HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bbesler@lepus.acs.oakland.edu (Brent Besler)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,bionet.software
Subject: anonymous FTP download of Mopac 6.0 for Vax and Unix
Date: 26 Jan 91 18:57:20 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI

I have set up the VAX QCPE distribution of Mopac 6.0 and a working Unix
conversion(DEC 5000 Ultrix workstation) for anonymous FTP download.  
The system is ouchem.chem.oakland.edu.  Login as ftp with any password.
The vax distribution tape is in the directory pub/vax.  The Unix
conversion is in pub/unix.  Some modifications to the makefile and/or
source may be necessary to allow the code to work on other Unix systems.
Also, note that Mopac 6.0 is completely a public domain code.
From: ear@clockwise.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Dodecahedranes
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:53:32 GMT


Bench top synthesis of diamond-like molecular structures.

Pentagonal dodecahedranes with four, six and eight skeletal
positions are made from an Aldol Cyclization.

Melder et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 10213-10231, (1992)
From: alfa@werple.apana.org.au (Glenn Durden)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Homebrewed STM
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:19:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: planchet.Jan.25.16.19.14.1993.9868
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne

ajackson@phoenix.princeton.edu (Andrew William Jackson) writes:

>In article <Jan.19.22.33.54.1993.23032@planchet.rutgers.edu> ewstroup@cc.utah.edu (ERIC W. STROUP) writes:
>>	I agree with you completely.  Building a STM/AFM from scratch would 
>>give valuable insight into its workings.

>Reading a few scientific papers would give you valuable insight into its
>workings.

>ajackson@ernie.princeton.edu

About 2 or 3 years ago I investigated the possibility of making my own STM
(and I presume you meamn Scanning Tunnelling Microscope, since I came in
late on this), and although the electronincs for scanning seemed relatively
easy for anyone with a few years experience, the biggest (unresolved) problem
I found was the actual movement mechanism.
From reading up on the topic, it seemed peizo electric devices were easy to
manipulate - ie: you gave the things a voltage, and would deform a particular
abount...   however I couldnt find any piezo-electric devices that behaved thi
(excuse the formatting of this pls)  err..  that behaved this way with DC
voltages.   Given a AC volatge, they would deform as expected (and beep if the
frequency was above a few hundred Hz...   but given a DC voltage, they would
behave like a capacitor, in that they wouldnt deform to any measurable
amount, and like a capacitor, would absorb a charge.
Since scanning rates in STM's arent quick, this effectively killed my 
'project', since I couldnt find a peizo electric device that would do what
I needed (ie: deform to a given voltage).
 So...  to any people who HAVE built one, what did you use?
From: rossen@sfu.ca (Erik Rossen)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: homebrewed STM
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:43:06 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

In article <Jan.18.18.40.54.1993.16986@planchet.rutgers.edu> ear@clockwise.att.com writes:
>
>Widespread commercial availability.  Sure at $15,000.00 it is still
>out of the price range for many potential nanotech hackers.  Not
>
>ear@allwise.att.com

Yes, but what about a GROUP of nanotech hackers?  If everyone was to contribute
about the cost of a good 486 system (~$2000), you would only need about eight
other hobbyists to join you and somebody's basement to put it in.  Sounds like
a good idea for a club to me...
Erik.

[A pretty pricey club, with $2000 in dues!  It does happen, e.g. I know of 
 clubs that own things like an airplane, but most people I know would
 be more likely to form a club to build something...
 (Of course I know a lot of destitute grad students!)
 --JoSH]
From: ajackson@phoenix.princeton.edu (Andrew William Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Homebrewed STM
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:13:25 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Jan.19.22.33.54.1993.23032@planchet.rutgers.edu> ewstroup@cc.utah.edu (ERIC W. STROUP) writes:
>	I agree with you completely.  Building a STM/AFM from scratch would 
>give valuable insight into its workings.

Reading a few scientific papers would give you valuable insight into its
workings.

ajackson@ernie.princeton.edu

[Both statements are true. In fact, reading the papers would probably be 
 the logical first step in building it.
 --JoSH]
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Progress on the Mechanical Side
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:50:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

rls@tip.wedge.nt.com (Robert L. Smith) writes:
>    I submit the following as an indication of progress toward
>nanotech in one government agency -- a state government, at that!  It
>doesn't claim the nano scale -- although at least one of the listed
>potential uses would require it -- and the estimated costs of $500 per
>investor are worth a horse laugh.  It's encouraging, even so.  Use it
>as you wish, but be aware that no copyright release has been obtained.

       This is reasonable enough.  It's just a scheme for getting many
projects onto a single wafer before running it through a wafer fab.
This is a routine prototyping technique in IC development, and if you
take an IC design class at a good school, your design may go to fab,
along with that of many others, on a single wafer.  Mead and Conway
pioneered this approach to learning IC design.  

       It actually makes good sense to get people doing this sort of
work together.  One sees pictures of gears and such made by IC fab
techniques, but made by people who don't have an application for tiny
gears.  The technology has been looking for applications.
Useful products may well come out of this effort.

       But it's not nanotechnology.  Orders of magnitude bigger.

					John Nagle
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Theoretical limits
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:53:20 GMT
Organization: Dept Biochemistry, University of Bristol, UK

< call for feasability study deleted>

>
>[Although I do not share Mr. Dunphy's pessimism, I second his proposal
> empahtically... Before we can do this in more than a handwaving
> way, however, we need molecular simulation software.  Does anyone know of
> any usable PD codes,

I believe that the Gromos software of Prof van Gundsteren is free (you might
have to pay for the tape) if not actually PD.  Failing that it's getting
quite difficult to acquire free MD software because companies are now
realizing that a great potential market exists.  Some people are even suddenly
finding that they are no longer permitted access sources that they wrote :-(

(btw MD = Molecular Dynamics, I hope nobody is going to seriously suggest a 
Quantum approach ?)

> or is there any interest in a sci.nanotech-based collaboration to produce
> such a beast?

Count me in.  I'm not sure that it's strictly necessary, however.  If we could
agree on an exchange format it would be easy to knock up a set of conversion
programs to generate whatever format your software required.

> --JoSH]

w.r.t the proposed feasability study, to what tests do we whish to subject
any proposed designs.  As i see it, there are * things to consider:

1) Chemical Legitimacy:  Is the structure actually possible within the laws of
   chemistry.  (Is there an existing expert system that would assess this ?
   Some of the more user friendly MD packages will 'parse ' a potential
   structure and report open valencies etc. but I wouldn't take their word
   as gospell) failing this shgould we appoint a commitee of our more
   'chemical' contributors ?

2) Conformational Stability:  Does the structure dekay into another, more-
   stable conformation when subjected to Energy Minimization and/or MD ?  
   Which force-field do we consider most accurate for this determination ?
   What temperature do we require the structure for withstand, for how long ?

3) Can the proposed structure be readily synthesized ?  This is less 
   important because given a functional but un-makeable device, we could
   probably rework the design until it was plausible.  (As above, is their an
   expert system that can do this.  I know that several of the 'great'
   pharmaceuticals houses have such programs but that they do not admit to
   using them because their is some doubt about the patent/copyright on
   things designed by a machine (in some countries at least).)

4) Does it perform the task claimed, will it do so under simulation?  How
   robust is its behaviour ?

With regard to 2 and 4 is it possible for someone to set up a Dynamics-Server
(not sure whether I could all out machines are heavily used (but we're getting
more>) that would recieve a design in a standard format and subject it to
a standard regiem of Energy Minimisation and Dynamics ?

One other small niggle.  Whenever people have suggested this before, nothing
has happened!  What is it, are you all lazy ?  (Or is it really impossible ?)
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Organic Machines?
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:07:20 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636

nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>Does nantech machines have to be mechanical? or can they be
>genetic?? 

Ultimately nanomachines will be mechanical, since we can then
use a much wider range of molecules than biology currently
uses.

For now, the path to full Drexler nanotech is following
two major threads.  The first of these is scaling of lithography
down to the "deep sub-micron" scale, for the manufacture of
quantum dots, designer catalysts, and minitiarized circuitry.
Within a decade, we may see AFM arrays or other techniques used
to mass-produce chips a 10 nm scale.  The second is biotechnology, 
with liposomes (drug-carrying artificial membranes), monoclonal 
antibodies (cells programmed to be triggered by specific molecules), 
polymerase chain reaction (self-replication of DNA outside the cell, 
greatly accelerated over what nature can do), and gene-splicing
as the basis for two new fields, protein engineering and metabolic
engineering.

We can already see these two fields starting to merge.  Lithography
is being used to program arrays of chemical reactions, for use
in DNA sequencing, designer polymers, etc.  Enzymes (protein
catalysts) have been built into clay structures; these molecular
cyborgs now help make such ubiquitious products as the corn syrup in 
your Pepsi.  Soon we will see enzymes designed on a computer,
programmed into DNA by wet-array-lithography, mass produced by 
gene-spliced bacteria, and then hooked onto lithographed structures
to form catalysts orders of magnitude more proficient than today's.

On the horizon are molecularly precise resists, or "nanoresists", 
for nanoscale lithography.  Within two to three decades, lithography 
combined with a bit of post-processing will likely be able to produce 
molecularly precise parts, at which time we can start building mechanical 
machines and proto-assemblers along the lines Drexler envisions.  In 
the meantime, biotech and lithography may bring many of the benefits
ultimately envisioned for nanotechnology.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
From: ear@clockwise.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: STM piezo elements
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:45:22 GMT


alpha@werple.apana.org.au

writes:
>..., since I couldnt find a peizo electric device that would do what
I needed (ie: deform to a given voltage).
 So...  to any people who HAVE built one, what did you use?

Staveley Sensors Inc. 203-289-5428
PZT-5A ceramic tube Nickle plated 90-degree quadrant
length 0.75, OD 0.125, Wall thickness 0.022 (all units in inches)
$174.00 (the most expensive part in my STM)

And read the literature, the scan rate can be quite fast.
From: naoursla@eos.ncsu.edu (NORMAN ALAN OURSLAND)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Molecular Modelling
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:04:27 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos


[Although I do not share Mr. Dunphy's pessimism, I second his proposal
 empahtically... Before we can do this in more than a handwaving
 way, however, we need molecular simulation software.  Does anyone know of
 any usable PD codes, or is there any interest in a sci.nanotech-based
 collaboration to produce such a beast?
 --JoSH]

This is one of the big obstacles stated by the Foresight Institute (at least I 
think remember reading in one of their newsletters). The problem is that a 
molecular scale machine runs on the order of 5,000,000 atoms (is that the right
magnitude? I'm thinking about that arm in NanoSystems). Anyways, computers 
available to the general public simply aren't powerful enough for this amount
of computation, thus there is no software to use.

Alan

[I think you need a system that can operate at a higher level of abstraction
 than the ones that are used to do chemistry.  If we know that a diamondoid
 structure acts like an elastic solid with certain parameters, the system
 should treat it as such (for example). 
 --JoSH]
From: cuhes@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Organic Machines?
Keywords: Fundamentalists morphing Aliens Giger Bear _Queen of Angels_
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:18:34 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK


I did have the interesting thought that animals can be regarded as a
cell's solution to the problem of boldly going where no cell has gone
before; as a way of generating a cell-friendly local environment in
globally hostile environments and as a means of travelling vast
distances.

It strikes me that in many cases nanotechnology might benefit from the
same approach for much the same reasons. For example nanomachines
might build a temporary containment structure to fulfill their
environmental requirements while they did the real job. More relevantly
if you wanted a large group of nanomachines to do some job for you (we
must think of a collective noun for a group of nanomachines) in an
inaccessible place the best approach might be to have them form some
temporary macroscopic mobile structure, probably with linked
nanomachines forming a shell and fuel and raw materials inside. It
might well ressemble an insect; it depends on the kind of mobility
required. It might fly or burrow, crawl or swim. It might have wheels
or legs, fins or jets. It might change shape to cope with different
obstacles.

Malcolm McMahon

[That's essentially what the Utility Fog is... By the way I'll have
 a presentation of the U. Fog at VISION-21 (the NASA thing this March).
 --JoSH]
From: ems@ccrl.nj.nec.com	 (Ed Strong)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Theoretical limits
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:34:43 GMT

The dynamics server idea sounds interesting. How much compute power is
needed to do this in a reasonable time? Is the "standard regime" easily
partitionable? If so, a Distributed Dynamics Server might be employed.
To soon to volunteer this service, of course, but I'd be willing to try
running a few tests with such a package.  By sending identical dynamics
code and a standard test molecule to all potential server providers in
this group, you could generate relative benchmarks that would be useful
if this idea catches on, and a number of servers are established.

Ed Strong
From: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: What is an self (again-ish) (was Re: Organic Machines?)
Keywords: Fundamentalists morphing Aliens Giger Bear _Queen of Angels_
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:53:17 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.


In article <Jan.21.23.18.33.1993.5385@planchet.rutgers.edu> cuhes@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>I did have the interesting thought that animals can be regarded as a
>cell's solution to the problem of boldly going where no cell has gone
>before; as a way of generating a cell-friendly local environment in
>globally hostile environments and as a means of travelling vast distances.
Have you read any Richard Dawkins? ("The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", etc)

A "dog" isn't a furry animal with a wagging tail and a wet nose...
it's a piece of DNA which happens to have found it beneficial to
travel around in a spacecraft with the particular form that we
are familiar with (that happens to have a wagging tail and a wet nose).

There.
That should spark off another "What is 'I'" discussion, if JoSH allows it!
(Hint: 'I' am just a piece of DNA that happens to travel around in this
spacecraft with two arms, two legs, and a brain full of funny impulses that
represent past experiences and thoughts).
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all

[Sheesh.
 --JoSH]
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Glub Glub... Any Floods in Human His
From: Richard_Plinston@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston)
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:04:06 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

   >>>> rising a couple of hundred feet

   There is today, locked up in the ice caps of Antarctica and
   Greenland sufficient ice, should it melt, to raise the sea
   level by 200 feet (approx) above current levels.  The average
   thickness of these ice caps is about 5000 feet and they cover
   about 4% of the Earths surface.

   The North Polar cap, being floating ice, wouldn't affect sea
   levels at all.

   >>> villages submerged
   On the other hand, Pevensey in England, where William of Normandy
   landed in 1066, was a coastal fortress originally built by the
   Romans.  When William landed he tied his ships at the foot of the
   castle and camped prior to moving north to fight the Battle of
   Hastings (which was neither called Battle of Hastings - forget real
   name - nor was at Hastings, today the place is called Battle).

   Pevensey is, today, 7 miles inland.  This has little to do with
   rising sea levels, however, as it is due to the tilting of the
   island (Great Britain).  It is not enough to paint a line on a
   cliff to see if the sea level rises or falls (over a few centuries),
   it is also necessary to determine that the cliff itself is not
   rising or falling.

   
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22806 alt.atheism:26933
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Eve Mitochondia?
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:29:05 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <8okTXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>
>> 	While the "Eve" hypothesis is not proven,and is in my view
>I posted the following article some time ago, but since the
>"Mitochondrial Eve" issue seems to be coming into vogue again, here it
>is one more time:
>
>From Back to Godhead magazine, Sept/Oct 1992
>
>WAS THERE AN EVE?
>

  What a disappointing article.  I licked my lips as I started in on
  the first couple of pages, thinking it was going to be an
  excellent scientific treatise on a subject that I'm not terribly
  well informed on.  Only after wading trough the whole article do I
  finally discover that it is as mired in mysticism and religious
  drek as any creationist story.

  Oh well.  Just goes to show what happens when you hold unrealistic
  hopes for alt.atheism.  Kind of like firing up 'rn' and watching
  half of the posted articles disappear in a single abortion kill
  file entry.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Tombstone pterodactyl
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 10:49 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Does anyone in this group happen to have a copy of a book by Janet and
Colin Bord called "Strange Animals" or something like that, from Stackpole
Press?  If so, could you please email me the date of the story in the
Tombstone _Epitaph_ about a group of cowboys allegedly shooting a
giant prehistoric bird in the desert?  Fortean Times #65 contains an
interview with John Keel in which he says that no such story could be
found in the _Epitaph_, but I know he's wrong because I looked it up
on microfilm about five years ago, but sent my only copy to a friend
and no longer have the date, which I got out of the Bord book.
(What the story lacked, but which people claim to have seen somewhere,
is a photograph.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Donald Mackie <donald_mackie@med.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: TM reduces crime?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:55:34 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Anesthesiology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.214.86.38
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXDate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 12:55:33 GMT

The Days Inn Hotel in downtown Detroit has been up for sale for several
months. A news item on Monday announced that the Maharishi and the TM
folk were thinking of buying it. 

A TM spokesperson was interviewed. He said that they were thinking of
setting up a TM centre there. He went on to say that they had evidence of
"dramatic" falls in crime rate in cities where people were meditating.
 
The news anchor commented that TM had offered to help a number of US
cities reduce their crime levels by moving meditators in. This would be
in return for a sum of money, I think $600,000. There had been no takers.

This reminded me of TM stories I heard in the UK about 10 years ago. The
claim was for a place called Glossop in Derbyshire. 10% of the
inhabitants were supposed to be meditators and untold benefits had come
to the town. I can't say I noticed anything unusual about the place.
Local TV investigated and found that crime was no lower there than for
any other town of the same size in the area.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Global warming, ozone depletion NOT!
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:03:32 GMT


In article <1993Jan27.151649.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:

> I really believe that the chemistry and physics behind the theories of global
> warming and ozone layer depletion are spurious, and are used by political
> pressure groups to further their own ends. What do you say.

I'd say you're at least half full of s**t.  The science behind ozone
depletion is pretty solid.  Note that there has been some garbage
science going around claiming that the ozone hole was detected in the
1950s, or that volcanoes put more chlorine into the stratosphere than
CFCs, etc.  All these claims are bullshit, and have been repeatedly
debunked elsewhere on the net by knowledgable atmospheric scientists.
Chlorine from CFCs has been strongly implicated in the formation
of the ozone hole; the reactive intermediates have been observed
in situ, providing a "smoking gun".

Global warming is somewhat less well established at this time (there's
no equivalent of the ozone hole as of yet).  The basic physics is well
understood -- increased radiative forcing will occur -- but the response
of the global climate to this forcing is difficult to predict.

	Paul


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.culture.usa,talk.religion.misc