GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994406 I've always been interested in nanotechnology and it plays a part in my book I'm writing. As an interesting side note the reason we're turning to biology, gene engineering, etc. is because this stuff is way too complicated for us to produce and we must rely on already functioning components like in bacteria. Manufacturing the simplest possible nanobot at the rate of one million parts per second (which is by far much faster than our technology can achieve now) would produce one single functional nanobot in about 3000 trillion years. |
|
Papillon Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: 04-22-2002 |
Where are you getting these numbers from? |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Previous research that I did months ago for my book... though my memory is fuzzy on exactly which group of nanotechnology experts provided those numbers (I really should get into a habit of making notes like this when writing). It hasn't been something I've thought about in a while. I'm mainly researching NASA stuff now (which is easy considering my location). EDIT: I will note that since I pulled those numbers off the top of my head they may be off slightly. It could be it would only take 30 or 300 trillion years... like the difference matters that much. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 21, 2003).] |
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: I'm interested - how many parts does a nanobot require? Why does it need to be so complex? ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
I'd have to look for the number of atoms required for the simplest nanobot. Machines at such a small level need to be constructed one atom at a time. IBM was the first to do "nanotechnology" as in they moved xenon atoms around on a plate to form their logo, and that took all day just for 35 atoms... you get the idea. Basically, it's currently impossible for any man-made machine to construct a nanobot in a feasible amount of time and to make it worthwhile scientists have to rely on the mechanisms already built into biological objects like bacteria. |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Ahh, atom-by-atom. Yup, that would take a long time  . Although if you don't mind things being a bit bigger, we've made strides with the technology that we currently use to make microchips - I think we've made small motors that way.But yeah, doing it on an atomic level is currently unfeasible. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Well, the difference is that's etching into materials while nano-machines would need to be constructed from atoms instead of hunks of elements. Very different construction process, plus you have to deal with different level of physics. |
c h i e f y Member Posts: 415 From: Surrey, United Kingdom Registered: 03-07-2002 |
I'm no fan of Prince Charles, absolutely not HOWEVER THIS TIME - could he be right? could he possibly be correct that nano-technology is SO BIG that it's product will outreach it's human "inventors" :O on a nightmare scale dwarfing the risks of nuclear power even ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
The self replicating unintelligent grey mass could easily be stopped with a bomb or two. The problem is what if scientists, let's say from North Korea, were able to create a weapon that was a "cloud" that was designed to hunt down life. The grey mass would be easy to stop because it's detectable while a invisible cloud of these things could presumably get out of control and then make things miserable for the locals. You could conceivably detect a large attacking mass and destroy it, but if you missed any part of that they would just start self-replicating until large enough to attack again. Most likely the military would just nuke the whole area with a small hydrogen bomb just to make sure all of the nanobots were destroyed. How else could you be sure you got them all? Crichton was way overboard with his "evolutionary programming" in Prey. Those algorithms do not work at all unless you have an independant program watching the progress to ensure that only the "good" altercations actually are used and the process isn't entirely random. Thus, a self-modifying nano-cloud like in Prey couldn't happen. Well, unless you specifically programmed a portion of the mass to be a static computer that controlled the progress of the rest of the nanobats, but that would have to be a large lump that always stayed together so it would be easy to find and destroy. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 24, 2003).] |
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
just to continue this thread here is an interesting article from 3 years ago on the subject http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20001101-298.html ------------------ |
|
c h i e f y Member Posts: 415 From: Surrey, United Kingdom Registered: 03-07-2002 |
Klumsy - that is an eye opener for sure!
quote: intelligent communicating bacteria? whatever next? talking on nanotechnology: quote: ooops the final truth: quote: ------------------ |
AmazingJas Member Posts: 437 From: Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA Registered: 04-03-2003 |
Don't you guys watch Stargate or Startrek? We do not want to play with nanites, they will take over the world and kill us all! BTW, didn't a Japanese company build a tiny little replica car using atoms, that actually drove around? Think of the fuel economy? 30 miles per atom! |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
true, nanotechnology can be dangerous, but it can also be extremely helpful. it also might be able to protect us from other nanobots, etc. New technology is almost always risky and dangerous. but then again, practically everything is. all to do is trust in God. pretty reassuring, huh. ------------------ |
|
AmazingJas Member Posts: 437 From: Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA Registered: 04-03-2003 |
you mean there are other nanobots out there?? Yikes!! Run for the hills! |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
If they are ever made (although I doubt it), I think they could be contained or destroyed, even if they got out. We already have nanobots in a way - bacterium. I think the same factors that limit the reproduction of bacterium would limit the reproduction of nanobots. The exponential growth can't be sustained forever. They'd probably be pretty fragile also. Take some acid or other corrosive agent, bye-bye nanobots. In any case, a successfully self-replicating machine would be extremely complex. It has to gather materials, convert them to a useful form, and go through the painful, even slow process of creating a pretty much perfect copy of itself. It'll probably take a *lot* longer than 1000 seconds for a single generation. I doubt I'll see any within my lifetime. ------------------ |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
for alot of technology, ignorance has caused people to fear it. ------------------ |
