Difference between revisions of "Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief"

From apm
Jump to: navigation, search
(Related: added link to Exploratory engineering)
Line 34: Line 34:
 
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
 
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
 
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]] – [[Scaling law]]s
 
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]] – [[Scaling law]]s
 +
* [[Exploratory engineering]]

Revision as of 08:36, 31 May 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.

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.

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