Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing - Revision history

Apm: Category:Surprising facts

2026-03-29T20:06:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:06, 29 March 2026
Line 403:		Line 403:

	[[Category:General]]		[[Category:General]]
			[[Category:Surprising facts]]

	== Table of contents ==		== Table of contents ==

	__TOC__		__TOC__

Apm: /* Related */ link to Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements

2025-11-29T05:33:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:33, 29 November 2025
Line 397:		Line 397:
	* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''		* '''[[Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology]]'''
	* Some of the trapdoors listed here are known for a long time now. <br>They old [[Engines of Creation]] has some of them pretty early on in the introduction. <br>Listed there are ... {{wikitodo\|add list}}		* Some of the trapdoors listed here are known for a long time now. <br>They old [[Engines of Creation]] has some of them pretty early on in the introduction. <br>Listed there are ... {{wikitodo\|add list}}
			* [[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]

	----		----
	* '''[[General tips for productive communication]]'''		* '''[[General tips for productive communication]]'''

Apm: changed the headline hierarchy

2024-09-15T06:50:26Z

changed the headline hierarchy

Apm: /* Diamondoind nanomachines would be soft like jelly and thus infeasible - false and false */ added some elaborations

2024-09-15T06:46:37Z

Diamondoind nanomachines would be soft like jelly and thus infeasible - false and false: added some elaborations

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:46, 15 September 2024
Line 51:		Line 51:
	A limitation that leads to systems being simulated at speeds hundred thousand times faster than proposed speeds (100m/s rather than 1mm/s). <br>		A limitation that leads to systems being simulated at speeds hundred thousand times faster than proposed speeds (100m/s rather than 1mm/s). <br>
	Details to that limitation and more can be found on the page: <br>		Details to that limitation and more can be found on the page: <br>
	[[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]		[[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]] <br>

	As a macroscale analogon: Spring steel does also acts like jelly if parts are shot at each other almost at bullet speeds and observed with a slow motion camera.		As a macroscale analogon: <br>
	That's essentially what one sees in almost all the atomistic simulations.		Spring steel does also acts like jelly if parts are shot at each other almost at bullet speeds and observed with a slow motion camera. <br>
	Difference is that isolated single nano-mechanisms (not bulk volumes of them !!) do not self destruct when steady state ~~operates~~ at these speeds.		That's essentially what one sees in almost all the atomistic simulations. <br>
	Macroscale machines could not get rid of the enormous waste heat fast enough.		Difference is that isolated single nano-mechanisms (not bulk volumes of them !!) do not self destruct when steady state operated at these speeds.
			Macroscale machines could not get rid of the enormous waste heat fast enough. <br>
			Not that one would usually want to run nano-machines at these extreme speeds as it's very inefficient. And one obviously has to design around the wobble then.<br>
			At proposed speeds of a few mm/s there would be no perceptible motion driven flex visible in the simulations. <br>
			Beside the low speed diamond is way stiffer than even steel. <br>

	How much things bend actually does not change across scales. <br>		How much things bend actually does not change across scales. <br>
	It is scale invariant in the "[[same absolute speed across scales]]" approximation. And even better it goes down on a closer analysis. <br>		That is: It is scale invariant in the "[[same absolute speed across scales]]" approximation. <br>
	For an ~~explanation~~ of ~~this scaling law~~ see page: [[Same relative deflections across scales]] <br>		And even better it goes down on a closer analysis. <br>
	The scaling law of [[lower stiffness of smaller machinery]] has the potential to fool even experts into this misconception.		For an explanations of details see page: [[Same relative deflections across scales]]. <br>
			Atop the misleading simulations: <br>
			The scaling law of [[lower stiffness of smaller machinery]] has the potential to fool even experts into this misconception. <br>
			Details on the linked page.

	== Potential concerns about mechanosynthesis ==		== Potential concerns about mechanosynthesis ==

Apm: /* Diamondoind nanomachines would be soft like jelly and thus infeasible - false and false */

2024-09-15T06:38:41Z

Diamondoind nanomachines would be soft like jelly and thus infeasible - false and false

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:38, 15 September 2024
Line 53:		Line 53:
	[[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]		[[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]

	As a macroscale analogon: Spring steel do also acts like jelly if parts are shot at each other almost at bullet speeds and observed with a slow motion camera.		As a macroscale analogon: Spring steel does also acts like jelly if parts are shot at each other almost at bullet speeds and observed with a slow motion camera.
	That's essentially what one sees in almost all the atomistic simulations.		That's essentially what one sees in almost all the atomistic simulations.
	Difference is that isolated single nano-mechanisms (not bulk volumes of them !!) do not self destruct when steady state operates at these speeds.		Difference is that isolated single nano-mechanisms (not bulk volumes of them !!) do not self destruct when steady state operates at these speeds.

Apm: /* Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale ?! */ added new section == Diamondoind nanomachines would be soft like jelly pudding and thus infeasible - false and false ==

2024-09-15T06:38:11Z

Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale ?!: added new section == Diamondoind nanomachines would be soft like jelly pudding and thus infeasible - false and false ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:38, 15 September 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Related: [[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]		Related: [[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]

			== Diamondoind nanomachines would be soft like jelly and thus infeasible - false and false ==

			This widespread and persistent common misconception is an artifact of a limitation of simulation capabilities <br>
			A limitation that leads to systems being simulated at speeds hundred thousand times faster than proposed speeds (100m/s rather than 1mm/s). <br>
			Details to that limitation and more can be found on the page: <br>
			[[Misleading aspects in animations of diamondoid molecular machine elements]]

			As a macroscale analogon: Spring steel do also acts like jelly if parts are shot at each other almost at bullet speeds and observed with a slow motion camera.
			That's essentially what one sees in almost all the atomistic simulations.
			Difference is that isolated single nano-mechanisms (not bulk volumes of them !!) do not self destruct when steady state operates at these speeds.
			Macroscale machines could not get rid of the enormous waste heat fast enough.

			How much things bend actually does not change across scales. <br>
			It is scale invariant in the "[[same absolute speed across scales]]" approximation. And even better it goes down on a closer analysis. <br>
			For an explanation of this scaling law see page: [[Same relative deflections across scales]] <br>
			The scaling law of [[lower stiffness of smaller machinery]] has the potential to fool even experts into this misconception.

	== Potential concerns about mechanosynthesis ==		== Potential concerns about mechanosynthesis ==

Apm: /* It will be insurmountably difficult to develop gem based APM – Wrong */ some review and cleanup

2024-09-15T06:16:13Z

It will be insurmountably difficult to develop gem based APM – Wrong: some review and cleanup

Apm: /* It's called "nanotechnology" - not anymore */ some minor cleanup and additions

2024-09-15T05:52:59Z

It's called "nanotechnology" - not anymore: some minor cleanup and additions

Apm: /* Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale ?! */

2024-09-15T05:45:31Z

Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale ?!

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:45, 15 September 2024
Line 40:		Line 40:
	There are quite a number of points of critique here. <br>		There are quite a number of points of critique here. <br>
	They are listed and discussed on the page: '''[[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]''' <br>		They are listed and discussed on the page: '''[[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]''' <br>
	The gist is: It is rather clear where the points of critique come from. That is: There are good reason for all these doubts given the current (~~2021~~) state of technology. But all of the most fundamental critique points have been analyzed and came to a favorabel conclusion for the concept to work.		The gist is: It is rather clear where the points of critique come from. That is: There are good reason for all these doubts given the current (2021…2024) state of technology. But all of the most fundamental critique points have been analyzed and came to a favorabel conclusion for the concept to work.
	In the end it turns out that [[scaling law\|the chaining of physics with size scales]] makes [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] actually work better rather than worse than "macroscale style machinery at the macroscale". Contrary to the expectation of some "current day nanotechnology" experts. <br>		In the end it turns out that [[scaling law\|the chaining of physics with size scales]] makes [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] actually work better rather than worse than "macroscale style machinery at the macroscale". Contrary to the expectation of some "current day nanotechnology" experts. <br>
	<small>(Side-note: If you are wondering about [[nanoscale style machinery at the macroscale]] now: This is hardly possible.)</small>		<small>(Side-note: If you are wondering about [[nanoscale style machinery at the macroscale]] now: This is hardly possible.)</small>

Apm: /* Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale ?! */

2024-09-15T05:42:31Z

Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale ?!

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 15 September 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:
	They are listed and discussed on the page: '''[[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]''' <br>		They are listed and discussed on the page: '''[[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]''' <br>
	The gist is: It is rather clear where the points of critique come from. That is: There are good reason for all these doubts given the current (2021) state of technology. But all of the most fundamental critique points have been analyzed and came to a favorabel conclusion for the concept to work.		The gist is: It is rather clear where the points of critique come from. That is: There are good reason for all these doubts given the current (2021) state of technology. But all of the most fundamental critique points have been analyzed and came to a favorabel conclusion for the concept to work.
	In the end it turns out that [[scaling law\|the chaining of physics with size scales]] makes [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] actually work better rather than worse than "macroscale style machinery at the macroscale". Contrary to the expectation of some "current day nanotechnology" experts. (Side-note: If you are wondering about [[nanoscale style machinery at the macroscale]] now: This is hardly possible.)		In the end it turns out that [[scaling law\|the chaining of physics with size scales]] makes [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] actually work better rather than worse than "macroscale style machinery at the macroscale". Contrary to the expectation of some "current day nanotechnology" experts. <br>
			<small>(Side-note: If you are wondering about [[nanoscale style machinery at the macroscale]] now: This is hardly possible.)</small>

	Related: [[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]		Related: [[Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping]]
Line 49:		Line 50:
	=== Atoms can't be placed individually because of "fat and sticky fingers" - sticky is actually good fat is just untrue for the tips ===		=== Atoms can't be placed individually because of "fat and sticky fingers" - sticky is actually good fat is just untrue for the tips ===

	Disproved by basic experimental and detailed theoretical work. See: [[Mechanosynthesis]]. It may get a bit more challenging when the [[mechanosynthesis of chain molecules\|mechanosynthesis of ''complex'' chain molecules]] is attempted.		Disproved by basic experimental and detailed theoretical work. See: [[Mechanosynthesis]]. <br>
			It may get a bit more challenging when the [[mechanosynthesis of chain molecules\|mechanosynthesis of ''complex'' chain molecules]] is attempted. <br>
	Which is not a requirement for [[nanofactory\|gem-gum-factories]].		Which is not a requirement for [[nanofactory\|gem-gum-factories]].

Line 72:		Line 74:
	=== Atoms can't be placed fast enough - false ===		=== Atoms can't be placed fast enough - false ===

	To make macroscopic products in a reasonable time-span by putting them together atom by atom would require		To make macroscopic products in a reasonable time-span by
			putting them together atom by atom would require
	atom placement frequencies too high to reach.		atom placement frequencies too high to reach.

	This is not true.		This is not true. Quite moderate atom placement frequencies in the MHz range suffice when combined <br>
	Quite moderate atom placement frequencies in the MHz range suffice when combined		with massive spacial parallelism that is hard but realistically to reach. <br>
	with massive spacial parallelism that is hard but realistically to reach.
	See: "[[Atom placement frequency]]" for details.		See: "[[Atom placement frequency]]" for details.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:50, 15 September 2024
Line 70:		Line 70:
	Details on the linked page.		Details on the linked page.

	== Potential concerns about mechanosynthesis ==		= Potential concerns about mechanosynthesis =

	=== Atoms can't be placed individually because of "fat and sticky fingers" - sticky is actually good fat is just untrue for the tips ===		== Atoms can't be placed individually because of "fat and sticky fingers" - sticky is actually good fat is just untrue for the tips ==

	Disproved by basic experimental and detailed theoretical work. See: [[Mechanosynthesis]]. <br>		Disproved by basic experimental and detailed theoretical work. See: [[Mechanosynthesis]]. <br>
Line 82:		Line 82:
	There are two more finger problems beside the two infamous ones.		There are two more finger problems beside the two infamous ones.

	=== Once placed atoms won't stay there because of "thermodynamics" - mostly false - solvable problem ===		== Once placed atoms won't stay there because of "thermodynamics" - mostly false - solvable problem ==

	In other words: Thermodynamics prevents one from having every atom at the place we want it - wrong for practical scales <br>		In other words: Thermodynamics prevents one from having every atom at the place we want it - wrong for practical scales <br>
Line 96:		Line 96:
	* See: [[Radiation damage]]		* See: [[Radiation damage]]

	=== Atoms can't be placed fast enough - false ===		== Atoms can't be placed fast enough - false ==

	To make macroscopic products in a reasonable time-span by		To make macroscopic products in a reasonable time-span by
Line 106:		Line 106:
	See: "[[Atom placement frequency]]" for details.		See: "[[Atom placement frequency]]" for details.

	=== Control data can't be supplied fast enough - false ===		== Control data can't be supplied fast enough - false ==

	We already do similar things with our current technology.		We already do similar things with our current technology.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 15 September 2024
Line 143:		Line 143:

	'''No, not insurmountable. Yes, it will be a very difficult journey.''' <br>		'''No, not insurmountable. Yes, it will be a very difficult journey.''' <br>
	It's just a humongous, possibly multi-generational, challenge with many people and work-hours involved. <br>		It's just a humongous, possibly multi-generational, challenge with many people and work-hours months and years involved. <br>
	It may happen within one single average human lifespan (as of ~~2021~~), but anyone who says that this is a fact is wildly guessing. <br>		It may happen within one single average human lifespan (as of 2021…2024), but anyone who says that this is a fact is wildly guessing. <br>
	There is not "the one exponential trend" like e.g Moores law that can be projected into the future. <br>		There is not "the one exponential trend" like e.g Moores law that can be projected into the future. <br>
	At least not yet.		At least not yet.
Line 158:		Line 158:
	* No, the technology is ''very'' different to living systems and most likely much less complex. (See dedicated section below)		* No, the technology is ''very'' different to living systems and most likely much less complex. (See dedicated section below)
	* No, there is [[Synthetic biology\|other (APM unrelated) technological development]] that aims at recreation of primitive life like systems and it might have chance at succeeding.		* No, there is [[Synthetic biology\|other (APM unrelated) technological development]] that aims at recreation of primitive life like systems and it might have chance at succeeding.
	* Aside the false premise: <br>Don't we have the obligation (and privilege) to research the world given to us in a responsible way. <br>Won't the lack of hopes dreams and curiosity will certainly lead to bad things?		* Aside the false premise: <br>Don't we have the obligation (and privilege) to research the world given to us in a responsible way. <br>Won't the lack of hopes, dreams, and curiosity will certainly lead to bad things?

	'''Misconception:''' <br>		'''Misconception:''' <br>
	Handling the complexity of full on quantum mechanical systems will be an unconditionally necessary technological skill. <br>		Handling the complexity of large scale full on quantum mechanical systems will be an unconditionally necessary technological skill. <br>
	<small>Full on quantum mechanically meaning aptly handling highly quantum-dispersed and entangled-systems.</small><br>		<small>Full on quantum mechanically meaning aptly handling highly quantum-dispersed and entangled-systems.</small><br>
	No, This is not a prerequisite for advanced APM. See: "[[It's not quantum mechanical]]" <br>		No, This is not a prerequisite for advanced APM. See: "[[It's not quantum mechanical]]" <br>
Line 188:		Line 188:
	Synthetic biology is a different field of technological development. <br>		Synthetic biology is a different field of technological development. <br>
	Synthetic biology is not aiming at atomically precision over over larger size scales and thus <br>		Synthetic biology is not aiming at atomically precision over over larger size scales and thus <br>
	it does not fall into the field of [[APM]] as defined in this wiki. <br>		it does not fall into the field of [[APM]] as it is defined in this wiki. Not even [[incremental path]]. <br>
	People working in the field of synthetic biology may well have a chance at creating primitive life like systems. <br>		People working in the field of synthetic biology may well have a chance at creating primitive life like systems. <br>
	So even if R&D in the field of APM would aim at recreating primitive life-like systems (which it does not) <br>		So even if R&D in the field of APM would aim at recreating primitive life-like systems (which it does not) <br>
Line 205:		Line 205:
	they would need to be much more complicated (and slow/inefficient) than systems that do not feature such ultra-compact self-replicative capabilities.		they would need to be much more complicated (and slow/inefficient) than systems that do not feature such ultra-compact self-replicative capabilities.

	The idea of molecular ~~assemblers~~ (the idea not the devices themselves) is so successful compared to the [[gemstone metamaterial on chip factory\|actual target]] likely because:		The idea of [[molecular assembler]]s (the idea not the devices themselves) was (and sadly still is) so successful <br>
	* ~~it's~~ self suggestiveness - people can hinge on something that they (believe) to understand - (thereby being ~~massively~~ misled)		compared to the [[gemstone metamaterial on chip factory\|actual target]] likely because:
	* it being the only option if the [[direct path]] is the only path under consideration. Ignoring the [[incremental path]].		* its self suggestiveness - people can hinge on something that they (believe) to understand - (thereby being misled in judgements)
			* it being the only option if the original from of the [[direct path]] via [[molecular assembler]]s is the only path under consideration. <br>Ignoring the [[incremental path]], [[mixed path]] and newer variants of the [[direct path]] that avoid [[molecular assembler]]s or their chip mounted equivalent.

	'''Early [[advanced productive nanosystem]]s will likely be more like computer chips rather than living cells.''' <br>		'''Early [[advanced productive nanosystem]]s will likely be more like computer chips rather than living cells.''' <br>
	While living cells store their building plan in a few gigabytes (which is well in reach of current 2021 computer technology) <br>		While living cells store their building plan in a few gigabytes (which is well in reach of current 2021 computer technology) <br>
	~~the~~ incredible aspect of life is the degree of smartness in data-compression. <br>		an incredible aspect of life is the degree of smartness in data-compression. <br>
	E.g. how a whole human being can be encoded in the little amount of information stored in the DNA (ignoring epigenetics and the microbiome here). <br>		E.g. how a whole human being can be encoded in the little amount of information stored in the DNA (ignoring epigenetics and the microbiome here). <br>
	But again, recreating that is an eventual goal of [[synthetic biology]] not a goal when aiming for minimal viable [[gem-gum factories]].		But again, recreating that is an eventual goal of [[synthetic biology]] not a goal when aiming for minimal viable [[gem-gum factories]].
Line 217:		Line 218:
	== Actual points of great difficulty in the development of APM that often are overlooked ==		== Actual points of great difficulty in the development of APM that often are overlooked ==

	* The biggest current challenges in relevant targeted development are of conceptual and institutional nature.		* The biggest current challenges in relevant targeted development are of conceptual and institutional nature. <br><small>Meta: This very page here is an effort on improving ion the conceptual.</small> understanding.
	* What is not (yet) well know about advanced APM is that there is stuff that actually can already be known.		* What is not (yet) well know about advanced APM is that <br>there is stuff that actually ''can'' already be known (via the methodology of [[exploratory engineering]]).
	* Funding of highly targeted relevant work is very difficult.		* Funding of highly targeted relevant work is very difficult. Perhaps the biggest blocker of progress as of 2024.
	* Not at all an exhaustive list ...		* Not at all an exhaustive list ...

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:52, 15 September 2024
Line 99:		Line 99:
	Due to the terms extreme generality it caused confusion and conflict. <br>		Due to the terms extreme generality it caused confusion and conflict. <br>
	Hardening misconceptions causing unjustified discreditation going as far as <br>		Hardening misconceptions causing unjustified discreditation going as far as <br>
	career ~~fear~~ based self censorship and consequently a severe setback in development.		fear of career loss based self censorship and consequently a severe setback in development.

	For details see main article: "[[The term nanotechnology]]" (and page: [[History]] & [[The negative effects that public overexcitement can have]]).		For details see main article: "[[The term nanotechnology]]" (and page: [[History]] & [[The negative effects that public overexcitement can have]]).
Line 106:		Line 106:
	* refrain from using the term "nanotechnology" as much as possible and		* refrain from using the term "nanotechnology" as much as possible and
	* refrain from using the nano- prefix in general.		* refrain from using the nano- prefix in general.
			* more generally refrain from using bio-analogies. <br>See page: [[Misleading biological analogies that should be avoided]]

	== Suggestions for descriptive unannexable names for the technology ==		== Suggestions for descriptive unannexable names for the technology ==
Line 115:		Line 116:

	'''Note that …'''		'''Note that …'''
	* just "advanced APM" fails to specify that advancedness ~~refers~~ to ~~gem basedness~~ so only use this if that's the intention.		* just "advanced APM" is vague, it fails to specify that advancedness shall refer to being based on gemstones so only use this if that's the intention.
	* just APM (atomically precise ~~manufactiuring~~) does not explicitly exclude very early systems like <br>[[structural DNA nanotechnology]], [[foldamer]] technologies, [[spiroligomers]], …		* just APM (atomically precise manufacturing) does not explicitly exclude very early systems like <br>[[structural DNA nanotechnology]], [[foldamer]] technologies, [[spiroligomers]], …
	* just "advanced nanotechnology" is asking for conflict as there are folks that <br>see [[soft machines]] or more narrowly [[synthetic biology]] filling that role entirely.		* just "advanced nanotechnology" is asking for conflict as there are folks that <br>see [[soft machines]] or more narrowly [[synthetic biology]] filling that role entirely.

Line 130:		Line 131:
	Evolution of terminology is an indominable force of nature as a whole society is involved. <br>		Evolution of terminology is an indominable force of nature as a whole society is involved. <br>
	When gem based APM becomes the dominant type of nanotechnology eventually, <br>		When gem based APM becomes the dominant type of nanotechnology eventually, <br>
	then the term nanotechnology might change it's meaning to align with gem-gum-tec all by itself (reversing the problem). <br>		then the term nanotechnology might change it's meaning to align with gem-gum-tec all by itself (reversing the by some perceived problem). <br>
	But for now for the sake of productive discussions about near term APM and far term APM <br>		But for now for the sake of productive discussions about near term APM and far term APM <br>
	we should seriously try to avoid using the term "nanotechnology" to refer to "gem-gum-tec". <br>		we should seriously try to avoid using the term "nanotechnology" to refer to "gem-gum-tec". <br>