HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch (Peter Nyffeler ,x4399)
Subject: Re: Continuum light source for blue and UV
Reply-To: peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch
Organization: ETH-Zuerich, Physical-Chemistry-Lab. - Switzerland
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:52:26 GMT

In article 8651@dirac.physics.purdue.edu, parks@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Chris Parks) writes:
>
>I need to find an intense continuum light source for wavelengths
>from 300nm to 500nm.  I currently use a 600 Watt tungsten lamp with
>my monochromator.
>
>From what I've read, Xenon lamps seem to be a favorite choice.
>So, if you use an intense Xenon lamp I would appreciate a recommendation
>for a supplier and the ANSI code number for the lamp.  
>
>Also, are there problems with producing ozone?
>
>Chris Parks
>parks@physics.purdue.edu


We use Xe-Lamps as excitation sources for our Total-Luminescence-Spectrometers.
I do not know any better broad-band light source up to know.

If you want to feed the light into a monochromator, take care on the following:

	The F-number of the illuminating optic should be the same as the one of the 
	monochromator. If the f-number is to small the collimating mirror does not 
	collect all the light coming from the entrance slit (this will increase stray 
	light).

	The image of the lamp-arc on the entrance slit should not be much larger as 
	the slit. It is not worth to have 2kW lamp using only a small part of its 
	light and with the rest heating (and perhaps destroy) the slit.

	Use a water filter to block the infrared.

	Do not use an elliptic reflector for the lamp, because they produce a dark 
	spot at the center of the image.
	
	If you do not use energy below 300nm use ozonefree lamps else use an active
	coal filter as ozone eater.
From: habersch@husc11.harvard.edu (Oren Haber-Schaim)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Any info on Volpi Mfrg? and fibre optics question
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:06:41 GMT

Volpi:  Auburn, NY   315-255-1737
From: mckendre@chaph.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Southern California Molecular Nanotechnology Discussion Group
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:34:54 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


After the interview with Drexler in MicroTimes, I am considering starting
up a molecular nanotechnology discussion group in the Southland.  Anyone
who is interested please let me know (if you are interested and close enough,
you should be able to telephone me).
The intent is to have something similar to "The Assembler Multitude" up
in the Bay area.  I hope we can meet somewhere such that researchers from
Caltech can make it, and high tech entrepreneurs from Orange County can make
it as well.

Those interested, please contact me.

Tom McKendree                                        mckendre@chaph.usc.edu
12171 Amethyst Circle
Garden Grove, CA   92645

(714) 896-5901
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: tunneling
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:15:05 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <Nov.4.17.57.28.1992.3212@planchet.rutgers.edu>  
sorenj@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Jeffrey S. Sorensen) writes:
[...]
> Perhaps we will be sending all of our supplies in subterrines.  Seems to  
make
> alot more sense then expending all of our energy excavating material.
> (I have this recurring vision of those boring machines that were  
featured
> in such movies as "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and misc.  
Japanese
> monster films.  Perhaps the nanotech devices will look even sillier then  
the
> cheesy special effects of those movies...)

According to the "Desert Rose" scenario in _UTF_ we would be sending our  
things and ourselves around by subway--something like the subshuttles in  
Gene Roddenbury's failed "Genesis II" series.  The whole point of living  
in the desert to get away from it all seems a bit lost if subshuttle  
stations are cheap enough to install in everyone's basement.  But then  
that is only one scenario.  Perhaps in an age of desktop genetic  
engineering people will learn how to mind their own bussiness.

PS if you think dreadlocks look funny, just wait 'till nanotech 

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"The Earth is but a small part of the world, and the rest of the
 world will be important to our future.  In terms of energy, materials,
 and room for growth, space is almost everything.  In the past,
 successes in space have regularly fulfilled engineering projections, in
 the future, an open space frontier will widen the human world"
 --K. Eric Drexler _Engines of Creation_  p83
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: tunneling
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:29:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Nov.4.17.57.28.1992.3212@planchet.rutgers.edu> sorenj@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Jeffrey S. Sorensen) writes:

>Why bother building a tunnel at all... 

>Each little nanorobot would pick up a piece of rock and bring it around to the
>back of the vessel. ...

Am I to believe that someone thinks that moving millions of tons of material
every time a vehicle moves is preferable to moving in a vacuum?

Wait a minute -- I think I'm rediscovering why I find this discussion
fanciful.


[Sarcasm makes me think, I guess.  Two thoughts:
 (a) is it even theoretically possible to construct a "submagmarine"
 which would tool around down below the mantle where the rock *really
 is* liquid?
 (b) given a deep enough and cheap enough tunneling capability, there's
 a hell of a lot of energy down there for the taking...
 --JoSH]
From: Wedekind.ES_CP8@xerox.com
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Nanosystems discussion of UV damage
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:47:19 GMT


Thanks for the clarification, Hal.  As far as I can tell, your first objection
is still applicable to Sec 6.5.4 as a standalone analysis of UV damage.  But
as you say, the "radiation-damage dominance criterion" of Sec. 6.7 does make
this moot from an overall perspective.

Cheers,
Jerry
From: jeremy@nature.ai.mit.edu (Jeremy M. Wertheimer)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: COMPUTER Nov 92
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:01:58 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

The current issue of COMPUTER (November 1992) is all about molecular computing.

Nanotech's assault on the mainstream literature continues.

Jeremy Wertheimer
MIT AI Lab, 545 Tech. Sq., Room 805, Cambridge MA 02139
(617) 253-5867, Internet: Jeremy@AI.MIT.EDU
From: rjenkins@cory.berkeley.edu (JENKINS)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Nanosystems discussion of UV damage
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:33:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

If the goal is to build a road or a house, couldn't you put an umbrella 
over the whole active construction site?  And if that isn't enough 
shielding, why not a lead blanket?  There's no need to wrap each nanobot 
individually.

If you want to scour the carbon and CFC's from the atmosphere, then OK, you
need something light resistant.  But you could recognize a CFC without an
on-board computer.  These problems are probably simple enough to solve with
light-resistant hardware.  A single-molecule catalyst might even do.

Another approach is to have a machine continually recycle its components.
Is this what bacteria do, continually digest & rebuild themselves?  This 
will correct errors even when you can't detect them.  It requires energy,
but we're already assuming the device is in direct sunlight...

					- Bob Jenkins
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Water
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:41:21 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

First, a question.

In many cases, water is the limiting factor in the size of an area's
population.  What are the near-term prospects for nanotechnological
contributions to the problem of supplying good water where wanted?

This is along the lines of the general question: What sort of bulk
processes are there upon which nanotechnology will have little impact?
In this case, the question is: How might nanotechnology contribute to
bulk chemical processes?

Next, a prediction.

Our choice of living location is currently constrained in various
ways.  Many of those constraints will disappear as availability and
demand become less localized (through better physical and logical
connectivity).  So where will people live?  If recent trends are any
indication, the answer is: southern California.  It is interesting to
note that, other than transportation and expense, the main reason
people avoid southern California now is due to the lack of water...

- John

P.S. Did anyone notice my attempt to introduce a new term?  I used
"nanotechie" to mean "someone inclined towards fully nanotechnological
solutions to every problem."  Is anyone keeping a glossary?
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu

[Make a good enough "smartsuit" (nanotech second skin) and it'll
 be as comfortable outside almost anywhere, as in S. CA.  
 Buy land in the Canadian north woods... and one wonders about
 the oceans.
 --JoSH]
From: mckendre@chaph.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Breakthrough Timeline
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:34:23 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <Nov.3.01.15.25.1992.27077@planchet.rutgers.edu> nagle@netcom.com
(John Nagle) writes:

>     Early applications will probably 1) not involve self-replication
>2) not involve breaking tough bonds 3) not be based on mobile nanounits
>4) not involve manipulating macroscopic amounts of matter (grams).

>     Under that set of assumptions, a DNA reader is a possibility.  
>Any other ideas?

On idea that I gave to Eric Drexler in 1991 was sort of a "universal
disassembler."  The idea was for a proximal probe system with a fairly
sophisticated set of tool changeout.  You disasseble one thing that you
are really interested in (e.g. an HIV virus), learning what you can about
its structure.  The requirement "2) not involve breaking tough bonds" may
well mean that for some disassemblies, you have to live with occasionally
taking off parts that cohere too strongly to be fully disassembled, and
some things just won't be disassemblable.
Obviously, one should image the whole area around each disassembly step, 
both to get as much information as possible, and to better plan the next
disassembly step.

Tom McKendree                             mckendre@chaph.usc.edu
12171 Amethyst Cir.
Garden Grove, CA  92645

714-896-5901
714-896-1313:fax
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: tunneling
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:13:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

(JoSH says)
> (a) is it even theoretically possible to construct a "submagmarine"
> which would tool around down below the mantle where the rock *really
> is* liquid?
> (b) given a deep enough and cheap enough tunneling capability, there's
> a hell of a lot of energy down there for the taking...

(a) Where do you dump the excess heat? Anything completely surrounded
by a very hot substance is going to have a hell of a time to prevent
itself from reach equilibrium temperature.

(b) There is only energy available if there is a gradient to decend.

[(a) you'd have have something even hotter than the magma inside,
 dumping heat out, and use that heat flow to drive the refrigerators
 to keep everything else inside cool.
 (b) the molten part of the core has to be at least 1540C, and the 
 night sky is 3K...
 --JoSH]
From: ghsvax!hal@uunet.uu.net (Hal Finney)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Nanosystems discussion of UV damage
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:46:48 GMT

I want to state again that I believe Josh's correction to my post on
sci.nantoech about the need for additional UV shielding is accurate.
A larger nanotech system does not need additional shielding merely by
virtue of its size.  (The proper value to assume for efficiency of
bond breaking is a separate issue.)

The reason is made clear in section 6.7.1b of _Nanosystems_, where it
is pointed out that even if all controllable error mechanisms are
reduced, terrestrial background radiation cannot be controlled.  The
UV calculation was done for a device with an area of 1 square micron,
with a desired half-life of 30 years.  From equation 6.54, a one cubic
micron device with an average density equal to that of water will
suffer failures at the rate of about 4% per year (assuming no internal
redundancy) just from this cause.  This corresponds to a half-life of
about 15 years.

Therefore, the 200 nm aluminum shielding reduces the UV-caused damage
for a cubic-micron machine considerably below the inevitable damage
caused by background radiation.  More shielding would be superfluous;
we can't hold to a 30 year MTBF for larger devices without redundancy,
anyway.

Hal Finney
hal@ghs.com
From: morgan@arc.ab.ca (Sean Morgan)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Nanometer-scale battery announced
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:31:11 GMT


"Scientists assemble world's smallest battery"

From September 1992, Design Engineering

IRVINE, CA--Chemists at the University of California, Irvine have constructed a
battery measuring only 70 nanometers...along its largest dimension...  An
example of functioning "nanoelectronics," the device is made of fewer than
500,000 atoms.

Reporting in the Journal of Physical Chemistry, Reginald Penner, assistant
professor of chemistry, and co-researchers described a "nanometer-scale
galvanic cell" consisting of tiny pillars of copper and silver deposited on a
graphite surface using a scanning tunneling microscope.

When the surface containing the tiny metal structures is immersed in a dilute
copper-plating solution (CUSO4), atoms from the copper pillar spontaneously
dissolve and copper ions plate onto the surface of the silver pillar,
generating 20 thousandths of a volt for 45 minutes....

-------------------------------------------------
Apologies if this is old hat.
-----------------+-------------------------------
Sean Morgan      |  ALBERTA  6815 - 8 Street N.E.
                 | RESEARCH  Calgary, AB, Canada
morgan@arc.ab.ca |  COUNCIL  T2E 7H7
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: underground space
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:18:56 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <Nov.3.01.06.15.1992.26982@planchet.rutgers.edu>  
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
[...]
> This is, I think, the major reason that I find most of the discussion
> of nanomachines so trite. No one seems to consider the real engineering
> problems. I tried to read Drexler and found him to be such a cheer  
leader,
> with wild flights of fantasy on practically every page that I simply  
couldn't
> finish the book.
From _Unbounding the Future_ page 259

+(Any critic declaring this to be an optimistic book hereby stands charged  
+with having failed to read and understand the above paragraph)

Just because I think that fiber optic cabling would be a boon for society  
does not mean that someone will not use a fiber optic whip for purposes of  
child abuse and general torture.  This, I think, is the main message of  
the Cyberpunk Movement.  (Note the miserable, half-constructed Fuller  
domes over Gibson's Sprawl)  I expect that this will be just as true in  
the future as it is now.

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Why don't you let the word 'Machine' conjure up images of patterns
of shifting light rather than of giant steam shovels."
--Douglas R. Hofstadter
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Nanosystem wear and defects
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:32:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

(Hal Finney posts about nanotech reliability)

I completely agree with you that talking about multiple systems is
one thing and getting them to work is another. Perhaps you remember
all of the work that went into the original redundant systems in
the space program? As I recall they never did make a very good job
of getting the 'good' redundant systems to recognize the 'bad' one.

But I suppose this is just another minor problem that'll be solved
by the time that nanotech is up and running. 

About 'perfect materials': why do you suppose that there are no perfect
diamonds naturally occurring and that we will be able to build large
scale diamonds even though you admit that all the while that these
diamonds are being built the bonds are being modified by incident
radiation?

[Build them at night! or more simply, indoors.
 --JoSH]
From: Wedekind.ES_CP8@xerox.com
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Nanosystems discussion of UV damage
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:44:56 GMT


Just to sum up my take on the Nanosystems UV damage thread:

Hal Finney's two objections* to the Sec 6.5.4 discussion of
required Al shield thickness can both be addressed by reducing
shield transmittance by a factor of 80*20 (perhaps 300*20,
depending on assumptions about shield geometry).

This makes the analysis more obviously conservative, while the
corresponding increase increase in shield thickness (from 250 nm
to 300 nm) doesn't substantially change the conclusions drawn at
end of the section.   

I'm not sure this qualifies as an erratum; in case it's appropriate,
 I'm copying foresight@cup.portal:com.

Cheers,
Jerry


*Hal's objections:
  1) the inapplicability of the unit-area assumption
     to a 10nm diameter damage-intolerant system, and
  2) the assumption of .01 quantum  efficiency when quoted
     efficiencies range as high as 0.22
From: om@icsi.berkeley.edu (Stephen M. Omohundro)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Damage due to unstable isotopes?
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:18:11 GMT
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

I've been reading Nanosystems and have found it to be a real tour de
force! One possible souce of damage that it doesn't seem to consider,
however, is the decay of unstable isotopes incorporated into a device. The 
molecular sorting methods suggested don't seem sensitive enough to
separate these out and so it seems that they will occur in their natural
abundances. Does the decay of such an isotope necessarily cause damage to
the structure it is in? Do such decays occur frequently enough to affect
the lifetime calculations?
-- 
Stephen M. Omohundro                               
International Computer Science Institute           Telephone: 510-643-9153
1947 Center Street, Suite 600                            Fax: 510-643-7684
Berkeley, CA 94704                             Email: om@icsi.berkeley.edu
 
[It's particularly worthwhile to take account of this since carbon-14
 is a major one of those isotopes.  However I think that statistically
 this gets counted under "background radiation".
 --JoSH]
From: John_H_Faith.Wbst311@xerox.com
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: A Standard Model of When Nanotechnology Might Be Developed
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:30:17 GMT

In response to Thomas Mc Kendree's proposed model of nanotech development:

Tom,
One of the technologies in your "FROM- TO" table was RAM systems namely:

>T17       highly parallel positional synthesis       10^12 Megabyte RAM
systems

>T18       flexible, high-speed assemblers            10^12 Megabyte RAM
systems

I recently read (in Electronic Engineering Times Sept.7,1992 page 34) about
another possible enabler to 10^12 Mbyte RAMs.  The article described a memory
system based on a photosensitive protein.  The inventor mentioned that the
theoretical limit to the technology is from 10^10 to 10^12 bits per cubic
centimeter.  A current working prototype has capaity of 10 Gbytes in 1 cubic
centimeter of the proteins (not counting the laser diodes and optics used for
addressing). This system (currently) does not depend on nanotech per se, but
uses the protein extracted from a salt water bacteria.  Check out the article
for the details...



JFaith
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Different Words (was: Re: Nanosystems discussion of UV damage)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:36:31 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <Nov.4.18.22.33.1992.3281@planchet.rutgers.edu> robj@netcom.com  
(Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
[...]
> Perhaps we need two different words for "nanomachine"--one which would
> denote "something manufactured with molecular nanotech", and one which
> would denote "a machine which can only survive in an eutactic (i.e.
> atomically-stable) environment".

I use the terms "Nano-built" and "Nano-Active" and sometimes  
"Eutactic-Dependent".

When I talk to my non-scientific but environmentaly-concerned friends I  
divide up the much-abused "Technology" thus:
"Nature" (natural principles)
"Capability" (the ability to make things)
"Applications" (the things that are made).

Thus molecular nanotechnology will be a broadly-applicable capabilty set  
much like electricity (which lets you make things that are not themselves  
electrical).

I also like to point out that with "Technology" it's not how much but what  
kind that matters.  "You mean appropriate technology?"  So non-polluting  
industry would be boon.  Unfortunately this does not work with those who  
think they understand quantum mechanics :-(

> -- 
> Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
> robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
> robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
> uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_

=========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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Gold from Seawater?
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:28:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester


>[There are about 10 micrograms of gold per ton of seawater.  At current
> prices (rough estimate) 10,000 tons of water contains a dollar's worth
> of gold.  At the prices I pay, a dollar's worth of electricity is not
> enough to pump that much water more than a couple of inches (with 
> pumps a lot more efficient than the one I've got now).
> The magnesium in a given volume of seawater is worth a lot more than
> the gold in the same volume.  So is the salt.
> In the future, it may also become worthwhile to recover the deuterium.
> --JoSH]


The Japanese have been investigating extracting various elements
from seawater.  Two that they've made progress on are lithium
and uranium.

Uranium is quite an interesting case.  A group in Japan found that
amidoxime resins (available rather cheaply) strongly bind to uranyl
ions (UO2--) in preference to the other trace elements dissolved in
seawater.  They've found that resins immersed in a simulated ocean
current absorb about .1% uranium per day by weight.  Washing in dilute
acid releases the uranium from the resin, which can be reused.  The
current projection is that uranium can be recovered by this process
for $250/pound.  If they can get this down to $150/pound, it will be
cheaper to mine the oceans with once-through reactors rather than
build breeders.

Other Japanese researchers have found an crystalline material that
strongly binds lithium ions.  I don't recall the economics.  The
concentrations of lithium and uranium in seawater are, respectively,
180 ppb and 3 ppb.  The oceans contain about 4 billion tons of uranium
and 240 billion tons of lithium, respectively.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu