how much easier would it be? How large could the molecules
get? This last question then affecting how wide the pipeline needs to
be.
[/quote:3abcf7c57c]
OK for things made up of smallish molecules it becomes very much
easier because they are not tightly held together and can be grabbed and
moved. Identification of the smallish molecules is an issue of course and
not one I feel qualified to comment on. However for things not composed of
smallish molecules such as metals, polymers and much organic matter life is
not so simple. However apart from metals there are effective bulk methods
for converting most of them into things composed of smallish molecules.
[quote:3abcf7c57c]=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yep and that is indeed a problem, especially if it's
been=
made to
be tough.
So how could a universal dissembler tackle such a problem?
[/quote:3abcf7c57c]
I would tackle the problem by building a self destruct sequence
into the devices rather than expecting a universal disassembler to cope.
Failing that I'd resort to bulk destructive mechanisms such as heat and
oxygen.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| STJensen... |
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
[quote:0c934cdf02]STJensen <RecreationalPo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
STJensen <RecreationalPo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste... at (no spam) eircom.net> wrote:
I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either[,=
]
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic
ones) can be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium
from the chlorine in table salt).
[snip]
Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and
making stockpiles of them. For example, all salt in one vat.
Now that may well be much more feasible.
Great. =A0I'd appreciate yours and anyone else's thoughts on this. =A0T=
hat
means yours, Jim! =A0*laugh*
Such as how much easier would it be? =A0How large could the molecules
get? =A0This last question then affecting how wide the pipeline needs t=
o
be.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 OK for things made up of smallish molecules it becomes ve=
ry much
easier because they are not tightly held together and can be grabbed and
moved. Identification of the smallish molecules is an issue of course and
not one I feel qualified to comment on. However for things not composed o=
f
smallish molecules such as metals, polymers and much organic matter life =
is
not so simple. However apart from metals there are effective bulk methods
for converting most of them into things composed of smallish molecules.
[/quote:0c934cdf02]
So in other words, you think the key is just grinding all garbage down
to as small as possible using conventional methods and then the trick
being to identify what's what? My question is do we currently have
technology that could grind garbage down to the molecule level or
would nanotech have to step in near the end of the grinder chain to
get it there. Then once at this level, it becomes an identification,
separation, and storage process. Does anyone know of anyone that has
or is working on molecule identification? Also, has anyone invented a
nano-scale robotic arm yet?
Scott Jensen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot"
[quote:6ce2c9ec00]Speculative nanotech discussion has indeed gone very
quiet in the last few years. I think mainly because of
the dearth of visible activity ni the field - five
years or so there was much reporting of simple
machines being made at nanoscale and the like but this
seems to have dried up.
[/quote:6ce2c9ec00]
A machine is being build to read DNA that takes a single
strand of DNA, strips off bases one base at a time, and
lets the bases get sucked through a measuring device one
at a time - the measuring device is a pore that only one
base at a time can pass through. As the base passes
through, it partially blocks the pore, modulating the
ion current by an amount that depends on which base it
is.
The machine is constructed from extensively modified
biological molecules, and molecules that are imitations
of or inspired by biological molecules.
The heavy reliance on biology suggests that designing
nanomachines that actually work is hard to do from first
principles.
The machine itself is a very large molecule, covalently
held together, constructed by the usual methods of
convergent synthesis, embedded in a lipid bilayer, which
is itself embedded in a much larger silicon pore in a
silicon chip, which silicon pore has the usual
dimensions of modern logic gates in modern ICs.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:11:08 -0600, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot"
[quote:5ecab7697e]It also stopped happening (the reporting of tiny advances that is) -
it's been a long time since I've seen an announcement of some new device
being made at nanoscale.
[/quote:5ecab7697e]
Third generation DNA readers are nanoscale - though constructed from
biological molecules or imitations thereof, rather than being
diamondal.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:51:51 -0600, STJensen
[quote:ab390eb7f2]So how could a universal dissembler tackle such a
problem?
[/quote:ab390eb7f2]
If you have large, complicated, irregular, non repeating
structures, held together by strong bonds, for example
tar, coal, or humus - (or any nanotech manufactured
article of unknown provenance) a universal disassembler
just is not going to work.
If you have a nanotech manufactured article which you
know is 100% or near 100% made from carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, and nitrogen, then sufficiently hot steam is
going to dissolve it.
So you macroscopically sort the garbage, then chew it up
into small bits, further sort the small bits, soak each
class of bit in acid, or flame, or whatever will
dissolve most of that class of small bit. Most of the
bits gets broken down into a small number of types of
molecule. The residue gets tossed in the too hard
basket.
Tar, coal, and humus, would be soaked in hot steam and
hot carbon dioxide, to yield hydrogen and carbon
monoxide - a small number of types of molecule, all
alike, which are processed to yield desired products,
plus water and carbon dioxide.
Rock is ground into tiny bits, sufficiently fine that
each fragment is a fairly pure chemical compound, and
the bits sorted, yielding a manageably large number of
pure minerals. Each pure mineral can then be dealt
with by a disassembler/assembler appropriate for that
kind of mineral - thus a pile of ferrous silicates gets
dumped in a bath of acid, reducing compounds and
nanomachines. The nanomachines produce macroscopic lumps
of bog iron mingled with fine silica mud, and the bog
iron is macroscopically lifted from the mess using big
magnets.
It is going to resemble present day mining operations,
which often rely on microorganisms to convert minerals
into soluble forms - or indeed mining operations of
1000AD, which often relied on microorganisms to sort low
purity ores into macroscopic lumps of desirable pure
material - bog iron.
Present day mining operations crunch up rock containing
sulfides, then expose the pulverized rock to air and
oxygen so that microorganisms can convert the sulfides
into something soluble. The collection of bog iron was
the reverse of this process.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:40 pm
|
|