Common critique towards diamondoid atomically precise manufacturing and technology

From apm
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub. It needs to be expanded.
All these common critiques have been analyzed and identified as non-showstoppers some even helping rather than hurting.

Scaling law (SL) based critiques

Rising surface area per volume (SL)

– 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 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, just unattainable with today's (2023) technology.

– 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.

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 (wiki-TODO: explain)

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 fingers (FALSE)
See: Jittery fingers, Sloppy fingers

– atoms do not stay in place due to surface diffusion or surface reconstruction (FALSE)
– nanosystems can only work in an dynamic equilibrium (FALSE)
(wiki-TODO: explain)

  • 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 diffusion transport. – nature would have done it if it where possible (FALSE)
(wiki-TODO: add link)

– atoms do not stay in place due to natural ambient high energy radiation (TRUE BUT)
(wiki-TODO: explain things with fail-safe redundancy & self repair)

– 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 deflections across scales

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 fingers

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

Retrieved from "https://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=Common_critique_towards_diamondoid_atomically_precise_manufacturing_and_technology&oldid=15382"