Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CRNtalk] Nanotech, Cutlery, Armor.

Expand Messages
  • Chris Phoenix
    Erin... I m not aware of any work on using electrical fields this way. A lot of science fiction uses common-sounding science terms, like electrical field,
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 17, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Erin... I'm not aware of any work on using electrical fields this way. A lot of science fiction uses common-sounding science terms, like "electrical field," but if you look closely there's no substance. 

      Also, monomolecular wires aren't strong enough to cut stuff at human scale. Even if they're strong for their diameter (being monomolecular doesn't necessarily make them stronger) they are not strong compared with an ordinary 100-micron metal wire. When you try to cut something with a wire, you're trying to break the object along a long distance of the wire, thus requiring a lot of force to do the simultaneous damage. The thinness of the wire only helps a little. So a monomolecular wire might be great for slicing bacteria, but will not work for slicing people.

      By asking questions drawn from science fiction, you are asking people to do a lot of work for you. First, sorting through the questions to figure out which concepts need to be argued with. Then, doing the math to see what works and what doesn't, and why it doesn't. Then, explaining it in terms a non-scientist can understand.

      If you stick to explanations from scientists, you can put them in language that makes sense to non-scientists. That is a good thing. But if you do the same thing with science fiction, then you are spreading misinformation. Seeing that you're an effective communicator, I worry that others will take your science fiction ideas as accurate, without being able to separate them from your science ideas. So I hope you will separate them, and not talk about science fiction ideas as though they are real. The vast majority of them are not. And, they're not in subtle ways. To explain everything that's wrong with the variable sword would take me several hours. I'd much rather you simply didn't present it as an example at all.

      Chris

      On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Erin Casson <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:
       

      Here is another possibility. In Larry Niven's science fiction books there is an ancient alien race that made what he calls a "Variable Sword". This is a broomhandle shaped grip that has a spool of ultrafine strong wire or fiber within it. When activated, the wire expands/telescopes outward, and has a ball at the end. An electrical field generated from a battery within surrounds the wire, making a light-saber like device, without needing esoteric physics to explain it. The resulting monomolecular wire can cut through nearly anything except for a similiar structure.
       
      Could molecular nanotech make such a thing possible?
       
      One of my concerns is for our troops out there in the field. Kevlar and other materials are good, but, they have their limits, especially when it comes to protection from the improvised explosive devices, IED's, favored by terrorists. There is an armor called Dragon Skin, which is composed of layers of silicon carbide ceramic connected together, but, what are some methods that early and more advanced nanotech can be used to protect the soldiers and others?
       
      Perhaps some type of aerogel combined with layers of nanofibers that absorb the explosive shock and dissipate the intense heat of the IED?
       
       




      --
      Chris Phoenix
      cphoenix@...
      650-776-5195

      Executive Coach
      Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, http://CRNano.org

    • Erin Casson
      This is a very good point, Chris, thank you. In general I do try to stay as conservative as possible on these matters, sticking to what is known, such as the
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 17, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        This is a very good point, Chris, thank you. In general I do try to stay as conservative as possible on these matters, sticking to what is known, such as the known material properties of substances (ie, telling people about diamondoid and fullerene composites, and similiar structures).
         
        Two very good papers/information I found, and would like to share with you and others are these:
         
        and
         
         
         
         


        --- On Thu, 12/17/09, Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:

        From: Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...>
        Subject: Re: [CRNtalk] Nanotech, Cutlery, Armor.
        To: CRNtalk@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 10:54 AM



        Erin... I'm not aware of any work on using electrical fields this way. A lot of science fiction uses common-sounding science terms, like "electrical field," but if you look closely there's no substance. 

        Also, monomolecular wires aren't strong enough to cut stuff at human scale. Even if they're strong for their diameter (being monomolecular doesn't necessarily make them stronger) they are not strong compared with an ordinary 100-micron metal wire. When you try to cut something with a wire, you're trying to break the object along a long distance of the wire, thus requiring a lot of force to do the simultaneous damage. The thinness of the wire only helps a little. So a monomolecular wire might be great for slicing bacteria, but will not work for slicing people.

        By asking questions drawn from science fiction, you are asking people to do a lot of work for you. First, sorting through the questions to figure out which concepts need to be argued with. Then, doing the math to see what works and what doesn't, and why it doesn't. Then, explaining it in terms a non-scientist can understand.

        If you stick to explanations from scientists, you can put them in language that makes sense to non-scientists. That is a good thing. But if you do the same thing with science fiction, then you are spreading misinformation. Seeing that you're an effective communicator, I worry that others will take your science fiction ideas as accurate, without being able to separate them from your science ideas. So I hope you will separate them, and not talk about science fiction ideas as though they are real. The vast majority of them are not. And, they're not in subtle ways. To explain everything that's wrong with the variable sword would take me several hours. I'd much rather you simply didn't present it as an example at all.

        Chris

        On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Erin Casson <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:
         
        Here is another possibility. In Larry Niven's science fiction books there is an ancient alien race that made what he calls a "Variable Sword". This is a broomhandle shaped grip that has a spool of ultrafine strong wire or fiber within it. When activated, the wire expands/telescopes outward, and has a ball at the end. An electrical field generated from a battery within surrounds the wire, making a light-saber like device, without needing esoteric physics to explain it. The resulting monomolecular wire can cut through nearly anything except for a similiar structure.
         
        Could molecular nanotech make such a thing possible?
         
        One of my concerns is for our troops out there in the field. Kevlar and other materials are good, but, they have their limits, especially when it comes to protection from the improvised explosive devices, IED's, favored by terrorists. There is an armor called Dragon Skin, which is composed of layers of silicon carbide ceramic connected together, but, what are some methods that early and more advanced nanotech can be used to protect the soldiers and others?
         
        Perhaps some type of aerogel combined with layers of nanofibers that absorb the explosive shock and dissipate the intense heat of the IED?
         
         




        --
        Chris Phoenix
        cphoenix@...
        650-776-5195

        Executive Coach
        Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, http://CRNano.org




      • Erin Casson
        What surprises me is that even today there are still those who deny that mechanosynthesis is possible, even though there are abundant proofs of this from
        Message 3 of 22 , Jan 13, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          What surprises me is that even today there are still those who deny that mechanosynthesis is possible, even though there are abundant proofs of this from nature and experimental efforts achieved in various labs. The skeptics are both the uneducated and the educated. One person told me "Noone will ever learn how to mass produce carbon nanotubes in abundant amounts like we mass produce other polymers." I asked why he made this claim, he said "Its too hard, too difficult a structure."
           
          Another individual, this one a degreed biologist, insisted that while it is possible to have fully artificial human-designed enzymes working in water, the concept of diamondoid mechanosynthesis in nanofactories is "as ridiculous as warp drive".
           
          When I pointed out various pieces of evidence such as the controlled mechanochemical bonding of carbon and oxygen atoms  and Dip Pen Nanotech, and the DNA machines of Ned Seeman, all he could say is "Until I see it I won't believe it can be done."
           
          Chris and all, what are some good proofs and pieces of evidence you would bring up in such a discussion?
           
          Someone else says "buckytubes will never be allowed because they are like asbestos to the body, poison." But that is not proven. Also, diamondoid, sapphire, and other components are biochemically inert as shown by Robert Freitas and others.
           
           

        • Chris Phoenix
          Sounds like you re already bringing up good pieces of evidence. Some people simply don t want to believe that a new thing is possible. I think it s more a
          Message 4 of 22 , Jan 26, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Sounds like you're already bringing up good pieces of evidence. Some people simply don't want to believe that a new thing is possible. I think it's more a matter of personality and emotion than of reasoning.

            Perhaps, if their objection is just that it's too new and undemonstrated, it would be useful to talk about synthetic biology or recent advances in synthetic chemistry, like the boron chemistry that Drexler just wrote about on Metamodern.

            Or, just don't worry about it. Not everyone has to believe it'll work.

            On buckytube toxicity - I would not be quick to dismiss it just because it's unproven. After all, that's what the MM skeptics are doing.

            In both cases, it may be useful to talk about all the different pathways and techniques that can accomplish molecular manufacturing. As long as the theoretical basis is sound - which it is - then practical problems, whether of synthesis or of toxicity, can be overcome.

            Chris

            On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Erin Casson <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:
             

            What surprises me is that even today there are still those who deny that mechanosynthesis is possible, even though there are abundant proofs of this from nature and experimental efforts achieved in various labs. The skeptics are both the uneducated and the educated. One person told me "Noone will ever learn how to mass produce carbon nanotubes in abundant amounts like we mass produce other polymers." I asked why he made this claim, he said "Its too hard, too difficult a structure."
             
            Another individual, this one a degreed biologist, insisted that while it is possible to have fully artificial human-designed enzymes working in water, the concept of diamondoid mechanosynthesis in nanofactories is "as ridiculous as warp drive".
             
            When I pointed out various pieces of evidence such as the controlled mechanochemical bonding of carbon and oxygen atoms  and Dip Pen Nanotech, and the DNA machines of Ned Seeman, all he could say is "Until I see it I won't believe it can be done."
             
            Chris and all, what are some good proofs and pieces of evidence you would bring up in such a discussion?
             
            Someone else says "buckytubes will never be allowed because they are like asbestos to the body, poison." But that is not proven. Also, diamondoid, sapphire, and other components are biochemically inert as shown by Robert Freitas and others.
             
             




            --
            Chris Phoenix
            cphoenix@...
            650-776-5195

            Executive Coach
            Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, http://CRNano.org

          • Erin Casson
            Thank you, Chris, that is a very good method. In regards to bootstrapping, if you were to label one as easier and one as more difficult, would you say
            Message 5 of 22 , Jan 26, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you, Chris, that is a very good method.
              In regards to bootstrapping, if you were to label one as "easier" and one as more difficult, would you say building assembler and molecular positioner systems from: 1 "Dry" materials like molecular building blocks and synthetic AFM tip chemistries, or, engineering existing biological systems such as bacteria, which is easier and which is harder?

              --- On Tue, 1/26/10, Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:

              From: Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...>
              Subject: Re: [CRNtalk] Answering Nanotech Skeptics
              To: CRNtalk@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 4:38 PM



              Sounds like you're already bringing up good pieces of evidence. Some people simply don't want to believe that a new thing is possible. I think it's more a matter of personality and emotion than of reasoning.

              Perhaps, if their objection is just that it's too new and undemonstrated, it would be useful to talk about synthetic biology or recent advances in synthetic chemistry, like the boron chemistry that Drexler just wrote about on Metamodern.

              Or, just don't worry about it. Not everyone has to believe it'll work.

              On buckytube toxicity - I would not be quick to dismiss it just because it's unproven. After all, that's what the MM skeptics are doing.

              In both cases, it may be useful to talk about all the different pathways and techniques that can accomplish molecular manufacturing. As long as the theoretical basis is sound - which it is - then practical problems, whether of synthesis or of toxicity, can be overcome.

              Chris

              On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Erin Casson <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:
               
              What surprises me is that even today there are still those who deny that mechanosynthesis is possible, even though there are abundant proofs of this from nature and experimental efforts achieved in various labs. The skeptics are both the uneducated and the educated. One person told me "Noone will ever learn how to mass produce carbon nanotubes in abundant amounts like we mass produce other polymers." I asked why he made this claim, he said "Its too hard, too difficult a structure."
               
              Another individual, this one a degreed biologist, insisted that while it is possible to have fully artificial human-designed enzymes working in water, the concept of diamondoid mechanosynthesis in nanofactories is "as ridiculous as warp drive".
               
              When I pointed out various pieces of evidence such as the controlled mechanochemical bonding of carbon and oxygen atoms  and Dip Pen Nanotech, and the DNA machines of Ned Seeman, all he could say is "Until I see it I won't believe it can be done."
               
              Chris and all, what are some good proofs and pieces of evidence you would bring up in such a discussion?
               
              Someone else says "buckytubes will never be allowed because they are like asbestos to the body, poison." But that is not proven. Also, diamondoid, sapphire, and other components are biochemically inert as shown by Robert Freitas and others.
               
               




              --
              Chris Phoenix
              cphoenix@...
              650-776-5195

              Executive Coach
              Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, http://CRNano.org




            • Erin Casson
              I ve been following the work of Craig Venter and others for some time now, those developing synthetic DNA, synthetic cells, and reengineering bacteria and
              Message 6 of 22 , Jan 26, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                I've been following the work of Craig Venter and others for some time now, those developing synthetic DNA, synthetic cells, and reengineering bacteria and viruses for human use. I see this as a major route to molecular assembly, because once you can manipulate structures at that level, who is to say you couldn't bootstrap an assembler system based on drier harder materials? You could perhaps get synthetic cells to grow diamond fibers or buckytubes, or perhaps silicate structures, like diatoms do.
                 
                 

              • Chris Phoenix
                Depends what you want to assemble. For large-scale manufactured engineered products, I suspect that dry materials will be easier to build high-performance
                Message 7 of 22 , Jan 26, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Depends what you want to assemble. For large-scale manufactured engineered products, I suspect that "dry" materials will be easier to build high-performance products with.

                  Chris

                  On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Erin Casson <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:
                   

                  Thank you, Chris, that is a very good method.
                  In regards to bootstrapping, if you were to label one as "easier" and one as more difficult, would you say building assembler and molecular positioner systems from: 1 "Dry" materials like molecular building blocks and synthetic AFM tip chemistries, or, engineering existing biological systems such as bacteria, which is easier and which is harder?

                  --- On Tue, 1/26/10, Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:

                  From: Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...>
                  Subject: Re: [CRNtalk] Answering Nanotech Skeptics
                  To: CRNtalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 4:38 PM



                  Sounds like you're already bringing up good pieces of evidence. Some people simply don't want to believe that a new thing is possible. I think it's more a matter of personality and emotion than of reasoning.

                  Perhaps, if their objection is just that it's too new and undemonstrated, it would be useful to talk about synthetic biology or recent advances in synthetic chemistry, like the boron chemistry that Drexler just wrote about on Metamodern.

                  Or, just don't worry about it. Not everyone has to believe it'll work.

                  On buckytube toxicity - I would not be quick to dismiss it just because it's unproven. After all, that's what the MM skeptics are doing.

                  In both cases, it may be useful to talk about all the different pathways and techniques that can accomplish molecular manufacturing. As long as the theoretical basis is sound - which it is - then practical problems, whether of synthesis or of toxicity, can be overcome.

                  Chris

                  On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Erin Casson <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:
                   
                  What surprises me is that even today there are still those who deny that mechanosynthesis is possible, even though there are abundant proofs of this from nature and experimental efforts achieved in various labs. The skeptics are both the uneducated and the educated. One person told me "Noone will ever learn how to mass produce carbon nanotubes in abundant amounts like we mass produce other polymers." I asked why he made this claim, he said "Its too hard, too difficult a structure."
                   
                  Another individual, this one a degreed biologist, insisted that while it is possible to have fully artificial human-designed enzymes working in water, the concept of diamondoid mechanosynthesis in nanofactories is "as ridiculous as warp drive".
                   
                  When I pointed out various pieces of evidence such as the controlled mechanochemical bonding of carbon and oxygen atoms  and Dip Pen Nanotech, and the DNA machines of Ned Seeman, all he could say is "Until I see it I won't believe it can be done."
                   
                  Chris and all, what are some good proofs and pieces of evidence you would bring up in such a discussion?
                   
                  Someone else says "buckytubes will never be allowed because they are like asbestos to the body, poison." But that is not proven. Also, diamondoid, sapphire, and other components are biochemically inert as shown by Robert Freitas and others.
                   
                   




                  --
                  Chris Phoenix
                  cphoenix@...
                  650-776-5195

                  Executive Coach
                  Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, http://CRNano.org







                  --
                  Chris Phoenix
                  cphoenix@...
                  650-776-5195

                  Executive Coach
                  Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, http://CRNano.org

                • Erin Casson
                  The INCA system, Inter-Nodal-Connector-Architecture, essentially allows the fabrication of spherical, dome shaped and other geometric structures, from the
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jan 27, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment

                    The INCA system, Inter-Nodal-Connector-Architecture, essentially allows the fabrication of spherical, dome shaped and other geometric structures, from the molecular to the macroscopic level. With it a new world of assembly, materials, and machines is opened, such as Self-Erecting/Collapsible structures that when unfolded are strong, tough, and resilient, more so than many "solid" structures.
                     
                    A series of INCA domes within domes connected together would be able to withstand almost any level of earthquake, tornado, or hurricane that can be thrown at it.
                     
                    This is one way to implement MNT, possibly, using the INCA architecture.
                     
                    It is, after all, based on the carbon fullerene molecule.
                     
                    Your thoughts on this system would be appreciated.
                     
                    Question: How "universal" and general could molecular manufacturing systems be? Limited to one or a few basic molecule types, or, a system more akin to the replicator of Star Trek that can assemble nearly any chemically stable product it has the blueprints, energy, and atoms for? Depends primarilly on the tool tips?
                     
                     

                  • Erin Casson
                    I m an advocate for covering cities with domes made from tough, light, transparent materials, in order to have year-round comfortable controlled temperatures
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jan 30, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'm an advocate for covering cities with domes made from tough, light, transparent materials, in order to have year-round comfortable controlled temperatures and weather conditions.
                       
                      A good overview on this is here:
                       
                      What are some possibilities with moderate nanotech and advanced nanotech as far as this goes? I can envision moderate nanotech enabling the mass production of diamondoid polymers or nanostructured plastic composites(or nano glass?) that could fit the role. Supposedly the issue won't be heating it but cooling it.
                       
                      Aside from technical issues, what are some nontech objections people would or could make?
                       
                       

                    • Erin Casson
                      An interesting thread of discussion that has been dealt with on other forums over years has to do with the use of currency in a nanotech-enabled world. If we
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jan 30, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        An interesting thread of discussion that has been dealt with on other forums over years has to do with the use of currency in a nanotech-enabled world. If we have self-manufacturing machine systems what use would there be for money or currency? If everyone has their own personal nanofactory, and local areas/neighborhoods have nanofactories, things become very decentralized. Apart from people choosing to congregate in cities and have global networks, the trends of globalism for manufacturing and distribution of goods would be reversed. I see this as a good thing in many respects.
                         
                        However, the question still remains: How would people be reimbursed for their efforts and work, even if those jobs are service and information based?
                         
                        (Lets assume the idea of human or beyond human level AI is not doable, so that humans always remain the only ones able to create new designs and write software code for the machines)
                         
                        Example: Say I write code for a new nano CAD program to build a special nanotech based chair, and I desire something in return for giving this software package to the human race. What sorts of currency would I receive? Or would it be purely a recognition-based thing, and self-betterment thing, like "I will put this software out there for your use, in return I receive fame/recognition in the eyes of fellow humans"?
                         
                        There are, ofcourse, physical limits that even the most advanced assemblers could not exceed: 1 Thermodynamic limits. No free lunch. Nanotech will require energy; that energy could be cheap, such as solar based, but they do need energy inputs. This also leads to limits on the speed of assembly, etc.
                        2 Control limits. Nanotech cannot rearrange atomic nuclei, or the components of nuclei such as protons, neutrons, and any smaller components. Nanotech machines cannot perform nuclear level transmutation, such as turning iron into gold. So perhaps for a while "precious" metals like gold and platinum would be useful as currency. The idea of using nanomachines to filter gold from the oceans and dirt would be very energy intensive and take a longer time, though there are asteroids in space with platinum group metals, and, the lunar surface has this.
                         
                        Another issue: Once a new software program is written and out there on the net, it is out. People will download it and make use of it.
                         
                        An interesting site that discusses this concept in the fictional Star Trek universe is here: Perhaps the author raises some good points relevant to this question about nanotech economics and currency:
                         
                         
                         
                         

                      • tom@tomtalleur.com
                        Eric: You raise some interesting sociological questions which would take a short book to answer. Legions of philosophers along with the founders of the US
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jan 31, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Eric:

                          You raise some interesting sociological questions which would take a short book to answer.  Legions of philosophers along with the founders of the US federal constitutional republic could spend weeks going around about this question on currency as it begs the very structure of societies and governance.  

                          I'm not sure anyone can accurately predict what the answer to your question about currency might be around year 2100 which is the end point for my research right now.  I suspect we'll see a mature extension of the pattern we see today: using an embedded and fully transparent automated transaction infrastructure for a system of debits and credits unless and until we change our economic model (capitalism vs socialism, and modifications thereto).

                          Isn't it interesting that the author (re the link you provide) implies a communistic-type system?  Somehow, we may infer, we may assume this future society has avoided the de-motivating nature of this form of governance leading to the societal malaise so notable in the Soviet Union.  And, I think Eric Fromm would assert that mankind will continue to become alienated from their inherent character in a democratic, capitalistic society.

                          On the issue of self manufacturing, we'll see nations controlling this process through law, rule, regulation, policing and embedded anti-counterfeiting policies much like we see today until underlying structures change.  And, we'll see the criminals look for methods to circumvent controls as we do today.  We will see limits on the ability of citizens to acquire the capabilities to duplicate prohibited functions for the greater good of societies (much as we see with nuclear weapons, bomb-making, and satellite imagery capabilities today).

                          Well, there's a lot to speak to and I'll cut my comments off here as I need to get back to my work.  Regards ...


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Erin Casson [mailto:solidstatefusion@...]
                          Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 08:49 PM
                          To: CRNtalk@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [CRNtalk] Nanotech, Replicator Society and Money

                           

                          An interesting thread of discussion that has been dealt with on other forums over years has to do with the use of currency in a nanotech-enabled world. If we have self-manufacturing machine systems what use would there be for money or currency? If everyone has their own personal nanofactory, and local areas/neighborhoods have nanofactories, things become very decentralized. Apart from people choosing to congregate in cities and have global networks, the trends of globalism for manufacturing and distribution of goods would be reversed. I see this as a good thing in many respects.
                           
                          However, the question still remains: How would people be reimbursed for their efforts and work, even if those jobs are service and information based?
                           
                          (Lets assume the idea of human or beyond human level AI is not doable, so that humans always remain the only ones able to create new designs and write software code for the machines)
                           
                          Example: Say I write code for a new nano CAD program to build a special nanotech based chair, and I desire something in return for giving this software package to the human race. What sorts of currency would I receive? Or would it be purely a recognition- based thing, and self-betterment thing, like "I will put this software out there for your use, in return I receive fame/recognition in the eyes of fellow humans"?
                           
                          There are, ofcourse, physical limits that even the most advanced assemblers could not exceed: 1 Thermodynamic limits. No free lunch. Nanotech will require energy; that energy could be cheap, such as solar based, but they do need energy inputs. This also leads to limits on the speed of assembly, etc.
                          2 Control limits. Nanotech cannot rearrange atomic nuclei, or the components of nuclei such as protons, neutrons, and any smaller components. Nanotech machines cannot perform nuclear level transmutation, such as turning iron into gold. So perhaps for a while "precious" metals like gold and platinum would be useful as currency. The idea of using nanomachines to filter gold from the oceans and dirt would be very energy intensive and take a longer time, though there are asteroids in space with platinum group metals, and, the lunar surface has this.
                           
                          Another issue: Once a new software program is written and out there on the net, it is out. People will download it and make use of it.
                           
                          An interesting site that discusses this concept in the fictional Star Trek universe is here: Perhaps the author raises some good points relevant to this question about nanotech economics and currency:
                           
                           
                           
                           

                        • Erin Casson
                          The first nanofactories and industrial assembler systems will likely be special purpose units that require special inputs of chemical fuel and prefahricated
                          Message 12 of 22 , Apr 20 6:41 AM
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The first nanofactories and industrial assembler systems will likely be special purpose units that require special inputs of chemical fuel and prefahricated building blocks, and which will require special programming. Their productive output will likely be very limited, but as time goes on and as the systems are refined they will gradually become more and more general purpose in their input and output as well.
                             
                            We should expect early products to be things such as computer chips, inert, simple structural materials such as diamond fiber beams and household goods such as diamondoid flatware (stronger harder tougher and lighter than steels and does not rust ever, nearly indestructable).
                             
                            The products will become more complex, more intricate, and "smarter", such as shape-changing active materials and robotics and much more.
                             
                            Ultimately there is no reason why nanofactories could not be designed to produce food items. The early systems will not be able to, though.
                             
                            Would you all tend to agree with the above, as related to some of the limitations and products on early nanofactories?
                             
                             

                          • Chris Phoenix
                            Sorry for the delayed response... There are several different dimensions of what can be built. One is the materials used. One is the complexity of the product.
                            Message 13 of 22 , May 18, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Sorry for the delayed response...

                              There are several different dimensions of what can be built. One is the materials used. One is the complexity of the product. One is the size of the product. There are others, but let's stick with those three.

                              The first nanofactories will build special materials with special inputs, as you say. The materials may not be high performance (e.g. DNA rather than diamondoid).

                              By the time we get to nanofactories that can build macroscopic objects, we will probably be able to build very complex objects. If we can build a diamondoid fork using a nanofactory, we can probably expect to build motors and computers out of diamondoid, and integrate them into e.g. a mini-airplane. (This may not be as true for other materials - DNA motors are slow and weak.)

                              Chris

                              On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Erin Casson <solidstatefusion@...> wrote:
                               

                              The first nanofactories and industrial assembler systems will likely be special purpose units that require special inputs of chemical fuel and prefahricated building blocks, and which will require special programming. Their productive output will likely be very limited, but as time goes on and as the systems are refined they will gradually become more and more general purpose in their input and output as well.
                               
                              We should expect early products to be things such as computer chips, inert, simple structural materials such as diamond fiber beams and household goods such as diamondoid flatware (stronger harder tougher and lighter than steels and does not rust ever, nearly indestructable).
                               
                              The products will become more complex, more intricate, and "smarter", such as shape-changing active materials and robotics and much more.
                               
                              Ultimately there is no reason why nanofactories could not be designed to produce food items. The early systems will not be able to, though.
                               
                              Would you all tend to agree with the above, as related to some of the limitations and products on early nanofactories?
                               
                               




                              --
                              Chris Phoenix
                              cphoenix@...
                              650-776-5195

                              Founder, http://OnePercentGlobal.org
                              Executive Coach
                              Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, http://CRNano.org

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.