Five types of nanotechnology
Citing Eric on his blog
by Eric Drexler on 2014/04/04
Why understanding seems stuck:
I count five kinds of nanotechnology, of which only three are called by that name. Of the three, one is a revolutionary prospect, one is a fantasy, and the third is mostly materials science. As for the other two kinds, one is the heart of today’s greatest technological revolution, while the other is the basis for progress toward the revolutionary prospect — but neither of these is called “nanotechnology”.
This may seem confusing, and it is. Indeed, people who think they know something about “nanotechnology” often have a lot to unlearn, and would be better off knowing basic physics and chemistry and starting from there. This situation makes it extraordinarily difficult to have a productive conversation about what really matters.
Here’s a compact summary in a nice, legible png image:
(wiki-TODO: Add Eric Drexler's Graphic here)
This wikis authors take
When for the first time introducing an as of yet unaware audience to the topic of
APM / atomically precise manufacturing and technology (or an even more specific subtopic, see section further below)
then using the term "nanotechnology" and any derived terminology variations of it can be quite problematic.
The term "nanotechnology" is laden with a lot of preconceived notions
many of which are more detrimental for understanding rather than beneficial.
And when new to a subject one typically clings to preexisting understanding to build upon.
In a pictorial analogy, it is like a tilting hole maze of mental trapdoor attractors.
And mentioning "nanotechnology" is like trying to solve the maze in ten seconds.
Perception of course strongly depends on the target audience.
Folks interested enough to listen tend to …
- jump to mundane current day surface science
- jump to soft SciFi on nanotechnology that is detached from reality
- jump to claims of nanotechnology experts of this being utterly impossible
When you want to point them to things like …
- the two major bootstrapping pathways classes, their challenges, and the challenges of combining their benefits.
- the economic viability challenges.
- the ideas of mechanosynthesis and unnatural chemistry
- the miracles of mechanical metamaterials (and flawless nano-gem superelasticity)
As this wikis author it is hard to convey my personal experience of
how much the term "nanotechnology" can be detrimental to productive discussion of the idea of APM.
Countless times having the discussion instantly sucked away from anything remotely APM related.
Latching on attractors of mundane non atomically precise R&D
Referred to with "mostly materials science" in Eric Drexler's blog-post.
Only some hints on "a revolutionary prospect" here.
Stuff like catalysis on surfaces of porous nanocrystal aggregates and the lotus effect.
Mostly no atomic precision here. Particularly not positional atomic precision.
Possibly some focus on commonly/widely known basic scaling laws.
Possibly some focus on self-assembly and topological atomic precision that can be APM related but
often with more focus on more APM unrelated synthetic biology, rather than a focus on stiff 3D construction kits.
All mostly cook mix and stir thermodynamic synthesis.
A stronger delineation to molecular biology and synthetic biology
and systems lacking machine phase ambitions
is likely part of the reason why the old common term "molecular nanotechnology"
was abandoned by Eric Drexler in favor of the new term "atomically precise manufacturing".
Latching on attractors of soft SciFi horror fairy tales & their magic lifelike nanobot basis
Referred to with "a fantasy" in Eric Drexler's blog-post.
- Accidental grey goo nanobots escaping from early UHV experiments and causing apocalyptic consequences
- The long outdated idea of ultra compact KSRM style molecular assemblers
misleadingly still presented as viable bootstrapping pathway or desirable long term target - Out of control autopilot AI developing the above (or something more realistic) within a handful of years
Latching on attractors of nanotechnology experts claiming fundamental impossibility
Unproductive criticism to "a revolutionary prospect" in Eric Drexler's blogpost.
Judging mostly from current day experimental limitations
and not so much if at all from first principles
(as done in exploratory engineering) can lead one astray.
Including even experts.
Unfortunately as of 2025 many/some nanotechnology experts
("nanotechnology" in the current day senses - see below)
still strongly dismiss the idea of macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale
as being a bad misunderstanding of fundamental physics.
Sometimes to the point of being convinced that the idea needs to be actively fought.
This seems to have died down a bit. Might just be sleeping dragons.
One common (on longer term view incorrectly) claim is that
nanomachines absolutely must use thermal motion
rather than suppressing it in order to be viably efficient i.e. feasible at all.
But actually diffusion transport is not free either, it just shifts the energy cost to the pit-stops.
(wiki-TODO: Find Eric Drexler's blog page on that topic.)
And this energy loss (dissipation) in diffusion transport systems
can be compared to active drive friction losses in macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale
Beyond that if the idea of dissipation sharing turns out to be possible
then the situation is even strongly vice-versa as the energetic pocket change
that can't be kept in diffusion transport can be kept in and reused in driven machine phase transport.
More on this more speculative idea on the page: Dissipation sharing.
Other claims focus on scaling laws. Particularly increasing surface area.
But with a skewed availability bias on scaling laws. Particularly missing:
More on infeasibility claims via some of the links in the "Related" section below.
More specific subtopic within APM
Even more specific than atomically precise manufacturing
(which includes mere topological atomic precision too)
would be advanced gemstone based metamaterial technology, or
diamondoid metamaterial technology here on this wiki
sometimes also called gem-gum-tec for a catchy shorthand.
Related
- Eric Drexler's blog partially dug up from the Internet Archive 2014-04-04
- Terminology
- macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale
- Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing
- Cook mix and stir thermodynamic synthesis
🙅 Drexlerian nanotechnology:
Also to be avoided, better to use diamondoid as that is what pretty much always is actually meant.
Beside the problematic "nanotechnology" part in this term, Eric Drexler …
- wants particularly not to be mistakenly known for advocating the direct path with molecular assemblers
as the far term target as this is neither the path nor the target that he is proposing. - wants to be known instead for his focus on the incremental path towards diamondoid via foldamers, particularly proteins.
Diamondoid nanofactories only as guiding star far term target.