[extropy-chat] Nanotech educations

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> CAD is the wrong-ended approach. 3d structure
> editors exist, and by now scale
> into some 10^5 atoms. With current hardware there is
> no problem to render
> some 10^9 atoms in realtime.

Technically, 3d structure editors are a form of
Computer Aided Design.  I see what you mean, but you
might want to phrase it differently.

> I find VMD has no trouble manipulating systems the 
> size of an SV40 virus. Given that we can't do more
> than to break and form a
> few bonds in toto currently, the capabilities of
> manipulating and rendering
> molecules and molecular systems in machina.

"...the capabilities...in machina" what?  Did you
mean, "exist only in machina"?

> I've found the machine-phase people completely
> unresponsive when asked to
> contribute to a CML specification suitable for
> representing
> Drexler/Merkle/Freitas type of devices. There's an
> emerging standard, and our
> needs are not accounted for.

If I understand "machine-phase people" correctly, this
is largely because there are no existing tools for
doing that sort of manipulation.  People who work on
the tools that exist tend to focus on the tools that
exist.  (Which is not to say that other people can't
work on the problem, just that this specific group is
focussed on its immediate needs.)

> If you want to know where the bottleneck is: it's
> where it's been all along.
> 
> We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis
> reactions.

And we need tools to perform those validations.
Creating the tools seems to be a bigger problem than
using them to create the library once they exist.
(Not to mention, the details of the tools will tend to
shed light on the proper format of the library.)

One could possibly build MNT systems around a very
very limited library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
Maybe just one or two eactions (bombardment with high
energy photons or electrons, and exposure to high
electrical current when bonded to a conductive
manipulator), with variations for different power
levels and different atoms.

> I will people here would talk Jaguar, Gaussiand and
> Gamess (and that package
> Zyvex is using) instead of AutoCAD.

Once they're no longer talking about purely
theoretical stuff?  Sure.  In the mean time, I've got
my current project, for which the first three tools
are not suited.  (Then again, one could maybe write
extensions to AutoCAD that emulate the functions of
the other tools, no?)

> Anyone now go read
> http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nanocad/index.html

Umm...the archive ends in September 2001.  Might its
contents be a bit dated by now?