HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mckendre@sal-sun132.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Molecular Manufacturing Shortcut Group
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:15:46 GMT


  One more time.
  I would like to introduce to this newsgroup a (non-email) group that 
should be of interest to many.  It is a special chapter of the National
Space Society called the "Molecular Manufacturing Shortcut Group."  For
background, NSS is a non-profit group which supports space development,
and has as a long-term goal the large scale settlement of space.  The 
idea behind MMSG is that molecular manufacturing (in essence nanotechnology)
could make that long-term shorter--the time it takes to develop nanotech-
nology, and then settle Space, could be less than the time it will take
to settle Space with the currently evolving aerospace industry.  Thus, MMSG
was born to educate and promote people about nanotechnology, and how it could
apply to space developement.
  I suggest that any of you who are also interested in Space development
should join.  MMSG has not started out primarily for technical specialists,
but it needs some technical experts to help cull mistaken notions about
nanotechnology, and it has plenty of room for excited non-experts as well.
  Membership is $12 for one year.  Checks should be payable to MMSG.
Mail your name, address, email address and phone numbers to:

                              MMSG Membership
                              c/o Jocelyn Brown
                              6401 Deihl #409
                              Houston, TX   77092

  Current efforts include a quarterly newsletter (to help this new group
cohere), and presentation material is being put together to help members
educate others about molecular nanotechnology (including its potential 
applications to space.)  Suggestions for other projects would be appreciated,
and volunteers to accompany those suggestions will be enthusiastically 
welcomed.

Tom McKendree,  President MMSG                     mckendre@chaph.usc.edu
From: ghsvax!hal@uunet.uu.net (Hal Finney)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:53:37 GMT

Depending on the route taken, there may be many good products
preceding full nanotech.  Maybe we will go via biotech, creating
complex protein based structures before we get to full assemblers.
Many cell structures, such as the active channels which pull ions
through the cell membranes, the flagella-spinning motors of bacteria,
and the interlocking protein fibers responsible for muscle motion
could be put to industrial use with little modification from their
biological forms.

Assemblers are expected to be extremely complex pieces of machinery.
Before we are able to make one, we should be able to make less complex
but nevertheless useful atomic structures.  Virtually any route to
nanotech will therefore provide the ability to make useful items
before we have full assemblers.  The STM/AFM route has the problem
that we may only be able to make a few of each item, but other
approaches should be able to make useful quantities even in the early
stages.

Hal Finney
ghsvax!hal@uunet.uu.net				...!uunet!ghsvax!hal
Permission is granted to freely reproduce this message
From: mmcalees@sol.uvic.ca (Michael McAleese (One of 'Those Dudes'))
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:41:39 GMT
Organization: The Forgotten Legions of... uhh... umm...

In article <Aug.26.22.18.58.1992.1212@planchet.rutgers.edu> mckendre@sal-sun132.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree) writes:
>I spoke with an investment banker in 1990.  He was discussing the
>difficulty of financing long-term projects like space development.
>His bank, at the time, was making 40% per year financing the growth of
>a pizza chain in Great Britain.)

  Heck, all someone has to do is come up with a nano (or micro) machine
that will rove around the body killing fat cells.  "The Nano-Tech Diet!
Lose ALL excess fat with NO dieting, NO exercise, NO WORRY!  Several
injections of tiny robots cleanse your system of unwanted fat SAFELY!
EASILY!  But not cheaply..."
  Making millions would be easy...

-- 
*     mmcalees@csr.uvic.ca (Michael McAleese) : I speak only for me...       *
  "Man can believe the impossible, but never the improbable." - Oscar Wilde
From: shearson!snark!pmetzger@uunet.uu.net (Perry E. Metzger)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Un-Nanotech-able?
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:00:59 GMT
Organization: Lehman Brothers

mckendre@sal-sun50.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree) writes:
"In article <Aug.26.22.31.34.1992.1300@planchet.rutgers.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.
"edu (John Hagerman) writes:
""Some goods we currently manufacture take advantage of the nuclear
""features of matter.  [e.g. radiation]
" John then asks, in essence, how might these features be used with
" nanotechnology?
" JoSH mentions isotopic separation, for example for waste processing.
" The problem with mixing nuclear technology and nanotechnology is that
" nuclear effects could not be induced in particular atoms.  Thus, there
" is a scale mismatch between the precision to which you can handle things
" like bonding with nanotechnology, and the precision to which you can place
" nuclear effects.  Indeed, for many nuclear technologies (e.g. critical 
" mass) have characteristic sizes which tend to be much larger than nano-
" mechanisms.

Remember, JoSH mentioned isotopic SEPERATION, not isotopic CREATION.
Although you can't build atoms with nanotechnology, at the nanotech
scale building mechanisms that can sort individual atoms by mass are
comparatively easy; the differences between Carbon 12 and Carbon 14
are big at such a scale. You can then build build as many of the atom
sorters as you want with assemblers, pipe in raw carbon at one end,
and end up with monoisotopic carbon streams at the other end.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:36:13 GMT

In article <Aug.23.19.51.35.1992.4618@planchet.rutgers.edu> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

   Personally I have a hard time believing
   that you can build _anything_ substantial an atom at a time.

Agreed.  Fortunately no one is claming that this is necessary.  The
assembly schemes proposed have many chunks assembled in parallel, and
then the chunks are assembled into a larger whole.

   It doesn't take much figuring to see the scale is all to small
   even for nanotechnology -- you can't make atom size magnets. 

Agreed.  Fortunately no one has claimed that atom size magnets are
necessary for anything.

   I'm
   not sure that you can make atom sized conductuctors and you
   certainly can't make atom sized smiconductors. [sic.]

You may be right.  Fortunately none of the designs for nanotechnology
based computers have been electrical yet.

   So the nanotech '486 won't work. 

Non-sequitur.  If you require the nanotech '486 to use semiconductors,
then you may be right.  But then if I required existing '486's to use
positrons, then the existing '486's wouldn't work.  There are lots of
ways to build useless things that resemble a computer.  So what?

You should argue against what has actually been proposed, say, in:

K. Eric Drexler.
Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology.
Doubleday, 1986

K. Eric Drexler.
Rod Logic and Thermal Noise in the Mechanical Nanocomputer.
In Carter, Siatkowski, and Wohltjen, editors, Molecular Electronic
Devices, pages 39-55, North-Holland, 1986

   Who's going to pay for this completely new science? And why?

Maybe someone trying to build a faster computer after other
alternatives have been exhausted, and they'll do it to make money?
Maybe enough work will be done with STM's and molecular biology that
the science won't be completely new.

--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:59:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. Biochemistry, University of Bristol, UK

In article <Aug.21.18.42.28.1992.20531@planchet.rutgers.edu> I (Ian) write:
>A question which struck me the first time I heard about nanotechnology:
>	"How do we stop nanomachines from evolving away from their
>	 original purposes ?"
> . . . (own text deleted)
>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]

I didn't have all the time in the world but I downloaded the entire
../papers directory from planchet.rutgers.edu and I didn't find the 
answer to my FAQ.  Obviously I agree that the Star-Trek visions of
instantly evolved, intelligent nanites is not an issue, and I also
agree that potentially dangerous nano-assemblers could be easily
contained by simply building in an absolute requirement for some
specialized compound only available at the desired location.

I still think that mutation of replicators away from their intended
function would be a serious problem and in the absence of 100.00%
replication fidelity (which I believe impracticable) I don't see how
it can be avoided.  In particular, in 'early-replicators' we could
find it hard enough to get the basic machine functioning, without
trying to build in complex proof-reading technology.

( btw. I disagree with your second sentence.  I often work on aspects
  of the evolution of proteins and organisms and I wouldn't say we
  did understand evolution that well. 1/2 :-)

[Rats.  I thought I had a paper by Drexler addressing this subject
 in that directory, and it's not there.  I gave you a bum steer.
 I will send you a copy as soon as I find it.  The "understanding"
 I'm speaking of is from CS, genetic algorithms in particular.
 Early researchers found, not surprizingly, that making small 
 random changes in computer programs almost always caused them 
 simply not to work.  The probability of getting from one 
 working program to another working program is no better than 
 arriving at the second program in one fell swoop from alphabet
 soup.  Evolution doesn't work that way.  It works when small
 changes in structure produce small changes in system performance,
 as in the "classifier systems" that G.A. research actually uses.
 These have many higher-level cognates in biological systems, 
 including diffusive transport, pattern (shape) directed control
 of primitive operations, and so forth.
 --JoSH]
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Keywords: I give up : -)
Date: 31 Aug 92 05:35:49 GMT
Organization: Dept. Biochemistry, University of Bristol, UK

Having read all the replies to my evolution queries I see that
the consensus of opinion is that we can prevent degeneration of
nanite functionality by reducing the 'mutation rate' to the point
of negligibility using an appropriate error detection system.

This is fine, except for a last, tiny niggle, which is, will *early*
nanomachines (and obviously if it's a replicator it's not really
early at all) have enough cpu/memory/life expectancy/whatever to
run such an error detector.  Or would they have to use some other
kind of 'temporary kludge' ?

[Almost certainly, the earliest nanomechanisms (and probably most
 nanomechanisms even in a mature technology) will be "hothouse plants"
 requiring special fuel, special conditions, special raw materials
 for the replication process.  When the replication process goes
 awry, dump them in acid and start over.  The point is that it's
 *much easier* to design mechanisms that rely heavily on outside
 support, as well as being saner and more responsible.
 --JoSH]
From: willdye@helios.unl.edu (Will Dye)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:54:21 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian) writes:

>	"To what uses can crude nanodevices be put ?"

Diamond fiber.  Diamond coatings.  Other thin-film coatings.  Chips.  
A bio approach could help gene-splicing & other bio stuff.  

In Foresight update #13, Dr. Drexler talks of current work with 
"...scanning probe devices able to position reactive molecules with 
atomic precision.  Calculations indicate that this mechanosynthetic 
capability will enable (about) 10**5 chemical steps to be performed 
with reliable, site-specific control, increasing the complexity of 
feasible macromolecular structures by (about) 10**3 relative to 
conventional organic synthesis."

I agree that we need to keep making the case for better funding of 
nanotech.  I recall Cong. Newt Gingrich scolding the L-5 society 
(or some related group), telling them that the reason dairy farmers 
get more federal funding than NASA is that the dairy farmers are 
better organized.  

--Will
From: mckendre@sal-sun50.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:26:47 GMT


ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian) writes:
>A question which struck me the first time I heard about nanotechnology:
>	"How do we stop nanomachines from evolving away from their
>	 original purposes ?"

 And then talks about a giant tank of self-replicating devices that also
produce a desired product.  Here are a couple more strategies (I believe
Dr Drexler came up with these first): Use self-replication only to create
enough production equipment for what you want to make, and disable the 
ability to self-replicate before you turn on product manufacturing.

Monitor any population of self-replicators for changes (especially any
sudden growth within the population.)

When done with a production facility that included self replicators, take
some out, and exhaustively verify that you have totally unchanged samples 
of your original assembler design.  Then destroy the rest of the assemblers,
and regrow from a verified clean copy when you need a batch of assemblers
again.

Finally, except for rapid growth in production facility, there is very little
need for self-replication.  Most nanomachinery will not need to be self-
replicating, so do not bother putting that capability into a product unless
it is necessary for that product to do its function well.
From: me@isnext10.msu.edu (My Account)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: _EOC_ now online (was: Re: technical book "Nanosystems")
Keywords: computer geek hypertext Engines of Creation AMIX
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:11:53 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <Aug.21.18.17.33.1992.20149@planchet.rutgers.edu> ttf@iti.org  
(Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel) writes:
[re Nanosystems]
> However, being the computer geek that I am, I have to ask
> the obvious question - when is the electronic version
> going to become available, and should it not cost less
> than $25? 

The _Foresight Update_ #14 says:

_Engines of Creation_ available online
  Foresight president K. Eric Drexler has made the entire text of _Engines  
of Creation_ available online, in ASCII form, through the American  
Information Exchange for the price of US$10.  For more information,  
contact AMIX at 415-903-1000; write to 1881 Landings Drive, Mountain Veiw,  
CA  94043; or email to amixinfo@markets.amix.com .
---END QUOTE---
Perhaps they could sell it through the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL)  
as well.

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"There is only one cause of poverty in the modern world:  failure to
 own an adequate supply of capital"
--Louis Kelso
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:06:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Aug.26.22.37.40.1992.1563@planchet.rutgers.edu> shearson!snark!pmetzger@uunet.uu.net (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>Normal living systems are DESIGNED to easily evolve. The "blueprints",
>i.e., the DNA, is very flexible; mutations in DNA are rarely as fatal
>to the functioning of a living organism as a single displaced bit is
>in the instruction stream of the average computer program. Similarly,
>the error correcting mechanisms in living things are fairly poor.

If my understanding is correct, this is _completely_ wrong. DNA is
an exceptionally stable reproduction mechanism. Failures occur but
on the order of 1-E6 percent. A single failure in the actual mechanism
of the gene is as deadly as a misplaced bit in any program. Most of
the gene's information is, apparently, noise. This would correspond
to changing bit in the memory outsie of the operating portion of
a program.

Evolution doesn't work because mutation is easy, it works because
there has been so much _time_ to work in. Given trillions of nanites
and plenty of time, there is probably an equal chance of evolutionary
changes in these programmed creations.

>Simply using a good mathematically based error correction code in the
>nanomachine's internal program could reduce the "mutation" rate so low
>that a mutation event is expected only once every few billion years or
>longer, and at fairly low cost; certainly good enough to keep the
>things from successfully mutating.

This is blatant supposition and certainly isn't backed up by
present information theory.

[Define your terms more precisely.  DNA replication error rates are
 less than one per million BASE PAIRS copied.  This still means 
 a good chance of error for each molecule.
 The whole point of information theory, initially, was to show that
 any desired level of fidelity could be obtained even from a noisy
 channel.  The forthcoming Nanosystems book details techniques for
 achieving similar results in a manufacturing process.  There's no
 magic in it-- you should be able to work some of them out
 yourself from standard ECD methods.
 --JoSH]
From: srs@oasis.icl.co.uk (Steve Strong)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:54:02 GMT
Organization: ICL, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 4SN, UK



Ian (ian@inf.ethz.ch) wrote:
: 
: I contest that !  Certainly the production of function is a chancy
: business but the loss of function . . . imagine the mutation
: 
: 	ADD H010102,H100023 -> RTS
: 
: Where RTS is Return from Subroutine (you knew that).  This instantly
: removes the entire second half of the routine, for example, removing
: half the proof-reading from the program.

I feel that it would be quite improbable that a random error would
cause one instruction to mutate into another valid instruction. If
it does turn out to be probable, then by simply making the distance
between two instructions greater you can reduce the chance of random
mutations to arbitarily low figures.
For example, in Machine Code MKI, we have the following four instructions:

	Instruction		Binary Code

	ADD			   00
	MULT			   01
	STORE			   10
	GET			   11

With this, any mutation would generate another valid code, which is
not very good. Now consider Machine Code MKII:

	ADD			   00110011
	MULT			   11001100
	STORE			   11000011
	GET			   00111100

With this code, at least 4 bits have to be corrupted *in the right way*
for another valid instruction to be produced. 
This is really getting quite unlikely. The whole thing is a form of
error detection, and this really is a very basic version. 

: >the error correcting mechanisms in living things are fairly poor.
: >Simply using a good mathematically based error correction code in the
: >nanomachine's internal program could reduce the "mutation" rate so low
: >that a mutation event is expected only once every few billion years or
: 
: I'd have to see some figures before I accept this.

Using methods as described above, or better ones, you can set the
mutation rate to an arbitarily low figure. How about one mutation
per 10**15 years? What about one per 10**20? You can just keep on
going. Obviously you trade off a bit of storage space for things
like this. TANSTAAFL.

Steve
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Strong - email srs@oasis.icl.co.uk      | Wasn't me. I didn't say that.
               voice 44 344 424842 extn 2279  | Definitely got the wrong guy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: swami@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Swami srinivasan)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Snowballing tomk
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:47:40 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <Aug.21.18.47.08.1992.20617@planchet.rutgers.edu> sinster@cse.ucsc.edu (Darren Senn) writes:

>The alchemists of old dreamed of building philosopher's stone --
>a object that could turn lead into gold.  Today's high energy
>physicists have built one: it's called a linear accelerator, and
>can manufacture gold from lead at a cost of a few tens of millions
>of dollars per ounce.  We can also manufacture flawless diamonds
>at a few orders of magnitude more cost than mining real ones.  All
>these technologies are theoretically and intellectually wonderful,
>but not too practical.

>Darren Senn 


Not really so. Diamond films are being used for very efficient
heat-sinks. They are going to be more and more useful in
microelectronic/optoelectronic packaging. Present day high power 
laser diode arrays are already using them, and, if the costs are
considered, it is becoming very practical, indeed. Industrial
diamonds have found a variety of uses over the years, so no need
to defend them.. 

swami

=====================================================================
swaminathan srinivasan
center for high tech materials
eece,university of new mexico
albuquerque, nm 87131, usa		swami@chtm.eece.unm.edu
=====================================================================

[Both statements are true; current industrial diamond is amazing stuff
 but is not single-crystal, gem-quality material.  The samples I've
 seen were opaque flat black.
 --JoSH]
From: forrest%portal@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: technical book "Nanosystems"
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:54:49 GMT

Sorry about the price rumour I posted for the Nanosystems book. I 
was misquoting a book club members price.
 
Forrest