Your comments, please  (and a giveaway)

I would like to see more posts on computation and history of science issues.

First, I’d like to say that I’m eagerly anticipating this blog. What I’d like to see is an exploration of the *cultural* impacts of the nanotechnology you’re talking about. While your focus is on talking about next-gen and next-n-gen systems, I think discussing the cultural and social implications of the tech are just as important. I’d also enjoy looking at your discussions of nano-tech in fiction. (Stephenson’s Diamond Age, obviously, but also Goonan’s nanotech as well as the effects of “instead-of-magic nanotech” on the societal acceptance/understanding thereof.

Is the Nanotech roadmap going to get updated on a regular basis ? Are you still involved with it ? Some comments on developments that are significant to the Roadmap and placing it into the context of the Roadmap would be interesting.

It seems there should be a laser like focus to develop powerful bootstrapping capability which can rapidly get us to the next bootstrap or past a threshold level of capability. All the previous possible artifacts like billion processor [core] CPUs seem likely to be achieved without full blown nanotech. Only radical life extension and new levels of medicine seem worth a detour or diversion of resources from the bootstrapping goals if they could be achieved.

btw: you did see that kilocarat diamonds can be created through a chemical vapor deposition and annealing.

From Spain:
I would like to know your current perspectives on first nanocomputer: 2010,2011,2012,…..?
I think that It`s very important for the next revolution.
Thank you Dr. Drexler.

I’d like to see information regarding the next paradigm which is likely to enable Moore’s law to continue past the shrinking of transistors on a silicon integrated circuit.

Also I’d like a verbose explanation as to the likely properties of self replicating nanomachines specifically addressing the naive view most people have of them.

Re: “Computation and Mathematical Proof” of a while back

Do you have any take on using computers (AI or otherwise) to formalize mathematical proofs automatically, rather than we humans painstakingly developing them ourselves? Specifically, does the unwieldy verbosity and complexity of these proofs make them any worse than our own (hopefully!) more terse proofs?

I just want a free book. Hey, at least I’m honest.

Good luck with the new blog.

I would like to see your thoughts on graphene based nano-systems. Besides having great electrical and mechanical properties, they also have adjustable EM absorption/emission. What do you think is the potential for productive nano-systems based on processing sheets of graphene?

Hear, hear! Thank you for your efforts with the new blog. I agree the opening of comments seems like a great move.

As for content suggestions, I would love to read your thoughts on the near term effects of molecular manufacturing on the economy. With the United States economy seemingly foremost on the minds of all, I am surprised more articles have not surfaced. Long term aspects are interesting to be sure, but personally, I am intensely interested in transitional issues, around the time large scale molecular manufacturing becomes widely or commercially available.

I realize this is not necessarily your area of expertise, but I, for one, value your thoughts tremendously, caveat notwithstanding.

One more thing, the idea of winning a signed, hard-cover, first-edition copy of Engines of Creation is absolutely OUTSTANDING! Thank you!

It is nice to finally see nano-tech blog. Being a chemist I am partial to topics viewed from that perspective (ceramics, CNT’s, etc). On the other hand being a bit of a “nerd” I like topics about computing and gadgets as well.

So when can I by an in ear cell phone? Even better a micro-sized mp3 player that I can stick behind my ear and will switch from Rory Gallagher to Wes Montgomery or Megadeth depending on my mood. And, adjust the volume according to my desire to interact with whomever is talking at me!

I would like to see more discussion about the political aspects of Nanotechnolgy – what is done to promote it amongst politicians? What are the obstacles? Do they know of Molecular Manufacturing? Do they take it seriously? Are there any difference from region to region (globally, not only in the US), and what can be done to further advance awareness of advanced nanotechnology and Molecular Manufacturing?

As for the people asking about the future of computing – you might want to look at reversible computing since this eventually (around 2030 if not sooner) might be the only way to minimise the heat generation of computation.

Artificial intelligence ought to be covered here, at least in passing. Does anybody know what a signed, hard-cover, first-edition copy of Engines of Creation would be worth on e-Bay or at a rare books dealer? Would the author trade a copy for the AI4U textbook? Will the Lone Ranger reach Tonto in time?

Keep this in mind; when you can see through the eyes of a cockroach, the cockroach can see through your eyes. Something to think about.

I would like to see suppositions on the values and disadvantages of using standardized nanoblocks in molecular manufacturing versus atom by atom manipulation. How likely do you feel either will come about? How likely are personal nanofactories at all? From the perspective of the average everyday citizen, how is molecular manufacturing likely to manifest?

I am not asking for a crystal ball of completely correct predictions, just your general feelings on what seems likely given the current trends.

Thank you.

I think your proposed topic is great; however I would also like to hear your thoughts on using extant biological systems (e.g. single-celled eukaryotes and archae) as platforms for bootstrapping advanced atomically precise technology. I think working with well understood existing systems by reengineering organelles and adding new synthetic proteins for the synthesis of inorganic nanotechnological materials offers the best path forward as it is less “speculative”.

riffing off “extant biological systems”:
i’d like to know whether DNA-driven encoding of regulatory function is on the nanotech radar. re-purposed biological processes of synthesis are certainly a boon for materials and yet they amount to child’s play when one considers the depth of opportunity for tech transfer from a functional study of nature.

While not nanotechnology, a somewhat analagous technology that will probably be available to the average person in the near future is the so-called 3D printer.

When the average person has the ability to fabricate real objects via desktop manufacturing, this will have a tremendous impact on both the culture and the economy. Downloading the file needed to synthesize a part for a machine or being able to take one’s invention from concept to design to working prototype in a matter of a few hours in one’s den or basement will give us a foretaste of what a Nanotech Society might be like.

Points of useful synergy between nanoscale technologies – useful from the point of view of making productive nanosystems. Can MEMS be used for templating? For fabrication (e.g. scanning probe)? For making more MEMS (e.g. programmable photomask)? Likewise, can RNA be used for templating etc? Likewise for all the other technologies?

In the abstract, there’s an N-by-N grid, where N is a list of nanoscale technologies, and check marks appear in the grid when a technology advances to the point that it enables another technology. A small cycle of check marks holds the potential for rapid improvement. (Ideal is a checkmark at (i, i).)

Is there a point where the grid starts filling in quickly? Are there “well connected” technologies that enable lots of others? (Is every technology six degrees of separation from DNA or ____?)

Of course, this picture isn’t complete, because it implies that a technology can be enabled by one other, when in fact any technology depends on dozens of others. So instead of a cycle of linear links, you need a closed-cycle web in order to achieve a rapid takeoff.

Which brings up another question: _Nanosystems_ appears to make the case that nanoscale diamondoid materials and machines could implement such a closed-cycle web. What other technologies or combinations of technologies could do that? What are the necessary inputs to the cycle, and what limitations do those imply? (Diamondoid seems to require only small-molecule feedstock, energy, and designs – and could probably build machines to produce feedstock and energy – so appears almost unlimited. DNA would require feedstock, energy, designs, laboratory glassware, and robots, so appears to be a good candidate for limited-mass applications but not for planet-scale engineering.)

Chris

In connection with the proposed posts on biomolecule-based composite nanosystems, I’d like to hear more about potential directions for nanotechnology combined with biomimicry. In particular, what are the prospects for using biologically-inspired means of self-assembly or biomaterials as templates for inorganic nanoscale systems?

I’d be interested in the likely sequence of development for meta-modern technologies. It seems that the order in which technologies are developed has a huge impact on their character. If pretty flexible germ-line changes to people are developed well before productive nanosystems, our world seems like it will be quite different from the reverse.

I have two questions.

1) People start to think that all problems on Earth can be solved by nanotechnology. Actually, it will not. During development period of every technology, people thought like that, but in reality all problems never got solved. What do you think nanotech will not be able to do?

2) What do you think about relation between process optimization and nanotechnology?

Thanks.

I’d like to see something related to the topic of nanotechnology outreach and education programs.

Are you aware of something called the iGEM? It’s international genetically engineered machine competition held every year at MIT, and the reason why so many young people around me are interested in the emerging field of synthetic biology.

Maybe we are close to seeing something similar in the field of nanotechnology as well? Some possibly opensource nano ‘brick’ parts that can be bought and fit together to form simple systems? High school students competing in nanotechnology contests?

With the recent posts about imaging, I’m always interested to hear more about how debugging fits in. If we’ve learned anything from software, it’s how valuable feedback and iteration is to working the kinks out. This should prove even more important in nanotech given its proposed applications. I’d love to see this dash of reality to balance so many of the optimistic projections we love to tout, and the progress we’re making on this front with analysis of its effect and usage.

Thank you for creating this blog!

I am interested in learning as much as I can about nanotechnology, new findings in science, music, philosophy, and opinions about our future together in this solar system.

Speaking as a science-fiction type, I’d absolutely love hearing about how you – and other authorities in various fields – have been influenced by science fiction, and possibly how often you find reason to slap your forehead when some layperson who takes science fiction too seriously and starts enquiring about ‘Grey Goo’.

I’m curious how much of your original work in Nanosystems, you feel is now outdated or unrealistic?

One common vision many people had was of swarms of self-replicating diamond robots transforming everything in sight. Subsequent work since have shown that vision to be unlikely, along with other fantastical ideas. Do you now see nanotechnology as something more mundane or it continue to hold awe for you?

What are you thoughts on the likelihood of a functional nanofactory becoming a reality in the next 10-15 years?

I’m glad to see you blogging and posting ideas and reviews on the current state of the art in the field!