apm - User contributions [en]

Mode of assembly

2026-03-30T14:25:16Z

Apm:

{{stub}}
This page is about abstract modes of assembly.

* [[Fixed station assembly]]
* [[Assembly line assembly]]
* [[Part streaming assembly]]

You may be instead looking for: [[Mechanosynthesis mode]]

== Related ==

* [[Design of gem-gum on-chip factories]]

Mode of assembly

2026-03-30T14:25:03Z

Apm:

{{stub}}
This page is about abstract modes of assembly.

* [[Fixed station assembly]]
* [[Assembly line assembly]]
* [[Part streaming assembly]]

You may be instead looking for: [[Mechanosyntesis mode]]

== Related ==

* [[Design of gem-gum on-chip factories]]

SPM needle tip apex to sample approach Moon landing analogy

2026-03-30T14:08:18Z

Apm: basic page

{{stub}}

= The basic comparison =

== The Moon landing example ==

When landing n the Moon wit a space probe one needs to approach the surface and 
stop exactly at the right height to not crash the spacecraft and destroy it. 
There is noting that slows one down actively. 
One needs to do the slowdown solely by sensing (visuals, radar, laser ranging,& co) 
and artificial feedback loops to stop at precisely the right height and location. 

== The scanning probe microscopy analogy ==

When starting scanning in [[scanning probe microscopy]] one needs to approach the sample surface and 
stop exactly at the right height to not crush the SPM needle tip apex. 
There is noting that slows one down actively. 
One needs to do the slowdown solely by sensing (visuals, laser interferometry, & co) 
and artificial feedback loops to stop at precisely the right height and location. 

= Feasibility in the first place =

As of 2026 jumping back and forth between nanoscale spots over macroscale distances is still painfully un(der)developed. 
See also related page: '''[[Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy]]''' 

= Speed =

To get that process to be fast, a geometric (these days aka exponential) speedup and slowdown is needed 
supported by sufficient feedback mechanisms that do not 
– risk crashing the SP needle tip apex into the sample 
– and do not destroy nanostuctures by destructive imaging (as electron micoscopy does) 
– and do not convert the sample into a dirty sputtered crater landspace and/or pollute the vacuum as ion beam techniques tend to do. 

= Similar relative scales involved =

'''Similar size ratio:''' 
– The distance between earth and the Moon compared to the size of the spacecraft. 
– The distance between two macroscale samples compared to the size of the nanostructure of interest. 

= Related =

* '''[[Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy]]'''
* '''[[Scanning probe microscopy]]'''
* [[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]
* [[Surface molecular system]]

Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

2026-03-30T12:56:40Z

Apm: /* Present challenges needing solving = */

{{Stub}}

[[Scanning probe microscopy]] has a limited range of imaging motion. <rb>

As of 2026 there are still no methods to find a nanoscale spot again after moving away 
by a macroscale distance like e.g. a few millimeters to centimeters. 

It is not just that there ore no yet well established methods yet but more like. 
that there are still not methods present at all.

Consequently originating from this still present severely limiting restriction … 
★ no methods to quickly jump back and forth between farther apart places are available either. 
★ all accessible structure to jump back and forth between to must fit into the imageable area. 

== Present challenges needing solving ==

* Difficult inclusion of other modes of microscopy (and fiducial marker making means) into UHV SPM systems particularly with deep cryo shields.
* Optical microscopy being very limited in resolution not or barely overlapping the entire SPM imageable area
* Electron microscopy being quite destructive on nanostructures
* Electron and ion beam lithography being processes that dirty a very good UHV as needed for mechanosynthesis experiments with many open radicals

* Finding and combining actuators of different distance range capabilities to make possible and sufficiently fast a position re-calibration process using: (A) local surface features and (B) possible added fiducials

For mechanosynthesis the SPM tip may be functionalized with an [[adapter molecule]] and thus 
a quick rough scan over a sample surface that is very rough from crude larger scale fiducials 
could cause some tip surface crashes and is thus not an option.

== Codeposition limits (& opportunities) ==

There are certain [[surface molecular system]] compatibility '''constraints'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ Silicene is mostly grown on solver as it works best there some but rare on other base metals. 
★ [[Graphene nanoribbons]] (GNRs) are mostly made with on surface synthesis on gold. 
… Grapghitic molecules on silicon, germanium and other semiconductors or non-coinage metals 
… are much more rare possibly pointing to significantly higher experimental difficulty 

There are certain '''opportunities'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ GNRs synthesis can leave open gold surface patches between the ribbons for further post depositions that only stick to the gold not the ribbons. 
★ Salt islands on coinage metals serving as molecular ionic state charge stabilization insulator testbeds

== Related ==

* [[Scanning probe microscopy]]
* [[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]
* [[SPM needle tip apex to sample approach Moon landing analogy]]
* [[Surface molecular system]]

Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

2026-03-30T12:56:27Z

Apm: /* Related */ added link to * Surface molecular system

{{Stub}}

[[Scanning probe microscopy]] has a limited range of imaging motion. <rb>

As of 2026 there are still no methods to find a nanoscale spot again after moving away 
by a macroscale distance like e.g. a few millimeters to centimeters. 

It is not just that there ore no yet well established methods yet but more like. 
that there are still not methods present at all.

Consequently originating from this still present severely limiting restriction … 
★ no methods to quickly jump back and forth between farther apart places are available either. 
★ all accessible structure to jump back and forth between to must fit into the imageable area. 

== Present challenges needing solving ===

* Difficult inclusion of other modes of microscopy (and fiducial marker making means) into UHV SPM systems particularly with deep cryo shields.
* Optical microscopy being very limited in resolution not or barely overlapping the entire SPM imageable area
* Electron microscopy being quite destructive on nanostructures
* Electron and ion beam lithography being processes that dirty a very good UHV as needed for mechanosynthesis experiments with many open radicals

* Finding and combining actuators of different distance range capabilities to make possible and sufficiently fast a position re-calibration process using: (A) local surface features and (B) possible added fiducials

For mechanosynthesis the SPM tip may be functionalized with an [[adapter molecule]] and thus 
a quick rough scan over a sample surface that is very rough from crude larger scale fiducials 
could cause some tip surface crashes and is thus not an option.

== Codeposition limits (& opportunities) ==

There are certain [[surface molecular system]] compatibility '''constraints'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ Silicene is mostly grown on solver as it works best there some but rare on other base metals. 
★ [[Graphene nanoribbons]] (GNRs) are mostly made with on surface synthesis on gold. 
… Grapghitic molecules on silicon, germanium and other semiconductors or non-coinage metals 
… are much more rare possibly pointing to significantly higher experimental difficulty 

There are certain '''opportunities'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ GNRs synthesis can leave open gold surface patches between the ribbons for further post depositions that only stick to the gold not the ribbons. 
★ Salt islands on coinage metals serving as molecular ionic state charge stabilization insulator testbeds

== Related ==

* [[Scanning probe microscopy]]
* [[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]
* [[SPM needle tip apex to sample approach Moon landing analogy]]
* [[Surface molecular system]]

Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

2026-03-30T12:56:04Z

Apm: /* Codeposition limits (& opportunities) */

{{Stub}}

[[Scanning probe microscopy]] has a limited range of imaging motion. <rb>

As of 2026 there are still no methods to find a nanoscale spot again after moving away 
by a macroscale distance like e.g. a few millimeters to centimeters. 

It is not just that there ore no yet well established methods yet but more like. 
that there are still not methods present at all.

Consequently originating from this still present severely limiting restriction … 
★ no methods to quickly jump back and forth between farther apart places are available either. 
★ all accessible structure to jump back and forth between to must fit into the imageable area. 

== Present challenges needing solving ===

* Difficult inclusion of other modes of microscopy (and fiducial marker making means) into UHV SPM systems particularly with deep cryo shields.
* Optical microscopy being very limited in resolution not or barely overlapping the entire SPM imageable area
* Electron microscopy being quite destructive on nanostructures
* Electron and ion beam lithography being processes that dirty a very good UHV as needed for mechanosynthesis experiments with many open radicals

* Finding and combining actuators of different distance range capabilities to make possible and sufficiently fast a position re-calibration process using: (A) local surface features and (B) possible added fiducials

For mechanosynthesis the SPM tip may be functionalized with an [[adapter molecule]] and thus 
a quick rough scan over a sample surface that is very rough from crude larger scale fiducials 
could cause some tip surface crashes and is thus not an option.

== Codeposition limits (& opportunities) ==

There are certain [[surface molecular system]] compatibility '''constraints'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ Silicene is mostly grown on solver as it works best there some but rare on other base metals. 
★ [[Graphene nanoribbons]] (GNRs) are mostly made with on surface synthesis on gold. 
… Grapghitic molecules on silicon, germanium and other semiconductors or non-coinage metals 
… are much more rare possibly pointing to significantly higher experimental difficulty 

There are certain '''opportunities'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ GNRs synthesis can leave open gold surface patches between the ribbons for further post depositions that only stick to the gold not the ribbons. 
★ Salt islands on coinage metals serving as molecular ionic state charge stabilization insulator testbeds

== Related ==

* [[Scanning probe microscopy]]
* [[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]
* [[SPM needle tip apex to sample approach Moon landing analogy]]

Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

2026-03-30T12:55:49Z

Apm: /* Codeposition limits */

{{Stub}}

[[Scanning probe microscopy]] has a limited range of imaging motion. <rb>

As of 2026 there are still no methods to find a nanoscale spot again after moving away 
by a macroscale distance like e.g. a few millimeters to centimeters. 

It is not just that there ore no yet well established methods yet but more like. 
that there are still not methods present at all.

Consequently originating from this still present severely limiting restriction … 
★ no methods to quickly jump back and forth between farther apart places are available either. 
★ all accessible structure to jump back and forth between to must fit into the imageable area. 

== Present challenges needing solving ===

* Difficult inclusion of other modes of microscopy (and fiducial marker making means) into UHV SPM systems particularly with deep cryo shields.
* Optical microscopy being very limited in resolution not or barely overlapping the entire SPM imageable area
* Electron microscopy being quite destructive on nanostructures
* Electron and ion beam lithography being processes that dirty a very good UHV as needed for mechanosynthesis experiments with many open radicals

* Finding and combining actuators of different distance range capabilities to make possible and sufficiently fast a position re-calibration process using: (A) local surface features and (B) possible added fiducials

For mechanosynthesis the SPM tip may be functionalized with an [[adapter molecule]] and thus 
a quick rough scan over a sample surface that is very rough from crude larger scale fiducials 
could cause some tip surface crashes and is thus not an option.

== Codeposition limits (& opportunities) ==

There are certain surface molecular system compatibility '''constraints'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ Silicene is mostly grown on solver as it works best there some but rare on other base metals. 
★ [[Graphene nanoribbons]] (GNRs) are mostly made with on surface synthesis on gold. 
… Grapghitic molecules on silicon, germanium and other semiconductors or non-coinage metals 
… are much more rare possibly pointing to significantly higher experimental difficulty 

There are certain '''opportunities'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ GNRs synthesis can leave open gold surface patches between the ribbons for further post depositions that only stick to the gold not the ribbons. 
★ Salt islands on coinage metals serving as molecular ionic state charge stabilization insulator testbeds

== Related ==

* [[Scanning probe microscopy]]
* [[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]
* [[SPM needle tip apex to sample approach Moon landing analogy]]

Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

2026-03-30T12:55:29Z

Apm: /* Codeposition limits */ cleanup

{{Stub}}

[[Scanning probe microscopy]] has a limited range of imaging motion. <rb>

As of 2026 there are still no methods to find a nanoscale spot again after moving away 
by a macroscale distance like e.g. a few millimeters to centimeters. 

It is not just that there ore no yet well established methods yet but more like. 
that there are still not methods present at all.

Consequently originating from this still present severely limiting restriction … 
★ no methods to quickly jump back and forth between farther apart places are available either. 
★ all accessible structure to jump back and forth between to must fit into the imageable area. 

== Present challenges needing solving ===

* Difficult inclusion of other modes of microscopy (and fiducial marker making means) into UHV SPM systems particularly with deep cryo shields.
* Optical microscopy being very limited in resolution not or barely overlapping the entire SPM imageable area
* Electron microscopy being quite destructive on nanostructures
* Electron and ion beam lithography being processes that dirty a very good UHV as needed for mechanosynthesis experiments with many open radicals

* Finding and combining actuators of different distance range capabilities to make possible and sufficiently fast a position re-calibration process using: (A) local surface features and (B) possible added fiducials

For mechanosynthesis the SPM tip may be functionalized with an [[adapter molecule]] and thus 
a quick rough scan over a sample surface that is very rough from crude larger scale fiducials 
could cause some tip surface crashes and is thus not an option.

== Codeposition limits ==

There are certain surface molecular system compatibility '''constraints'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ Silicene is mostly grown on solver as it works best there some but rare on other base metals. 
★ [[Graphene nanoribbons]] (GNRs) are mostly made with on surface synthesis on gold. 
… Grapghitic molecules on silicon, germanium and other semiconductors or non-coinage metals 
… are much more rare possibly pointing to significantly higher experimental difficulty 

There are certain '''opportunities'''. 
'''Just some examples:''' 
★ GNRs synthesis can leave open gold surface patches between the ribbons for further post depositions that only stick to the gold not the ribbons. 
★ Salt islands on coinage metals serving as molecular ionic state charge stabilization insulator testbeds

== Related ==

* [[Scanning probe microscopy]]
* [[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]
* [[SPM needle tip apex to sample approach Moon landing analogy]]

Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

2026-03-30T12:53:55Z

Apm: new section == Codeposition limits == and some cleanup

{{Stub}}

[[Scanning probe microscopy]] has a limited range of imaging motion. <rb>

As of 2026 there are still no methods to find a nanoscale spot again after moving away 
by a macroscale distance like e.g. a few millimeters to centimeters. 

It is not just that there ore no yet well established methods yet but more like. 
that there are still not methods present at all.

Consequently originating from this still present severely limiting restriction … 
★ no methods to quickly jump back and forth between farther apart places are available either. 
★ all accessible structure to jump back and forth between to must fit into the imageable area. 

== Present challenges needing solving ===

* Difficult inclusion of other modes of microscopy (and fiducial marker making means) into UHV SPM systems particularly with deep cryo shields.
* Optical microscopy being very limited in resolution not or barely overlapping the entire SPM imageable area
* Electron microscopy being quite destructive on nanostructures
* Electron and ion beam lithography being processes that dirty a very good UHV as needed for mechanosynthesis experiments with many open radicals

* Finding and combining actuators of different distance range capabilities to make possible and sufficiently fast a position re-calibration process using: (A) local surface features and (B) possible added fiducials

For mechanosynthesis the SPM tip may be functionalized with an [[adapter molecule]] and thus 
a quick rough scan over a sample surface that is very rough from crude larger scale fiducials 
could cause some tip surface crashes and is thus not an option.

== Codeposition limits ==

There are certain surface molecular system compatibility constraints. 
Just some examples:
★ Silicene is mostly grown on solver as it works best there some but rare on other base metals.
★ [[Graphene nanoribbons]] (GNRs) are mostly made with on surface synthesis on gold. 
… Grapghitic molecules on silicon, germanium and other semiconductors or non-coinage metals 
… are much more rare possibly pointing to significantly higher experimental difficulty

There are certain opportunities:
★ GNRs synthesis can leave open gold surface patches between the ribbons for further post depositions that only stick to the gold not the ribbons.
★ Salt islands on coinage metals serving as molecular ionic state charge stabilization insulator testbeds

== Related ==

* [[Scanning probe microscopy]]
* [[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]
* [[SPM needle tip apex to sample approach Moon landing analogy]]

Local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

2026-03-30T12:43:51Z

Apm: basic page

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:36:38Z

Apm: /* Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) */ addeed link to yet unwritten page local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

Limitations: Only demonstrated in flat 2D and with weak non-covalent bonding.

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Seemingly beyond the limit. Too high up in 3D combined with a too non-flat top surface, thus not clearly interpretable imaging results.''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4
See the preceding section about going up into 3D for first signs on how to 
★ lift (smarther automated scanning) and/or 
★ circumvent (pick samples with flat tops and high recognizable symmetry) 
some of the restrictions. 

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
For almost all research on graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) 
the bottom up synthesis selfassembly process of the ribbons lacks controlled termination in ribbon length. 
To do atomically precise mechanosynthesi with larger precursors than single (hydrogen passivated) atoms 
like e.g. short length GNRs. The GNRs need [[termination control]]. 
This paper shows some progress on that end of the R&D spectrum:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping [[local heterogeneity limits in SPM microscopy]].

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

=== Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed [[adapter molecule]] ===

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

== Scanning with stiffer probes tip apex structures at higher temperatures ==

Rather than using a very weakly bond/adsorbed linear CO molecule as probe [[adapter molecule]] with very low bending stiffness, leading to: 
★ image distortion artifacts from that bending 
★ lesser usability at higher temperatures like 70K lN2 
An oxygen atom triply bond to copper is used as the tip apex. 

'''Current (2026) limitations:''' Harder and less flexible to prepare than CO pickup with today's means. 
It is not really a controlled [[adapter molecule]] pickup method. 
But rather more like all the other very limited in control statistical tap characterize and hope methods. 
As such it mostly serves as a preview for what could be achieved once 
controlled adapter molecule (or rather adapter [[crystolecule]]) apexes off similar stiffness become manufacturable and available. 
Bootstrapping more advanced mechanosynthesic capabilities.

For details on experimental work see page: [[CuOx tip]]

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:33:40Z

Apm: /* Experimental demonstrations */ moved the adapter molecule paper

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

Limitations: Only demonstrated in flat 2D and with weak non-covalent bonding.

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Seemingly beyond the limit. Too high up in 3D combined with a too non-flat top surface, thus not clearly interpretable imaging results.''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4
See the preceding section about going up into 3D for first signs on how to 
★ lift (smarther automated scanning) and/or 
★ circumvent (pick samples with flat tops and high recognizable symmetry) 
some of the restrictions. 

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
For almost all research on graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) 
the bottom up synthesis selfassembly process of the ribbons lacks controlled termination in ribbon length. 
To do atomically precise mechanosynthesi with larger precursors than single (hydrogen passivated) atoms 
like e.g. short length GNRs. The GNRs need [[termination control]]. 
This paper shows some progress on that end of the R&D spectrum:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

=== Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed [[adapter molecule]] ===

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

== Scanning with stiffer probes tip apex structures at higher temperatures ==

Rather than using a very weakly bond/adsorbed linear CO molecule as probe [[adapter molecule]] with very low bending stiffness, leading to: 
★ image distortion artifacts from that bending 
★ lesser usability at higher temperatures like 70K lN2 
An oxygen atom triply bond to copper is used as the tip apex. 

'''Current (2026) limitations:''' Harder and less flexible to prepare than CO pickup with today's means. 
It is not really a controlled [[adapter molecule]] pickup method. 
But rather more like all the other very limited in control statistical tap characterize and hope methods. 
As such it mostly serves as a preview for what could be achieved once 
controlled adapter molecule (or rather adapter [[crystolecule]]) apexes off similar stiffness become manufacturable and available. 
Bootstrapping more advanced mechanosynthesic capabilities.

For details on experimental work see page: [[CuOx tip]]

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:30:38Z

Apm: /* Experimental demonstrations */ added section == Scanning with stiffer probes tip apex structures at higher temperatures ==

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

== Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed [[adapter molecule]] ==

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

Limitations: Only demonstrated in flat 2D and with weak non-covalent bonding.

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Seemingly beyond the limit. Too high up in 3D combined with a too non-flat top surface, thus not clearly interpretable imaging results.''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4
See the preceding section about going up into 3D for first signs on how to 
★ lift (smarther automated scanning) and/or 
★ circumvent (pick samples with flat tops and high recognizable symmetry) 
some of the restrictions. 

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
For almost all research on graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) 
the bottom up synthesis selfassembly process of the ribbons lacks controlled termination in ribbon length. 
To do atomically precise mechanosynthesi with larger precursors than single (hydrogen passivated) atoms 
like e.g. short length GNRs. The GNRs need [[termination control]]. 
This paper shows some progress on that end of the R&D spectrum:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

== Scanning with stiffer probes tip apex structures at higher temperatures ==

Rather than using a very weakly bond/adsorbed linear CO molecule as probe [[adapter molecule]] with very low bending stiffness, leading to: 
★ image distortion artifacts from that bending 
★ lesser usability at higher temperatures like 70K lN2 
An oxygen atom triply bond to copper is used as the tip apex. 

'''Current (2026) limitations:''' Harder and less flexible to prepare than CO pickup with today's means. 
It is not really a controlled [[adapter molecule]] pickup method. 
But rather more like all the other very limited in control statistical tap characterize and hope methods. 
As such it mostly serves as a preview for what could be achieved once 
controlled adapter molecule (or rather adapter [[crystolecule]]) apexes off similar stiffness become manufacturable and available. 
Bootstrapping more advanced mechanosynthesic capabilities.

For details on experimental work see page: [[CuOx tip]]

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:16:30Z

Apm: /* Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on AP nanographenes & less flat structures */ improvements

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

== Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed [[adapter molecule]] ==

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

Limitations: Only demonstrated in flat 2D and with weak non-covalent bonding.

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Seemingly beyond the limit. Too high up in 3D combined with a too non-flat top surface, thus not clearly interpretable imaging results.''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4
See the preceding section about going up into 3D for first signs on how to 
★ lift (smarther automated scanning) and/or 
★ circumvent (pick samples with flat tops and high recognizable symmetry) 
some of the restrictions. 

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
For almost all research on graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) 
the bottom up synthesis selfassembly process of the ribbons lacks controlled termination in ribbon length. 
To do atomically precise mechanosynthesi with larger precursors than single (hydrogen passivated) atoms 
like e.g. short length GNRs. The GNRs need [[termination control]]. 
This paper shows some progress on that end of the R&D spectrum:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:13:00Z

Apm: /* Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on AP nanographenes & less flat structures */ improvements

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

== Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed [[adapter molecule]] ==

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

Limitations: Only demonstrated in flat 2D and with weak non-covalent bonding.

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Seemingly beyond the limit. Too high up in 3D combined with a too non-flat top surface, thus not clearly interpretable imaging results.''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
For almost all research on graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) 
the bottom up synthesis selfassembly process of the ribbons lacks controlled termination in ribbon length.

To do atomically precise mechanosynthesi with larger precursors than single (hydrogen passivated) atoms 
like e.g. short length GNRs. The GNRs need [[termination control]].

This paper shows some progress on that end of the R&D spectrum:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:05:09Z

Apm: /* SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable */ added limitations info

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

== Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed [[adapter molecule]] ==

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

Limitations: Only demonstrated in flat 2D and with weak non-covalent bonding.

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Beyond the limit 3D:''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
Nanoribbons have a problem with [[termination control]] in their bottom up synthesis. 
But there is progress on this front too:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:03:49Z

Apm: /* Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D */ added headline: == Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed adapter molecule ==

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

== Purely mechanical controlled abstraction of a single hydrogen atom using a dedicated strongly covalent chemisorbed [[adapter molecule]] ==

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Beyond the limit 3D:''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
Nanoribbons have a problem with [[termination control]] in their bottom up synthesis. 
But there is progress on this front too:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:01:02Z

Apm: /* Scanning in 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible */

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning up into 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible (though slow) ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

<hr>

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Beyond the limit 3D:''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
Nanoribbons have a problem with [[termination control]] in their bottom up synthesis. 
But there is progress on this front too:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T11:00:16Z

Apm: headline hierarchy 1 level up & removed info redundant with chapternames

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

= Meta info =

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

= Experimental demonstrations =

== Scanning in 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible ==

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

== Strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ==

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

<hr>

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

== SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ==

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

== Elemental identification of element types via force curves ==

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ==

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Beyond the limit 3D:''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
Nanoribbons have a problem with [[termination control]] in their bottom up synthesis. 
But there is progress on this front too:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

== Preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

== Progress with ultra flat surfaces ==

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

== Progress with potential "adapter molecules" ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

== Progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ==

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

== Progress in STM control==

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Early experimental demonstration (on silicon) ==

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

== 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ==

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

= Theoretical analyses =

== Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ==

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

== Older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ==

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

= Related =

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

2026-03-30T10:56:00Z

Apm: added section == Meta info ==

Up: [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]] 

'''This page:''' 
★ Relates to a sub challenge of the [[direct path]] & [[mixed path]]. 
★ Is regarding concerns about atom-by-atom pick-and-place assembly aka [[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]. 

'''Legend:''' 
★ ED … experimental demonstration 
★ TA … theoretical analysis 

== Meta info ==

Note that what is relevant for this context of [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] here 
was often not the actual focus on of the listed papers. 
So the advice would be to use the description given here 
to read between the lines of the the actual referenced papers.

== Experimental demonstrations ==

=== ED – scanning in 3D (high vertical ledges) is now possible ===

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig3 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|'''Unmentioned scanning height record''': Notice the vertically standing tetramantane molecule (b)? The authors managed to scan the very top of this molecule ([[crystolecule]]) which is higher up than the length of the for scanning to the SPM tip asdorbed CO molecule. This may well be a height above surface record for atomically resolved structure, aside nanotubes maybe. The STM tip apex atop the short height scanning CO molecule is more like a blunt big ball thus constant frequency shift scanning (scanning over the surface keeping contact at all times) would just crash the tip into the very high standing molecules from the side (this is a suspicion, not mentioned in the paper) and make them stick to the SPM tip on the side. Thus the actual method they were using is first taking a STM height reference, then moving up to save height, and then carefully doing constant height scans going down scan-plane by scan-plane in not too big steps till images appear. A very slow process. – '''Surprising gentleness of scanning:''' The bottom is only very weak [[vdW]] bonded via the hydrogen atoms to the gold surface, yet the scanning of the top (that bent the probing CO a bit as usual) did not slide it along. Note that "tipping over" is not a concern so long not dragged over an obstructing step-edge as forces from gravitative mass are way too small to matter at this scale. The SPM needle tip trajectory does not care if it is a strong covalent bond or a weak vdW bonds. Given its FAPP infinite inertia it is a constant speed source mowing everything down in its path if the path isn't carefully chosen. – '''Brightness interpretation''' The brightness of the image id the qPlus sensors frequency shift which can be interpreted roughly as a map of stiffness. Not force!]]

[[File:Ebling2018 Fig4 HTML.jpg|685px|thumb|right|The (unlike [[STM]]) very directly bonding structure revealing scanning probe technique of qPluc nc-AFM has exceptionally good sensitivity (i.e. change of frequency shift signal over height). The problematic flip side of the coin is that in constant height mode (needed to be used to not crash into higher ledge molecules fro the side - see above) only a very limited layer of depth is imaged. A very crude analogy is the limited depth of field in optical microscopy. The authors managed to image lower lying hydrogen atoms by scanning down a ramp. This points to a way of overcoming this limitation. That is automating and making much smarter the ramping. Optical microscopy does "focus stacking" or "focus fusion". This would be an analogy.]]

See main page: [[Scanning probe microscopy upwards into 3D]]
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04843-z
* to this preceding papers

'''Coping with high vertical ledges demonstrated possible:''' 
The diamond like surface of a tetramantane molecule (of natural origin) 
was subatomically resolvingly scanned while standing upright. 
They managed to do this despite the tetramantane molecule being higher 
than the picked up CO molecule that was used for imaging. 
The method: They took an STM height reference on the gold surface and then 
did constant height nc-AFM scanning to get a picture of the top. 

'''Why constant frequency shift scanning is not an option here (and generally rarely):''' 
★ the frequency shift signal of nc-AFM is even more height sensitive than STM 
(i.e. nc-AFM features an extremely shallow "depth of fields" in optical analogy terms) 
★ coming from the side at surface scanning level would likely 
– crash the side of the big fat SPM needle tip apex into the molecule (feedback too slow) or even if no crash … 
– pick up the molecule to the side of the SPM needle tip apex due to vdW forces or … 
– less likely: scan part of the SPM needle tip apex tip with the tetramantane molecule (reverse imaging situation). 
{{wikitodo|Add a sketch.}} 

Side-note: The frequency shift in nc-AFM (with qPlus brand sensor) is roughly proportional to 
surface stiffness for low excitation amplitudes. Not force as the name AFM would confusingly suggest. 
Historic accident. That adding atop there actually being [[contact]] possible (rare but possible) despite "noncontact". OUCH! 

'''Remaining challenge: Grater depth of field with focus stacking fusion:''' 
nc-AFM (qPlus brand sensor) has extremely shallow "depth of field" (in optical analogy terms) 
Even for a fraction of an atomic step they needed to ramp down the height to see some hidden hydrogen atoms. 
This not being automated they where very glad and proud (title of the paper) that they not had to do it again. 
Their trick of identification of molecuee species by slant is a special case though. 
Needed is a general capability. Needed is automation of things like this height ramping. 
More generally we really want automated SPM control to be able to do something that could be called 
[[nc-AFM focus stacking fusion]] (in optical analogy terms). 

'''Remaining challenge: Stronger attached tool that can not only image but also manipulate:''' 
Note that the standing tetramantane molecule was not picked up, sled around too much for imaging, or tossed over. 
That despite there only being a weak vdW bond between three hydrogen atoms and the gold surface. 
The scanning is ''extremely'' gentle. 
For covalent manipulations a picked up CO molecule very weakly bonded to the SPM needle tip apex would not work at all. 
Other much more strongly bonded "adapter molecules" are needed. Rabbit hole of design constraints. 
Also challenging the current SPM usage philosophy of disposable tip SPM needle tip apex structure. 

=== ED – strong covalent nano-molecular manipulation in 3D ===

2020 Three-dimensional graphene nanoribbons as a framework for molecular assembly and local probe chemistry 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay8913

Covalent fusion of a C60 buckyball molecule onto two upwards facing 
carbon radicals provided by a graphene nanoribbon that has vertically upward facing parts. 
Demonstration that strong covalent bonds can be formed in deeply in 3D way beyond the height of a mono-atomic step. 

This is obviously good enough for whole molecule manipulation in a one off demonstration. 
Automated reliable usage and more challenging manipulation of single atoms (not counting attached hydrogen atoms) 
will need adapter/tool molecules helping in solving solving the problem of the unstable ever changing SPM needle tip apex surface. 

<hr>

Also: 2025 Inverted-Mode Scanning Tunneling Microscopy for Atomically Precise Fabrication 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24431

Purely mechanical abstraction of a single hydrogen atom. 
No STM current involved. 

=== ED – SPM manipulations being automateable and scaleable ===

* https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2016.131

This was a quite early work. 
Still STM only and Cl ad-atons on large scale atomically flat Cu(100) metal. 
It did demonstrate automateability and scalability. 
The underlying process needs to be switched to new capabilities in 
– working up in deep 3D and 
– working with strong covalent bonds 

=== ED – elemental identification of element types via force curves ===

2007 Chemical identification of individual surface atoms by atomic force microscopy 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05530 
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6476648_Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy download via researchgate.net] 
[https://www.academia.edu/19053608/Chemical_identification_of_individual_surface_atoms_by_atomic_force_microscopy read access via academia.edu] 
[https://www.slideserve.com/conan-sutton/chemical-identification-of-individual-surface-atoms-by-atomic-force-microscopy slides]

To place the right elements at the right spots 
one obviously needs to find out what kind of elements are available where for the picking. 

In this paper by analysis of the nc-AFM frequency shift curves 
they managed to identify the elements {Si, Sn, Pb} 
(i.e. the entirety of group14 except C & Ge; group of high interest) 
present as mixed cover of ad-atoms on the surface Si(111)√3×√3R30° 

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of paper(s).}} 
{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

=== EDs – progress in atomically resolving nc-AFM on [[AP]] nanographenes & less flat structures ===

'''Very flat:''' 
Graphene sp2 carbon nanoribbons: 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
* 2015 – Atomically controlled substitutional boron-doping of graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9098 (Fig3 g)
Generally many very impressive larger scale subatomically resolving nc-AFM images in this field.

'''Less flat:''' 
Aliphatic sp3 carbon too under special circumstances:
* 2017 – Characterizing aliphatic moieties in hydrocarbons with atomic force microscopy https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sc/c6sc04698c

'''Beyond the limit 3D:''' 
Less flat DNA seems too non.flat to ne iageable sith subatomic resolution. 
Especially with something like [[nc-AFM focus stacking]] not yet being developed.
* 2019 – Conformations and cryo-force spectroscopy of spray-deposited single-strand DNA on gold https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08531-4

'''GNR synthesis:''' 
Nanoribbons have a problem with [[termination control]] in their bottom up synthesis. 
But there is progress on this front too:
* 2022 – Programmable Fabrication of Monodisperse Graphene Nanoribbons via Deterministic Iterative Synthesis https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c05670

=== ED – preserving of tip apex structure during transfer to a different macroscale sample (and back) ===

{{wikitodo|Add reference to best fitting COFI paper.}}

COFI method: SPM needle tip apex structure has been 
– reverse imaged by a CO on a Au sample 
– macroscale transferred over to other sample to be used for imaging there 
– macroscale transferred back to check that no tip changes occurred in the meantime 

Seems A picked up CO molecule was macroscopically transferred 
from Au sample over to Si sample too as an alternate method. 
{{Wikitodo|Find that paper and add reference here.}} 

Relevant for ex-situ tip fictionalization. 
Escaping local heterogeneity limits.

{{wikitodo|More details later …}}

=== ED – progress with ultra flat surfaces ===

* 2025 – Atomically flat high-purity (100) diamond surfaces: Conductivity of hydrogen terminated diamond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963525002389 diamond(100)
* gold …

=== ED – progress with potential "adapter molecules" ===

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* several papers
* transfer paper & conductivity paper

=== ED – progress in covalent bond formation control (2D for now) ===

* '''intermolecular:''' 2021 – Constructing covalent organic nanoarchitectures molecule by molecule via scanning probe manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00773-4
* '''intramolecular (non-catalyzed):''' 2017 – Controllable conversion of quasi-freestanding polymer chains to graphene nanoribbons https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14815
* beside HAL (hydrogen abstraction lithography) / PALE (patterned atomic layer epitaxy)

=== ED – progress in STM control===

Main page: [[Scanning tunneling microscopy]] 
{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

=== Early ED (on silicon) ===

[[File:Piezochemical-silicon-mechanosynthesis-demo.png|400px|thumb|right|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. 
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)

=== ED – 4K cryo codeposition of various molecularspecies "garden of molecules" ===

Many different molecules and atoms can be co-deposited and at deep cryo even higly vlatile species stay stuck.
This can potentially serve as feedstock for [[mechanosynthesis]] in early systems.

2015 – '''Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips''' – Leo Gross at al. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282314727_Atomic_Resolution_on_Molecules_with_Functionalized_Tips 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12

The big STM images in Figure1 looks a bit like a '''"garden of molecules"'''. 
Molecules/atoms deposited include: CO, CoPc, pentacene, C60, TPP, PTCDA, Ag, Au

'''Standard format citation:''' Gross, Leo & Schuler, Bruno & Mohn, Fabian & Moll, Nikolaj & Repp, Jascha & Meyer, Gerhard. (2015). Atomic Resolution on Molecules with Functionalized Tips. NanoScience and Technology. 97. 223-246. 10.1007/978-3-319-15588-3_12.

== Theoretical ==

=== TA – Highly meticulous theoretical analysis (with carbon, a complete system) ===

It has been shown that the infamous [[The finger problems|finger problems]] like … 
– the [[sticky finger problem]] and 
– the [[fat finger problem]] 
… are not valid. 

See: [[A Minimal Toolset for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis (paper)]]

=== TA – older theoretical analysis on silicon mechanosynthesis ===

{{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}

== Related ==

* [[Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief]]
* [[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]
* [[Force applying mechanosynthesis]] & [[Mechanosynthesis]]

Why gemstone metamaterial technology should work in brief

2026-03-30T10:50:52Z

Apm: /* Related */ link to factored out page: Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief

{{wikitodo|Page lost it's claimed brevity, needs split-up eventually.}}

The idea of atomically precise [[gem-gum factories|gemstone based on-chip factories]] and [[gem-gum technology|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 =

[[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). 
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:
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Friction]]

== Experimental demonstration of superlubric sliders and rotator and [[vdW suck-in]] ==

* (closed access) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa4157
* (suplementary material) https://www.science.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1126%2Fscience.aaa4157&file=koren.sm.pdf
* (graphical abstract) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276065197_Surface_science_Adhesion_and_friction_in_mesoscopic_graphite_contacts

'''From the abstract:''' 
"… adhesion energy of 0.227 ± 0.005 joules per square meter, in excellent agreement with theoretical models … " 
( referring to supplementary material and other closed access paper https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.235415 ) 
"… bistable all-mechanical memory cell structures and rotational bearings have been realized by exploiting position locking, which is provided solely by the adhesion energy …"

'''From the main text:''' 
"To assure the feasibility of '''surface force-driven actuation''', we must require that the friction forces are negligible with respect to the line tension forces; …" 
"… we conclude that line tension forces dominate friction forces down to structure sizes with a radius of ~2 nm. This result is encouraging in view of the technical feasibility of graphene-based nanomechanical devices. However, structures with dimensions on the order of tens of nanometers would still be required in order to guarantee low-energy dissipation actuation in line with the low value of the mean friction force."

'''Things to note that are not mentioned in the paper:''' 
– This is all about static friction. 
– Due to no constraints forcing an perfect incommensurate alignment 
they got a pseudo–random walk and a huge spread of local friction forces (sometime negative). 
Overall still extremely low static friction though (µ = 7*10^-5) easily overpowered by [[vdW suck-in]] forces (line tension). 
– The energy barriers at smaller scales are not compared to kT where undercutting this would practically make for exactly µ=0. 

= Pathway concerns =

== [[Direct path]] ==

Scaling along the [[direct path]] is much more challenging than over the incremental path because: 
– basic in-very-good-vacuum [[force applying mechanosynthesis]] needs to be developed as unconditional prerequisite and. 
– both parallelization and miniaturization of that process once it is working sufficiently well is hard.

For the first critically necessary step along the direct path see page: 
'''[[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]'''

For scaling it up see page: 
'''[[Why scaling mechanosynthesis to macroscale throughput should work in brief]]''' 
Most importantly to note here is that unlike widespread belief
it is not unconditionally (or at all) necessary to get to an ultra compact [[molecular assembler]] to get feasible scaling. 
Rather there are much more realistic and practical approaches very much avoiding actively pressing for compact self-replication. 
See: [[Early diamondoid nanosystem pixel (direct path)]]

== [[Incremental path]] ==

* Progress in [[hierarchical self-assembly]]. {{wikitodo|Add reference to and discussion of papers.}}
* Progress in synthesis of potential stiff high symmetry building block molecules
* Progress in synthesis of [[AP]] nanographene molecules
* Progress with [[spiroligomers]] (possibly an early bridge between [[incremental path]] and [[direct path]])

== [[Mixed path]] ==

Scaling along the [[mixed path]] may progress towards advanced nanosystems easier 
by combining the strengths of each side.

But as of today (early 2026) each path still needs to develop much further 
such that mutually beneficial mixed path options start to emerge as actually existing opportunities. 
qPlus nc-AFM on [[spiroligomers]] on suefaces is perhaps one of the things accessible at the very earliest.

= Related =

* '''[[Why force applying mechanosynthesis should work in brief]]'''
* '''[[Experimental demonstrations of single atom manipulation]]'''
* [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]]
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]] – [[Scaling law]]s
* [[Exploratory engineering]]
----
* [[Superlubricity]]
* [[Piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]

[[Category:Far term target]]

Category:Surprising facts

2026-03-29T21:43:10Z

Apm: /* Surprising facts that may change perception of feasibility */

{{stub}}
There are a lot of surprising facts in the field of [[atomcially precise manufacturing]] 
and its target of [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]]. 

Suprisingness will vary depending on the readers background.

== Surprising facts that may change perception of feasibility ==

'''Surprising facts about molecular dynamic simulations of [[Examples of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]:'''
* [[A better intuition for diamondoid nanomachinery than jelly]]
* [[Stroboscopic illusion in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]
* [[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]

'''Surprising facts about lesser known scaling laws:'''
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Same relative deflections across scales]] given [[Same absolute speeds for smaller machinery]]
* [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]]: [[Deliberate slowdown at the lower assembly levels]] & math: [[Optimal sublayernumber for minimal friction]] & [[Compenslow]] & [[Why larger bearing area of smaller machinery is not a problem]]
* Generally: [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]
* Misleading scaling law: [[Lower stiffness of smaller machinery]]

'''Suprising severe differences to macroscale machinery looking just a bit beyond the superficial similarity:'''
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] & [[Physics change aware scale transposed prototyping]]
* [[Pure metals and metal alloys]] (why not these)
* [[Oxidation]] (particularly the fruit analogy), [[Nanomachinery encapsulation]], [[Nanoscale surface passivation]], ([[Passivation (disambiguation)]])

* [[Van der Waals force]] as the dominant force replacing gravity: [[VdW suck-in and suck-on]]
* [[Nonbonded interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular forces]], [[Intercrystolecular interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular snapping modes]], [[Intercrystolecular levitation]]
* [[The finger problems]]: how they can be not too fat, and how them being sticky is of benefit

== Surprising facts expanding ones horizon of intuition ==

* [[Intuitive feel]]: [[The feel of atoms]] & [[The speed of atoms]]
* [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom]] & [[Magnification theme-park]]
* [[Distorted visualization methods for convergent assembly]] & [[Visualization methods for gemstone metamaterial factories]] & [[Log polar mapping]]
<hr>
* [[Superelasticity]], [[Emulated elasticity]], [[Gemstone based metamaterial]], [[Gem-gum]]

Category:Surprising facts

2026-03-29T21:42:03Z

Apm: /* Surprising facts that may change perception of feasibility */ Lower stiffness of smaller machinery

{{stub}}
There are a lot of surprising facts in the field of [[atomcially precise manufacturing]] 
and its target of [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]]. 

Suprisingness will vary depending on the readers background.

== Surprising facts that may change perception of feasibility ==

'''Surprising facts about molecular dynamic simulations of [[Examples of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]:'''
* [[A better intuition for diamondoid nanomachinery than jelly]]
* [[Stroboscopic illusion in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]
* [[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]

'''Surprising facts about lesser known scaling laws:'''
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Same relative deflections across scales]]
* [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]]: [[Deliberate slowdown at the lower assembly levels]] & math: [[Optimal sublayernumber for minimal friction]] & [[Compenslow]] & [[Why larger bearing area of smaller machinery is not a problem]]
* Generally: [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]
* Misleading scaling law: [[Lower stiffness of smaller machinery]]

'''Suprising severe differences to macroscale machinery looking just a bit beyond the superficial similarity:'''
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] & [[Physics change aware scale transposed prototyping]]
* [[Pure metals and metal alloys]] (why not these)
* [[Oxidation]] (particularly the fruit analogy), [[Nanomachinery encapsulation]], [[Nanoscale surface passivation]], ([[Passivation (disambiguation)]])

* [[Van der Waals force]] as the dominant force replacing gravity: [[VdW suck-in and suck-on]]
* [[Nonbonded interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular forces]], [[Intercrystolecular interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular snapping modes]], [[Intercrystolecular levitation]]
* [[The finger problems]]: how they can be not too fat, and how them being sticky is of benefit

== Surprising facts expanding ones horizon of intuition ==

* [[Intuitive feel]]: [[The feel of atoms]] & [[The speed of atoms]]
* [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom]] & [[Magnification theme-park]]
* [[Distorted visualization methods for convergent assembly]] & [[Visualization methods for gemstone metamaterial factories]] & [[Log polar mapping]]
<hr>
* [[Superelasticity]], [[Emulated elasticity]], [[Gemstone based metamaterial]], [[Gem-gum]]

Intuitively understanding the size of Earth

2026-03-29T21:40:41Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

If you build a minute model of the Earth with the diameter diameter equivalent to halve the width of a soccer field (~25m), 
then a model soccer field on that model Earth would have a with of approximately half a human hair (~0.05mm). Or a thin one.

It's the same ratio!
* 12,736km / 25m = ~ 500,000
* 25m / 0.05mm = ~ 500,000
See?

== How this relates to [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom|the comparison for gaining a direct true intuition for the size of atoms]] ==

Interestingly the exact same factor that perhaps can suffice to make [[the size of atoms|a true intuitive understanding of the size of atoms]] possible, 
the factor of 500.000, also may make possible ''a true intuitive understanding of the size of Earth. 

== Bigger sizes fundamentally not directly intuitively comprehensible ==

Any sizes much beyond the size of the Earth are hopelessly beyond true direct intuitive comprehensibility.
* For interplanetary distances spaceship travel times can give a bit of a hint but that is far from a true direct intuitive comprehension.
* For interplanetary distances only relative size comparisons to something of a size already beyond direct everyday experience are possible.
* For interstellar distances even that works barely. Stars are brutally far apart in terms of say our suns diameter. Much much much more so than planets are apart in terms of their diameter.

=== Relative comparison for stars (not at all sufficient for a direct true intuition) ===

'''Sun and currently nearest star:'''
* '''Sun''' 695508km / 5,000,000,000,000 = '''~0.1mm (hair diameter)'''
Distance to proxima centauri (currently nearest star) 4,2465LJ* 9.46*10^12km/LJ = ~40*10^12km 
Distance to Neptune ~30AE*~150Gm/AE = ~ 4.5Tm 

* '''Distance to Neptune:''' ~ 4.5Tm / 5,000,000,000,000 = '''~1m'''
* '''Distance to proxima centauri:''' ~40*10^12km / 5,000,000,000,000 = '''~8km'''

'''One of the biggest stars in "reasonable" interstellar distance (same scale):'''
* '''Distance to Betelgeuse''' is ~100x farther than to proxima centauri. Scaled down hair-diameter-sized sun that makes '''800km'''
* '''Diameter of Betelgeuse''' is ~1000x the diameter of the sun. Scaled down hair-diameter-sized sun that makes '''10cm''' These supergiant stars are often so big and dilute that they are basically a "hot vacuum".

== Related ==

* [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom]]
* [[Magnification wonderworld]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

General tips for productive communication

2026-03-29T21:39:22Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

{{stub}}

== Advertise only if needed and if so do it smartly for others not too annoyingly ==

* Try to stick to the context, avoid hijacking discussion of other topic for own purposes.
* If you can afford it, be passive rather than active in advertising your agenda.
* Try to be flexible not forcing your own narrative too much.
* Try to balance talking and listening / writing and reading. You may be surprised by listening more.

== Aim for mutual understanding and correct interpretation ==

* '''The very same words can be and are interpreted very differently by different people.''' Always be well aware of that.
* Unless you are convinced that you understand quite well what someone wants to say: Try to reaffirm your understanding of the said by restating the point/statement/question in your own words and ask for confirmation.
* (You may also want to reaffirm others understanding of your point in cases.)

* Often the problem of/in disagreement is lack of precision of language. Different people associating the same words and concepts with different things. Always be on the lookout for that. And if you detect this situation. '''Try to clarify sub-contests and which sub-context you (want to) talk about.'''

== Avoid language that can (unnecessarily) be perceived a personal attack ==

* Try to stick to I messages. Emphasize things are your opinion that you don't plan to force it on anyone but just want to present it and invite thinking about it.
* Try to avoid to use language that classifies people in in-group and out-group intentionally. And be aware of that this can happen accidentally.
* Depending on context think about if you want to use the word "you" (personal) or "one" (impersonal). Be careful with mixing. But it can be done. Other languages than English (like e.g. Japanese) may behave a bit differently here.

== Avoid unnecesary conflict ==

* Generally avoid confrontative tone
* If a conversation is not productive aim at ignorance as reaction rather than further engagement. Either worldviews are just too far apart. Or there is active opposition for whatever reason without sufficient skills for productive communication from the other side. Or your side. One related thing here is the "don't feed the trolls" advice.
* Always assume incompetence before malice. Worst case it may even be your own incompetence.
* Always avoid unnecessarily agitating a hornet nests. Actively start discussions with perceived allies, Reactively talk with perceived enemies.
* IMO (in my opinion) is helpful to make clear you are not stating things as a hard fact (that must be defeated) but stating things as your own opinion.

== Aim for self improvement ==

* Always try to be as factually correct as you are capable of. (This is easier with STEM topics than with say highly controversial stuff in politics.)
* Avoid using arguments that you don't understand yourself sufficiently yet to answer common followup critiques.
* Maybe your point is good but your argument is bad. See: [[The negative effects that public overexcitement can have]]
* If possible don't haste in answering. There's both an emotional response cool-down and analytical understanding of the discussion can grow too. (Difficult to impossible in live talking, of course.)
----
* Always be modest and honest with yourself. Look for own errors (everyone makes them), detect them, try to understand them, learn from them, and explain them to yourself and others. Sometimes that's a matter of hours, sometimes a matter of years. No one said life is easy.

== Focus on information density & on getting your messages across within the available window of communication ==

* Focus on density of information that is audience specific relevant high quality so far there is a specific audience.
* The window of communication can be various things: attention span of your target audience for written content, speak-time in a call, …
* There is a trade-off between density of quality information and emotional retention, either extreme is bad. Either people doze off and leave or they learn nothing of what you want to convey but still stick to you till they hurt themselves with that. This page here is probably a bit far on the doze off and leave side. Bravo if you made it till here. Don't confuse quantity of audience with quality of audience. And "don't be evil" 🙄😒 – You get the drift. 

== Related ==

* [[The negative effects that public overexcitement can have]]
----
* [[How to deal with common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]
* [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Accidental heatpump

2026-03-29T21:38:21Z

Apm: /* Related */

[[File:Prototype-1-250-ps.gif|thumb|400px|right|Simulation by Philip Turner. '''Beware of [[misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]].''' The moment the pison leave sthe cylinder the walls on that side get more freedom to radially wobble. This means more degrees of freedom to fill with the same amount of energy and less energy per degree of freedom, a cooldown. Except there is also a significant bend snap (see: [[Intercrystolecular snapping modes]]) that likely adds more energy per degree of freedom than what is lost, thus overall a heatup. As a side-note: There is also some significant conversion to kinetic energy. This is around tens to ~100m/s.]]

Or accidental heatmump dissipation mechanism.
* A potential dissipation mechanism that is linear proportional to speed. 
* An entropic effect.

This occurs when thin walled structures A that can wobble around due to thermal excitations 
get constraint in their wobbling amplitudes due other stiff structures B moving such 
that they start blocking these thermal wobbles of the thin structures A. 

Blocked wobbles mean fewer degrees of freedom. Energy is preserved thus
one gets more energy in fewer degrees of freedom (exceeding the equipartitioning theorem as fist approximation). 
And this then equates to a locally elevated temperature that quickly and irreversibly dissipates. 
The same in reverse when thin walled structures A get released to wobble more again. 
Less energy in more degrees of freedom. 
This equates to a locally reduced temperature that quickly and irreversibly dissipates. 

Generally dissipation is quick due to large surface to volume ratio at the nanoscale 
and (to lesser degree) due to the superb heat conductivity of diamond as likely building material. 

=== Physics - More concrete geometry example ===

– Shifting a thick stiff plunger-shaft in a tight thin walled sleeve 
the sleeves walls can't wobble around so much anymore and thus 
thermal motion degrees of freedom get "squeezed out" and things get hot. 
Reversible computing analogy: This basically equates to setting a random bit to a known state (pushed outwards). 
Push spacial entropy in the system out into thermal entropy out of the system. 

– Pulling a thick stiff plunger-shaft out of the sleeve 
thermal motion degrees of freedom get opened up again and 
suck in heat from the environment, making things get cold. 
Reversible computing analogy: This basically equates to deleting a known bit (pushed outwards) by rando data from thermal noise. 
Fill spacial order with entropy into the system tapping it from thermal entropy of the environment. 

If the thermal energy gradient is not immediately recuperated 
(nigh impossible due to: high at the nanoscale surface to volume ratio & high heat conductivity of diamond) 
that energy is immediately dissipated and made permanently unrecoverable.

Possible counter-strategies: 
– stiffer sleeves 
– less tight fitting sleeves 
– picking geometries that do not block or open up thermal motion amplitudes as much

== Related ==

* [[Reciprocative friction in gem-gum technology]]
* [[Intercrystolecular snapping modes]] => bend snapping
* '''[[vdW suck-in and suck-on]]'''
* [[Free floating crystolecule]]
----
* [[Accidentally suggestive]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Gem-gum fairy-hand-tentacle manipulator

2026-03-29T21:37:37Z

Apm: /* Related */

{{Stub}}
[[File:Tentacle-like-manipulators-1.png|400px|thumb|right|Artistic (AI) illustration of [[gem-gum tentacle manipulator]] out of [[gemstone based mechanical metamaterial]]s building up or interacting with some half finished product structure.]]

[[File:soft macroscale manipulator illustration.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Artistic interpretation of a future [[gem-gum tentacle manipulator]], macroscopically soft and smooth, but nanoscopically made up out of [[crystolecules]] forming the various [[gem-gum metamaterial]]s nnecessary to make up the manipulator. That is: [[soft-core macrorobots with hard-core nanomachinery]].
]]
[[File:APM-soft-macrorobot-manipulator-illustration.png|400px|thumb|right| Another artistic interpretation.]]

Soft and freely bending tentacle like manipulators capable of local stiffening with some gripping fingers at the tip
seem to be a very good solution for general gripping and manipulation tasks at human scales.
Given a [[gem-gum-tech]] technology base has been reached that make these very possible.

Such a gem-gum tentacle manipulator can give more
usage flexibility and dexterity than hard robot arm like designs with fixed hinges.
Also with a good (not easy) design [[gem-gum tentacle manipulator]]s
can easily be made to locally stiffen up and emulate any
sort of hinged arm design dynamically and on the spot.

{{wikitodo|Add the sketch.}}

== As manipulator on the top of the assembly level stack ==

Gem-gum tentacle manipulators may likely become an optional extension at the very highest of the
[[assembly level]]s of a [[gem-gum factory]].

In fact such a tentacle-manipulator could be made to be dynamically spawned by the underlying assembly levels from its own [[microcomponent]]s whenever it is needed. And then disassembled back into its [[microcomponent]]s and stowed away when it's no longer needed. Note that microcomponennt recomposition is can be much faster than mechanosynthesis. Fast means means one might want to go at least slow enough to not make a loud boom through the displacement air.

== Internal bearings ==

Make no mistake in judgement.
These tentacle-manipulators seeming, feeling, and behaving as if it where made from rubber does not mean they are made from rubber. It's all [[gemstone based metamaterial]].

For ultra low friction such manipulators could internally use [[infinitesimal bearing]] in various configurations.
At these big macroscopic levels these [[stratified shearing bearings]] may even be organically bent and twisted and end open in a stow-away zone in the metamaterial. Remotely similar to how rigid chains roll up at the end.
Much work for future gem.gum-tech nanoengineers to design that.

== Safety ==

As with all potentially powerful robots there are crushing risk safety concerns.
when it comes to robots that are meant for intimate collaboration with humans.
One way to address this may be by hard-coding maximal capable force limits as low as possible into the structure.
Like e.g. using a kind of [[microcomponents]] that has a fixed over-force safety ratchet built in.
So a malicious attacker would need to replace the microcomonents themselves.
And it will likely be possible to put tighter control on such more fundamental actions.
...

== Related ==

* [[Robotic manipulators]]
* [[Organically shaped truss cranes]]
* [[Gemstone based metamaterial]]
* '''[[Soft-core macrorobots with hard-core nanomachinery]]'''
* [[Dynamic rebootstrapping of upper convergent assembly levels]]
----
* [[Form factors of gem-gum factories]]
* [[Accidentally suggestive]]

[[Category:Far term target]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Category:Surprising facts

2026-03-29T21:33:37Z

Apm: /* Surprising facts that may change perception of feasibility */

{{stub}}
There are a lot of surprising facts in the field of [[atomcially precise manufacturing]] 
and its target of [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]]. 

Suprisingness will vary depending on the readers background.

== Surprising facts that may change perception of feasibility ==

'''Surprising facts about molecular dynamic simulations of [[Examples of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]:'''
* [[A better intuition for diamondoid nanomachinery than jelly]]
* [[Stroboscopic illusion in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]
* [[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]

'''Surprising facts about lesser known scaling laws:'''
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Same relative deflections across scales]]
* [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]]: [[Deliberate slowdown at the lower assembly levels]] & math: [[Optimal sublayernumber for minimal friction]] & [[Compenslow]] & [[Why larger bearing area of smaller machinery is not a problem]]
* Generally: [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]

'''Suprising severe differences to macroscale machinery looking just a bit beyond the superficial similarity:'''
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] & [[Physics change aware scale transposed prototyping]]
* [[Pure metals and metal alloys]] (why not these)
* [[Oxidation]] (particularly the fruit analogy), [[Nanomachinery encapsulation]], [[Nanoscale surface passivation]], ([[Passivation (disambiguation)]])

* [[Van der Waals force]] as the dominant force replacing gravity: [[VdW suck-in and suck-on]]
* [[Nonbonded interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular forces]], [[Intercrystolecular interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular snapping modes]], [[Intercrystolecular levitation]]
* [[The finger problems]]: how they can be not too fat, and how them being sticky is of benefit

== Surprising facts expanding ones horizon of intuition ==

* [[Intuitive feel]]: [[The feel of atoms]] & [[The speed of atoms]]
* [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom]] & [[Magnification theme-park]]
* [[Distorted visualization methods for convergent assembly]] & [[Visualization methods for gemstone metamaterial factories]] & [[Log polar mapping]]
<hr>
* [[Superelasticity]], [[Emulated elasticity]], [[Gemstone based metamaterial]], [[Gem-gum]]

Category:Surprising facts

2026-03-29T21:31:47Z

Apm: basic page

{{stub}}
There are a lot of surprising facts in the field of [[atomcially precise manufacturing]] 
and its target of [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]]. 

Suprisingness will vary depending on the readers background.

== Surprising facts that may change perception of feasibility ==

'''Surprising facts about molecular dynamic simulations of [[Examples of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]:'''
* [[A better intuition for diamondoid nanomachinery than jelly]]
* [[Stroboscopic illusion in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]
* [[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]

'''Surprising facts about lesser known scaling laws:'''
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Same relative deflections across scales]]
* [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]]: [[Deliberate slowdown at the lower assembly levels]] & math: [[Optimal sublayernumber for minimal friction]] & [[Compenslow]] & [[Why larger bearing area of smaller machinery is not a problem]]
* Generally: [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]

'''Suprising severe differences to macroscale machinery looking just a bit beyond the superficial similarity:'''
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] & [[Physics change aware scale transposed prototyping]]
* [[Pure metals and metal alloys]] (why not these)
* [[Oxidation]] (particularly the fruit analogy), [[Nanomachinery encapsulation]], [[Nanoscale surface passivation]], ([[Passivation (disambiguation)]])

* [[Van der Waals force]] ad the dominant force replacing gravity: [[VdW suck-in and suck-on]]
* [[Nonbonded interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular forces]], [[Intercrystolecular interactions]], [[Intercrystolecular snapping modes]], [[Intercrystolecular levitation]]
* [[The finger problems]]: how they can be not too fat, and how them being sticky is of benefit

== Surprising facts expanding ones horizon of intuition ==

* [[Intuitive feel]]: [[The feel of atoms]] & [[The speed of atoms]]
* [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom]] & [[Magnification theme-park]]
* [[Distorted visualization methods for convergent assembly]] & [[Visualization methods for gemstone metamaterial factories]] & [[Log polar mapping]]
<hr>
* [[Superelasticity]], [[Emulated elasticity]], [[Gemstone based metamaterial]], [[Gem-gum]]

The finger problems

2026-03-29T20:56:08Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

{{Stub}}
{{wikitodo|Add historic context}}

'''The classic ones:'''
* [[Sticky finger problem]]
* [[Fat finger problem]]

'''The overlooked ones:'''
* [[Jittery finger problem]] (See also: [[Thermal motion]])
* [[Sloppy finger problem]] (zero restoring force cases in protein side-chains, slack, backlash)
* [[Wobbly finger problem]] (See also: [[Stiffness]])

== Related ==

* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[How macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale outperforms its native scale]]
* [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]] (older page)
* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
----
* [[Accidentally suggestive]]

[[category:Incremental path]] [[category:Direct path]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Gem-gum

2026-03-29T20:55:30Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

= Disambiguation page =

* '''[[Gemstone based metamaterial]]'''. Gem-gum as an intentionally paradoxical concrete example of a [[mechanical metamaterial]] with vastly different properties to the base material. With a catchy name.
* '''[[The defining traits of gem-gum-tec]]'''. What gem, gum, and gem-gum refers to. Gem-gum-tech also called "[[gem based APM|gem(stone) based APM]]" here.

== ⚠️ Related warning ==

[[File:DiamondoidsAreNotJellyLikeFloppy.jpeg|200px|thumb|right|Molecular dynamics simulations are typically run simulating extremely high speeds thus showing jelly like wobbling which would not at all occur when operated at actually proposed (steady state) speeds many orders of magnitude slower.]]

Be aware that: 
⚠️ '''Diamondoid nanoscale machinery is not at all jelly like floppy''' 
'''as molecular dynamics simulations may misleadingly suggest.''' 
This is NOT what "gum" in "gem-gum" refers to. High simulations speeds are to blame. 
For details see: [[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]] 
Actually at nominal proposed speeds (few mm/s) 
nanomachinery bends and deflects LESS from machine motions 
than even everyday metal macroscale machinery does. 
That is due to the scaling law of [[same relative deflections across scales]].

=== A better intuition: hyper-spring-steel, super-magnets, and sometimes giant forces, all at snail speed ===

See page: [[A better intuition for diamondoid nanomachinery than jelly]]

[[Category:Far term target]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Lattice scaled stiffness

2026-03-29T20:55:01Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

{{stub}}
[[File:E and Klm.gif|350px|thumb|right|'''Young’s modulus and the lattice-scaled stiffness
for selected materials''' – Modulus and lattice geometry data from multiple sources. Klm values for “keratin” represent building blocks of protein (or other folded polymers) with a keratin-like Young’s modulus, showing the effect of differing block sizes. (Description text as-is from [[Eric Drexler's blog partially dug up from the Internet Archive|Eric Drexlers blog]])]]

In force applying [[mechanosynthesis]] ([[piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]) 
,when assuming one synthesizes the same material that the tool-tip is made out of, 
'''the critical material property to look at is lattice scaled stiffness not just plain stiffness'''.

In [[positional assembly]] a bigger amplitude of [[thermal vibrations]] of a tool-tip on a softer (less stiff more compliant) structure is not critical 
as long as the space between the spots where the block snaps to during deposition is is just big enough. 
As long as the lattice spacing is big enough.

== Math ==

<math> K_{lm} = E a^3 r^2_{err} </math>
* E … Young’s modulus
* a … lattice parameter (a simplification, not all crystals have cubic symmetry)
* <math> r^2_{err} </math> accounts for the ratio of the minimum error displacement to the lattice parameter
* <math> r_{err} = 1/\sqrt{2} </math> is a common value.

Taken from Eric's Blog, See links below.

== Related ==

* For now please consult the external links at the bottom pf the page: "[[Stiffness]]".
* A [[gemstone-like compound]] that supposedly has an especially good lattice scaled stiffness is [[ceria]].
* '''[[Effective concentration]]''' – Lattice scaled stiffness boosts effective concentration where it's needed and depletes it where is is undesired.
* [[Piezochemical mechanosynthesis]]
----
* [[Tooltip cycle]]

== External links ==

From [[Eric Drexler's blog partially dug up from the Internet Archive]]:
* 2009-02-15 '''[https://web.archive.org/web/20160530152001/http://metamodern.com/2009/02/15/nanomaterials-nanostructures-and-stiffness/ Nanostructures, Nanomaterials, and Lattice-Scaled Stiffness]'''
* 2009-02-10 '''[https://web.archive.org/web/20160530152001/http://metamodern.com/2009/02/20/nanomaterials-for-nanomachines/ Nanomachines, Nanomaterials, and Klm]'''

[[Category:Incremental Path]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

World building

2026-03-29T20:53:36Z

Apm: Category:Story szenarios

{{stub}}

This page is about less or more hard SciFi fictitious scenarios about how our (their, i.e. our ancestors) 
future world could look like. Dystopian scenarios, utopian scenarios, and scenarios aiming at realism.

As of 2024 A relatively new utopian mainstream direction is called "solarpunk" 
in naming likely intentionally a bit complementary to "cyberpunk" that is usually more dystopian in nature.

== Dangers of utopias ==

Utopias can in many respects be too naive such that they'd turn out dystopian if actually implemented. 
An utopia for cars is not necessarily one for humans, but when back when cars meant freedom not traffic jam and obesity, 
making worlds for cars what was people want to strive fro and actually did strive for. Peculiarly in the US. 

Also utopias can easily get entangled with political views. 
So much so that it's hard to impossible to present an utopia without making any political statements at all. 

== World building on this wiki ==

[[File:ParkLikeCitySurfaceOnSteepSlopes.jpg|400px|thumb|right|For some world-building on this wiki see page: [[The look of our environment]].]]

This wiki for the moment tries to cover world-building scenarios …
* that do not aiming to depict the ultimate paradise utopia (TM), instead realizing that a new world will come with new
challenging problems that'll be reflected in its look.
* that are on the as-realistic-as-possible side
* that are on the quite optimistic we-would-want-to strive for this side
Regarding the "we": 
It should be obvious that it is not really possible to agree on one common ideal 
among all of humanity with the vastly differing views of peoples and cultures. 
The world is a big place having space for many futures to coexist.

See: [[The look of our environment]] 
As mentioned personal opinion of the author is involved there.

== Related ==

* '''[[The look of our environment]]'''
* [[Future world scenarios]]
* [[Global microcomponent redistribution system]], [[Mechanosphere]]
* [[APM in Anime]]

=== New lands ===

* [[Housing in the gem-gum era]]
* [[Automatedly maintained megapark]]s
* [[Nature reserve]]s
* [[Underground transport and habitation]]

[[Category:Story szenarios]]

The look of our environment

2026-03-29T20:53:13Z

Apm: Category:Story szenarios

{{speculative}}
[[File:OrgaincHousingInNature1.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Even more so than with 3D printing organic looking housing is for free once designed once. See page: [[Housing in the gem-gum era]].]]
[[File:ParkLikeCitySurfaceOnSteepSlopes.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Surface level of new cities may become park like. Everything looking rather grey and concrete like here is somewhat unintentional and only due to image generating AI being to biased towards today's worlds materials.]]
[[File:Parkworld1.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Also beyond cities much more parks and nature to expect due to automated maintenance and former farmland getting free for repurposing. See page: [[Automatedly maintained megapark]].]]
[[File:NatureReserveObservationsAccess.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Vast [[nature reserve]]s (made accessible for minimally intrusive observation). Former (conventional flat surface) farmland repurposed to such nature reserves.]]

This page is here to focuses exclusively on the expectable optical look of a future in which advanced atomically precise technology has spread far and wide.
Plus some minimal reasoning behind it. Some things may become a reality long before APT is reached some not.

['''Todo:''' add short explanations and links]

== What drives large scale differences ==

=== Cost of building structures (out of nontrivial materials) ===

One of the biggest impact properties of [[gemstone based APM]] is that 
production of extremely large quantities of products/materials becomes cheap 
and that regardless of the complexity of the products/materials. 
That is: Even high performance computing chips and solar high efficiency cells 
become as cheap as or (more likely) much cheaper than even the cheapest materials we have today. 
That is: Cheaper than asphalt and concrete. And even more so cheaper than clay, wood, iron, glass, and cheap plastics.

=== Cost of underground working ===

Likely to expect is that undergound working becomes orders of magnitude cheaper due to 
– cheaper production of undergroud working devices (of all sizes) 
– more advanced undergound working devices. See: [[Underground working]] 

=== Cost of Energy ===

While there is plenty of solar energy locally or regionally we might not want to plaster our living spaces beyond a certain point but …
For the foreseeable future there is near boundless solar energy to be harvested from the worlds oceans. 
See e.g. page: [[Carbon dioxide harvester buoy]]. 
Foreseeable future meaning not going to [[Kardashev scales]] yet. 

While there is lots of solar power hitting Earth it is not not extremely dense per area. 
Meaning if cities grow more vertical (both below and above ground) then only fully local solar won't be enough. 
Three points to that:
* Cheap energy transport
* Big chap local storage capacity
* Nuclear (though cooling can become an issue eventually)

There can be local reserve energy storage. 
Being it hydrogen in old caverns or some sort of chemical zipping storage.

Nuclear (both fission and fusion) is likely to become more accessible too.
Plants cheaper to build and safer.

=== Cost of long range (solar energy) transport ===

Long range transport of the harvested energy from the seas to where it's needed would become cheap. 
Harvested energy would likely transported chemically rather than electrically as …
* conversion to and from chemical energy will become highly efficient
* transport of chemical energy is more efficient than transport of eclectically energy
See page: [[Chemical energy transmission]]

'''Electric overhead lines would slowly become a relic of the past.''' 
Today they are still almost a symbol of modern civilization. 

=== Cost of automation of physical tasks ===

Robots (humanoid & not) and truly capable AI may well arrive still before [[gem-gum-tec]] at current progress (2024). 
Still with the new technology things will get still faster & cheaper.

== Consequences on the look of our environment on large scales (outdoors & underground) ==

=== Outdoors ===

Most of surface land use today is farming. "Open surface farming". With it's scars well visible from space. 
Given the above a lot (if not most of) land use would move underground, more or less vertical, and become fully automated. 

This reduces the need for "open surface farming" which opens up large areas of land for repurposing. 
Several options for repurposing old "open surface farming" land:
* Nature reserves (made accessible for minimally intrusive observation)
* Vast areas of recreational parkland (fully automatedly maintained; for edutainment, sports, arts, …)
* City spaces (that may not look all that different form park spaces on the surface level)
* And perhaps other stuff (minor recreational manual surface farming, …)

Note that this is not necessarily about replacing old world systems but extending them. 
Sometimes it might turn out easier to build new cities (possibly even in in formerly inhabitable places like deserts)
Old cities might
* either gradually upgrade and become a wild mix of old and new
* or get completely abandoned and gradually form a postapocalyptic landscape (without the apocalypse).
Especially with rising sea-levels (before the climate crisis is fixed)
there might already be a few candidates for abandonment spottable. 
Yes, be then AI migh be so good at programming that reviving some old abanoned cities becomes possible. 
If so desired. For actual use or perhaps more likely as '''restored museum cities (the whole city is the content of the museum).''' 
With petrol cars and all. 

=== Underground ===

This will not at all feel claustrophobic. 
There can be huge caverns. Much more advanced lighting options than today. 
Fore those who really can't bear seeing a blue only once in a while going to the surface. 
Display tech by then will likely be able to simulate the sky indistinguishable from the real thing. 

== Outdoors (list format) ==

* agricultural field area replaced through parks for humans and nature or other things
* streets drastically changing appearance and character
* vanishing electric power transmission towers
* sails replacing windmills
* much more variety in shapes of architecture
* variety in daily seen ethnicities - stronger societal mixing due to cheaper transport
* a lot of public displays - screens replacing all billboards screens on/in many other surfaces (like e.g. house walls and parts of streets and walkways)
* more intense colors - artificial environment starting to feature whole gamut colors
* brighter colors - as bright as the blazingly glistering reflected sunlight from waves
* radically different kind of clothing (clothing partly independent of time of year - except naked)
* radical variety of clothing (open source archives of styles the past always remaining accessible)
* abundant physical telepresence
* much decreased negative effect of some natural disasters (earthquakes, storm) – one reason: mostly indoor vertical farming
* most people wearing computer-glasses or computer-contact-lenses
----
* less people seen in local (i.e. direct physical) social interaction ?
* - more global social interaction
* - less working for survival
* - more working for what one finds needs to be done
* - vanishing fixed place of work
* - dispersed interest groups
----
* lights shining down from one or more Moon-Cities (depending on amount of outdoor lighting)
----
* very quiet environment
* - no more jackhammers on newer construction sites **
* - quieter planes
* - quieter trains
* - no loud and stinky reciprocating combustion engines
* - no loud macroscopic reciprocating compressor pumps
----
* no more people fighting mosquitoes

== Indoors (list format) ==

=== Office, workshop and general working room related ===

* digitally adjustable shelves (adjustment probably wont be done that often) - many styles
* tables usable as computers? (might not be needed so much because of VR/AR)
* workshops degrading to just spaces where things can be put together by hand without tools
* many upgrades to the workshops that explicitly work with "old" materials making those products cheaper too but not as cheap as [[Diamondoid metamaterial|gem gum]] stuff.

=== Kitchen related ===

* unbreakable tableware that retains the so much appreciated characteristics (hardness, sound, "coldness" that is thermal conductivity)
* breakable tableware (just for effect) that slightly bluntens all the edges when broken
* upgraded dishwashers (???) and washing machines (???)

=== Bathroom and toilet related ===

* not too much change in toilets ?
* active self cleaning ? inch sized cleaning bots ?

=== Livingroom and bedroom related ===

* Body shape adapting furniture. But dynamically. That is: Not enforcing a certain sitting position. Many styles. Also trivial then to have extremely advanced massaging chairs.
* always perfect temperature (not exactly a visible parameter but excuse this exception **)

=== General ===

* semi soft floors super friendly for naked feet
* new types of doors (hand sign to let it slide open - no slide in slot)
----
* Multimedia way beyond screens and projectors.
* Astounding robotics. See: [[Multi limbed sensory equipped shells]] and [[Gem-gum balloon products]]

== Related ==

* [[Large scale construction]]
* [[Likely visual appearance of gem-gum products]]
* [[Future world scenarios]]
* '''[[World building]]'''
* [[Automated decibot swarm mining and tunneling]]

=== New lands ===

* [[Housing in the gem-gum era]]
* [[Automatedly maintained megapark]]s
* [[Nature reserve]]s
* [[Underground transport and habitation]]

[[Category:Large scale construction]]
[[Category:Story szenarios]]

Disaster proof

2026-03-29T20:52:42Z

Apm: Category:Story szenarios

{{Stub}}
[[File:Sonic checkpoint reached doodle by AlSanya-d5m90pr.png|400px|thumb|right|The point when technology becomes advanced enough to reach a self stabilizing self sustaining state where it becomes as stable or even more stable than life on earth is today. - Image by AlSanya (RetroRobosan)]]

Means for AP manufacturing may have a stabilizing effect on advanced civilization since using them is akin to growing plants from abundant seeds.
Reaching this level of technological capability may mean reaching something like a "game checkpoint".
In case of global catastrophe or personal distress, even if there's no central power source and no infrastructure,
basic necessities as well as all sorts of luxury goods can be made.

== Fragility of today's technology base ==

In (2013 … 2024 … and counting) there was (and still is) a situation where electric power supply was highly centralized.
If there would have been a catastrophe of some sort stopping all systems from working at once there would have been great problems to get it all up and running again
since the systems depended on themselves mutually.
One could say the whole electric system was in a dynamic state of "alive" always threatening to "die".
(Systems with the least outages potentially being the most fragile as they never test out full outages.)

Relativating a bit: With advanced APM technology a new dynamically globally alive system on a higher level will very likely emerge,
but the fallback baseline will be much higher. Averting humanitarian disaster in case of system breakdown.
There would be a sharp drop in standard of living though.

== Durability of a gemstone based APM technology base ==

'''Durability during dormancy:''' 
Gemstone based APM technology in contrast can lie [[dormant for eons without loosing functionality]]. 
The main threatening factor for the continued availability of AP systems (not the [[human overpopulation|size of the human population]] - this is an entirely different matter) is '''destruction from within''' due to bad too much centralized [[general software issues|software architecture]]. Governance of remote software updates.
Really bad regressions seem plausible but total annihilation rather unlikely.

{{speculativity warning}} 
Further remaining threats to a gemstone based APM technology base that reside in the far future and are rather exotic like:
* global radiation exposure from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_burst gamma bursts].
* planetary collisions
* ? (insert your favourite SciFi doomsday here)

{{speculativity warning}} 
There's the fundamentally unavoidable risk for any information processing existences ("civilizations") of
choosing a path that leads into a long winded dead end in advanced (partly hardware generating) software development
where it is unclear how far that "civilization" will need to trace back before being able to continuing onward becomes possible again.
Some concern software developers may resonate with.
Going tho the highly philosophical end this seems tied to:
* Gödels incompleteness or equivalently
* the halting problem(s) or equivalently
* Chaitins construction or equivalently
* the presence of an transfinite number of axioms that are true for no reason
One can't proof in advance that one won't end up in a long winded but terrible dead end. 
Some cosmic horror existential dread here.

{{todo|Discuss the importance of avoiding the loss of a bootstrapping path. Documentation of the historically followed attainment path and identification of possible shortcuts (difficult) such that bootstrapping could be repeated in the quickest possible way.}}

== Keywords ==

* Checkpoint, disaster relief, civilization respawner chip, …

== Related ==

* [[Desert scenario]]
* pros and cons of extraordinary corrosion resistances - [[Recycling]]
* [[Ultra long term technology stability]] – [[Gem-gum rainforest world]]
* [[Robustness of gemstone based APM technology compared to robustness of biological nanotechnology aka life]]

----

'''If you are instead looking for backup of this wiki see page: [[Support]]'''

[[Category:Technology level III]]
[[Category:Information]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Story szenarios]]

Carbon capture buoy scenario

2026-03-29T20:52:19Z

Apm: Category:Story szenarios

[[File:CO2-harvester-buoy-back-to-harbour.jpg|600px|thumb|right|A CO2 and energy harvester buoy on the way back to the harbour with [[nanofactories]] and a connection to the [[global microcomponent redistribution system]]. (No point in lugging replication capability around for on-site-selfreplication of these buoys as it's both – less efficient and – less safe). There at the harbour the captured carbon (plus some mined rock) can be used to make more buoys till many billions of them roam the seas and fix our climate crisis in mere decades or even less time. The question at which level to stop arises as we don't want to induce an ice age or even cause troubles for plants depriving them of CO2.]]

[[File:CO2-harvester-buoy-deployed.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|A CO2 and energy harvester buoy deployed on the open ocean. Unlike compact when traveling a large area coverage of (highly flexible and robust non-ripping solar cells can be deployed. Of couse still leaving enough light and air openings to not endanger esisting sea life. heck these couls even oxygen enrich the surface waters and provide artificial reef surface as side task (and deploy secondary deep see stuff). There is no need for an air intake as CO2 can be equally filtered from the water and that is probably even more efficient as water is a decent solvent for CO2 pre-concentrating it.]]

[[file:CO2-harvesting-boya 845x480.png |thumb|300px|Conceptual sketch of a buoy for collection of atmospheric CO2. [http://apm.bplaced.net/w/images/e/ec/CO2-harvesting-boya.svg SVG] - [[mobile carbon dioxide collector buoy]]s ]]

{{wikitodo|Focus this page a bit more on a [[story scenario]] and collect gereral thoughts and ideas on page "[[mobile carbon dioxide collector buoy]]" instead.}}

== Context ==

CO2 is a big challenge of our time. 
Beside avoiding to expel more of it we also will eventually need to actively take it out eventually. 
This will need to be done on an unprecedented hyper enormous scale. 
As you basically need to roll back the entire industrial age for the whole world.

== Scenario / story ==

So here's a possible scenario:

In many harbors/shipyards there will be placed [[nanofactories]] producing special very robust carbon capture bouys in high quantity. 
The size of the buoys may be between 10cm and 1m perhaps. 
These buoys get released and spread across the oceans in low latitudes near the equator where there's the most sun to be harvested. 
The buoys deploy robust swimming foils of solar cells (leaving some light and air through for sea-life).

They use the solar energy to capture CO2 and convert it into some suitable form. 
Possible are e.g. ethanol (being rather environmentally non-problematic) or ethyne (being a good stoock for [[mechanosynthesis]] of diamond). 
Large scale spills are unlikely if anything they will be caused by a software error or malicious attack. Fluids might get microcapsuled.

Once they filled their tanks they return to some harbor/shipyard and feed the harvest into the [[global microcomponent redistribution network]]s 
Some fraction of the harvested carbon will be used right then and there to make more buoys for sending out. 
The cycle begins anew.

== Dumping excess carbon ==

Excess carbon will need to be dumped decentralizedly. 
We burnt more carbon for transport (cars, freighter ships, planes, …) than what we can ever use for housing and streets (biggest volume sinks of civilizations martial usage). 
At least today without mega-structure hive-cizies.
(Which may never come considering dropping birth rates in high wealth countries like Japan. Who knows.)

Dumping all on one ginormous pile would get us a mount Everest of carbon 
so heavy that it'd cause earthquakes and maybe even deform Earths crust a good bit. Man made volcanoes. Yay! 
Not seriously of course. No one would consider making one ginormous pile obviously. Well, I sure hope so. 
But it's still interesting to think about is this way to get an intuitive feeling for the scale of the problem.

'''Bad idea:''' People might be inclined to code the buoys such that they '''dump excess carbon right form the capture site to the ocean floor.''' 

'''Good idea:''' Combine excess carbon with silicon (of which we have an [[FAPP]] infinite amount available) 
to make '''silicon carbide (SiC, [[moissanite]]). This is highly fire resistant very unlike many other forms of reduced carbon.'''

=== Storing excess carbon as CaCO3 aka calcite / aragonite / limestone / chalkstone / double spar ===

Storing excess carbon in safest fully oxidized from yet still uncolled stably solid 
requires mining calcium from ultramafic (metal rich) basaltic rock. 
{{speculativity warning}} 
Or drilling down to record depths tapping the mantles metal riches??

== Energy conversion details ==

After photoelectrical energy conversion (light to electrical current) rather than a following electrochemical like in batteries a two step process 
electromechanical and then chemomechanical may be preferable. 
Unclear if more efficient optomechanical or optochemical energy conversions pathways options will offer themselves.

== Repositioning and recovery ==

If a buoy drifts too far it undeploys the solar cell foil and reposition itself via some robust integrated probulsion. 
Buoys that get entangled somewhere or experience some other failure will report that to be recovered.

== Dangers ==

Overall probably a low risk geoengineering approach. 

A viable system would be gargantuan in size but still need years to 
change the CO2 levels significantly. 
So there's no risk of a malicious software attack making 
CO2 levels change to dangerously low (or high) levels withing the timespan to deal with the hypothetical attack.

== Local on site buoy self-replication ==

Of course local on site repliation would be possible if each buoy would carry a nanofactory.
But that nanofactory would spend most of it's lifetime inactive and pose an obvious replication accident risk.
Well catching >10cm buoys is still more managable than (unlikely) [[grey goo]] nanobots.

== Related ==

* Abstract without story: '''[[Mobile carbon dioxide collector buoy]]'''
* '''[[Story scenarios]]'''
* '''[[Carbon dioxide collector]]'''
* [[Energy harvesting]]
* [[Global scale energy management]]
* [[Energy transmission]]
* [[Transportation and transmission]]
* '''[[Carbon sequestration]]'''

[[Category:Story szenarios]]

Desert scenario

2026-03-29T20:51:49Z

Apm: Category:Story szenarios

[[File:Photography of an air inflated dome shaped housing structure in a stony desert bright light few clouds.jpeg|512px|thumb|right|Inflatable shelter/habitat made entirely from atmospheric carbon dioxide in just a few hours.]]
[[File:DesertStoryStoryboard--Screenshot 20231005 110727.png|512px|thumb|right|Storyboard.]]

== Saved by a crystal – A short story ==

Our protagonist finds themselves in what looks to be an endless desert lacking even proper clothing.
The sun burns down, there's no water in sight far and wide. Not to speak of anything to eat.
The situation looks utterly grim and hopeless.

But then suddenly a twinkling reflection of light flashes up not too far away.
Curious our protagonist approaches.
It's some kind of chip barely dug into the ground not much bigger than a key-fob.
Surprisingly this thing is quite interactive and self-explanatory.

After a while our protagonist regains some hope, survival may be possible after all.

Following instructions our protagonist first pulls out two arms length of some super thin black foil from the side of the chip then placing the chip with pulled out stripe flat on the ground into the morning sun. The stripe is so eerily black that one might question that it is from this world.
The size of this eery super thin stripe quickly begins to grow in width becoming a wider sheet.
It grows faster and faster with every second. After a while the whole thing has an impressive size of a few dozen square meters.

Then from the chip itself something is coming out. Something that seems to be a bigger chip rolled up to a scroll.
After our protagonist unrolls it and connects everything according to the excellent instructions the bigger chip starts working.
A part of that bigger chip seems to suck through air with scary intensity.

First thing coming out of the big chip is an incredibly light skin-suit with patches colored in silver white and this eery black.
Gloves, shoes, hood and pockets all included.
Our protagonist puts it on as hastily as still capable. The suits insides are incredible. Despite the severe sunburn getting in is not too painful. In contrary once inside the pain actually recedes. Is this suit medically treating wounds?
Wait there's more! It gets cooler, much cooler. Cooler than the blistering 37°C it has here already this early. Really nice.

The Second thing coming out of the big chip a bottle filled with water and a few cubes of sugar.
You can imagine our protagonists joy.

All this took much less than two hours.

Since our protagonist is now chilled and fed there would be no need to wait for the next cool night to continue the search for civilization.
But an immense tiredness is welling up.
There was an option for making a really big inflatable tent, but before starting that our protagonist cannot help but falling into a deep sleep of exhaustion lying just there on the ground under the brutal midday sun in cenith.

But you know what? It doesn't matter.
The suit is just as good as this tent would have been.
Ok, maybe a mattress would have been nice.

While our protagonist sleeps through the rest of the day, all this miraculous stuff is making and filling up batteries.
(Speeding up with the sun rising higher). Just such that there's energy in case something will be of urgent need at night.

There's no real need for wasting that energy for heating in the freezingly cold night though,
since the thermal isolation of that suit is on par with a thermos bottle (if adjusted such).

The next night when our protagonist wakes and feels like born anew there are given many options
including motorized vehicles (among them even airborne ones!).
The device suggests quickly finding a location that can provide biologically grown food (or at least a location with a wider range of raw materials) to prevent deficiency symptoms from a unhealthy diet of a few artificial hydrocarbons.

Thats the end of the story. Or better the start.
Our protagonist lived happily ever after.
Or so it goes.

{{wikitodo|maybe make some comic-strip out of this desert scenario}}

== What where those things? ==

* The chip that our protagonist found was a [[Disaster proof|civilization re-spawn seed]] that is a [[gemstone metamaterial on chip factory]] specialized for emergency situations just like the one described.

* The pullable stripe was a [[diamondoid solar cell]] in form of a flexible [[gemstone based metamaterial|gem-gum metamaterial]]
* The air sucking part was a [[medium mover]] to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere [[air as a resource|as a resource]] (and water)
* The suit was a [[gem gum suit]].
* The suit has excellent and widely adjustable [[thermal isolation]]
* The batteries are made from [[energy storage cell]]s
* The motorized vehicles would likely use [[shearing drive]]s (and the aforementioned [[medium movers]] if airborne).
* The devices are bound to the difficulties of [[synthesis of food]]. Also many chemical elements that are essential for long term survival are not present in the air (and also barely present in some desert soils – which would be much harder to process than air).

== Related ==

* '''[[Disaster proof]]'''
* [[Shoes for all scenario]]
* [[Story scenarios]]
----
* Other page looking at deserts. There for carbon sequestration. [[Large scale carbon sequestration in deep sand dunes]]

[[Category:Story szenarios]]

Desert scenario

2026-03-29T20:50:29Z

Apm: /* Related */

Desert scenario

2026-03-29T20:48:51Z

Apm:

Intuitively understanding the size of an atom

2026-03-29T20:48:20Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

[[File:Atom hair soccer en 3.png|thumb|480px|Pluck yourself a Hair and look at it. Imagine a magnified model of the torn of end was built. Would be interesting – wouldn't it? This model was buried halfway such that it runs vertically into ground at the sidelines and that it reaches twenty-five meters of dome-height at the center of the play-field. When you stand on this soccer field in front of the fractured surface and you hold a real hair against tremendous model then you see: The model-atoms of the giant hair have the diameter of a real hair.]]

If you build a humongous model of a human hair with a diameter equivalent to the width of a soccer field (~50m),
then the model carbon atoms in that humongous model of a human are pretty much exactly the size of a human hair (~0.1mm).

The carbon atoms in the real hair (and everywhere else) are about ~0.2nm in diameter.

It's the same ratio!
* 50m / 0.1mm = 500 000
* 0.1mm / 0.2nm = 500 000
See?

== Why this works ==

Unlike other comparisons this for once works because 
the size of a hair and the size of a soccer-field both 
still fall into the range of our everyday human experience. 

Also choose one magnification level and stick with it for as much as possible. 
Do not jump around with magnification levels wildly.

== What not works (but what usually is done) ==

Shift one side of the comparison a bit (like making model atoms the size of marbles ~1cm) and 
the other side falls way out of human everyday experience (model hair 5km diameter). 
The comparison becomes completely useless as a means for intuitive understanding. 

In other words: 
Using a 1cm diameter marble for the size of a magnified atom 
this magnifies any structures that are before magnification barely big enough to be seen by human eye, 
like our 0.1mm diamater hair as reference, to scales so big that 
they can no longer be fathomed by human intuition (5km). 
At least not fathomed in a 2D or 3D way. 
Try to picture a 5x5=5km² flat empty area without some reference as an aid. 
This is not really possible. 

== Related ==

* '''[[Magnification theme-park]]'''
* [[Intuitively understanding the size of Earth]]
* [[Intuitive understanding]]
* [[The speed of atoms]]
----
* [[Log polar mapping]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

The speed of atoms

2026-03-29T20:47:57Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

Up: [[Intuitive feel]]

This page is meant to give an intuitive feel for the violence of the motions at the nanoscale via an interesting uncommon and maybe novel perspective that goes together well with [[Main Page|the topic of atomically precise manufacturing]]. 
If you, the reader are looking for a conventional technical introduction to [[thermal motion]] this is probably not the right place here.
There are plenty of resources on the web that are much better than what could be presented here, please consult those.

== Air molecules as fast as bullets ==
'''Or: How every human on Earth is hit by the the equivalent of a relentless non stop barrage of handgun bullets from birth to death.'''

As we all know being hit by a bullet from a handgun is not good for health.
But what if you split the bullet into many many small pieces and let them hit you with the same speed
but now evenly distributed from all sides (assuming no breaking through air resistance)?
Would you dare to try this? 

What if I told you that you already did try this for your whole life?

When we assume that:
* the bullet is split up into all its individual atoms such that there now is plenty of space between them
* the bullet is converted into a spherical shell of dispersed atoms (a shell with of about a thousandfold volume and a thousandth of the density of the original bullet)
* the shell is concentrically coming at you (matching your body shape) and hitting you with the original non-reduced speed
then you probably would not even notice being hit. 

Baffling?

What the split up atoms of the bullet bullet would do to you is actually very similar to
what the molecules of the air do to you.

If one looks at free flying atoms (or very small molecules) like the ones one finds in air,
then their speed of motion lies around the speed of sound.
That is the main constituents of our earth's atmosphere (dinitrogen N2 and dioxygen O2
zip around with speeds that average out at about 340m/s (at normal conditions).
This is about the speed of a bullet of a hand gun.

In contrast to the bullet, air molecules do hit you permanently and relentlessly instead of just for roughly 30 microsceconds.
Thirty microseconds is the time it takes for a 1cm long (hopefully atomically dispersed) bullet to hit you tip to tail.
Well since this "impact" would add up atop the normal air pressure
it would double it (equivalent to an easily diveable water depth of 10m) for the brief period of these 30 microseconds.
But you would still likely notice barely any effect since 30 microseconds are so short that due to the inertia of mass of your skin there will barely be any effect.

== How "speed" is "faster" when you are smaller as an observer ==

Being smaller makes motions with same speeds seem to be faster.
Driving an 1:10 RC car with FPV (first person view) remote vision at about 10m/s=36km/h
feels like driving with 100m/s=360km/h but in reality it is still the 10m/s=36km/h.
What we actually experience as "speed" is the frequency with which we are passing some stuff in the environment.

The speed of sound air molecules fly around with is pretty fast even for macroscale observers and macroscale objects they fly past by.
So how fast will this feel if you scale yourself down to the nanoscale.
Or reversely (more practically archivable) scale the nanoscale up to your size.

=== Half the speed of light when atoms get scaled up enough to become visible to good eyes ===

Scaling up size by an ideal scaling factor of 500.000 (See: [[Magnification theme-park]])
and leaving time untouched/unchanged/unscaled/as-is leads to a scale-up of speeds that accurately represents the experienced speeds.
The speeds of real size air molecules then go from "only" ~340m/s at 1:1 scale up
to an experienced pseudo-speed of scaled up air molecules of about 170.000.000 m/s at the new 500.000:1 scale.
This is a bit more than half the speed of light.

There is absolutely no way to intuitively ascertain that kind of speed. 
Now add all the inter-atomic collisions with the very close by other atoms. (And note that in "model-air" spaces between 0.1mm scaled up model-atoms are about 1mm big (not the ''mean free path length'' but the side-length of a box in which one finds one model-atom on average) since the density of air is about 1/1000th of solids with densely packed mutually contacting atoms.) 
What you get is mind bogglingly ridiculous pinball motion. Unfortunately beyond any point where it can be made intuitively graspable.

This ultra rapid sequence of changing encounters ("intermolecular mixer meeting") has pretty wild consequences.
Among others provides an important part for the explanation why life could emerge just by accident.
That is: Why evolution worked and works.

== Keping "speed" equally "fast" when getting smaller as observer ==

=== Cinematic slow-motion by using the one special time scale factor that naturally suggests itself ===

To have a more natural feel for the speeds at the nanoscale, time must be scaled too (to slow-motion).
One wants to scale time in such a way that operation frequencies are kept natural when transferred to the model that is scaled up in size.

Using this approach still leaves us with
hair diameter (0.1mm) model air molecules bouncing around at the speed of sound ~340m/s
while now additionally we need to wait 500.000 seconds (almost 6 days!) in our model for one real second to pass.

So a we have a model-molecule (scaled up to hair diameter) bouncing around with the speed of sound.
in a densely populated molecular environment (scaled up a heap of beard stubbles) for about six days
that is thereby emulating just one real second. Just one. Let that sink.

Ok, this is not very intuitive.
Now we have distributed one totally and utterly unintuitive and unimaginably big quantity (halve the speed of light)
into two still quite unintuitive and unimaginably large quantities (speed of sound and a quite big stretching of time).
This is not much better than before, if even, isn't it? Well yes, but ...

=== Bigger parts (nanomachinery) get slow enough to allow for a more intuitive feel ===

Where this scaling method (that also scales time not only space) will become more useful for an attainment of an intuitive feel
is when it comes to parts that are just a slightly bit bigger than molecules (nanomachinery crystolecules).
Such parts already move quite a bit slower than single molecules.
In fact usually slow enough that they can conveniently be traced around by eye.
With our intuitivity preserving "magnification factor" of 500.000 typical nanomachinery operation frequencies
e.g. 1MHz will get downscaled to just 2Hz.

== Related ==

* [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom]] – [[Magnification theme-park]]
* [[Intuitive feel]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Magnification theme-park

2026-03-29T20:47:36Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

[[File:Magnification wonderworld soccer-field sketch.svg|300px|thumb|right|In our theme-park a hair is blown up to the size of a soccer field. A size which one can still intuitively to grasp.]]
[[File:Magnification wonderworld atom-molecule sketch.svg|300px|thumb|right|In our theme-park an atom is blown up to the size of a hair. A size which one can already intuitively grasp.]]

'''When one builds a magnified model of a human hair with a diameter matching the width of a soccer field then the model atoms inside this model hair have a diameter matching the diameter of a real human hair.'''

== How to get an intuitive feel for how big things of the micro- and nanocosmos really are? ==

It's not easy to get some intuitive feeling for the size of all those things that are hidden away in the micro- and nanoscale. 
The things there, we can only see through the narrow keyholes of microscopes (optical or other) 
allowing us only to see a few things of similar size at a time with no direct relation to things which's size we really intuitively understand. 

So what can be done to change that? 
'''Let's build a theme-park!'''

A theme-park about the microscale and nanoscale world where everything is magnified.

* Name: '''Magnification Wonderworld'''
* Slogan: Magnificent and Magical

Away from the ocular or screen we are not bound to observe through the narrow keyholes of microscopes and 
can see things of vastly different size at the same time. 
Getting a good feeling for the smaller things by walking up to them.

=== Thee can only be one magnification factor ===

The really really important part when setting up this theme-park is that there needs to be chosen one and only one single 
magnification factor that is then consistently and strictly adhered to. 
If that rule is broken the development of an intuitive feel will be disrupted.

Since we can only choose this single magnification once its really important to get the best one at the first try. 
The one that is best for developing an intuitive feeling.

But which magnification factor is the best one?

=== The ideal magnification factor ===

Let's try the usual ball and stick models of molecules where the model atoms are about the size of marbles (~1cm). 
The problem here is that even the smallest things of our everyday experience become unfathomably big at this magnification factor. 
A model of a human hair e.g. would have a diameter of a mountain (~5km) at this scale. 
So we can scratch this magnification factor. It is way too large.

Next let's try a magnification factor that blows up the human hair to a much smaller size that is more intuitively graspable. 
The width of a soccer field (~50m). At this magnification factor model atoms become the size of a unmagnified real hair (~0.1mm). 
This is already in the range of intuitive graspability. So – jackpot – we have our magnification factor.

It's '''x500.000 or 500.000:1'''.

This will be used throughout this wiki.

=== Together ===

We have an intuitive handle both on the macroscale and on the nanoscale side. 
Both at the same time. And the theme-park-setting allows to see everything at once. 
No brachiation from looking keyhole to looking keyhole leaving intuitive understanding in the dust.

== Numbers ==

[[File:Atom hair soccer en 3.png|thumb|480px|Pluck yourself a Hair and look at it. Imagine a magnified model of the torn of end was built. Would be interesting – wouldn't it? This model was buried halfway such that it runs vertically into ground at the sidelines and that it reaches twenty-five meters of dome-height at the center of the play-field. When you stand on this soccer field in front of the fractured surface and you hold a real hair against tremendous model then you see: The model-atoms of the giant hair have the diameter of a real hair.]]

Chosen magnification factor: '''x500.000 or 500.000:1'''

Atoms are quite small but they are not as ridiculously small as people usually say.
If a hair (0.1mm) would be the width of a soccer field (~60m) an atom would be roughly the size of a hair.

Carbon is about 0.2nm or 2Å in size that makes roughly five atoms per nanometer (thumb rule).

== There's limited space at the bottom ==

From the perspective of the described theme-park
the finiteness of space in the nanoscale becomes better ascertainable.

When hierarchically building up building structures one can quickly fill up this size gap
between atom size and hair size.
It only takes four [[convergent assembly]] steps to get from 1nm up to 1mm when a step-size of 32 is chosen.

The combinatoric explosion of atom arrangement possibilities quickly gets beyond mind boggling though.

== The other way – shrinking – in comparison ==

Going the same "distance" in the opposite direction one gets the earth only down to the size of a soccer-field.
Trying to get an intuitive feeling beyond the size of earth (interplanetary size scales) is barely possible (via travel times).
Trying to get an intuitive feeling beyond the size of our solar-system is utterly hopeless. Forget about intergalactic gaps.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:100%px">
Just for comparison astronomical size relations: <div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Relative distances in the other (astronomic) direction are vastly greater.
If the planetary orbit of our outermost planet Neptune (which can technically be reached in years) where the size of a hair the nearest stars would lie beyond ~1km and the Milky Way would be ~1000km thick at our location. The next galaxies would start at the diameter of our sun ~1000000km then still follows the unimaginable size of intergalactic voids, the observable universe and the universe extrapolated to our "now" of which we now little by now.
</div>
</div>

== Further the same way – Nuclei ==

Nuclei cannot be brought to an intuitively graspable magnification level like atoms.
One needs to apply about the same magnification factor '''a second time''' to get the nuclei to a fraction of a millimeter (~0.5mm for a lone proton). At that points atoms become the size of a soccer field and a human hairs gets a diameter matching the size of earth.

Luckily there's no need for an intuitive understanding of the size of nuclei.
They only react with one another in statistical ways in nuclear reactors. They do not form extensive molecules or crystals
(Unless in a neutron star maybe..).

In normal chemistry nuclei float always well separated from another in the center of their host atoms electron cloud only interacting weakly magnetically with one another. Application of controlled mechanical forces (squeezing atoms together [[mechanosynthesis|mechanosynthetically]]) cannot ever bring them together close enough for them to react with one another.

Nuclei are just of not of much direct relevance to the the [[naked core]] of advanced APM.
* Current day analytic methods involving the usage of nuclear properties (like e.g. MRT, ...) are likely to play some role in the path to advanced APM.
* Some applications of advanced APT will be used for interaction with nucleons (See: "[[APM and nuclear technology]]").

== Notes ==

* VR/AR theme-park?
* biological examples & APM related examples

== Related ==

* [[Intuitively understanding the size of an atom]]
* [[Intuitive feel]]
----
* [[The speed of atoms]]
* [[The size of atoms]]
----
* [[Desert scenario]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

The feel of atoms

2026-03-29T20:46:54Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

Up: [[Intuitive feel]]

= How does it feel when you grab two atoms and rub them against each other? =

[[File:Novint_Falcon.jpg|thumb|right|Force feedback devices like this one allow one to gain a very intimate understanding of how things behave at the scale of atoms.]]

First I should note that trying this out for real is actually possible for quite a while now (as unbelievable as it may sound).
To feel atoms you grab the end of a robot (you shake hands with it). A tiny needle with a single atom at the tip is then made to move exactly like your hand just on a lot smaller scale. When the topmost atom on the needle tip starts to touch an atom on a surface the robot arm pushes back just as the surface pushes back on the needle albeit with a magnified force big enough for you to conveniently feel it. This is called force feedback (commonly known from car racing games).

Two analogies that might convey what it feels like best are:
* rubbing soft slippery fish or water soaked gummy bears against each other
* moving two magnets past each other in repulsive (but sometimes also attractive) configuration

Moving the robot arm in and outward you can check out softness and moving sideward you can check out slipperiness.

== Slipperiness ==

Atoms are ridiculously slippery. Like the moon orbiting the earth there's basically no friction.
If certain conditions are met this low friction can be retained for larger contact areas than just the single atom on the tip of our probing needle.
One condition is that the atomic ripples on a touching pair of larger surfaces must not interlock like matching egg-crates. If this and a few other things are met there is extremely low friction. It is called the [[superlubrication]] phenomenon and it has enormous potential for technical usage in slide bearings of all kinds.

== Softness ==

So how does it feel to break a single bond between two atoms?
Since I can't let you pull on this robot arm over the web lets turn the robot arm facing downwards and tie an empty plastic bottle onto it in which we will later fill some water. We can also use a simple coil spring instead of the robot arm giving force feedback

For realism we can make the robot arm behave exactly as stiff as the bond between two atoms.
Caution! Please do not mistake stiffness with force. Stiffness is how much the force grows per the length you pull.
A bond between two atoms obviously has only a tiny force but this force builds up on a tiny distance.
Thus while the robot arm needs to magnify both force and length the stiffness of the bond turns out to be in the right size such that the robot arm can simulate it 1:1.

Now here's a quiz: Assuming you fill half a liter of water into the plastic bottle how much will the robot arm simulating the stiffness of a bond between two carbon atoms in diamond give (very roughly) A:~1mm ☐ B:~1cm ☐ C:~1dm ☐

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:100%px">
Hidden solution:
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
* A bond between two carbon atoms in (C-C bond) in diamond has a (maximum) spring constant of: k = 440N/m =~ 450g/cm. Thus half a liter of water which makes 500g bends the setup ~1cm so the answer is B:~1cm ☒. That feels pretty soft to the hand.
* halving the size -> halves the stiffness ... this is an instance of a [[scaling law]] of whom you'll here a lot here
* Just remember: '''The smaller things are the floppier they become.''' Even diamond one of the strongest materials in existence feels pretty soft at the scale of single atomic bonds.
</div>
</div>

== Related ==

* [[Lower stiffness of smaller machinery]] – (and why it's not a problem)
* [[Same relative deflections across scales]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Lower stiffness of smaller machinery

2026-03-29T20:45:06Z

Apm: /* Related */

'''A rod is the stiffer ...'''
* the bigger its cross-section A (∝L²) is and
* the shorter its length l (∝L¹) is.

The geometry dependent stiffness (aka spring constant) k [N/m] is calculated from 
the geometry independent stiffness (aka elastic Young's modulus) E [N/m²] as such: 
<math>k = E ~ (A/l) \propto L^1</math> 
Thus geometry dependent stiffness falls when shrinking the size of machinery (while keeping the same material). 
Also covered on page about [[Scaling law]]s.

= Even diamond becomes soft like jelly – Not a problem though =

With scaling down machinery to smaller sizes the stiffness of this machinery falls. 
'''One millionth the size => One millionth the stiffness.''' See related page: [[Scaling law]]. 
'''This makes even diamond jelly soft.''' 
Which poses an obvious question: 
'''Q:''' '''Could this maybe be a serious problem?''' 
'''A:''' Perhaps surprisingly the answer is: '''No.''' 
At least for the most part. I.e. only thermal motions are of concern. Math covered on page: [[Same relative deflections across scales]]

= Important are deflection magnitudes rather than spring constants =

For the material astoundingly low spring constants are not a problem because 
what is relevant are relative deflections rather the geometry dependent stiffness of the material. 
So how do deflections scale?

'''As it turns out the relative deflections / strains ...'''
* from accelerations of machinery scale with L0 (scale invariant - nice!).
* from gravity scale with L1. – (Large machines suffocating under their own weight. A well known macroscale problem.)
* from thermal motions scale with L-1. – (Relevant for [[piezomechanosynthesis]] and unguided [[covalent welding]])

For the math deriving these [[scaling laws]] see Page: 
'''[[Same relative deflections across scales]]'''

== Consequences of slowing down for smaller machinery ==

Even more important than same relative deflections is keeping friction levels low. 
This motivates deviating from keeping speeds constant across scales. 
That is: It motivates to slow down a bit (see related page: [[lower friction despite higher bearing area]]) 
'''With this slowdown as a better choice''' (that modifies all speed dependent scaling laws) 
'''relative deflections do not just stay constant across scales.''' 
'''They actually fall some for smaller machinery.''' 
This is possible because (unlike macromachinery) nanomachinery can be run slower 
as there is plenty of space for more machinery to fully compensate for 
the loss in throughput thanks to [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]].

Main page: [[Scaling of speeds]]

= Example numbers – Jelly indeed =

Example numbers for diamond [[crystolecule]] strut:
* A = 1 nm²
* l = 10 nm
* E = 1000 GPa ≈ 10^12 N/m²
This gives: 
<math>k = E ~ (A/l) = (10^{12} N/m^2) · (10^{-18} m^2) / (10^-8 m) = 100N/m = 1daN/dm </math> 
Or colloquially: 1kg/dm or 100g/cm. 
This is how incredibly soft diamond gets at the nanoscale. 

For 10cm long macroscale strut with same aspect ratio (thus 1cm² cross section) that would be a pretty darn low spring constant. 
One would need to go to materials like quite soft rubber or jelly to reproduce this low level off a stiffness. 
Jelly is probably a better analogy since it tends to rupture somewhere in the low two digit percentual range. 
Just like perfect flawless diamond [[crystolecule]]s do. Whereas rubber often can be stretched several 100s of percents.

Related: [[The feel of atoms]]

= Misc =

This [[scaling law]] is also a/the reason why extremely [[high pressure]]s 
are so easy to generate at the nanoscale by focusing force down into small cross-sectional areas.

{{wikitodo|explain the following}}
The consequences on design-constraints / design-choices based on this falling stiffness. 
E.g. striving for high stiffness providing parallel robotics geometries to counter deflections from thermal motions.

= Related =

* '''[[Same relative deflections across scales]]'''
----
* '''[[How macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale outperforms its native scale]]'''
* '''[[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]'''
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Natural scaling of absolute speeds]] = [[Same absolute speeds for smaller machinery]]
* '''[[Scaling law]]'''
* [[Stiffness]]
----
Thermal motion related:
* [[Lattice scaled stiffness]]
* Parallel [[Robotic manipulators]]
----
[[Intuitive feel]] related:
* [[The feel of atoms]] – about what "diamond getting jelly soft" intuitively means
* '''[[A better intuition for diamondoid nanomachinery than jelly]]'''

== Off-topic ==

Low spring constants at the macroscale:
* [[Emulated elasticity]]
* [[gem-gum]], [[Gemstone based metamaterial]]

[[Category:Pages with math]]
[[Category:Scaling law]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Same absolute speeds for smaller machinery

2026-03-29T20:44:18Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

[[File:ConvergentAssemblyThroughputScalingLaw-compressed.jpg|400px|thumb|right|In this screencap of an animation the base assumption is "[[same absolute speeds for smaller machinery]]" (leading to linearly higher frequency of smaller machinery) this is only good as a first crude approximation. In an actual system one will want to slow down at the smallest scales, thus this geometry does not correspond to an actually proposed system, at least not at the smallest scales. More infos to this grapic on the page: [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]].]]

'''Constancy as the natural scaling option for speed of operations of machinery'''

What are the motivating factors to keep speed of machinery motions constant across scales (as a first approximation)?
* Keeping relative scale deflections from machine motions constant across scales (see: [[Same relative deflections across scales]])
* Keeping friction losses constant across scales
As it turns out both imply constant speeds across scales. 
There's a caveat for the latter motivating some deviation from constancy. 
A "tiny" bit of intentional slowdown. ("Tiny" meaning less than linear.)

'''Potential trapdoor to comprehension:''' Here "absolute speeds" refers to motion in terms of m/s (using SI units) 
It does not refer to frequencies (in Hertz or 1/s). For frequencies see: [[Scale natural frequency]]. 
⚠️ '''One may colloquially say "smaller machinery moves faster" but in that case one is actually referinng to operation frequencies!'''

== Keeping relative scale deflections from machine motions constant across scales ==

Keeping absolute speeds constant across scales 
(or in other words keeping the same absolute speeds for smaller machinery) 
can be considered as a natural choice when the main motivating factor is: 
[[Same relative deflections across scales]]

== Keeping friction losses constant across scales ==

While one might expect losses to go up due to 
'''the well known scaling law of [[twice the surface area of half the volume]]''' applied to bearing area, 
there is also the compensating factor of 
'''the poorly known scaling law of [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]'''.

Both of these [[scaling laws]] are linear. 
Thus for machinery of scale invariant [[throughput density]] and scale invariant operation speeds
they exactly compensate.

{{wikitodo|Maybe bring this into a more formalized math form to make the point more clear.}}

=== Important caveats – Leading to scaling of speeds that differ from constancy ===

'''Alternate natural scaling options for speed of operations of machinery.'''

Since dynamic friction scales quadratically with speed ([[Hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]) and 
Productive nanomachinery takes up very little volume ([[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]) 
it is possible to cheat by trading decreased speeds for increased volume of nanomachinery.
See:
* [[Deliberate slowdown at the lower assembly levels]]
* [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]]
* [[Optimal sublayernumber for minimal friction]]

----

Also: Optimal bearing technologies across scales likely change. 
This makes deviating a bit from constant speeds across scales desirable. 
See: [[Mesoscale friction]]

=== Dispelling eventual concerns regarding convergent assembly ===

Adding [[convergent assembly levels]] atop that are exponentially growing in size 
only adds at best logarithmic amounts of additional friction. 
Thus it for the most part can be ignored.

=== Discussion of an perhaps counterintuitive aspect of constant speeds across scales ===

When conceptually for visualization scaling up just space but not scaling time, 
then the assumption of constant speeds across scales leads to magnified models featuring magnified speeds. 
One might intuitively expect increased wear and such, but this is misled. 
High encounter frequencies are just natural at small scales ([[Scale natural frequency]]). 
One should remember that even today's macroscale roller bearing in the end feature nanoscale surface-on-surface contacts. 
The only change when going to bearings that as a hole are at the nanoscale is 
that they necessarily need to be atomically precise because 
the wear of imprecisions of the scale of today's macroscale bearings would annihilate nanoscale bearings instantly. 
Or rather imprecisions of the scale of today's macroscale bearing can be bigger than whole nanoscale bearings.

Related: [[Intuitive feel]]

== Related ==

* [[Scale natural frequency]]
----
* [[Scaling law]]
----
* '''[[Same relative deflections across scales]]'''
* '''[[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]'''

[[Category:Scaling law]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Lower stiffness of smaller machinery

2026-03-29T20:42:54Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

'''A rod is the stiffer ...'''
* the bigger its cross-section A (∝L²) is and
* the shorter its length l (∝L¹) is.

The geometry dependent stiffness (aka spring constant) k [N/m] is calculated from 
the geometry independent stiffness (aka elastic Young's modulus) E [N/m²] as such: 
<math>k = E ~ (A/l) \propto L^1</math> 
Thus geometry dependent stiffness falls when shrinking the size of machinery (while keeping the same material). 
Also covered on page about [[Scaling law]]s.

= Even diamond becomes soft like jelly – Not a problem though =

With scaling down machinery to smaller sizes the stiffness of this machinery falls. 
'''One millionth the size => One millionth the stiffness.''' See related page: [[Scaling law]]. 
'''This makes even diamond jelly soft.''' 
Which poses an obvious question: 
'''Q:''' '''Could this maybe be a serious problem?''' 
'''A:''' Perhaps surprisingly the answer is: '''No.''' 
At least for the most part. I.e. only thermal motions are of concern. Math covered on page: [[Same relative deflections across scales]]

= Important are deflection magnitudes rather than spring constants =

For the material astoundingly low spring constants are not a problem because 
what is relevant are relative deflections rather the geometry dependent stiffness of the material. 
So how do deflections scale?

'''As it turns out the relative deflections / strains ...'''
* from accelerations of machinery scale with L0 (scale invariant - nice!).
* from gravity scale with L1. – (Large machines suffocating under their own weight. A well known macroscale problem.)
* from thermal motions scale with L-1. – (Relevant for [[piezomechanosynthesis]] and unguided [[covalent welding]])

For the math deriving these [[scaling laws]] see Page: 
'''[[Same relative deflections across scales]]'''

== Consequences of slowing down for smaller machinery ==

Even more important than same relative deflections is keeping friction levels low. 
This motivates deviating from keeping speeds constant across scales. 
That is: It motivates to slow down a bit (see related page: [[lower friction despite higher bearing area]]) 
'''With this slowdown as a better choice''' (that modifies all speed dependent scaling laws) 
'''relative deflections do not just stay constant across scales.''' 
'''They actually fall some for smaller machinery.''' 
This is possible because (unlike macromachinery) nanomachinery can be run slower 
as there is plenty of space for more machinery to fully compensate for 
the loss in throughput thanks to [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]].

Main page: [[Scaling of speeds]]

= Example numbers – Jelly indeed =

Example numbers for diamond [[crystolecule]] strut:
* A = 1 nm²
* l = 10 nm
* E = 1000 GPa ≈ 10^12 N/m²
This gives: 
<math>k = E ~ (A/l) = (10^{12} N/m^2) · (10^{-18} m^2) / (10^-8 m) = 100N/m = 1daN/dm </math> 
Or colloquially: 1kg/dm or 100g/cm. 
This is how incredibly soft diamond gets at the nanoscale. 

For 10cm long macroscale strut with same aspect ratio (thus 1cm² cross section) that would be a pretty darn low spring constant. 
One would need to go to materials like quite soft rubber or jelly to reproduce this low level off a stiffness. 
Jelly is probably a better analogy since it tends to rupture somewhere in the low two digit percentual range. 
Just like perfect flawless diamond [[crystolecule]]s do. Whereas rubber often can be stretched several 100s of percents.

Related: [[The feel of atoms]]

= Misc =

This [[scaling law]] is also a/the reason why extremely [[high pressure]]s 
are so easy to generate at the nanoscale by focusing force down into small cross-sectional areas.

{{wikitodo|explain the following}}
The consequences on design-constraints / design-choices based on this falling stiffness. 
E.g. striving for high stiffness providing parallel robotics geometries to counter deflections from thermal motions.

= Related =

* '''[[Same relative deflections across scales]]'''
----
* '''[[How macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale outperforms its native scale]]'''
* '''[[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]'''
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Natural scaling of absolute speeds]]
* '''[[Scaling law]]'''
* [[Same absolute speeds for smaller machinery]]
* [[Stiffness]]
----
Thermal motion related:
* [[Lattice scaled stiffness]]
* Parallel [[Robotic manipulators]]
----
[[Intuitive feel]] related:
* [[The feel of atoms]] – about what "diamond getting jelly soft" intuitively means
* '''[[A better intuition for diamondoid nanomachinery than jelly]]'''

== Off-topic ==

Low spring constants at the macroscale:
* [[Emulated elasticity]]
* [[gem-gum]], [[Gemstone based metamaterial]]

[[Category:Pages with math]]
[[Category:Scaling law]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Pages with math

2026-03-29T20:42:31Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

{{Stub}}

= Math investigating (in)validity of [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing|common concerns]] =

'''[[Energy, force, and stiffness]]''' 
Some investigations useful for asserting in how far results of macroscale robotic prototyping 
will be transferable to nanoscale [[diamondoid]] systems. 
See also: [[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]] 
See also: [[Intuitive feel]]

'''[[Nanomechanics is barely mechanical quantummechanics]]''' and 
'''[[Estimation of nanomechanical quantisation]]''': 
Some simple math to show that concerns about [[quantum mechanics]] making 
[[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] infeasibly are very much not valid.

'''[[Atom placement frequency]]''' 
Some investigations on whether with reachable reasonable numbers of 
* temporal placement frequency and
* spacial parallelity
useful levels of throughpur (product output rate) can be reached without
* needing excessive amounts of volume
* causing excessive amount of waste heat
And that despite the outrageously high necessary effective atom placement frequencies 
due to to less than 6.022*10^23 particles per mol (very roughly sugar cube volume quantity of atoms)

'''[[Power density]] & [[Mechanical energy transmission]]''' 
Some math further investigating the outrageous results for 
possible powerdensities that were found in [[Nanosystems]]

= Analysis for [[gem-gum on chip factories]] =

'''[[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]''': 
A very important little known [[scaling law]] that:
* allows to reduce friction by a large factor
* has major influence on design choices (e.g. why [[gem-gum factories]] are a better target than [[molecular assemblers]])

'''[[Limits to lower friction despite higher bearing area]]''': 
This pages covers math determining the optimal number of [[sub layers]] for minimal frictive losses. 
As it turns out this coincides with where the scaling law of [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]] breaks down.

'''[[Math of convergent assembly]]''': 
'''[[Level throughput balancing]]''' 
TODO

=== Nanofactory design parameters ===

See: [[Gem-gum factory design parameters]]

* '''[[Compenslow]]''': This is a parameter quantifying increase of internal bearing are for reducing friction.
* B … [[Branching factor]]
* F … [[Chamber to part size ratio]]
* C … Scaling factor (near one) for average distance traveled per one-part-placed
* D … Scaling factor (slightly above one) for chip-area per chamber-area
{{wikitodo|revolve conflict with D on page …}}

= Math on the basics =

* [[Friction]] – Main goal: getting a reasonable (and better confirmed) quantitative estimate on levels of dynamic friction in [[atomically precise sliding bearings]]
* [[Scaling law]] – corroborating that while physics change when going down to the nanoscale it's not necessarily for the worse for macroscale style machinery, but rather often surprisingly much for the better.

= Related =

* [[Useful math]]
* [[Exotic math]]

For more complete list of pages with math go to the category page:.
[[Category:Pages with math]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Elephants with spiderlegs

2026-03-29T20:41:42Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

== In fiction and art ==

In "star wars", "war of the worlds", and Salvador Dali's pictures 
it's likely just an artistic choice to make it look alien/surreal by making it look like something 
that cannot be found by a long stretch (pun intended) in our world. 
The artists probably have not thought deeply about the physics involved.

== Making it work by by reducing gravity ==

Despite clearly not working here down on Earth with our crushing gravity 
interestingly this "gargantuan spiderelephant anatomy" might actually practically work 
on low but not too low gravity celestial bodies like e.g. big asteroids where the k in 
» F_grav ∝ k * L^3 « 
is sufficiently small. 

Pros:
* no continuously depleting propellant needed
* more control than jumping

=== Math in more detail & making it work even better by "making the elephants hollow" ===

F_inertial = m ω^2 r = m v^2 / r
with
m ∝ L^3
and assuming
★ v ∝ L^0
★ r ∝ L^1
we get
F_inertial ∝ L^2
with
A ∝ L^2
we get
𝜎 = F/A ∝ L^0

Good! works for all scales :)
But speeds stay constants so frequencies drop.
Not so good. Can we do something about it? Yes ...

hollowing stuff out
(as is possible in low gravity)
changes
m ∝ L^2
changes
𝜎 = ∝ L^-1
so we can do what we wanted (increase speeds along with size)
v ∝ L^1
and be back at
𝜎 ∝ L^0
again

In words: 
When scaling to larger sizes forces from accelerations do NOT scale faster than the strength of the material. Given speeds are kept constant! 
But if structures are hollowed out, as it is possible under low enough gravity, speeds can be scaled up along with the size.

{{todo|How does this go together with the scale invariant [[unsupported rotating ring speed limit]]? Infinitesimally thin surfaces in the limit maybe?? To investigate.}}

== Conclusion ==

Machines shaped like Salvador Dalì's Elephants might actually work and exist in the future on asteroids. 
Heck, space-probes could probably do this in the foreseeable future (written 2021).

== Related ==

* [[Scaling law]]

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dali_Elephants.jpg "The Elephants" by Salvador Dali]
* Originally posted here on twitter: [https://twitter.com/mechadense/status/1424965538330128388]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Scaling law

2026-03-29T20:41:13Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

With scaling laws (over size-scales) one can find out:
* which physical effects get '''stronger''' when machine size is shrunken down.
* which physical effects get '''weaker''' when machine size is shrunken down.

Based on whether a particular physical effect gets stronger or weaker one can decide on whether to use it or not. 
Or rather: With scaling laws one can take a first educated guess for which effect are best to use on which size scales.

In the context of [[atomically precise manufacturing]] the analysis of scaling laws (and further [[exploratory engineering]])
leads to the insight that: 
'''Compared to normal macroscale machinery [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] 
(featuring [[gemstone-like molecular element]]s like [[diamondoid crystolecular machine element]]s) 
will perform way better rather than way worse or even not at all.''' 
(When all the most relevant effects are taken into account).

This insight was/is for some people (including prominent nanotechnology experts) surprising since
* natures nanomachinery (molecular biology) and
* current day limitations in experimental research
both sometimes deceivingly seem to suggest the opposite. 
(See: [[Nature does it differently]] and [[Effects of current day experimental research limitations]])

----

Because of scaling laws (over size-scales) being so fundamentally important 
for a basic first understanding of the physics down at the nanoscale 
scaling laws are presented right at the beginning of the book [[Nanosystems]] 
(Page 23 Chapter 2 "Classical Magnitudes and Scaling Laws").

----

Scaling laws can provide ...
* ... quantitative numbers (sometimes only crude first approximations but still very valuable) and
* ... some kind of [[intuitive feel]] of how the world down there behaves.

As a specific example take electric motors and generators. 
Here scaling laws tell us that when going down to the nanoscale it's better to use ...
* electrostatic motors (which become stronger when shrunken in size) instead of
* magnetic motors (which get weaker when shrunken down in size).
(For more details see: [[Electromechanical converter]]) .

----

Note: '''This page is about scaling laws over size-scales.''' 
For scaling laws over other quanities while keeping the size scale fixed see: 
See: [[non size-scale scaling law]] – and: [[Scaling law (disambiguation)]]

= Scaling laws involving surface and volume =

The most commonly known scaling law. 
When halving the size surface area divides by four and volume by eight thus
the surface to volume ratio doubles. That is it shrinks linearly with rising size.

Main article: [[Higher total bearing surface area of smaller machinery]]

== instant heat transfer ==

The inverse volume to surface ratio shrinks linearly with size. 
With it the characteristic time of heat transfer shrinks too. 
This makes it effectively impossible to thermally isolate single nanoscale parts. 
Thus thermal isolation is best used only between macroscopically separated Volumes. 

= Scaling laws for mechanical quantities =

From [[Nanosystems]]: 

(2.1) <math> total mechanical strength \propto mechanical force \propto area \propto L^{2} </math> 
=> Even huge macroscale pressues equate to small nanoscale forces (ore vice-versa). –
E.g. 1010N/m2 = 10-8N/nm2= 10nN/nm2 
----
(2.2) <math> shear stiffness \propto stretching stiffness \propto area / length \propto L^{1} </math> 
(2.3) <math> bending stiffness \propto radius^4 / length^3 \propto L^{1} </math> 
(2.4) <math> deformation strain \propto force / stiffness \propto L^{1} </math> 
----
Stiffnesses and strain do not scale as severe as the forces but still significant. 
E.g. A cubic nanometer block of E = 1012N/m2 has a stretching stiffness of 1000nN/nm

== How mass (and volume) depends on size and the effects of that ==

* Halving the size (L) of an object does divide it's volume and mass by eight. (L/2)3 = L/8
* Doubling the size (L) of an object gives it eight times more volume and mass. (2L)3 = 8L

This allows for big accelerations ... 

----
'''Formally:''' 
(2.5) <math> mass \propto volume \propto L^{3} </math> – '''a pretty well known law''' 
One says: Volume and mass scale with the cube of length V ~ m ~ L3 
Example: A cubic nanometer block of 3500kg/m3 (= 3.5kg/liter ~ approximate density of diamond) 
has a mass of 3.5*10-24kg = 3.5zg (zg means [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zepto- zeptogram]) which is extremely small. 
This small: 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,003,5 kg

=== Acceleration tolerance ===

The main effect of masses at the nanoscale becoming so extremely small is that smaller things can endure way higher accelerations. 
This is because acceleration forces are linearly proportional to mass. 
That is: Dividing the mass by 8 divides force by 8. 
That is basically just Newtons second law: F = m*a

----

'''Formally:''' 
(2.6) <math> acceleration \propto force / mass \propto L^{-1} </math> 
With the 10nN/nm2 acting on a cubic nanometer block giving 10nN and the aforementioned mass that gives an 
astounding acceleration of 3*1015m/s2

----

This scaling law interplays with two seperate effects:
* planetary gravity (only effecting the macroscale – gravitative mass scales just like inertial mass) and
* macroscale high speed crashes creating acceleration spikes that are untypically high for the macroscale (desctructive nanoscale level accelerations at the macroscale)

=== Interplay with acceleration from planetary gravity ===

On planets mass causes weight (earth: a = g = 9.81m/s2)
With rising sizes weight forces are rising just as the mass does.
Structures need to be designed more and more bulky.
This can be observed both in architecture and big living things like trees and animals like e.g. elephants.
Looking into the other direction there's the common example of ants capable of carrying a multiple of their own body weight.

Since other effects play in too animal legs (from ant to elephant) scale a bit different than expected.

Just as with ants, machinery on the microscale can be rather filigree.
Very small manipulators can hold very big chunks for their size,
manipulators in the microscale can be way smaller than the building blocks they handle.
That is unless one wants to go near the [[Unsupported rotating ring speed limit|theoretical limits of speed]].
Getting vibrations very low and efficiency very high can too be a motivation for not building too filigree.
(Other parts of a system may have more stringent limits for efficiency though, limiting motivation for raising efficiency via stiffness increase in the microscale to the limits).

Even smaller at the low nanoscale to sub-nanoscale the lower physical size limit comes in the way.
A manipulator can't be smaller than the smallest possible building block - an atom - in fact it must be quite a bit bigger.

Weight-forces are constant and unidirected in character. Yes this is obvious. But it's still worth to mentioned here because the character of forces can have a strong effect on the resulting character on the structural design of systems.

'''In space''' where in first approximation gravity is not present (that is we don't consider things so incredibly big that tidal forces become relevant) big things can be just as filigree as small things.

=== Interplay with acceleration from crashes ===

From everyday experience we know that things that fall down from some height and crash against a hard floor or things that move fast and crash hard against an obstacle usually take severe damage in form of permanent irreversible bending and fractures.

The acceleration levels occurring during such crash induced acceleration spike events is untypically high for the macroscopic size scale.
In smaller size scales untypical acceleration spices usually do not occur because:
* macroscale crash acceleration levels are perfectly normal at smaller scales and occur there all the time in normal operation
* if something really causes an untipically high acceleration spike it must be so fast and carry so much energy (density) that the result won't be just bending and fractures but melting vaporisation or even ionization (conversion into plasma)

In technical terms:
For smaller systems the acceleration spectrum swallows the acceleration spikes stemming from macroscopic crashes.

'''In space'' one has crashes with space debris or (micro)meteorites. The usual impactors have so much energy density that they melt/vaporize/ionize the target and not much energy is left over for the acoustic shock-wave that propagates away from the location of impact. This is somewhat similar to the situation on smaller scales. {{todo|analyze this in more detail}}

=== Combined ===

Note if inertial acceleration is the limiting factor instead of gravitational acceleration smaller structures can't be made more filigree. Since when speeds are kept constant and turning radii shrink accelerations rise.

== Speedup (in terms of frequency) ==

[[File:Gnuplot_scale_typical_accelerations.png|500px|thumb|right|How natural accelerations grow with shrinking size. To keep waste heat from friction at practical levels it is sensible too slow down at the nanoscale that is as one goes from right to left in the diagram one moves down the lines deviating from the natural scaling law.]]

The much higher acceleration tolerance of smaller things is the reason why motion speeds can be kept constant when making
rotating things smaller despite the turning radii getting tighter and tighter and the zentrifugal accelerations correspondingly rising. 
In simple math: v = ω r and a = ω2 r gives a = v2 / r –– (ω = 2π f) 
In words: Halving the size of a spinning wheel doubles the centrifugal acceleration.

When keeping the speed constant halving the size doubles the frequency ('''frequency scales up linearly''').
This could be called the '''"insect-wing-effect"''' the reason a fat bumblebee sounds lower than a tiny mosquito.

In an advanced APM system A million-fold reduction in size theoretically lifts throughput a million-fold
Practically it makes sense too slow down a bit and use only a thin** layer for [[mechanosynthesis]] instead of the whole volume.
This prevent excessive waste heat that is the cooling facilities need not to be greater than the production unit.

Organisation in [[Nanofactory layers|layers]] makes nanofactory design more scale invariant (2D fractal stack) and thus easier.
For rapid assembly of preproduced parts (a lot more rapid than practical necessary) there is the acceleration limit for the macroscopic product to be considered.

['''todo:''' add infographic - typical accelerations over scale for different speeds]

== Forces from compressive and tensile stresses ==

It can be helpful or at least satisfying to get something of an '''intuitive understanding for the consistence or "feel" of DME components'''.

As the size of a rod of any material shrinks linearly (in all three dimensions) the area of the cross section shrinks quadratically.
Consequently when keeping tension/compression stress constant the forces fall quadratically and one arrives at very low forces.
'''[Sacling law: longitudinal force ~ length^2]'''
This can be seen nicely in the low seeming inter-atomic spring constants.
E.g. the equilibrium position spring constant of an bond in diamond (sp3 carbon-carbon-bond) is about 440nN/nm or 0.44daN/cm (1daN~1kg).

In order to get a feel for these forces one can transform atomic spring constants unchanged to the macrocosm.
This can be done by letting the number of parallel and serial bonds grow equally so that the changement of stiffness through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_springs serial and parallel] connection of bonds compensate.
Here for convenience 10,000,000,000 bonds are assumed to be chained serially.
We must apply this scaling to the number of parallel bonds too but here it divides up in each dimension of the cross-section sqrt(10^10) = 100,000.
With the diamond bond (C-C sp3) length of 1.532Amstrong and area per bond of 6.701Amstrong^2 = (2.59Amstrong)^2 one gets a diamond string (with square cross-section) of 1.532m length and 25.9um thickness side to side (half a hair) that retains the atomic spring constant of 440N/m or 0.44daN/cm (1daN~1kg)
If you bind up a half liter bottle of water with that (somewhat dangerous knife like) string it will bend around 1cm.

Putting one end of the sting in a vacuum filled square piston that seals tightly shows how little effect everyday pressures have at the micro and nanocosmos.
Taking 1bar = 10^5N/m^2 ambient pressure the string experiences a force of only 67.1µN and elongates 0.152µm an invisible amount.

'''Though''' as seen '''bonds are rather compliable DMEs are still hard diamond since''' [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness hardness] is closely related to
'''tensile and compressive stress''' which '''is scale invariant'''.
The small force representation of high pressures might be a bit counterintuitive and hard to grasp.

Low stiffness is an important design restriction for nanomanipulators.
(see related topic: [http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/6dof.html A New Family of Six Degree Of Freedom Positional Devices])

By making the compliance at the nanolevel experiencable
the model with the weight on the ''one bond equivalent diamond string'' should make one (maybe obvious) '''practical thing''' clear.
That '''it is very effective to focus forces'''.

In [[mechanosynthesis]] conical tips can easily focus forces down to a more compliable size level. Not much of a size difference is needed.
Nanoscale manipulators in the [[machine phase]] can hold back on their supporting structures they're mounted to.
It is easy to create DMEs with high internal strains such as strained shell cylindrical structures, press fittings, structures under high tensile stress and more.
'''Great amounts of elastic energy can be stored''' (permanently or temporarily).

An example of safely usable pressures from [[Nanosystems]] section 2.3.2.: 
Assuming ~1% strain the required stress is ~1% of diamonds young modulus.
10nN/nm^2 = 10GPa = 1000daN/mm^2 (1daN~1kg)
this is 20% of the tensile strength of macro-scale diamond with natural flaws.
Flawless [[mechanosynthesis|mechanosynthetically]] assembled diamond will be capable of handling more stress.

== Forces from shearing stresses ==

[Todo: add info about shearing stress]

=== Surfaces ===

When viewing the thickness of a surface as the distance from the point of maximally attractive VdW force to the point of equally repulsive VdW force (experienced by some probing tip) the thickness of the surface relative to the thickness of the diamondoid part is enormous.
This makes DMEs somewhat soft in compressibility but not all that much as can be guessed by the compressibility of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPG single crystalline graphite] which is a stack of graphene sheets.

['''Todo''': discuss stiffness changing effects of mechanical chaining]

= Scaling laws for electrical properties =

Taken from [[Nanosystems]] (with some liberties to make a direct electrostatic vs magnetostatic comparison) 

For eventually calculating the scaling laws for the powers (and power densities) by multiplying the speeds with the various forces we 
first need the scaling law for speed. 

Speed is assumed scale invariant. This can be motivated by:
* the speed of sound being a scale invariant quantity (lumped parameters model) or more fundamentally
* the scaling laws for stiffness L1 and mass L3 – From (2.2) and (2.5) above respectively.
'''Basically we want to keep force-per-area-stresses caused by accelerations from a reciprocative motion constant across scales and this implies speed needing to be constant across scales.'''

(–.––) <math> speed \propto frequency \times length \propto L^{0} = constant </math> 
(2.07) <math> frequency \propto speed / length \propto L^{-1} </math> 
(2.08) <math> frequency \propto \sqrt{stiffness / mass} \propto L^{-1} </math> 
(1.09) <math> time \propto frequency^{-1} \propto L^{1} </math> 
(2.10) <math> speed \propto acceleration \times time \propto L^{0} = constant </math> 
----
We'll assume a scale invariant electric field strength since field strength is 
the limiting factor for scale dependent breakdown voltage: 
(–.––) <math> electric–field \propto L^{0} = constant </math> 
----
(2.19) <math> voltage \propto electric–field \times length \propto L^{1} </math> 
(–.––) <math> current \propto magnetic–field \times length \propto L^{2} </math> 
----
Same as above just flipped around: 
(–.––) <math> electric field \propto voltage / distance \propto L^{0} </math> 
(2.31) <math> magnetic field \propto current / distance \propto L^{1} </math> 
----
Why does/must the magnetic field scale with L1? 
Because ohmic resistance is the limiting factor for current like so: 
(2.21) <math> resistance \propto length / area \propto L^{-1} </math> 
(2.22) <math> current \propto voltage / resistance \propto L^{2} </math> 

== Forces ==

(2.01) <math> total mechanical strength \propto mechanical force \propto area \propto L^{2} </math> 
(2.20) <math> electrostatic force \propto area \times (electrostatic field)^{2} \propto L^{2} </math> 
(2.31) <math> magnetostatic force \propto area \times (magnetic field)^{2} \propto L^{4} </math> 
'''Example for electrostatic force:'''
* 1V/nm => 0.0044nN/nm2 = 4.4*10-12N/nm2 (1000x times lower than a typical covalent bond)
'''Example for magnetostatic force:'''
* two conductors 1nm long each 1nm apart 10nA => 2*10-23N (1011 times lower than the electostatic example above)
* one conductor 1nm long 10nA in a 1T field => 10-17N (105 times lower than the electostatic example above)
Unaltered citation from [[Nanosystems]]: 
"Magnetic forces between nanoscale current elements are usually negligible. 
Magnetic fields generated by magnetic materials, in contrast, are independent of scale: 
forces, energies, and so forth follow the scaling laws described for constant-field electrostatic systems".

== Powers ==

(2.11) <math> mechanical power \propto force \times speed \propto L^{2} </math> 
(2.26) <math> electrostatic power \propto electrostatic force \times speed \propto L^{2} </math> 
(–.––) <math> magnetostatic power \propto magnetostatic force \times speed \propto L^{4} </math> 

== Power densities ==

(2.11) <math> mechanical power density \propto mechanical power / volume \propto L^{-1} </math> 
(2.26) <math> electrostatic power density \propto electrostatic power / volume \propto L^{-1} </math> 
(–.––) <math> magnetostatic power density \propto magnetostatic power / volume \propto L^{+1} </math> 
Negative exponents are the good ones for scaling systems down. 
'''Halving a systems size:'''
* doubles electrostatic power density
* halves magnetostatic power density
Or put more drastically:
* '''A million times smaller electrostatic system has a million times higher power density.'''
* '''A million times smaller magnetostatic system has a million times lower power density.'''

== Energies ==

(–.––) <math> mechanical energy \propto volume \times pressure \propto L^{3} </math> 
(–.––) <math> electrostatic energy \propto volume \times electric field^2 \propto L^{3} </math> 
(2.26) <math> magnetostatic energy \propto volume \times magnetic field^2 \propto L^{5} </math> 
----
(–. ––) <math> capacitance \propto electrostatic energy / (voltage)^2 \propto L^{1} </math> 
(2.34) <math> inductance \propto magnetostatic energy / (current)^2 \propto L^{1} </math> 

(The corresponding integrated quantitative laws: C = 2E/U2; L = 2E/I2)

{{wikitodo|Add further relevant scaling laws & example calculation}}

Related: [[Non mechanical technology path]]

= Related =

* '''[[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]'''
* '''[[Same relative deflections across scales]]''' & [[Lower stiffness of smaller machinery]]
----
* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]
* [[Non size-scale scaling law]], [[Scaling law (disambiguation)]]
----
* [[Why larger bearing area of smaller machinery is not a problem]]
* '''[[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]''' & [[How macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale outperforms its native scale]]
* [[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]
* [[RepRec pick and place robots]]
* ([[Nanoscale style machinery at the macroscale]])
----
* [[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]]
* [[Lower stiffness of smaller machinery]]
* [[Unsupported rotating ring speed limit]] – speed is scale invariant – accelerations not
* Maybe not exactly a scaling law: [[Rising influence of quantum mechanics]]
----
* By using [[superlubrication|super lubricating]] [[infinitesimal bearing]]s one can cheat a bit on the naive scaling law for friction.
* [[Intuitive feel]]
* The degree of [[applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]
----
* [[Pages with math]]
* [[Elephants with spiderlegs]]
----

In some cases transitions
* do not follow polynomial laws but exponential ones or other and
* are different for different systems
* not only causable by changes in size scale
like e.g. the onset of quantum mechanical behavior. 
See: [[Quantum mechanics]]

== External Links ==

'''Wikipedia:'''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law Power law] – generally
----
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry Allometry] – (related: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_allometry Tree allometry])
----
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio] – (related: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule Allen's_rule])
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law Kleiber's law] – metabolic rate of animals over mass – (related: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_theory_of_ecology Metabolic theory of ecology])
----
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_flight#Hovering Insect_flight Hovering] – scaling of flapping frequency with size is not mathematically covered as of yet (state 2021)

'''Sketches:'''
* https://sketchplanations.com/the-square-cube-law
* https://sketchplanations.com/15-billion-heartbeats-in-a-lifetime

[[Category:Pages with math]]
[[Category:General]]
[[Category:Scaling law]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

The heat-overpowers-gravity size-scale

2026-03-29T20:40:23Z

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

When going down in the micro and nanoscale thermal motion becomes more and more relevant.
At the atomic scale gravity is pretty much irrelevant not because it's not present but because its very much overpowered at room temperature (~300K).

A natural question to ask to strengthen ones [[intuitive feel|intuition]] is:
* at which size does gravity start to play a notable role? Or:
* Is there a special size-scale where one could say that the "strength" of gravity overtakes "strength" of thermal motion?
As it turns out there is.

== Explanation ==

Thermal motion is characterized by the fact that every independent degree of freedom (DOF) gets on average a defined quantity of energy
(a statistical packet - not a quantum) determined by the temperature. This is called the "equipartitioning theorem".

A rigid particle has six DOFs (not considering inner vibrations) three angular rotation DOFs and three linear translation DOFs. We'll focus on the translation DOFs only.

Assuming by sheer chance the particle has exactly the average energy and its present in form of kinetic motion that points upwards exactly.
Now with constant temperature the thermal upward moving energy of the nanoparticle stays the same no matter which size the particle has but
the mass of the particle changes drastically with size. Halving the size shrinks the mass to an eighth, doubling the size blows the mass up eightfold (a cubic [[scaling law]]).
With rising size (and consequently much faster rising mass) but constant kinetic energy the "launch speed" goes down.

With rising size of the particle (cube side-length) the "rising hight" of its throwing parabola (motion upward till full stop) shrinks since the rising height of a throwing parabola of a particle is only given by the vertical starting speed.

At some point (specific size-scale) the "rising height" of the throwing parabola will become smaller than the particles actual dimensions.

This could be seen as the size-scale at which gravity overpowers heat (or vice versa depending on which direction one goes, shrinking or blowup).

== Discussion ==

While not too important technically (nothing notable happens when crossing this size-scale) its very useful for an [[intuitive feel|intuitive understanding]].

Since this size-scale depends on temperature and gravity it is different on other planets, moons, asteroids, ... .
* It can go way down in deeply cooled systems (quantum effects can kick in though.
* It can go up a bit in very hot systems.

At earth normal conditions particles at the size threshold still lie in the (upper) nanoscale. {{wikitodo|note exact size}}
Note that an actual experiment would be difficult because particles of this size scale like to stick to from wherever one wants to launch them from. (One does see brownian motion when free floating in a gas but the throwing parabolas are suppressed / dampened out exactly by this gas so the point is to conduct the experiment in a very good vacuum).

The smallest possible particles are atoms and molecules.
Since they are so light their throwing parabolas are really big.
Surprisingly this rising height can be easily observed.
Its the very crudely equal to the thickness of the atmosphere in therms of the height where the pressure falls to halve.

Note that except for extremely thin atmosphere (that may not even deserve to be called atmosphere) molecules collide a lot before completing a full throwing parabola (the mean free path is shorter than the rising height).

== Notes ==

{{wikitodo|add math and graph - and the critical size for a cube of diamond in earth conditions !!}} 
Very simple math: (Ekin=3/2kBT; v=sqrt(2E/m); m=rho*V; ...)

== Related ==

* [[Prefixes of size-scales]] (macro-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-)
* [[Spiky needle grabbing]]
* [[Free floating crystolecule]]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]