Difference between revisions of "Effects of current day experimental research limitations"

From apm
Jump to: navigation, search
(just bullet points for now)
 
(a bit of an extenstion)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
{{wikitodo|discuss this}}
 
{{wikitodo|discuss this}}
 +
 +
High level physical effects that misleadingly may suggest infeasibility:
  
 
* High wear in MEMS due to "stiction"
 
* High wear in MEMS due to "stiction"
Line 11: Line 13:
 
* Difficulties in designing artificial proteins for binding (not to speak of catalysis)
 
* Difficulties in designing artificial proteins for binding (not to speak of catalysis)
 
* ....
 
* ....
 +
 +
Low level physical effects (from first principles) that prove feasibility:
 +
 +
* See: [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
 +
* See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]
 +
 +
There is also high level evidence but this is weaker:
 +
 +
* See: [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
 +
 +
Both low and high level evidence:
 +
 +
* See: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]

Revision as of 13:14, 24 June 2021

This article is a stub. It needs to be expanded.

(wiki-TODO: discuss this)

High level physical effects that misleadingly may suggest infeasibility:

  • High wear in MEMS due to "stiction"
  • Focus on the for current day directly applicable material science (alloys)
  • Focus on the for material science interesting heavy metallic elements with intersting magnetic properties (f shells) – rare elements ...
  • Barely controllable diffusion: on surfaces, in grain boundaries, of dislocations
  • High difficulty to achieve very high levels of vacuum (UHV at best – nowhere near PPV)
  • Immense difficulties with SPM: getting and keeping tips sharp reliably, limits in imageable hight steps, speed limits, ...
  • Difficulties in designing artificial proteins for binding (not to speak of catalysis)
  • ....

Low level physical effects (from first principles) that prove feasibility:

There is also high level evidence but this is weaker:

Both low and high level evidence: