Difference between revisions of "Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief"
(→Related: added link to Exploratory engineering) |
(added * Superlubricity * Piezochemical mechanosynthesis) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Regarding concerns about friction == | == Regarding concerns about friction == | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[File:Nanotube-based-thermal-nanomotor1.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Coaxial nanotube bearing based nano-motors have been experimentally built and tested. While still very crude they already show very little friction. Much unlike the problems with [[sticktion]] and wear in photolithographically produced [[MEMS systems]]. – Coaxial nanotubes are quite similar in characteristics to [[crystolecule]] bearing so the working nanotube bearings give '''experimental evidence for [[crystolecular element]]s working with low friction an [[wear free]]'''.]] | ||
Concerns about friction have been experimentally dispelled (not only theoretically). <br> | Concerns about friction have been experimentally dispelled (not only theoretically). <br> | ||
Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
=== Experimental demonstration (on silicon) === | === Experimental demonstration (on silicon) === | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|left|Extraction an re-deposition a a single silicon atom (at 78K) was experimentally demonstrated. This gives '''experimental evidence for [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]] working'''.]] | ||
It was possible to experimentally demonstrate mechanosynthesis of silicon. <br> | It was possible to experimentally demonstrate mechanosynthesis of silicon. <br> | ||
Line 35: | Line 39: | ||
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]] – [[Scaling law]]s | * [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]] – [[Scaling law]]s | ||
* [[Exploratory engineering]] | * [[Exploratory engineering]] | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | * [[Superlubricity]] | ||
+ | * [[Piezochemical mechanosynthesis]] |
Latest revision as of 18:53, 10 June 2021
The idea of atomically precise gemstone based on-chip factories and their technology has faced major disbelieve and push-back in the past.
Here are the probably hardest arguments for this tech to be actually possible summarized in as brief a way as possible.
Contents
Regarding concerns about friction
Concerns about friction have been experimentally dispelled (not only theoretically).
Coaxial nanotubes are already experimentally accessible and they indeed show superlubricity.
- Newer (2017) work on friction (theoretical and experimental).
See: Evaluating the Friction of Rotary Joints in Molecular Machines (paper) - Theoretical estimations on frictions can be found in the book: Nanosystems
More info on and discussion of less common concerns here:
Regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka piezochemical mechanosynthesis
Experimental demonstration (on silicon)
It was possible to experimentally demonstrate mechanosynthesis of silicon.
Abd that even even with today's still very crude means (meaning blunt tips).
See: Silicon mechanosynthesis demonstration paper or more generally: Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation
- Silicon is a relevant material quite similar in covalent character to diamond.
- This has been done an reasonable temperatures (meaning not liquid helium but liquid nitogen)
Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system)
It has been shown that the infamous finger problems like the sticky finger problem and the fat finger problem are invalid.
See: A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)
Related
- Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing
- Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale
- Higher throughput of smaller machinery – Scaling laws
- Exploratory engineering