Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Nanotech Products Hitting the Market 155

Posted by michael from the does-it-come-in-extra-large dept.
stdin writes "Saw this on SFGate. Nanotech's first fruits are nearing the consumer market." Not little machines, yet, but a variety of products using very small components.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanotech Products Hitting the Market More

Nanotech Products Hitting the Market

Comments Filter:

  • No Nano! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by PhysicsGenius ( 565228 )
    I can see the use for tiny machines as much as the next person,, plus I applaud the use of Linux in theoretical research projects, however, something nobody seems to want to talk about is the feasibility of propelling an object composed of somewhere between a few dozen and a few hundred atoms. Remember Newton? F=ma ring a bell? To find the acceleration of a nanobot, a = F/m where F is the thrust of the propellant and m the mass of the nanobot. The thrust can be calculated by multiplying the mass of the propellent by its acceleration which in turn equals 2v/d (v = the final velocity and d the atomic radius).

    Plug these numbers in and you'll find that even if the propellant consists of a single atom the forward velocity of the nanobot will be somewhere in the region of 1/100th of the speed of light. That may not sound like much, but even 1/1000 * 3e8 m/s = 3e5 m/s = 300 km/s = 1080000 km/h!

    • Re:No Nano! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @02:13PM (#3653656) Homepage
      You're assuming nanomachines use ejection-based engines. Perhaps it would be better to use less-efficient forms of propulsion like propellers or even legs. Also, you're neglecting the fact that (in general) the machine is makings its way through a relatively dense medium. Most of the force would be spent displacing the thousands or millions of atoms in the path it is trying to follow.

      • Re:No Nano! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anne_Nonymous ( 313852 )
        And don't forget friction!
      • Propellors aren't exactly nano scale. At that scale, you're emphatically not dealing with a dense medium -- you're dealing with a *vacuum*.


        And legs... legs make a bloody long time to get from point A to point B, and rely on *friction* to create leverage for motion. Friction is only a few steps away from outright chemical interaction, and that's not going to go over well on delicate work surfaces.


        For truly nano-scale devices, moving relatively long distances will require the use of light, probably from LEDs or sufficiently long-wavelength LASERs. These have such additional advantages of fast response, and not spewing their exhaust all over your work area.

    • Re:No Nano! (Score:3, Funny)

      by PD ( 9577 )
      And that's why bacteria are so hard to kill - they are moving fast.

      Guess I should mention a crazy little thing call sarchasm now...

      Nanobots will use those devices anyone who has looked at bacteria has seen. Little spinning appendages, or little waving appendages, or little oscillating appendages, or possibly a gas turbine. Ha ha only serious.

    • Re:No Nano! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CarlDenny ( 415322 )
      Huh?

      Your calculations make no sense. Where did you get 2v/d from? How did the atomic radius enter into the picture at all?
      That calculation clearly involves a -lot- of assumptions, most of which I doubt you know/remember, and are not applicable to the situation you describe.

      If I have a machine with 100 atoms, and propel it by ejecting a single atom at velocity V, the machine will be moving at ~V/100 in the opposite direction.

      This is ignoring the numerous other methods for propelling an object, without ejecting a propellant. Various forms of electromagnetic fields do a damn good job.
    • Uh, I thought newton's laws broke down when dealing with extreamly high velocities and/or tiny distances.
    • I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
    • In case you're not too familiar the intricacies your physics (or your spelling:) this is a troll. My own physics isn't perfect and I might have some mnior details slightly off but I have taken several first year physics which is sufficient for the purpose of debunking this troll. Aside from the fact that he doesn't actually give any numbers lets look at a more accurate description of thrust. Thrust is more or less caused by impulse, this is the change in momentum of an object. When a particle goes out the back of an engine the velocity to which the impulse will accelerate that craft is described by the equation McVc=MpVp (c=craft p=particle). Therefore if you start from motionlessness and have a particle of propellent shooting out the back at 1/100000 c (c = speed of light) or 3000m/s, your craft made of 10 particles of the same mass will go at 1/1000000 c or 300m/s not 300 km/s as he would have you believe. Keep in mind also that I have chosen a very large value to shoot out my particle and the engineers could easily shoot their propellent on the scale of nanometers per second which would result in very manageable velocities. The only problem I could see is in storing propellent, it is much more likely that they would have some sort of electrical motor to drive legs or something like that. There could be some errors in my calculations or in the equations I used, if you find errors please post corrections, but I can assure you that the above post is a troll (I ran into one of his a while ago where he invented what can only be described as the opposite of an event horizon:).

    • Plug these numbers in

      What numbers? You haven't given any numbers.

      and you'll find that even if the propellant consists of a single atom the forward velocity of the nanobot will be somewhere in the region of 1/100th of the speed of light. That may not sound like much, but even 1/1000 * 3e8 m/s = 3e5 m/s = 300 km/s = 1080000 km/h!

      You haven't given us the mass of the nanobot, the mass of the atom (they're not all the same, you know), or the exhaust velocity of the atom. Your calculations are without basis.

      Dumbass.

    • Firstly, I don't know how he arrived at his figure of 1/100 speed of light, is he joking when he says it doesn't sound like much? However using his velocity, by simply considering conservation of momentum, with a nanomachine of ~100 x the mass of the propellant atom (within his size range). The single expelled propellant atom would have to be traveling at the speed of light!! For more massive nanobots, light speed would have to be exceeded! Remember Einstein? Special Relativity ring a bell? You run into all sorts of problems, like your propellent having infinite mass and travelling back in time (if light speed is exceeded). Not to mention the fact that to accelerate the atom up to light speed would take an infinite amount of energy! Secondly. the sort of propulsion that he seems to be talking about is a chemical reaction producing the controlled explosive vapourisation and expulsion of a liquid or solid propellant. How this would work at atomic dimensions with a single atom of propellant, and containment problems I dont know. Thirdly, nanomachines will probably have more like the order of 10,000 -100,000 atoms i.e complex organic molecule sized, not atom sized. Specially if they have to perform complex tasks. Fourthly, there are other ways of propelling a nanomachine apart from the rocket engine approach, in the macroscopic world take cars, people etc. Nanomachines will probably be driven by chemical reactions like the hydrolysis of ATP. It is unlikley that nanomachines will carry their own fuel. Take molecular motors (dynein, kinesin, myosin) these are essentially biological nanomotors ~40 Nm and are activated by the presence of ATP in their surrounding environment. These or similar synthetic structures may well be used to provide the motive force behind nanomachines. Fifthly, most nanomachines will probably not be individually directed and powered. They are more likely to use redundancy in numbers and random effects such as brownian motion to get them were they need to be. I could go on....
    • I see that some people have pointed it out, but Newtons laws cannot be applied to objects of this scale without making significant adjustments, if at all.
      As far as how to propell a nano-machine... Well, it would greatly depend on what the machine were to be used for. For computers "nano" simply reffers to the scale on which things are being implemented (usually the logic gates). Smaller gates are faster, and you can put more on a chip, meaning there is a potential for better devices.
      I don't know much about propelling machines, but I'm guessing that in most cases, it wouldn't really be nessecary. If the machines were to be used in constructing something else, or in the body, they could most likely simply "drift". As far as powering them, something like an electric current, or light would be reasonable. Keep in mind the scale that you're working with, and even using newtons laws you should get more reasonable numbers.

  • Nanotech hair dye? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hair dye!? What happened to the army of nanobots that will march across my scalp, planting each and every individual hair in its own designer follicle and touching up the paint job on the rest? There goes my dream...
    • Pfftt... you and your hair dye. I want ones that will move the hair off my back and put it back on my head where it belongs!

      The hair dye advancements can come later.
      • I want ones that will move the hair off my back and put it back on my head where it belongs!

        Well, that's a pretty radical application. :) Here's another cool one: you could have a group of nanomachines that come with a dozen preprogrammed hairstyles and rearrange your hair to a new configuration every thirty seconds.

        Now that would be a great party trick!

  • ahh so they are doing it with fruit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jonny Ringo ( 444580 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @02:12PM (#3653655)

    Wait don't eat that apple, that's my Web Server!!!
  • I liked this quote:

    "We need to see a technology that can lead to real products," explained Zwi Vromen, whose Israel-based Millennium Materials Fund has made 19 nanotechnology investments to date."

    So now, not only do we have nanotechnological fruits, but we have nanotechnological fruits that shall battle for the Holy Land inside my colon! Jihad!

    • Isrealis don't battle for the Holy Land. They're already there. They're battling for the space they were given as well as the space that they for no real reason other than to piss others off, they moved into.
    • Be careful to check where that bottle of hair dye was manufactured! Otherwise you may hear little voices coming from your head: "I claim this follicle in the name of Allah"

  • define nanotech! (Score:3, Informative)

    by rfischer ( 95276 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @02:14PM (#3653666)
    If silicon micromachines are considered nanotech, these products have been commercially available for years: microfluidic valves, accelerometers for airbag systems, the DLP (digital light processor) from Texas Instruments that is the basis of many video systems.
  • Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. If we rearrange the atoms in coal we can make diamond. If we rearrange the atoms in sand (and add a few other trace elements) we can make computer chips. If we rearrange the atoms in dirt, water and air we can make potatoes. Todays manufacturing methods are very crude at the molecular level. Casting, grinding, milling and even lithography move atoms in great thundering statistical herds. It's like trying to make things out of LEGO blocks with boxing gloves on your hands. Yes, you can push the LEGO blocks into great heaps and pile them up, but you can't really snap them together the way you'd like.

    In the future, nanotechnology will let us take off the boxing gloves. We'll be able to snap together the fundamental building blocks of nature easily, inexpensively and in almost any arrangement that we desire. This will be essential if we are to continue the revolution in computer hardware beyond about the next decade, and will also let us fabricate an entire new generation of products that are cleaner, stronger, lighter, and more precise.

    It's worth pointing out that the word "nanotechnology" has become very popular and is used to describe many types of research where the characteristic dimensions are less than about 1,000 nanometers. For example, continued improvements in lithography have resulted in line widths that are less than one micron: this work is often called "nanotechnology." Sub-micron lithography is clearly very valuable (ask anyone who uses a computer!) but it is equally clear that lithography will not let us build semiconductor devices in which individual dopant atoms are located at specific lattice sites. Many of the exponentially improving trends in computer hardware capability have remained steady for the last 50 years. There is fairly widespread confidence that these trends are likely to continue for at least another ten years, but then lithography starts to reach its fundamental limits.

    If we are to continue these trends we will have to develop a new "post-lithographic" manufacturing technology which will let us inexpensively build computer systems with mole quantities of logic elements that are molecular in both size and precision and are interconnected in complex and highly idiosyncratic patterns. Nanotechnology will let us do this.

    When it's unclear from the context whether we're using the specific definition of "nanotechnology" (given here) or the broader and more inclusive definition (often used in the literature), we'll use the terms "molecular nanotechnology" or "molecular manufacturing."

    Whatever we call it, it should let us

    Get essentially every atom in the right place. Make almost any structure consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry that we can specify in atomic detail. Have manufacturing costs not greatly exceeding the cost of the required raw materials and energy. There are two more concepts commonly associated with nanotechnology: Positional assembly. Self replication. Clearly, we would be happy with any method that simultaneously achieved the first three objectives. However, this seems difficult without using some form of positional assembly (to get the right molecular parts in the right places) and some form of self replication (to keep the costs down).
    The need for positional assembly implies an interest in molecular robotics, e.g., robotic devices that are molecular both in their size and precision. These molecular scale positional devices are likely to resemble very small versions of their everyday macroscopic counterparts. Positional assembly is frequently used in normal macroscopic manufacturing today, and provides tremendous advantages. Imagine trying to build a bicycle with both hands tied behind your back! The idea of manipulating and positioning individual atoms and molecules is still new and takes some getting used to. However, as Feynman said in a classic talk in 1959: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." We need to apply at the molecular scale the concept that has demonstrated its effectiveness at the macroscopic scale: making parts go where we want by putting them where we want!

    The requirement for low cost creates an interest in self replicating manufacturing systems, studied by von Neumann in the 1940's. These systems are able both to make copies of themselves and to manufacture useful products. If we can design and build one such system the manufacturing costs for more such systems and the products they make (assuming they can make copies of themselves in some reasonably inexpensive environment) will be very low.

    • Which was... (Score:2, Informative)

      by protest_boy ( 305632 )
      ...taken from here: http://www.zyvex.com/Publications/sites/MerkleNano . tml [zyvex.com]
    • > Get essentially every atom in the right place.
      > Make almost any structure consistent with the laws
      > of physics and chemistry that we can specify in
      > atomic detail. Have manufacturing costs not
      > greatly exceeding the cost of the required raw
      > materials and energy. There are two more concepts
      > commonly associated with nanotechnology:
      > Positional assembly. Self replication. Clearly, we
      > would be happy with any method that simultaneously
      > achieved the first three objectives.

      You have just described life. Rather than reinventing the wheel, why not improve existing life processes.

      • You have just described life. Rather than reinventing the wheel, why not improve existing life processes.

        Ralph's agenda is long term. We'll get there eventually, but before we do, we'll spend a lot of time puttering around with simple bacteria. Tom Knight is already starting that effort, which he calls microbial engineering [mit.edu]. This is very cool, commendable work.

        But there are limitations. You can make cells do logic operations, but they do them very slowly. Each cell has a very limited number of usable state variables. As long as we are starting with life, we are stuck with the limitations of cells. Cells can easily be programmed to make proteins, which don't have very desirable material properties, but to make more interesting stuff like tooth enamel or spider silk you need much more cleverness.

        What's nice about cells is that they are inexpensive replicators that work today. What's bad about them is that humans never got a vote on the basic design, simplicity was never a design goal, programming them is hard, and the range of things they can be programmed to do is limited.

        Ultimately we want a human-designed replicator that comes with a manual, is easy to program, and can do lots of different things.

  • I want to make sure that we have that nanotechnology ready in case those borg terrorists show up again. I'm not counting on the Borg forgetting to close up that "sleep" backdoor that witty androids hack into using an unsecured terminal that calls itself Picard.

  • I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kaustik ( 574490 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @02:18PM (#3653690)
    While these may seems trivial, I can think of at least one product not mentioned here that may benefit from this:

    contraceptive devices

    This is not meant to be funny... this is a dept. seriously lacking in safe products.
    • contraceptive devices

      Hmm. Wouldn't work. At least not if you're pretty well hung.
    • While these may seems trivial, I can think of at least one product not mentioned here that may benefit from this:


      contraceptive devices

      I don't know if I'm quite ready to let millions of little bugs loose on my privates..

      Well, maybe I am, but not as a contraceptive device.. unless you mean the preventative form of contraceptive.
    • Neal Stephenson addressed this in The Diamond Age, actually. The main character, Nell, is conceived when her mother's 'freedom machine' wears out. Supposedly it's a nanobot one of which sits at the outlet of each fallopian tube and gobbles up any eggs that happen to come out. Very affordable, in fact, since Tequila, her mother, is quite poor.
      • It was probaly made in an MC, as with most thing nanotech taken to its extreme in that book. To see what a fully nano-tch society might be like it might be a good read. They go so far as creating entire cities atom by atom.

  • Nano-Movies (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Indras ( 515472 )
    When most people think about nanotechnology, they usually conjure images of microscopically tiny contraptions such as the invisibly small submarine that was injected into a character's bloodstream in the classic 1966 sci-fi movie "Fantastic Voyage."

    Actually, I think Innerspace [rottentomatoes.com] was better (you know, the one with Meg Ryan, Dennis Quaid, and Martin Short?).

  • The new buzzword (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Target Drone ( 546651 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @02:23PM (#3653712)
    It sounds like "nano" is about to become the new prefix of choice. It will be in front of every product in the same way that "e" became popular a couple years ago during the dot com era.

    • The first company to pitch an idea using the words "nano", "tech", "green", and "anti-terrorist" will likely have no problem getting funding. :)
      • So you see we are poised to be the leader in nano fruit creation. Leveraging our high tech nano-enabled orchards or our "green tech" as we like to call it - we can have the highest quality output available in the US today. We focus on our core-competancies and get our arms around the solutions of the future in nano fruit production. By getting mind-share through advertiusing with strategic partnerships we will soon be the standard in quality fruit. Our b2b network supports a global fruit production infrastructure which can produce product on a scale that will put our competitors far behind.

        Our seed funding was provided by the US goverment through a seed bill - the "US anti-terrorist new business development fund" which provides funds to new companies who develop products that can aid in any form with the fighting of terrorist in this post 9-11 economy. Our nano fruit growing technology is used in our "Fruit for the Troops" program to feed troops and refugees displaced by the terrorists in the US and abroad.

        We are looking to raise 15 million in capital by Q2.
    • I think I shall start a company called eNanoCyberDynaTech. Bidding begins at $25.00
    • It sounds like "nano" is about to become the new prefix of choice. It will be in front of every product in the same way that "e" became popular a couple years ago during the dot com era.

      Increase your penis size dramatically with the new...er... nano-penis... ??

      • Increase your penis size dramatically with the new...er... nano-penis... ??
        ...sig:
        I can only satisfy one person a day

        And with a nano-penis, you'll be lucky if you can satisfy anyone in a day!

    • SUN Microsystems:
      We're the nanodot in .COM

      -

  • upcoming products (Score:1, Redundant)

    by rnd() ( 118781 )
    nanotech toothpaste
    nanotech contact lenses
    nanotech moisturizer
    nanotech toupees
  • I enjoyed the article. It makes an interesting point very clear, that nanotech is showing up first in rather technologically boring places. Converse to all the visions I've heard of self-assembling machines and the like it is a real technology that is being used for real applications.

    I've heard increasingly frequent use of nanoscale devices in the Bio arena and for medical purposes, but far from the "submarine" concept. One of the more interesting ones was in a Scientific American or Science News article recently (can't find the article) talking about a small square chip that makes thorough and useful chemical tests doable in one step instead of hundreds of seperate ones. Imaging the chip using a basic camera provides a detailed readout on the exposure of many thousands of tests. Another interesting application involves carbon nanotubes, a much touted revolution in circuit building and such.

    It seems that many people (geeks included) have been spouting the broader, long term vision of building complex nano machines that invade our bodies or self replicate, it's refreshing to hear a realistic perspective on nano technology.

    Although I do admittedly get tired of the constantly pro-tech mindset that occurs in these articles, how about someone mentioning the detriments of these technologies occasionally? (grey goo theory anyone)
  • From the companion article:
    Brandeis University researchers have figured out a rudimentary way to use nanomachines to build more nanomachines.

    Uh Oh.

  • Nano nano! (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @02:37PM (#3653777) Homepage
    Umm, forgive me, but I don't think the "gray goo" syndrome referred to the stuff you squeeze out of a bottle of sunblock.

  • I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crucini ( 98210 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @02:39PM (#3653788)
    The advances mentioned in the article seem to be improvements in grinding substances finely. The article claims that there is some kind of continuum from this grinding to actual nanotech machines, and that cautious investors are starting at the easy end of the continuum.

    I don't see how this could be. It seems that if you want to approach the kind of nanotech described in Stepehenson's The Diamond Age you would probably work with tiny machines and assembly techniques and gradually push the size envelope downwards - which is how it happened with silicon. Or work with subtractive etching techniques that could remove material to leave behind movable parts. Merely grinding up tiny nondescript particles - in other words soot or dust - doesn't seem like a step on this road at all.

    Of course my understanding of nanotechnology is firmly grounded in science fiction.
    • Both subtractive etching and atomic construction are being used in trying to build real nanomachines. I agree, I think these people are trying to redefine the term in order to make their product more sexy.
    • Is biology. Billions of years of evolution have propeled biological systems to a local optimum in terms of nanomachines that could be made from carbon based molecules.

      Are there other optima based on different materials and/or manufacturing and design techniques? These questions are critical to the future of nanotech. As yet, no one has the answer.

  • Nonotech gallery (Score:2, Informative)

    by loconet ( 415875 )

    Nasa has an interseting nanotechnology gallery [nasa.gov] With some pics and videos of the technology in action

  • Maybe with nanotechnology they can design a webserver that will survive slashdoting?
  • I already use products that are essentially nanotech. For instance, an electronics project of mine uses an Analog Devices ADXL202, a two axis accelerometer that uses MEMS technology to measure acceleration. It's amazing stuff, they took a device that used to be the size of a big box and made it small enough so that 5 can fit on a dime. The nano-tech part of it is that all the moving parts that were in the original accelerometers have been replaced with a tiny series of tuning fork-like assemblies measured in nanometers that somehow impart movement information on an almost molecular scale.
  • Does anybody remember when Wesley [wilwheaton.net] let a bunch of nano-bastards loose - and they multiplied like crazy, eating the computers and forming a big neural network that could talk?

    Yeah, that's about as much as I know about nano-technology - and this article didn't really help.

  • nanotechnology was called miniturization. Ahh... those were the days. I wonder when some marketing droid will decide to rename microprocessors to nanoprocessors.
  • There was a nanotech product I wouldn't mind owning :->

  • My favorite quote... (Score:3, Funny)

    by soboroff ( 91667 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @03:32PM (#3654194)
    "(A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, the width of about 10 atoms lined up shoulder-to-shoulder. The head of a pin, by comparison, is about one million nanometers in diameter)."


    I didn't know atoms had shoulders. About how many Libraries of Congress can that hold?
  • I am still waiting for this to make all women hot and computer literate.
  • P.T. Barnum announces new "nano-tech" flea circus. If you look closely enough, you can see the greatest show on earth!
  • The very demographic that has been salivating over nanotechnology is the same demographic least likely to use the sunscreen it has produced. The only thing more ironic would be some sort of nano-technology condom.

    • LOL (Score:1)

      by citanon ( 579906 )
      Hot girl: Baby common!
      Geek: Alright baby, let me put on my nano-condom.
      Hot girl: Your what?!! Oh my GOD that's pathetic!

  • Super sunscreen? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Harold Hill ( 583909 )
    From the article:
    Current sunscreens, by contrast, can leave many nanometer-size areas of the skin unprotected. Add all those small, unprotected areas together and you can get a pretty nasty sunburn, no matter how much of the goop you've applied.
    Uh, UV light has a wavelength in the range 100 to 400 nm. How is it getting through "nanometer" sized holes? I know, it's probably people just being sloppy with language, but it's still irritating.

  • Perpetual phone calls (Score:3, Funny)

    by Macka ( 9388 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @06:12PM (#3655641)

    What makes the batteries even more remarkable, according to an investor in the company that developed them, is that they can be recharged by radio waves that pass harmlessly through body tissues.


    Great! Now we can have mobile phones that recharge themselves.

    Macka
  • The DLP chip family from Texas Instruments have up to 1.3 million moving mirrors for high luminance TV projection systems for conference rooms, home and theatre digital TVs. These have been on the market for four years. This is nano tech if I ever saw it.
  • Better examples of nanotechnology or microtechnology than the ones found in the articles have been around for years and years:

    Harddisk drive heads
    Microprocessors
    DNA arrays
    Genetically engineered organisms
    LCD screens
    Engineering of better chemical catalysts
    Arrays of micro-mirror for projection displays
    Integrated optical switches
    Ink jet printer heads

    et cetera
  • intel plans to use similar nanotechnology to create a processor, scheduled 6 years from now, to run at 20 ghz switching on and off at 1.5 trillion times/sec
  • When the coloring chemicals, known as pigment, are tinier, they likewise cover surfaces -- in this case hair -- more evenly. The results are dyes that should eventually last at least twice as long as those now sold.

    But I need to redo the hair when the roots start showing, not when the colour fades...

  • DLP (Score:1)

    by MuMart ( 537836 )

    I always considered the DLP chips used in video projectors (that have millions of pivoting mirrors on a silicon chip) to be an application of nanotech

    Is there something about DLP that disqualifies it?

  • Firstly, I don't know how he arrived at his figure of 1/100 speed of light, is he joking when he says it doesn't sound like much? However using his velocity, by simply considering conservation of momentum, with a nanomachine of ~100 x the mass of the propellant atom (within his size range). The single expelled propellant atom would have to be traveling at the speed of light!! For more massive nanobots, light speed would have to be exceeded! Remember Einstein? Special Relativity ring a bell? You run into all sorts of problems, like your propellent having infinite mass and travelling back in time (if light speed is exceeded). Not to mention the fact that to accelerate the atom up to light speed would take an infinite amount of energy! Secondly. the sort of propulsion that he seems to be talking about is a chemical reaction producing the controlled explosive vapourisation and expulsion of a liquid or solid propellant. How this would work at atomic dimensions with a single atom of propellant, and containment problems I dont know. Thirdly, nanomachines will probably have more like the order of 10,000 -100,000 atoms i.e complex organic molecule sized, not atom sized. Specially if they have to perform complex tasks. Fourthly, there are other ways of propelling a nanomachine apart from the rocket engine approach, in the macroscopic world take cars, people etc. Nanomachines will probably be driven by chemical reactions like the hydrolysis of ATP. It is unlikley that nanomachines will carry their own fuel. Take molecular motors (dynein, kinesin, myosin) these are essentially biological nanomotors ~40 Nm and are activated by the presence of ATP in their surrounding environment. These or similar synthetic structures may well be used to provide the motive force behind nanomachines. Fifthly, most nanomachines will probably not be individually directed and powered. They are more likely to use redundancy in numbers and random effects such as brownian motion to get them were they need to be. I could go on....

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close