Comments on: A DNA Origami Box

By: A Third Revolution in DNA Nanotechnology | Nanolinxs – A nano world of technology

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:52:30 +0000

[...] paper closely follows the report of 3D structural-DNA technique that demonstrated a way to build closed boxes from single-layer origami sheets (in a sense, the [...]

By: Blogg'n @ ECI » Post Topic » Levitation At Microscopic Scale Could Lead To Nanomechanical Devices Based On Quantum Levitation

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:49:41 +0000

[...] A DNA Origami Box (metamodern.com) [...]

By: Molecular Manufacturing: The NRC study and its recommendations

Molecular Manufacturing: The NRC study and its recommendations — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:05:43 +0000

[...] Since then, we’ve seen rapid progress in structural DNA nanotechnology. I discussed recent landmark achievements here and here. [...]

By: Carbon Nanotube Transistors through DNA Origami

Carbon Nanotube Transistors through DNA Origami — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:43:02 +0000

[...] months, I’ve discussed breakthroughs in extending DNA origami to 3D structures: a technique for folding origami sheets to form boxes and a more radical technique for making solid DNA nanostructures. To bind nanotubes to origami [...]

By: A Third Revolution in DNA Nanotechnology

A Third Revolution in DNA Nanotechnology — Fri, 22 May 2009 21:49:25 +0000

[...] A DNA Origami Box [...]

By: Eric Drexler

Eric Drexler — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:51:21 +0000

Mark — There’s an enormous mismatch between available technologies and systems at anything approaching that level of scale and complexity. The agenda today is to develop a far more basic engineering methodology that builds directly on available or one-step-removed laboratory capabilities.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:23:52 +0000

Seems to open up tremendous opportunities. Im just wondering if this concept could lead to a simple factory concept. Simply stitch the lock boxes together in a massively parallel grid, itself forming the base of a larger lock box configuration, itself part of another massive grid of such boxes, and continue layering up. get the software to program the constructs so that at each level they are built with the next levels staples ready to assemble the higher level configuration. The actual base boxes might be better with 2 doors, one for inserting the starting building materials, doesnt need to be these lockboxes, could be tubes, with some smarter filter setups to automatically intake the right dna pieces which the design software program has designated is required (im only using lock boxes to keep the whole thing based upon something that has been done, but of course a much better designed setup could be constructed/designed). Anyhow to continue, theres no need for the boxes in each layer to produce the same components, they could assemble any mix of components for assembly at the next layer. Assuming good designs can be made to ensure things are robust, and the right mediums are used, is there even any reason to prevent this scaling to almost macroscales. I could imagine the last size Lockbox sitting on the layers might be a speck sized square millimetre, with its components floating in solution and assembling after a little shaking. Maybe with the complexity that such components might be able to hold, there may not be so much need to go to macroscale fabbing anyway, as soon as you are able to assemble microscale structures that can have effective motion/motors controlled by some CPU equivalent (who knows maybe even lockbox based if as the authors point out could process info), then you could create claytronic or fractal robotics which can assemble themselves into larger assemblies. Best of all the wonderful concept of foglets. I'd love to hear you explain why this is just all wrong, because currently, though it sounds outlandish, I dont really see it as being beyond the bounds of technical possibilities, extending from what the authors have said. All the best, Mark