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