Editor's Blog
In 1992, seminal nanotechnology pioneer Dr. K. Eric Drexler introduced the term "molecular manufacturing," which he defined as the "chemical synthesis of complex structures by mechanically positioning reactive molecules, not by manipulating individual atoms.” (See the h+ article “How Close Are We to Real Nanotechnology?” in Resources) Drexler described nanofactories in which nanomachines (resembling molecular assemblers, or industrial robot arms) combine molecules to build larger atomically precise parts. These parts, in turn, can be assembled by positioning mechanisms of assorted sizes to build macroscopic (visible) but still atomically-precise products. The concept is that a functioning nanofactory will create virtually any product at the cost of only the input raw material and energy. Here’s an animated video that illustrates potential nanofactory operations:
“Nanomanufacturing” refers to the production of structures "bottom up" from nanoparticles (materials at the nanoscale of 10-9 meters) or "top down" in steps for high levels of precision. Unlike molecular manufacturing, it doesn’t necessarily require chemical synthesis. Nanoparticles provide numerous possibilities for applications in nanotechnology due to their amazing properties. However, realizing their potential versatility requires assembly of nanoparticles in regular patterns on surfaces and at interfaces. Assembling nanoparticles generates new nanostructures, which in turn have unforeseen collective, intrinsic physical properties. These properties can be exploited for multipurpose applications in nanoelectronics, spintronics, sensors, and so forth.
Recently, a team led by Dr. Ting Xu at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory made an important advance towards this nanotechnology goal. They found a simple and yet powerful way to induce nanoparticles to assemble themselves into complex arrays. By adding specific types of small molecules to mixtures of nanoparticles and polymers, Dr. Xu’s group directed the self-assembly of the nanoparticles into arrays of one, two and three dimensions with no chemical modification of either the nanoparticles or the block copolymers. In addition, they found that the application of external stimuli – light and/or heat – can be used to further direct the assemblies of nanoparticles for even finer and more complex structural details.
This video produced by Northern California’s KQED describes some of the ongoing nanotechnology research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Small as they are, nanoparticles are essentially all surface. According to the Berkeley Lab News Release on Dr. Xu’s research, any process that modifies the surface of a nanoparticle can profoundly change the properties of that particle. Precisely arranging these nanoparticles is critical to tailoring the macroscopic properties during nanoparticle assembly. While chemical DNA can be used to induce self-assembly of nanoparticles with a high degree of precision, it only works well for organized arrays that are limited in size – it is impractical for large-scale fabrication. Dr. Xu’s approach is to use block copolymers – long sequences or blocks of one type of monomer molecule bound to blocks of another type of monomer molecule. Like soldiers lining up in formation, the block copolymers assemble at densities of 10 trillion bits per square inch. Dr. Xu’s technique promises to revolutionize the data storage industry, eventually leading to the contents of hundreds of DVDs — or its equivalent — fitting into a space the size of a thumbnail.
By adding specific types of small molecules to mixtures of nanoparticles and polymers, Dr. Xu’s group directed the self-assembly of the nanoparticles
Dr. Xu, an assistant professor of materials science and engineering and of chemistry at UC Berkeley, is being honored as one of the "Brilliant 10" young researchers in the November 2009 issue of Popular Science. Her group is now working on applying the nanoparticle self-assembly technique to paper-thin, printable solar cells, and ultra-small electronic devices. "We’ve advanced the technique to make the nanocomposites responsive to light, which could enable the development of photovoltaic cells that are more energy efficient," says Xu.
The nanofactories of tomorrow will likely require both molecular manufacturing as envisioned by Dr. Drexler using chemical synthesis and nanomanufacturing techniques like Dr. Xu’s. Nanoparticles can now be induced to self-assemble non-chemically using block copolymers in regular patterns on surfaces and at interfaces to provide better data storage, solar cells, and tiny electronics.
11 Comments
So, is that nano-scale factory supposed to be a crude first step, or would it really take that much infrastructure to build things with nano-sized blocks? Cuz, if it takes that many steps, specifically the filtering steps, why would anyone be worried about grey goo?
Could nano-machines just grab a couple atoms out of their surroundings and build something, or would they need a bunch of other machines to supply perfect raw materials?
Alright, in order to hopefully prompt some actual discussion about Nanotechnology, let me bring a few additional links to your attention.
Next Big Future also made an interesting post: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/purposely…-in-carbon.html
QUOTE
(“While batteries have large storage capacity, they take a long time to charge; while electrostatic capacitors can charge quickly but typically have limited capacity. However, supercapacitors/electrochemical capacitors incorporate the advantages of both,” Bandaru said.
Defects on nanotubes create additional charge sites enhancing the stored charge. The researchers have also discovered methods which could increase or decrease the charge associated with the defects by bombarding the CNTs with argon or hydrogen.
Carbon nanotubes could serve as supercapacitor electrodes with enhanced charge and energy storage capacity.)
Additionally, a first generation CN semi-conductor usable in flexible OLED displays: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/carbon-na…usable-for.html
QUOTE
(The USC researchers make large arrays of carbon nanotube transistors using solution-processing techniques at room temperature. They start by placing a silicon wafer in a chemical bath to coat its surface with a nanotube-attracting chemical, then rinse off the residue. The treated wafer is then immersed in a solution of semiconducting carbon nanotubes, which are attracted to its surface. The wafer, now coated with a carpet of nanotubes, is rinsed clean again. To make transistors from this tangled mess, the researchers put down metal electrodes at selected locations. The electrodes define where each transistor is and carry electrons into and out of the nanotubes that lie between them. Areas of silicon underlying each device act as the transistors’ gates. So far, they’ve built a prototype device on a four-inch silicon wafer and used it to control a simple organic light-emitting diode display.
The USC researchers are working to build a truly integrated organic LED display that is flexible and transparent.)
On top of this, we now can make precise circuit arrays of nanotubes by using a DNA scaffold to position CNs: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/self-asse…tubes-into.html
QUOTE
(A central challenge in nanotechnology is the parallel fabrication of complex geometries for nanodevices. Here we report a general method for arranging single-walled carbon nanotubes in two dimensions using DNA origami—a technique in which a long single strand of DNA is folded into a predetermined shape. We synthesize rectangular origami templates (75 nm 95 nm) that display two lines of single-stranded DNA ‘hooks’ in a cross pattern with 6 nm resolution. The perpendicular lines of hooks serve as sequence-specific binding sites for two types of nanotubes, each functionalized non-covalently with a distinct DNA linker molecule. The hook-binding domain of each linker is protected to ensure efficient hybridization. When origami templates and DNA-functionalized nanotubes are mixed, strand displacement-mediated deprotection and binding aligns the nanotubes into cross-junctions. Of several cross-junctions synthesized by this method, one demonstrated stable field-effect transistor-like behaviour. In such organizations of electronic components, DNA origami serves as a programmable nanobreadboard; thus, DNA origami may allow the rapid prototyping of complex nanotube-based structures.)
Now add in reliable manufacturing of graphene in a manner similar to the creation of silicon circuits: http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=13456.php
QUOTE
(Inspired by previous work in which scientists grew graphene on copper foil, the team grew the graphene directly onto silicon wafers coated with a special evaporated copper film. They then cut the graphene films into their desired shapes using such standard methods as photolithography, and removed the underlying copper with a chemical solution. What was left was a graphene film that draped down over the silicon wafer with little defect.)
And of course the fact that the shuttle just tested a CN based RAM module on the shuttle…
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-tests-carbon-nanotube-based-memory-devices-on-nasa-shuttle-mission-70376567.html
QUOTE
(A radiation-resistant version of NRAM(TM) carbon-nanotube-based memory, developed jointly by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Nantero, was tested on a recent Space Shuttle mission. The NRAM(TM) was incorporated by NASA into special autonomous testing configurations installed into a carrier at the aft end of the payload bay. It was launched into space as part of STS-125, the May 2009 mission of the Space Shuttle Atlantis that successfully serviced the Hubble Space Telescope.
The experiment was a proof-of-concept that enabled the testing of launch and re-entry survivability, as well as basic functionality of the carbon nanotube switches on orbit throughout the shuttle mission. The NRAM(TM) devices were early prototype parts, and performed the same before, during, and after completion of the mission. This mission represents an important first step in the development of high-density, non-volatile, carbon-nanotube-based memories for spaceflight applications. Lockheed Martin and NASA are working on plans for future NRAM(TM) flights.)
So… what does all this mean?
In my opinion, I think it means we’ll have a robust nanotube based computer within five years. A sort of in between hybrid of current silicon technology and a full CN based nanocomputer.
So, what are your opinions?
That nanofabrication video shows the specific response to nanogoo by eliminating the possibility of unassisted self replication. It deliberately breaks the cycle down into separate discreet stages to ensure that the manufacturing stage is distinct from the supply stage.
Grey Goo was a problem envisioned in the early stages of MNT, and is based primarily on the concept of fully mobile, self replicating assemblers. The original idea was that a single nanodevice which could break down existing molecular bonds to collect atoms would be able to recreate itself several trillion times, and once a predefined number was reached, shift programs from self replication to molecular assembly. The fear was that if such a device could “escape” from it’s “assembly tank” with the self reproduction stage activated with no limit, within a matter of days it could devour the entire world to make nanobots with no program beyond self replication.
However, the difficulty of designing such a device is akin, as Drexler puts it, to designing a car which could drive itself, drill it’s own oil wells and refine it into fuel, while simultaneously mining it’s own metal and using it to make a copy of itself. The sheer complexity of such a device is far beyond the much simpler fabrication unit seen above.
However, current trends in nano fabrication are making huge progress not in the mechanical fabrication field but in the field of DNA construction. We’re learning how to use DNA molecules to assemble devices, so a fabrication unit may be closer than currently predicted via mechosynthesis.
Haha, single-cell cyborgs!
If you gave a bacteria DNA that could “grow” a nanomachine you’d open up the possibility for it to evolve better nanomachines. Lets say the bacteriborg can grow nano-scissors in response to an attack and dice the attacker up into harmless little bits. That species would then have a huge competitive advantage. Later it might evolve the ability to produce nano-grabbers (dull scissors) that allow it to reach out and grab what it wants, or hold on somewhere it shouldn’t. Then it might evolve the ability to grow an impermeable shell to survive any hostile condition. Etc. Who knows, after a while it might even evolve nano-machine guns.
There could be a whole technological arms race going on at the cellular level. Probably resulting in the creation of cute little nuclear weapons. Do you think our future bacteriborg overlords will feel regretful about nuclear winter?
A fanciful, but highly unlikely scenario. That bacterial arms race has been going on for the entirety of the existence of single celled life on this planet, and it hasn’t occurred yet, despite the fact that there are bacteria with scissors and grippers and whips and poisons and most every thing short of nukes.
However the ability to manipulate DNA is growing on a daily basis. we are already using it to assemble nanocircuit prototypes. As our knowledge of DNA language grows, then we will most likely use it to do such things as create bacteria which excrete carbon nanotubes of precise sizes and properties, or attach them to a surface to act as the filters for a variety of uses such as water filtration or elemental separation.
The really interesting stuff I find is that DNA itself is proving to be a highly effective tool for the creation not only of self assembling devices, but as a device for assembly itself. Rather than the original ideas of diamondoid assembly arms, our first generation assemblers may well use DNA instead.
But it’s always been a biological arms race; limited by what evolution could work on. DNA has never encoded for mechanical parts, so if we created the ability, THEN evolution could act on it, and it could create a new stage of competition.
In a sense, our entire body can be described as a tool DNA uses to perpetuate itself. If DNA could start to manipulate inorganic structures, it could (theoretically) build itself an inorganic body, or at least a body with a combination of organic and inorganic pieces. It would probably take a while, just like it took us a while to evolve into our current form, but theoretically. . .
Doesn’t include mechanical parts? I take it then you failed to watch the video where they explained the drive motor for flagella and showed that it was indeed a nanomechanical motor? One which is quite similar to those being designed by theoretical Nanoengineers?
One thing DNA will give us is the BLUEPRINTS of every single pre-existing nanomechanical machine used by biology as a modular component tool box to build our own machines. Evolution occurs not when the machines work correctly, but when they break down. 99.99999999999999999999% of the time that break down causes a failure mode. It’s that 0.00000000000000000001% of the time it results in something new that creates a beneficial mutation.
The sole reason DNA doesn’t use “inorganics” is quite simple, as Drexler pointed out. Nature had to design on the fly, and couldn’t shut down the system to replace parts that became outmoded.
You are quite correct that there is a danger of synthetic lifeforms being able to out compete current biological ones, but the odds of one being built by ACCIDENT are small, and the sooner we have the ability to manufacture on the atomic scale the sooner we would be able to develop numerous defenses to such occurrences, from defensive nanomachines, to uploading our consciousness to prevent loss of life, to active immune systems which prevent any thing with different DNA from invading our bodies to the simple fact that we could choose to become Utility Fog colonies and simply stop being vulnerable to micro organisms. The faster we develop defenses, the smaller the window of time in which dangers can run unchecked.
If it’s made out of proteins and lipids it’s biological, not mechanical.
Natural selection occurs when a species is successful, not when it is a failure. Natural features always vary somewhat in expression while still performing just fine (not failing). If the environment changes some of those expression will be more advantageous than others (like a bigger beak as opposed to a smaller beak) and will be selected for. Evolution is based on something that was working acceptably suddenly working great due to a change in environment, not due to selection of failures.
Yeah, that’s why nature doesn’t use inorganics, and that’s why giving DNA the ability to use inorganics could be a game changer. If a lifeform that can use mechanical components out competes those that can’t, it will begin to evolve. At least, I can’t think of a reason why it wouldn’t evolve.
I don’t think any technology will ever free us from danger; it will merely shift the danger somewhere else, usually to some place we weren’t looking.
I think any engineer would find you describing something which uses o-rings, a drive shaft, bearings, and a electric motor as “not mechanical.”
Biology uses the most common, and most reactive elements primarily, but it does indeed use many elements which we use in machines, among them Iron. What you seem to be failing to grasp is that I am not denying the possibility of the creation of “super bugs”, I am simply stating that the probability of doing so by ACCIDENT is small. Deliberate creation is almost a certainty given the Alpha Dominance Kill Kill Kill mindset of our military, and the destroy everyone who isn’t us mentality of far too many people around the world. That is why development is imperative. The faster we can develop technology to counter the threat which will with absolute certainty be posed by madmen, terrorists and overzealous military’s, the more likely we will survive until we can solve the various problems we face as a civilization.
One man’s evil is another mans good. If we ban the development of certain technologies, or directions of research, all we do is ensure that those who do not share our “morality” will be those who gain the advantage in those areas. Do you truly want to give the most dangerous technologies ever devised to those most likely to abuse them, or do you wish to ensure that when those dangers appear, you are sufficiently prepared to minimize the damage they can do?
The bans on cloning and stemcell research should have proven how poor an idea bans on research are. While research was halted in the US, it continued in most of the rest of the world, with the result that most of the important breakthroughs in those fields occurred OUTSIDE the US during those years. The US medical research community is playing catchup now, but it will likely be a few years before we are even, and doubtful if we will ever regain a lead.
You are correct that no technology will ever FREE us from danger. It will however minimize the dangers we are aware of and provide us with defenses which will enable us to more quickly cope with new dangers.
Now to comment on the article….
Oh good, one of the Univeristy based labs is starting to chop at Richard Smalley’s Strawman & etc. Arguments against externally influenced assemblers. Maybe we can start to get some ‘what if’ basic research money into the field now.
Ever since Drexler’s ex-supporter Richard Smalley had a sudden fit of ‘I’m getting old and this stuff will void just about everything I’ve studied in Chemistry Mechanics since forever’, turned on him and using his statis as a Nobel Prize Winner was instermental in flipping the Nanotechnology Research Initiative (that he helped create) from basic science to more product science for U.S. companies to inhance the abilities of their products and any thing that might have supported research that went down a Drexler pointed pathway was removed. You’ll note that Drexler, who invented the field, was not in the Oval Office when the NRI was signed into law but Smalley was.
Heck, one of the private groups doing nano research that I’ve heard of, has the second biggest problem of getting runs done at NRI funded labs. They’re constantly hitting a wall with people saying ‘why do you want to do that, that won’t work/doesn’t fit within what Smalley says’. The biggest problem being, getting the money to pay for the runs … but after that is out of the way they still have to push through the researchers/lab workers there.
That nanofabrication video shows the specific response to nanogoo by eliminating the possibility of unassisted self replication. It deliberately breaks the cycle down into separate discreet stages to ensure that the manufacturing stage is distinct from the supply stage.
Grey Goo was a problem envisioned in the early stages of MNT, and is based primarily on the concept of fully mobile, self replicating assemblers. The original idea was that a single nanodevice which could break down existing molecular bonds to collect atoms would be able to recreate itself several trillion times, and once a predefined number was reached, shift programs from self replication to molecular assembly. The fear was that if such a device could “escape” from it’s “assembly tank” with the self reproduction stage activated with no limit, within a matter of days it could devour the entire world to make nanobots with no program beyond self replication.
However, the difficulty of designing such a device is akin, as Drexler puts it, to designing a car which could drive itself, drill it’s own oil wells and refine it into fuel, while simultaneously mining it’s own metal and using it to make a copy of itself. The sheer complexity of such a device is far beyond the much simpler fabrication unit seen above.
However, current trends in nano fabrication are making huge progress not in the mechanical fabrication field but in the field of DNA construction. We’re learning how to use DNA molecules to assemble devices, so a fabrication unit may be closer than currently predicted via mechosynthesis.
Vedavyas@ 1800Flowers Coupon codes