Re: Nanotech garbage processor?


On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:43:15 -0600
STJensen <RecreationalPoker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Or possibly what has occurred is the same that has repeatedly occurred
in the AI field. Promising more than can be delivered in an
acceptable-to-the-public period of time.

Maybe - but not many people were promising things.

Or a lot of excitement about
something new and then the press gets distracted by the next shiny
object and hypes it.

Oh sure the press lost interest years ago - if you showed them a
fully functional nanofab today there would probably be a critical review
complaining it wasn't fast enough or it took too much power or somesuch.

As for this newsgroup, speculation was frowned upon by some of the
regulars. A vote took place and the "serious" advocates pretty much

Hmm I've been hanging round this newsgroup for quite a while now
and I don't recall it being quite like that. Certainly there was some
discouragement of the really wild speculation.

were voted in as moderators to help Jim. Discussion then simply dried
up because there wasn't anything fun to talk about. Speculation was
and is fun. Reporting the tiny advances in the field got old quick.

It also stopped happening (the reporting of tiny advances that is) -
it's been a long time since I've seen an announcement of some new device
being made at nanoscale. I recall boggling at the wheelbarrow and assorted
tiny motors, and the talk from Zyvex about a set of components. Last time I
looked over the Zyvex site I saw something that implied they were still
working away at nano scale machinery as well as their more commercial stuff
that dominates the site - I can't readily find it now though.

Now this newsgroup is mainly about posting when nanotech papers can be
submitted or when nanotech conventions are taking place. My little
thread here heralds back to the time when this newsgroup welcomed and
entertained speculation. Discussed and argued about it. Talked about
how something might be done with nanotechnology and didn't just say it
couldn't be done.

I too miss that time.

Refresh my memory. What is a "Laura S" food synthesizer?

http://laura-web.tripod.com/laura-web/id6.html

There was a lot of discussion of it in this group around the time
(2001 it seems - was it really that long ago ??!??).


What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. =A0The nanotech
garbage disposal system I outlined would be something people would
have to be very careful around. =A0If someone fell onto it, they be
instantly rip apart and "recycled" as well. =A0That's why I had the
thing in a specia=
l
separate room.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't think a general purpose disassembler is
feasible =
either
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic ones)
c=
an
be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium from the chlorine in
table salt).

First, you said "either" but only gave one alternative.

Ah I used either in the sense of "as well" - missing comma methinks.

Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and making
stockpiles of them. For example, all salt in one vat.

Now that may well be much more feasible.

General purpose assembler is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk methods.

But then you're still left with junk when it breaks down. I don't in
the slightest believe in doomsday gray goo, but, if we don't
disassemble what we build, that might become a form of gray goo.
Nanojunk.

Yep and that is indeed a problem, especially if it's been made to
be tough.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

.