As you know I am not very fond of commercial solutions
as they thend to be not very fond of portability (reason: user binding).
If you feel confident that the next switch (conservative assumption that it will come) will be automatable with minimal data loss there should be no problem.
Migrating the current posts seems to be a managable task
* there are only 22 threads yet
* at the current posting rate [ ] it seems very reasonable to catch up.
Bottom line - If you provide a new forum I'll try to migrate the posts (all).
BUT there seems to be a problem though. I won't be able to accurately reproduce the threads since I won't and shouldn't be able to post in the name of others.
Sidenote: I fear that our ongoing migration discussions keep others from posting because they might fear their posts will be lost (*). Or didn't any members visist anyway this last month?
(*) btw is there an localized packaged archive of the old newsgroup messages?
Posts by lsuess
"programmable matter" has become a buzzword by now (2015).
It seems to refer
* more to active than passive stuff
* to makro- & micro-scale stuff
* and usually not to atomically precise stuff
With nanofactories and especially with fast recomposers for pre-mechanosynthesized microcomponents
things will become more like: "materializable programs"
(that includes passive nanoscale atomically precise materials)
I think one can't overstate the importance that software will have in a world where programs literally are tangible reality.
If we build our software palace on rotting wooden (and well hidden) code stakes we might be in for a massive unexpected crash.
Out of this (and other) reasons I did some digging into available knowledge about the IMO most advanced practical programming techniques that are currently known. Functional programming.
As it turns out there are quite a few connections between functional programming and atomically precise manufacturing (reversible logic is just one of them). In an attempt to gain a clearer picture of the relationships I created a buzzword graph
(bottom of post).
I'd recommend checking out the currently reviving language Haskell
and/or the new baby language elm (the first first order functional reactive language there is)
My first contact with functional programming was via a course which required the reading of the article
"why functional programming matters" - for me it was quite an interesting and eye opening read.
Here it is (CC BY - Lukas M. Süss):
(The source file editable with the free java program "yEd")
Please share your thoughts.
According to this comparison:
FUD forum has a bigger community.
The only slight downsides I spotted there are:
- "no friendly URLS"
- viewer but still many plugins
- the "mobile view" seems to be lacking a bit.
- no topic tags, no syntax highlighting, ugly standard skin (all minor)
So I'd be fine with FUDforum.
Maybe you could actively contact the forum members and ask them to fill out a poll?
Quote from JimL (JIMLOGAJAN)
>> So if you see major technical advantages (excluding experimental features) in UBB.Threads maybe this is the better solution.
I haven't come to any decision yet about what will replace Beehive. UBB.Threads is only better than Beehive in some aspects; it remains to be seen if it is optimal. I do know that when I try to use a browser on an iPad with Beehive, it can't handle quoting (in fact the quoting mechanism isn't very good in general.) I need to do further research.
I realized that the quoting button in the editor is unresponsive sometimes (both on firefox and chrome) - as an (admittedly ugly) workaround it is possible to hit the quote button under the post to reply to before hitting the reply button and then awkwardly copy past the quote box.
About your further research:
Thanks for your effort, keep us informed and if you run into any troubles just let us nowQuote from JimL (JIMLOGAJAN)
>> * problems in the closed source parts -> tell them and pray
Problems in open source -> tell them and pray or solve the problem yourself.
The "solve it yourself" option (you in plural - ok its part of "them") is IMO one more option that can become really powerful once the molecular nanotechology community grows beyond a critical level (I sure hope it will). A strong self-preservation interest might be a powerful motivation.Quote from JimL (JIMLOGAJAN)
>> * company goes out of business -> you're forced to leave the sinking ship
Unless the last release is broken there should be no reason to switch software. I frequent two piloting forums that use vBulletin that stopped upgrading to the latest release of vBulletin years ago - the company may as well have gone out of business. They seem to have survived OK.
I think it still may be decades till APM takes off not just a few years. One of the things I am most afraid of are emerging super smart spamming AI's that might emerge not too far in the future. In this regard I am afraid to become a sitting target.
Oops I've completely overlooked that inyoka is german only since its my mother tongue => not an option.
>> "... Commercial or proprietary aren't an issue so long as support is available and competent without costing great amounts of money."
I personally prefer open source software mainly out of those reasons:
* problems in the closed source parts -> tell them and pray
* company goes out of business -> you're forced to leave the sinking ship
Based on the open/proprietary criterion I'd prefer PhpBB over UBB.Threads.
But you obviously did quite a bit of research already judging from your comment:
>> "I've never liked the vBulletin software and the company appears to have had some past internal problems. ..."
So if you see major technical advantages (excluding experimental features) in UBB.Threads maybe this is the better solution.
Please don't decide too hasty for a new one.
I think the most important things are
A.) lots of usage which forces the (big) user community to keep it working and documented
B.) the possibility of easy backup and migration
I went for mediawiki for my peronal wiki since wikipedia uses it too (mediawiki doesn't shine in point B though)
There is nothing comparable to mediawiki-wikipeia in the world of forum software though.
The two currently (2015) most commonly used forum softwares are according to a quick investigation I just did phpBB and vBulletin.
1.) Among the forums I regularely visit the software I most often encountered was phpBB
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhpBB -- open source with friendly homepage
2.) vBulletin -- this one is proprietary though
Might Inyoka be an option ?? -- I'm always amazed about the quality of documentation for ubuntu.
It seems to be a multi purpouse CMS (wiki + forum + blog ?)
I just found this and haven't looked into it in any detail.
I guess you know this page already:
Quote from JimL (JIMLOGAJAN)
Will try to respond to your posts next week, but I do have a quick answer regarding the fate of the Nanorex software. Fortunately the software was released as open source and can be found here on github:
Well I did new some sources for the software (as you can see here down in my instructions section: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:13786)
I was mainly referring too all the valuable documentation in the nanorex development wiki and the original centralized visual publications of all the crystolecule together at one place with detailed descriptions and background info beside. It kind of hurts that all this is gone.
I've now detangled the core convergent assembly decisions in Chris Phoenix's
"Design of a Primitive Nanofactory" document.
I've separated it from other IMO less important decisions about geometric and other things.
Here are the relevant crop-outs:
quote: Chris (CHRISPHOENIX)
4. Nanofactory Architecture
... The current design, ... uses only one block from each fabricator per product cycle. This implies that each stage will receive all its blocks in parallel. In general, then, each stage must have either eight (non-redundant) or nine or ten (redundant) inputs. (The first gathering stage has only four inputs, to compensate for the eighteen inputs of the final stage in the production module; see below.) ... A square of nine fabricators (one redundant) forms a stage. ... Likewise, a square of nine of these stages forms the next stage. This continues through several levels; in the current design, four levels is chosen ... unlike Merkle's design, each input port delivers only one block per product cycle instead of two. ...
4.3. Gathering stages
... product assembly requires 14 further assembly stages where each stage assembles 64 sub-blocks to produce eight product blocks. ... A final stage, ... assembles eight ... sub-blocks (per product cycle) to produce the final product. Note that the first stage in the Figure is not an assembly stage, but serves only to gather 8 sub-blocks for delivery to the next stage, since each production module makes only two blocks per product cycle. Each assembly stage gathers 64 sub-blocks from substages, assembles them within the assembly/delivery tube, and delivers the 8 assembled blocks to the superstage.
Since its a bit tricky to read out the specifics about the "welding" between the lower stages and upper stages with the frame of reference shifting around I'll reformulate it.
I hope I can make it more obvious that there is no discontinuity or convergent-assembly-character-change.
The four 4 lower stages (including the fabricators at the bottom) make up a production module which has 8(+1*) outputs
Now 2 production modules
with each 8(+1*)subblocks = 1fullblock of outputs
make 16(+2*)subblocks = 2fullblocks of output together.
This is a production module pair.
The first(isn't it the only one) gathering stage takes four production module pairs as inputs and thus gets 16*4=64subblocks which equates to 2*4=8fullblocks.
Those do not get assembled here yet. This does not change the character of the convergent assembly though. It makes just a small local delay.
Stages further up take 8*8=64fullblocks and assemble them to 8biggerfullblocks
(Did I get that right?)
As far as I can see all the these stages with identical convergent assembly characteristic can simply be added up. This makes all in all 4+14=16Stages.
Assuming a throughput capacity (not throughput!) of 1kg per second at the topmost stage (gross underestimation) calculating downwards toward the stage just before the fabricators leads to a throughput capacity of 2^16kg~=64000kg/second - wow. The fabricators at the bottom though won't come even close to 1kg per second of throughput. I see a major mismatch everywhere. I hope this formulation makes more clear what I'm trying to get at than the abstract formulation that I've given above.
I think it would be great to have a clean separation of convergent assembly parameters and geometric design.
This way one could just dial in the parameters (and step-sizes) and out comes an auto-generated 3D model.
Practical designs will probably only be viewable in their entirety (over wide scales) with visualization methods similar to the one I've outlined above.
quote: Lukas (LSUESS)
What also bothers me is that although this is supposed to be a practical design it adheres rather closely to the very small side-length doubling steps which I've tried to argue against above.
Ooops I've missed that line:
quote: Chris (CHRISPHOENIX)
The design can be compacted somewhat if multiple convergent assembly stages can be combined; such optimization is beyond the scope of this paper.
Here's my personal opinion on existing crystolecule designs.
Just a gut feeling:
10 ... will probably work without redesign
1 ... will probably need major re-modelling
X ... I doubt this makes sense
universal joint: 9/10
E. Drexlers big bearing 9/10
spur gear systems: 8/10
planetary gearboxes 7/10
neon pump: 5/10
acetylene sorting pump: 1/10
super-tiny steward platform inspired manipulator: X/10
Some preceding information:
With the term "crystolecules" I'm going to refer to the diamondoid molecular machine elements of advanced prospective nanosystems.
Before I start I need to take a step back:
I suspect the nanorex website went down because of the drop in funding due to the NNI censorship incident. Is that correct?
I doubt it would be expensive to at least keep it as an read only archive.
But I guess there is another reason for why it was not put up again.
Namely: The animations of crystolecules
Check out this blogpost:
"Nanomachines: How the Videos Lie to Scientists"
"By now, many scientists have seen videos of molecular-scale mechanical devices like the one shown here, and I have no way to know how many have concluded that the devices are a lot of rubbish ... If only all these videos could be recalled and upgraded in the way shown below ... In short, the videos seem to show devices in which the drag of sliding friction would be enormous, and the rate of heating would be astronomical. ... What the video shows isn’t vibrational motion ... but instead a stroboscopic sample of atomic positions ... "
here is the misleading stroboscopic illusion:
here is a more realistic visualization:
I feel the current situation makes it increasingly difficult to find the original files. I don't think hiding those animations and waiting till there are better methods for rendering crystolecules is a good idea. Instead I think it should suffice to add the note "beware of the stroboscopic illusion" (ideally directly onto the pixel-data so it is safely preserved).
Do you agree / disagree / ... ?
There is a second trapdoor in those depictions that might lead to false assumptions and quick dismissal.
E. Drexler doesn't note it in the aforementioned blogpost but has AFAIK mentioned this elsewhere (in fragments?).
It is about the misjudgment of the stability of surfaces.
While hydrogen terminated diamond surfaces (that do not even touch each other) do not pose so much of a problem (there are even detailed papers analyzing diamond surface stability on small particles by now) many crystolecules feature surfaces with fancy passivations containing other elements that may introduce significant internal stresses.
Since scientists are currently forced to work in reactive environments (including water, air and even UHV) they tend to judge chemical stability more than thermal stability. But in the envisioned working environment (a practically perfect vacuum PPV) thermal stability alone suffices.
Thermal stability alone is a much much weaker requirement than chemical stability against aggressive media thus the range of usable structures gets a lot bigger in a PPV environment. 
Here are some examples:
Lesser subject to mislead criticism: purely hydrocarbon universal joint:
certainly stable 20°C Vacuum AND certainly stable in aggressive chemical media.
Stronger subject to mislead criticism: alternatively passivated universal joint:
certainly stable 20°C Vacuum BUT stability in chemical aggressive media (including water and air) not yet investigated.
Stronger subject to mislead criticism: Drexlers famous big bearing!
I made this 3D printable version
The data is here: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:631715
If you want one too you can order it here at shapeways for net cost price.
Lesser subject to mislead criticism: "DMSE-Tetrapod ("crystolecule")" (of my own design)
There is someone planning to gamify something nanofactory related (crystolecule design?).
Column bottom left here: https://hgfedcba-box.appspot.com/
I doubt this is going anywhere though see: https://sites.google.com/site/roboticscoop/home and judge for yourself.
I'd like to think that gamifying crystolecule design is a good idea.
Do you think it is practicably possible ... ?
Since this is "future backward" work (analog to top down & bottom up) I think one needs to be especially careful considering you let people loose on those problems who have no prior knowledge at all.
Here's one example for a possible pitfall:
Putting too much oxygen near carbon.
If you replace all the silicon atoms in normal Quartz (SiO2/silicon dioxide) with carbon you'd end up with something like "carbon quartz". While this material is probably thermally stable at room temperature (and super hard) it is very likely to be a highly potent explosive almost like sp3-nitrogen (solid at 20°C 1bar).
Also the last published nanoengineer-1 version does not correctly simulate electron deficiency bonds! You can check that by trying to enclosing a BN pair into a tiny diamond crystal. The result is waay to much repulsion between B and N. It's almost as if you had included two nitrogens atoms resulting in massive overlap repulsion between the two electron lone pairs. To prevent flawed designs emerging from this either boron and aluminium need to be made unavailable or the software needs to be extended to be able to handle these correctly (Is this possible with mere mass spring models?)
If gamifying crystolecules (among other things) works out we might really build up quite a bit of an
"left foot theoretical scientific overhang" like J. Storrs Hall mentions in this video:
I think this video needs more views. Please share it.
By now though I personally don't think we have so great of an overhang yet but that may change.
ps: (I'll edit in the images once I've dug them out - done)
 Does anyone here know whether the nanorex website with its nanoengineer-1 development wiki still exist?
Here's the old address - almost dead link (intended):
As far as I can remember there was some interesting stuff in there. So interesting that I even made printouts. Maybe I'll find them ...
 The only restriction is that everything on diamondoid atomically precise products that faces outward IS chemically stable so there are a lot less options available.
Related note regarding recycling: (a speculative idea)
Diamond does not dissolve in water or rot away so it has good potential to pollute the environment if it somehow manages to leave macroscopic chunks of machine phase.
Here is an idea how to make APM products biodegradable:
Instead of a thin diamond shell that is almost indestructible by all means of weathering and all of natures bio-attacks one adds a rather thick sacrificial layer that slowly dissolves or rubs off. This makes the hull. If the product is intended for longer use it may be replenishable from the inside. (Microcomponent dis-assembly will become harder with undefined outermost surfaces though)
One diamondoid material (of several that use abundant elements exclusively) that may be usable for this is I think periclase (= Magnesium Oxide = MgO). It is a salt that does only very slowly dissolve in water. If the whole product (not a nanofactory - rather drinking bottles and the other stuff that usually ends up swimming in the sea) shall be biodegradable one must forgo using diamond for all its internal parts too.
Periclase wont work well for bearings though - anyone any idea whether it is possible to sensibly passivate such a salt for bearing interfaces - it should be usable for structural elements though. Quartz (a substance nature knows well) might be better usable for bearing surfaces. Oxygen bridges make it much more porous than C, Si, SiC and similar compounds though.
Btw I collect and classify many materials that may be suitable for advanced nano-fabrication here:
One of my favorites is the yet mysterious "beta carbon nitride" (no big chunks made yet)
Which is what you get when you make the most out of air.
There's this common misconception that natural systems that use diffusion transport are fundamentally more efficient than systems that do not use thermal motion in that way. In reality though it seems machine phase system will fare better than enzymatic diffusion based systems could ever do though.
I was pointed there by this blog entry of E.Drexler:
"... (note: transporting molecules by diffusion down a concentration gradient is not cost-free — it pays the same free-energy cost as any other way of driving the motion of molecules). ...
And a lecture about "Molecular Biology of the Cell"
About the energy flows in living systems (ATP, NADH, ion gradients, ...)
What is overlooked is that while the diffusion-transport (in cell biology) is free in energy expenditure one has to expend/thermalize energy packets at critical points (waiting positions?) in the chain of reactions that are significantly bigger than kBT (kB..Bolzmann constant, T..temperature in Kelvin). This is necessary to ensure that the system is irreversibly moving in the desired forward direction (often formulated as having a defined "arrow of time"). In diffusive systems with enzymes in solution reactions are mostly unconnected* in sequence (time) and pathway (space). Because of this unconnectedness the kBT energy packets** can't be shared over a greater number of reactions.
* still more than one might think
** not a quantas!!
In non diffusive stiff machine phase system one in contrast can connect multiple mechanosynthesis mills in the background e.g. via rotating shafts (space) and shift their processing cycle slightly in phase (time) this should allow sharing of the necessary energy devaluation (as mentioned before for a defined process direction) over a much greater amount of reactions.
(By combining streams suitably maybe even many of the aforementioned waiting positions can be cheated!)
Furthermore machine phase systems can be heavily cooled making a single packet of kBT much smaller. In a diffusive system cooling would just freeze the solvent preventing the whole system from working.
This sharing of a single energy devaluation step combined with some cooling should by far outweigh the low superlubricative friction which is not present in diffusive systems.
Considering E.Drexlers comment in the aforementioned blog enty he has probably figured all this out.
It does not seem he has written it down anywhere publicly though.
I think this aspect of APM systems deserves more attention so I'm bringing it up here.
Investigation is needed: (Have you guys any ideas here?)
Needed are methods for the calculation / rough estimation for at which points in space and time there still needs to be expenditure of energy sufficiently>kBT in stiff machine phase systems?
Here are some details that may help:
First there is the parameter of allowed amount of random backward run in mechanosynthesis processes (a whole nanofactory subsystem running backward "in time").
Then there are internal flexibilities in e.g. aforementioned rotating shafts in the background. These make quantum modes of
torsion oscillations (gear interfaces will complicate matters). Those modes will likely house several kBT (as phonons) at room temperature (not too hard to check). Even with those many kBT in the interconnected-background-axle-system single units sufficiently>>kBT might be shareable due to low amplitudes of added up modes in stiff systems.
(Will spacial sharing work over the whole makro-system of a nanofactory ?! That would be way more than necessary!)
Irrelevant side-note: I doubt one will get down to the ground state at any practical temperatures. Oscillation energy quanta are usually way bigger than rotation quanta but those axle systems will contain millions of atoms.
Relevant side-note: All this only makes sense if beside reversible logic also reversible actuators are designed and applied (energy recuperation). I'am not aware on any works that target and analyze these. I think this is an interesting topic to investigate too (material for another discussion). Reversible actuators should be especially easy in the molecular mills that do not change their routine cycle. But it should also be possible in general purpose assembly since the program is known.
- Also in machine phase systems - while certainly not efficient - local spots in space or time can (if necessary) truly handle motions at the speed of sound which is rather impossible in diffusive systems.
- Despite their relative inefficiency diffusive systems seem to be incredibly useful for early steps. Efficiency is meaningless if is not buildable. E. Drexler writes in the aforementioned blog post:
"... While early systems can (and likely will) operate in fluids, considerations of efficiency will favor a move to well-ordered, fluid-free systems."
ps: This is highly uncharted territory.
There is a high probability that I'm talking complete bogus here.
If you spot anything suspicious please tell.
Luckily its called "Sci-Nanotech" which is used nowhere else (brand like). If the forum where called more bland and generic "The Nanotechnology Forum" that would IMO pose a problem.
About that it is necessary to use common terms in public awareness work - agree -
The serious problem is that searching with the term "nanotechnology" has become like moving a magnet ball through an iron maze on a balancing board (excuse the analogy).
I think the usefulness of the term "nanotechnology" has already dropped to the level of the lesser known alternatives (but out of this different reason)
People who are seriously searching will hopefully come across other terms then just "nanotechnology".
(another keyword would be: "molecular sciences")
- 0 request for forum "folders" ... remaining in general
- 0 Deathly quiet here ... remaining
- 2 Vacuum Lockout - concepts old and new ... far goal
- 0 Thank you, Jim! ... remaining
- 2 Nanofactory block diagram ... far goal
- 3 Electrostatic focusing on the atomic scale ... applications
- 0 Youtube+APM again ... remaining
- 2 convergent assembly and its visualization ... far goal
- 0 DARPA Robotics Challenge Finals, 2015 ... >remaining< / (far goal) / (misc)
- 0 Members List ... remaining
- 0 Drexler Joins Nanotronics ... remaining
- 6 Quantum computers ... misc (decision based on initial post not thread title)
- 0 A Poll to Stimulate Discussions ... remaining (<- spelling error "Pole" corrected)
- 4 Synthetic chemistry machine ... path
- 4 When will the Foresight Grand Prize will be claimed? ... path
- 4 Nanoscale magnets to actuate DNA machines? ... path
- 0 YouTube Nanotech show? ... remaining
- edit1: 1 diffusion transport efficiency misconception ... basics
- edit2: 2 the Disappearance of the Crystolecules ... far goal
- 5 impacts ... no threads yet
I think this was rather easy to decide/classify.
I've based those categories on the 200+ slides I've made that I've mentioned in the "Youtube+APM" thread - so I do have put quite some thought in them.
But you're right - its unclear how posters will behave.
Well, "molecular nanotechology" has attained quite some usage (easily checkable by google image search - in quotes!) and I think that Eric Drexler has at least some influence on terminology so I'am not sure whether "Atomically precise manufacturing" will or will not be adopted.
The issue is that people tend to cling to a save haven where they think they have some knowledge but this always invariably leads conversations astray.
E.Drexler tries to condense this down here: http://metamodern.com/2014/04/…-kinds-of-nanotechnology/
I count five kinds of nanotechnology, ... This situation makes it extraordinarily difficult to have a productive conversation about what really matters.
Other terms certainly cannot be used in an introduction or as a tag for others to find it. Thats why I wrote:Quote
" ... - new terms are not usable for search keywords though - ... "
Vacuum lockout is one of the most essential steps in advanced diamondoid nanofactories. If you watch the "productive nanosystems" video attentively though you'll realize that this important step is conveniently omitted. Why is that? I vaguely suspect the reason for this sore omission is that there aren't any simple and convincing ideas for doing this yet.
Also in "Radical Abundance" the vacuum lockout process is mentioned rather briefly.
In "Radical Abundance" page149 chapter10 Eric Drexler writes:
"...The door to the right then unseals and opens, and a car moves out into the receiving area,sealed in what looks like a plastic sleeve. A moment after the door releases, the sleeve is pulled back for recycling and the process is done. (This exit maneuver is part of a cycle that prevents contaminants from entering when the product exits.) ... Instead, at the touch of another button, the car rolls into a neighboring machine where its parts are recycled." I think I've somewhere read about an idea (which is the most up to date one - I think) keeping practically perfect vacuum right up to the macro-scale and extruding the product in a sausage shaped balloon through a tube that seals atomically tight. -- I very much dislike this idea because:
* recycling (of microcomponents) seems a lot more difficult
* not using the small chamber effect
* it is a single point of failure for the whole factory
* probably not relevant: opening gap through hard crash or mishandling => scratches through dirt or vacuum breach
Wrapped up I perceive a lack of convincing vacuum lockout methods.
Thus I searched for a more elegant solution.
Here is what I came up with for a new vacuum lockout concept for nanofactories:
Please share your thoughts!
(details: http://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=Vacuum_handling )
I plan to publish the 3D-model when it is in a 3D-printable state.
Here's a little preview video of the operation process:
I think the best place in the convergent assembly chain to include these devices is just before the microcomponents assembly step. At this point all open radicals are already passivated and you can do further assembly by exclusive shape locking (& VdW force) in a clean but reactive gas environment.
Beside the aforementioned "sausage lockout" concept basically all of the ideas that are still flowing around are I believe remnants from the time when assemblers where still considered a valid approach.
4.11.2 Merkle Replicating Brick Assembler (1995-1997)
* extruding block concept: http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/Figures/4.38.JPG
* the same with details: http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/Figures/4.42.JPG
* throwaway scrolled up graphite hull concept: http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/casing.html
I think because of the lack of new ideas for nanofactories assembler targeted concepts made it into the nanofactory targeted Book Nanosystems:
* Nanosystems Page 417 figure 14.2 -- elastic balloon extending
* Nanosystems Page 417 figure 14.3 -- sliding blocks
(Afaik there was some work done on that sliding cube concept by Tihamer (Tee) Toth-Fejel)
Related too vacuum lockout I once made this model of a bellow that could be made from diamondoid material. (Image Public Domain)
Assemblers (for which this was originally intended for) are outdated now but maybe this can be used for something else.
The surfaces in this model are kept parallel to the main crystallographic axes.
Sadly I've lost 3D-data of the newest version of the openscad file.
>> JimL: "Unless it involves a [molecular] wardrobe malfunction, I'm not sure what would compel anyone to view such videos." (from an earlier thread)
>> Snowman: "Orrrrrrr do you mean videos about nanotechnology? If so, have the hot babes wear very very very small bikinis."
If you're so hell bent on sex-sells how about that:
The key to reliable success when trying to reach the desired reaction:
- stiff tools
- forceful and skillful interaction
- well bond partners
- pressing in repeatedly
Mechanosynthesis is hot!
Bad joke aside - the key to generating interest is quality content (in small chunks).
One has to archive the miracle of high density information mated with first class entertainment.
>> Snowman: "Or...r, just do simply explanation videos. "What's nanotechnology?" ... "
I think we should not try to reclaim the term "nanotechnology".
A term that was annexed from others** because it lacks specificity.
(**people doing unrelated research on non atomically precise nano-scale stuff)
In his new Book "Radical Abundance" Eric Drexler tried to introduce the new term "atomically precise manufacturing (APM)" shunning the term he used earlier namely "molecular nanotechnology". IMO "atomically precise manufacturing" is too much of a mouthful. I'm not sure it will find widespread use.
If we want to refer to the advanced diamondoid stuff only (explicitly excluding e.g. DNA origami) we still need another term. By composing E.Drexlers terminology we would arrive at "diamondoid APM" - even more of a mouthful. A term I came up with recently was "Gemstone Meta-material Technology" or more catchy and exemplary "Gem-Gum Technology" - new terms are not usable for search keywords though - any further ideas for terms are welcome.
I collect existing terminology and ideas for new terms on this page:
>> Snowman: "Or...r, just do simply explanation videos. ... "What's a nanite?" "
There are a lot of terms for more or less free floating nanorobots around already but most of them (including "nanite") do not concretize on what exactly they mean. They are just chosen to sound cool in a SciFi setting.
Instead they spawn faulty associations with living cells/bugs. Common are:
- faulty assumption of existence of mutations
- faulty assumption of capability of "digesting" a very wide variety of "food"
- faulty assumption of the necessity that they must be capable of self replication
Major exception are Robert Freitas medical nanorobots like e.g. his respirocyte.
Also J.Storrs Halls utility foglets. (Those are still rather general though.)
What people probably most often think when they hear the common terms for nanorobots though are "molecular assemblers" but those are by now considered:
- impractical (inefficient and harder to reach than nanofactories)
- undesirable (because of real forms of grey goo - less crazy than the SciFi depictions but still bad)
- but not fundamentally impossible (advanced nanofactories should be programmable to build them)
These opinion is now held from all the core experts including E.Drexler & Co
1992...2015 => molecular assemblers are by now 22 years out of date
Robert Freitas too - as you can hear in this video:
There are several other types of more or less autonomous and more or less freely movable nano-robotic devices:
- elasticity emulating microcomponents (specialised weaker form of utility foglets)
- microcomponent maintenance devices for low throughput maintenance purposes in products. While the products are actively running they could e.g. exchange radiation damaged parts and keep the products (e.g. motor material inside infrastructure) functional for arbitrary long spans of time. In contrast to molecular assemblers they would be incapable of self replication or mechanosynthesis.
- lots and lots of further ones ...
Nanorobots are only a small side dish to the so much overlooked diamondoid metamaterials though.
Those are the real basis for the gro of advanced diamondoid APT products.
I'am collecting my findings about diamondoid metamaterials here:
Request for forum "folders":
- 1 APM specific basics (Basics)
- 2 far term productive nanosystems (Far Goal)
- 3 far term products (Applications)
- 4 near term path (Path)
- 5 speculative economical and ecological consequences (Impacts)
- 6 off-topic misc (Misc)
Currently the folder "Impacts and Applications" mixes up two of them.
I guess threads can't be relocated in retrospect (by admin / thread starter) - can they?
Request for forum "folders":
- APM specific basics (Basics)
- far term productive nanosystems (Far Goal)
- far term products (Applications)
- near term path (Path)
- speculative economical and ecological consequences (Impacts)
- off-topic misc (Misc)
Currently the folder "Impacts and Applications" mixes up two of them.
Due to it's importance I've moved this comment to its own thread: