Responsible Nanotechnology

Fear of Technology

Relinquishment of dangerous technologies -- specifically, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics -- was famously proposed a few years ago by software guru Bill Joy. This summer, during the Always On Summit at Stanford University, a panel including Joy, George Gilder, and CRN Task Force member Jaron Lanier debated the question: Is technology making us safer?

A transcript of their discussion is being posted in six parts. In Part One, Joy warns about...

...the ability of an individual to cause great harm, whether it's a virus through the Net that causes great economic damage or an infective biological agent being manufactured or engineered.

So we've got to find a way through public policy to deal with the fact that we have what the military calls "asymmetric capability:" a single actor can use [technology] to create an epidemic which is unanticipated by the population. This is something we have to be prepared to deal with as these tools get more and more powerful. So technology is increasing the danger of a lone individual creating a catastrophic amount of harm. And our institutions don't deal with this.

Gilder strongly challenges Joy's assumptions, and then Lanier expresses concern about a growing fear of technology among the public and politicians:

There's a tremendous retreat, just in the last year or two, from long-term science funding. It's due to the Christian Right; it's due to the New Age Left; it's due to the short-term corporate thinker; it's due to the short-term military thinker. . . everybody except for China and India and the rest of the world.

I think that this talk of technology just making itself go forward doesn't help, because you can either come away from that feeling that if technology is going to make itself, then why do we have to do anything? Why should we fund it? Or you might think that these people are going to kill us all. Then you end up with Bill's perspective of "Oh my God, we're all going to be swallowed by the great goo!" And neither of those is very helpful.

I'm looking forward to reading Parts Two through Six.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Atoms in Action

Want to see some proposed -- and precisely simulated -- nanomachines?

Take a look at this gallery of simulations posted by Nanorex. The images are engineering designs prepared with nanoENGINEER-1 software, and are based on known scientific laws. Not just pretty pictures, but potentially real nanoscale machines.

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Asia Wants Nano Agriculture

A couple of months ago, Dr. Alimorad Srafrazi, from the Plant Pests & Diseases Research Institute in Iran, posted a comment on our blog. He said, "I would like to start some studies on the application of nanotechnology" in greenhouse agriculture.

Following that request, Alireza Rezazadeh added a comment indicating that he is part of the "nano group" at Shahed University in Tehran, in the field of agriculture. He offered to work together with Dr. Srafrazi on nanotech studies.

In the last few weeks, we've heard from two others who want to study the agricultural applications of nanotechnology.

M. Damodhara Rao, a Research Scholar in the Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering and the Indian Institute of Technology, said he "would like to work with the research group." And Dr. R. Prakash, an Associate Professor at Kerala Agricultural University in India also expressed interest.

We're proud that our blog is serving as a way for people throughout the world to make useful connections. As populations continue to grow at unsustainable levels in developing countries, new technologies could make a big impact in reducing poverty and improving nutrition. Of course, the earliest applications from nanotechnology will not be a result of molecular manufacturing, but work being done today by researchers like those named above could play a significant role in developing enabling technologies.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

HTML is Back

By popular demand, the experiment that began here on April 12, 2005 has now ended.

The good news is that you can once again use HTML tags in comments. The bad news is that URL addresses will no longer automatically be converted to hyperlinks. (Our blog service does not allow any greater customization of these options than that.)

Enjoy!

Sir Arthur on the Elevator

When Neil Armstrong stepped out onto the Sea of Tranquillity in that historic summer of 1969, the science fiction writers had already been there for two thousand years. But history is always more imaginative than any prophet: no one ever dreamt that the first chapter of lunar exploration would end after only a dozen men had walked upon the Moon.

The great futurist author Arthur C. Clarke puts big exploratory leaps into context in a guest editorial from The London Times (as seen on The Speculist, by way of Instapundit).

Yet it was not the first time that ambition had outrun technology. In the Antarctic summer of 1911-12, ten men reached the South Pole, and five returned. They used only the most primitive of tools and energy sources — snowshoes, dog sleds, their own muscles. Once the pole had been attained, it was abandoned for nearly half a century. And then, in the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), humans came back with all the resources of modern technology — and they stayed. For more than 40 years now, summer and winter, men and women have been living and working at the South Pole.

So it will be with the Moon. When we go back, it will be in vehicles that make the Saturn V look like a clumsy, inefficient dinosaur of the early Space Age. And this time, we will stay — and slowly extend onward to the planets, beginning with Mars.

But instead of using rockets to get us off the Earth, says Clarke, let's try a different plan this time, one that dates back to 1960.

I would urge NASA to keep investing at least a small proportion of its substantial budget in supporting the research and development of alternatives to rockets. There is at least one idea that may ultimately make space transport cheap and affordable to ordinary people: the space elevator.

NASA is investing a small portion of its research budget in "crazy" ideas like this. Through their Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), they have supported the remarkable work of Brad Edwards, for example, as well as inventive nanotechnology design ideas jointly developed by CRN's Chris Phoenix, and Tihamer Toth-Fejel of General Dynamics.

Clarke continues:

The space elevator was the central theme in my 1978 science-fiction novel The Fountains of Paradise (soon to be a Hollywood movie). When I wrote it, I considered it little more than a fascinating thought experiment. At that time, the only material from which it could be built — diamond — was not readily available in sufficient megaton quantities.

Current space elevator proposals generally envision carbon nanotubes (C60) as the primary material for the cable(s). It will be several years, however, until the stuff can be produced in sufficient quantity to begin actual construction on the elevator. By that time, it's possible that Clarke's original material -- diamond -- may be easily and cheaply supplied in bulk by nanofactories.

As its most enthusiastic promoter, I am often asked when I think the first space elevator might be built. My answer has always been: about 50 years after everyone has stopped laughing. Maybe I should now revise it to 25 years.

Let's see, that would be around 2030 (since we don't hear much laughter anymore). Could it happen even earlier? Some people, like the Liftport Group, think so -- they project the first space elevator lift to occur on April 12, 2018.

I've already purchased a ticket.

UPDATE: On October 4, 2006, the Liftport Group announced that they have developed a preliminary roadmap [PDF] for building the space elevator, and they thay have pushed back the projected completion date from 2018 to 2031.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

CRN goes to Chicago...

Chris Phoenix will be speaking at the Assembly Technology Expo Tuesday the 27th. His talk is titled, "What is nanotechnology? And what does it have to do with assembly technology?"

The session is listed at the bottom of this page.

The conference classifies molecular manufacturing under self-assembly, so Chris will be explaining why it goes far beyond that.

Envision Darker Scenarios

Flying cars are everywhere… large regions of the earth are under transparent domes with controlled weather… elsewhere, single buildings rise miles into the sky… huge areas of the ocean are covered with solar cells… tiny cameras watch everyone everywhere all the time, making sure crime does not pay…

In the near future, each of these visions will become possible. They could become reality. But will they? And should they?

That's the opening of my latest Future Brief essay, titled "Dark Visions of a Fantastic Future." Here is the final paragraph:

Visions of a fantastic future could come true in our lifetimes. As we dream of the wonderful possibilities, we should take care also to envision darker scenarios. Because unless we can prevent the worst of the dangers—and there are many—we will deny ourselves any hope of realizing the benefits.

If you read the rest of it -- and I hope you will! -- please leave a comment at the Future Brief site.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

How to Use Nanoblocks

A reader just asked me (Chris) these questions: How are nanoblocks fastened together to form macro structures? How can nanoblocks implement the diversity and complexity required to build a wide range of products?

There are several proposed fastening techniques. Some of them are more elegant than others. One of the most elegant proposals is to leave surfaces unterminated (with dangling bonds), so they form into one giant seamless molecule when pushed together. But this has not been well studied yet, and I'm not 100% convinced it would work as we'd wish.

My fallback technique is plain old mechanical fasteners. I talked about this to some extent in my Primitive Nanofactory paper. I didn't go into a lot of detail, because I didn't think I needed to. A 200-nm nanoblock has space for millions of mechanical features, so I don't think there'll be any problem inventing a mechanical system that does what we need it to do. So I didn't worry too much about it, once I was reasonably well satisfied that functional connections as well as strong structural connections could be made.

A nanoblock is a convenient size for design. It's small enough to be buildable by a single molecular fabricator in a reasonable time, and also small enough not to be damaged too quickly by background radiation. But it's big enough to contain lots and lots of functionality, and to be handled easily and efficiently in a planar assembly nanofactory.

I expect there will be dozens or hundreds of nanoblock types, with each type parameterized to some extent. In a way, they might be very roughly analogous to the assembly language of a computer. Some blocks might change dimension (actuators). Some could be sensors or display elements. Some might be analogous to utility tunnels with valves and conduits, programmable to distribute information, materials, and power. Some could contain computer CPU's or other logic circuitry. Some would be nearly-solid structural components. Some might have wheels sticking out one side to contact a large shaft, with a cylindrical array of such blocks acting as a bearing or motor. And so on.

Basic nanomachines like motors and logic gates would be combined to build this pallette of nanoblocks. Then the nanoblocks could be combined to form "virtual materials" with programmable properties. The virtual materials could be used to form micro- or macro-scale machines. Micro-scale machines could be built into another layer of "virtual materials." This is not the only way to design large products out of nanoscale components, but I think it's reasonably effective and efficient.

Chris Phoenix

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Nanoscale Engineering: Major Advances

Nanoscale tools are getting more and more functional and general-purpose. Researchers at Northwestern University have just accomplished the following:

- Designed a tiny sensitive system for applying and sensing force.
- Had samples welded to the device using a new and very powerful nanoscale manufacturing system.
- Put the device in a tunneling electron microscope (TEM), and watched the tube while they pulled it apart.

This is really impressive stuff. There are apparently three different systems involved: the sensor, the manufacturing system, and the final sensing configuration.

The sensor is a two-chip MEMS (micro electro mechanical system) device that can sense 10 nanoNewtons -- about the strength of a single strong inter-atomic bond -- using capacitive sensing, while using thermomechanical components to apply the force. It's small enough to fit into a TEM.

The manufacturing system (which was at the University of Illinois) is an integrated focused ion beam (FIB) and scanning electron microscope (SEM). This is a very flexible and powerful configuration. FIB systems shoot ionized atoms at the sample, while electron microscopes shoot electrons. The FIB atoms erode the sample. Sometimes, this is what you want: leave the beam in one spot, and you can drill a deep hole; scan it, and you can drill other shapes. You can scan the beam to perform scanning microscopy similar to SEM, but the FIB still erodes the sample -- rather quickly, for sub-micron samples.

By including an SEM in the same system, you can scan the sample non-destructively and use the FIB only where you want to mill the sample. FIB systems can mill ~8 nanometer spots with sub-nanometer precision. Both FIB and SEM can deposit material onto the sample, though I think SEM is more delicate and less disruptive to the sample. They can build quite intricate shapes, including spirals and arches, perhaps 25 nm wide. I'm guessing that the system also has a tilting and rotating stage, so the milling and deposition can take place at a wide range of angles, not just vertical.

The system also includes a nano-manipulator. Putting together microscopy, material deposition, material removal, and manipulation, this means that sub-micron pieces can be cut to a desired shape, moved into position, and welded together. It should even be possible to build devices out of heterogeneous materials. One other thing -- the FIB-deposited material can be conductive or insulating, so it's possible to use this to wire up electrical devices.

Back to what Northwestern did: Once they got back a stress-tester with a cut-to-size and carefully-positioned sample welded to it, they stuck it into a transmission electron microscope. This is a very high-resolution kind of electron microscope that works by shooting electrons through thin samples. So they could pull on the sample, measure the force, and watch it stretch and break, all at the same time. They did this for carbon nanotubes, metallic nanowires, and free-standing polysilicon films. They say it can also be used on organic materials such as DNA, proteins, and nanofibers.

Although nothing in this work is atomically precise (with the possible exception of the TEM microscopy), it's getting close. The ability to integrate MEMS, nano-manipulation, FIB, and SEM in a single manufacturing system opens a vast new array of experiments. And the ability to watch and measure a nano-shaped sample during mechanical tests will speed all sorts of nanomaterial and nanostructure research.

There are several possible paths to molecular manufacturing. Drexler favors starting with biopolymer-based systems and improving them incrementally. Freitas and Merkle propose using scanning probe microscopes to do direct mechanosynthesis of diamondoid systems. I have changed my mind about once a year as to which of these was likely to be quicker. But another researcher, Josh Hall, favors a third path: using a more traditional machining approach to build small systems that can perform increasingly precise operations. (This is similar to what was originally proposed by Feynman.) Although I have not previously seen that as a major contender, this work has gone a long way toward changing my mind.

Chris Phoenix

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Small Distances, Big Forces

An interesting and rather advanced piece of research (PDF paper here) has just been accomplished, measuring the van der Waals force that surfaces exert on nearby atoms.

The apparatus shoots a beam of atoms through a narrow slot, 50 nanometers wide and 150 nanometers long. The quantum state of the atoms is affected in a way that can be detected by an interferometer. The resulting observed phase shift agrees with theory. The experiment is impressive and useful, and allows conclusions to be drawn with more certainty and precision, but does not change what was already known about van der Waals force.

The news writeup gives a different impression. The headline is, "Physicists Measure Tiny Force That Limits How Far Machines Can Shrink." Let me repeat -- the force is not new, and the measurement is consistent with existing theory. And the implication of the article, that this sets new limits on mechanical nanosystems, is completely groundless.

Theory and experiment agree that the atoms were accelerated at about 1 million times the force of gravity. That sounds very impressive. But a flea can jump many times its own height, and an atom is far less constrained by gravity than a flea. The weight of an atom is about 10^-25 newtons. A million times that is still only 10^-19 newtons. But the bonding force that holds atoms within molecules is more than 10^-9 newtons. In other words, this million-gravity force is less than one-ten-millionth of the force that holds atoms in ordinary molecules. It's impressive that it could be measured at all.

Twenty-five nanometers is a large distance for nanomachines, and the force increases rapidly as the distance decreases. But even for surfaces that are close together, held apart only by the natural repulsion of the atoms, the van der Waals force will be a small fraction of the bonding force. Well-constructed mechanical interfaces will be able to move and detach without damage and with predictable kinematics.

It's interesting -- sometimes there seems almost to be a party line that says "every new discovery about the nanoscale should be interpreted to show that nanomachines are difficult or impossible to build." The contrast between the press release and the actual paper is pretty striking. The actual research says basically nothing about the difficulty of building mechanical nanosystems, noting only that "the vdW interaction is one of the most important forces at the nanometer length scale" -- which we already knew.

Chris Phoenix

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog