Difference between revisions of "Losses from mechanochemical reactions"

Latest revision as of 20:37, 17 October 2022

(TODO: This still needs much closer investigation to arrive at more reasonable but still safe lower upper bounds)

Basically what always works is assuming the whole bond energy being dissipated across every mechanochemical reaction.

• This vastly overestimates dissipated heat.
• This still leads to practical (albeit slow) productive nanosystems

(wiki-TODO: Present the very crude results from Nanosystems here)

Some basic rules

• Strongly avoid reactions with a snapping type instability! – Similar to snapback in bearings.
• Operate at lowered temperatures. Smaller kT.
  70K is already quite good. Systems will be able to generate these temperatures easily. (Also lowers error rates.)
• Avoid forced inter system crossing – (Employing the "external heavy atom effect" to accelerate ISC)
• Recuperate energy: When reactions are attractive rather than repulsive
  then recuperate as much of that energy as possible back into the drive system
  But not going as far as to messing up the systems arrow of time and get errors from the machinery running backwards.
• Maybe employ dissipation sharing. This can ensure an arrow of time despite much less than kT being dissipated per operation.

Related

• Generally: Tooltip chemistry
• For structure: Piezomechanosynthesis
• For pre-processing: Mechanosynthetic resource molecule splitting
• For energy: Chemomechanical converter

Present in bottom scale assembly lines in gem-gum factories Including:

• Molecular mills also mechanosynthesis core
• Tooltip preparation zone

• Loss / dissipation is proportional to: Atom placement frequency

Other heat generating mechanisms include:

• energetically partly irreversible Friction in gem-gum technology
• in principle energetically reversible entropotermal conversion
• ...

• Friction
• Friction in gem-gum technology