/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10606627
all I want is molecular nanotechnology.
>>10606653
soft robotics is a dead end. Why do we want to make robots soft? So that they don't kill people if they hit people. If we can make robots that don't hit people we don't need soft robots. We also want soft robots because we can make soft things pick up stuff without actually understanding how to pick up stuff. If we actually figure out how to pick up stuff we don't need soft grippers. In fact, one of the biggest reasons why soft robotics is a dead end is that as you make a system softer its resonant frequency decreases. This means that a soft robot will never be able to move as fast as this robot because it'd jiggle around too much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmJGWp_K4s
Another issue is that basically all elastomers we know of experience stress relaxation. This means if you stretching something over and over, eventually it won't stretch back. This could limit the life of soft robots. Hard robots currently have lifetimes of 10 years or more.
>>biotech
we just need to keep making steady progress. It will happen, it will take a while.
>>10606651
CO2 exists at ppm concentrations in the atmosphere
>>10606898
>>.t tree farmer
biofuels are an incredibly huge meme. Do you have any idea how long trees take to grow and how hard it is to do anything useful with cellulose? Damn out of all biofuel memes you pretty much picked the biggest one. Solar to chemical conversion is also pretty shitty for plants. That's most just because solar panels have such a great efficiency compared to plants.

>>9834951
Yes. printer resolution test
>>9835053
I don't know what you mean by nanoimplants, but if they are fairly complicated devices most what the field of 'nanotechnology' actually focuses on is not applicable to making such things. If it's a fairly complicated device we probably can't make make it with current manufacturing processes like lithography because there are limitations to the complexity of structures we can make. So we can use conventional chemistry to make these structures, however, it is very difficult to synthesize what would be an incredibly large 'molecule' with a large amount of structural complexity. As in we'd need a complete revolution in conventional chemistry to make anything that large. The problem comes down to yields, each additional synthesis step we have to take decreases the yield. For relatively large things, say 1 micrometer wide, the yield should be basically zero. Not to mention, planning such a large synthesis would be extremely hard. We can use self assembly to put components together, but again we run into similar issues with yields and we don't understand how to do self assembly all that well. We can make stuff out of proteins, but proteins are limited in what they can do and as of yet we are not that great at engineering proteins, especially systems consisting of multiple proteins. So this leaves us with building stuff up by mechanically placing atoms or molecules so that they react in a controlled manner where we want them to. This is called mechanosynthesis, we don't know if it is possible.

However, the possibility of mechanosynthesis has prompted most of what you'd think of as nanotecnnology, like nanobots and shit. It has the best chance of making what you'd think of as nanotechnology if it works. It would be easier and more practical to make controlled geometries with mechanosynthesis than other methods. Chemists are probably going to be the ones that make mechanosynthesis possible.