Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Individual Chemical Bond Formed With STM 101

Posted by Hemos from the closer-to-nanites dept.
WillWare writes: "Using a scanning tunneling microscope at the Free University of Berlin, scientists have for the first time manipulated single molecules to perform a complete chemical reaction. (Here are STM pictures of the reaction happening.) ...the making of C12H10 molecules from C6H5I molecules, normally carried out on a copper catalyst and using thermal activation, has here been forced to proceed by employing one molecule at a time at a cryogenic temperature of 20 K. The researchers believe that new manmade molecules, never before seen in nature, can be engineered in this way, including the selective detachment or replacement of parts of larger molecules for individual assembling of molecular based nano-devices. The official article appears in Physical Review Letters, 25 Sept." Nanites. That's all I have to say.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Individual Chemical Bond Formed With STM More

Individual Chemical Bond Formed With STM

Comments Filter:

  • STM? (Score:2)

    by British ( 51765 )
    And just what does STM stand for?
  • Scanning Tunneling Microscope -it says right at the top of the post.
  • "Using a Scanning Tunneling Microscope..."
  • Scanning Tunneling Microscope IIRC. It's a type of electron microscope that uses one of quantum mechanics weirder behaviors: tunneling, to detect individual atoms.
  • Yummy! I want one of those in my house! :)

  • Whatever. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nanites are just like AI.

    1) Wait ten years
    2) See how far off their predictions are
    3) Go to step #1
  • you can borrow mine for a while if you want.
  • Their description sure sounds interesting, for "chemestry..."

    "Now the tip pulls one phenyl close to another; they are not yet chemically bonded, though: pulling on one phenyl does not bring the other one along. Finally, another splash of electrons from the tip effectively welds the two phenyls together; proof that binding occurs is that when one phenyl is pulled with the tip, the other comes along for the ride..."

    Oh, my. Look at those little electrons go!

  • Seems this process might be able to make a couple thousand synthetic molecules, but how useful will it be at creating bulk quantities?

    I wonder if these methods could be scaled up and automated?

    -josh
  • With the ability to custom create molecules, perhaps we could created a petrified Natalie Portman on the microscopic scale.

    -josh

  • Re:STM? (Score:3)

    by WillWare ( 11935 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @05:16AM (#750785) Homepage Journal
    As others have pointed out, STM stands for "scanning tunneling microscope". I used the acronym because story titles are limited in length.

    An STM is an interesting gadget. You have a very sharp probe (the point is a single atom) which hovers over the sample. Everything is electrically conductive except for the gap between the probe and the sample, typically a few nanometers. The gap is an insulator except for the ability of electrons to tunnel across the gap. The current flow due to tunneling is quite sensitive to the gap size.

    Set up a servo to control the height of the probe, holding the tunneling current constant (the probe is moved with piezoelectric crystals). Horizontally sweep the probe in a TV-like raster pattern, recording the probe's height as a function of horizontal position, add false color, and voila, you've imaged atoms.

    Here [wisc.edu] is a more detailed description.

  • I don't know about the rest of you but I think nano technology is terrifying. We are getting very close to the point where there will be lots of people creating things that have never existed before in nature and for which there is no natural protection. The potential for accidental or intentional mass distruction is enormous. Think about the paranioa of genetically modified food, which is at least very close to something that exists in nature. Who knows what will happen to Molecule X when you weld a new Oxegen atom to it!
  • OK, I'm not doing down this discovery, or the scientists who researched it.
    But a step closer to nanites? Come on!!!
    Nobody seems to have a clear idea of what a nanite is, yet there are always claims after a discovery like this - "Nanites tomorrow!!!"
    I would define a nanite as:
    Having some sort of applicable intelligence, either as a function of what it is made of, or an AI in the truest sense of the meaning
    Capable of acting individually or collectively.
    Very, very small
    Capable of receiving instructions, or acting autonomously.

    I don't see how duplicating an existing chemical reaction in an organic compound could possibly bring us anywhere nearer to "nanites".
    And yes, I know that being able to modify individual molecules is handy when creating tiny, tiny things, but you must remember carbon has some special properties which may be assisting here (c.f. electron clouds on benzene rings), and those properties may not be found in compounds suitable for nanites. This is just an organic compound, ferchrissakes!!!
    A closer take on this would be "it's a step closer to being able to make the materials for nanites", and that, IMHO, is an important distinction. It's a bit like saying the discovery of silicon is a major step to making a Cray...

    Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.

  • yay, nanotechnology is going to work!

    i'm looking forward to self-replicating nano-virii that feed off dna and human tissue. wont that be fun. how do we defend ourselves against that? self-replicating nano-virii that feed off self-replicating virii that feed off dna and human tissue?

    scientific developments are a way of intelligent people placing power into the hands of the stupid (generally governments).... uhmmm... Guns, Atomic bombs, DNA - Genetic engineering.... i'm sure there's many more examples.

    tahpot

    information is power.
    power corrupts.
  • Although this is a good method for creating new molecules and whatnot, it doesn't really hold much opportunity for creating enough of a new substance to be used in any macroscopic situations. I can just see factories containing thousands of STM's pumping out a whopping 2000 molecules a day...

    It could definately lead to the creation of new nanite structures, but it wouldn't give us any realistic method of mass production.

  • Seems this process might be able to make a couple thousand synthetic molecules, but how useful will it be at creating bulk quantities?

    I wonder if these methods could be scaled up and automated?

    Not likely. This is kind of question I get about my STM images. People ask me if I can just write a program to go in and automatically digitize the location of single atom defects. The problem is that it takes many years of looking at STM images just to get a feel for what you are really seeing.

    This type of work is very long and tedious. I would be suprised you could make more than a couple of these molecules in an hour.

    Jeremy
    http://stmlab.tamu.edu/

  • Re:STM? (Score:1)

    by ebh ( 116526 )
    (the point is a single atom)

    Hey, there's your application! Use STMs to make new STM probe tips!

  • > people creating things that have never
    > existed before in nature Just like guns! GUNS!

    I don't have a clue as to what bonding x to y will do, if it will be dangerous, but your reasoning ("not natural") is flawed.

  • Re:Not terribly useful for bulk Quanitites (Score:3)

    by chainsaw1 ( 89967 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @05:28AM (#750793)
    The primary reason this is so fasinating is not because of mass quanities, but because of the new possibility of manipulating bonds on molecules. This has many potential uses:

    1) Taking two reactants and manipulating certain bonds by hand may give more insight to why catylists work on similar reactions. Many catylists work without us knowing a great amount of detail on how they catylize a reaction. If certain bond manipulation cauese a reaction to proceed, it is likely that the catylist is weakening that bond--a clue to what is actually happening.

    2) Intermediates. Some reactions (esp. in biochemistry) proceed without a good working knowledge of what intermediates form and what changes take place in getting to the intermediate (and so) onto allow the products to form.

    3) Rare chemicals. There are some reactions that entropically / energetically make sense to occur, yet don't react because of other variables (such as bond tension--i.e. the formation of cyclo-pentane from larger molecules, etc...i know this is a baad example, can't think of something better). This gives us a method to try to understand and produce them, though not in bulk.

    Besides, it's the Chemical Engineers responcability to do bulk production of anything anyway. Chemists just get to do the fun stuff and take all the credit. ChemE's are the ones that put it in the hands of John Doe. :)

    (it's getting hot all the sudden...)
  • People are always afraid of what they don't know about. This process can't create enough melecules to be dangerous. And if they do find something nasty they would know about it before they start passing it out to the general public, thats why it takes YEARS before things like geneticly modified crops to be released.
  • Tunneling microscope looks like finest tool for making chips that would ever be available. However, creating one CPU with tunneling microscope would take ~10 years (assuming several minutes per transistor). But I'm sure it would be used for electron beam lythography finally. Unless we would manage to breed chips in cattle-pen before.
    ---
    Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources
  • > Who knows what will happen to Molecule X when you weld a new Oxegen atom to it!

    Well, first they'll have to _make_ Oxegen (is that trademarked? Can I use the name?)
  • Allthough it would be possible to have thousands of these machines running and constantly making the molecules, it is a very subtle process and I don't think it lends itself well to mass production. I know that there are various groups working on ways of using lasers to selectively break only certain bonds in a group of molecules, and by doing so they could eventually create processes to generate new substances, however, this isn't nearly as precise as the STM method. I guess we'll have to wait and see what new techniques come out of the woodwork...
  • Transparent Aluminum

    "A Keyboard...how quaint."
  • Every time there is a new milestone covered in science I wish I were born a few centuries later, so that I would be in an age where alot more things would have been made possible . Anyways since I can't exactly do anything about it anymore ,might as well wish some smart guy not only makes the time machine but also lands up on me so that I can travel to the future.

  • No kidding. I can see it now:

    Scientists have developed a new synthetic substance that is one million times lighter than steel and four hundred times as strong. This new substance can be used to manufacture everything from massive skyscrapers to car bumpers. Of course, a cubic inch would cost approximately the GNP of Bolivia and take seven and a half generations to produce.

    Don't be expecting those new polyflourocyanomanganatecarbon polymer snow boards anytime soon

  • Re:Whatever. (Score:3)

    by Bearpaw ( 13080 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @05:32AM (#750801)
    Nanites are just like AI.
    1) Wait ten years
    2) See how far off their predictions are
    3) Go to step #1

    1) Read shallow, badly-researched fluff pieces about a new technology
    2) Don't bother trying to find anything to read by anyone who has a reasonable, knowledge-based point of view of the topic
    3) Adopt oh-so-hip more-blase-and-cynical-than-thou attitude
    4) Go to step #1

  • Nanites are still a pipe dream if you have to move minute chemical bonds with the precision of a swiss watch just to get it to work. Also that could take a *long* while to get just *one* machine that may eventually break down.
  • Indeed, nanotechnology warrants strict worldwide policing to prevent the clichéd `Mad Professor` becoming a dangerous reality.
  • But it's a start on the bootstrapping process. Nanotechnology will be built by nanotechnology (how else?). Somehow we need to be able to build the tools that will build the tools ... that will save/take over the world. That's where this sort of thing should come in.
  • The fear of mass destruction does not lie in the creation of these molecules, but in the creation of a self-replicating molecule that causes great harm (kida like RNA with a chainsaw). As to whether this "grey goo" death is even resonable is anyones guess. Terminator-phobia seems to run rampent in todays society. This is simply genetic engineering taken to another level... and will we die because of it? Maybe, however there is huge vaule for helping to curing many diseases that plague society. Don't let total world annihilation stop scientist from ridding the world of athletes foot : p
  • Sluggy Freelance! [sluggy.com]

    Nanites are biologicaly nanomachines that can make you stronger, more flexible, report data on your body, or kill you. They can be "killed off" from a master switch or by watching to much Golden Girls [sluggy.com]

  • Re:Nanites? Pile of shite!!! (Score:4)

    by Bearpaw ( 13080 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @05:35AM (#750807)
    It's a bit like saying the discovery of silicon is a major step to making a Cray...

    It was.

  • battery charger that is only good for charging it's own batteries right?
  • The holy grail of nanotechnology is the Assembler -- a machine that can be used to construct objects atom-by-atom. Scientists already know what nanotech machines they want to build, but the technology isn't there to let them do it. With an assembler you can. This STM looks like a crude jury-rigged assembler...and it sounds as if, with patience, you could actually build Respirocytes [foresight.org] or a Mesoparticle Sling [foresight.org] or a Planetary Gear [zyvex.com] with this tool.

    Now, the truly cool thing to build would be a self-assembler [foresight.org]; an assembler that can build copies of itself. That's a toy for which people have yet to draw up a design.

  • You have a very sharp probe (the point is a single atom)
    My god! Have Gillette heard about this yet?!
  • It would build the others. :)
    Well, that's the plan anyway, from what I've picked up from reading discussions on the future of nanites.
  • With a STM I can finally read the fine print on the bottom molecules of my cell phone agreement!

    Ok, they manipulated molecules, proved it could be done, but this isn't very cost effective for the guy who wants to build a meth lab in the garage, is it?


    --
    Chief Frog Inspector
  • with the Universal Constructor? That machine synthesized any material, any object [even food] out of any other material you fed into it. Sounds like I'll own one in ten years when GE figures out how to use all this....
  • Imagine building a microprocessor molecule by molecule, transistor by transistor. It would be possible to have complete control over the process. I see a big application for this in the semiconductor industry.
  • We are getting very close to the point where there will be lots of people creating things that have never existed before in nature and for which there is no natural protection.

    "Very close????" They've created a molecule of 22 atoms (not at all complex, by organic chemistry standards) which occurs in nature.

    The potential for accidental or intentional mass distruction is enormous.

    A hundred years down the road, maybe. Not at today's level of technology.

    Think about the paranioa of genetically modified food,

    "Paranoia" is a particularly appropriate word choice.

    Who knows what will happen to Molecule X when you weld a new Oxegen [sic] atom to it!

    Actually, organic chemists understand this very well.

  • might as well wish some smart guy not only makes the time machine but also lands up on me so that I can travel to the future.

    Well, we already did that. But following the results of forthcoming US and UK elections, why do _you_ think we came back to the Y2K? :)

    Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.

  • I wouldn't worry too much about it. Researchers have already stopped, and even reversed, the aging process in tissue samples. Chances are, younger people today will still be around 2-3 hundred years hence.
  • God, I love that scene.

    Scotty picks up the mouse and speaks into it, "Computer?"

    LOL!
  • Could you please explain this?
    ---
    Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources
  • Well, we could produce them in mass quantities if our oppressive, secretive, conspiratorial government would release the specs on their Star Trek Replicator already.

    just feeding the slashdot conspiracy theorists...


    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong.... From what I understand, all they would have to do is create one molecular robot. All that robot would have to do is be able to create other robots like it (That in turn create other robots, etc..). The robots would just have to be made so that when a signal comes in, they would switch modes. The other mode could be to create whatever you wanted, such as different molecules.

    Using this method, you only have to do the tough part (creating the first one) once, then just throw it on a pile of raw materials (I hear carbon is good) Then just let 'er rip.

    Probably some sort of Halt command would be useful too.

    ---Lane

  • with getting a universal assembler released to the public even after it is perfected. Such a device would cause the collapse of nearly every industry on the planet (the main exception being the design industry). There are a LOT of powerful people how would stop at nothing to keep that from happening.
  • I truely believe that's what killed VR. I researched that topic, had a huge library of information, and it was really coming along. Then the media got a hold of it. Hyped the snot out of it. When people started seeing where it currently was, they got bored, and interest in what could occur dropped waaaaay down. If it hadn't, I'm positive that we would have more HMD's, as by now the cost to build them would be extremely cheap. (yes, there are the models like Sony has, but it doesn't do 6-degree location)
  • Sure this is the stuff of nanites, this is what they are fabled to be capacle of. If your hoping that the next step is just building them - mass producing them, then you might be a bit disappointed! I don't know how big nanites have to be but I think that a couple of hundred molecules might be needed at the very least for quite small ones. If you were to build enough to do anything then you would first have to build a lot of STMs because you can only build one at a time. You would still have to wait quite a while before you have enough stocks to test them out. Baring in mind, of course, that your probably not going to get it right first time and will probably need to go back to the drawing board quite a lot.
    The same applies to designer molecules, you would practically be able to build enough of them in a short enough space of time. In my (un)proffesional opinion, your best bet would be to build smaller molecules/nanites that will help you build bigger ones and get a sort of production line going. With molecules you would be looking at making new catalysts. I think he even mentions this in the article.
    IMHO, what this new development will be used for will be making prototype molecules, discovering what they do and how they work before investing shed loads of cash figuring out how to build them only to find that it doesn't work and all that effort wasn't worth it.

    dnnrly

  • This does demonstrate some of the capabilities of STM, but the greater benefit will be for "pure science" -- at least for the time being.

    Right now, we can theorize about the relative stability and geometry of exotic molecules. These calculations are usually done on isolated molecules and are based on scientific assumptions about the nature of chemical bonds, combined with the limitations of numerical methods and computing power.

    This technique has the potential of allowing us to verify geometries and relative stabilities of molecules predicted by these calculations. Using macro- or even micro- techniques, there's no way to get experimental confirmation of the validity of our assumptions and models.

    The benefit for nanotechnology will come from the refinement of these models and methods.

  • No, it's not a good method to create a new molecule (in general). No one in their right mind would synthesize molecules with an STM. It's a good method for gaining further understanding into chemical bonding. This technique is supplemental rather than revolutionary.
  • Have you ever read the moderation guide?

    The idea of posting a comment is to generate 'useful' discussion pertaining to the stories topic.

    If asking a question spawns a very useful thread, then that entire thread should be modded up so that others with higher moderation thresholds get to see that information

    That is why you will see people mod up seemingly useless parent posts which simply 'ask' a question :) HTH

    Jeremy
  • Terrifying and glorious, yes. If used correctly it can do wonderous things.

    Take one of my favorite nanite designs: the Respirocyte [foresight.org]. This artificial blood cell does nothing more than load and unload oxygen and CO2. Infuse a person's blood with it [foresight.org], and they can spend hours underwater, run 12 minutes at top speed without taking a breath, or live for 3.8 hours with their heart stopped [foresight.org].

    Yes, there's a dangerous side -- the Biovorous Nanoreplicator or 'Gray Ooze'. [foresight.org] We need to ask ourselves if the risks are worth the rewards. I think you'll find most scientists are cautious, but optimistic about the possibilities.

  • We are getting very close to the point where there will be lots of people creating things that have never existed before in nature and for which there is no natural protection.

    Oh, you mean like telephones, Post-It Notes (tm), automobiles, radios, computers, art, music, toilet paper, paper clips and cities?

    You must live in perpetual fear.


    ...phil

  • all they did was observe what happens when they wiggled around a small thing. Wiggling a large thing wiggles a small thing. We have always had that. Observing small things we have had for a very long time also.

    More uninformed Hemo blather.
  • It stands for Super Terminating Machine. It's everything the T-1000 wanted to be, but wasn't. The T-1000 could have taken the tunneling method to kill John Connor. Instead of hunting John down, like a prototypical mimetic polyalloy, he simply shoots a sliver of himself into his mark. Then while John is running around the country with Linda and Uncle Bob, the T-1000 is tunneling his way through John's internal orgrans. Cyberdyne stock goes way up and ushers in the birth of The Matrix.

    --
  • If everyone who wasn't sure that they knew what they were talking about would ask questions instead of spewing rambling, pseudo-scientific speculation, then this (/.) would be a useful and interesting forum for discussion of things like scanning tunnelling microscopy and its applications to designing small things.

    But the signal to noise ratio is depressingly high here.

    I know little about how best to implement a kernel (or whatever); accordingly, I try to say little about it other than asking non-leading questions of those who know.

    Just my $0.02. By the way, I know just enough about STM to know that the best answers (on the web) can be found by visiting physics department sites at universities.

  • My question is this.. if somebody made a razor out of synthetic diamond, with a single row of carbon atoms at its edge, how sharp would that be? Would you be able to shave your face with it, or would the blade just sink right into your skin and cause you to become the faceless man?

  • People ask me if I can just write a program to go in and automatically digitize the location of single atom defects.
    So, there _is_ something you can't do in Perl, then? :)

    Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.

  • 1) For a very small subset of catalysts. Don't forget this takes place at 20K on a Cu surface. As a general method of probing the mechanism of catalysis, this isn't terribly useful.

    2) Biochemical reactions tend to take place in solution. Taking an enzyme-substrate complex at low temperatures in a vacuum on a solid surface does not seem to me to be a good method for detecting intermediates.

    3) Yeah, you could make funky stuff. :)

    I think the thing to realize is that this experiment forces to things to react by literally moving/changing them. If you wish to see how things react under "normal" circumstances, you need a different technique, such as femtosecond spectroscopy. I would direct you to the work of Ahmed Zewail (Scripps I think), who received a Nobel prize for his work a couple of years ago.
  • Will that help?
  • I have observed a very similar process, in a rather different sort of laboratory: a pub not far from my home. The bartender and his colleagues start with several similar couples (Carole Handy & Ian, and Charly Hymus & Irene) resting at the bar. Through the injection of one beer at a time, the bond between each C6H5I couple weakened and dissolved. Once each bond was eliminated (and both Ian and Irene became loud and violent, although that has, IMO, no bearing on the experiment), the two I subjects were herded up and moved away.

    Now one of the remaining subjects was pulled toward the other (by factors such as the overall movement of the crowd), but since they were not yet alcoholically bonded the movement of one had no effect on the position of the other. Finally, another splash of alcohol effectively welded the two subjects together, proof being that when one went home and to bed, the other came along for the ride.

    I am very impressed by the number of possible applications this study could have, and commend Saw-Wai Hla et al on their fine work.

    LAI

  • We are successfully destroying ourselves, our fondness for electricity is giving us cancer, we are devising new breeds with genetics (this is still something we as a race know nearly nothing about) and now we are building tiny machines that have very little current practical application (other than as a destructive nano-bot that could destroy any 'enemies' it finds headed towards some kind of millitary use).


    All I can say is that I hope I'm dead before wars are fought with flesh-eating nanites and my living room furnature has to be fed twice a day...

    Capt. Ron

  • Does this mean we can expect (eventually) to see some radical advances in the state of the art of metallurgy.

    I'd be interested in seeing what kind of patterns of molecules can be hand woven to create stronger materials than we currently have. I'd also think this would go a long way in helping advance materials science by giving them a new method to custom tailor materials at the molecular level.

    Does anybody who work in this field have any insight they can lend me...this looks like a promising step into allowing us to advance many fields through the creation of new materials.

    Regards...
  • Star Trek Four, the Voyage Home.

    Actually a good movie, for the Trek series.
  • Oh, shut your yap you fucking twat!

    Tell me, oh great one, what have you ever contributed to the advancement of science?
    Or the advancement of anything, for that matter?
    Bugger all, I bet, so just shut the FUCK up and don't blether mindlessly just because you can, you brainless moronic buffoon!


    Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
  • Hi Guys!!!

    Can we exept replicators in the futur now?
    I would love to say :
    "Computer, Earl Grey... Hot"
    ;)

    Till then says
    Markus "DocDooM" Stehr

    Socialism Rulez - www.worldsocialism.org
  • My first post, I'd better get this one right...

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!

    Oops, no, wait

  • While there's possibilities of reaction studies with this, there's several problems to consider:

    Hesinburg's Principle is very much in force here -- STM has been argued to have some small affect on the surfaces it scans, and here, they are using that affect to do the chemistry. Would 2C6H5I -> C12H10 + I2 happen without the STM tip pushing the molecules along?

    Time scales -- they spent time collecting the images and pushing the molecules aroung but most chemical reactions happen in microseconds. STM scanning isn't even fast enough to capture this at 20K.

    Molecule sizes -- They used benzene-like structures and iodine -- both are *hugh* on the molecular scale, but most reactions of interest for study use smaller molecules (CO, NO, etc), which might be hard to detect with STM on such surfaces.

    That said, there are opportunities to build molecules from scratch, but you do appear to be limited to 2 dimensions, which might pose limitations, but it should work.

  • Hi mcg1969!!!

    As i am from germany and my english
    isnt the best...
    WHAT THE HECK IS AN BEOWULF?
    Or better... could you please explain this?

    Till then says
    Markus "DocDooM" Stehr

    Socialism Rulez - www.worldsocialism.org
  • I can imagine one morning in the not-too distant (but still not foreseeable) future, waking up in my nano-bed to the sounds of my nano-disc playing in my nano-alarm clock. So I take a nano-shower, eat some nano-toast, and catch the 7:00 nano-bus just in time to get to the nano-university for my class in macrotechnology.
  • There's more than one way to skin a cat. But you've described the best way.
  • I'm not saying that i'm opposed to progress or even nano technology, it's just that as we progress, the protential to create something we can't control increases. And if you think about it, its can be pretty scary, there is a very good chance that the last word that will be spoken on planet earth will be Oops!
  • > Where did you go to school, Bob Jones University?

    He, he, yeah, they probably offered their famous Creationist Quantum Mechanics course that summer. The lab was conducted by Charlton Heston, demonstrating moving molecules with the tip of a bullet.
  • Interesting how closely your description of the molecular robots parallels cellular operations and dna. Perhaps this STM technique will be useful in genetics, being able to switch a few genes around and then putting the dna back in the nucleus with the precision of this STM technique would be pretty handy. (Mind you it would require a lot of other developments, but it's allways there to explore)

  • This kind of set up is not useful for building huge volumes of synthetic molecules, but it could be a step toward building molecules that can self-replicate and also build molecular sized machines. Perhaps this could be used to build strands of designer DNA that produce nanomachines instead of microorganisms. You wouldn't need to build very many before you had enough to just grow more.

    Of course, it would take quite a while to build even a short strand of DNA and we're a long way off from even knowing how to design DNA to carry out some specific task, but this at least moves us closer.

  • I'm going to watch Buckaroo Banzai for more tips on the future.

    What is that watermelon doing there, anyway?

    NecroPuppy
    ---
    Godot called. He said he'd be late.
  • So how long until we can use this to replicate organic compounds such as food, ala Star Trek??? The end of world hunger??? I doubt it. We're not that generous. More chemical weapons and virii. More like it, baby.
  • I wonder if this could be applied to dna strands on a molecular level. With the advent of genetic modification and genetic medicine, i would think the vendors of those type of products would want to brand their treatments in some way. It would ensure authenticity, and could potentially be used to watch the propogation of these gene therapies and their effects on procreated animals. I'd hate to see some genetic cure for cancer from vendor A show up as some heinous disease in the 5th generation of the treated individual's offspring.
  • Multi-tip AFMs have been discussed for quite some time. It isn't that difficult a problem, except perhaps if you want to get the tips really close to each other. There might be other minor problems relating to inter-tip interference if they are operated simultaneously. The problem is that you have no current use for parallel AFMs because lithography doesn't need atomic scale devices yet (all the devices would need to be redesigned anyway). The real problem is that there only exist 3! nanoscale machine parts. While not AFMs per se, as I mention in my Nano@Home [aeiveos.com] proposal, Hong and Mirkin at Northwestern, have demonstrated parallel nanoscale "writing" with an 8-pen device. I believe Stanford and some Japanese groups were working on a multi-tip AFMs for a while, but don't know the status of these projects. Until we address the lack of parts problem (which is what my proposal attempts to do), it is doubtful that instrument companies will see a use for parallel tip AFMs and actually design and market them.

    The Hong and Mirkin reference is:
    S. Hong and C. A. Mirkin, "A Nanoplotter with Both Parallel and Serial Writing Capabilities [sciencemag.org]", Science 288(5472):1808-11 [sciencemag.org] (9 Jun 2000).

  • Take element U232 and U234 and weld them together?

    Twice the power, twice the BANG?
  • If you think nature is "static", you should look at how many people it kills every year due to various new creations. Nature itself is filled with self-replicating, mutating, DNA sharing organisms. And in case you haven't noticed it, most of them view you as LUNCH. Yes, you do have defenses, but those defenses fail every year for millions of people.

    For more info, see my post [lucifer.com] regarding "Ye Are Gods", from the Sept. 24, 2000 Extropy Institute [extropy.org] archives [lucifer.com].
  • I don't believe there is a technical definition for nanites. If someone has a source for its first use, please post it.

    Nanobots, have been fairly well defined and well described. See for example, the respirocytes paper [foresight.org] from the Nanomedicine page [foresight.org] at the Foresight Institute [foresight.org]. The operating parameters for diamondoid nanobots are described in depth in Nanomedicine, Volume I [nanomedicine.com] . A dozen or more types of nanobots are described in the current and future volumes of Nanomedicine.

    Biobots, is a term that I personally have used at several conferences to describe what chainsaw1 refers to as "nanites". However they do not have many of the qualities he attributes to them. They might make you somewhat stronger, but your ultimate strength is limited by your bone strength . People who abuse steroids can become so strong they snap their bones. It will be difficult to construct biobots/nanites that create stronger bones because you need a stronger structural material. The only possible material that currently exists, for which we have manufacturing systems in nature, would be very strong sea shells (e.g. abalone shells). But your body would probably have an immune reaction if you loaded them up with biobots that augmented your natural bone with the proteins that are used to strengthen the shells. Biobots, could perhaps do things like influence whether your muscle fibers are fast twitch or slow twitch, which would change you from a sprinter into a marathoner and back. Biobots could also produce erythropoetin, causing you to make more red blood cells, increasing your oxygen capacity, and perhaps at the same time your risk for forming blood clots or overloading your heart due to increased blood viscosity. Biobots could also give you the skin of a cameleon or octopus (color changing). Biobots will not have significant communications capabilities because it would have to be encoded chemically and there is no system in nature for "writing" new information into DNA (all it does is erroneously copy old information) or writing a variety of chemical molecules that would be required for communicating any volume of information.

    Biobots do have uses however. I came to the conclusion in watching the movie X-men [xmenthemovie.com], that about 1/3 of the capabilities in the movie, you could do with biobots, 1/3 the capabilities would require diamondoid nanobots and the final 1/3 would probably require changing the laws of physics or "tricks" using microelectronics.

    It is worth noting, that the term biobots is overloaded, because it is used in some contexts to describe small insect-like robots that have neural-net control systems.

  • A few comments on the first problem you mentioned. First of all, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle really doesn't have much to do with the effects that the STM might have on the surfaces. Heisenberg's only says that the more accurately you know the position of a particle, the less accurately you can know its velocity. You're thinking of other postulates in quantum theory.

    Anyway, you're right -- of course the reaction wouldn't happen without the STM. The article mentioned the environment was kept at 20 K -- this is far too cold for this reaction to occur naturally. The point of the article is that the did it USING the STM -- meaning they can cause chemical reactions to occur by pushing molecules around. (For those who don't know, using STM tips is a very common method of pushing atoms around on surfaces. The STM is used to actually DO the moving, not just to image it.) This could be a big breakthrough for nanotechnology -- having the ability to very precisely 'engineer' molecules.
  • In this vein, see:
    This article by Bill Joy. [wired.com] Very interesting, and sobering article.
  • Does this mean I can make THC molecules at my kitchen table now? No more meeting dudes in parking lots after midnight?

    Or, better still, if I really set my mind to it, can I build my very own Natalie Portman?

    I am not usually a troll, but this chilly weather in Toronto is affecting my brain.

    on topic....I work for a an Incredibly Big Machine (nudge nudge, wink wink), aren't they they folks that came up with STM? A few years ago I found a webpage or two with some neat pictures they took of individual atoms all lined up to spell...well, you can guess.

    Going on means going far
  • There is a theoretical superconductor that is a long n-alkane-like hydrocarbon chain with regularly spaced halogen molecules outboard to the backbone. The theoretical stats were impressive, something like superconductivity to 200 degrees C. The problem was forming the molecules long enough to be useful and then orienting them. The way the article makes this sound the STM should be able to do a "knit-one-perl-two" with chlorinated waxes in no time...

    With this type of STM approach it may be possible to "crochet" superchips. It would be nice to have chips rated in de Broglie wavelengths as opposed to something as paltry as GHz.
  • scientific developments are a way of intelligent people placing power into the hands of the stupid (generally governments).... uhmmm... Guns, Atomic bombs, DNA - Genetic engineering.... i'm sure there's many more examples.

    Well that's one mostly-bad (atomic bombs) to three mostly-good so far. Not exactly a terrible ratio.
  • Does the word "Evolution" ring any bells.

    Things that have been created that we can't control: viruses, dinosaurs, grizzly bears, lightning, volcanos, Idi Amin, spontaneous combustion and the religious right. Although that last one might be the one that finally does us in.
  • >We are successfully destroying ourselves

    Actually we have successfully increased our average life span by an order of magnitude in the last 100 years - How? New technology, advances in medicine blah blah blah. In fact, nanotechnology can help us increase that even further.

    >our fondness for electricity is giving us cancer

    Also our fondness for electricity is giving us treatments for cancer (erm, hospitals anyone?) as well as many other diseases.

    >we are devising new breeds with genetics (this
    >is still something we as a race know nearly
    >nothing about)

    Ando how do you suggest we as a race go about furthering our understanding genetics? Theory will only take you so far before you need to go out in the field to conduct experiments.

    Sigh.

  • We are getting very close to the point where there will be lots of people creating things that have never existed before in nature and for which there is no natural protection. The potential for accidental or intentional mass distruction is enormous.

    We've been able to wipe ourselves out for 50-odd years. Ever heard of the H-bomb?

  • There is a theoretical superconductor that is a long n-alkane-like hydrocarbon chain with regularly spaced halogen molecules outboard to the backbone. The theoretical stats were impressive, something like superconductivity to 200 degrees C. The problem was forming the molecules long enough to be useful and then orienting them.

    There are hydrocarbons that can perform this type of function and they are called Buckminsterfullerines. They come in two main varieties: Buckyballs (soccer-ball type molecules - C60 and C90) and Buckytubes (long Carbon nanotubes). Buckytubes are nanometres wide but can be made to incredible lengths (theoretically they can bypass the typical 70-mile length limit of regular cables). These tubes can be made to such incredible lengths by chemically bonded the ends of each piece of tubing together. Does this STM process have anything to do with that? Because to construct long Buckytubes, you would need to manipulate molecules at the atomic level which this STM process can provide.

    Apparently these Buckytubes can be used to make ultra-small circuits. Which should bring computers up to enough speed to complete one of those bloody SETI@home packets in less than a day!

    Self Bias Resistor
    "You gotta save yourselves, from yourselves." - Rennes, Cube

  • The 'grey goo' hegemonising swarm already exists - we call it life.

    Elgon

  • As a small point, I am told that the world has been calorifically self-sustaining for a few years and isapproaching nutritional sufficiency also. What we lack is the political will to make it happen - every dictator has a few troublesome minorities it is convenient to let starve.

    Elgon
  • Avogadro's number - 6.022E23 IIRC.

    It is the number of entities in a mole of anything - defined such that 1 mole of a substance has a mass equivalent to the relative atomic/molecular mass of the substence therein.

    Elgon
  • This actually might be a big step towards the eventual construction of a nano-assembler. [Making anything else with it would be a huge waste of time, as even a 'simple' nano-device would probably take weeks to construct.] Which would change the world so very much.

    I can't wait. Just think, practical imortality [or at least un-mortality], living as sentient software modelled in a nano-computer that is programmed from an accurate map of your neural activity derived by nanites building scaffolding aroung all of the cells in your brain. [Your soon to be discarded brain]]...

    What a beutifull vision.

    By the way, you might want to read "Diaspora", by Greg Egan, a wonderfull book about future socieities of sentient software. Some of the best contemporary hard sci-fi I've ever come across. [Except for the ending, which is annoyingly fancifull, but still somewhat interesting].

    --
    man sig
  • actually the problem is to get nanomachines to last long enough to do anything
  • Think about the paranioa of genetically modified food
    "Paranoia" is a particularly appropriate word choice.
    actually there is a very good reason for concern. i certainly feel it is something to study, but the effects of widespread growing of organically modified plants is unknown, yet american corporations pursue willynilly, with absolute disregard for any consequences. its like pest control chemicals, everybody thought they were great at first, and it wasn't until they were everywhere that people started realizing the problems they were causing. now i certainly believe genetic engineering is a better solution than using toxic chemicals on foods we are going to eat, but its still not the end all be all answer to growing food and it should be closely monitored by somebody other than the corporations selling genetically modified seed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close