3 ms·

Smalley was obviously right because Drexler thought that nanotechnology would eventually become something like mechanical engineering. That does not work, beca

Smalley was obviously right because Drexler thought that nanotechnology would eventually become something like mechanical engineering. That does not work, because quantum mechanics are the default nanoscale rules. However, Drexler was able to contradict himself enough to make an interesting point about molecular assembly in ribosomes; it just does not have the same atomic precision as peptide synthesis. Therefore, nanotechnology is now firmly in the discipline of chemical engineering. In that article, I can find one quote from Smalley which was certainly untrue at the time: "biology is wonderous in the vast diversity of what it can build, but it can't make a crystal of silicon, or steel, or copper, or aluminum, or titanium, or virtually any of the key materials on which modern technology is built." Shellfish nucleate crystals of silicon, and bacteria nucleate magnetic nanoparticles of iron. That much was obvious to geologists during Smalley's lifetime, but one could still construe chemical skepticism. May the victor of the debate rest in peace; and let K. Eric Drexler correct himself as much as he wants.

murbard2 11y ago
> Smalley was obviously right because Drexler thought that nanotechnology would eventually become something like mechanical engineering. That does not work, because quantum mechanics are the default nanoscale rules. Non sequitur. First off, quantum mechanics apply at all scales, not just the nanoscale. The question is whether one can model these those machines using classical models instead of the much more computationally intensive quantum mechanical models. Part of the reason the proposals focus on diamondoid structures is that the rigidity of the bonds greatly limits the degrees of freedoms, making molecular mechanics approach accurate enough to model various designs.
- williamjennings 11y ago
  Talk about Non sequitur! It does not seem like you understand my use of the word 'default'; because scales are nested, the nanoscale is everywhere. One can design molecular machines using classical models; but those models are chemical rather than mechanical. The diamondoid structures are the fruit of carbon research; and the molecular mechanics has gotten much computationally cheaper, especially with regards to biomolecules. The motivation for using carbon is the modularity, not rigidity; albeit biomolecules are even more modular than carbon alone.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    The rigidity buys you a lot. It's not just easier modelling, it's also higher reliability. If your bond is rigid, you don't have to worry too much about heat causing errors in the synthesis.
    - williamjennings 11y ago
      The rigidity is the expensive part. Modeling has gotten easier with parallel distributed computing. Reliability is of qualia that I would only attribute to platinum group metals. If heat causes errors in an organic synthesis, then that reaction mechanism is not selective enough for the desired purpose. The flexible bonds in biopolymers serve as counterpoint to the notion that bond rigidity is essential to stochastic nanotechnology. On the contrary, self-assembly requires some bond flexibility.
      - murbard2 11y ago
        Rigidity helps you for the same reason using a jointed arm is easier than controlling a tentacle. Limiting the number of degrees of freedom can make things a whole lot easier. Yes, there are interesting designs with biopolymers, but they probably cannot get you the type of atomically precise manufacturing that you need for most "cool" MNT applications.
        williamjennings 11y ago
        It isn't fundamentally easier to control an arm than a tentacle; That is human intuition based on the fact that we have arms. Limiting the number of degrees of freedom is something done at the level of experimental design for the production of chemical libraries. DNA is already a programmable medium for nanorobotics, and skilled genetic engineers can do atomically precise peptide biosynthesis for the sake of NMR spectroscopy. It does not seem as though you are informed of bionanotechnology in the present.
        murbard2 11y ago

murbard2 11y ago

> Smalley was obviously right because Drexler thought that nanotechnology would eventually become something like mechanical engineering. That does not work, because quantum mechanics are the default nanoscale rules. Non sequitur. First off, quantum mechanics apply at all scales, not just the nanoscale. The question is whether one can model these those machines using classical models instead of the much more computationally intensive quantum mechanical models. Part of the reason the proposals focus on diamondoid structures is that the rigidity of the bonds greatly limits the degrees of freedoms, making molecular mechanics approach accurate enough to model various designs.

williamjennings 11y ago
Talk about Non sequitur! It does not seem like you understand my use of the word 'default'; because scales are nested, the nanoscale is everywhere. One can design molecular machines using classical models; but those models are chemical rather than mechanical. The diamondoid structures are the fruit of carbon research; and the molecular mechanics has gotten much computationally cheaper, especially with regards to biomolecules. The motivation for using carbon is the modularity, not rigidity; albeit biomolecules are even more modular than carbon alone.
- murbard2 11y ago
  The rigidity buys you a lot. It's not just easier modelling, it's also higher reliability. If your bond is rigid, you don't have to worry too much about heat causing errors in the synthesis.
  - williamjennings 11y ago
    The rigidity is the expensive part. Modeling has gotten easier with parallel distributed computing. Reliability is of qualia that I would only attribute to platinum group metals. If heat causes errors in an organic synthesis, then that reaction mechanism is not selective enough for the desired purpose. The flexible bonds in biopolymers serve as counterpoint to the notion that bond rigidity is essential to stochastic nanotechnology. On the contrary, self-assembly requires some bond flexibility.
    - murbard2 11y ago
      Rigidity helps you for the same reason using a jointed arm is easier than controlling a tentacle. Limiting the number of degrees of freedom can make things a whole lot easier. Yes, there are interesting designs with biopolymers, but they probably cannot get you the type of atomically precise manufacturing that you need for most "cool" MNT applications.
      - williamjennings 11y ago
        It isn't fundamentally easier to control an arm than a tentacle; That is human intuition based on the fact that we have arms. Limiting the number of degrees of freedom is something done at the level of experimental design for the production of chemical libraries. DNA is already a programmable medium for nanorobotics, and skilled genetic engineers can do atomically precise peptide biosynthesis for the sake of NMR spectroscopy. It does not seem as though you are informed of bionanotechnology in the present.
        murbard2 11y ago