HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: The Replicator (tm ?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:11:47 GMT
Organization: NSWSES, Port Hueneme, CA

In article <Aug.6.21.02.43.1992.8850@planchet.rutgers.edu> hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Auld Sprurklie) writes:
>Many years ago (= probably 20) I recall reading an article in a UK Sunday
>newspaper colour supplement concerning a 'machine' called The Replicator.
>
...... stuff deleted...
>
>[There is a device now available similar to what you describe. 
> It uses a UV laser to polymerize a special plastic precursor.
> It's essentially a 3-D laser printer.  It's used for fast prototyping,
> not production; it's low-volume and expensive.
> --JoSH]

I believe the process is called Laser Sintering (sp?) and as JoSH mentions
there is a device now available on the market.  Actually there are several,
I recently received a glossy on a device with a small stage, On the
order of 18 inces square, with a cost equivelent to the early color
printers.  Output Cost per copy is non-trivial, yet in comparison to one off
models it is cost effective. 
-- 
|suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov|lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil|sun!suntzu!suned1!lev|
|S.T.A.R.S. The revolution has begun!|  My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!|
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:42:29 GMT
Organization: Dept. Biochemistry, University of Bristol, UK

A question which struck me the first time I heard about nanotechnology:

	"How do we stop nanomachines from evolving away from their

	 original purposes ?"

As an illustration consider the case of a nanomachine designed to sit in a bath
of plastic and produce, for example, telephones.  This nanomachine must have
two distinct functions, i) making telephones and ii) reproducing itself in
order to replace any defunct machines.  The problem arizes with the second
function because we can not hope to keep the program of a nanomachine entirely
mutation free (take cosmic ray impact, for example).  The classic (modern)
definition of the requirements for evolution are a) self replication and b) 
mutation so I can't see any way in which we could stop the nanomachine from
evolving.  As a trivial example, a single machine could easily
develop oncogenic mutations, where the regulation of the reproductive function
is destroyed and it replicates continually without ever performing its
telephone making function.  From an evolutionary point of view, the mutant
machine is at an enormous advantage and will almost immediately come to 
dominate the tank, displacing the useful machines!

Now that example is very easily handled.  We just throw the defective tank 
into the furnace (nanodissassembler) and start again from a fresh nanomachine.
Suppose, however that the machine in question had been injected into a patient
or released into the environment.  It seems essential that some mechanism be
found to prevent this kind of mutation.  Does anyone have any ideas ?

I'll save my own ideas until I've seen if anyone flames me :-)

[This is a FAQ and I should really have a good reference set up 
 ahead of time.  The short form is that we know enough about the
 properties of mutation and evolution that we can build machines
 that do evolve, and we can build machines that do not evolve.
 It would be considered antisocial to do the former...
 Look on planchet.rutgers.edu (standard anonymous FTP) for some
 background material.
 --JoSH]
From: ear@clockwise.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: microscope
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:45:50 GMT


       New Hitachi microscope can discern hydrogen  atom.   Hitachi
       Ltd.  has developed an analysis-transmission electron micro-
       scope with the  world's	highest	 capacity  for	information
       analysis.  The  microscope  can	discern	 distances  of 0.11
       nanometers, the size of a hydrogen atom,	which is equivalent
       to reading a newspaper from a satellite.	Up to now, the most
       powerful	microscope, also a Hitachi, could detect  distances
       of 0.16 nanometers.  Using an electron beam, the	new instru-
       ment can	be used	 for  elemental	 analysis  of  super-minute
       small  parts  0.7  nanometers  apart.  The microscope should
       prove useful in the development of new materials	like  high-
       temperature  superconductors and	in analyzing and evaluating
       electronic devices with minute structures like  super  high-
       speed  arithmetic elements and high-integrated memories.	 In
       August, Hitachi will announce its new development at a meet-
       ing  of	an American academy of electron	microscopes in Bos-
       ton.  The company eventually plans to combine the microscope
       with  image-processing  technology  for marketing.  (Source:
       Nikkei Telecom 8/3/92.)
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: The Replicator (tm ?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:07:49 GMT
Organization: The Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Club

In article <Aug.6.21.02.43.1992.8850@planchet.rutgers.edu> hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Auld Sprurklie) writes:
)[There is a device now available similar to what you describe. 
) It uses a UV laser to polymerize a special plastic precursor.
) It's essentially a 3-D laser printer.  It's used for fast prototyping,
) not production; it's low-volume and expensive.
) --JoSH]

	There's an article in the latest issue of _Analog Science
Fiction & Fact_  (I believe October '92, but it could be September;
I don't have the issue handy to check -- at any rate, it should be
the one on the stands now) on various methods of solid free-form fabrication.
It discusses this device and several others. It's a bit "gosh-wow"
and non-technical, but it's interesting.

-- 
   David Goldfarb          |"I'm going to die if you touch me one more time.
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  |Well, I guess that I'm going to die no matter what."
goldfarb@UCBOCF.BITNET     |          -- They Might Be Giants
From: naegle@icon.asd.sgi.com (David Naegle)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Bootstrapping Nanotech
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:35:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA


The problem of friction (actually, lack of friction), may be overcome
by having the end of the L-shaped clamp be slightly larger (sort of
bulbous), and the socket having a coresponding enlargement of the
cavity at its base.  This will favor the clamp remaining in the
socket.  Forces may then be applied perpendicularly which exceed the
pull-out force of the clamp.

I am describing the equivalent to the well-known "bench-dog" found on
woodworking benches.  The bulbuous refinement is a technique mentioned
in Drexler's technical book, drafts of which were distributed at the
last Nanotech conference at Stanford last November.  The technique is
similar to having a spring-loaded roller-catch which makes certain
positions of the assembly energetically more favorable, allowing
machines like screws, slides and clamps to be left in a certain
position with the reasonable expectation that they will remain in that
position without relying on friction.  The 'spring' in the nano case is
a chemical bond which undergoes a bending (easy) or tensile (hard)
force, depending on the design.

Another writer has asked what the publication schedule is for Drexler's
textbook on nanotechnology.  Do you know, Josh?

-- 
David Naegle
naegle@sgi.com

[Real Soon Now...actually I had expected it by now, I'll make inquiries.
 --JoSH]
From: merkle@parc.xerox.com (Ralph Merkle)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Multiple atoms and single atoms
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:40:52 GMT

hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:

>Since the reaction time is unknown (and perhaps is two-directional),
>what means are there for detecting when the reaction has taken place?

Two approaches seem reasonable:

1.)  The proposed hydrogen abstraction tool has a very high affinity
     for hydrogen.  As a consequence, the hydrogen will overwhelmingly
     favor attachment to the tool over attachment to the workpiece
     (typically by more than 30 kcal/mole).  The speed of the reaction,
     given the relative absence of a barrier, should be quite high.
     In an atomically precise environment, where the location of
     the selected hydrogen is already known (without the need for
     feedback), simply place the abstraction tool in the right
     position, wait a short time interval, and remove the tool.
     The probability of success is high enough that the need for
     testing to determine the success of the operation is eliminated.

2.)  If some of the required assumptions for "blind" operation do not
     hold then, as John suggests, test either the workpiece or the tip
     to determine whether or not the abstraction took place.
From: ttf@iti.org (Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re:  Self Replication vs. Bootstrapping
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:10:26 GMT


	
	Holding an enzyme between two atoms doesn't sound v.practical
	to me.  Enzymes are v. large mol.wt's around 30,000 and also
	highly flexible.  
You're right.  What I really meant was the putting the active site
on the tip of an STM.
	
	single atom approaches are a little ambitious for this time and
	we aught to be talking about an initial approach based on using
	clever chemistry to "bootstrap" the first devices.
Theoretically, there are three "paths" to full blown nanotechnology:
STM, chemistry, and IC semiconductor manufacturing.  Albrech has done
some really neat work in combining STM and IC semiconductor manufacturing,
advancing both (IMHO), and putting an active site (or an array of active
sites) on the tip of a probe would combine the first two.  In many respects,
the microphotolithography used in electronic IC manufacturing and micromechanical
devices *is* chemistry, but I think for chemistry to be clever,
we need to be able to work with smaller amounts - i.e. use Feymann's approach
of intermediate micro-manipulators.

	we would have to have constructed a wide range of far simpler nano-tools
	before constructing anything programmable anything became plausible.
yes, the simpler nanotools come first.  I was engaged in design-ahead.

	we always use PDB (Brookhaven) files to transfer structures.  
I'm not familiar with the format.  Do you have a pointer?

	But lots of software exists that will read them and often
	automatically assign the atoms and bonds.
Lots of software?  Do you have any names and company phone numbers?

	By what criteria should we assess the designs ?
	i) Chemical stability ?
	ii) Ease of construction ?
	iii) Compatability with other designs ?
All three, of course!
From: ttf@iti.org (Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Acceptance of the nanotech meme
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:19:13 GMT

Markus raved on and on in response to  Kunich's question regarding
the purpose for nanotech, and I'm glad he did (he was nicer than
I would have been, which is why I refrained :-)

In addition to ignorance of nanotech, there is also the problem of
people pooh-poohing the idea.  Let me share my story, in the hopes
that it will shed some light and give some ideas:

The Space Studies Institute Update (their newsletter) had a recent
tribute to G.K. O'Neill, and they had a picture of him testifying at
the '78 congressional hearings on Space colonization, along with
Barbara Marx Hubbard.  Some long-haired hippy type is also in the
picture (Eric :-) along with yours truly.  Barbara had a party at
her house (well, mansion) that night, and Eric was talking with us
about some rediculous ideas (which are familiar to us now) that would
permit you live for hundreds of years, etc.  I thought he was crazy.

A few years later, while I was working on my EE master's thesis on
self-replicating automata, I had dinner with Eric and Chris at the ISDC
in Houston, and I talked about the problem I was having with testing
subassemblies, sub-subassemblies, etc. down to the point where I had to
do chemistry, not electrical engineering.  Eric jokingly pointed out
that God has very good quality control on individual atoms.  I was
interested, and he gave me a copy of his first paper (the one in the
Natl.  Acadamy of Sciences proceedings), but I still didn't see the
connection with reality.  It wasn't until I read EOC, that it finally
dawned on me that this stuff had been talking about was *real* (and I
was really depressed about it for three months).

Now if it was that difficult for me, a technophile (with
a master's degree in engineering, for crying out loud), 
to accept Eric's ideas, who difficult will it be for the
proverbial man-in-the-street?  Actually, since all technology
is magic to joe sixpack anyway, maybe it won't make any 
difference.  On the other hand, what about the captains of
industry, who *think* they understand reality (and to a
large extent they do)?
ttf@iti.org     (Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel)
Industrial Technology Institute, P.O. Box 1485, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
office: (313) 769-4248   fax: (313) 769-4064   home: (313) 662-4741
*----*----*----*Think of it as evolution in action*----*----*----*----*
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Multiple atoms and single atoms
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:12:13 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

In article <Aug.9.20.22.18.1992.15452@planchet.rutgers.edu> merkle@parc.xerox.com (Ralph Merkle) writes:
> ...
> The hydrogen atom on the surface would very likely decide it was
> energetically favorable to move to the tip of the abstraction tool
> (calculated barriers for abstraction for some common cases are
> either low or zero), whereupon the tool would be withdrawn.
> ...

Since the reaction time is unknown (and perhaps is two-directional),
what means are there for detecting when the reaction has taken place?
I guess you could withdraw the tool, and then check to see whether a
hydrogen is attached (test tool length using a tunneling current?).
Could some electronic method be used before withdrawing the tool?

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
From: sinster@cse.ucsc.edu (Darren Senn)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Multiple Experiences
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:18:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)

First off, I'm not going to say the term "artificial neural networks"
anymore.  This _is_ sci.nanotech after all, and everything here is artificial.
I'll just set "nets".

In article <Aug.18.22.10.00.1992.16567@planchet.rutgers.edu> erich@dehn.mth.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn) writes:
>	1) artificial neural systems rarely have any kind of functional
>	specialization.  Layering could be treated as an example, but at
>	best it is primitive.

For the most part you're quite correct.

>	2) living neural systems are completely dynamic.  Artificial
>	neural systems are (as a rule) static.

There are a number of self-constructing nets now that achieve very nice
results.  Unfortunately, their dynamic geometry makes memory copying
totally impossible, so I was ruling them out of the discussion.

>>network is distributed through _all_ of the neurons.  Some play a larger
                                ^^^^^
>>role than others, to be sure, but the distribution is still complete.

>   Whoa!  For some artificial systems, this is the case.  This is,
>however, an ideal situation. [...]

With the exception of the self-constructing nets I mentioned earlier,
all the nets I've read about and constructed myself have been totally
homogeneous, and totally symmetric.  In the course of learning (with
even simple backpropagation), functional specialization inevitably
arises, but that does not contradict my statement that the memories
are stored among _all_ the neurons.  An example is the standard 2-2-1
feedforward XOR network.  Typically, the two neurons in the hidden
layer functionally specialize into a "NAND" and a "NOR" function.
The one neuron detects when the two inputs are the same, and the other
detects when either of the two inputs are turned on.  This is the same
kind of functional specialization found in nature.  In larger networks
(>50 neurons per layer) groups of hidden neurons can be found which
together form a more complex feature detector.  But the final output
of the network ultimately depends on _all_ the hidden neurons: you can't
discriminate Karen's face from 100 others with just an "eyebrow position"
feature detector.

Some feature detectors are inactive when a certain memory is being exercised.
It is a mistake to then say that those detectors (and the neurons that
compose those detectors) aren't contributing to the memory: the very fact
that that feature detector is inactive is important to the memory, and
any activity from that detector could trigger in a different memory.
-- 
Darren Senn                                            Phone:    (408) 479-1521
sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us                       Snail: 1785 Halterman #1
Wasurenaide -- doko e itte mo soko ni anata wa iru yo.     Santa Cruz, Ca 95062
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:37:25 GMT
Organization: Dept. Biochemistry, University of Bristol, UK

In article <Aug.19.20.14.31.1992.28110@planchet.rutgers.edu> portal!cup.portal.com!kr@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX writes:
>In article <11654.3.728.1 Snowballing nanotech>(8/18/92)
>the following was written by tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich):

>->In order to have a technology developed to any serious
>->level, don't you need to have a purpose for it?

>don't you think it would be a worthwile venture to convert todays
>dirty industry into clean molecular manufacturing where the widest range
  etc...etc

I think you've missed the point about what kunich meant !  Obviously we can
see thousands of uses for a *fully functional* nanotechnology.  That's
relatively easyto imagine.  What kunich was talking about was the start-up
period.  I think the point he was making was that the initial steps in nanotech
would inevitably be expensive and that they would not be well funded unless
they had an *immediate* use for it, ie. there was an parctical, economic,
profitable use for the first, crude nanoproducts.

Perhaps it's a subject we should be considering here:

	"To what uses can crude nanodevices be put ?"

n.b A crude nanodevice might be a microdevice of some kind.

[It depends a lot on how far ahead you're willing to look for your payback.
 In fact a whole lot of science would not be done if a direct payback
 were required;  on the other hand, humans *are* capable of sinking 
 enormous current effort into activities that will not come to fruition
 for a decade or two (having children for example).
 --JoSH]
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Multiple Experiences
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:31:42 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI

In article <Aug.9.20.28.43.1992.15512@planchet.rutgers.edu> hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Auld Sprurklie) writes:
>In article <Aug.6.20.47.46.1992.8729@planchet.rutgers.edu>, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>> Solution:  Time-share the hardware.  Add hardware to the neurons
>> which can restore the state at the beginning of a time-slice, ...
>
>I may have missed something here, but I wonder if, having sped up the
>brain (and what happens about, say, heat dissipation ? {No, it's not a
>new hat, it's a heat sink...})

I consider that an engineering detail.  I'm not sure what the
entropic limits of information processing are, but it would not
surprise me to find that it's possible to beat neurons by a
factor of 10^4.  If so, then no additional entropy (heat)
rejection is required.  If so, you have to re-engineer the
cooling system a bit as well, which is probably child's
play if you can speed up neurons that much.

>it then doesn't matter about
>time-sharing or cloning to create agents ready to boldly go forth; if
>you can operate that much faster, you can achieve all you might want
>to on your own.

I think you missed the points:

1.)	If you're doing something at a distance (say, by
	teleoperation or talking by telephone), speeding
	yourself up by much makes speed-of-light delay
	ever more onerous.  You can only think so fast
	in such situations before boredom sets in.  Time
	sharing lets threads slow down to match the events
	occurring outside while not wasting brainpower.

2.)	All the different threads share a common neural network and
	long-term memory; they are *all* you.  It is all done on your own.

3.)	Because all threads modify the neural network by their
	experience, this leaves open the possibility of having
	several sets of hardware with passive, "mirror" tasks
	taking in and incorporating the experience of threads
	on other brains.  Your memories and self stop being
	limited to one site, gaining protection from local
	disasters.  (Downside:  what happens if the comm link
	goes down?  Inconsistent memories, followed by fissioning
	of "self"?)

4.)	Many hands make light work.  Cutting the lawn with nail
	clippers would be boring as all hell, but if you could
	fission into a million selves and do one blade each, it
	would be a breeze.  Multiple threads might let you do
	jobs which would take huge organizations before, and due
	to the common memory, you wouldn't have anywhere near
	the communications overhead.

>If I could speed up my brain by say a factor of 8, I
>need generally spend only an hour a day at work; the other 7 could be
>spent in (high speed) idle contemplation...

Until the price of labor drops to reflect the increased supply.

Then again, when you can split off a mental thread which is an
idiot, without enough brainpower to get distracted or bored but
enough to accomplish the desired task, the amount of labor you
can supply starts heading skyward real fast.  Hmmm...
From: jgsmith@bcm.tmc.edu (James G. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: 20A columns of silicon?
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:40:02 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx


This is way out of my area, and not exactly what you're asking for, but 
you might want to check out the July 31 Science, vol 257, pg 
642..."Transfer of Biologically Derived Nanometer-Scale Patterns to Smooth 
Subtrates" (K. Douglas, et al.)

Basically they took 2 dimensional protein crystal monolayers from the 
surface of a bacteria, deposited them on a smooth surface (graphite?) 
followed by metal shadowing and ion milling.  They ended up with an array 
of holes in the substrate,  but I expect something could be done to make 
columns instead.   Good luck.

*
(James Smith)