HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hsr4@vax.ox.ac.uk (Auld Sprurklie)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: The Replicator (tm ?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:19:32 GMT

> Many years ago (= probably 20) I recall reading an article in a UK Sunday
> newspaper colour supplement concerning a 'machine' called The Replicator.

[rest deleted]

Many thanks to all who have responded with feedback about this technology 
(especially with the Daedalus reference, which seems to confirm my estimate of
about 20 years since I read the article).  So far, all of the descriptions seem
to relate to a single beam system (described vaguely at the end of my original
post) rather than the twin-beam version, which, again if my hazy memory serves,
achieved the crossing of the beam paths by directing them through the bath
walls (presumably transparent :-)).

I appreciate that reliance upon visible-light wavelengths will not provide the
necessary fine control for nanotechnological devices - I had wondered if sources
other than light-based lasers could have been utilised (huge gap in my patchy
knowledge visible here, with or without light!).

I'm just finishing reading A Practical Guide To Neural Nets (Nelson & 
Illingworth) in which the efforts of the Odin Corporation are briefly described
(Encephalon).  Since their target date for completion of a silicon replica of 
the entire human brain was late 1990, and I haven't heard any explosions of 
media activity, I assume they haven't achieved the success for which they had
hoped (or hyped ?), but it does at least show that cloning might be much closer
than I had previously thought.  In conjunction with Carver Mead's continuing (?)
development of the artifical eye and ear, it might even lead to a disembodied 
head capable of acting as an intelligent agent, without requiring the techniques
of nanotechnical engineering at all...  

Maybe we could get Ford to knock up a cart to drag it around on, or persuade 
the Japanese to miniaturise it so that it could be bought by the handful from 
service stations...

Peter "Just a handful of thoughts" Brooks
From: ttf@iti.org (Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: technical book "Nanosystems"
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:17:34 GMT

RE: Nanosystems:
	On Friday, 8/14/92, 40MB of PostScript was shipped to John
	Wiley & Sons

	The anticipated price is around US $25, a marvelously
	low price for such a comprehensive technical handbook. 

	This low price was achieved by Eric's relentless efforts in
	Desktop Publishing to provide the printers with a camera-ready
	product.  Thank you very much for your hard work!
I'll second that thank you!

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?  If it does not, then maybe something is wrong with
Eric's (and Ted Nelson, and everyone else's) predictions
about hypertext.  Even AMIX charges between $1 to $500
per document, there is a $50 setup fee (not applicable
in a bookstore or library), not to mention the $5-10 monthly
fee (whether or not you use it) and the $3-8 hourly connect rate
(plus telephone costs and the whole overhead costs of
buying and owning a computer.  Boy, the more I think about it,
the more depressed I get.  I am not a business type whatsoever,
nor a lawyer, but I think they might have a better idea
of what an electronic version of Nanosystems should cost
in order to be competetive with a book.
I guess its hard to put a value-added dollar price on 
being able to grep through a book, but we do have a pretty
good idea of the MIPS/$ and RAM/$ curves, so that might
help decide when hypertext is really going to take off
(though I have no idea how much the social hysterisis
will slow things down at the beginning).


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: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Snowballing nanotech
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:08:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

There seems to me something pretty fundamental missing here.

In order to have a technology developed to any serious
level, don't you need to have a purpose for it? I mean
beside cloning ourselves indefinitely. :-)

I'm seeing some pretty fancy technological ideas flying
around here. (Thank heavens that technology has replaced
fantasy) But the industrial revolution occurred because
there was a need for products and the technology was 
developed to produce those products.

I worked for one company where one of the company scientists
got interested in nanotech. He got company funding and went from
division to division looking for some sort (ANY sort) or project
to use this new technological idea on. He found not a single
project.

Now, I'm sure, there is a lot more intellectual poewr out there
than at this particular company (possibly at the local
kindergarten :-)) but besides knowing how to do something, shouldn't
there also be a reason other than curiosity?

Curiosity brings knowledge but necessity brings growth.

[Well, there was no immediate application for Hero (of Alexandria)'s
 steam-powered whirligig, but it could have been developed into
 a steam engine in a culture of greater vison and purpose.
 Stacking up piles of various atoms doesn't sound like much,
 even given that some experimenters have built a working 
 nanobattery (see latest Science News); but a 1000 MIPS CPU
 in a 0.4 micron cube would have a number of uses I can think of.
 It's all a matter of where your planning horizon is.
 --JoSH]
From: doom@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Bootstrapping Nanotech
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:09:38 GMT

forrest@cup.portal.com writes:

>Suppose that you had a working assembler arm and you wanted to 
>build diamond. As you add each C atom to the structure, how could 
>you insure that the bond is an sp3 hybrid bond? Any of the other 
>C-C type bonds will not give you the 109.5 degree bonds that you 
>need for the diamond lattice. Any ideas?

Just off of the top of my head, I believe the folks doing things
like CVD (chemical vapor deposition) of diamond films have soved
this problem.  They include enough hydrogen in the carrier gas so
that the bonds at the growth interface are temporarily terminated
by hydrogen.  The hydrogens have to be displaced somehow by each
carbon atom that attaches itself to the surface.

Of course, the diamond deposition guys tend to grow some pretty
ugly films... they seem happy if they can get a film that's
*mostly* diamond in the from of 10 micron crystals randomly
scattered around.  Of course, they're usually trying to do
something fairly difficult: heteroepitaxial growth, e.g. putting
a layer of diamond onto a silicon substrate.  I've heard some
claims about homoepitaxy being a solved problem (supposedly they
can put a smooth layer of diamond down on top of diamond), but
I've also heard that these claims may be a bit bogus.

Anyway, this isn't really my field, I just wanted to suggest that
if you want to know about how to make diamond, you might want to
read up on the stuff written by people actually doing it...

I did a quick literature search ("FIND SU DIAMOND AND SU
DEPOSITION AND TI REVIEW"), and I might suggest starting with:

Savage, J.A.  "Preparation and properties of hard crystalline
materials for optical applications-a review."  JOURNAL OF CRYSTAL
GROWTH (Sept. 1991) vol.113, no.3-4, p. 698-715.  

or 

Davis, R.F., et al.  "A review of the status of diamond and
silicon carbide devices for high-power, -temperature, and
-frequency applications."  INTERNATIONAL ELECTRON DEVICES MEETING
1990. TECHNICAL DIGEST (CAT. NO.90CH2865-4).  Held: San
Francisco, CA, USA, 9-12 Dec. 1990.  (USA: IEEE, 1990. p. 785-8)

(If anyone is really serious about this, let me know.  I know
someone I could bug to find some good references.)
From: portal!cup.portal.com!lordSnooty@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: STM Bootstrapping
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:38:56 GMT

Here's an idea for the creation of a multiple "bed of nails"
STM, wherein the points lie on an orthogonal grid, and the
point-to-point separation is on the order of 10-100x atomic
radius. There has been work done quite recently on the transfer
of material between substrate and tip, so this device might be
made to work (exponential tunneling allowing) for tip-tip transfers,
or highly parallel substrate creation - fast assembly in other words.

Use a conventional STM to create the nano-STM. Flip over and create
pinholes in the back. Fashion optical interface. Address with high-powered
laser to create interference patterns (2D holograms) which via dopants
charge/ discharge the multiple tips.

I imagine this is easier than direct wiring up; an ion or electron beam
might work also.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | Would You Like Fries With That?                 |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Maybe an e-beam; a hologram can't focus light to less than its 
 wavelength any more than a lens can.
 I have a lot of trouble accepting "pin-grid-array" STMs as a
 way to do anything in parallel.  Imagine trying to build 100 
 radios at the same time by bolting 100 soldering irons to the
 back of a board and jockeying it around...
 An existing STM is a closed-loop process: sense and react,
 sense and react.  The parallel array has to be open loop
 because the "react" is going to be the same for each tip anyway.
 It's different, of course, if you're only intending to use one
 tip at a time.
 --JoSH]
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:53:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.051200.23995@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
>People on this newsgroup may not be aware that Biblical scholars have
>been aware of the problem of "doublets", as these inconsistencies are
>called, since the middle ages.

I've been aware of that.  We don't all spend our time watching the old
_WKRP in Cincinnati_ to learn about indulgences!  We learn about them
from _The Day the Universe Changed_.  :-)

>Consequently things like "7 pairs/1 pair" "Raven/Dove" "Creation1/
>Creation2" simply don't matter, except to the most mindless of
>fundementalists. 

Ah, but in aggregate

   mindlessness * vocalness = constant.

Now, if mainline Christians would ever get around to telling the fundies
to SHUT UP a lot of us would have a lot more respect for them....


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
From: Alan.Smith@iphase.UUCP (Alan Smith)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 16 Aug 92  04:56:31 EST

Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.

In article <64058@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>Dear Big Al: I'll give it some thought about your suggestiion about send
ng
>you the picture. Maybe Don Showen or Jeff can help me in that project. 
>Lynlee also helps me to operate. Like I say I can use all the
>help I can get. Now new subject. I need to look up a story I read a few
>years back. It talks about a person catching some fish in the ocean off
>the coast of Africa around some named islands. These fish were about the

>size and looke like a guppy. When he got the fish into his small 
>net he could feel the fish jumping but couldn't see them. It
>seems that these fish become invisible when scared then turn to where yo

>can see them in about 20 mlnutes if undisturbed. They sell for over $20,
00
>per pair.  John Winston.

All right, let's do it up.  About the fish, was the dude fishing at night
or in the daytime?

Big Al.  Yes, actually it does make a difference.
A
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensas farce?
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:46:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Aug19.144648.23800
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <GERRY.92Aug18170719@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
|> In all fairness to Mensa, when Robert McGrath attacks them he should
|> state whether or not he meets their entrance requirements. Otherwise,
|> it sounds like sour grapes.  
In a previous posting I think I already indicated that my comments
are definitely based on sour grapes.  :-)  I will reiterate--despite
the fact that I am technically qualified, the local org. wouldn't even
TALK to me.  Perhaps someone in the org. knows me....

Is anyone going to tell me that grapes AREN'T sour?

   REMcG
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14804 talk.origins:9898
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Last Tuesdayism (Was Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:03:37 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Distribution: na
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

The universe was created last Tuesday with an appearance of old age,
and with our memories generated for us.  Can this be disproven?  No.
But so what?  Based on scientific observation, the universe was
created a long time ago.  If it was recently created with the
appearance of old age, we'll never know the difference.  [Of course,
if it was recently created by an all-powerful being, it is certainly
trying to deceive us...]

For an amusing book along these lines, read _Thrice Upon a Time_ by I
forget the author's name.  

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The vanity and presumption of governing
Field Robotics Center,          | beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous
Carnegie Mellon University      | and insolent of all tyrannies.  Man has no
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | property in man; neither ha any generation
(412) 268-3856                  | property in the generations that are to
                                | follow.  Thomas Paine
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teeth used as radio?
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:33:33 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <OTTO.92Aug12163319@tukki.jyu.fi>, otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes...
>In article <1992Aug06.020719.208202@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>   I don't have any references, but I have no problem believing in
>   a diodic tooth filling. Not sure how you hear the result...
> 
>In Oslo, Norway, the resistance museum features a micro-radio that had
>been smuggled into a prison camp by having it built into a set of dentures.

An entire museum dedicated to electrical resistance?  Wow!  Norway must
be a physicist's dream.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14823 talk.origins:9907
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:53:44 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <536@texbell.sbc.com> lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049)) writes:
>
>        On the subject of God creating an Earth with the appearance
>       of age; I do not buy this for a moment. However, might we
>       consider the following?
>        Could the Earth look old to we humans because our methods
>       for determining age are flawed?

There is an old semi-philosophical saying which states:

  It is hard to see the picture from inside the frame.

While the current methods of science are impressive, we simply don't
know what else there might be.


Curiosity:  What scientific evidence would indicate that the Earth was
            created recently?

I suspect that nothing would suffice because the concept of coming into
existence is too wierd from a scientific point of view.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14245 talk.origins:9458
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:24:53 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug11.212051.17862@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
   ...
|> Jim Loucks, you are completely missing Dan's point.  Dan is saying (Dan,
|> please jump in here if I am confused) that there is a contradiction
|> between (1) God creating the entire universe, and endowing humankind
|> with the ability to observe the natural world and reason about it, and
|> (2) an interpretation of the first chapters of genesis as literal
|> history.  
|> 
|> Dan chose to illustrate this contradiction by describing one who creates
|> the world _with_the_appearance_of_billions_of_years_of_ history_ in
|> order to deceive reasoning human beings when in fact the world was only
|> recently created as "a deceiver", and clearly stated that he did not in
|> fact believe this to be the case.
|> 
|> Jim, how do you resolve the contradiction between the evidence for the
|> age of the earth, and the evidence that life here has evolved from
|> simple creatures to the incredible diversity that we see today?
|> 
|> What is your "a little research" that separates creationism from other
|> irrational cults? 
|> 
|> Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
|>                          or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
   ...
    Perhaps it should be pointed out that there is an ancient heresy in 
Christianity (Gnosticism) which says, among other things, that the 
maker of the world is not God.

    It seems to some of us that creationism borders on that heresy.  We 
think about that again when a creationist hints that the world which 
science studies -- with radioactivity, ice cores, speed of light -- 
has been built with the intention of deceiving us.  Obviously, such a 
deception is not the work of God.  

    Who or what
        made the laws of physics
        put the fossils in the earth
        put all of those layers in the ice caps
        made the stars and galaxies
        put, in every living thing, the evidence for the genetic 
               relationships between all of us, 
knowing that we have the kind of intelligence that would lead us to 
interpret those things as saying that the world and life is ancient, 
and that life is all related?

    Here are some possibilities:
    God (theistic evolution)
    A deceiving demiurge (gnostic creationism)

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14725 talk.origins:9801
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:57:52 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug19.124008.16945@pixel.kodak.com>, jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes...
> 
>Stupid question: if God created everything with the appearance of age,
>i.e. exactly as things would look if currently understood processes had been
>operating in the past, how is that any different, as far as science is
>concerned, from the case where everything really _is_ old? 

That's his point.  Jim believes that science is the wrong tool for 
understanding the world, because it might be that God just wants us to 
think its that way when it really is different.  The only way to find 
truth is by accepting the Bible, word for word, interpreted, of course,
according to Jim.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14706 talk.origins:9775
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:07:50 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <REUS.92Aug19123303@klein.euromath.dk>, reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
   ...
|>  No reasonable attempt seems ever to be taken in this newsgroup 
|> to debate fundamental assumption of evolution-version creation . 
   ...
    Interesting point.  

    1. Why don't you start a thread by describing one of the sides of
the debate?  As many people have described evolution in quite some
detail, and many are, I am sure, ready to post lots about it, perhaps
you, or someone you know, could fill us in on the other side?  We
surely don't want this to be one-sided, do we?

    2. Am I correct in interpreting this to say that you have an 
assumption that evolution is incompatible with creation?  If not, then
it might be a good thing to clarify that, as I feel that I am not the
only one who has gotten that impression.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14808 alt.alien.visitors:5990 talk.religion.newage:3938