Where the fuck is my assembler edition?That's right it's time for another molecular nanotechnology. Remember keep your discussion limited to actual nanotechnology applications, inventions, and theorizing, not sissy boy nu-nanotechnology.
>>16157325teach me the basics
>>16157414Read Eric Drexler's books, Ralph Merkel's, and Robert Freitas papers. If don't already you should have at decent understanding of organic chemistry. And in order to gain a deeper understanding at some of knowledge of biochemistry. The field is right now is trying to find it's right footing so beyond that I can't really so precisely what is right to know.
>>16157926>Read booksI have a dozen other books on backlog with higher priority>The field is right now is trying to find it's right footinglol lmao yeah keep me posted in like 20 years thenIf there was a single MOF or mega-ring or w/e that you think everyone should make at least once (for fun), what would you choose? This is important
>>16158244>This is importantnot that important, I don't really see MOF/Catenanes really making a big impact in the future of nanotechnology.
>>16158307>not that importantWell I'm glad we cleared that up.
>>16157926Drexler had it all wrong. Thermal noise is going to trash any concept of "atom-precise" manufacturing. Not to mention that you'd need the sort of vacuum that can only be achieved in outer space to stop your half-assembled nano object interacting with whatever other molecules happen to be floating around.
>>16158476see first pic
>>16158529>muh thermal noiseProteins work just fine and produce atomically precise products to keep you alive.
>>16158529again see first pic, a primitive assembler doesn't need to work under such strict standards like a vacuum.
>>16158538So how is progress on protein folding then?Are you indicating that folded protein machinery is and/or could be combined with nano-robotics?There's a long way to go judging by the lectures on protein folding which I have found online.
>>16158538>protein foldingI do not believe that first molecular assemblers will be built by proteins or any other biological construction. My reasoning for this is the lack of progress that work with proteins has produced for nanotechnology. Biology is highly adapted to its local environment and is very rigid.
>>16160173The same could be said of nano-robotic assemblers. Can you show how nano-robotic research has outpaced protein folding research?
>>16160198Molecular Assembler development is something competely different from the protein folding problem. A single component in a molecular assembler may fold and self assemble. Together dozens or hundreds of these components will make up a working assembler. A more accurate comparison would be to a bacteria or virus complexity. My point was that they are probably more fruitfully areas of research than traditional biological research when it comes to the development of the first assemblers. I do not what areas those might be because they have not been created yet. But absence of creation is not evidence of impossibility. But it could be evidence of a lack of imagination.
>>16160876Essentially, many folded proteins perform the role of an automated assembler and, presuming we could decode the protein folding problem, they could be built with the specific purpose of assembling non biological components. Without even considering the biological implications of having so much control over the inner workings of cells.Anyhow, aside from one edge case where a working atomic scale rotor was produced (would be fascinating to know how) I have not read of any progress within the field of nano machinery and most of the research focus seems to be focused on folded proteins as large funding pools are available through the medical research industry.In short; I consider both topics to be intrinsically linked and given the plethora of functional folded proteins, using them to assemble inorganic nano machinery seems like the most logical and practical initial approach.Although, I am no industry insider nor do I have access to research papers on either topic. Essentially bumping for interest.
>>16160973I'm not an expert on protein folding or anything to with biology really. But I don't really think this is one things we can prove with pure scientific logic that this is right way forward. I just have a "gut" feeling that their is the potential to create something better than biology.
>>16161752Probably once the groundbreaking work is done, people will back in hindsight on how whatever pathway makes molecular assemblers possible was obvious in hindsight.
>>16157926just don't read about the alien orgasms.
>>16157325>>Where the fuck is my assembler edition?Canada.>>16158529It has been demonstrated, but it is slow and can only place 48 atoms a day.
>>16161754might come from assembly theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boI0DJME_D4he's working on some kind of molecular printer or something along those lines
and he also has some kind of incipient programming language for assembling molecules.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecdBDAfzHBM>Lee Cronin, a professor at the University of Glasgow, explains the Chemputer – a universally programmable device for synthesizing any molecule. Development is ongoing and proof of concept has been achieved for several molecules. He estimates that with the right components it is capable of performing 95% of all organic chemical synthesis.
>>16160198>proteinproteins are a dead end. Trying to use proteins for mechanosynthesis is like trying to make a hammer out of ivory.
>>16162996>It has been demonstrated, but it is slow and can only place 48 atoms a day.source?
Bump
>>16162989kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mnDUXo3hhQ&ab_channel=ForesightInstitute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip6kabvaIpk&ab_channel=ForesightInstituteCBN Nanotechnologies' guy at conference.
sounds cool
>>16165123he's on one of the mechanosynthesis patents too. He hints about the current state of mechanosynthesis too.
>>16164591a certain nanotech company literally lost investors because one of someone's writing about horny ayyyyyys.
>>16162997>>molecular printerread: fancy plumbing. Because it uses conventional chemistry, yields drop exponentially with molecule complexity. It's neat tech, but sort of a distraction. The main motivation isn't automating chemistry, it's actually making chemistry reproducible. Chemists often forget to write down reaction steps, so reproducing chemical reactions is hard. Robots require that everything is written down. Cronin is very fucking based though. He's absolutely wild, he's trying to make what's basically the lifeform from the andromeda strain for shits and giggles. He's risen high enough that he can do and say whatever the fuck he wants.
bump
>>16166911Yeah, I saw that. Would love to see them publish something, but it basically seems like it's a really souped up scanning probe microscope. Kinda of letdown.
>>16168656>>publishlol no. They're incredibly paranoid. Rumor is they moved the entire company to Canada because they feared the US government would steal the tech. So no, they ain't publishing shit. They might even be planning to destroy all their work they did on bootstrapping once everything works. I think Drexler or someone else proposed doing that.>>but it basically seems like it's a really souped up scanning probe microscope. Kinda of letdown.If you're let down by actually trying to do mechanosynthesis you should get out of this thread. They're trying to bootstrap MNT
>>16168964>Rumor is they moved the entire company to Canada because they feared the US government would steal the techWhy would they scared tho? Canada is practically an part of the US economically. Most of these guys seem American,>> If you're let down by actually trying to do mechanosynthesis you should get out of this thread. Don't get me wrong I think it's great anyone is working on mechanosynthesis. And glad that if it's true to seems they solved theoretical and practical problems to enable it. And maybe this Burton guy was lying at Foresight meeting, but from what heard it seems that they can't make useable machines from their research.
Merge with /med/
>>16170149No, competely different from /med/
