Molecular Manufacturing and Manhattan

The state of molecular manufacturing today can usefully be compared to the state of nuclear bombs in 1940.

In 1940, it was known to a few phyisicists that some heavy isotopes could be split, and could in theory create a chain reaction. Plutonium had not yet been discovered. A chain reaction had not yet been demonstrated. Einstein had already written his letter to Roosevelt, in which he used lots of phrases like "it may become possible" and acknowledged that an atomic bomb might well be too heavy to be delivered by airplane.

At the end of 1942, the first chain reaction was created. It required over 70,000 pounds of uranium, and 771,000 pounds of ultrapure graphite, to make it happen.

On Dec. 28, 1942, Roosevelt created the Manhattan Project.

One of the problems to be solved was separating the isotopes. They tried three methods, and made all three work for at least some stages of enrichment, though they eventually settled on gas diffusion. That required a six-story building covering 43 acres -- half a mile long -- full of 4,000 diffusion stages, without a single leak in the pipes.

In mid 1944, they discovered that their original "gun" design wouldn't work for plutonium, so they designed an "implosion" system. In late 1944, quantities of fissionables material started to arrive at Los Alamos.

On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was exploded.

(Source for the above)

Molecular manufacturing requires the use of sub-micron engineered machinery to build more sub-micron machinery. Biology does something similar, except that it's based on evolved complexity rather than engineering. Large-scale proof-of-concept systems have come close to building duplicates of themselves from simpler parts. There aren't any theoretical fundamental reasons why engineered productive nanosystems can't work. But there aren't any detailed designs yet, either.

There appear to be several ways to build the first nano-building-nano system: several different materials might work, and there are several basically different ways to handle them. No one knows yet which way will turn out to be easiest. And no one knows how easy that will be. Building the first tiny nanofactory might require a thousand people using a thousand scanning probe microscopes for several months -- an effort substantially larger than most companies would be willing to fund, but substantially smaller than what was required for uranium separation. Or it might only take ten million base pairs of DNA synthesis -- which would cost just a few million dollars.

In addition to cost, another major question is the calendar time required for research. Of course, to completely understand a chemical system would require many years. But molecular manufacturing doesn't require complete understanding -- just enough to do a limited number of synthesis reactions reliably.

If a nation or large company wanted to develop molecular manufacturing very quickly, and was willing to spend a lot of money on it, they would not use an academic research model. They certainly would not use a formal peer review system! Instead, they would launch several approaches in parallel, perhaps with several teams of experts placed explicitly in competition with each other. Within six months, a small team of experts could give a preliminary ruling on a material/method combination. (Method refers to the way reactions are done, such as machine-phase chemistry, position-controlled solution chemistry, or guided assembly followed by crosslinking.) A diverse, energetic, well-managed, well-funded effort could probably investigate twenty or fifty such combinations within the first year. After that, any approach that looked halfway good would be funded in parallel.

Once a material and method was selected, how much time would be required? The material's chemistry would have to be researched via massive simulation (which could use computers prepared ahead of time) and experiment (using fairly standard lab techniques). Its mechanical properties, including molecular mechanics, would have to be investigated. Basic machines would have to be designed. All these could take place in parallel, with the answers being increasingly refined. I'd expect that crude numbers and placeholder designs could be available within another year, and sent to the bootstrapping team and the mechanical design team. And so on...

Of course, this depends on three things. First, the willingness to spend large amounts of money to get answers fast. This probably means a military program.

Second, an attitude of "Don't tell me why it can't work, tell me how to do it!" Or as inventor Jacob Rabinow said (quoted in Creativity p. 69), "There's one other thing that you do when you invent. And that is what I call the Existence Proof. This means that you have to assume that it can be done. If you don't assume that, you won't even try. And I always assume that not only it can be done, but I can do it."

Third, it depends on there actually being a solution to find. But I don't know of anyone who's taken a decent look at molecular manufacturing who thinks it's actually impossible. The questions now are how hard it will be to develop, and how high performance the manufacturing systems and products will be.

Do I expect it to be developed in five years? No. If the U.S. had a "Nanhattan Project" going today, I'd give it maybe a 30-70% chance. With no evidence of such a project, I'd put it closer to 5-10%. But there's been such a pitifully small amount of investigation so far that it's quite possible there's a relatively easy way to do it that no one has noticed yet. And it's even possible that the entrenched skepticism in the U.S. will lose traction, making it possible for people to publicize research on it; if an academic discipline were ever allowed to form, it probably wouldn't take long for interest in the technology's power to snowball.

Chris Phoenix

Comments

[Richard Jones]

Here's another story. A brilliant physicist has an idea that he is convinced is right, and that he thinks will change the world. It's for a weapon that will finally assure the USA of both complete military supremacy, and invulnerability. The broader scientific community doesn't accept the idea, and indeed has rancorously fallen out with our physicist for various political and personal reasons. But that doesn't matter - our physicist has more than a streak of arrogance, and his professional isolation increases his sense that he's right. He doesn't need peer review, because he's got a following of adoring younger disciples ready to do his work, and most importantly, he has high level political support. Many people really badly want to believe he is right, and his ideas have a certain science fiction resonance that means that they're already part of the cultural climate.

His idea gets the highest level support - directly from a President of the USA - and a massive program is begun to implement it. Plenty of scientists and engineers are willing to take the money; private contractors have a bonanza. But, despite all this, the scientific community was right. The idea just doesn't work, and after many years and, not millions, but tens of billions of dollars, the program is quietly wound up.

I'm talking, of course, of Edward Teller and the x-ray laser.

Historical analogies are seductive, and always dangerous, because you can always find one that suits any set of preconceptions.

[Jay]

Nice one, Richard. However, the difference between the entire MNT-community and Edward Teller is exactly that: the MNT-community is a community, and Edward Teller was just one person.

I guess what I'm saying is... where there's consistency (in this case: an entire community that takes MNT seriously), there is (usually) truth.

And while we're drawing analogies here, I'd like to come up with one of my own.

Has anybody noticed what's going on with stemcell research these days? Bush and the rest of the neo-conservative party have done nothing but work against it since ~2000. The research has had some delay in the beginning. Note that this hasn't prevented the steady stream of spinal-cord-regeneration-articles as of late.

Now that Califorina passed Proposition 71, the White House is simply put out of play. Other states are already talking about doing the same. California is the state that got this whole thing snowballing.

Why? Because there were some people who realized that this research could not, may not, and simply cannot be delayed/stopped/held back. These are the people who managed to push through with it. And since MNT, like stemcell research, has huge implications, I recon that it's only a matter of time before it's pushed through.

Chris, I think that in 2010 you will be laughing at all the worries you had in 2005, about MNT not getting enough attention. Give it some more time. Don't get too frustrated. The whole thing is still growing exponentially from my perspective.

Regards,

Jay

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Richard, I wasn't arguing that because the A-bomb worked, MM will work.

I was arguing that because the A-bomb was developed in three years, MM might be developed in as little as five.

Assuming, as I said, that MM is workable--which, as I said, no one who's taken a serious look at it really disagrees with.

Chris

[MUNISH PURI]

Sir,Hello !
I am interested for employment and want to contribute with my expertise,sending CV as attachment for your kind consideration.Please see if any such suitable match .I am committed to extend the best of my expertise if i got the privilege to serve and add my contribution.
Expecting with high hope.
Sincerely.
Munish Puri,
India .
PLEASE GIVE RESPONSE

MUNISH PURI
Sr. Lecturer, Dept. of Electronics,
A.B.College, Pathankot,
+91145001, Pb, India
Home: +91 (186) 2225145
Cell: +91(186) 9417450370
E-mail:twishi03@yahoo.co.in

Work Experience Since August 1993, till date.
Sr. Lecturer, Dept of Electronics,
A.B College under GND University,
Amritsar, India

Education M S (Applied Physics)
1993, Punjabi University, India.
B S 1991, GND University, India

Research Summary

Phthalocyanines are a family of aromatic macro cycles based on an extensive de localized two- dimensional 18- electron system which shows large number of properties. These are highly stable and versatile compounds capable of including more than 70 different metallic and non-metallic ions in the ring cavity. Phthalocyanine also shows remarkable electrical and optical properties. The properties and applications of Phthalocyanines and its metallo-derivatives have been studied extensively. The linear optical spectra of these compounds are dominated by two intense bands, Q band (centered at around 670nm) and B band or sorest band in near UV region (at around 340nm). Due to their high thermal and chemical stability, they have become noted for their electronic properties, such as electronic conductivity, photovoltaic effects, electrochromism, gas sensing devices, for optoelectronic applications such as light- emitting diodes( LEDs) and optical switches, as photosensitizers in photodynamic therapy of tumors and semiconductors

Research Experience

 Four years experience of independently handling of coating unit and deposition of thin films by thermal evaporation and hot wall epitaxy techniques with optimization and their electrical, structural and optical characterizations with different spectroscopic techniques.

 Attended several Workshops / Conferences on Materials Science, Bio-Materials, Radioisotopes, Nanotechnology etc.

 Visited Nanotechnology Division ,UCF( University of Central Florida), USA.

 Visited Waseda Univ. Tokyo, Japan.

 Attended four refresher courses on teaching techniques of Materials Science and Electronics.
 Performed industrial projects in SCL(Semiconductor Complex Limited), Mohali, Punjab,
India and BRIT(Board of Radiation & Isotope Technology),Vashi, Mumbai, India.

Professional Member
 Member of Indian Vacuum Society, BARC - Mumbai, India
 Member Faculty of Engineering & Technology, GND Univ., Amritsar, India
 Member of syllabus board of Eng&Tech, GND Univ., Amritsar, India

Seminars, Schools, Conferences Attended

1. Defense and Security Symposium / SPIE,
Florida, USA (17 - 21 April, 2006)
Participated in the International Conference of Defense and Security Symposium/ SPIE on ‘Micro MEMS and Nano-Technologies for
Space Applications’

2. Third 21 COE Symposium,
Tokyo, Japan (1 - 3 Sept, 2005)
Participated in International Conference on Astrophysics As Interdisciplinary Science For Space Application at Waseda University, Tokyo.

3. Advanced Workshop on Radio-Chemistry and Radioisotopes,
BARC Mumbai, India (May, 2004)
Performed experimentation in CIRUS, DRUVA and APSARA Nuclear Reactors in Radio-Chemistry division did experimentation on various mass spectrometries. Visited TIFR, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research for experimentation on Pelletron, Particle Accelerator.

4. BIOHORIZON 2004
IIT Delhi, INDIA (March 2004)
Attended two days symposium on Drug Design and Delivery for Nano- Technologies

5. National Workshop on RADIOISOTOPES,
GND University INIDA (Nov, 2003)
Experimentations and Interactions on Radioisotopes

6. Latest Trends in Materials,
SLIET Punjab, India (Feb, 2001)
Different Technique, trends in Materials Science and Smart Materials for studying Nanostructures.

Research Interest
I am doing research in Thin Films of Organic Semiconductors (Metallo-phthalocyanines), using Flash evaporation and Hot Wall Epitaxi Techniques for deposition. We are concentrating on metallophthalocyanines. Since phthalocyanines are very similar in structure with biologically important porphyrins, hemoglobin and chlorophylls. The important applications are its properties of self-assembling nature at nano scale. We also focus on self assembly molecules for Nanostructures, because some phthalocyanines shows wonderful properties of self assembling. We are focusing on to manipulate and control the stacking nature of molecules for various applications like molecular motors, assembly of biological structures, which is a promising technique under bottom-up approach in nanotechnology. Another important aspect of these molecules can be observed by its applications as photosensitizers which is a promising PDT (photo dynamic cancer therapy) agent.

Publications
`Magnesium Phthalocyanine (MgPc) Thin Films as Nnaomaterials`: Munish Puri, R. K. Bedi and G V Prakash: SPIE Proceedings DSS`06 6223-18 April, 2006.

`Zinc-Phthalocyanine (ZnPc) Thin Films as Nnaomaterials`: Munish Puri, R. K. Bedi: Proceedings 3rd 21 COE Symposium on Astrophysics: Waseda Univ. TOKYO, Sept, 1-3 2005.

References
DR. G. VIJAYA PRAKASH
Assistant Professor Department of Physics
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Hauz Khas,
New Delhi, 110 016 India
PH: +91(11) 2659 1326 (O) PH: +91(11) 2659 7036 (H)
FAX: +91(11) 2658 1114
prakash@physics.iitd.ac.in
http://paniit.iitd.ac.in/~prakash

DR. R.K.BEDI,
Professor, Materials Research Lab,
Physics Department, GND University,
Amritsar, India
rkbedi@rediffmail.com

DR. P.C.KALSI,
Scientist (G Grade), Radiochemistry Division,
BARC, Babha Atomic Research Center,
Trombay, India
pckalsi@magnum.barc.ernet.in