On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/21/2011 10:42 AM, Chuck Bowling wrote: > > Interesting article. I scanned more than read but it seems like a valid > architecture for reconfigurable molecular systems. > > I just wonder if it might be overkill. It seems to me like a more versatile > system would be a relatively simple 3D printer. We already have 3D printers > that can print any polymer 3D part. I would think that the technology should > be transferable to nanotech. We could literally print anything atom by atom. > > I'm afraid that the principle of printing the way we do today would be > terribly inefficient/ineffective on nanoscale 3d structures. >
Why would a few billion nanites all working together to build a 3d structure be inefficient? Consider machining or layered deposition techniques, there are angles that > need to be locked in by something maneuverable on all axes at a very small > scale, probably at times the assembler will need to trap itself within the > structures in order to complete them well. > We already have nanobots that move in 2d over an atomic lattice. It should be a fairly simple process to add a 3rd dimension for layering. As to the assembler trapping itself, I'm not a molecular engineer but I don't see the problem in transferring techniques for building large scale parts to the realm of nano-structures. For instance, creating a hollow sphere doesn't require that the sphere be formed as a single unit. It can easily be created as two hemispheres and welded together.
