/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4319835

>The popular conception of nanotechnology is K. Eric Drexler's concept of nanobots, like industrial robots scaled down a billion times. This is entirely made of bollocks and would violate physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics.

All Drexler talked about were nanoscale robot arms. See pic.

As for violations of physics, chemistry and thermo: The last item refers, probably, to the idea that a 'self-replicating nanobot' (A term created by the nonsensical bandwagon that spawned from Engines of Creation) would essentially burn due to the waste heat of rapid self-replication. Though nobody has actually done the math I bet it would be a problem. Thankfully, Drexler's vision of nanotechnology is not about self-replicating nanobots, so we can skip that.

As for chemistry, well, we'll probably be hearing Richard Smalley's arguments against molecular manufacturing, so I'll just let Ralph Merkle refute those: http://www.imm.org/publications/sciamdebate2/smalley/

Now, notice the sources of the statement: The first is an article by Richard Jones, a critic of Drexler's vision of nanotechnology (Who's still cool though). However, he has said that he does not think it's impossible, and he says, answering the question "Does Nanosystems contain obvious errors that can quickly be shown to invalidate it?" [cont]

>>3987754

Maybe you'll get some discussion out of /diy/, which seems to me would be more interested in open manufacturing than all the aspies in /sci/.

>mfw someone else knows of the nanoengineer gallery

Anyways, chemistry most definitely, although physics and engineering can provide useful background for NEMS and MEMS machinery.

Nanosystems is entirely based on scaling laws of mechanical engineering applied at the nanoscale, with considerations (Surface effects etc.)

I've been thinking about kinematic, self-replicating machines.
Of the underwater kind. Most proposals of 'Universal Constructors', roving the desert, mining materials, sorting them on solar-powered furnaces would probably be blocked by environmentalist organizations or fears of macroscale gray goo. The Mojave desert would be a good testing ground for the robots, but they probably wouldn't get further out. Moreover, the added cost of the self-replicating machinery to the actual working machinery would be so great that most industries would be comfortable buying many ready-made copies of non-replicating, but highly efficient at what they do, machines. With that, self-replicating systems are only viable in environments were human presence has not been too great and the starting cost of building an output would be too great. Here, under the sea, underground, and in space, self-replicating systems can reduce the starting cost of initial, pioneering ventures.

>Power
An OTEC would in itself be a significant investment, compared to the cost of the other initial machinery. Underwater you can't use solar panels, obviously, but there is still hope:
>In contrast to the approximately 2 °C ambient water temperature at these depths, water emerges from these vents at temperatures ranging from 60 °C up to as high as 464 °C.
Hydrothermal vents are sufficiently energy-dense for energy to be drawn from the temperature gradient between the mouth of the vent and the surrounding sea using smaller OTECs. This would probably perturb existing life.

>Mineral sources
The bottom of the ocean contains vast areas of untapped resources, and there are deposits of extremely valuable Rare Earths which can be mined at a cost far lower than bringing them from the asteroids. Setting up the mining machinery, and the probing machinery, inexpensively, could be done by having self-replicating systems manufacture the different robots required for the task.