So the Set described in the there discussed tooltip paper ( molecularassembler.com/Papers/MinToolset.pdf ) is not reversible in the bond-topology-state.
Since the goal of the study did not include the additional burden of that requirement, I am not surprised. Efficient reversibility would see a longer-term goal.
I made a 3D model for visualizing the qualitative progression of the energy wells that is necessary for a energetically reversible mechanosynthetic operation. This model is quantitatively disconnect from any particular physical process like e.g. hydrogen abstraction.
apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?ti…nosynthesis_principle.jpg
I'm afraid I don't know what the image is supposed to be showing me. None of the axis are labeled - do you have some additional context or discussion somewhere?
Display MoreIf mechanosynthesis can't be made bond-topologically reversible from the early on start the only way to get rid of obsolete versions would be by:
* burning them - only possible if they don’t form slack due to incorporated Si,Al,Ti,...
* dissolving them (Sodium beam treatment, Acids, ...)
If even that will not be done we might sink deeply into diamondoid waste.
I think that might be the most severe and most overlooked danger of APM.
I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how one can draw any inference about future tools from the first set of invented tools for molecular carbon mechanical synthesis. I skimmed sections 13.3.7, 13.3.8, and 8.5.2 of Nanosystems and it does not look to me like there are any dangers. Even if none of the released binding energy were stored for later re-use, the universe is awash in thermonuclear energy. I think it is something of a technical oddity that so much of it is temporarily inaccessible. Energetically inefficient nanotech production would still be, on a relative scale, far more efficient than current tech production.