Difference between revisions of "Pathway controversy"
From apm
m |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
who is advocating the direct-to-DMS approach to molecular manufacturing. We are. | who is advocating the direct-to-DMS approach to molecular manufacturing. We are. | ||
Our assessment is that diamondoid mechanosynthesis (DMS), including <br> highly-parallelized atomically-precise diamondoid fabrication, is <br> the quickest currently feasible route to a mature molecular nanotechnology, including nanofactories. | Our assessment is that diamondoid mechanosynthesis (DMS), including <br> highly-parallelized atomically-precise diamondoid fabrication, is <br> the quickest currently feasible route to a mature molecular nanotechnology, including nanofactories. | ||
| − | We do not think that DMS is a “necessary first step” for molecular manufacturing, and <br> we wish the best of luck to those pursuing other paths. However, we do think <br> DMS is a highly desirable first step, since it offers a much faster route to mature nanosystems than competing approaches. <br> We disagree with the statement that “diamond synthesis seems almost irrelevant to progress toward advanced nanosystems.” <br> We have a favorable view of the feasibility of the direct-to-DMS approach – a favorable view supported by <br> hundreds of pages of detailed analysis in recently-published peer-reviewed technical journal papers and by <br> gradually-evolving mainstream opinion. | + | We do not think that DMS is a '''“necessary first step”''' for molecular manufacturing, and <br> we wish the best of luck to those pursuing other paths. However, we do think <br> DMS is a highly desirable first step, since it offers a much faster route to mature nanosystems than competing approaches. <br> We disagree with the statement that “diamond synthesis seems almost irrelevant to progress toward advanced nanosystems.” <br> We have a favorable view of the feasibility of the direct-to-DMS approach – a favorable view supported by <br> hundreds of pages of detailed analysis in recently-published peer-reviewed technical journal papers and by <br> gradually-evolving mainstream opinion. |
They did this in response to this article: [http://metamodern.com/2008/12/27/toward-advanced-nanosystems-materials-1/ E.Drexlers Blog: why diamond synthesis is a bad objective]. Where E. Drexler roughly states the following: | They did this in response to this article: [http://metamodern.com/2008/12/27/toward-advanced-nanosystems-materials-1/ E.Drexlers Blog: why diamond synthesis is a bad objective]. Where E. Drexler roughly states the following: | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Actually he always heavily advocated development starting from [[technology level I|bio-molecular nanosystems]]. | * Actually he always heavily advocated development starting from [[technology level I|bio-molecular nanosystems]]. | ||
* There’s a huge difference between a '''practical, near-term objective''' and an '''attractive but distant aim point'''. | * There’s a huge difference between a '''practical, near-term objective''' and an '''attractive but distant aim point'''. | ||
| − | * Some ideas about [[mechanosynthesis|diamond synthesis]] (e.g. that it's a a necessary first step) are impractical research objectives that have received far too much attention and seem absurd to most scientists. At the current stage of research, diamond synthesis is both difficult and unnecessary. It's a particularly difficult test-case for the application of advanced mechanosynthesis to high-performance materials. | + | * Some ideas about [[mechanosynthesis|diamond synthesis]] (e.g. that it's a a '''necessary first step''') are impractical research objectives that have received far too much attention and seem absurd to most scientists. At the current stage of research, diamond synthesis is both difficult and unnecessary. It's a particularly difficult test-case for the application of advanced mechanosynthesis to high-performance materials. |
* Those ideas spread unproportionlally. Despite the original meaning of the term "[[mechanosynthesis]]" which he says is "molecular synthesis directed by mechanical means" it became very much equated to diamond synthesis. | * Those ideas spread unproportionlally. Despite the original meaning of the term "[[mechanosynthesis]]" which he says is "molecular synthesis directed by mechanical means" it became very much equated to diamond synthesis. | ||
* Mis-conceptional ideas like this have and may continue to impede progress. (See: APM R&D [[History]]) | * Mis-conceptional ideas like this have and may continue to impede progress. (See: APM R&D [[History]]) | ||
Revision as of 14:32, 25 February 2015
[Todo: add intro]
On the bottom of the Nanofactory Collaboration page they explicitly state that they try to tread the direct pathway. Citation:
Toward Advanced Nanosystems, 28 December 2008: There appears to be some confusion as to
who is advocating the direct-to-DMS approach to molecular manufacturing. We are.
Our assessment is that diamondoid mechanosynthesis (DMS), including
highly-parallelized atomically-precise diamondoid fabrication, is
the quickest currently feasible route to a mature molecular nanotechnology, including nanofactories.
We do not think that DMS is a “necessary first step” for molecular manufacturing, and
we wish the best of luck to those pursuing other paths. However, we do think
DMS is a highly desirable first step, since it offers a much faster route to mature nanosystems than competing approaches.
We disagree with the statement that “diamond synthesis seems almost irrelevant to progress toward advanced nanosystems.”
We have a favorable view of the feasibility of the direct-to-DMS approach – a favorable view supported by
hundreds of pages of detailed analysis in recently-published peer-reviewed technical journal papers and by
gradually-evolving mainstream opinion.
They did this in response to this article: E.Drexlers Blog: why diamond synthesis is a bad objective. Where E. Drexler roughly states the following:
- Promotion of the direct pathway to advanced APM systems is falsely attributed to him.
- Actually he always heavily advocated development starting from bio-molecular nanosystems.
- There’s a huge difference between a practical, near-term objective and an attractive but distant aim point.
- Some ideas about diamond synthesis (e.g. that it's a a necessary first step) are impractical research objectives that have received far too much attention and seem absurd to most scientists. At the current stage of research, diamond synthesis is both difficult and unnecessary. It's a particularly difficult test-case for the application of advanced mechanosynthesis to high-performance materials.
- Those ideas spread unproportionlally. Despite the original meaning of the term "mechanosynthesis" which he says is "molecular synthesis directed by mechanical means" it became very much equated to diamond synthesis.
- Mis-conceptional ideas like this have and may continue to impede progress. (See: APM R&D History)
