apm - User contributions [en]

Display pixels to gem-gum voxels analogy

2026-08-13T12:26:37Z

Apm: changed the wikitodo

{{stub}}
[[File:RGB analpgy (part 1 of 2).svg|800px|thumb|right|A bit like only three base colors RGB can make for all kinds of colors a few high performance base gemstone materials can make for all kinds of mechnical properties.]]

[[File:RGB analpgy (part 2 of 2).jpg|800px|thumb|right|[[Microcomponents]] could be shaped in many ways. Here the exampele shapes are based on "Voroni cells around points in a face-centered cubic (FCC) lattice" as done in nice work from George W. Hart here: https://www.georgehart.com/rp/FCC.html (the central blue images here) [[Crystolecular]] base [[metamaterial]]s may be mobile and deforming (like e.g. shearing in [[infinitesimal bearing]] metamaterials and [[muscle motor]] meteamaterials) requiring alignment to registry and locking into [[machine phase]] before disassembly (of assembly).]]

2D pixels making any sort of color with just 3 colors form a nice analogy to 
3D voxels forming any sort of mechanical (and other) material properties 
by usage of just a handful of [[Base materials with high potential|high performance base materials]]. 
Out of abundantly available chemical elements. 

{{wikitodo|Extend on the text here.}}

== Related ==

* [[Gemstone based metamaterial]]s
* [[Mechanical metamaterial]]s
* [[Metamaterial]]s
* '''[[Gem-gum]]'''
* [[Elasticity emulation]]
* [[Superelasticity]]
* [[Base materials with high potential]]
* [[Likely visual appearance of gem-gum products]]

Twice the surface area of half the volume

2026-08-13T12:25:36Z

Apm:

{{Stub}}
{{wikitodo|This title seems nonsensical. Find out why I had picked that and explain or change.}}

A quite widely known scaling law. 
See: [[Scaling law]]

== Related ==

* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]
* Special case: [[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]]
* [[Scaling law]]

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio]

[[Category:Scaling law]]

Twice the surface area of half the volume

2026-08-13T12:25:23Z

Apm: added a wikitodo on the issue with the title here

{{Stub}}
{{wikitodo|This title seems nonsencical. Find out why I had picked that and explain or change.}}

A quite widely known scaling law. 
See: [[Scaling law]]

== Related ==

* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]
* Special case: [[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]]
* [[Scaling law]]

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio]

[[Category:Scaling law]]

Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts

2026-08-13T12:22:16Z

Apm: /* Related */ Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology

A well known [[scaling law]] with some availability bias of over other [[lesser known scaling laws]] 
that need to be looked at too to get the full picture.

== Consequences & counters ==

★ '''Higher surface available for chemical reactions'''; higher catalytic activity; see page: [[Oxidation]] countered by 
– [[sealing of the sensitive interior]] (fruit interior analogy) & 
– picking the right non-reactive stiff for the exterior e.g. by H of F passivated diamond (see: [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]) 

★ '''[[Higher bearing surface area of smaller machinery]]''' countered by 
– [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]] and 
– the paradoxically seeming approach of [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]] 

★ '''[[Less effective thermal insulation of smaller machinery]]''' 
– Don't do mechanosynthesis in free floating nanobots. This is a bad idea for many other reasons not only including safety. 

★ '''[[More difficult cooling of bigger machinery]]''' (equivalently to the preceding just the flipped viewpoint) 
– Be aware of [[limits of power density imposed by limits of cooling]], 
… the absurdly high seeming values for [[power density]] stated in the book [[Nanosystems]] 
… do not take cooling into account (so meant but not well and clear stated). 
… These values do only hold for systems so small that they are still steady state coolable 
… exclusive or short bursts in bulk where the thermal capacity can take the waste heat without thermal damage. 

== This scaling law as major source of criticism towards proposed [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] ==

This well known scaling law and its consequences is one of the most predictably upcoming 
criticisms towards the idea of [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]. 
But the here mentioned counters are rarely seen as these come from … 
★ [[lesser known scaling laws]] 
★ assumptions based on current day experimental capability limits 
– e.g. limited sealing against rest gasses in UHV, 
– [[FAPP]] perfect vacuum [[PPV]] not yet achievable due to chamber volume smallness and sealing quality and surface quality limits) 

== Related ==

* [[Bigger surface area of smaller machinery]] … more redundant page
* [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]] … somewhat redundant page
* [[Scaling laws]]
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Oxidation]]
----
* [[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]

== External links ==

* [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])

Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology

2026-08-13T12:21:32Z

Apm: /* Rising surface area per volume (SL) */

[[File:Infosheet-macromech-at-nanoscale-common-critiques--small-pixelgraphic.png|400px|thumb|right|All these common critiques have been analyzed and identified as non-showstoppers some even helping rather than hurting.]]

This page coveres common critique directed towards [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] and [[Gem-gum technology|gemstone based atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]. These critique points are common due to …
* expert knowledge of scaling laws that is incomplete in important areas
* current day experimental restrictions

'''Guide for responding to critique:''' 
This page can be seen as a guide for how to best respond to such critique. 
Fight scaling laws with scaling laws.

'''Page organization:''' 
The common critique points are mainly organized by how they relates to scaling laws and to each other.
Some further critique is related to mechanochemistry.

For a more general & free-form discussion see page: 
'''[[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]]''' 
There may be some redundant overlap in discussion.

= Scaling law (SL) based critiques =

== Rising '''surface area''' per volume (SL) ==

Main page: [[Bigger surface area of smaller machinery]] & [[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]

– rising '''friction''' power losses (TRUE BUT) 
See: '''[[Why larger bearing area of smaller machinery is not a problem]]''' 
– nanomachinery motions couple strongly to thermal motions (FALSE) 
Due to [[simulating crystolecules|practical reasons]] simulations are usually done at extremely high speeds >100m/s.
That is way above the actual proposed machine operation speeds of ~5mm/s or lower.
Also see: [[Stroboscopic illusion in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]. This can be quite misleading in judgement of friction levels. 

– rising '''corrosion rate''' (oxidation/rust) (FALSE) 
Systems are [[well sealed]] and expose only corrosion resistant surfaces to the outside. Internals are [[PPV]]. 
– '''perfect vacuum can't be created''' but is needed (FALSE) 
No [[PPV]] is not physically impossible. It is just unattainable with today's (2023) technology and macroscopic volumes.

– '''lubricants and dirt''' clog machinery like molasses and gravel (FALSE) 
Sealed systems again. Bearings run dry and are either slide-bearings or roller gear bearings.
Related: [[Atomically precise bearings]]

== Rising effect of '''viscosity''' (SL) ==

– '''lubricants and dirt''' clog machinery like molasses and gravel (FALSE) 
Dirt is already covered above. Systems operate dry. No liquids or gasses involved.
Well except in resource supply. There several strategies can be employed including:
* fractal supply channels
* last stretch diffusion transport
* compartmentalized transport of liquids ([[Capsule transport]])

== Rising influence of '''thermal motion''' (SL) ==

Nanomachinery motions couple strongly to thermal motions (FALSE) 
Already covered above.

★ '''placement of atoms''' is to unreliable (error rates) jittery and sloppy/wobbly fingers (FALSE) 

'''In context of general possibility:''' 
Sufficient [[lattice scaled stiffness]] to suppress constrain thermal motion amplitudes is attainable even at room temperature.
Error rates drop further exponentially with cooling.
Theoretical [[exploratory engineering]] analysis in the [[tooltip cycle paper]].
Experimental corroboration in a huge number of papers on subatomically precise imaging and atom manipulation. 
'''In context or of possibility across the bootstrapping [[pathways|pathway]].''' 
– The [[direct path]] goes straight to systems that have sufficient [[lattice scaled stiffness]]. The remaining (always finite) error rates can be dealt with several strategies and can be made [[FAPP]] sufficiently low. Some strategies easier for early primitive systems some harder. Strategies like [[out of place mechanosynthesis]], error detection (failed synthesis step / failed entire [[crystolecule]]), failed part disposal, and perhaps (but not necessarily) failed synthesis step error correction. That is possibly more challenging than the [[incremental path]] but not provenly so. 
– The [[incremental path]] proposes to go incrementally to stiffer more advanced materials or combine materials of different stiffness and different scalability. (Scalability in the sense of [[termination control]] not size). While [[fat fingers]] still apply initially for soft systems this restriction gradually diminishes with increasingly stiff materials. Machine phase can be attained gradually via [[topological atomic precision]], tether-aided selfassembly, site-activation-wash-in approaches, and [[Combining advantages of different selfassembly technologies]]. 
See also: [[Jittery fingers]], [[Wobbly fingers]], [[Sloppy fingers]]

★ atoms do not stay in place due to '''surface diffusion or surface reconstruction''' (FALSE) 
In strongly bonding covalent materials (including diamond) surface diffusion rates at room temperature are so astronomically low that [[FAPP]] atoms do not hop at room temperature. Even taking the large numbers of atoms in macroscopic objects into account. During [[mechanosynthesis]] the actively worked on patch of surface can be sufficiently stable too. So determined in the [[tooltip cycle paper]] ([[exploratory engineering]]). Cooling helps. For early primitive mechanosynthesis experiments are needed to identify and take on more immediate challenges. 
{{wikitodo|Add: Diamond depassivated surface reconstruction analysis paper}}

★ nanosystems can only work in an '''dynamic equilibrium''' (FALSE) 
This assumes unavoidability of high thermally induced bond braking rates and a need to deal with them. 
As discussed above (finite) thermally induced bond braking rated are [[FAPP]] zero for the far term target materials of interest. 
Early systems along the [[incremental path]] face the challenge of dynamic equilibrion, yes, but they do not disprove the existence of systems that are exempt. {{wikitodo|maybe explain further}}

* rising influence on '''quantum mechanics'''
* rising tendency towards '''themodynamic equilibrium'''

== Rising influence of '''quantum mechanics''' (SL) ==

Machinery quantum disperses, quantum collapses, and tunnels (FALSE) 
Runs apart omnidirecttionally, reappears elsewhere spontaneously, moves through itself and walls. 
See: [[Nanomechanics is barely mechanical quantummechanics]]

== Rising tendency towards '''thermodynamic equilibrium''' (SL) ==

Perfect vacuum can't be created but is needed (FALSE) 
Already covered above.

– '''diffusion transport''' is (fundamentally) more efficient (FALSE) 
In fact the opposite may be true due to the trick of [[dissipation sharing]] not being usable in diffusion transport. 
– '''nature would have done it''' if it where possible (FALSE) 
See: [[Nature does it differently]]

– atoms do not stay in place due to '''natural ambient high energy radiation''' (TRUE BUT) 
It is true that that some radiation can not be shielded against. Especially with smaller systems/devices not even giving enough space for shielding against hard UV. But expectable radiation damage seems to be low enough to be dealable with though via [[Redundancy|redundant system design]] (fail-safe redundancy) alone. Disassemblying component testing and reassembing or even having difficult [[self repair]]ing systems are a bonus.
This has been analyzed in [[Nanosystems]] and reviews would be appreciated.

– nanosystems can only work in an '''dynamic equilibrium''' (FALSE) 
Covered above. 
– '''nature would have done it''' if it where possible (FALSE) 
Covered above.

== Falling '''material stiffness''' (SL) ==

– '''placement of atoms''' is to unreliable (error rates) jittery and sloppy fingers (FALSE) 
Covered above. Also see: [[Same relative deflections across scales]] for the aspect of deflections from mechanical accelerations. 
Deflections from machine motions (rather than thermal agitation) are [[FAPP]] zero at proposed speeds of ~5mm/s.

== Falling '''available space''' (SL) – obviously ==

– '''Not enough space''' for all the manipulators (TRUE BUT) 
See: [[Fat fingers]] and [[Atom placement frequency]]

== Rising influence of '''intermolecular forces''' (SL) ==

– '''atoms adhere to manipulators''' "sticky fingers" (TRUE & GOOD THING) 
See: [[Sticky finger problem]]

= Mechanochemistry related critiques =

potential problems with '''machine phase chemistry''' including mechanosynthesis 
All of the following already covered above.
* '''placement of atoms''' is to unreliable (error rates) jittery and sloppy fingers (FALSE) 
* '''perfect vacuum can't be created''' but is needed (FALSE) 
* '''atoms adhere to manipulators''' "sticky fingers" (TRUE & GOOD THING)
* '''Not enough space''' for all the manipulators (TRUE BUT) 

= Potential problems not based on any scaling laws =

– '''too difficult''', castel in the sky, chicken egg problem (FALSE) 
– advocating stiff nanomachinery but forking with soft nanomachinery to get to stiff nanomachinery ASAP is '''hypocrism''' (FALSE) 
– it's better to '''just wait and see''' (FALSE) '''& the worst possible decision'''

= Related =

* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]] (older less systematic page)
----
* '''[[General tips for productive communication]]'''
* [[Finger problems]]
----
* Using [[gemstone-like compounds]]/[[gemstone]]s instead of '''[[pure metals and metal alloys]]''' removes issues of surface [[oxidation]] and surface [[diffusion]].

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

File:Mesobrick1-openscad.png

2026-08-13T12:19:50Z

Apm: /* Summary */

== Summary ==

Author: Lukas Süss - 
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 / GFDL 1.2 - 
Description: 
A cube shaped sub-product block assembled from ~1µm sized [[microcomponent]]s with truncated octahedral shape. 
The whole block is just a bit below human eye visibility limit. 

== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-3.0}}

File:Mesobrick1-openscad.png

2026-08-13T12:19:32Z

Apm: /* Summary */

== Summary ==

Author: Lukas Süss - 
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 - 
Description: 
A cube shaped sub-product block assembled from ~1µm sized [[microcomponent]]s with truncated octahedral shape. 
The whole block is just a bit below human eye visibility limit. 

== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-3.0}}

File:Mesobrick1-openscad.png

2026-08-13T12:19:14Z

Apm: /* Summary */ linebreaks

== Summary ==

Author: Lukas Süss - 
License: CC-BY - 
Description: 
A cube shaped sub-product block assembled from ~1µm sized [[microcomponent]]s with truncated octahedral shape. 
The whole block is just a bit below human eye visibility limit. 

== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-3.0}}

Global microcomponent redistribution system

2026-08-13T12:17:46Z

Apm:

{{Template:Site specific definition}}
[[File:Global-microcomponent-redistribution-system-concept-sketch.svg|1024px|thumb|center|For better overview a vertical cross-section concept graphic showing left to right: ocean-harvest, coast-harbour, long range superlube tube transport, routing station, underground cache, residental area terminals, off-grid use]]

[[File:Photo of a iridescent friendly futuristic organically shaped telephone booth standing beside a path in a park in summer photo.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|More or less random artistic concept of an outdoor terminal providing access to the global microcomponent redistribution system. This image combines the concept of a telephone cell, organic shapes from lack of manufacturing restrictions, and a park like environment replacing outdoor agriculture. There are a gazillion ways [[Form factors of gem-gum factories|this could look totally different]] and be located some different place. (Dall·E 3)]]

[[File:GMRS-large-scale-regional-cache.png|400px|thumb|right|A large scale regional [[microcomponent cache]]
for a [[global microcomponent redistribution system]]. This above surface one is for show. Large ones like this one would most likely be buried deeply underground as they represent a great deal of concentrated value and critical infrastructure. Advanced [[APM]] allows for much more decentralization compared to today's (2024) technology. But completely distributed systems on the extreme have their downsides too. Thus larger repositories are likely to emerge.]]

[[File:CO2-harvester-buoy-back-to-harbour.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Offshore CO2 and energy harvesteing using (an enormous number of) specialized solar powered semi-mobile buoys. This one may be on the way back to the harbor where is unloads it's harvest into the '''global microcomponent redistribution system'''. More about this on the pages: [[Carbon capture buoy scenario]] & [[Mobile carbon dioxide collector buoy]].]]
----
A global '''microcomponent redistribution system''' would be a transport network for resources for [[gem-gum factories]]. 
And [[gem-gum factories]] is what you'd find on its end point terminals. 
The outlets of the microcomponent redistribution system could be dubbed '''facucets for things'''. 

Microcomponent redistribution systems are one kind of the more general class of "[[superlube tube]]s". 
As these are defined here on this wiki. [[Non-pneumatic tube mail]] would be an other. 

----
Up: [[Transportation and transmission]]

= High design effort =

Note that the microcomponent redistribution system technology sketched out here seems quite beyond
basic [[gemstone metamaterial technology]] with [[gem-gum factories]].
It requires lots of different gemstone metamaterials to be developed and to be working in a complex interplay.
* As such eventual infeasibility of the ideas presented here does not imply infeasibility of the more fundamental individual base technologies.
* As such the ideas presented here may not be to expect early after arriving at the basic target technology.

Particularly challenging design aspects seem to be T-Junctions and endpoint plugs to nanofactories,
since there packages of microcomponents need to be reorganized repackaged and
moved between different shear bearing rails on the go without anything stopping in motion.

= Motivations - why such a system? =

* Minimization of [[diamondoid waste]] by enabling more [[recycling]]
* Enabling sometimes practically "instant rezzing" assembly speeds

Instead of mechanosynthesizing and assembling new microcomponents of type A it's better to use the same the same microcomponents of type A that someone else already has made. Having a very fast microcomponent redistribution system makes it much more likely that such a reuse actually happened.
Rapid version upgrades could throw a wrench into that idea though.

Mechanosynthesis from scratch is more energy inefficient and slower than mere microcomponent recomposition because more and stronger bonds need to be broken and re-formed. Thus a microcomponent redistribution system that makes the latter more likely and common is desirable.

= Transported resources =

* already pre-mechanosynthesized and pre assembled [[microcomponents]]
* resource molecule carrying microcapsules
* eventually dual used for also carrying chemical and or entropic energy

= Components of a microcomponent redistribution system =

== Microcomponent conductors ==

=== Shape look and feels ===

'''Endpoint microcomponent conductors''' might from the outside look very much like current day electrical cables.
Their diameter sufficiently big (not as thin as a thread) such that they
* are well visible
* are easy to pick up by human hand
* are not a cutting threat
Particularly clever metamaterials designs could eventually allow for a convenient cable [[selfdetorsioning]] proterty.

'''Intercontinental backbone microcomponent conductors''' will be considerably thicker.
And some sized in-between. Hard to tell how big. Some as thick as mains water pipes maybe.

=== Inner structure - cross section ===

While outside they may look like electric cables inside they are very different. 
Microcomponent conductors would have ultra low friction solid state mechanical transport inside.

It would basically be '''a wire thin vacuum pipe mail''' with
[[superlubricity|superlubricating]] [[stratified shear bearings]] as rails.
Just that the rails may go all around and the the inner space is so stuffed that there is barely any vacuum.

Microcompnents would be packed to small macroscopic packages a bit smaller than the conductors diameter (maybe millimetre sized).
In the backbone conductors packages may come together and travel as multi-packages thereby reducing track surface area and friction.

There is some remote similarity to internet data-packages today.
Of course matter can't travel at the speed of light by a long shot.
That can be mitigated by:
* local microcomponent caches
* still quite high transport speeds

Top speeds in Endpoint conductors may be limited by centrifugal forces causing the conductors to get out of control like a water house only much worse.
This could be countered by integrating [[muscle motor]] [[metamaterial]] in the conductor.
As a weird side-effect the conductor could then move itself around like a snake.

Top transport speeds in longe range intercontinental backbones conductors that run quite straight over long distances ++
might come close to or exceed the speed of spacecraft in orbit. So several kilometres per second.
These would most likely be deep underground for both land ownership and safety reasons.

== Nanofactory Terminals ==

Related: [[Form factors of gem-gum factories]]

=== Terminals at home (and portable) ===

In homes a standalone photocopier sized nanofactory permanently attached to the global microcomponent redistribution system might become common.

Also used at home might be portable laptop or tablet sized nanofactories.
For mobile use you'd plug in and charge up some also portable resource cartridges.
Probably with more commonly used microcomponents and more raw resources.

=== Terminals on streets ===

They could come out of the street like hydrants. Or telephone cells.
All these terminals would of course double as computing and communication devices.
Eventually even "spawnable" at locations where currently is only a backbone conductor underground.

Some old asphalt streets might right away get replaced with (nondeteriorating) gem-gum metamaterial streets.
Such streets would naturally come with a microcomponent conductor line integrated.

=== Keyfob sized nanofactory terminals ===

An endpoint microcomponent conductor plug alone without a nanofactory attached is rather useless.
As a minimal seed one could leave a keyfob sized nanofactory on.

A "redistribution network nanofactory leafs-pawning" functionality could be developed but this seems rather difficult.
Also eventually there is the specialized nanofactory for extending the network all the way to the thin wire like endpoint conductors and plugs.
That specialised nanofactory would alo need a means for being sent away and being recalled.

=== Terminal cleanup ===

The idea here is that once a nanofactory terminal is no longer needed
All the microcomponents of the terminal nanofactory can be sent away into microcomponent caches near locations where others will likely need them soon.
Or sent to final dissolution recycling.

== Microcomponent storage caches ==

These would ...
* ... operate somewhat like the data caches in modern computer systems. Keeping microcomponenst close to where they're probably soon needed next.
* ... be distributed in a somewhat scale invariant (aka fractal) fashion across the network.
* ... come in various sizes. Some central ones may become enormously big. Like skyscrapers or whole cities or [[highly localized mass concentrations|small mountains]].

{{wikitodo|To this page add an illustrative image for a microcomponent cache too.}}

== Component list ==

* Endpoint microcomponent conductors
* Backbone microcomponent conductors
* microcomponent conductor T-forks
* Microcomponent storage caches
* Terminal nanofactories
* specialised concuctor assemblingnanofactories
* plugs

= Local microcomponent redistribution systems =

* Marine ships
* Spaceships / space stations / asteroid mining
* redistribution systems on other celestial bodies in our solar system like Mars or Titan (see [[colonization of the solar system]])

Higher rates of [[radiation damage]] for insufficiently shielded microcomponent redistribution conductors in 
outer space may complicate the design by requiring more self repair capabilities.

= Old intro =

Sometime in the future there might be a global '''microcomponent redistribution system''' running through our streets into our houses leading to faucets where you tap from or dump to [[microcomponents]] (possibly into a portable storage device containing a [[microcomponent transport metamaterial]]). These can then via [[microcomponent recomposer device|microcomponent recomposer devices]] (that are either directly mounted to the faucet or separate and portable)
blazingly fast extruded to whatever (non-biological) thing you need.

This system would be part of an [[upgraded street infrastructure]].
Related: [[recycling]].

= Related =

* '''[[Mechanosphere]]'''
* '''[[Microcomponent recomposer device]]'''
* '''[[Microcomponent cache]]'''
* '''[[Microcomponent]]'''
----
* '''[[Superlube tubes]]'''
----
* [[Upgraded street infrastructure]]
* [[Mechanical energy transmission cables]]
* [[Transportation and transmission]]
----
* [[Capsule transport]]; [[Carrier pellets]]
* [[Superlube tube]]s
----
* [[Form factors of gem-gum factories]]
* ♻️ '''[[Recycling]]'''
* [[Microcomponent]]s
----
* [[Large scale construction]]
* [[Geoengineering mesh]]
----
* [[Exciting super far term visions for gemstone metamaterial technology]]

[[Category:Large scale construction]]
[[Category:Technology level III]]
[[Category:Site specific definitions]]
[[Category:Far term target]]

Global microcomponent redistribution system

2026-08-13T12:16:34Z

Apm:

{{Template:Site specific definition}}
[[File:Global-microcomponent-redistribution-system-concept-sketch.svg|1024px|thumb|center|For better overview a vertical cross-section concept graphic showing left to right: ocean-harvest, coast-harbour, long range superlube tube transport, routing station, underground cache, residental area terminals, off-grid use]]

[[File:Photo of a iridescent friendly futuristic organically shaped telephone booth standing beside a path in a park in summer photo.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|More or less random artistic concept of an outdoor terminal providing access to the global microcomponent redistribution system. This image combines the concept of a telephone cell, organic shapes from lack of manufacturing restrictions, and a park like environment replacing outdoor agriculture. There are a gazillion ways [[Form factors of gem-gum factories|this could look totally different]] and be located some different place. (Dall·E 3)]]

[[File:GMRS-large-scale-regional-cache.png|400px|thumb|right|A large scale regional [[microcomponent cache]]
for a [[global microcomponent redistribution system]]. This above surface one is for show. Large ones like this one would most likely be buried deeply underground as they represent a great deal of concentrated value and critical infrastructure. Advanced [[APM]] allows for much more decentralization compared to today's (2024) technology. But completely distributed systems on the extreme have their downsides too. Thus larger repositories are likely to emerge.]]

[[File:CO2-harvester-buoy-back-to-harbour.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Offshore CO2 and energy harvesteing using (an enormous number of) specialized solar powered semi-mobile buoys. This one may be on the way back to the harbor where is unloads it's harvest into the '''global microcomponent redistribution system'''. More about this on the pages: [[Carbon capture buoy scenario]] & [[Mobile carbon dioxide collector buoy]].]]
----
A global '''microcomponent redistribution system''' would be a transport network for resources for [[gem-gum factories]]. 
And [[gem-gum factories]] is what you'd find on its end point terminals. 
The outlets of the microcomponent redistribution system could be dubbed '''facucets for things'''. 

Microcomponent redistribution systems are one kind of the more general class of "[[superlube tube]]s".
As these are defined here on this wiki. [[Non-pneumatic tube mail]] would be an other. 

----
Up: [[Transportation and transmission]]

= High design effort =

Note that the microcomponent redistribution system technology sketched out here seems quite beyond
basic [[gemstone metamaterial technology]] with [[gem-gum factories]].
It requires lots of different gemstone metamaterials to be developed and to be working in a complex interplay.
* As such eventual infeasibility of the ideas presented here does not imply infeasibility of the more fundamental individual base technologies.
* As such the ideas presented here may not be to expect early after arriving at the basic target technology.

Particularly challenging design aspects seem to be T-Junctions and endpoint plugs to nanofactories,
since there packages of microcomponents need to be reorganized repackaged and
moved between different shear bearing rails on the go without anything stopping in motion.

= Motivations - why such a system? =

* Minimization of [[diamondoid waste]] by enabling more [[recycling]]
* Enabling sometimes practically "instant rezzing" assembly speeds

Instead of mechanosynthesizing and assembling new microcomponents of type A it's better to use the same the same microcomponents of type A that someone else already has made. Having a very fast microcomponent redistribution system makes it much more likely that such a reuse actually happened.
Rapid version upgrades could throw a wrench into that idea though.

Mechanosynthesis from scratch is more energy inefficient and slower than mere microcomponent recomposition because more and stronger bonds need to be broken and re-formed. Thus a microcomponent redistribution system that makes the latter more likely and common is desirable.

= Transported resources =

* already pre-mechanosynthesized and pre assembled [[microcomponents]]
* resource molecule carrying microcapsules
* eventually dual used for also carrying chemical and or entropic energy

= Components of a microcomponent redistribution system =

== Microcomponent conductors ==

=== Shape look and feels ===

'''Endpoint microcomponent conductors''' might from the outside look very much like current day electrical cables.
Their diameter sufficiently big (not as thin as a thread) such that they
* are well visible
* are easy to pick up by human hand
* are not a cutting threat
Particularly clever metamaterials designs could eventually allow for a convenient cable [[selfdetorsioning]] proterty.

'''Intercontinental backbone microcomponent conductors''' will be considerably thicker.
And some sized in-between. Hard to tell how big. Some as thick as mains water pipes maybe.

=== Inner structure - cross section ===

While outside they may look like electric cables inside they are very different. 
Microcomponent conductors would have ultra low friction solid state mechanical transport inside.

It would basically be '''a wire thin vacuum pipe mail''' with
[[superlubricity|superlubricating]] [[stratified shear bearings]] as rails.
Just that the rails may go all around and the the inner space is so stuffed that there is barely any vacuum.

Microcompnents would be packed to small macroscopic packages a bit smaller than the conductors diameter (maybe millimetre sized).
In the backbone conductors packages may come together and travel as multi-packages thereby reducing track surface area and friction.

There is some remote similarity to internet data-packages today.
Of course matter can't travel at the speed of light by a long shot.
That can be mitigated by:
* local microcomponent caches
* still quite high transport speeds

Top speeds in Endpoint conductors may be limited by centrifugal forces causing the conductors to get out of control like a water house only much worse.
This could be countered by integrating [[muscle motor]] [[metamaterial]] in the conductor.
As a weird side-effect the conductor could then move itself around like a snake.

Top transport speeds in longe range intercontinental backbones conductors that run quite straight over long distances ++
might come close to or exceed the speed of spacecraft in orbit. So several kilometres per second.
These would most likely be deep underground for both land ownership and safety reasons.

== Nanofactory Terminals ==

Related: [[Form factors of gem-gum factories]]

=== Terminals at home (and portable) ===

In homes a standalone photocopier sized nanofactory permanently attached to the global microcomponent redistribution system might become common.

Also used at home might be portable laptop or tablet sized nanofactories.
For mobile use you'd plug in and charge up some also portable resource cartridges.
Probably with more commonly used microcomponents and more raw resources.

=== Terminals on streets ===

They could come out of the street like hydrants. Or telephone cells.
All these terminals would of course double as computing and communication devices.
Eventually even "spawnable" at locations where currently is only a backbone conductor underground.

Some old asphalt streets might right away get replaced with (nondeteriorating) gem-gum metamaterial streets.
Such streets would naturally come with a microcomponent conductor line integrated.

=== Keyfob sized nanofactory terminals ===

An endpoint microcomponent conductor plug alone without a nanofactory attached is rather useless.
As a minimal seed one could leave a keyfob sized nanofactory on.

A "redistribution network nanofactory leafs-pawning" functionality could be developed but this seems rather difficult.
Also eventually there is the specialized nanofactory for extending the network all the way to the thin wire like endpoint conductors and plugs.
That specialised nanofactory would alo need a means for being sent away and being recalled.

=== Terminal cleanup ===

The idea here is that once a nanofactory terminal is no longer needed
All the microcomponents of the terminal nanofactory can be sent away into microcomponent caches near locations where others will likely need them soon.
Or sent to final dissolution recycling.

== Microcomponent storage caches ==

These would ...
* ... operate somewhat like the data caches in modern computer systems. Keeping microcomponenst close to where they're probably soon needed next.
* ... be distributed in a somewhat scale invariant (aka fractal) fashion across the network.
* ... come in various sizes. Some central ones may become enormously big. Like skyscrapers or whole cities or [[highly localized mass concentrations|small mountains]].

{{wikitodo|To this page add an illustrative image for a microcomponent cache too.}}

== Component list ==

* Endpoint microcomponent conductors
* Backbone microcomponent conductors
* microcomponent conductor T-forks
* Microcomponent storage caches
* Terminal nanofactories
* specialised concuctor assemblingnanofactories
* plugs

= Local microcomponent redistribution systems =

* Marine ships
* Spaceships / space stations / asteroid mining
* redistribution systems on other celestial bodies in our solar system like Mars or Titan (see [[colonization of the solar system]])

Higher rates of [[radiation damage]] for insufficiently shielded microcomponent redistribution conductors in 
outer space may complicate the design by requiring more self repair capabilities.

= Old intro =

Sometime in the future there might be a global '''microcomponent redistribution system''' running through our streets into our houses leading to faucets where you tap from or dump to [[microcomponents]] (possibly into a portable storage device containing a [[microcomponent transport metamaterial]]). These can then via [[microcomponent recomposer device|microcomponent recomposer devices]] (that are either directly mounted to the faucet or separate and portable)
blazingly fast extruded to whatever (non-biological) thing you need.

This system would be part of an [[upgraded street infrastructure]].
Related: [[recycling]].

= Related =

* '''[[Mechanosphere]]'''
* '''[[Microcomponent recomposer device]]'''
* '''[[Microcomponent cache]]'''
* '''[[Microcomponent]]'''
----
* '''[[Superlube tubes]]'''
----
* [[Upgraded street infrastructure]]
* [[Mechanical energy transmission cables]]
* [[Transportation and transmission]]
----
* [[Capsule transport]]; [[Carrier pellets]]
* [[Superlube tube]]s
----
* [[Form factors of gem-gum factories]]
* ♻️ '''[[Recycling]]'''
* [[Microcomponent]]s
----
* [[Large scale construction]]
* [[Geoengineering mesh]]
----
* [[Exciting super far term visions for gemstone metamaterial technology]]

[[Category:Large scale construction]]
[[Category:Technology level III]]
[[Category:Site specific definitions]]
[[Category:Far term target]]

File:Global-microcomponent-redistribution-system-concept-sketch.svg

2026-08-13T12:12:57Z

Apm: /* Summary */ linebreaks

== Summary ==

Date: 2026-07-28 
Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechandense 
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 / GFDL 1.2 

== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=redundant}}

File:Global-microcomponent-redistribution-system-concept-sketch.svg

2026-08-13T12:11:09Z

Apm: Date: 2026-07-28 Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechandense License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 / GFDL 1.2

== Summary ==
Date: 2026-07-28
Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechandense
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 / GFDL 1.2
== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=redundant}}

Display pixels to gem-gum voxels analogy

2026-08-13T12:05:15Z

Apm:

{{stub}}
[[File:RGB analpgy (part 1 of 2).svg|800px|thumb|right|A bit like only three base colors RGB can make for all kinds of colors a few high performance base gemstone materials can make for all kinds of mechnical properties.]]

[[File:RGB analpgy (part 2 of 2).jpg|800px|thumb|right|[[Microcomponents]] could be shaped in many ways. Here the exampele shapes are based on "Voroni cells around points in a face-centered cubic (FCC) lattice" as done in nice work from George W. Hart here: https://www.georgehart.com/rp/FCC.html (the central blue images here) [[Crystolecular]] base [[metamaterial]]s may be mobile and deforming (like e.g. shearing in [[infinitesimal bearing]] metamaterials and [[muscle motor]] meteamaterials) requiring alignment to registry and locking into [[machine phase]] before disassembly (of assembly).]]

2D pixels making any sort of color with just 3 colors form a nice analogy to 
3D voxels forming any sort of mechanical (and other) material properties 
by usage of just a handful of [[Base materials with high potential|high performance base materials]]. 
Out of abundantly available chemical elements. 

{{wikitodo|Add the two existing illustrative images.}}

== Related ==

* [[Gemstone based metamaterial]]s
* [[Mechanical metamaterial]]s
* [[Metamaterial]]s
* '''[[Gem-gum]]'''
* [[Elasticity emulation]]
* [[Superelasticity]]
* [[Base materials with high potential]]
* [[Likely visual appearance of gem-gum products]]

Display pixels to gem-gum voxels analogy

2026-08-13T12:04:18Z

Apm: Added second illustrative image.

{{stub}}
[[File:RGB analpgy (part 1 of 2).svg|800px|thumb|right|A bit like only three base colors RGB can make for all kinds of colors a few high performance base gemstone materials can make for all kinds of mechnical properties.]]

[[File:RGB analpgy (part 2 of 2).jpg|800px|thumb|right|[[Microcomponents]] could be shaped in many ways. Here the exampele shapes are based on "Voroni cells around points in a face-centered cubic (FCC) lattice" as done in nice work from George W. Hart here: https://www.georgehart.com/rp/FCC.html [[Crystolecular]] base [[metamaterial]]s may be mobile and deforming (like e.g. shearing in [[infinitesimal bearing]] metamaterials and [[muscle motor]] meteamaterials) requiring alignment to registry and locking into [[machine phase]] before disassembly (of assembly).]]

2D pixels making any sort of color with just 3 colors form a nice analogy to 
3D voxels forming any sort of mechanical (and other) material properties 
by usage of just a handful of [[Base materials with high potential|high performance base materials]]. 
Out of abundantly available chemical elements. 

{{wikitodo|Add the two existing illustrative images.}}

== Related ==

* [[Gemstone based metamaterial]]s
* [[Mechanical metamaterial]]s
* [[Metamaterial]]s
* '''[[Gem-gum]]'''
* [[Elasticity emulation]]
* [[Superelasticity]]
* [[Base materials with high potential]]
* [[Likely visual appearance of gem-gum products]]

File:RGB analpgy (part 2 of 2).jpg

2026-08-13T11:51:22Z

Apm: Date: 2024-06-24 Collage Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechadense License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 Central images by George W. Hart http://www.georgehart.com/rp/FCC.html assuming fair use

== Summary ==
Date: 2024-06-24 
Collage Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechadense 
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 

Central images by George W. Hart 
http://www.georgehart.com/rp/FCC.html 
assuming fair use 
== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=redundant}}

Display pixels to gem-gum voxels analogy

2026-08-13T11:43:36Z

Apm: added illustrative image 1 of 2

{{stub}}
[[File:RGB analpgy (part 1 of 2).svg|800px|thumb|right|A bit like only three base colors RGB can make for all kinds of colors a few high performance base gemstone materials can make for all kinds of mechnical properties.]]

2D pixels making any sort of color with just 3 colors form a nice analogy to 
3D voxels forming any sort of mechanical (and other) material properties 
by usage of just a handful of [[Base materials with high potential|high performance base materials]]. 
Out of abundantly available chemical elements. 

{{wikitodo|Add the two existing illustrative images.}}

== Related ==

* [[Gemstone based metamaterial]]s
* [[Mechanical metamaterial]]s
* [[Metamaterial]]s
* '''[[Gem-gum]]'''
* [[Elasticity emulation]]
* [[Superelasticity]]
* [[Base materials with high potential]]
* [[Likely visual appearance of gem-gum products]]

File:RGB analpgy (part 1 of 2).svg

2026-08-13T11:34:30Z

Apm: Date: 2024-06-24 Collage Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechadense License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 == Included in the collage: == Source: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Truncated_Octahedron_in_Grid.svg wikimedia commons] Author: JakobVoss License: CC-BY-SA 3.0 Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Truncated_octahedra_b.png Authors: AndrewKepert, derivative work: SharkD License: CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported / GFDL 1.2 Source: https://commons.wikim...

== Summary ==
Date: 2024-06-24 
Collage Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechadense 
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 

== Included in the collage: ==

Source: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Truncated_Octahedron_in_Grid.svg wikimedia commons] 
Author: JakobVoss 
License: CC-BY-SA 3.0 

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Truncated_octahedra_b.png 
Authors: AndrewKepert, derivative work: SharkD 
License: CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported / GFDL 1.2 

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calcite_jaune.jpg 
License: Public Domain 
Description: A crystal of calcite - a form calcium carbonate CaCO3 

{{wikitodo|Find & add other sources (quartz & diamond).}}
== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=redundant}}

Atomic orbitals

2026-08-13T10:09:00Z

Apm: /* Related */

[[File:Libfive p-orbital Screenshot 20201110 001820.png|400px|thumb|right|Positive lobe of a p-orbital (single electron solution for the Schrödinger equation) this was rendered using the software "libfive". Related: F-Rep in [[constructive solid geometry]] & [[List of programmatic 3D modelling tools]].]]

= Math for constructing orbitals =

== Raw solutions ==

Basic solutions of the Schrödinger equation for the one electron atomic orbitals (aka hydrogen-like atomic orbitals): 
(source – Demtröder 3 – page 149)

'''First shell s orbital:'''
* phi(n=1, l=0, m=0) = 1/sqrt(pi) * (Z/a_0)^(3/2) * exp(-(Z*r)/a_0)
'''Second shell s orbital:'''
* phi(n=2, l=0, m=0) = 1/(4*sqrt(2*pi)) * (Z/a_0)^(3/2) * (2-(Z*r)/a_0) * exp(-(Z*r)/(2*a_0))
'''Second shell three p orbitals:'''
* phi(n=2, l=1, m=0) = 1/(4*sqrt(2*pi)) * (Z/a_0)^(3/2) * (Z*r)/a_0 * exp(-(Z*r)/(2*a_0)) * cos(theta)
* phi(n=2, l=1, m=+-1) = 1/(8*sqrt(pi)) * (Z/a_0)^(3/2) * (Z*r)/a_0 * exp(-(Z*r)/(2*a_0)) * sin(theta) * exp(+-i*phi)
'''Third shell s orbital:'''
* phi(n=3, l=0, m=0) = ...

'''Shorthands for the basic solutions for the p orbitals:'''
* phi_pz = phi(n=2, l=1, m=0)
* phi_pa = phi(n=2, l=1, m=+1)
* phi_pb = phi(n=2, l=1, m=-1)

All what follows below is (for copy paste purposes) in a syntax that is 
compatible with most programming languages (e.g. python)

== Real valued helper orbitals ==

Adding two counter-rotating wave functions together in two different ways 
to get two static wave functions pointing in two static orthogonal directions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Real_orbitals
* phi_px = 1/sqrt(2) * (phi_pa + phi_pb)
* phi_py = -i/sqrt(2)* (phi_pa - phi_pb)

For a better understanding of what is going on here: 
When separating the exp(+-i*phi) part into cos(+-i*pi) + i*sin(+-i*phi) 
One can see a phase shift of 90° between real and imaginary part of the wave function. 
The direction of the phase shift determined the direction of the rotation. 
That works for electrons travelling as wave packets in free space too. 
Here the electron is delocalized over the whole 360° though. 
So the rotation is not no observable as a moving packet of electron density.

== Building the hybrid orbitals (single electron hydrogen-like atom orbitals) ==

'''sp1 orbitals:'''
* phi_spa = 1/sqrt(2) * (phi_2s + phi_2pz)
* phi_spb = 1/sqrt(2) * (phi_2s - phi_2pz)

'''sp2 orbitals:'''
* phi_sp20 = 1/sqrt(3) * (phi_2s + sqrt(2) * phi_2pz)
* phi_sp2p = 1/sqrt(3) * (phi_2s - sqrt(1/2) * phi_2px + 1/sqrt(3/2) * phi_2py)
* phi_sp2n = 1/sqrt(3) * (phi_2s - sqrt(1/2) * phi_2px - 1/sqrt(3/2) * phi_2py)
TODO In which direction do these orbitals point relative to the axes?

'''sp3 orbitals:''' 
The sp3 orbitals are oriented in the 111 directions (which is natural since highest symmetry)
* ① phi_sp3ppp = 1/2 * (phi_2s + phi_2px + phi_2py + phi_2pz)
* ② phi_sp3pnn = 1/2 * (phi_2s + phi_2px - phi_2py - phi_2pz)
* ③ phi_sp3npn = 1/2 * (phi_2s - phi_2px + phi_2py - phi_2pz)
* ④ phi_sp3nnp = 1/2 * (phi_2s - phi_2px - phi_2py + phi_2pz)

== Next steps ==

=== Accounting for shielding/screening ===

Unfortunately the nice orbitals for one electron hydrogen-like atoms (which are nice exact analytic solutions of the Schrödinger equation)
are not applicable anymore to atoms with two or more electrons (or molecules).
The problem is the combination of ...
* ... that electrons mutually repulse each other and
* ... that electrons are not localized in a small enough space that they can be assumed to be point charges (static aka non-moving). Like done with the positively charged atomic core nucleus.

In effect this leads to a shielding/screening effect that (with distance from the nucleus increasingly) hides the charge of the core from the electrons. Particularly the higher the electron shell the more electrons are "below" and the more screening it experiences.
Ignoring shielding/screening would lead to errors >100% so this absolutely must be dealt with.

A first approximation is to assume that electrons are repulsed by the electron density cloud of all the other electrons (the "mean field")
This is ignoring short lived virtual particle states. (These are responsible e.g. for the rather small [[london disprsion force]]s.)
Still this will give at least "chemical accuracies" that are reasonably in the ballpark.

In practice accounting for shielding/screening is done by
choosing some sort of approximation orbitals that ...
* ... can take a parameter for the shielding/screening effect
* ... may be qualitatively different form the hydrogen-like atom orbitals

Unfortunately instead of choosing qualitatively different orbitals to
better match the now qualitatively different electric potential (deviating from simple 1/r)
qualitatively different orbitals are typically rather chosen to improve on computing efficiency (including making things manageably computable in the first place). There are at least two types of commonly used approximation orbitals
* (1) Slater-type orbitals
* (2) Gaussian-type orbitals
* ... ???
Both (1) and (2) sweep nodes in the wave function generously under the rug (to check). Gaussian type orbitals are especially crude.

'''Next step:''' Construct these approximation orbitals that take into account the shielding/screening effect of the inner electrons.

Superposing Slater-type approximation orbitals while adhering to the Pauli exclusion principle (two electrons with opposing spin per orbital)
should gives at least a crude electron density distribution.

Naive superposition of such approximation orbitals of adjacent atoms in a molecule or crystal (or [[crystolecule]]) leads to
even more not insignificant errors though.

When it comes to visualization-only purposes this should already give some nice reasonable looking results.
So maybe one can stop here if it's only for that.

Going further gets into serious business.

=== Ignoring entanglement between electrons in first approximation ===

For a more accurate modelling of the "real" situation the modelling would need to be done in an holistic way.
That is: All electrons must be described by one single multi particle wave function that cannot be fully disentangled into individual electron states.
That is because in the general situation there can be at least a bit of quantum entanglement between the electrons.

In practice as first approximation it's assumed though that the electrons are mostly non-entangled.
That is that the multi particle wave function can be written as a product of single particle wave functions. Product states.
Entangled states are exactly the ones that cannot be written as product states.
Some modelling methods later on introduce ways to account for the error that originates from ignoring entanglement here.

Note: There is no entanglement in the case for one electron hydrogen-like atoms. These are fully disentangled.

=== Accounting for particle indistinguishability ===

At last for the Hartree-Fock method the product state for the multi particle wave function
needs to be constructed such that the swapping two "[[particle]]" positions leads to a swap of sign of the multi particle wave function.
* This must be modeled because this is an inherent property of fermions which include electrons. Details go into [[more fundamental physics]].
* This is called antisymmetrization
* This is done by means of a Slater determinant (that come with some properties that are important to know for calculations)

{{wikitodo|Find out how to construct an initial guess wave function for density functional theory (DFT) and note it here – this info is hard to find}}

= d-orbitals and f-orbitals =

d-orbitals and f-orbitals (as they fall out of the Schrödinger equation math) do not match the real situation well. 
What typically is used instead is crystal field theory or [[ligand field theory]]. This can be used for predicting:
* presence of unpaired spins (magnetism) and
* magnitude of low energy energy gaps translating into F- center color absorption and colors of gemstones

Relevant for practical nano-engineering: 
Documented structure of natural minerals (and decently stable synthetic compounds) can often give a hint about which coordination d-block and f-block metal atoms are most happy with.

= What are atomic orbitals useful for? =

== Hard math ==

Orbitals (and linear supperpositions of them) can serve as a basis for highly accurate [[quantumchemistry simulations]]. 
Both in solid state physics and also in physics of individual molecules any physical phase. 

For [[gem-gum-tec]] most relevant is perhaps the simulation [[tooltip chemistry]] in [[piezomechanosynthesis]].

For metals often something as crude as linear combinations of gaussian bell distributions is used instead of atomic orbitals.

== Artistic side ==

What should not be understated regarding science communication: 
Orbitals can also be used for nice artistic visualization that (while still being an somewhat crude approximation) 
are a bit more accurate than some painfully unphysical metaball blob nonsense.
Less artistically pleasing the standard visualizations are of course 
Ball-and-stick or space-filling CPK visualizaton (Corey Pauling Koltun).

= Related =

* [[Useful math]]
* [[The basics of atoms]]
* [[The nature and shape of atoms]]
* [[Covalent bond]] – [[Coordinate bond]]
----
* [[Molecular dynamics simulation]] – such simulations use empirically fitted models rather than math derived from first principles
* [[Quantumchemistry simulations]]
* [[Ligand field theory]]
----
* '''[[Constructive solid geometry]]''' – F-Rep can be used to render isosurfaces of basic orbitals (one electron solutions)
----
* '''[[Molecular dynamics implementation cheat sheet]]'''

=== Math - how to find these solutions ===

There are plenty of resources describing this in excruciating detail. So just a rough outline here.
* Schrödinger equation (SG) in 3D - the static version suffices HΨ = EΨ where H is the Hamiltonian a differential operator extracting infromation about both potential and kinetic energy from the wave function.
* SG with the Hamiltonian containing the field of a nucleus as a point charge for the potential energy
* separation of variables - to solve the radial and the two spherical parts as separate equations (equations remaining linked only via eigenvalue constants which are the quantum numbers)
* do some smart linear super-positioning get to standing waves For an intuitive interpretation: A 90° phase shift between real and complex part indicates the direction of a moving/spinning wave. You want to get rid of that phase shift by superpositioning. Note that nothing that indicates direction of motion is visible in the absolute square.
----
As a side-note: 
Beyond basic math for orbitals if there is need to project orbitals into a different basis there are the '''Klebsch Gordan coefficients'''.

== External links ==

Qunantum numbers:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_number
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_quantum_number
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_quantum_number
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_quantum_number
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_quantum_number

Inner electrons screening the attraction from the nucleus:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_nuclear_charge Effective nuclear charge] <= '''There's a table with screening constants.'''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shielding_effect Shielding effect] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-field_screening Electric-field screening]

Approximating orbitals:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater-type_orbital Slater-type orbital]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_orbital Gaussian orbital]

Exact solutions to the Schrödinger equation:
* angular part: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics Spherical harmonics] – [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_spherical_harmonics Table of spherical harmonics]
* radial part: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguerre_polynomials Laguerre polynomials]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separable_partial_differential_equation Separable partial differential equation]

Constants and basics:
* Real valued helper orbitals: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Real_orbitals Atomic orbital ~> Real orbitals]
* a0 = 5.29 * 10^(-11) m — [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius Bohr radius]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_(algebra)#Absolute_square Square_(algebra)#Absolute_square]
----
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation Schrödinger equation (SG)]
* '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#Hydrogen_atom SG for the hydrogen atom]'''
----
* [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater_Type_Orbitals Slater Type Orbitals]

=== Pages related to d orbital hybridization geometries ===

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_combination_of_atomic_orbitals Linear combination of atomic orbitals]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_geometry Coordination geometry]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_complex Coordination complex]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory VSEPR theory]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_geometry Molecular geometry]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhedral_skeletal_electron_pair_theory Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory]

=== Real valued d orbitals ===

* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/613123/how-can-real-d-orbitals-be-computed-from-complex-orbitals
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_spherical_harmonics#Real_spherical_harmonics

'''Side-note:''' 

Orbitals with magnetic quantum number not equal to zero correspond to rotating orbitals. 
Complex: The 90° phase sift between real and complex part of the wave function specifies the rotation direction in a static snapshot. 
Real only: Square of abs value (de: Betragsquardrat) the orbital is smeared around all of the circumference. 

For one to get directed orbital lobes not just for the z axis but laterally oriented too 
one needs to mix 50:50 with the counter-rotating magnetic quantum number 
One gets a standing wave and the phase shift one picks determines the direction. 
The real valued d orbitals give an orthonormal basis 
that has already taken care of of that math pre-processing step. 
Easier to construct the the linear combination variants from there. 
Taking the aquare of abs value (de: Betragsquardrat) is still to be taken at the very last step 
after all the taking of linear combinations of atomic orbitals (LCAO). 

* https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betragsquadrat
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_combination_of_atomic_orbitals

== Other ==

Related: [[Ligand field theory]]

[[Category:Programming]]

Molecular dynamics implementation cheat sheet

2026-08-13T10:08:20Z

Apm: /* Related */ = External links = with Morse potential & Lennard-Jones Potential wikipedia links

'''A cheat-sheet for implementing a molecular dynamics simulation''' 
Source: "[[Nanosystems]]: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation"

== '''The MM2 model''' (3.3.2.) ==

<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{s} = \frac{1}{2}k_{s}(r - r_{0})^{2}\lbrack 1 - k_{cubic}(r - r_{0})\rbrack</math> … stretching (3.4) 
<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{\theta} = \frac{1}{2}k_{\theta}(\theta - \theta_{0})^{2}\lbrack 1 + k_{sextic}(\theta - \theta_{0})^{4}\rbrack</math> … bending (3.5) 
<math display="inline">k_{s\bot} = k_{\theta}/r_{0}^{2}</math> … per length angular stiffness <math display="inline">k_{s\bot} \approx k_{s}/20</math> at <math display="inline">(r_{0},\theta_{0})</math> (3.6) 
<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{\omega} = \frac{1}{2}\lbrack V_{1}(1 - \cos(1\omega)) + V_{2}(1 - \cos(2\omega)) + V_{3}(1 + \cos(3\omega))\rbrack</math> … torsion (3.7) 
<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{vdw} = \epsilon_{vdw}\lbrack 2.48 \times 10^{5}\exp( - 12.5\frac{r}{r_{vdw0}}) - 1.924(\frac{r}{r_{vdw0}})^{- 6}\rbrack</math> … vdW attraction & non-bonded Pauli repulsion (3.8) 
<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{s\theta} = k_{s\theta}(\theta - \theta_{0})\lbrack(r_{A} - r_{A0}) + (r_{B} - r_{B0})\rbrack</math> … stretch-bend interaction (3.9)
----
<math display="inline">k_{s,C - C} = 440N/m</math> — <math display="inline">r_{0,C - C} = 111.3pm</math> … (Table 3.2.) 
<math display="inline">k_{\theta,C - C - C} = 450zJ/rad^{2}</math> — <math display="inline">\theta_{0,C - C - C} = 1.911rad = 109.47{^\circ}</math> … (Table 3.3.) 
<math display="inline">\epsilon_{vdw,Csp^{3}} = 357yJ</math> — <math display="inline">r_{vdw,Csp^{3}} = 190pm</math> … well depth <math display="inline">\epsilon_{vdw}</math> varies widely for other atoms (~10x) (Table 3.1.) 
<math display="inline">V_{1,C - C - C - C} = 1.39zJ,\ V_{2,C - C - C - C} = 1.88zJ,\ V_{3,C - C - C - C} = 0.65zJ</math> … (Table 3.5.) 
<math display="inline">k_{s\theta,C - C - C} = 1.2nN/rad</math> … (Table 3.6.) 
<math display="inline">k_{cubic} = ?m^{- 1}</math> — <math display="inline">k_{sextic} = ?rad^{- 4}</math>

<math>n … nano = 10^{-9}</math> — <math>p … pico = 10^{-12}</math> 
<math>z … zepto = 10^{-21}</math> — <math>y … yocto = 10^{-24}</math>

== '''Bonds under large loads (beyond MM2)''' (3.3.3.) ==

<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{morse} = D_{e}({1 - \exp\lbrack - \beta(r - r_{0})\rbrack}^{2} - 1)</math> … tensile (3.10) 
<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{lippincott} = D_{e}\lbrack 1 - \exp( - \frac{k_{s}r_{0}(r - r_{0})^{2}}{2D_{e}r})\rbrack,\ \ r \geq r_{0}</math> … tensile – more accurate for larger distances (3.15) 
For compressive loads <math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{vdw}</math> see (3.8) above <math display="inline">F_{vdw} = - \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\mathcal{V}_{vdw}</math> … (3.16) 
Note: Popular Lennard-Jones 6-12 potential is too steep in repulsive regime! 
MM2 potential within 10% of experiment for <math display="inline">0.5r_{vdw}</math> (<math display="inline">> 100yJ</math> repulsion) [[File:https://twemoji.maxcdn.com/v/13.1.0/72x72/1f642.png|class=emoji|🙂]]

<math display="inline">\beta = \sqrt{k_{s}/(2D_{e})}</math> … (3.13) 
<math display="inline">D_{e} \approx D_{0} + \frac{\hslash}{2}\sqrt{k_{s}/\mu} = D_{0} + \frac{\hslash\omega}{2};\ \ \mu = \frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{m_{1} + m_{2}}</math> … (3.14) 
<math display="inline">D_{0}</math> … potential well depth 
<math display="inline">D_{e,C - C} = 556yJ</math> — <math display="inline">k_{s,C - C} = 440N/m</math> — <math display="inline">r_{0,C - C} = 152.3pm</math> … (Table 3.8)

== '''Verlet Integration''' (not in [[Nanosystems]]) ==
<math display="inline">\overset{\rightarrow}{x}(t + \Delta t) = 2\overset{\rightarrow}{x}(t) - \overset{\rightarrow}{x}(t - \Delta t) + \overset{\rightarrow}{a}(t)\Delta t^{2} + O(\Delta t^{4})</math> 
<math display="inline">\overset{\rightarrow}{a}(t) = m\nabla_{\overset{\rightarrow}{x}}\mathcal{V}(t)</math>

== '''MM2 vs MM3''' (Chapter 3.3.2.g.) ==

★ MM2 prioritizes accuracy in energy and geometry 
★ MM3 prioritizes accuracy of vibration frequencies 
★ MM3 predicts greater angle-bending stiffness by ~1.5x or more 
★ MM3 has a more complex functional form – e.g. it adds: 
– stretch-torsion interaction, cubic bending, quartic stretching 
★ MM3 has lower energies forces and stiffness in deep repulsive regime by ~10% 
★ MM2 overall seems like a more conservative (safe side wrong) choice for diamondoid nanomachinery

== '''Bond cleavage & radical coupling''' (3.4.2) ==

The Morse potential <math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{morse}</math> can approximate homolytic reactions 
<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{anti - morse} = \frac{1}{2}D_{e}({1 + \exp\lbrack - \beta(r - r_{0})\rbrack}^{2} - 1)</math> … unpaired spins (3.21) 
But unpaired spins being the limiting factor in reaction rate should 
typically be avoidable in [[piezomechanosynthesis]]. 
See Nanosystems Chapter 8.4.3.b. Radical coupling and [[intersystem crossing]].

== Nonbonded & large compression limits (3.3.3.b.) ==

<math display="inline">k_{s,vdw} \approx \frac{12.5}{r_{vdw0}}F_{vdw} \approx 3.5 \times 10^{10}m^{- 1} \cdot F_{vdw}</math> … (3.18) 
<math display="inline">\mathcal{V}_{vdw} \approx 0.08r_{vdw0}F_{vdw} \approx 2.9 \times 10^{- 11}m \cdot F_{vdw}</math> …(3.19)

== '''Abstraction reactions''' (Chapter 3.4.3.) ==

<math>\mathcal{V}_{LEPS}</math> extended London-Eyring-Polyano-Sato potential – details omitted here 

== '''Continuum models of van der Waals attraction''' (Chapter 3.5.1.) ==

Hamaker constant – details omitted here

= Related =

* [[Snapback]] – sideward bond bending stiffness is only 1/20th of radial bond stretching/compressing stiffness
* [[Energy, force, and stiffness]]
* [[Atomic orbitals]]

= External links =

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_potential
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential

Oxidation

2026-08-13T10:04:57Z

Apm: note on desired image

{{stub}}
{{wikitodo|Add some new illustrative image now the fruit browning one has moved to page "[[Fruit interior analogy]]"}}

A common concern regarding the feasibility of [[gem based APM]] is that nanoscale parts will oxidize. 
(See: [[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]) 
This is a non-issue though as the (surface facing) target materials are 
either oxidation resistant or already fully oxidized. 
See: [[Gemstone-like compound]]

[[Pure metals and metallic alloys]] are not a focus exactly because of their oxidation tendency. 
And a few other reasons like diffusion and mechanical inferiority. 
See: [[Pure metals and metallic alloys]] 
Metals still can be [[mechanosynthesis|mechanosynthesized]] under certain constraints like
* low temperature and/or
* constrained atom placement freedom

Advanced systems will be able to perfectly seal and safe-keep their internals form oxidation. 
To give a weak analogy: Juts like an apples or bananas do not get brown inside so long they're not cut open.

== Fruit interior analogy ==

See main page: '''[[Fruit interior analogy]]'''

== Related ==

* '''[[Fruit interior analogy]]'''
* '''[[Pure metals and metallic alloys]]'''
* [[Chemical stability]]
* [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]
* [[Nanoscale surface passivation]] (old: [[Surface passivation]])
* [[Macroscale surface passivation]]
* [[Passivation layer mineral]]
* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
----
* [[Diffusion]]
* [[Water reactive gemstones]]
----
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]
----
* Well known scaling law: '''[[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]''' == [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]
----
* '''[[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]'''

== External links ==

=== Wikipedia ===

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion Corrosion]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust Rust]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivation_(chemistry) Passivation (chemistry)]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts

2026-08-13T10:02:14Z

Apm: /* Related */

A well known [[scaling law]] with some availability bias of over other [[lesser known scaling laws]] 
that need to be looked at too to get the full picture.

== Consequences & counters ==

★ '''Higher surface available for chemical reactions'''; higher catalytic activity; see page: [[Oxidation]] countered by 
– [[sealing of the sensitive interior]] (fruit interior analogy) & 
– picking the right non-reactive stiff for the exterior e.g. by H of F passivated diamond (see: [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]) 

★ '''[[Higher bearing surface area of smaller machinery]]''' countered by 
– [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]] and 
– the paradoxically seeming approach of [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]] 

★ '''[[Less effective thermal insulation of smaller machinery]]''' 
– Don't do mechanosynthesis in free floating nanobots. This is a bad idea for many other reasons not only including safety. 

★ '''[[More difficult cooling of bigger machinery]]''' (equivalently to the preceding just the flipped viewpoint) 
– Be aware of [[limits of power density imposed by limits of cooling]], 
… the absurdly high seeming values for [[power density]] stated in the book [[Nanosystems]] 
… do not take cooling into account (so meant but not well and clear stated). 
… These values do only hold for systems so small that they are still steady state coolable 
… exclusive or short bursts in bulk where the thermal capacity can take the waste heat without thermal damage. 

== This scaling law as major source of criticism towards proposed [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] ==

This well known scaling law and its consequences is one of the most predictably upcoming 
criticisms towards the idea of [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]. 
But the here mentioned counters are rarely seen as these come from … 
★ [[lesser known scaling laws]] 
★ assumptions based on current day experimental capability limits 
– e.g. limited sealing against rest gasses in UHV, 
– [[FAPP]] perfect vacuum [[PPV]] not yet achievable due to chamber volume smallness and sealing quality and surface quality limits) 

== Related ==

* [[Bigger surface area of smaller machinery]] … more redundant page
* [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]] … somewhat redundant page
* [[Scaling laws]]
* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Oxidation]]

== External links ==

* [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])

Bigger surface area of smaller machinery

2026-08-13T10:01:46Z

Apm: /* Related */

{{stub}}

Nanomachinery will have much more surface area per volume due to how surface per volume scales for smaller parts. 
This predictably brings up some critique points of the proposed technology of [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]. 
See below.

== Common concerns / critique points ==

Particularly … 
★ (A) the concerns of friction losses due to [[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]] 
★ (B) the concern of oxidation due to higher exposed surface area of smaller machinery 

== Respective resolutions ==

In brief: 
★ (A) Much less nanomachibery volume is needed than what one might expect 
… due to (A1) the lesser known scaling law of [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]]. 
… plus there are [[infinitesimal bearing|tricks]] (A2) to [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction|reduce friction by increasing surface area]] 
… which drops sliding/rolling speeds resolving the superficially apparent paradox. 
… ([[hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]) 
★ (B) just seal the nanomachinery up and design it such that it does not easily break open. 
… See: [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]] & [[Fruit interior analogy]] 
… In most systems the environment exposed surface is a miniscule fraction of system surface 
… and one can deal with a much smaller design space for viable surfaces there. 

For more details see links below.

== Related ==

* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
----
* '''[[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]''' {{wikitodo|Redundant page?}}
* '''[[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]'''
----
* [[Hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]

=== Oxydation, Hydrolysation, …===

* [[Oxidation]] & [[Fruit interior analogy]]
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]] & [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]

=== Friction losses ===

'''Concern:''' 
[[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]] 

'''Solutions:''' 
(A1) needing much less nanomachinery due to the scaling law of '''[[higher throughput of smaller machinery]]''' 
(A2) [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]] … 
… using the scaling law of '''[[hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]''' 
… via things like [[infinitesimal bearing]]s and metamaterials employing such principles. 

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio]

Bigger surface area of smaller machinery

2026-08-13T09:57:03Z

Apm: added main text

{{stub}}

Nanomachinery will have much more surface area per volume due to how surface per volume scales for smaller parts. 
This predictably brings up some critique points of the proposed technology of [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]. 
See below.

== Common concerns / critique points ==

Particularly … 
★ (A) the concerns of friction losses due to [[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]] 
★ (B) the concern of oxidation due to higher exposed surface area of smaller machinery 

== Respective resolutions ==

In brief: 
★ (A) Much less nanomachibery volume is needed than what one might expect 
… due to (A1) the lesser known scaling law of [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]]. 
… plus there are [[infinitesimal bearing|tricks]] (A2) to [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction|reduce friction by increasing surface area]] 
… which drops sliding/rolling speeds resolving the superficially apparent paradox. 
… ([[hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]) 
★ (B) just seal the nanomachinery up and design it such that it does not easily break open. 
… See: [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]] & [[Fruit interior analogy]] 
… In most systems the environment exposed surface is a miniscule fraction of system surface 
… and one can deal with a much smaller design space for viable surfaces there. 

For more details see links below.

== Related ==

* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
----
* '''[[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]'''
----
* [[Hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]

=== Oxydation, Hydrolysation, …===

* [[Oxidation]] & [[Fruit interior analogy]]
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]] & [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]

=== Friction losses ===

'''Concern:''' 
[[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]] 

'''Solutions:''' 
(A1) needing much less nanomachinery due to the scaling law of '''[[higher throughput of smaller machinery]]''' 
(A2) [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]] … 
… using the scaling law of '''[[hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]''' 
… via things like [[infinitesimal bearing]]s and metamaterials employing such principles. 

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio]

Bigger surface area of smaller machinery

2026-08-13T09:38:42Z

Apm: /* Related */

{{stub}}

== Related ==

* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
----
* '''[[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]'''
----
* [[Hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]

=== Oxydation, Hydrolysation, …===

* [[Oxidation]] & [[Fruit interior analogy]]
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]] & [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]

=== Friction losses ===

'''Concern:''' 
[[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]] 

'''Solutions:''' 
(A) needing much less nanomachinery due to the scaling law of '''[[higher throughput of smaller machinery]]''' 
(B) [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]] … 
… using the scaling law of '''[[hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]''' 
… via things like [[infinitesimal bearing]]s and metamaterials employing such principles. 

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio]

Bigger surface area of smaller machinery

2026-08-13T09:37:52Z

Apm: basic page

{{stub}}

== Related ==

* [[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]
----
* '''[[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]'''
----
* [[Hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]

=== Oxydation, Hydrolysation, …===

* [[Oxidation]] & [[Fruit interior analogy]]
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]] & [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]

=== Friction losses ===

'''Concern:''' 
[[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]] 

'''Solitions:''' 
(A) needing much less nanomachinery due to the scaling law of '''[[higher throughput of smaller machinery]]''' 
(B) [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]] … 
… using the scaling law of '''[[hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]]''' 
… via things like [[infinitesimal bearing]]s and metamaterials employing such principles. 

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio]

Twice the surface area of half the volume

2026-08-13T09:34:01Z

Apm: External links

{{Stub}}
A quite widely known scaling law. 
See: [[Scaling law]]

== Related ==

* [[Scaling laws by degree of knownness]]
* Special case: [[Higher bearing area of smaller machinery]]
* [[Scaling law]]

== External links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law Square–cube law]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio Surface-area-to-volume ratio]

[[Category:Scaling law]]

Higher bearing area of smaller machinery

2026-08-13T09:14:36Z

Apm: /* Related */

{{stub}}

Special case of [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]].

== Related ==

* [[Scaling law]]
----
* [[Hundredfold smaller frictionlosses from tenfold slowdown]] (a [[non size-scale scaling law]])
----
* [[Increasing bearing area to decrease friction]]

[[Category:Scaling law]]

Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology

2026-08-13T09:09:08Z

Apm: /* Rising surface area per volume (SL) */ added link to yet unwritten page Bigger surface area of smaller machinery

[[File:Infosheet-macromech-at-nanoscale-common-critiques--small-pixelgraphic.png|400px|thumb|right|All these common critiques have been analyzed and identified as non-showstoppers some even helping rather than hurting.]]

This page coveres common critique directed towards [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] and [[Gem-gum technology|gemstone based atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]. These critique points are common due to …
* expert knowledge of scaling laws that is incomplete in important areas
* current day experimental restrictions

'''Guide for responding to critique:''' 
This page can be seen as a guide for how to best respond to such critique. 
Fight scaling laws with scaling laws.

'''Page organization:''' 
The common critique points are mainly organized by how they relates to scaling laws and to each other.
Some further critique is related to mechanochemistry.

For a more general & free-form discussion see page: 
'''[[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]]''' 
There may be some redundant overlap in discussion.

= Scaling law (SL) based critiques =

== Rising '''surface area''' per volume (SL) ==

Main page: [[Bigger surface area of smaller machinery]]

– rising '''friction''' power losses (TRUE BUT) 
See: '''[[Why larger bearing area of smaller machinery is not a problem]]''' 
– nanomachinery motions couple strongly to thermal motions (FALSE) 
Due to [[simulating crystolecules|practical reasons]] simulations are usually done at extremely high speeds >100m/s.
That is way above the actual proposed machine operation speeds of ~5mm/s or lower.
Also see: [[Stroboscopic illusion in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]. This can be quite misleading in judgement of friction levels. 

– rising '''corrosion rate''' (oxidation/rust) (FALSE) 
Systems are [[well sealed]] and expose only corrosion resistant surfaces to the outside. Internals are [[PPV]]. 
– '''perfect vacuum can't be created''' but is needed (FALSE) 
No [[PPV]] is not physically impossible. It is just unattainable with today's (2023) technology and macroscopic volumes.

– '''lubricants and dirt''' clog machinery like molasses and gravel (FALSE) 
Sealed systems again. Bearings run dry and are either slide-bearings or roller gear bearings.
Related: [[Atomically precise bearings]]

== Rising effect of '''viscosity''' (SL) ==

– '''lubricants and dirt''' clog machinery like molasses and gravel (FALSE) 
Dirt is already covered above. Systems operate dry. No liquids or gasses involved.
Well except in resource supply. There several strategies can be employed including:
* fractal supply channels
* last stretch diffusion transport
* compartmentalized transport of liquids ([[Capsule transport]])

== Rising influence of '''thermal motion''' (SL) ==

Nanomachinery motions couple strongly to thermal motions (FALSE) 
Already covered above.

★ '''placement of atoms''' is to unreliable (error rates) jittery and sloppy/wobbly fingers (FALSE) 

'''In context of general possibility:''' 
Sufficient [[lattice scaled stiffness]] to suppress constrain thermal motion amplitudes is attainable even at room temperature.
Error rates drop further exponentially with cooling.
Theoretical [[exploratory engineering]] analysis in the [[tooltip cycle paper]].
Experimental corroboration in a huge number of papers on subatomically precise imaging and atom manipulation. 
'''In context or of possibility across the bootstrapping [[pathways|pathway]].''' 
– The [[direct path]] goes straight to systems that have sufficient [[lattice scaled stiffness]]. The remaining (always finite) error rates can be dealt with several strategies and can be made [[FAPP]] sufficiently low. Some strategies easier for early primitive systems some harder. Strategies like [[out of place mechanosynthesis]], error detection (failed synthesis step / failed entire [[crystolecule]]), failed part disposal, and perhaps (but not necessarily) failed synthesis step error correction. That is possibly more challenging than the [[incremental path]] but not provenly so. 
– The [[incremental path]] proposes to go incrementally to stiffer more advanced materials or combine materials of different stiffness and different scalability. (Scalability in the sense of [[termination control]] not size). While [[fat fingers]] still apply initially for soft systems this restriction gradually diminishes with increasingly stiff materials. Machine phase can be attained gradually via [[topological atomic precision]], tether-aided selfassembly, site-activation-wash-in approaches, and [[Combining advantages of different selfassembly technologies]]. 
See also: [[Jittery fingers]], [[Wobbly fingers]], [[Sloppy fingers]]

★ atoms do not stay in place due to '''surface diffusion or surface reconstruction''' (FALSE) 
In strongly bonding covalent materials (including diamond) surface diffusion rates at room temperature are so astronomically low that [[FAPP]] atoms do not hop at room temperature. Even taking the large numbers of atoms in macroscopic objects into account. During [[mechanosynthesis]] the actively worked on patch of surface can be sufficiently stable too. So determined in the [[tooltip cycle paper]] ([[exploratory engineering]]). Cooling helps. For early primitive mechanosynthesis experiments are needed to identify and take on more immediate challenges. 
{{wikitodo|Add: Diamond depassivated surface reconstruction analysis paper}}

★ nanosystems can only work in an '''dynamic equilibrium''' (FALSE) 
This assumes unavoidability of high thermally induced bond braking rates and a need to deal with them. 
As discussed above (finite) thermally induced bond braking rated are [[FAPP]] zero for the far term target materials of interest. 
Early systems along the [[incremental path]] face the challenge of dynamic equilibrion, yes, but they do not disprove the existence of systems that are exempt. {{wikitodo|maybe explain further}}

* rising influence on '''quantum mechanics'''
* rising tendency towards '''themodynamic equilibrium'''

== Rising influence of '''quantum mechanics''' (SL) ==

Machinery quantum disperses, quantum collapses, and tunnels (FALSE) 
Runs apart omnidirecttionally, reappears elsewhere spontaneously, moves through itself and walls. 
See: [[Nanomechanics is barely mechanical quantummechanics]]

== Rising tendency towards '''thermodynamic equilibrium''' (SL) ==

Perfect vacuum can't be created but is needed (FALSE) 
Already covered above.

– '''diffusion transport''' is (fundamentally) more efficient (FALSE) 
In fact the opposite may be true due to the trick of [[dissipation sharing]] not being usable in diffusion transport. 
– '''nature would have done it''' if it where possible (FALSE) 
See: [[Nature does it differently]]

– atoms do not stay in place due to '''natural ambient high energy radiation''' (TRUE BUT) 
It is true that that some radiation can not be shielded against. Especially with smaller systems/devices not even giving enough space for shielding against hard UV. But expectable radiation damage seems to be low enough to be dealable with though via [[Redundancy|redundant system design]] (fail-safe redundancy) alone. Disassemblying component testing and reassembing or even having difficult [[self repair]]ing systems are a bonus.
This has been analyzed in [[Nanosystems]] and reviews would be appreciated.

– nanosystems can only work in an '''dynamic equilibrium''' (FALSE) 
Covered above. 
– '''nature would have done it''' if it where possible (FALSE) 
Covered above.

== Falling '''material stiffness''' (SL) ==

– '''placement of atoms''' is to unreliable (error rates) jittery and sloppy fingers (FALSE) 
Covered above. Also see: [[Same relative deflections across scales]] for the aspect of deflections from mechanical accelerations. 
Deflections from machine motions (rather than thermal agitation) are [[FAPP]] zero at proposed speeds of ~5mm/s.

== Falling '''available space''' (SL) – obviously ==

– '''Not enough space''' for all the manipulators (TRUE BUT) 
See: [[Fat fingers]] and [[Atom placement frequency]]

== Rising influence of '''intermolecular forces''' (SL) ==

– '''atoms adhere to manipulators''' "sticky fingers" (TRUE & GOOD THING) 
See: [[Sticky finger problem]]

= Mechanochemistry related critiques =

potential problems with '''machine phase chemistry''' including mechanosynthesis 
All of the following already covered above.
* '''placement of atoms''' is to unreliable (error rates) jittery and sloppy fingers (FALSE) 
* '''perfect vacuum can't be created''' but is needed (FALSE) 
* '''atoms adhere to manipulators''' "sticky fingers" (TRUE & GOOD THING)
* '''Not enough space''' for all the manipulators (TRUE BUT) 

= Potential problems not based on any scaling laws =

– '''too difficult''', castel in the sky, chicken egg problem (FALSE) 
– advocating stiff nanomachinery but forking with soft nanomachinery to get to stiff nanomachinery ASAP is '''hypocrism''' (FALSE) 
– it's better to '''just wait and see''' (FALSE) '''& the worst possible decision'''

= Related =

* [[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]
* [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]] (older less systematic page)
----
* '''[[General tips for productive communication]]'''
* [[Finger problems]]
----
* Using [[gemstone-like compounds]]/[[gemstone]]s instead of '''[[pure metals and metal alloys]]''' removes issues of surface [[oxidation]] and surface [[diffusion]].

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

Oxidation

2026-08-13T09:06:38Z

Apm: /* Wikipedia */

Oxidation

2026-08-13T09:06:26Z

Apm: /* External links */ moved minks to new page and added new ones relevant for here

Fruit interior analogy

2026-08-13T09:05:52Z

Apm: /* Related */

{{stub}}

[[File:Quince (10921s) localcopy.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Just like fruit protect their interior by their skin, future products of [[atomically precise]] [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]] will likely do similar things. Possibly in a [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces|hierarchical fashion over several levels]]. A bit like many citrus fruit do on three levels. Side-note: This is a cut open quince. A very delicious fruit btw, though since it needs cooking to become soft it sadly became unpopular in the modern day and is not that often sold at convenience stores.]]

{{wikitodo|Add an illustrative image of cut open browning fruit progress, and mabe a sketch of a crude conceptual sketch of a broken open gem based APM system.}}

Just like fruits stay perfectly unoxidized inside (especially while still on the tree) 
and only start oxidizing and degrading when cut open, advanced gemstone based nanosystems can do a similar thing. 
Keeping all the ebvironmentally sensitive things well sealed inside.

Actually even more than that mesoscale compartmentalization could allow for breakage along intended cleavage planes 
not exposing interior that is not stable to the environment. 
Perhaps overstretchingly extending on the fruit analogy A bit more: 
Like multiple seeds in an apple that themselves feature some sealing again. 

== Related ==

* '''[[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]'''
* '''[[Oxidation]]'''
----
* [[Surface passivation]]
* [[Chemical stability]]
* [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]
* [[Nanoscale surface passivation]] (old: [[Surface passivation]])
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]
* [[Macroscale surface passivation]]
* [[Passivation layer mineral]]
----
* [[Water reactive gemstones]]
----
* Well known scaling law: '''[[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]''' == [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]

== External links ==

=== Wikipedia ===

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_browning Food browning]
* [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Food_browning Food browning]
----
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quince Quince]

Fruit interior analogy

2026-08-13T08:59:21Z

Apm: /* Related */ moved over == External links == with food browning and quince

{{stub}}

[[File:Quince (10921s) localcopy.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Just like fruit protect their interior by their skin, future products of [[atomically precise]] [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]] will likely do similar things. Possibly in a [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces|hierarchical fashion over several levels]]. A bit like many citrus fruit do on three levels. Side-note: This is a cut open quince. A very delicious fruit btw, though since it needs cooking to become soft it sadly became unpopular in the modern day and is not that often sold at convenience stores.]]

{{wikitodo|Add an illustrative image of cut open browning fruit progress, and mabe a sketch of a crude conceptual sketch of a broken open gem based APM system.}}

Just like fruits stay perfectly unoxidized inside (especially while still on the tree) 
and only start oxidizing and degrading when cut open, advanced gemstone based nanosystems can do a similar thing. 
Keeping all the ebvironmentally sensitive things well sealed inside.

Actually even more than that mesoscale compartmentalization could allow for breakage along intended cleavage planes 
not exposing interior that is not stable to the environment. 
Perhaps overstretchingly extending on the fruit analogy A bit more: 
Like multiple seeds in an apple that themselves feature some sealing again. 

== Related ==

* '''[[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]'''
* '''[[Oxydation]]'''
----
* [[Surface passivation]]
* [[Chemical stability]]
* [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]
* [[Nanoscale surface passivation]] (old: [[Surface passivation]])
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]
* [[Macroscale surface passivation]]
* [[Passivation layer mineral]]
----
* [[Water reactive gemstones]]
----
* Well known scaling law: '''[[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]''' == [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]

== External links ==

=== Wikipedia ===

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_browning Food browning]
* [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Food_browning Food browning]
----
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quince Quince]

Oxidation

2026-08-13T08:55:29Z

Apm: /* Related */

Oxidation

2026-08-13T08:55:21Z

Apm: /* Fruit interior analogy */

Oxidation

2026-08-13T08:55:09Z

Apm: /* Fruit interior analogy */ text and image moved over to new page

Fruit interior analogy

2026-08-13T08:53:57Z

Apm: moved over content from page oxydation and added == Related == section

{{stub}}

[[File:Quince (10921s) localcopy.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Just like fruit protect their interior by their skin, future products of [[atomically precise]] [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]] will likely do similar things. Possibly in a [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces|hierarchical fashion over several levels]]. A bit like many citrus fruit do on three levels. Side-note: This is a cut open quince. A very delicious fruit btw, though since it needs cooking to become soft it sadly became unpopular in the modern day and is not that often sold at convenience stores.]]

{{wikitodo|Add an illustrative image of cut open browning fruit progress, and mabe a sketch of a crude conceptual sketch of a broken open gem based APM system.}}

Just like fruits stay perfectly unoxidized inside (especially while still on the tree) 
and only start oxidizing and degrading when cut open, advanced gemstone based nanosystems can do a similar thing. 
Keeping all the ebvironmentally sensitive things well sealed inside.

Actually even more than that mesoscale compartmentalization could allow for breakage along intended cleavage planes 
not exposing interior that is not stable to the environment. 
Perhaps overstretchingly extending on the fruit analogy A bit more: 
Like multiple seeds in an apple that themselves feature some sealing again. 

== Related ==

* '''[[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]'''
* '''[[Oxydation]]'''
----
* [[Surface passivation]]
* [[Chemical stability]]
* [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]
* [[Nanoscale surface passivation]] (old: [[Surface passivation]])
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]
* [[Macroscale surface passivation]]
* [[Passivation layer mineral]]
----
* [[Water reactive gemstones]]
----
* Well known scaling law: '''[[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]''' == [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]

Oxidation

2026-08-13T08:48:56Z

Apm: /* Fruit interior analogy */ link to intended factor out page Fruit interior analogy

{{stub}}

A common concern regarding the feasibility of [[gem based APM]] is that nanoscale parts will oxidize. 
(See: [[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]) 
This is a non-issue though as the (surface facing) target materials are 
either oxidation resistant or already fully oxidized. 
See: [[Gemstone-like compound]]

[[Pure metals and metallic alloys]] are not a focus exactly because of their oxidation tendency. 
And a few other reasons like diffusion and mechanical inferiority. 
See: [[Pure metals and metallic alloys]] 
Metals still can be [[mechanosynthesis|mechanosynthesized]] under certain constraints like
* low temperature and/or
* constrained atom placement freedom

Advanced systems will be able to perfectly seal and safe-keep their internals form oxidation. 
To give a weak analogy: Juts like an apples or bananas do not get brown inside so long they're not cut open.

== Fruit interior analogy ==

See main page: [[Fruit interior analogy]]

[[File:Quince (10921s) localcopy.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Just like fruit protect their interior by their skin, future products of [[atomically precise]] [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]] will likely do similar things. Possibly in a hierarchical fashion over several levels. A bit like many citrus fruit do on three levels. Side-note: This is a cut open quince. A very delicious fruit btw, though since it needs cooking to become soft it sadly became unpopular in the modern day and is not that often sold at convenience stores.]]

{{wikitodo|Add an illustrative image of cut open browning fruit progress, and mabe a sketch of a crude conceptual sketch of a broken open gem based APM system.}}

Just like fruits stay perfectly unoxidized inside (especially while still on the tree) 
and only start oxidizing and degrading when cut open, advanced gemstone based nanosystems can do a similar thing. 
Keeping all the ebvironmentally sensitive things well sealed inside.

Actually even more than that mesoscale compartmentalization could allow for breakage along intended cleavage planes 
not exposing interior that is not stable to the environment. 
Perhaps overstretchingly extending on the fruit analogy A bit more: 
Like multiple seeds in an apple that themselves feature some sealing again. 

== Related ==

* '''[[Pure metals and metallic alloys]]'''
* [[Chemical stability]]
* [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]
* [[Nanoscale surface passivation]] (old: [[Surface passivation]])
* [[Macroscale surface passivation]]
* [[Passivation layer mineral]]
* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
----
* [[Diffusion]]
* [[Water reactive gemstones]]
----
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]
----
* Well known scaling law: '''[[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]''' == [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]
----
* '''[[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]'''

== External links ==

* Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_browning Food browning]
* Wikimedia: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Food_browning Food browning]
----
* Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quince Quince]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces

2026-08-13T08:46:58Z

Apm:

{{stub}}

[[File:Hirarchical intentional breaking interfaces.svg|680px|thumb|right|Illustration of a fracture through a [[gemstone metamaterial technology]] part designed with hierarchical intentional breaking surfaces. Bright green is by far most likely to happen and likely fully reversible without any covalent bond breaking damage. Cyan and blue are fractures of higher strength interfaces at smaller scales that are massively increasingly more unlikely too happen. Red is extremely unlikely to happen or rather [[FAPP]] never happens (unless very intentonal efforts are taken) as needed speed impacts would cause hypervelocity thermal damage of different nature instead. Red would break open the sealed internal volume of a e.g. [[microcomponent]] destroying internals be exposure to oxygen air and dirt. See: [[Fruit interior analogy]]. More discussion in the main text. Square unist are just used for simplicity for the illustration. They could be hexagonal or really any shape too which would obviously influence the breaking behavior.]]

[[File:Quince (10921s) localcopy.jpg|400px|thumb|right|The interior of advanced nanosystems is likely highly sensitive to oxygen and water as keeping oxygen (and water) out gives much more design freedom in viable nanomachinery surfaces. Much like fruit when cut or broken open the internals will quickly irreversibly degrade by oxidization. Much like fruit releasing volatile molecules (smell) broken open advanced nanoystems may have some nonzero tendency to spill some of their internal [[crystolecule]] guts. Unlike with fruit damage of internal machinery and spill of internal machinery that is not very desirable. '''The design principle of "Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces" should allow for designing systems that almost never break open to the point or exposing and spilling there sensitive and possibly toxic internals.''' For the very rare and few cases it still happens this should be "easy" to repair (e.g. via [[on chip microcomponent recomposer]]s) and clean up. The See: [[Spill prevention guideline]] & [[Oxidation]].]]

== Related ==

* [[Oxidation]]
* [[Fruit interior analogy]]
* [[Emulated elasticity]]
* [[Convergent assembly]]
* [[Microcomponents]]
* [[Components]]
* [[Terminology for parts]]
* [[Spill prevention guideline]] & [[Spill of sub microscale objects]]
* [[Cleavage planes]]
* [[Recycling]] & [[Gem-gum waste dystopia]]

Fall in assembly

2026-08-13T08:44:51Z

Apm: Redirected page to ReChain fall in assembly

#REDIRECT [[ReChain fall in assembly]]

Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis

2026-08-13T08:44:40Z

Apm: /* Clearances, backlash, smooth running */

{{Stub}}

== Overhangs or "standoffs" ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Usually it is better to keep overhangs at a limit of ~45° 
Otherwise one needs support material that then needs removal. 
If full automation is an eventual goal (See: [[ReMec]]) 
then removal of support material (and brims) poses a huge additional hassle. 

Yes there are various tricks, but they 
either need more fancy machine kinematics (more DOFs than three) 
or are finicky and not very reliable and reproducible as they constitute thin wide high aspect ratio standoffs. 
Sometimes these go with the name "wavefront overhangs". 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
As at nanoscale gravity is massively overpowered by thermal excitations and vdW forces "overhang" is a bit of a misnomer here. 
But thin long high aspect ration "standoffs" pose very similar problems. 
Due to severe capability limits of [[SPM]] systems early mechanosynthesis will want to go layer-by-layer with very flat top. 
Much like most macroscale 3D printers do. 
A standoff that curls up ad deep cryo (like lHe 4K) makes top surfaces non flat and problematic. 
Worse at higher temperatures it may even moves around but mechanosynthesis at higher temperatures 
is a concern for later more advances capabilities anyways. 

[[Support material for mechanosynthesis]] is difficult nontrivial if even possible. 
There are no magically vanishing support carbon atoms with exactly the same bonding distance and lattice constant. 
Anything put below will add significant distortions laterally and to the top surface. 
Especially the latter causing some amount of challenges. 

== Anisotropic strength ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Many but not all 3D printing materials ave a significantly weaker in strength 
vertically across the printing layers compared to horizontally. 
Especially the easier to print ones (first and foremost PLA) 
that do not need a heated chamber and extensive drying. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Mostly a non problem here. 
Vertical covalent bonding has no difference to lateral covalent bonding 
aside the natural crystal anisotropy. See page: [[Cleavage planes]] 

== Clearances, backlash, smooth running ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 

In place printed moving parts (gears & rollers) are typically not as good as with post assembly. 

Surface divets (or even some stringing) from jumps 
(beyond the surface divets form unavoidable seam that is better randomly distributed) 
makes the surfaces not as smooth as they could be. 

Clarence between parts must be … 
★ big enough to prevent fusing of the parts but also 
★ small enough to minimize clearance and backlash 
zero clearance an backlash is not possible. 
With FFF/FDM printing in place printed clearances are finicky. 

Post assembly in contrast allows for pushing things together 
to zero clearance and zero backlash with some pre-tenstion 
This does not necessarily mean one needs tight fits which are finicky too.
One can work a lot with conical [[self centering]]. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 

FFF printing like surface defects from seams and stringing are not a thing for mechanosynthesis. 
Mechanosynthesis of on non-bonded interfaces in compressed state is rather questionable. 
Likely a better approach will be to use bending and pushing jigs in post assembly. 

For non-strained structures [[clearances]] are barely controllable due to the crystal lattice increments plus passivation thickness. 
More than in FFF/FDM printing working with conical [[self centering]] might be not just a nice option to have 
but more like an essential design strategy to make accessible fine tuneable clearances and slide bearing pressures. 
Pressures even to zero and into the negative pressure range sometimes. See: [[Negative pressure bearing]]. 
See: [[Fall in assembly]]

== Throwing out failed parts ==

In place printing does prevent throwing out bad sub-parts. 
Due to no way to throw out bad sub-parts if one part is broken the whole part is. 

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Big and complex in-place-printed structures for serious applications are for the most part not done 
as these are typically prohibitively difficult to design and then under-performing. 
The error rate in 3D printing is reasonably low (and different nature to atom-by-atom). 
So larger systems can be in place printed despite no way to throw out bad sub-parts. 
But still if one part is broken the whole part is. 
This becomes mostly a factor in increasing the part design challenge difficulty 
rather than a statistical likelihood for print failure. 

In case of post assembly: 
Easy. Just use your eyes and hands to detect and throw out bad parts. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Big and complex in-place-mechanosysntesized structures are problematic 
Particularly in semi early systems as error rate in early primitive mechanosyntheis is expected to still be high. 

Same as with FFF printing larger systems are likely to be increasingly difficult to in-place mechanosynthesizable 
(and then under-performing). But higher error rates make it more severe for mechanosynthesis. 

In case of post assembly: 
Still hard. No eyes just touch test and other probing techniques. 
Robotic post assembly system needed to throw it out 

Design difficulty from incapability of throwing out of sub-parts is one point adding to other difficulties in the 
the outdated concept of a [[proto-assembler]]. Beside the difficulty … 
★ from debugging of deeply buried systems 
★ from demanding everything to fit int certain limit of atom count 
… which is a strong forcing factor for in place mechanosynthesis as post assembly hugely increases atom count, 
… particularly when sensibly balanced to not have the mechanosysntehsis remain as a massive throughput bottleneck). 

== Related ==

* [[Cleavage planes]]
* [[In place assembly]]

Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis

2026-08-13T08:43:37Z

Apm: /* Clearances, backlash, smooth running */ improvements, notes on tight fits and self centering

{{Stub}}

== Overhangs or "standoffs" ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Usually it is better to keep overhangs at a limit of ~45° 
Otherwise one needs support material that then needs removal. 
If full automation is an eventual goal (See: [[ReMec]]) 
then removal of support material (and brims) poses a huge additional hassle. 

Yes there are various tricks, but they 
either need more fancy machine kinematics (more DOFs than three) 
or are finicky and not very reliable and reproducible as they constitute thin wide high aspect ratio standoffs. 
Sometimes these go with the name "wavefront overhangs". 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
As at nanoscale gravity is massively overpowered by thermal excitations and vdW forces "overhang" is a bit of a misnomer here. 
But thin long high aspect ration "standoffs" pose very similar problems. 
Due to severe capability limits of [[SPM]] systems early mechanosynthesis will want to go layer-by-layer with very flat top. 
Much like most macroscale 3D printers do. 
A standoff that curls up ad deep cryo (like lHe 4K) makes top surfaces non flat and problematic. 
Worse at higher temperatures it may even moves around but mechanosynthesis at higher temperatures 
is a concern for later more advances capabilities anyways. 

[[Support material for mechanosynthesis]] is difficult nontrivial if even possible. 
There are no magically vanishing support carbon atoms with exactly the same bonding distance and lattice constant. 
Anything put below will add significant distortions laterally and to the top surface. 
Especially the latter causing some amount of challenges. 

== Anisotropic strength ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Many but not all 3D printing materials ave a significantly weaker in strength 
vertically across the printing layers compared to horizontally. 
Especially the easier to print ones (first and foremost PLA) 
that do not need a heated chamber and extensive drying. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Mostly a non problem here. 
Vertical covalent bonding has no difference to lateral covalent bonding 
aside the natural crystal anisotropy. See page: [[Cleavage planes]] 

== Clearances, backlash, smooth running ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 

In place printed moving parts (gears & rollers) are typically not as good as with post assembly. 

Surface divets (or even some stringing) from jumps 
(beyond the surface divets form unavoidable seam that is better randomly distributed) 
makes the surfaces not as smooth as they could be. 

Clarence between parts must be … 
★ big enough to prevent fusing of the parts but also 
★ small enough to minimize clearance and backlash 
zero clearance an backlash is not possible. 
With FFF/FDM printing in place printed clearances are finicky. 

Post assembly in contrast allows for pushing things together 
to zero clearance and zero backlash with some pre-tenstion 
This does not necessarily mean one needs tight fits which are finicky too.
One can work a lot with conical [[self centering]]. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 

FFF printing like surface defects from seams and stringing are not a thing for mechanosynthesis. 
Mechanosynthesis of on non-bonded interfaces in compressed state is rather questionable. 
Likely a better approach will be to use bending and pushing jigs in post assembly. 

For non-strained structures [[clearances]] are barely controllable due to the crystal lattice increments plus passivation thickness. 
More than in FFF/FDM printing working with conical [[self centering]] might be not just a nice option to have 
but more like an essential design strategy to make accessible fine tuneable clearances and slide bearing pressures. 
Pressures even to zero and into the negative pressure range sometimes. See: [[Negative pressure bearing]]. 

== Throwing out failed parts ==

In place printing does prevent throwing out bad sub-parts. 
Due to no way to throw out bad sub-parts if one part is broken the whole part is. 

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Big and complex in-place-printed structures for serious applications are for the most part not done 
as these are typically prohibitively difficult to design and then under-performing. 
The error rate in 3D printing is reasonably low (and different nature to atom-by-atom). 
So larger systems can be in place printed despite no way to throw out bad sub-parts. 
But still if one part is broken the whole part is. 
This becomes mostly a factor in increasing the part design challenge difficulty 
rather than a statistical likelihood for print failure. 

In case of post assembly: 
Easy. Just use your eyes and hands to detect and throw out bad parts. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Big and complex in-place-mechanosysntesized structures are problematic 
Particularly in semi early systems as error rate in early primitive mechanosyntheis is expected to still be high. 

Same as with FFF printing larger systems are likely to be increasingly difficult to in-place mechanosynthesizable 
(and then under-performing). But higher error rates make it more severe for mechanosynthesis. 

In case of post assembly: 
Still hard. No eyes just touch test and other probing techniques. 
Robotic post assembly system needed to throw it out 

Design difficulty from incapability of throwing out of sub-parts is one point adding to other difficulties in the 
the outdated concept of a [[proto-assembler]]. Beside the difficulty … 
★ from debugging of deeply buried systems 
★ from demanding everything to fit int certain limit of atom count 
… which is a strong forcing factor for in place mechanosynthesis as post assembly hugely increases atom count, 
… particularly when sensibly balanced to not have the mechanosysntehsis remain as a massive throughput bottleneck). 

== Related ==

* [[Cleavage planes]]
* [[In place assembly]]

Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis

2026-08-13T08:33:14Z

Apm: /* Throwing out failed parts */

{{Stub}}

== Overhangs or "standoffs" ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Usually it is better to keep overhangs at a limit of ~45° 
Otherwise one needs support material that then needs removal. 
If full automation is an eventual goal (See: [[ReMec]]) 
then removal of support material (and brims) poses a huge additional hassle. 

Yes there are various tricks, but they 
either need more fancy machine kinematics (more DOFs than three) 
or are finicky and not very reliable and reproducible as they constitute thin wide high aspect ratio standoffs. 
Sometimes these go with the name "wavefront overhangs". 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
As at nanoscale gravity is massively overpowered by thermal excitations and vdW forces "overhang" is a bit of a misnomer here. 
But thin long high aspect ration "standoffs" pose very similar problems. 
Due to severe capability limits of [[SPM]] systems early mechanosynthesis will want to go layer-by-layer with very flat top. 
Much like most macroscale 3D printers do. 
A standoff that curls up ad deep cryo (like lHe 4K) makes top surfaces non flat and problematic. 
Worse at higher temperatures it may even moves around but mechanosynthesis at higher temperatures 
is a concern for later more advances capabilities anyways. 

[[Support material for mechanosynthesis]] is difficult nontrivial if even possible. 
There are no magically vanishing support carbon atoms with exactly the same bonding distance and lattice constant. 
Anything put below will add significant distortions laterally and to the top surface. 
Especially the latter causing some amount of challenges. 

== Anisotropic strength ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Many but not all 3D printing materials ave a significantly weaker in strength 
vertically across the printing layers compared to horizontally. 
Especially the easier to print ones (first and foremost PLA) 
that do not need a heated chamber and extensive drying. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Mostly a non problem here. 
Vertical covalent bonding has no difference to lateral covalent bonding 
aside the natural crystal anisotropy. See page: [[Cleavage planes]] 

== Clearances, backlash, smooth running ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
In place printed moving parts (gears & rollers) are typically not as good as with post assembly. 

Surface divets (or even some stringing) from jumps 
(beyond the surface divets form unavoidable seam that is better randomly distributed) 
makes the surfaces not as smooth as they could be. 

Clarence between parts must be 
★ big enough to prevent fusing of the parts but also 
★ small enough to minimize clearance and backlash 
zero clearance an backlash is not possible 

Post assembly in contrast allows for pushing things together 
to zero clearance and zero backlash with some pre-tenstion 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
FFF printing like surface defects from seams and stringing are not a thinh for mechanosynthesis. 
Mechanosynthesis of on non-bonded interfaces in compressed state is rather questionable. 
Likely a better approach will be to use bending and pushing jigs in post assembly. 

== Throwing out failed parts ==

In place printing does prevent throwing out bad sub-parts. 
Due to no way to throw out bad sub-parts if one part is broken the whole part is. 

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Big and complex in-place-printed structures for serious applications are for the most part not done 
as these are typically prohibitively difficult to design and then under-performing. 
The error rate in 3D printing is reasonably low (and different nature to atom-by-atom). 
So larger systems can be in place printed despite no way to throw out bad sub-parts. 
But still if one part is broken the whole part is. 
This becomes mostly a factor in increasing the part design challenge difficulty 
rather than a statistical likelihood for print failure. 

In case of post assembly: 
Easy. Just use your eyes and hands to detect and throw out bad parts. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Big and complex in-place-mechanosysntesized structures are problematic 
Particularly in semi early systems as error rate in early primitive mechanosyntheis is expected to still be high. 

Same as with FFF printing larger systems are likely to be increasingly difficult to in-place mechanosynthesizable 
(and then under-performing). But higher error rates make it more severe for mechanosynthesis. 

In case of post assembly: 
Still hard. No eyes just touch test and other probing techniques. 
Robotic post assembly system needed to throw it out 

Design difficulty from incapability of throwing out of sub-parts is one point adding to other difficulties in the 
the outdated concept of a [[proto-assembler]]. Beside the difficulty … 
★ from debugging of deeply buried systems 
★ from demanding everything to fit int certain limit of atom count 
… which is a strong forcing factor for in place mechanosynthesis as post assembly hugely increases atom count, 
… particularly when sensibly balanced to not have the mechanosysntehsis remain as a massive throughput bottleneck). 

== Related ==

* [[Cleavage planes]]
* [[In place assembly]]

Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis

2026-08-13T08:32:20Z

Apm: /* Clearances, backlash, smooth running */ added linebreaks

{{Stub}}

== Overhangs or "standoffs" ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Usually it is better to keep overhangs at a limit of ~45° 
Otherwise one needs support material that then needs removal. 
If full automation is an eventual goal (See: [[ReMec]]) 
then removal of support material (and brims) poses a huge additional hassle. 

Yes there are various tricks, but they 
either need more fancy machine kinematics (more DOFs than three) 
or are finicky and not very reliable and reproducible as they constitute thin wide high aspect ratio standoffs. 
Sometimes these go with the name "wavefront overhangs". 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
As at nanoscale gravity is massively overpowered by thermal excitations and vdW forces "overhang" is a bit of a misnomer here. 
But thin long high aspect ration "standoffs" pose very similar problems. 
Due to severe capability limits of [[SPM]] systems early mechanosynthesis will want to go layer-by-layer with very flat top. 
Much like most macroscale 3D printers do. 
A standoff that curls up ad deep cryo (like lHe 4K) makes top surfaces non flat and problematic. 
Worse at higher temperatures it may even moves around but mechanosynthesis at higher temperatures 
is a concern for later more advances capabilities anyways. 

[[Support material for mechanosynthesis]] is difficult nontrivial if even possible. 
There are no magically vanishing support carbon atoms with exactly the same bonding distance and lattice constant. 
Anything put below will add significant distortions laterally and to the top surface. 
Especially the latter causing some amount of challenges. 

== Anisotropic strength ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Many but not all 3D printing materials ave a significantly weaker in strength 
vertically across the printing layers compared to horizontally. 
Especially the easier to print ones (first and foremost PLA) 
that do not need a heated chamber and extensive drying. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Mostly a non problem here. 
Vertical covalent bonding has no difference to lateral covalent bonding 
aside the natural crystal anisotropy. See page: [[Cleavage planes]] 

== Clearances, backlash, smooth running ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
In place printed moving parts (gears & rollers) are typically not as good as with post assembly. 

Surface divets (or even some stringing) from jumps 
(beyond the surface divets form unavoidable seam that is better randomly distributed) 
makes the surfaces not as smooth as they could be. 

Clarence between parts must be 
★ big enough to prevent fusing of the parts but also 
★ small enough to minimize clearance and backlash 
zero clearance an backlash is not possible 

Post assembly in contrast allows for pushing things together 
to zero clearance and zero backlash with some pre-tenstion 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
FFF printing like surface defects from seams and stringing are not a thinh for mechanosynthesis. 
Mechanosynthesis of on non-bonded interfaces in compressed state is rather questionable. 
Likely a better approach will be to use bending and pushing jigs in post assembly. 

== Throwing out failed parts ==

In place printing does prevent throwing out bad sub-parts. 
Due to no way to throw out bad sub-parts if one part is broken the whole part is. 

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Big and complex in-place-printed structures for serious applications are for the most part not done 
as these are typically prohibitively difficult to design and then under-performing. 
The error rate in 3D printing is reasonably low (and different nature to atom-by-atom). 
So larger systems can be in place printed despite no way to throw out bad sub-parts. 
But still if one part is broken the whole part is. 
This becomes mostly a factor in increasing the part design challenge difficulty 
rather than a statistical likelihood for print failure. 

In case of post assembly: 
Easy. Just use your eyes and hands to detect and throw out bad parts. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Big and complex in-place-mechanosysntesized structures are problematic 
Particularly in semi early systems as error rate in early primitive mechanosyntheis is expected to still be high. 

Same as with FFF printing larger systems are likely to be increasingly difficult to in-place mechanosynthesizable 
(and then under-performing). But higher error rates make it more severe for mechanosynthesis. 

In case of post assembly: 
Still hard. No eyes just touch test and other probing techniques. 
Robotic post assembly system needed to throw it out 

Design difficulty from incapability of throwing out of sub-parts is one point adding to other difficulties in the 
the outdated concept of a [[proto-assembler]]. Beside the difficulty 
★ from debugging of deeply buried systems 
★ from demanding everything to fit int certain limit of atom count 
… which is a strong forcing factor for in place mechanosynthesis as post assembly hugely increases atom count, 
… particularly when sensibly balanced to not have the mechanosysntehsis remain as a massive throughput bottleneck). 

== Related ==

* [[Cleavage planes]]
* [[In place assembly]]

Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis

2026-08-13T08:31:46Z

Apm: basic page

{{Stub}}

== Overhangs or "standoffs" ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Usually it is better to keep overhangs at a limit of ~45° 
Otherwise one needs support material that then needs removal. 
If full automation is an eventual goal (See: [[ReMec]]) 
then removal of support material (and brims) poses a huge additional hassle. 

Yes there are various tricks, but they 
either need more fancy machine kinematics (more DOFs than three) 
or are finicky and not very reliable and reproducible as they constitute thin wide high aspect ratio standoffs. 
Sometimes these go with the name "wavefront overhangs". 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
As at nanoscale gravity is massively overpowered by thermal excitations and vdW forces "overhang" is a bit of a misnomer here. 
But thin long high aspect ration "standoffs" pose very similar problems. 
Due to severe capability limits of [[SPM]] systems early mechanosynthesis will want to go layer-by-layer with very flat top. 
Much like most macroscale 3D printers do. 
A standoff that curls up ad deep cryo (like lHe 4K) makes top surfaces non flat and problematic. 
Worse at higher temperatures it may even moves around but mechanosynthesis at higher temperatures 
is a concern for later more advances capabilities anyways. 

[[Support material for mechanosynthesis]] is difficult nontrivial if even possible. 
There are no magically vanishing support carbon atoms with exactly the same bonding distance and lattice constant. 
Anything put below will add significant distortions laterally and to the top surface. 
Especially the latter causing some amount of challenges. 

== Anisotropic strength ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Many but not all 3D printing materials ave a significantly weaker in strength 
vertically across the printing layers compared to horizontally. 
Especially the easier to print ones (first and foremost PLA) 
that do not need a heated chamber and extensive drying. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Mostly a non problem here. 
Vertical covalent bonding has no difference to lateral covalent bonding 
aside the natural crystal anisotropy. See page: [[Cleavage planes]] 

== Clearances, backlash, smooth running ==

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
In place printed moving parts (gears & rollers) are typically not as good as with post assembly.

Surface divets (or even some stringing) from jumps
(beyond the surface divets form unavoidable seam that is better randomly distributed)
makes the surfaces not as smooth as they could be.

Clarence between parts must be
★ big enough to prevent fusing of the parts but also
★ small enough to minimize clearance and backlash
zero clearance an backlash is not possible

Post assembly in contrast allows for pushing things together
to zero clearance and zero backlash with some pre-tenstion 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
FFF printing like surface defects from seams and stringing are not a thinh for mechanosynthesis. 
Mechanosynthesis of on non-bonded interfaces in compressed state is rather questionable. 
Likely a better approach will be to use bending and pushing jigs in post assembly. 

== Throwing out failed parts ==

In place printing does prevent throwing out bad sub-parts. 
Due to no way to throw out bad sub-parts if one part is broken the whole part is. 

'''FFF/FDM printing:''' 
Big and complex in-place-printed structures for serious applications are for the most part not done 
as these are typically prohibitively difficult to design and then under-performing. 
The error rate in 3D printing is reasonably low (and different nature to atom-by-atom). 
So larger systems can be in place printed despite no way to throw out bad sub-parts. 
But still if one part is broken the whole part is. 
This becomes mostly a factor in increasing the part design challenge difficulty 
rather than a statistical likelihood for print failure. 

In case of post assembly: 
Easy. Just use your eyes and hands to detect and throw out bad parts. 

'''[[Mechanosynthesis]]:''' 
Big and complex in-place-mechanosysntesized structures are problematic 
Particularly in semi early systems as error rate in early primitive mechanosyntheis is expected to still be high. 

Same as with FFF printing larger systems are likely to be increasingly difficult to in-place mechanosynthesizable 
(and then under-performing). But higher error rates make it more severe for mechanosynthesis. 

In case of post assembly: 
Still hard. No eyes just touch test and other probing techniques. 
Robotic post assembly system needed to throw it out 

Design difficulty from incapability of throwing out of sub-parts is one point adding to other difficulties in the 
the outdated concept of a [[proto-assembler]]. Beside the difficulty 
★ from debugging of deeply buried systems 
★ from demanding everything to fit int certain limit of atom count 
… which is a strong forcing factor for in place mechanosynthesis as post assembly hugely increases atom count, 
… particularly when sensibly balanced to not have the mechanosysntehsis remain as a massive throughput bottleneck). 

== Related ==

* [[Cleavage planes]]
* [[In place assembly]]

Cleavage planes

2026-08-13T07:00:13Z

Apm: /* Related */

{{Stub}}

Q: Doesn't the presence of cleavage planes mean products out of nanoscale gemstones break easily? 

A: No, not really. 
Brittleness of macroscale gemstones is mainly a result of the unavoidable presence of defects (internal and on surface) 
and continuous covalent connectivity leading to stress concentrations inducing fractures that unboundedly propagate 
to a full break long (easily >99%) before the theoretical limit is reached. 
Thereby massively reducing toughness. 

Interlocking nanoscale gemstones like in [[gemstone based metamaterial]]s 
(will) remove that massive reduction. Even if the many of the cleavage planes are aligned. 
★ by stopping fractures at the next very nearby non-bonded interface interlock and 
★ by most [[crystolecules]] having no internal or external defects 
… particularly no stress concentrating surface divest to get a cleavage plane started. 

== Cleaving planes as only a concern for the very highest performance applications ==

Cleavage planes in gemstones like diamond and are still well above 50% of the maximum ultimate tensile strength 
which is still enormous and sufficient for almost all except the most extreme applications. 

Plus there are a number more and less straightforward ways to improve on that 
in the rare cases it is really needed. E.g.: 

=== Approaches to mitigate for cleavage planes ===

'''Interlocking nano-gemstone [[crystolecules]] in different crystal orientations:''' 
Design methodologies following ancient ones used in woodworking where wood has not one but two weak directions. Woodgrain.
More recent very much like design methodologies for FFF/FDM 3D printed parts as these often have one particularly weaker direction due to imperfect inter-layer-adhesion. 
Side-note: Post assembly of 3D printed parts is still quite underused despite quite a number of benefits including more isotropic and thus overall strength. 
See: [[Limits of in place printing and in place mechanosysnthesis]] 

'''Varying stacking order:''' 
ABCABC is cubic ABAB is less isotropic hexagonal with a only one major axis insterad of four. 
Other stacking patterns are possible too (this happens naturally in [[moissanite]] (SiC)) 
but one would likely want to make it in some less or more periodic systematic pattern. 
See: [[Checkerboard compound]] 

'''[[Quasiamorphous]] and [[quasicrystalling structures]]''': 
Fancy stuff to look at eventually. 

Obviously avoid gems with really pronounced cleavage planes. 
Some 2D materials like e.g. single crystalline graphite (aka HOPG) 
have just mere vdW bonds in one direction. 
These are still not weak from a breaking marcoscale parts by human hands perspective 
but ~100x weaker than covalent. 

== Related ==

* [[Superelasticity]]
* [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]
----
* [[In place assembly]]

Cleavage planes

2026-08-13T06:59:34Z

Apm: /* Approaches to mitigate for cleavage planes */ expanded on first point with analogy to wood-grain & FFF inter-layer adhesion

Cleavage planes

2026-08-13T06:45:16Z

Apm: basic page

{{Stub}}

Q: Doesn't the presence of cleavage planes mean products out of nanoscale gemstones break easily? 

A: No, not really. 
Brittleness of macroscale gemstones is mainly a result of the unavoidable presence of defects (internal and on surface) 
and continuous covalent connectivity leading to stress concentrations inducing fractures that unboundedly propagate 
to a full break long (easily >99%) before the theoretical limit is reached. 
Thereby massively reducing toughness. 

Interlocking nanoscale gemstones like in [[gemstone based metamaterial]]s 
(will) remove that massive reduction. Even if the many of the cleavage planes are aligned. 
★ by stopping fractures at the next very nearby non-bonded interface interlock and 
★ by most [[crystolecules]] having no internal or external defects 
… particularly no stress concentrating surface divest to get a cleavage plane started. 

== Cleaving planes as only a concern for the very highest performance applications ==

Cleavage planes in gemstones like diamond and are still well above 50% of the maximum ultimate tensile strength 
which is still enormous and sufficient for almost all except the most extreme applications. 

Plus there are a number more and less straightforward ways to improve on that 
in the rare cases it is really needed. E.g.: 

=== Approaches to mitigate for cleavage planes ===

'''Interlocking nano-gemstone [[crystolecules]] in different crystal orientations:''' 
(very much like FFF/FDM 3D printed parts ofteh have a weaker inter layer direction adn wood has a grain. 

'''Varying stacking order:''' 
ABCABC is cubic ABAB is less isotropic hexagonal with a only one major axis insterad of four. 
Other stacking patterns are possible too (this happens naturally in [[moissanite]] (SiC)) 
but one would likely want to make it in some less or more preiodic systematic pattern. 
See: [[Checkerboard compound]] 

'''[[Quasiamorphous]] and [[quasicrystalling structures]]''': 
Fancy stuff to look at eventually. 

Obviously avoid ges with greally pronounced cleabvage planes. 
Some 2D materials like e.g. slingle crystalline graphite (aka HOPG) 
have just mere vdW bonds in one direction. 
These are still not weak from a breaking marcoscale parts by human hands perspective 
but ~100x weaker than covalent. 

== Related ==

* [[Superelasticity]]
* [[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]

Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces

2026-08-13T06:09:44Z

Apm: basic page

Oxidation

2026-08-13T05:36:32Z

Apm: /* Related */ added link to yet unwritten page: Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces

{{stub}}

A common concern regarding the feasibility of [[gem based APM]] is that nanoscale parts will oxidize. 
(See: [[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]) 
This is a non-issue though as the (surface facing) target materials are 
either oxidation resistant or already fully oxidized. 
See: [[Gemstone-like compound]]

[[Pure metals and metallic alloys]] are not a focus exactly because of their oxidation tendency. 
And a few other reasons like diffusion and mechanical inferiority. 
See: [[Pure metals and metallic alloys]] 
Metals still can be [[mechanosynthesis|mechanosynthesized]] under certain constraints like
* low temperature and/or
* constrained atom placement freedom

Advanced systems will be able to perfectly seal and safe-keep their internals form oxidation. 
To give a weak analogy: Juts like an apples or bananas do not get brown inside so long they're not cut open.

== Fruit interior analogy ==

[[File:Quince (10921s) localcopy.jpg|400px|thumb|right|Just like fruit protect their interior by their skin, future products of [[atomically precise]] [[gemstone based metamaterial technology]] will likely do similar things. Possibly in a hierarchical fashion over several levels. A bit like many citrus fruit do on three levels. Side-note: This is a cut open quince. A very delicious fruit btw, though since it needs cooking to become soft it sadly became unpopular in the modern day and is not that often sold at convenience stores.]]

{{wikitodo|Add an illustrative image of cut open browning fruit progress, and mabe a sketch of a crude conceptual sketch of a broken open gem based APM system.}}

Just like fruits stay perfectly unoxidized inside (especially while still on the tree) 
and only start oxidizing and degrading when cut open, advanced gemstone based nanosystems can do a similar thing. 
Keeping all the ebvironmentally sensitive things well sealed inside.

Actually even more than that mesoscale compartmentalization could allow for breakage along intended cleavage planes 
not exposing interior that is not stable to the environment. 
Perhaps overstretchingly extending on the fruit analogy A bit more: 
Like multiple seeds in an apple that themselves feature some sealing again. 

== Related ==

* '''[[Pure metals and metallic alloys]]'''
* [[Chemical stability]]
* [[Passivation (disambiguation)]]
* [[Nanoscale surface passivation]] (old: [[Surface passivation]])
* [[Macroscale surface passivation]]
* [[Passivation layer mineral]]
* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
----
* [[Diffusion]]
* [[Water reactive gemstones]]
----
* [[Atomically precise surface passivation]]
----
* Well known scaling law: '''[[Rising surface area per volume of smaller machinery parts]]''' == [[Twice the surface area of half the volume]]
----
* '''[[Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces]]'''

== External links ==

* Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_browning Food browning]
* Wikimedia: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Food_browning Food browning]
----
* Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quince Quince]

[[Category:Surprising facts]]

File:Hirarchical intentional breaking interfaces.svg

2026-08-13T05:34:49Z

Apm: Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechandense License: CC0 Simple graphic meant as illustration for the concept of "Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces"

== Summary ==
Author: Lukas M. Süss aka mechandense 
License: CC0 

Simple graphic meant as illustration for the concept of 
"Hierarchical intentional breaking interfaces" 
== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-zero}}