Nanobots, possible or not?

[william_clinch]

Nanobots are common in many science fictions, and some people beleive they will become a reality one day, but will they realy?

The are some limits, but at our present level of understanding, we do not know if they can be overcome

Things can not keep on being made infinitely smaller, because the is a minimum size limit due to the size of atoms, and to work properly, nanobots will have to have a number of components

There is the factor of the electronics(cuircuts, CPU etc) in the nanobots. In my opinion, so much (size, [big]) would be needed, that it would not be considered nano, instead, I think the computers will be seperate, and controll the nanites remotely

The is also a minimum limit on the distance between two conducting cuircuts before the electrons are freely able to move between cuircuts, but I beleive this can be solved with nanotubes or superconductors

How are they going to be able to move around? only in liquids? I have no ideas on this one at all

And how will they be powered? a battery that small wont last long, but again, I think nanotubes and super conductors may be the answer

So the main points for discussion, mechanical size, cuircut size, "brain" size/location, movement and power.

one last thing, because of there size and inticritness, will they be so easy to break, (if two bum in to each other, or if they're hit by other tiny objects, or attacked by microbes) will they be worthless?

go, discuss

[Neo]

You should read the book called "Nano"

Its considered Science Fiction, but anything in that book isn't as far fetched as you think.

It goes into everything that NanoTech could do... And I mean everything. Its really interesting.

Personally, I think advanced nanotech would be awesome... But it would also be deadly, very very deadly.

-Neo

[Sikawtic]

I do believe that if nanotechnology is every created, it will be the end of human life. I mean, you could program a huge swarm of nano-insects to enter in a human's body and tear them apart.

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

I don't think they will make it into a size of an atom, just small as a blood cell. I think it will move like submarines. For the brain, I don't know how they will program it to keep us healthy.

I think there could be another way to keep humans healthy besides nano techonlogy. If there are, then nano techonlogy wouldn't catch on.

[william_clinch]

I dont think computers will ever be small enough so nanites can have onboard computers, so theres no chance of them going crazy and destroying the world

[hammocksleeper]

dont we already have little nano dudes that swim in your arteries and fix shit?

[psycho42b]

dont we already have little nano dudes that swim in your arteries and fix shit? Um, nothing artificial, but there are the body's natural cells...

[Kingscrab]

I do believe that if nanotechnology is every created, it will be the end of human life. I mean, you could program a huge swarm of nano-insects to enter in a human's body and tear them apart. They have that now. It's called biological warfare.

[L2_1989]

I think nanobots can become a reality. Technology is getting smaller and smaller all the time. Look at the iPod nano. Thin as a pencil, but can hold alot of space. We are getting very close to creating nanobots, but my guess that it will be used in the military, not for ordinary technology and repairing microscopic living tissue, if that's possible.

Let's hope nanobots don't make us follow orders on how we must live our lives. I don't want that.

[william_clinch]

a nanobot would have to be under 100 micrometers (0.1-10 acording to some sources)
Using the iPod nano as an example, which has 4GB of memory in a size of 24840mm
Asumeing a nanobot was a 100 micrometer cube with the same memory density, that would only be 161 bytes of memory
I dont know how big the operation files for macines are, but I doubt 161 bytes is enought for it to do anything

[Spartan-II]

I beleive Nanotechnology is an inevitability. They would be the ultimate scalpel. You could undergo surgery without the incision and recovery time associated, it could be told to eliminate Cancer cells, it could even act as an immune system for someone who had none. Nanotech would *publicly* mostly be used for Medical applications. (IMO) I won't be naive enough to beleive the Military won't use them. We all know what happens then, though.

Also, to those who say 'Nano' spells Doom, people thought the Atomic Bomb was the end of the world, and look where we are today.

[Xenon]

Nanotechnology and Biotechnology are right now in the process of merging. In the future, nanotechnology will mostly be driven by and/or behave like biological virii, and the like. Even if they are artificial virii, they will be programmed to behave in a similar manner. Everything we can dream up has just about already been done by nature; we are discovering this on a daily basis. If you don't think nature is able to do "n", it doesn't mean you are right, it just means we haven't discovered how nature does "n" yet.

[GenocideAlive]

The first thing science does it think of the possibility, using machines. Then they generally compare similar functions to nature and try to imitate those. Then they improve on what nature does if they can get more efficiency out of it.

There are already in place several nanoparticules, including nanotubes, etc. for purposes of computing.

But if all you want a particle to do is to drop X substance when it encounters Y conditions, why would you bother fabricating a nanoparticle when there are already billions of trillions spread out all over the world?

[Xenon]

The first thing science does it think of the possibility, using machines. Then they generally compare similar functions to nature and try to imitate those. Then they improve on what nature does if they can get more efficiency out of it.

There are already in place several nanoparticules, including nanotubes, etc. for purposes of computing.

But if all you want a particle to do is to drop X substance when it encounters Y conditions, why would you bother fabricating a nanoparticle when there are already billions of trillions spread out all over the world?

Generally, Nature is way more efficient than anything man can do.

[GenocideAlive]

Generally, Nature is way more efficient than anything man can do.
Nature does great for self-sufficiency, but for anything en masse, it's total crap.

For instance mass transportation, communication, and proliferation outside of habitat.

[hammocksleeper]

proliferation outside of habitat.

what is that? fucking in space?

[Kingscrab]

what is that? fucking in space? Space? :confused:
EX: A fish cannot proliferate outside of water, right? (made sense to me...)

[GenocideAlive]

Space? :confused:
EX: A fish cannot proliferate outside of water, right? (made sense to me...)
Thank god someone speaks English.

..."space". Yeah...

[Cyberspirit]

Nanotechnology is possible now.

1. Bioengineers are genetically programming microbes to build the nano structures that nano-machinists need.
E.g. Diatoms produce wheels, gears and microscopic boxes.
Sponges and Bacteria manufacture molecules that humans cannot create with their tools ( even spider silk ! )

2. Laser beams and quantum waves can take over the function of electrical currents.
no need for conductors + can cross paths + not affected by electrical fields = save a hell lot of space.

3. Zeolite crystals and lasers allow scientists to build nanostructures atom by atom.

4. Yes, why build a nanomachine from scratch if you can just modify a virus or bug to do the job ?

Nanotechnology is NO LONGER science fiction.

It is not possible for nanomachines to " tear humans apart " right away. Where do they get the energy and the leverage ?
It is easier just to shine a beam of ions or intense light into the victim.

If the military used nanomachines it would be mostly for reconnaisance, repairing equipment, or poisoning. They are just not destructive enough to be used as standard weaponry. ( Which is more destructive ? a big chunk of sandstone thrown at a target ? or a pail of sand poured at the target ? Even if the sand grains "synchronised their actions" and started attacking the target, it would still be a waste of energy and material. )

However, it is possible for nanomachines to infect a human and dissolve his/her tissues, causing death. Think of the Ebola virus !

As to healing, I think lasers and macromolecules do the job best. There is no need for the complicated "shrunken ships" that you read about in science fiction. The latter may cause irritation.

I think the widest application of nanomachines would just be to
1. build and maintain other machines.
2. Clean up rubbish and undesired substances.
3. Survey crooks and crannies that visible machines cannot enter.

[GenocideAlive]

Nanotechnology is NO LONGER science fiction.

It is not possible for nanomachines to " tear humans apart " right away. Where do they get the energy and the leverage ?
It is easier just to shine a beam of ions or intense light into the victim.

If the military used nanomachines it would be mostly for reconnaisance, repairing equipment, or poisoning. They are just not destructive enough to be used as standard weaponry. ( Which is more destructive ? a big chunk of sandstone thrown at a target ? or a pail of sand poured at the target ? Even if the sand grains "synchronised their actions" and started attacking the target, it would still be a waste of energy and material. )

However, it is possible for nanomachines to infect a human and dissolve his/her tissues, causing death. Think of the Ebola virus !

As to healing, I think lasers and macromolecules do the job best. There is no need for the complicated "shrunken ships" that you read about in science fiction. The latter may cause irritation.

I think the widest application of nanomachines would just be to
1. build and maintain other machines.
2. Clean up rubbish and undesired substances.
3. Survey crooks and crannies that visible machines cannot enter.
Is it me, or is this a rant?

[Cyberspirit]

Is it me, or is this a rant?

What ?
Because it is too long ?
Or because it does not make sense ?

I am pretty sure I used English. :confused:

Don't take my tone of speech too seriously.
I am more of a storyteller than a writer of sharp comments.
And all storytellers exaggerate somehow.

:D :D :D

[Neo]

I love watching or reading stories with Nanotech, its really interesting IMO. So far that Nano book I mentioned went to the extreme of Nano tech... it explored everything. Using Nanos to restore a dead person, using nanos to increase your brain power, build structures out of thin air, harm people...

Nanotech will change everything. Building, producing, hell even comfort.

Some day all children might recieve an injection of nanobots that will keep them healthy... fight off any diseases and fix anything that goes wrong, broken bones, the cold, lol... I imagine that they will extend our life spans significantly.

And when it comes along far enough... There will be very little reason for an economy as we have today.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Check out the latest Scientific American. We got a john on the other side of R&D that has one in there, and it had a lot of stuff on nanotech.

[Fenguin]

Hey guys, let's stop appending "nano" to random words. No need to mention "nano-insects" or "nano-machinists" when more old-fashioned words will do. ;)

There is the factor of the electronics(cuircuts, CPU etc) in the nanobots. In my opinion, so much (size, [big]) would be needed, that it would not be considered nano, instead, I think the computers will be seperate, and controll the nanites remotely

The is also a minimum limit on the distance between two conducting cuircuts before the electrons are freely able to move between cuircuts, but I beleive this can be solved with nanotubes or superconductors
Firstly, it is not necessary to have electronic circuits on such a small scale when mechanical ones will be sufficient. Electricity/conductivity does have some unexpected properties on such a small scale, when the macroscopic laws of electricity/magnetism are affected by the quantum properties of the constituent atoms, and therefore it may be preferable to use mechanical logic gates, et cetera. Drexler outlines several methods for doing so in his book Nanosystems.

Secondly, the "nanobots" that we use in the future may not be on a nanometer scale; for work in our bodies, they can be up to a few microns across, and for military work (reconnaissance, etc) they can be even bigger.

How are they going to be able to move around? only in liquids? I have no ideas on this one at all
They probably won't be able to move very far by themselves; if they have little "arms" as found on myosin (this is how muscles contract) then they could move short distances but that's about it.

We are getting very close to creating nanobots, but my guess that it will be used in the military, not for ordinary technology and repairing microscopic living tissue, if that's possible.
On the contrary, I think that the first true "nanobot" will be developed for medical purposes. Soldier nanotechnologies are generally for use on intelligent suits and such; right now, building nanobots will be impractical because of the difficulty in their delivery. Medical science is much more precise and therefore has much more need of nanobots.

1. Bioengineers are genetically programming microbes to build the nano structures that nano-machinists need.
E.g. Diatoms produce wheels, gears and microscopic boxes.
Sponges and Bacteria manufacture molecules that humans cannot create with their tools ( even spider silk ! )
Creating nanostructures biologically is both attainable today and highly inefficient: said structures will be rudimentary at best and their assembly into more complex structures will be much more difficult. We can create many nanostructures with DNA and other macromolecules yet they usually can't do much.

It may turn out that the most efficient way to produce MEMS is through an assembly-line procedure as detailed by Foresight Institute a year or so ago: have machines create smaller versions of themselves until we reach the level we desire.

2. Laser beams and quantum waves can take over the function of electrical currents.
no need for conductors + can cross paths + not affected by electrical fields = save a hell lot of space.
Lasers may work; Intel has indeed just produced a tiny sustainable silicon laser. I'm not so sure about "quantum waves" though; the word "quantum" implies discrete bundles (quantized energy, so to speak) yet the word "wave" implies continuity, thereby leading to a contradiction? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong and there are such things as quantum waves that I haven't had the opportunity to read about yet.

4. Yes, why build a nanomachine from scratch if you can just modify a virus or bug to do the job ?
For rudimentary things like killing people, it is easier to do as you have said. But what about the more complicated tasks such as surveillance?

It is not possible for nanomachines to " tear humans apart " right away. Where do they get the energy and the leverage ?
It is easier just to shine a beam of ions or intense light into the victim.
How about nanobots programmed to destroy neural tissue? All they need is some sort of structure capable of detecting molecules only found on neural tissue (myelin, for example) and then a payload of perforins or something similar.

If the military used nanomachines it would be mostly for reconnaisance, repairing equipment, or poisoning. They are just not destructive enough to be used as standard weaponry. ( Which is more destructive ? a big chunk of sandstone thrown at a target ? or a pail of sand poured at the target ? Even if the sand grains "synchronised their actions" and started attacking the target, it would still be a waste of energy and material. )
Of course we won't just be throwing nanobots at things! Their whole purpose is to be intelligent dust---they can get into places that previously only sand grains could yet they can do damage while they are in said places.

Also, a problem with the analogy: if the target was protected by some sort of metal armor, the sandstone may merely bounce off or break apart upon impact whereas the sand grains may actually wear away the armor and thus cause more damage.

As to healing, I think lasers and macromolecules do the job best. There is no need for the complicated "shrunken ships" that you read about in science fiction. The latter may cause irritation.
And the former won't? Lasers (especially those projected from outside the body) can cause tissue damage; moreover, it is highly difficult to access internal organs and such with lasers (it may be possible to do it with fiber optics, however). Moreover, when macromolecules become complex enough to do repair work in the body, if they are manmade then usually they are considered nanobots.

Nanotechnology has already provided many promising avenues for both prostheses and drug delivery systems. A nanobot can be programmed to look for a specific chemical or receptor (say, one only present in the brain) and release its payload at that particular location. Splints made from shape memory alloys (delivered through a non-intrusive system that doesn't require open surgery) have also been proven much more effective than any alternative.

Dr. James Heath at Caltech thinks that the most promising cure for cancer is through nanotechnology---early detection by nanosystems coupled with nanoparticle tagging and such.

------------------

I apologize if any of the information I mentioned previously is erroneous; I read most of it a long time ago and so my memory may be failing me.

I conclude with a recent development in nanotechnology: Rice University has built a single-molecule nanocar with buckyballs for wheels. It's quite cleverly made and could lead to other breakthroughs.

Edit: Here's the link to Rice's press release about the nanocar: http://media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7850&SnID=388497000

Edit 2: And here's a picture:

http://www.media.rice.edu/images/media/NewsRels/NanoCartriangle.jpg

[hammocksleeper]

It may turn out that the most efficient way to produce MEMS is through an assembly-line procedure as detailed by Foresight Institute a year or so ago: have machines create smaller versions of themselves until we reach the level we desire.
wow, that idea sounds pretty neat. but can we make robots that are smart enough to create exact duplicates of themselves?

Lasers may work; Intel has indeed just produced a tiny sustainable silicon laser. I'm not so sure about "quantum waves" though; the word "quantum" implies discrete bundles (quantized energy, so to speak) yet the word "wave" implies continuity, thereby leading to a contradiction? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong and there are such things as quantum waves that I haven't had the opportunity to read about yet.
I think he might be talking about just a pulse, for example the release of a single photon with a specific energy level.

[Cyberspirit]

Well, actually I was talking about quantum-computer's waves. Sorry :D
( *Takes hammer and strikes head*)

Waves that act like particles are called solitons.
...

Have you heard about twisted lasers ?

I am not sure how they work. It is something like emitting a beam of coherent photons that circle each other in helical paths or taking the normal waveform of EM waves and twisting it to make a corkscrew waveform ... :confused:

Twisted lasers supposedly carry more information than ordinary lasers.

Supposedly makes communication faster and more economical.

Economical is what we want in nanotechnology. However at this point, I imagine individual twisted laser beams to be too big for use by nanobots. Maybe I just dislike complicated things... :D

Of course we won't just be throwing nanobots at things! Their whole purpose is to be intelligent dust---they can get into places that previously only sand grains could yet they can do damage while they are in said places.

That is true.

Also, a problem with the analogy: if the target was protected by some sort of metal armor, the sandstone may merely bounce off or break apart upon impact whereas the sand grains may actually wear away the armor and thus cause more damage.

Again, where do the sand grains get the energy and leverage to cause more damage than the sandstone ?

OK, the sand grains have more surface area and so impact the armour at a higher rate ("wear away the armour") than the edges of the sandstone. Very useful for sabotage, but not for killing off the enemy in the heat of battle.