Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ross Vernal]

In which we argue about nanotech, gravity, and fusion on a forum.

Also, game-related chatter, but, y'know, SCIENCE and junk.

Discuss:
FUSION
Why nobody has mentioned the build-time issue with nanojunk yet
Game stuff?

[Rolepgeek]

Good point about nano-construction. But I think we can just assume it's a matter of faster nanobots and smaller ones; smaller ones can slip between molecules more easily, faster ones can place molecules faster.

[GreatWyrmGold]

What game?

Climate collapse. Socioeconomical collapse due to resource crisis. Solar flare ...
Pick your disaster movie, there are enough to go around.

I'm starting to suspect that I didn't make my initial point clearly.

[Xantalos]

PTW.

[Gamerlord]

PTW.

[kahn1234]

In which we argue about nanotech, gravity, and fusion on a forum.

Also, game-related chatter, but, y'know, SCIENCE and junk.

Discuss:
FUSION
Why nobody has mentioned the build-time issue with nanojunk yet
Game stuff?

Because nano-swarm technology would allow really fast construction. As in, build-a-100-floor-skyscraper-in-3-days fast.

[10ebbor10]

Nah, not really. It's rather problematic to get the resources up there, and fast.

Nanites can't actually move that fast, I mean, they're molecule sized machines. (In fact, they can't move at all.) In fact, the best analogue for nanite technology is living tissue. A nanite is like a protein, it does one thing, has no internal logic or decision making, and doesn't move. (Rather, there's enough of them floating around that they just bumb into whatever they need to do.) Hence why the construction of something as large as a skyscraper is actually, or really any macroscale building, is almost an impossibility. It's fairly hard for the poor nanite to make out where it needs to be.

Sure, with sufficient nanites, power and Several large machines to do the heavy lifting and put the parts together, it'll work. In that case, it's simply a case of assembling the panels, and let the impregnated nanites do internal linkups and all that stuff.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I could see some analogue to a developing embryo letting nanomachines make buildings, but it probably wouldn't look very nice and might in fact fall over before it's complete.

[Rolepgeek]

To me, nanobots are several molecules large, which can be configured to do different things, and can move, and that's why it's a swarm. Just like we're several feet tall, and can manipulate marbles, a nanobot is more than one molecule, but can manipulate individual molecules.

Saying 'this is what nanites are' in a sic fi setting isn't fair to anyone involved; the other players or the GM. After all, space travel will be incredibly different, why not nanotechnology?

[GreatWyrmGold]

The problem isn't if nanites can manipulate molecules, it's if they can do so with enough precision and power to make a macrostructure.

[10ebbor10]

Sadly, that's not how they work. In order to get that kind of complexity (especially programmability and movement), you'll soon end up way above the nanometer scale. Anything that stays within it, will have a complexity similar to a protein*. (Not that you can't do a lot with proteins, of course). On a side note, how where you going to power them, if they have to move around?

Also, we're comparing to the Sci-fi setting to probable future reality. So yes, we can define what nanobots are.

*So called macromolecules, oft up to 1000 atoms large, or more.

The problem isn't if nanites can manipulate molecules, it's if they can do so with enough precision and power to make a macrostructure.

Nah the problem was, if you have nanorobots make, for example a chair*, how do they know when to stop with the legs, and start with the rest of the chair. Being as tiny as they are, they can't really oversee their work.


*Problem would manifest with much smaller stuff too.

[Rolepgeek]

Well again, to me, like you said they're similar sized to proteins, and there become two issues. One, how to move them and power them. To me, this is solved in one of two ways. They are the circuit, and in constant contact with each other so they are all powered, similarly to christmas lights, is one way, and results in the bottom-up kind-of 'line' of creation that we see in shows with nanobots creating stuff, since that's the easiest way to maintain the circuit. Or we use a method similar to Tesla's proposal, where it's wireless(Tesla was awesome). The other problem is indeed programming. To me, this is solved by having a centralized computer, or control device, depending on the scale of the construction, have the blueprints for what you're going to do, and give the nanobots instructions based on it. It would be silly, to me, not to have a controlling device. Especially in the case of weaponized nanobots, since if they just keep going...bye bye ships/planet/station.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The problem isn't if nanites can manipulate molecules, it's if they can do so with enough precision and power to make a macrostructure.

Nah the problem was, if you have nanorobots make, for example a chair*, how do they know when to stop with the legs, and start with the rest of the chair. Being as tiny as they are, they can't really oversee their work.

That's a problem of precision. You also mentioned problems of power earlier this very post.

Or we use a method similar to Tesla's proposal, where it's wireless(Tesla was awesome).

Doesn't that require putting absurd amounts of electricity in the air, making it horribly inefficient for almost anything except providing wireless power worldwide?

The other problem is indeed programming. To me, this is solved by having a centralized computer, or control device, depending on the scale of the construction, have the blueprints for what you're going to do, and give the nanobots instructions based on it. It would be silly, to me, not to have a controlling device. Especially in the case of weaponized nanobots, since if they just keep going...bye bye ships/planet/station.

How would you get the nanomachines to listen?

[Rolepgeek]

I don't know. I'm fairly certain that regardless of what I say, one of you will spout some reason for why it's impossible. I could say that it is in the way it's designed, that specific electrical impulses to different types of nanobots(and different sizes; I imagine there'd be cell-sized 'overseers' which could take apart and reconstruct nanobots to do what was needed) would make them 'construct' different molecules. I could say it's a nano antenna(which seems dumb to me too). Honestly, I don't know mostly because I'm not profoundly educated on the subject. I'm not sure what could be used. Does that mean there isn't something? No. But I have a feeling that, like in most arguments/debates, if one party doesn't know everything they're talking about, they're assumed to be wrong(which is a logical fallacy, just like the 'you're a hypocrite' argument is a logical fallacy).

Edit: to be honest, I don't see why they need to be protein sized. Cell-sized machines would probably be better, since they could construct 'proteins' to do various tasks at that scale, and do 'heavy lifting', be able to move, process(tiny amounts of) information, etc.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The problem is that interpreting signals needs some kind of computer, and that (AFAIK) a
"nanoscale" computer would be bigger than the proposed nanomachines.