Very Tiny Motor: Nano-level 123
Daeron Meyer writes " ABCNews is carrying the story of the Boston College prof who took four years but just 78
atoms to create a tiny motor. The current problem is that the wheel get stuck after rotating 120 degrees. So, not much use yet, but it's a step."
one small step for man ...... (Score:1)
Or more specifically, it's a third of a step.
big monitors NOT needed (Score:1)
In the future (thanks to nanotech) it'll be possible to build a high-res display the size of a contact lens.
Re:Machines building Machines (Score:1)
Who knows that, who said that and how could they possibly know. It's brand new technology.
I'd say there were plenty of people watching the first heavier-than-air flight saying "Geeze, everyone knows we can't get to the stars like this.."
most of the talk I've seen has been about building tiny machines to build these tiny machines (basically self-replicating). I don't think we've ever done this in any other field...
Maybe not, but it's entirely possible. Look at the automobile industry. It's largely robotic. That's machines building other machines, on a bigger scale but it's still the same thing..
How do you test something like that? You let it go (in a controlled environment) and see what happens. Now, if they're building those machines anything like the way I write code, they're occasionally going to go nuts and do something unexpected (oh come on it happens to you too).
Everything is like that though. If we were always afraid of the unknown, nothing new would ever happen.
Imagine a tiny factory that could duplicate itself using only water. Now drop it in the ocean...
Imagine a thermonuclear device capable of killing everyone within a 100 square miles. Now build enough of them to kill everyone on the planet 100 times over, distribute them to 100 different countries across the globe.
Worry about the present. Plan for the future.
None, really (Score:1)
Sub-nano (Score:1)
Re:No, Nano = molecular-scale (Score:1)
When these things become more common (or people are trained how to use SI units
Re:...for animals as well (but impractical) (Score:1)
That's ok, it's just willing suspension of disbelief in action.
...phil
Re:Nanotech is on the way! (Score:1)
I advise you to do a little research. Cancer is a lot more treatable now than it was 30 years ago. It's not a completely solved problem, but it's getting there.
...phil
little discoveries + major changes (Score:2)
I am fairly certain that not many folks had a vision of where that would lead in ~50 years.
I leave the predictions to the predictors.
I just think it is pretty cool
Re:Powered by chemical reactions?? (Score:2)
--Phil (Now I just need a Feed and a matter compiler...)
Re:Violent Implications (Score:1)
The end goal of a weapon in war is to "neutralize" the enemy, make them no longer a threat.
You don't necessarily have to kill or even maim a man to neutralize them.
Technology like this might be just the thing - it could easily be used to selectively paralyze the human body, and you're an instant POW. When the war's over, they irradiate you with a coded signal that deactivates the nanites, and now, you're a slave to the regime that just conquered your country. (with the threat that if you resist, or don't work hard, the nanites can be switched back on).
Now, I guess it all depends on who the master of the technology is, and what the goals are. If you want to conquer a nation, that's the most humane way, technologically possible, to do it, and probably the cheapest too, and you don't end up with problems a generation later (you bastard Zambozian! You killed my father, I'm going to start an underground resistance, and I'll be blowing up busses and airplanes for the next 20 years).
But if your goals are to kill off an entire race - well then, the device won't be designed to selectively paralyze, or be switched off. But then you still have the problem of "friendly fire", you'll want to be able to rescue friendlies that have been accidentally exposed to the nanites, so again, ideally, a reversible, partial paralysis mmode of operation would be best, and when the fighting's over, you round up the hostiles, and, well, terminate them.
Maybe the human race is not ready for this yet.
But they better GET ready, in a hurry.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Violent Implications (Score:1)
The cure for HIV? Well, let's look at some uses.
- the cure won't come on its own -- there are going to be some scientific advances, and some of them are going to have violent potential in and of themselves. This assumes that the cure has no side-effects, an unheard-of situation.
- economics -- one can use the cure as an economic club.
- psychology -- someone who stopped being sexually promiscuous strictly because of AIDS will almost certainly start again once the cure is available. This opens the door to new types of infections (which have ALWAYS turned up just as the previous infection was defeated!). This can also be deliberately manipulated.
I'm going off now, but I think you get the idea.
-Billy
Re:Machines building Machines (Score:1)
Read _Zodiac_, by Neal Stephenson (same one who wrote _The Diamond Age_). Imagine a plasmid that could convert PCBs (organic chlorine compounds; toxic waste) into CO2 and salt water. Now, imagine one that does the reverse. Now drop THAT in the ocean... *shiver*
---
But there *is* a theoretical limit (Score:5)
Re:ATP stable (Score:1)
Has anyone developed an atomic-scale equivalent to "throwing a wrench into the works"? Or would anyone care to take a stab at one?
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:Powered by chemical reactions?? (Score:4)
You have atoms and molecules reversed, my friend. An atom is the building block from which molecules are formed. The motor is 1 molecule (most likely, or maybe 2 - they didn't say if the bit that turns is separate from the bit that it turns in) formed of 78 atoms. Ionic bonds are a crystal, which isn't really a molecule but a lattice of atoms; for example, table salt (NaCl) isn't a lot of NaCl molecules but a large lattice formed of sodium and chlorine atoms.
As for the motor 'reacting,' a spontaneous reaction is what happens when one higher-energy bond breaks and forms a lower-energy bond, thus releasing energy. This is the kind of reaction that needs to be worried about. (A nonspontaneous reaction requires that energy be added into the system, and even then it tries to release energy.)
As someone else pointed out, if the bond is covalent (which is formed by two atoms sharing electrons and is rather strong), it's not very likely to break from water. Water reactions are very different from dissolution; the nanomachine isn't likely to react with the water, particularly if it's made of silicon. After all, if silicates reacted freely with water, we'd be in a good deal of trouble, since glass (SiO2) is often used to contain water. Though SiO2 has a very low energy potential and doesn't react with much to begin with anyway.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Machines building Machines (Score:2)
How do you test something like that? You let it go (in a controlled environment) and see what happens. Now, if they're building those machines anything like the way I write code, they're occasionally going to go nuts and do something unexpected (oh come on it happens to you too).
Imagine a tiny factory that could duplicate itself using only water. Now drop it in the ocean...
Re:i wonder (Score:1)
correction (Score:1)
Lea
won't dissolve (Score:1)
read some Drexler
Lea
Re:Sub-nano -- not really (Score:1)
and you have to leave room for all those mechanical logic gates!
Lea
Re:correction (Score:1)
so there's something even better to use than humans -- and easier to culture as well!
Lea
Re:...for animals as well (but impractical) (Score:1)
however, since I'm a perfectionist, my small arguments to your arments:
#3, #4 -- they were liquifing dead people and feeding then to the live ones. however, this still does not solve the problem entirely, but with some food stores (which people tend to build up anyways) this could last for a while on starvation rations
#5 -- that's what we're for. we're good at it
#7, #8 -- actually, if I remember correctly, it took the electric impulses from the brain/etc. problem with this is the same as with taking the current generated by inductive brakes (see Great America's Drop Zone): that current is being used for something, and if you take it away, then whatever was using it wouldn't work anymore. there would be no need for the Matrix, since we wouldn't be ALIVE or have brain signals anyways...
I think #1 is all you need. if there were (for example) a lotof grain or dead bodies, you could feed those to aerobic prokariotes and take the ATP and use it for something -- it's more efficent...
Lea
...for animals as well (but impractical) (Score:5)
however, the nanites could refuel from your cells if they were in there for something else. convenient food source
Lea
Culture (Score:1)
Motor ? Bearing (Score:2)
The above claim offends my olde fashioned sense of thermodynamics, to wit, there are no perpetual motion machines. I really don't think a rotating molecule capable of supplying mechanical power (i.e., a "motor") can "continue indefinitely" w/o some kind of energy input, such as light as mentioned elsewhere. I can beleive a 120 degree motion powered by chemical bonds occurred, but don't understand how this can continue in perpetuity. Of course this is all at the quantum level and all new rules apply, all sorts of possibilities, like the ratchet effect alluded to: if that could take advantage of heat (agitated molecules) to create motion, 'd be cool!
My word
Chuck
Woohoo (Score:1)
This is undoubtedly a small development in the big schematic of things. And like all small things, must be applauded for their very hot (120 degrees!) new toy.
:)
--
Woohoo (Score:1)
This is undoubtedly a small development in the big schematic of things. And like all small things, must be applauded.
This looks to be a very hot (120 degrees!) new toy.
:)
--
Re:Woohoo (Score:1)
Sheesh!
--
Ah, the divergance of views of the future is funny (Score:2)
Bad Mojo
Re:...for animals as well (but impractical) (Score:1)
1) Conservation of energy. Nobody's going to argue that with me.
2) The purpose of a generator is to convert fuel that is hard to use into some energy form that is easier to use.
3) Humans require, in addition to the small amounts of vitamins, sizeable amounts of proteins, carbohydrates, and fats.
4) All food sources for life on earth, especially mamalian life like humans, depends on *SUNLIGHT* at the beginning of the food chain. Plants need it. Herbivorous animals need it. Carnivores need the herbivores. Omnivores like people need the carnivores, herbivores, and plants.
5) Thus, to feed the humans, the robots would have to *SYNTHESIZE* the food.
6) Can you say 'Monstrous Waste Of Energy!"?
7) Now, The Matrix implied that what the robots actually 'harvested' was the heat generated by a human body.
8) Again, a great loss of energy in trying to trap the small amount of excess heat produced by a human body. By controlling the environment (chilling it), they could get the people to produce more heat, but then they would have to expend energy to do the cooling, and the humans would require more food to produce the heat.
The bottom line is that it just plain doesn't work. The human body is an incredibly inefficient way of burning fuel.
The Matrix was a great movie, but this piece of it was a total crock of shit.
Re:...for animals as well (but impractical) (Score:1)
Re:cool. (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech computers (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech is on the way! (Score:1)
I don't think we'll see a big breakthrough yet. We may have a motor soon, but that just isn't enough. Then we need a reliable way for assembling the machinery and controlling it. And in what environment will the machines operate? To be useful the things must work well under something other than lab conditions only. You want nanomachines to build you a new car from dirt? It won't be that easy. These machines will need energy. They will dissipate heat, that could limit the build rate. Then there's the waste problem. Nanomachines tearing apart molecules in dirt will find a lot of atoms unuseable for your car. Merely tossing them won't be a good idea.
Last, but not least: whatever you want nanomachines to build must be designed first, that won't be easier than today. And it must be designed for nanomachine manufacture. So you can't get any car, only existing models. And no long-distance spaceship.
Re:Interesting implication... (Score:1)
Does size matter? (Score:1)
A machine that can be sent to the middle of nowwhere and told to do a job - it'll then trundle along and do it. It will build more of 'itself' from available resources to speed up the job... A mobile production line.
Like in KSR's Red Mars...
No, a 50-atom hammer (Score:1)
3-phase induction motor parallel. (Score:1)
Even tinier motor (Score:2)
It's made by the Dutch and Japanese, though. Read whatever you want into that
Re:So, by way of analogy, how close are we? (Score:1)
Some other nanoscale folks are working on gears, rods, bearings, etc.
Once we get the wheel worked out, then we can start on the problems of mass production... since right now we're still piecing these parts together one by one.
Difference engine? At least three technology generations away. Colossus? Four. C64? Five. P3? Six. Of course, a nanoscale difference engine is probably about as fast as an IC-scale P3, and a nanoscale P3 probably uses quantum electronics and is *way* faster than an IC-scale P3.
Now, how long is a "technology generation"? Aye, there's the rub :-) Given what I've seen over the last decade, I would estimate about five years....
Yes it does (Score:1)
~Tim
--
Small monitor (Score:1)
they exist already, nano should make them better.
hmmmm (Score:2)
When nanomachines are perfected, they'll be easy and cheap to produce, unlike the multibillion-dollar facilities needed to produce computer chips and other silicon-based devices. While Kelly took four years to design his molecule, he can now produce lots of them. "In one batch, you could make as many 1024 of individual units in principle," Davis says. "That's a trillion trillion."
Which means the future machines are likely to be teeny and plentiful.
hmmm, massively reproducible, fully configurable matter changers....neat.(and cheap to boot!)
Worlds LARGEST motor (yes, off topic) (Score:1)
largest motor in the world. Any size possible.
Want to rotate the Pentagon? Sure, it is now
possible!
http://www.henricson.se/hercules/
Animated GIF:
http://www.henricson.se/hercules/pic/animation%
Re:This is only a baby step. (Score:1)
/patriot mode on/
May I remind you that the article also credits the Dutch for that. And if it aint Dutch it aint mutch!
/patriot mode off/
Breace.
Re:...for animals as well (but impractical) (Score:2)
He could just have been dumb/wrong/stupid....
Re:This is only a baby step. (Score:1)
I'm still hoping I live long enough to join the Introdus
Tom
Re:Does size matter? (Score:1)
We need the autonomous robot research so that our nanorobots will know what to do.
We need the nanotechnology so our robots can self repair better.
Tom
Re: Introdus (Score:1)
Let's do both.
Tom
Re:Violent Implications (Score:1)
Just about anything can be twisted for a negative purpose.
Energy capture (Score:1)
This motor spins on energy gained from light. Would it be more efficient than our current photovoltaic cells to generate electricity somehow with these mini-motors?
Maybe use the motors to bounce around a solution, creating heat energy, and using the heat energy to generate electricity.. Or a more direct method that someone more clever than I could come up with.
Re:No, Nano = molecular-scale (Score:1)
The MEMS which were discussed yesterday are not nanotech. They are vacuum tubes as compared with nanotech's transistors. The device illustrated here is 'pre-nano' or 'early nano', not 'sub-nano'.
Re:Machines building Machines (Score:1)
Powered by chemical reactions?? (Score:3)
Now, I am not a scientist, and perhaps it could be argued that every motor is powered at least indirectly by chemical reactions, but the specific type of chemical reaction at work here would tend to limit the applications of this little motor.
For instance, given the large number of chemicals that can be dissolved in water, you might not want to get it wet. Ever. At all. After all, if we're building on the less-than-100-atoms level, I'd say that every atom counts and losing even ONE to water (or whatever) would be devastating to the efficacy of the whole thing.
Re:Powered by chemical reactions?? (Score:1)
brain blue screen of death (Score:1)
:-]
Re:Interesting implication... (Score:1)
Actually, a typical Krebs cycle yields ~34 ATP from phosphorylation (~30 of that from the chemiosmotic variety), but the cycle burns ~2 ATP in active transport. 34 + (-2) = 32. Er something.
Re:ATP stable (Score:2)
The process of getting energy out of glucose is by converting it into ATP.
Yes, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) easily breaks down into adenosine diphosphate (ADP), and in so doing, releases energy. But that's not an argument against using for fuel - just the contrary. The fact that it can so easily be "coaxed" into releasing energy is what makes it so good at being the basic energy source for humans.
Also, it's worth noting that using instability as the basis for a power source isn't new to science - nuclear power is a pretty good example.
Interesting implication... (Score:4)
Re:Motor ? Bearing (Score:1)
Rick Rezinas
Re:Frightening thought (almost) (Score:1)
Re:Motor ? Bearing (Score:2)
Perhaps it's phrased badly, but my impression is that you can spin the motor for as long as you can supply the chemical that causes the chemical reaction...
Nanotech is on the way! (Score:2)
What gets me is the amount of miniaturisation we're getting at. 60 years ago, we had Turing machines that filled an entire room; today, we have nano-sized Turing machines. That's several orders smaller.
If this trend continues, we'll get nano-sized Pentium-III's in 60 years or less. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Re:Outer Limits... (Score:1)
JediLuke
Re:...for animals as well (but impractical) (Score:1)
anyway, the bit where Morpheus is going "The AI are using humans for power, yadda yadda yadda", I've found the best thing to do in that bit is to pretend he's saying "The AI are using human brains for processing power". I dunno, that at least makes a little bit of sense.
--
"HORSE."
Re:Frightening thought (almost) (Score:1)
Oh, you think tiny motors don't *already* run through your veins? Just those tiny motors are biological, not mechanical, and we call them bacteria. Oh, and a lot of them aren't half as friendly as most nanotech motors would be...
--
"HORSE."
Massive SMP (Score:1)
Get about 400 of them for a Beowulf...
Massive SMP (Score:1)
Get about 400 of the 300-CPU Units for a Beowulf...
Frightening thought (almost) (Score:1)
Re:Woohoo (Score:1)
Re:cool. (Score:1)
And there are *lots* of things that would benefit from being make smaller...
Easy to fix? (Score:2)
(Sorry, had to be said!)
Powered by Brownian Motion (Score:1)
It would therefore convert temperature to mechanical motion without a temperature gradient. I believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes that impossible, yet
Re:Nanotech computers (Score:1)
Power conversion can be done with nano devices, it just requires the right end on the cord. Of course, if it doesn't need much energy, then the energy of its environment could suffice. This would not allow luminescent screens however, as that requires a lot of energy. However, energy storage can be very dense, especially with the many conversion methods that the atomic level makes simpler.
Networking can be wireless. With the increase in the availability of wireless telecomm, the networks should be in place for fairly high speed connectivity by the time the other technologies needed for this product are available.
The main problem that I see currently is input. A stylus could be used for a pointer, but I do not want to use that for writing. I type a *lot* faster than I write. So, the question of input still remains. Voice is a possibility, but it would be disruptive in public settings (as this would be an extremely portable device). A virtual keyboard is a possibility, if the eyeglass method is used for the screen (and all of the other parts as well, it would easily fit, properly designed). It doesn't have the same tactile properties, of course, though those could possibly be simulated through the use of gloves (using nanotech to get the force feedback small enough).
I have a feeling, however, that entire new paradigms will need to be developed for input for a truly portable, bring-everywhere device, so that it is transparent, fluid, and unobtrusive.
---
Re:ATP stable (Score:1)
ATP stable (Score:2)
Grey Goo. (Score:1)
So, by way of analogy, how close are we? (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech computers (Score:1)
Re:ATP stable (Score:1)
For a completely over-the-top example, consider the hydrogen bomb. To produce the "big" boom of the fusion reaction requires the detonation of a smaller fission bomb as a catalyst. Big investment, big payoff, but impractical for nanotechnology (at least right now).
i wonder (Score:2)
get those magnets away from me NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
cool. (Score:1)
Re:Frightening thought (almost) (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech computers (Score:1)
Is it just me or is Sci Fi a great source of ideas?
Nanotech computers (Score:2)
Of course, you could always make the box the same size and have 300 or so little Tylenol-sized computers inside it. Of course, that seems like a bit of a waste of energy.
A technical question (Score:1)
Re:Interesting implication... (Score:1)
Re:nano motors (Score:1)
RE: Introdus (Score:1)
Myself, I intend to head the other way. Being a basically antisocial type I intend to make a million copies of myself, convert them all into extra-solar probes, and go out to explore a little. When I get done (several billion years in the future) all of me can have a little get-together somewhere nice and re-integrate.
I have always wanted to see the Horsehead Nebula up close...
Jack
This is only a baby step. (Score:2)
No reason to get excited yet. Nanotech has a long way to go to get to practicality. According to the discussions I have had with people who should know there are still major problems to be solved.
Like getting rid of waste heat and chemicals. Like getting fuel to the motors in the first place. Like control systems, power transfer, actuators and sensors.
Of more interest in the article was the mention of the Japanese effort that uses less atoms (58) and spins when light is shone on it. Chemical reaction based nanotech is the most likely posibility in the near term because we can build on biological systems we already understand (the example in the article used ATP). But long term I would think truly useful nanotech would be powered by photons or electron transfers or something like that.
Jack
I thought they already had this? (Score:1)
nano motors (Score:1)
Re:Interesting implication... (Score:1)
Conspiracy (Score:1)
As much hidden camera work goes on already, it will be that much easier to do when the camera is invisble.
New Power for Portables (Score:2)
A couple of years ago I read a story saying that this sort of technology could be used to power laptops (and other portable electronic devices). Instead of bateries you use loads of nano-drives, attached to nano-turbines to generate electricity. As most fuels store energy in a more efficient way than batteries you get more power for longer. Using the chemical sources described for these devices they could be powered off your body, giving you laptop as much power as you want, you just have to eat more. How long before this is marketed as a slimming device?
Why this way? (Score:2)
The groups that have put together these projects have certainly made a chemical accomplishment, but why is everyone looking to this as a 'nano-motor'? Bacterial flagella already exist, function off of ATP, they average 0.25 micrometers (250 nanometers) in diameter, come in a variety of lengths, have been clocked at 2400 rpm, can be assembled in minutes from informational schematics in large quantities, and have repair and maintenance facilities preexisting. To me it's like hearing someone say they've assembled something they call ENIAC and that it is unquestionably superior to the SGI I use for molecular modeling...
Nanomotors, switches, levers, atomic pumps, and power stations already exist. I don't understand why the 'Nano' researchers aren't using them.
'Machines' don't have to be made of metal, after all the two in the article aren't.
Violent Implications (Score:2)
Re:correction (Score:2)