Here's a link to the first post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orions_ar ... threaded=1
Registration required.
The direct responses to this post:From: "Jamie R." <jamiemage69@...>
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:26 pm
Subject: OA Responce to The Myth of Nanotechnology
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html
I am wondering what the experience people in the group think of this
Article.
From: "drashner1" <drashner1@...>
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:18 pm
Subject: Re: OA Responce to The Myth of Nanotechnology
Mostly that Mr. Wong goes to a lot of effort to deliberately tailor
his points to reach a conclusion he has already decided he wants to
reach. And that in the process he largely overlooks or ignores that a
lot of the points he is making have either already been answered by
others elsewhere or are just plain silly. Lets examine a chunk of his
essay shall we?
**This right here is already going way off base from how nanobots are
generally described as operating en masse. Nanobots are described as
having fairly powerful onboard processors (for their size) but are
*also* usually described as either being controlled by external
computers (either specialized devices included in the nanobot mix or
operating outside of the 'work area' entirely).**
OK, let's look at this from the perspective of nanobot #1. Just to be
generous, let's visualize the nanobot as a tiny little worker
spacecraft that you control, so it has your human intelligence (rather
optimistic for a nanobot, but I am trying to be generous).
This is generally described as being done by external control systems
that pass on their instructions thru a variety of proposed methods
including ultrasonic vibrations, 'punched' tapes similar in basic
concept to DNA, and possibly modulated EM fields. The point here is
that this issue has been thought of and ideas proposed for dealing
with it years ago. Is there a lot of R&D left to be done? Yes. Is
it some glaringly obvious (to Mr. Wong's self-assigned mental
brilliance) point that everyone else has somehow missed all this time?
Not even close.**
1.
How do you co-ordinate your activities with the pilots of the
other nanobots? Is there a commander nanobot? Are there middle manager
nanobots? Who assigns nanobots to which part of the ruler?
**How do you know where to start when building a large stretch of
highway of comparable length? How do cells know where to start
building a body? I dont really have several answers to this one off
the top of my head, but in E of C Drexler proposed the idea of a
'seed' that both contained directions for building what you wanted and
also had various 'contact points' on its outer surface that passing
nanobots would first attach to (the bots are designed to already
contain the programming to attach to the contact points on contact, so
no need to decide 'who's first', whichever bots get there first are
first) and then (under directions from the seed) reach out and grab
other passing bots which link up and reach out to grab more and so on.
The seed is programmed and placed by specialized equipment.
This is just an early idea (1980s) and likely several other
possibilities have been proposed since.**
2.
How do you know where to start, ie- how do you decide where one
end of the ruler is going to be, and where the other end is going to be?
**This is covered already in my responses above. Planning is handled
by designing things in advance not on the fly. Really is that how Mr.
Wong (a mechanical engineer) does his job? Making up the plan on the
fly, one chunk at a time while work is going on? Is that how *any*
engineer does their job?**
3.
How do you communicate with the other nanobots? Radio
transmissions? How do you communicate clearly with tens of thousands
of other nanobots simultaneously? How do you align your movements with
theirs? How do you plan?
**Again, something that has been addressed and answered ages ago.
Several possibilities have been proposed incl (but not limited to):
a) Sound waves/vibration, perhaps using the same sonic waves that
provide instruction.
b) Chemical feedstocks rather similar to the same sugars and whatnot
that power biological systems.
Furthermore, asking how much fuel each bot carries is again ignoring
(deliberately?) that real nanotech scale systems dont run like
macroscale machines. The most common solution suggested for this
issue is that the nanobots (if using chemical feedstocks) will operate
in a solution that contains both raw building materials and
molecules/packets of the necessary energy providing chemicals. While
doing their jobs, the nanobots will be designed to also take in these
energy feedstocks (perhaps in a process of reaching out and grabbing
whatever comes by and then releasing it again if its not needed
(whether building material or energy source), perhaps by being built
so that while doing their job on one end they are sucking in energy
molecules on the other, perhaps by some other method. Again, several
methods and techniques have been proposed.**
4.
How much fuel do you carry? That little nanobot vehicle of yours
doesn't run on the power of positive thinking, so how much work can it
do on a full tank? Where and how do you refuel? How long does it take
you to refuel?
**Let's see now. Probably to nobody's great surprise by now, this
issue has also been addressed in various scenarios.
a) If the nanobots are operating in a liquid environment, they might
use systems similar to the flagella employed by bacteria. Or they
might use the system described by Drexler in EofC (available for free
and online at the Foresight.org site) which involves the seed and
contact nodes mentioned earlier extended to producing a 3D building
framework to work with. It's rather detailed so I would suggest going
there to read it. IIRC its under the 'Word Beyond Earth' Chapter or
Engines of Construction chapter. The chap about building a rocket engine.
b) 'Dry' manufacture using nanobots has more recently been discussed
and developed. Im less up on this, but one method proposed involves a
sort of 'crescendo manufacture' (not it's actual name which I cant
remember unfortunately) that involves using nanomanipulators attached
to fixed work scaffolds and building small components which are passed
up the chain to be linked together in bigger components (by bigger
manipulators), and so on until the last parts are put together on a
fairly human scale.
This method is somewhat more 'conventional' is that it uses fixed arms
in a sort of factory-like environment on a 3D framework. So fighting
gravity is not the issue he makes it out to be.
There's some interesting articles on this (with drawings) online. And
Drexler's 'Nanosystems' book describes the basics. Its usually called
a desktop manufacturing systems.**
5.
What is your propulsion system? You're not getting a free ride
in someone's bloodstream like the sort of nanobot which looks for
cancerous cells (a more sensible application of nanotechnology), so
how do you maneuver about on the manufacturing table in order to help
assemble this ruler? How do you jet up into the air to get on top of
it if you need to? How much power do you have to combat gravity and
air currents?
**Nanobots arent generally going to operate in a 'normal' environment.
Mr. Wong is basically taking what is, in truly serious discussions on
the subject, considered to be one of the most advanced levels of
nanotech (what we in OA usually call 'swarm technology') ie nanotech
able to operate outside of a controlled environment, and treating it
as if it were the whole of the technology (I wonder if he writes
political commentary on the side. The selective presentation of
information here is usually found on op-ed pages, not engineering
discussions).
In a 'normal' ie shirtsleeve habitable to humans' environment lost or
displaced nanobots might very well be an issue, although it is
probably too early at this stage of things to make any hard
predictions about how much of an issue this will actually turn out to be.
In actual nanofacture processes, as generally conceived today, the
nanobots will operate in an enclosed controlled environment that will
likely contain a number of safeguards (in addition to those built into
the bots themselves which is a whole other discussion) to prevent
stray nanobots from getting far (and *both* systems are likely to
incorporate a lot of effort into preventing that sort of thing in the
first place). And yes, vacuum conditions (or very low pressure
anyway) are often discussed in this context. Vacuum isnt quite the
massive undertaking it used to be even without nanofactured materials.
Oh, and the various framework systems and seed systems and such
mentioned above would also play a role here.
'Free range' swarm type nano may (and probably will) eventually be
mastered and developed. But it is by no means the whole of (or even a
majority of) nanotech, nor is it really necessary to do 9/10ths of the
things that have been proposed for nanotech.**
6.
How do you deal with lost nanobots? In a normal manufacturing
environment, air currents, static discharge, and other environmental
disturbances could easily blow a nanobot out of the group or seriously
damage it. Does the plan adjust automatically for worker turnover? Or
must this ruler be manufactured in a vacuum-sealed clean-room
environment? This is rapidly shaping up to be a ridiculously expensive
ruler!
**See above re operating in a fluid solution containing building
materials. Also the 'desktop' systems more recently proposed make use
of processed feedstocks delivered by systems analogous to conveyor
belts and other transport systems.
This might also be a good time to point out that Mr. Wong makes a
major effort to only talk in terms of a *metal ruler* which would
probably be one of the most difficult of all possible rulers for nano
to make. AFAIK metal rulers are not the only permissable form of
ruler in existance. So why not talk about a diamondoid ruler? Or a
plastic ruler? Or even some form of woodlike ruler? Could it be that
any of these might not have the same problems that Mr. Wong crows
about when talking about a metal ruler? Could it be that he doesnt
want his audience thinking about that pesky adage 'circumstances alter
cases'? Oh, Heavens to Betsy!, surely not;)**
7.
How much payload can you carry? If you're grabbing molecules or
tiny particles and attaching them to this ruler, where do you get them
from? How many can you carry per trip? How much energy does it take to
weld each chunk of metal to the ruler? Do you realize that if you use
larger particles per trip, the resulting ruler will have greater
porosity? What are you going to do, weld molten metal into the gaps?
Consider the energy costs of doing that!
**This last bit seems to just pretty much sum up the points above and
we've been thru all those already. As far as the point re dimensional
accuracy, Im not really sure what work has been done on how this might
be addressed, but I *am* certain that it has been addressed and
thought about and discussed. Taking the trend from the points above
as evidence if nothing else.**
8.
How do you assure dimensional accuracy of the overall ruler? The
nanobot working on the other end of the ruler is (as far as you're
concerned) more than 30 kilometres away, remember? How do you know
he's not higher than you are? Do you set up a laser-based perimeter
system in order to confine your activities within simple geometric
bounds? If so, how do you make more complex shapes than a flat ruler?
Do you use tooling in order to confine your activities? If so, what
conceivable advantage does this process have over simple die-casting?
Anyway, my thoughts on the above. This is only a small part of the
total essay, but I think you get the idea. Most of the arguements he
presents are both rather smug and intellectually dishonest in that
they ignore or misstate issues and ideas that have been around for
quite some time and are readily accessible via the web. If I had to
summarize them for the rest of the piece I would say that serious
discussions of nanotech (some of them here, in fact;) have already
acknowledged the issues (re nano based combat, metal hulls, etc.) and
either moved on to other things or noted that under certain
circumstances nanotech would not make an ideal weapons system.
I also note that he avoids really mentioning anything regarding the
medical and bioscience aspects of nano beyond giving them a nod.
Perhaps because doing so would run the risk of someone with a bio
degree (an area that is both far outside Mr. Wongs purview as an ME
and in many aspects operates at a size scale closer to the nano)
coming in and spanking him thoroughly. Just a theory of course.
On a final note, many of the 'experienced' people in the group have
had issues with Mr. Wong and his list in the past. In the spirit of
complete honesty there is some bad blood there (although most of it
predates my tenure here). For the most part we prefer to avoid
contact with them as much as possible. Nothing useful or positive has
ever come out of it AFAIK, and we have more fun and productive things
to do in our own sandbox.
My 2c worth,
Todd
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html
>
> I am wondering what the experience people in the group think of this
> Article.
From: "M. Alan Kazlev" <alankazlev@...>
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:06 pm
Subject: Re: OA Responce to The Myth of Nanotechnology
--- In orions_arm@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie R." <jamiemage69@y...>
wrote:
>
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html
>
> I am wondering what the experience people in the group think of this
> Article.
In addition to the very appropriate comments by Todd and Doc Bill, I
would also point you at the links here:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... iamandnano
If even the heavy-weights who contribute to Scientific American had
to back down on this, I doubt Mike Wong's opinion matters for much.
One thing I would like to see for the OA site is an entry on nanite
power sources. This seems to be something that anti-OA fanboys bring
up constantly; i.e. they claim that nano is impossible because of
thermodynamics or the difficulty of generating power or whetever. If
we could have a nice write up on different power sources for nanobts
that would be cool, both as contributing to the setting istelf, and
as a reply to those who claim that OA isnt hard science because they
think nano is impossible.
Alan
From: Stephen Inniss <sinniss@...>
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:41 pm
Subject: Re: [orions_arm] OA Responce to The Myth of Nanotechnology
Jamie R. wrote:
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html
>I am wondering what the experience people in the group think of this
>Article.
>
Todd's more detailed reply says most of what needs to be said, and Bill's covers much of the remainder. A couple of small additions that might be relevant, especially coming from someone who me, who considers himself a bit of a nanoskeptic.
1) Look at the rest of the site. Is it not remarkably silly? That doesn't invalidate the arguments, but it does give a pretty good indication of how much time somebody might want to spend refuting anything on it. I'll have to admit, it was entertaining for the first couple of minutes, though. Not necessarily for the reasons the author intended!
2) Most of the arguments proposed could be used to show that biological systems are impossible. Clearly, life (the only working nano we have so far) is a possibility. So, without having to go into too much detail (& I'm not going to bother), most of the arguments presented are not credible.
Really, nanotech as envisioned by Drexler and the rest does face some very serious hurdles, any one of which could prove to be insurmountable. As far as I could stand to read it, the site listed above didn't manage to name even one of them! Besides, there really is no knowing whether those barriers can be crossed until they've been attempted, and it would be remarkably foolish not to try. Even complete failure somewhere along that path would be instructive, and probably spawn thousands of interesting results (and, inevitably, some useful ones, too). Full nanotech as envisioned in OA isn't theoretically impossible, given our present state of knowledge, though whether it is practically impossible remains to be seen. Thereby hands many a tale. Including the all of the tales in Orions Arm, which have as a given that the barriers to full Drexlerian nanotech will in fact be crossed and reason from there.
A bit of a side note. If the several major mysteries of genetics, embryology and cell growth are ever unravelled. (Folks, despite huge advances the fact is that we still don't know how they do it!) there may be some direct applications in nanotech, or at least the solutions may inspire some parallel inventions.
Stephen
The rest of the thread consists of a few more attacks on Mike and a general discussion of nanotech.From: Michael Walton <thunderdog_sa@...>
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: [orions_arm] OA Response to the Myth of Nanotechnology
Contrary to what some of the OA Old Guard think, I
believe that Wong makes some good points (he overstates the
case somewhat, but then so do many of the proponents of
nano). Nanotechnology does indeed have many practical
limits, and those limits are far from trivial. Of course,
I've already gone on the record as being against the
portrayal of nano as an ultimate technology that can't be
beaten.To address some of Wong's points:
1. Dispersal in a shirtsleeves environment: Wong is dead on
the money here; this WILL be a problem. Anything as small
as a nanite -- and with a propulsion system of
correspondingly low power -- is going to have a hell of a
time moving against a stiff wind, let alone water currents
(RL microbes can't do it at all, and they're our best model
for how nano will perform). Factor in eddy currents and
it's even worse. Under those conditions the best delivery
system for a nanoweapon turns out to be a missile warhead
or artillery shell. Nano rounds for personal sidearms are
also an option.
2. Limited fuel supply: again correct; the onboard fuel
supply will be microscopically low. However, biological
cells -- which operate on the same scale and have the same
problem -- can keep going for several hours without
refueling (sperm are a great example). Remember, a small
machine not only carries less fuel, it also has less
inertia (requires less energy to move itself) and
experiences less drag. And in cases where the nano is
suspended in a medium that contains readily available fuel,
a limited onboard fuel supply is no problem.
3. Nanites are delicate: this is one that I wish I could
hammer through the heads of the "nano is god" crowd.
Individual nanites die very easily, and coutermeasures
against nano will tend to be very effective because of
this. The true horror of nanoweapons is that the
self-replicating varieties are like cancer; you can never
be sure that you got it all. Other than that nanoweapons
will be most effective when used against unprepared
opponents who don't have countermeasures ready because they
don't know what they're up against.
4. Nano is slow: yes and no. If we assume that nano works
at a speed comparable to that of chemical reactions (and
this is a good model), then nano can do some things very
quickly. Every put a penny into nitric acid? The penny
disappeared fast, didn't it? Simple disassembly will
usually be quite rapid. It's assembly by nano that will be
slow (just like electroplating).
OK, that's enough from me. I invite corroboration,
counterpoints and overripe fruit.
"
