X-Message-Number: 18595
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:36:18 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #18588 - #18591

Hi everyone!

I may take a slightly different view of nanotech than others, and
than Drexler. Naturally I've read his books. One of the most notable
lacks in all his discussion was actual designs of objects which
could be built now or very soon.

The way to get completed nanotechnology is not to sit and theoretically
work out its limits, but to try to make actual small devices which
do useful things ... and make them smaller and smaller and you 
continue. The trouble with theory is that the theoretician is likely
to forget something, no matter who he is. If he has actual working
devices, even if they don't come up to theory, then he can test his
theories and their merits, but without them he can only sit and
think, and maybe make crucial mistakes ... which no one notices
until they actually try to MAKE SOMETHING.

These ideas tell me that what's happening in nanotechnology is all
to the good. On chemical levels, means to cover something with better
paint ARE forms of nanotechnology, just as are many other things,
such as novel materials like the kind people have make flat TV screens
right now. And even more is coming down the line. 

We may or may not get the nanotechnology Drexler writes about.
That depends on whether he really did escape critical errors which
we will only discover as we work in the field. I have my personal
opinions about possible errors, but fundamentally they too  are
only theory. We should make real machines even if they don't
equal our theoretical limits, and see what happens as we 
continue.

		Best wishes and long long life for all,

			Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18595