/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8132982
>>ultra-violent light
that's a great miss.
>>nanite
I see this word posted a lot, it means nothing.

>>8133011
>>These both severely restrict the materials that the nanites can be built from
I'm gonna say it, I'm gonna fucking say it, GRAPHENE! It's conductive, carbon nanotube based conductors are now rivaling copper in conductivity and not to mention we have carbon nanotube memory on the market. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9314/nantero-exits-stealth-using-carbon-nanotubes-for-nonvolatile-memory-with-dram-performance-unlimited-endurance

Shit, I guess I shouldn't have said graphene


Or if we have magical self replicating nanorobots that can process soil, silicon and aluminum are really fucking common, like double dig pic related. And don't even get me started on the dopants, you need fuck all of dopant to make semiconductors.

>>It also means they have to have some sort of memory storage within them in order to organise themselves into these patterns
nigga to reproduce themselves they will have to have some sort of memory storage system.

>> they are intrinsically unstable
do you have any facts to back up that claim? I'll buy metastable, but not unstable

>>easy to isolate
stuff that self-replicates is hard to control, we have a hell of a time controlling invasive species. But this really shouldn't be a big concern today because the basic technology necessary to make self replicating tiny robots does not exist.

>>8133032
>>temperature
current designs for mechanosynthesis tooltips are very sensitive to damn near everything. Not to mention that Drexler has estimated that molecular nanotechnology is going to be just as sensitive to radiation to biology