X-Message-Number: 12459
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: for Eugene Leitl, some thoughts on nanotechnology
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:04:35 +1000 (EST)

For Eugene Leitl:

Naturally I wish these efforts well, not because they have combined a 
metal part with an ATPase motor, but because they are trying to manipulate
matter on nanoscales. I will also send away for the original paper.

The final outcome of such studies still remains unknown. One major issue
(as I see it) consists of the highly visible difference between
biochemistry as it proceeds in us and other living things and "mechanical"
technology ie. small machines which perform complex tasks... as opposed
to biochemistry, which works by means of small machines, each of which
performs one or a few SIMPLE tasks.

A small machine performing a complex task will consist of several parts,
all of which must work. In biochemistry, we simply have the parts, each
of which works independently, all of them connected not through any
directly mechanical means but by means of some liquid (I am not saying
here, and it isn't even true NOW, that the liquid must be based on water).
The question which comes to me immediately is that of the durability
of such systems. The small machine doing complex tasks becomes deactivated
if only one of its parts is damaged. We should not forget that such
machines won't be working in an ideal setting, but instead in settings 
which may contain other chemicals capable of damaging them. As for the 
biochemistry version, certainly the individual parts may be damaged, but
that damage need not affect the ability of the system to perform its
task (whatever that task may be), and each small simple machine can be
much more easily and quickly replaced than the more complex machines.
Not only that, but there need be no halt to the work being done: if one
or a few simple machines is damaged, all the others continue to work just
as before.

Even now, enzymes devised to work in ammonia solvents exist and are in
use. I am not discussing the biochemistry of life but instead a question
of design for whatever nanochemistry we may devise in the future. I will
say, though, that it's thoughts about the merits of such systems which
makes me ask the question.

I believe that we'll see much more nanotechnology in the future ... that
is, nanotechnology in the broad sense: seen from one angle, it is
chemistry. But the exact form such nanotechnology will take remains
unknown; we'll learn about it by actually DOING it, not by means of 
theoretical studies, which without experiment can easily forget some
critical fact which affects the methods we use.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12459