Microtech vs. nanotech
kr
>Incidentally ... I am still puzzled as to how biological systems cope
>with the presence of dirt. You'd tend to think that all those capillaries,
>micro-tubules and nanotubules would get clogged up sooner or later. I'd
>be interested in comments on this subject.
The quick answer here of course is that biological systems are systems of
molecular machinery, able to exert much more control over what passes the
boundaries of a closed system. This is in contrast to microtechnology,
which is pretty crude. :-) This issue precisely goes to the core of the
difference between microtech (moving top->down) and nanotech (using a
bottom->up methodology). It will likely be very difficult to reach full
molecular manufacturing by making microtech just smaller. To me personally,
it is not even clear to what degree microtech will be able to assist the
development of nanotech.
As one devotes more time amd thought to this (seemingly superficial) issue,
the clearer the importance of a bottom->up approach becomes.
Many Greetings
==================================================================
Markus Krummenacker 1797 Union Street
Director of Research San Francisco, CA 94123
Nanothinc, A California Corporation Phone: (415) 202-9969
direct email: k...@nanothinc.com FAX: (415) 202-9975
general info: in...@nanothinc.com URL: Coming this fall
Derrick C. Mancini
> At 14:16 95-01-20, POLLOCKP_a...@smtpgw1.plk.af.mil wrote:
> >Incidentally ... I am still puzzled as to how biological systems cope
> >with the presence of dirt.
> The quick answer here of course is that biological systems are systems of
> molecular machinery, able to exert much more control over what passes the
> boundaries of a closed system. This is in contrast to microtechnology...
Well, Markus, the more I think about it, the more I can see that the
inevitable bottom-up trend in biology is to construct micromachines and
even macromachines in order to make it possible for nanoentities to
survive! That is, you need cells to supply the environment in which
nanoentities can grow, you need organisms to interact with the environment.
Cells have both nano and micro level components. Organisms have nano,
micro, and macro components, all in an effort to make that most central
nanoentity, DNA, survive! In the biological world, there is no way
to make all these level of components except up from the bottom-up in a
molecular way. This DOES NOT mean that it is the only, or even the most
efficient way. Similarly, to get the most out of nanotechnology, I do
believe you will need micro components, and even macro components, to
make a fully useful system for nanotechnology to be commercially and
socially beneficial. Otherwise it won't be nanotechnology, it will just
be chemistry. This is something that I think most of the "nanothinkers"
who argue the molecular-reductionist approach don't appreciate. And why
nano will usually go hand-in-hand with micro, just like micro today
must go hand-in-hand with macro. I can't make use of the range of
existing microtechnologies without integrating them in a large range
of macrotechnologies. I expect that it will be similarly so for the
emerging nanotechnologies. (Actually, I know so for specific possible
commercial applications in the near term, at least).
--
The XRAYMAN
Drysdale, Alan
>
>At 14:16 95-01-20, POLLOCKP_a...@smtpgw1.plk.af.mil wrote:
>>Incidentally ... I am still puzzled as to how biological systems cope
>>micro-tubules and nanotubules would get clogged up sooner or later. I'd
>>be interested in comments on this subject.
>
>molecular machinery, able to exert much more control over what passes the
>boundaries of a closed system.
Insects tend to have very good protective devices. They are sealed against
the environment and use lots of hairs and other mechanical devices to keep
particles out of orifices. However, particles can still be a problem.
Abrasives can kill insects by damaging the wax coating on their exoskeletons,
and they dehydrate. I suspect if you look at the gut, the inlet orifice size
will be smaller than the outlet size. Other than food through the mouth and
gases through the spiracles, nothing else gets inside them, so the internal
organs like blood vessels don't have a problem.
capillaries don't have a dust contamination problem.
Arni Thoroddsen
>At 14:16 95-01-20, POLLOCKP_a...@smtpgw1.plk.af.mil wrote:
>>Incidentally ... I am still puzzled as to how biological systems cope
>>with the presence of dirt. You'd tend to think that all those capillaries,
>>micro-tubules and nanotubules would get clogged up sooner or later. I'd
>>be interested in comments on this subject.
>The quick answer here of course is that biological systems are systems of
>molecular machinery, able to exert much more control over what passes the
>boundaries of a closed system. This is in contrast to microtechnology,
But isn't this just because biological systems are descended from
nanotech, so of course they will use nanotech rather than microtech to
implement their functions?
>which is pretty crude. :-) This issue precisely goes to the core of the
>difference between microtech (moving top->down) and nanotech (using a
>bottom->up methodology). It will likely be very difficult to reach full
>molecular manufacturing by making microtech just smaller. To me personally,
>it is not even clear to what degree microtech will be able to assist the
>development of nanotech.
But is there any reason to be developing microtech simply to develope
nanotech. It seems to me that we would develope microtech to get
practical applications that we can use right now, not in ten years.
>As one devotes more time amd thought to this (seemingly superficial) issue,
>the clearer the importance of a bottom->up approach becomes.
I am not saying that we should abandon nanotech, or lessen our emphasis
on nanotech, but we should be able to develope a lot of practical
technology using microtech right now, so this seems a good reason to
spend on microtech research. One obvious reason is finding applications
where microtech will not work and we must wait for nanotech (in which
case nanotech will have many applications waiting for it when it finally
arrives).
As for the problem of dust and biological systems although I am not an
expert in this field I can mention a few obvious techniques.
Biologigal systems use MEMBRANES to achieve at least partial isolation
from a dusty environment (an immediate application for nanotech might be
the construction of membranes for specific microtech devices).
They usually have a TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM for transporting alien
particles out of their INTERIOR VOLUME which is frequently filled with a
specific INTERIOR FLUID which probably serves a purpose in identifying
foreign particles. The transportation of foreign particles out of the
system usually takes place at SIEVE SITES where foreign particles are
accumulated and expunged. There may also be RETRIEVERS, agents that scout
the interior fluid and bind unto any foreign particles they find, and
signal to the transportation system that they are to be moved to the
SIEVE SITES where the particles may be expunged.
Now it seems likely to me that we can construct similar systems for at
least some applications of microtech.
But again I lament the lack of data on the internet on microtech, so my
insights might not be very deep in view of the work being done that I do
not have access to.
-----
Arni Thoroddsen arn...@ismennt.is
Fjolugata 19, Reykjavmk, Iceland