15.12.12

Nanotechnology

I finally got the invitation to Google Communities and joined the first 3D Printing group I saw. It turns out it's pretty much like following the people in my 3D Printing circle of the same name, except the scope is a bit wider. There are some posts I either missed or wasn't seeing, and some I can do without. There are more people of course, some with good information or opinions and others that are on the periphery or complete novices. It's a bit of a wash that way; there is more data, but less information density.

I'm not convinced yet on whether communities will take off. I can't see how to filter out everything that hasn't been +1'd yet (there's an opportunity for a coined verb if I ever saw one - the act of clicking +1 on Google Plus: how about plussed or plownd or plumped), but that's a natural extension that would be easy to do. You can model it after the system on /.

So anyway, the reason I'm writing this is one comment from a guy, who was already in my circles, on a post by a novice who asked "How big is the gap between a 3D printing machine and a personal fabricator?" Here's the money quote:

Basically, no, you're never going to be able to say "tea, earl grey, hot" and have a machine fabricate whatever you want out of atomic structures.
To which I heartily disagree and call bullshit.

Now granted, it may not be realized in my lifetime, but the fact that plants and people have already created it, is an existence proof that it's possible to construct it - even more so when it's done purposefully either by an organism or a machine. But, it won't be done by the bulk processes we have now.

The dialog around the post did include the words nanotechnology, but not in the way I've always thought of it. To me nanotechnology has always meant the ideas championed by K.Eric Drexler, especially in the mind blowing tome:

This book, based on his PhD dissertation, and his other more accessible previous work Engines of Creation were based on the There's plenty of room at the bottom lecture by my personal hero Richard Feynman. If you haven't read any of the above, I would recommend doing so at the next opportunity.

So, yes, it will be possible to construct any physically possible arrangement of atoms. The original question about what's the gap between the current technology and the possibilities as envisioned is simple to answer: it's a very large one. But even now, the differences are more subtle and nuanced than they were, just as the question of machine intelligence can now be answered affirmatively albeit with many caveats and conditions.

2 comments:

  1. Sorry, but I call your bluff. I was specifically the one who mentioned that, and you are flat-out incorrect.

    The guy was asking to be able to create _any_ material. Not just one to a dozen specialized ones like plants do. He wanted the same machine to be able to assemble basically _any_ element in the table of elements. Show me one thing short of a STAR that can do such a thing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see the problem.
      I wasn't suggesting that a machine could change hydrocarbons into elements like rare earth metals alchemically. My concept was that a machine could break down garbage like old PC boards into elements (like Mr. Fusion http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion) or simply process seawater which contains all the elements needed (http://0.tqn.com/d/chemistry/1/0/M/g/1/PeriodicTableSeaWater.png)and use it to construct new products. You also wouldn't need metals as much if you could easily form diamond into the shapes needed.

      My real issue was with the word never. Never is a very long time. I totally agree with enlightening the masses that currently we absolutely don't have the tech to make just anything, but I'm confident that in the fullness of time this *will* be a reality.

      Delete