Combining advantages of different selfassembly technologies

Left: Adding small inserts that can be made stiffer in a lower stiffness background framework that can be made bigger. Right: Application of such a combining of self-assembly technologies technology demonstrated in the context of the foldamer printer concept.

Comparison of pros & cons of different self-assembly and synthetic 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 polyclic 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

To get both

• sufficient termination control and site addressability and
• sufficient stifness for eventual positonal atomic precision

at the same time as soon as possible
one perhaps viable strategy might be to 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

Side-notes

There is no positional atomic precision in SDN – likely

Stiffness of structural DNA nanotechnology 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)

Alternative approaches

There is a way to place atoms to positional atomic precision
without achieving positional atomic precision in the positional assembly of the placement mechanism.
The gist is self centering of pre-built blocks with a higher latent internal precision than the precision of the placement mechanism.
For details see main page: Bootstrapping atomic precision

Related

• Fat finger problem
• stiffness-per-area also callable area-specific-stiffness
• Lattice scaled stiffness