[extropy-chat] FWD: ACTION ALERT: Nanofactory Animation Challenge Grant ? Please Respond by November 15

[Hal Finney]

I'm forwarding the letter below from Foresight.  Apologies if you get
it more than once.  I'm not sure how good a cause it is, though, to give
money for making a movie vs helping out ExI or some other transhumanist
group.

I took a look at the animation and it was pretty nice, at least the
first part.  It clearly illustrates Drexler's emphasis on mill based
assembly rather than the robot arm based model which is practically
synonymous with molecular manufacturing in the popular press.  Here is
some commentary and criticism.

As we zoom into the mill, we first see a rather incomprehensible picture
of several molecular "conveyor belts" moving in a complex pattern.
This subsequently gets illustrated in more detail.

We zoom in and see a gas composed of acetylene molecules, C2H2 (actually
H-C-C-H) passing through two sorting rotors.  This is Drexler's concept
for purification.  Each rotor uses a different type of active region
to move just the correct molecules from one compartment to the other.
This way, after several purification stages the gas should be free of
contamination.

The reactions here are apparently based somewhat on Ralph Merkle's paper,
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/hydroCarbonMetabolism.html, although that
used diacetylene, C4H2.  The goal is ultimately to deposit a pair of
carbon atoms into a growing diamondoid structure.

The acetylene molecules are captured by another rotor which carries them
around and deposits them on top of a pyramidal structure mounted on a
conveyor belt.  These conveyor belts will be used both to carry molecules
around and to bring them together so they can react.  It's not clear what
makes the acetylene "stick" to the conveyor belt tool.  The acetylene
is held sideways at this point.

The bound molecule is now carried down and interacts with another conveyor
belt that has a large, purplish atom on it.  This manages to "abstract"
or remove a hydrogen atom from the acetylene.  You can see the purple atom
leaving now with the white hydrogen.  Meanwhile the acetylene has become
a CCH and rotates so the hydrogen is pointing outward.

The belt swings around and now an interesting 3-atom reaction takes
place.  A large, ominous looking yellow atom comes up and sits next
to the remaining hydrogen atom from the original acetylene.  This is
presumably designed to weaken the otherwise strong bond holding the
hydrogen in place.  Now a third belt swings up from the bottom and
performs another hydrogen abstraction.  This leaves just the C2 sitting
on the original conveyor belt.

Finally the belt swings around and the C2 is deposited on a growing cube
of diamond.  This is the purpose of all of the action we have seen so far.
These diamond cubes are carried on a red upward-moving conveyor belt.
As we pull back we see further mills located off into the unimaginable
distance, each one adding a pair of carbon atoms to the growing diamond
structure.

At this point the movie cuts to a much later stage of assembly.
Probably this is where some of the unfinished portion will go.  I don't
really see what is happening here, but it appears that a miniature
molecular siege gun is being constructed, perhaps to fight off any
attacking micro-organisms.  Well, probably not, but it's hard to tell.
Basically we see one unit being picked up and set on another unit.
There's no hint of what is holding the pieces together when they are
set on one another.

Things then become even more incomprehensible, with a strange ferris
wheel looking thing that doesn't seem to be doing anything (maybe it's
checking the previous steps for errors), and then some arms which set a
cube shape into an array, where it promptly vanishes as if by magic.
I guess this is another unfinished sequence.

Finally the lid of the nanofactory pops open and out comes an inanimate
carbon rod.  No, it unfolds and turns into a laptop computer.  Of course,
it's a really, really good laptop computer.

Anyway, the most interesting part of this was, for me, the mill.
I feel that this illustrates some of the problems and limitations with
this concept as it makes it more concrete.  One problem is the need to
restore the tool tips to their original state as they complete a cycle
around the conveyor belt.  The central paradox is that, for example, the
hydrogen abstraction tool must pull and hold the hydrogen pretty hard,
to get it away from the other side.  But now we need to undo that and
get it to let go of the hydrogen so that it's ready to steal another
when it comes around again.  So do we use another reaction that's going
to pull even harder on the hydrogen?  That won't work.

Merkle's paper above shows an answer, which is to use 3-finger or 4-finger
reactions, as is done in the 2nd hydrogen abstraction in this example.
Bringing in some metal atoms and other large atoms can produce electric
fields that change bonding strength of nearby atoms.  So it can work in
theory, for some cases, but every reaction has to be worked out in detail.

In this particular case, we have the puzzle of what is holding the
acetylene to the first mill.  It has to be holding it tightly enough
that the first hydrogen tool doesn't pull the entire acetylene off.
Yet it's loose enough that once the two hydrogens are gone, it will
transfer spontaneously to the diamond workpiece.  That whole sequence of
reactions needs to be detailed, to make sure that the process will work.
(This is basically Smalley's "sticky fingers" problem.)

Another issue is that this enormous structure, the sorting rotors and
the reactor mills, is designed for specifically adding two carbon atoms
to a specific place on a specific workpiece.  This isn't a programmable
structure.  It can't be used to build anything else.  It can only add
atoms number 1,347 and 1,348 to a growing cube.

Every piece is designed like an enormous (actually microscopic of
course!) clockwork so that each piece fits together perfectly.  When we
see the additional mill structures off in the distance, each adding a
C2 dimer, those are just like this one, except they are positioned a few
tenths of a nanometer differently, so that their atoms go into the next
two slots, 1,349 and 1,350, and so on.

Molecular mill systems like this are not programmable.  They build fixed
structures.  Then at a higher level, a programmable system is supposed
to put them together to make whatever is desired.  This is presumably
what the later part of the video will show.

One final point which these mills illustrate is that there really are
"fingers" involved, despite the fervent denials by nanotech advocates.
Particularly with the 3-atom interaction shown with the 2nd hydrogen
abstraction, and presumably with other reactions as well, several pieces
have to be brought together in precisely the right qarrangement.

It's actually worse than this, because based on Drexler's descriptions,
these mill reactions are not being depicted quite right.  In some cases
Drexler suggested that rather than the reactions occuring in empty space
as we see here, they would occur within a structure which had cavities
and grooves for the tool tips to move through as the belts came together.
These structures could adjust the electrical and chemical environment
to facilitate the reaction.

Any time you have a reaction where several pieces have to come together
(Merkle's paper has 3- and 4-finger reactions) you do have a potential
problem of having room for everything.  This is the point Smalley was
making, that in practice some of the reactions will require so much
control over the local environment that the "fat fingers" will get in
each other's way.  While we don't see that here, we also don't necessarily
see a convincing reaction sequence, as I have explained above.

I hope that this video will be helpful in explaining Drexler's ideas to a
wider audience.  I don't think many other people have been aware that this
concept is the basis for his proposed manufacturing system.  However I
would rather see more work on the specific reactions being proposed,
with some analysis of whether they can actually happen.  There doesn't
seem to have been much additional work done since Merkle's 1997 paper.

I don't think this video in itself will answer Smalley's objections or
silence the critics.  It will at least give people a concrete model to
criticize, though, which will be a step forward.

Hal


> Dear Foresight Institute Member,
>
> Visualizing nanotechnology and nanosystems, in particular,  
> is a major challenge in communicating the 
> power of this technology. 
>
> A highlight at the 1st Conference on Advanced Nanotechnology held in
> Washington DC was the premier of "Productive Nanosystems: from
> Molecules to Superproducts," a computer-generated animated short film.
>
> This four-minute film is a collaborative project of animator and 
> engineer, John Burch, and pioneer nanotechnologist, Dr. K. Eric
> Drexler. The film depicts an animated view of a nanofactory and
> demonstrates key steps in a process that converts simple
> molecules into a billion-CPU laptop computer.
>
> These steps include the sorting of molecules, precise atomic construction
> through the use of placement tools, and the assembly of smaller parts
> into larger parts. Scenes depicting initial tool preparation show molecular
> reactions based on computational quantum chemistry, and later stage
> manufacturing processes are based on industrial processes found in
> large-scale factories.
>
> The premiered version, v0.8, of "Productive Nanosystems: from Molecules
> to Superproducts" received great applause and was screened, by popular
> request, two additional times during the conference. This film will make
> tremendous strides in the education of students, researchers, policy 
> makers and members of the media in the understanding of nanosystems.
>
> ======================
> ANIMATION CHALLENGE GRANT
>
> Thanks to Mark Sims, President of the nano-CAD software company,
> Nanorex. Foresight Institute has a $10,000 challenge grant running
> through November 15, 2004. This means that every dollar donated by
> others up to this total will be doubled.
>
> This grant will ensure completion of the project and will enable broad
> distribution of the final version over the Internet. All proceeds from the 
> grant will go toward the completion and upgrade of the film. 
>
> A sample of the animation can be seen below, and the estimated 
> completion date is early 2005.
>
> Slide show:
> http://www.foresight.org/lizardfire/nanofactorySS.html
>
> Animated clip: 
> http://www.foresight.org/animation_challenge/nanofactory_360x240copyright_sor3.mov
>
> Attendees of the conference have matched approximately half of the 
> grant, and we're asking you to help with the other half.  Please go to
> http://www.foresight.org/animation_challenge/
> to see the progress of the challenge grant,
>
> ======================
> DONATE NOW:
>
> Contribute online at this secure form:
> https://snow.he.net/%7Eforesite/DonationForm.html
> Click on "not a membership, but another donation button"
> Enter: "Animation Completion" in the purpose of this donation field
>
> Or if you want to send in your donation by US post or fax
> Go to this form, print out and send
> http://www.foresight.org/FI/Donation.html (print and fax)
>
> Donations are tax deductible in the United States. Large donors may have
> the opportunity to have their name or logo place on the final credit scroll
> of the completed film.
>
> ======================
> ABOUT NANOREX
>
> Nanorex, Inc, is based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and was incorporated
> in April 2004. The mission of Nanorex is to develop the world's best 3-D
> molecular engineering software needed to realize the full potential of 
> molecular nanotechnology. Nanorex has seven employees and is led by 
> Mark Sims, President and J. Storrs Hall, PhD., Chief Scientist.
>
> The tentative release of Nanorex's first product, nanoENGINEER-1 is 
> targeted for Summer 2005. For more information about Nanorex send an 
> email to info at nanorex.com.
>
>
> ======================
> CONFERENCE CONTRIBUTORS
>
> The premier of "Productive Nanosystems: from Molecules to 
> Superproducts" was so well received several attendees at the 1st
> Conference on Advanced Nanotechnology immediately donated toward 
> the film's completion. 
>
> Here is a partial list of donors:
>
> Doug Arends
> Jennifer Ash
> Brett Belmore
> David DeGroote
> Jason Force
> Ed Hippo
> Paras Kaul
> Andrew Keane
> Charles Kellogg
> John Lobell
> Sergio Martinez de Lahildago
> Tom McKendree
> David Moore
> James Moore
> Michael Stollmeyer
> Philip Thorn
> Gregory Trochina
> Will Ware
> Linda Wolin
> Robert Zeches
>
>
> ======================
>
> Thank you for your continued support, if you have any questions about 
> this challenge grant, please contact foresight at foresight.org
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Foresight Institute
>
> ======================
>
> Foresight Institute
> PO Box 61058
> Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA
> tel +1 650 917 1122
> fax +1 650 917 1123
> foresight at foresight.org
> http://www.foresight.org
>
> ******************************************
>
> Foresight Institute is the leading think tank and
> public interest organization focused on
> nanotechnology. Formed in 1986 by K. Eric Drexler
> and Christine Peterson, Foresight dedicates itself
> to providing education, policy development, and
> networking to maximize benefits and minimize
> downsides of molecular manufacturing.