[extropy-chat] Re: garage nanotech

[Robert Bradbury]

Kevin asked:

> Dan? How's that STM coming? Have you thought of maybe redesigning
> in a way that you can do this?

It may be useful for Dan to point out to his daughter that if someone
does
pull off tool tip replacement and alternative assembly chemistries for
STMs
that they are probably on the short list for a Nobel Prize (and probably

would have a very *very* large set of royalty income streams from the
patents.)

> Also, Robert, how's the nano at home software coming along. I can't wait
to
> start playing with this. :-)

You can review an extensive set of discussions at the
"www.nanoathome.org" site.
You can start "playing" with it by installing some existing molecular
viewing packages
(which are documented in the FAQ which should be back up within a few
hours [I hope!])
and then downloading any of the existing molecular parts from
"imm.org".  One really
needs to take some number of hours to look at the parts and understand
how they work.
Though it is the intent of Nano at Home to use the software in an automatic
fashion to evolve
"simple" parts (e.g. a nano-screw) it will hopefully ultimately evolve
so that people get to
interact with the design process (i.e. human-directed spin-control).
However to get to
this point may take several years of software development.  But that
does not stop one
from developing experience with nanoparts using existing software.

For example, I have been told (and I don't remember the source) that
Eric designed
the Fine Motion Controller with six positioning arms instead of the four
required for
a Stewart Platform to annoy Ralph.  (This is a complete rumor -- Eric
might well have
designed the FMC the way he did for better stability.)  But it would be
reasonable
(today) for people to attempt a design of a FMC with four arms rather
than six.

So the lack of automated software that Nano at Home may provide need not
delay
people from becoming involved in nanopart design.

Robert