Difference between revisions of "Atom placement frequency"
(→Related: added relevant reference to nanosystems) |
(added new intro section: == Loss of parallelism of natural chemistry and how to compensate ==) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
For [[gemstone metamaterial on-chip factories]] to be able to put human scale objects together atom by atom in reasonable timespans they need to place atoms at mind boggling rates. | For [[gemstone metamaterial on-chip factories]] to be able to put human scale objects together atom by atom in reasonable timespans they need to place atoms at mind boggling rates. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Loss of parallelism of natural chemistry and how to compensate == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In solution phase chemistry high throughputs are achieved via:''' | ||
| + | * massive spacial density of reaction locations (mixed dense liquides with many molecules in close contact) | ||
| + | * massive temporal density (frequency) of reaction attempts (molecules bouncing into each other) – (For gaining an intuition see: [[The speed of atoms]]) | ||
| + | A countering effect is: | ||
| + | * A low success rate per bump | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In machine phase:''' | ||
| + | * spacial density is much more limited (due to the volume of the machinery needed to operate the tooltips) – Related: [[Fat finger problem]] | ||
| + | * temporal density is also more limited – See: [[Deliberate slowdown at the lowest assembly level]] | ||
| + | But making up for this big time is: | ||
| + | * An (extremely) high success rate per atom (or [[moiety]]) placement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{wikitodo|Add a skech that is comparing spacial and temporal frequencies of natural and [[unnatural chemistry]]}} | ||
== Example == | == Example == | ||
Revision as of 11:19, 17 June 2021
For gemstone metamaterial on-chip factories to be able to put human scale objects together atom by atom in reasonable timespans they need to place atoms at mind boggling rates.
Loss of parallelism of natural chemistry and how to compensate
In solution phase chemistry high throughputs are achieved via:
- massive spacial density of reaction locations (mixed dense liquides with many molecules in close contact)
- massive temporal density (frequency) of reaction attempts (molecules bouncing into each other) – (For gaining an intuition see: The speed of atoms)
A countering effect is:
- A low success rate per bump
In machine phase:
- spacial density is much more limited (due to the volume of the machinery needed to operate the tooltips) – Related: Fat finger problem
- temporal density is also more limited – See: Deliberate slowdown at the lowest assembly level
But making up for this big time is:
- An (extremely) high success rate per atom (or moiety) placement.
(wiki-TODO: Add a skech that is comparing spacial and temporal frequencies of natural and unnatural chemistry)
Example
Assuming f0 = 1MHz atom placement frequency per mechanosynthesis core how many cores (Ncore) does one need to reach the desired throughput of Q0 = 1kg/h ?
Ncore = Q0 / (mC * f0) = ~1.4*1015 cores (about an 1.4 Petacore system). (mC … mass of carbon atom.)
A core size of ~(32nm)3 = ~32000(nm3) seems to be a sensible guess for advanced APM systems.
All the cores together then take a volume of size ~45(mm3) = ~ 45microliters.
This can be spread out plenty to remove high levels of waste heat.
The effective atom placement frequency in this system is f0*Ncore = 1.4*1021 atoms per second (1.4ZHz – quite mind boggling) (>> 109 Atoms/second).
Early mechanosynthetic systems will be several orders of magnitude lower in throughput though.
- They will have low temporal placement frequency
- they may be only two dimensional
- but they'll be already massively parallel
Related
Nanosystems chapter 8 Mechanosynthesis
=> 8.3. Solution-phase synthesis and mechanosynthesis
=> 8.3.2.a. Basic constraints imposed by mechanosynthesis
=> 8.3.2.a. Loss of natural parallelism
