Combining advantages of different selfassembly technologies
Structural DNA nanotechnology (SDN) has:
- High termination control (and lots of site addressability) but
- Low stiffness (and large lattice spacing)
Structural de-novo protein nanotechnology (SPN) has:
- Low termination control (and rather minimal site-addressabbility) but
- High stiffness (and small lattice spacing)
Spiroligomers and other highly polycclic small molecules
- Are limited in size and structure by the limits of chemical synthesis.
- Have very high stiffness (lattice does not apply)
Limits when used alone
Using SDN alone one
- can build bigger frameworks with reaonable engineering like geometry
- cannot achive positional assembly capabilites sufficient for materials that require positional atomic precision
Using SPN alone one
- cannot (yet) build bigger frameworks with reasonable engineering like geometry (that terminate in selfassembly controlledly!)
- can perhaps achieve sufficient stiffness for positional assembly capabilities sufficient for materials that require positional atomic precision
Using spiroligomers alone one:
- cannot build really big frameworks at all
- can most likely achieve sufficient stiffness for positional atomic precision
How to combine them
Insert:
- stiffest smallest small molecules into
- smaller stiffer self-assemblies (de-novo proteins – SPN) into
- larger less stiff self-assemblies (DNA structures – SDN)
Tracing the kinematic loop from workpiece over frame across actuators over frame to tooltip:
At all the interfaces the stiffness-per-area times area product must be sufficient.
This allows for a softer frame while still retaining sufficiently high stiffness at the critical spots
Sidenotes
Stiffness of structural DNA technology in fact is so, that
there likely is only topological atomic precision possible and not positional atomic precision.
There have been experiments that have shown subatomic precision, but only in statistical average
(wiki-TODO: investigate more closely & add reference)
