Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Smart Dust: A Followup 23

Posted by Roblimo from the now-we-need-smart-vacuum-cleaners dept.
Geoffrey Kidd writes "Hemos posted an article about the Berkeley Smart Dust project on Sept. 8. I've located Pister's web site which includes a block diagram of the gadget and some other details on the progress they're making."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smart Dust: A Followup More

Smart Dust: A Followup

Comments Filter:

  • Dust? (Score:1)

    by QuMa ( 19440 )
    Nice idea's, and nice to have some more details. However, at 2mm, does it count as dust? I haven't looked under the bed recently, but I'm pretty sure that dust's a lot smaller. Could this even be properly transported by the wind?
  • Interesting....

    Vernor Vinge wrote a story several years ago that mentioned something similar. Getting it to 2mm is pretty mindblowing. Once they get near thier destined size it will be truely something incredible.

    I hope this research continues in the open before some three letter agency takes it and classifies it.
  • Well, think about this. Jumping spiders which (legs included) are about a centimeter across can have their jumps significantly extended by small air currents and breezes (I've seen it. When my house was new it was full of 'em!). So what matters more than size is density. A small pebble won't get blown in the wind easily, but wipsy seeds that are over an inch in diameter can seemingly float on the tiniest breezes. And then there's areogels (foamy gels which are lighter than air), which are a whole different matter.
  • Did it seem to anyone else that the authors were just a little filp about the possible "dark side" applications of their invention? I know it's disheartening to think that one's labor of love might be used for evil as well as good, but they dismissed the idea out of hand, rather than considering (or better yet, attempting to debunk) the notion of smart dust as a tool of Big Brother.

    To the point of implying that anyone who dwells on that issue is not "dealing with it".

    Yes, personal privacy is getting harder and harder to come by. Yes, you can hype Smart Dust as being great for big brother (thank you, New Scientist). Yawn. Every technology has a dark side - deal with it.

    Might I kindly suggest that the authors/inventors do the same. Deal with it. Preferably by considering, and doing something to minimize, the "dark side" uses to which their invention could be put.




  • Ooo, an abstract. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm too lazy to go to Prof. Pister's page but here's a newsgroup post I just came across today (one day too late, unfortunately). Enjoy.

    Newsgroups: ucb.cs.msgs

    and Engineering (Applied to Plasmas)

    Two Research Areas: MEMS/Robotics and Computational Science
    and Engineering (Applied to Plasmas)

    EECS Joint Colloquium Current Department Research Presentation Series

    Profs. Kris Pister and C. K. Birdsall
    EECS Dept., UC Berkeley

    October 13, 1999
    Hewlett Packard Auditorium, 306 Soda Hall
    4:00-5:00 p.m.


    Abstract:

    Professor Kris Pister,
    MEMS/Robotics-

    Abstract:

    MEMS research at Berkeley has included polysilicon surface micromachining, electostatic microactuators, CMOS integration, 3-D micromachining, stiction control pocesses, planar microfluidics, optics, fiber switches, cubic millimeter displays,tunable circuit components, millimeter/microwave communications, drug delivery,
    chronic sensor implants, biomedicine, sensor networks, digital storage, CAD.

    The robotics group is not trying to make or replace humans. Some of the directins our research has gone is telepresence (e.g., telesurgery, Personal Roving Preence), personal robots (companions and educational), and minaturization. Roboticonnections with control, medicine,AI, pyschology, sensing, MEMS, etc.

    [snip]

    (Plasma stuff omitted.)
  • If they can manufacture this stuff cheaply enough, it will be a big win. They can keep it cheap by avoiding testing (so some of the dust is broken), packaging (the things should be raw dice), and precision interconnects (avoidable with on-chip solar cell). If they can do all those things, they should be able to get lots of MIPS per dollar.

    It's not clear how they plan to program the things. Maybe they broadcast programs to the entire swarm in infrared.

    There is some interesting stuff in a similar vein being done by MIT's Amorphous Computing group [mit.edu]. The MIT folks have thought a lot about conservative sets of assumptions that shape the kind of software you can write for these things.

  • So is this technology considered ULSI (Ultra Large Scale Integrated) or would it be considered something even newer? I'd imagine this has many applications for wearable computing, although at some point we will hit a bottleneck of user interface size--the CPU, memory and whatnot will be far smaller than the output and input devices. But I guess those could be detachable. Perhaps this could be coupled to an extremely small (i.e. hundreds of gigahertz-range) antenna, and used for communications/tracking/something of some sort. However, the privacy implications, as always, are staggering ... but we'll sort those out as they happen.
  • Yes, let's assume that we produce them not in the tens of millions, but in the tens of *billions*! At one cubic millimter each that will be tens of cubic meters of dust. That's a lot of batteries to throw away in your backyard, but if that is the entire production volume of dust (I said tens of billions, remember), it is so far down on the scale of bad things to do to the planet that it is not worth discussing.

    If it's just tens of millions, then we're talking about a volume of about a liter. A 10cm cube. My local grocery store sells more than that in a day, and I'm sure that lots of those don't get recycled.

    But wait, you say, this is different, because they are being distributed everywhere, and maybe I'll inhale one. A good point, it does make it different, but again, we're talking about a *liter* here, and it's not exactly plutonium. If you inhale one, which I think is extremely unlikely, you will cough it up very quickly. That's what our lungs are designed to do. I'd far rather inhale one of my dust motes than smoke a pack of cigarettes.

    ksjp
  • I love the technology here. When they get these designs completed they will really have the bridge between current tech and nanotech. I'm a little concerned about this guys cavilier attitude toward the environmental impact though.

    If this works out these things will probably be cheap enough to produce in the 10s of millions. There is a good chance people and animals will inhale/eat them. What effect will they have, they might have solar cells or batteries on board with exotic or toxic chemicals. The last thing I need is some bizarro cancer or disease because I ate one of these things. You'd think someone from UC Berkely would be much more aware of these dangers.

    I wonder if this guy has read The Diamond Age. The stuff they are designing are small enough to make this applicable.

  • The smart dust [berkeley.edu] page had a link to a page with some really snazzy micro aircraft [sirius.com]. Can you imagine using dust sensors/controllers to build a tiny self-guiding spy plane that can provide 20 minutes of flight time?

    --
  • Minimize the "dark side"???

    It's a tool. Tools don't do evil things. People use tools. People do evil things. People sometimes use tools to do evil things.

    Anything that a human can manipulate, by definition, can be used. No object or knowledge has a magic "stop evil" gate to keep humans from using something for good versus evil. From the point of view of the tool, it's not that the definition of good or evil arbitrary, it just plain doesn't exist.

    Knowledge is a tool. Ancient China outlawed the common man from knowing math. The reasoning being that math could be used for astronomy, and astronomy could foretell the future. A common man with knowledge of the future could threaten those in control -- something those in control felt was evil.

    Computers are a tool. Among other amazing things computers can do, they can strongly encrypt information. This subverts national intelligence and threatens national security (with respect to terrorist activity, what have you). The safest way to "deal with" this evil use of computers is to limit the common man's processing power. Please turn in your Pentium III 500 for this solar powered hand calculator -- it's the only way the government not invade your privacy but ensure you're not strongly encrypting sensitive information. Your sacrifice will help stop evil's spread through the world.

    Look, I can go on and on and on. The point is, to "deal with it" at the level of the tool is a flawed, impossible, insane notion.

    The only way to have a world in which people don't do "evil" things is not to take away or modify potentially "evil" tools or knowledge, but to construct a society and a world in which people don't try to, think to, or care to do evil things.

    By limiting our world knowledge and ability now, you're inhibiting the possibility of ever reaching the utopia you implicity argue for.

    - Cory
  • There is so much great potential for this technology that it seems obvious to me that I am doing the right thing by working on it.

    Bravo! I'm sure you are doing the right thing by working on it. Y'see, despite my occasional misgivings, I too think that a lot of good comes from inventions like this one.

    It isn't that I don't spend time thinking about these issues, it's that I've spent so much time thinking about them that the conclusion seems clear.

    That's a relief. Y'see, that point was not made on the web site. If anything, it seemed to imply that people who spend time thinking about these issues are luddite worry-warts who need to lighten up and "deal with it".

    There are so many people working so hard to make this planet work, and so few people who are actually doing things because they are evil/ignorant/arrogant, why not go with the statistics and assume that there are some good people working on this project, and that they spend a *lot* of time thinking about the implications of what they are doing, and that they try to make the right decisions.

    You make some good points. Please understand I do not think that the people working on this project are doing it for evil purposes. I was led to believe that they might be doing it without considering that their invention might be used for evil purposes, but the previous post has made it clear that y'all have indeed thought a lot about it. That's good.

    As for "going with the statistics", I'm with you there too. There are unintended consequences from nearly every new technology. That does not mean there should be an end to new technology. Far from it. I applaud innovation! Go for it! Innovate! Be creative! But please go into it with eyes open. Be prepared for unintended consequences. Look ahead and try to anticipate them. And please, don't dismiss the naysayers out of hand. Go with the statistics! Just as you inventors are primarily a decent bunch, so are the skeptics. We mean well, just as you do.

  • I wonder if this guy has read The Diamond Age. The stuff they are designing are small enough to make this applicable.

    Well no, no it isn't. Diamond Age involved nanotechnology, involving lots of incredibly complex microscopic machines (the Mites). These are not mites. 2mm is small, but it's still very, very macroscopic.

    Confusing nano with the merely small is a common mistake. Feynman (who pretty much invented the notion of nanotechnology) did a good job of illustrating this by pointing out that being able to write the lord's prayer on the head of a pin isn't really very remarkable, considering we could theoretically with existing technology (that being technology existing a few decades ago when There's Plenty Of Room at the Bottom was written) put the entire contents of the encyclopedia britannica on the head of a pin.

  • I agree, and they seemed overly dismissive about the environmental thing, too. (Having only as many SmartDust particles as Pentia seems like an extrodinarily conservative estimate.) "Yeah, somebody could misuse these things. Don't mention possible misuses, it's 'hype'. Misuses are not our problem, don't bug us about it." Naive, arrogant, or both.
  • The dust designers are at Livermore Labs -
    of *course* there's a dark side.
    The Labs has been spreading its focus to topics other than nuclear weapons design and the scientific research behind it (and the environmental research into how to clean up places like Livermore), but they're still fundamentally a research institute for the military. So as the author said, "deal with it".


    We knew this sort of technology would be around eventually anyway. It's interesting that it's this close to reality already. For some fictional treatment of things to do with smart dust, see "A Deepness In The Sky" by Vinge, as well as "The Diamond Age" by Stephenson.

  • I noticed that the designers have not gotten the laser design finalized. There is some interesting work currently being done on microcavity lasers [electronicproducts.com] by Nanovation [nanovation.com]. This should allow them to squeeze a few mils off of the device.
  • what happens when this technology is perfected.? when these things become so small you need a freaking microscope to see'em..there are already too mnay ways to get info on a person.? but keeping track of a person with dust.? nano technology seems kool..but i dont like the thought of having to make sure im not being watched by metalic ants or ..smart dust...
  • It seems that such a specialized machine wouldn't need to be general purpose...just build the desired software in hardware.
  • I didn't imply only as many motes as Pentia - I used chip area in the calculation, not number of chips. ksjp
  • It wasn't "the authors", it was me - don't blame my colleagues for what's on my web pages. I was only flip about it because it seems like such a non-issue to me. There is so much great potential for this technology that it seems obvious to me that I am doing the right thing by working on it. It isn't that I don't spend time thinking about these issues, it's that I've spent so much time thinking about them that the conclusion seems clear. Another reason that I was flip with the issue is that it is such a stereotypical response to new technology: 1) this might be used for bad things 2) I bet that the people working on it are evil/ignorant/arrogant and are just doing it for fame/money/whatever. I can't imagine going through life with such a negative attitude. There are so many people working so hard to make this planet work, and so few people who are actually doing things because they are evil/ignorant/arrogant, why not go with the statistics and assume that there are some good people working on this project, and that they spend a *lot* of time thinking about the implications of what they are doing, and that they try to make the right decisions. I'm sure that we'll screw up occasionally, but we're not the assholes you make us out to be. ksjp
  • We're sending out the first optically programmable chip on a 0.25 micron run this week. It's very simple micro-controller with a little bit of RAM just to get our feet wet. There's a great temperature sensor chip that was made at Oak Ridge (I think) that you can program with a TV remote control. I've got to track down more info on that. ksjp

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Close