One of the frustrations of nanotechnology is that we generally can’t make nano materials in large quantities or at low cost, much less both. For the last five years a friend of mine has been telling me this story, explaining that there’s a secret manufacturing method and that he’s seen it. I’m beginning to think the guy is right. We may finally be on the threshold of the real nanotech revolution.
Say you want to build a space elevator, which is probably the easiest way to hoist payloads into orbit. Easy yet also impossible, because no material can be manufactured that is strong enough to make an elevator cable to space. The weight of the cable alone would cause too much tensile stress: it couldn’t carry itself, much less a commercially-viable payload, too. Some exotic new material is required, one with a strength-to-weight ratio beyond any present material, even spider silk. So we talk about space elevators, we have conferences about space elevators, we draw picture after picture of space elevators, yet we can’t make one. Or couldn’t… until now.
Nanotech has always seemed to me a bit of a tease. The ideas are profound: we make tiny little machines and use them for whole new purposes. And we can do it to some extent — building materials in small amounts and Micro-Electrical-Mechanical-Systems (MEMS), putting an accelerometer and a barometer and a compass in your mobile phone. Nano tech is little things that so far we make in small amounts, but it still isn’t a space elevator. That would take a thousand tons of carbon nanotubes — a billion times more nanotubes than the entire world production to date.
Nanotech, before there was really anything nano to sell or buy, and certainly before there was anything to even show, was promoted as an idea with, as I recall, two main images: 1) microscopic machines injected into your bloodstream to chip away and remove cholesterol deposits like tiny backhoes, and; 2) a swimming pool filled with primordial raw materials and millions more tiny machines would produce an exact replica of a Tucker Tornado car right down to having lacquer paint and a full tank of gas. Drain the pool and drive the car away. Is it possible? Sometime in the mid-22nd century, maybe. I haven’t had a nano-cholesterol treatment yet, have you? And where’s that damned Tucker?
The fact is that nanotechnology is having a huge impact but — as inevitably happens — it isn’t working out the way we first expected. It’s not so customer-facing for one thing. And some of the things that had to happen for nano to have the kind of success originally predicted didn’t come about, or haven’t yet. But in one specific area that might be about to change. Still no custom Tucker Tornados, but the grander, bigger, promise of nanotech may be soon realized.
The next step in nanotech is making huge amounts of basic nano building materials. We already know generally what we want to make, we just don’t know how to do it economically and in huge quantities.
Enter, The Engineer.
The Engineer is a good friend of mine. He’s the real deal, a technologist who makes stuff that works. He can fix your car, build you a satellite, or blow you up. A renaissance man, he can do it all. And he exists, I swear it. He just prefers to work in the background.
The Engineer told me years ago that nanotechnology would never reach its potential until smart materials could be manufactured in huge volumes needed to make real things in great numbers. Until then it would be all mobile phones and maybe really cool paint pigments, but no piles of nanotubes and certainly no new Tuckers. “What’s needed,” he told me back in 2011, “is a self-organizing principle — a way to get nano materials to essentially make themselves.”
It’s an obvious idea if you think about it. Both the cholesterol and Tucker examples require fine-grained design and control where making graphene cloth or billets of super-metal shouldn’t. We might be able to design little machines to make a Tucker but they’d build so slowly that it wouldn’t be practical. At this point we just need to make relatively simple nano-materials and make them quickly in huge quantities.
“It can be done,” claimed the Engineer back in 2011. “If you understand the self-organizing principle. We can make these materials quickly and cheaply. the basic building block is carbon and that can be taken directly from the air, possibly saving us from global warning.”
The Engineer didn’t claim to have invented this principle or even to have discovered it. That was the work of a Russian scientist now deceased, his most important work unpublished, forgotten. But the Engineer knew about it.
So why not start making these materials? Heck, I saw the Engineer make sheets of graphene in his microwave oven. Why not claim the prize?
“You know I don’t work that way,” he said. “Eventually people will start to figure it out. I’ll keep you posted.”
And so he did. Over the years as he saw the light start to come on in this lab or another he’d point them out to me, sending me links to dozens of projects. That very first link is here and the two most recent ones are here and here. These last two show that scientists are getting very close to understanding the so-called self-organizing principle. The one from Rice University shows for the first time a technique for getting carbon nanotubes to organize themselves into longer wire from which cables could presumably be made. This could be the key to that space elevator. The Rice folks give their self-organizing function a clever name, too — Teslaphoresis. What’s funny here is they think they invented this stuff.
The Engineer tells me the buckyball example from Dartmouth of using proteins is just a shortcut, that there are more direct ways to provoke the same effect. Here’s how he puts it:
The theory is that the self organizing tendency originates from quantum wave functions. Some argue that the wave function is the fundamental element that defines reality. That within the wave function is all the information needed to describe – and possibly recreate any physical system. A simplistic view being that we inhabit a universe made of particles organized by wave function. If we move from the quantum level where we understand that wave functions organize and manipulate systems of subatomic particles to the macro level where we now know we can use of waves – either EM or acoustical to manipulate and organize particles at nano-scale and beyond. As I have said, I feel that all biological entities use self organization during reproduction and repair. Crystals are a perfect example of non-biological self organization. Crystal self organization has been used for many decades now to “grow” electronic and photonic components. “Grow” being another word for self organization. Simple manipulation based on self organization is pretty simple. Creating a programming language and the machines to directly create and replicate items is years away.
What’s key here and the whole reason for writing this column is the people doing this work aren’t generally thinking big enough. They are experts in one sub-specialty or another and haven’t step back to consider that the basic techniques they are developing could be applicable to making many types of nano materials. They aren’t seeing the big picture. And that’s why, after five years of waiting, I’m finally writing this column.
I might’ve read too much cyberpunk because all this sounds terrifying.
I’m surprised any “real” scientist would discuss space elevators. Carbon bonds are way too weak. It would never hold up it’s own weight in a vacuum, let alone the shear forces of wind.
—
It would have to be something completely unheard of today. Like a thread of neutron star material, where the sub-atomic particles have little/no space between them. Chemical bonds will never do the job.
—
Bob is either trolling his readers, or he’s really as dumb as he sounds.
Fascinating stuff. I can’t comment on the physics — I’m sure others will do so shortly — but I do have one point of order on the Tucker automobile. It was my understanding that the car was called the Tucker Torpedo…or at least it was until Preston Tucker’s market research showed that post-war consumers did not care for the weapon evocation in the name. I think the car was then simply referred to as the Tucker 48.
This is all from memory, I’m too proud of my trivia abilities to fact-check (and potentially disappoint myself) on the internet.
I love your column but I hate when you write these types of columns about stuff that we will see “soon”.
Where are the cheap solar panels made on web printing presses you told us about along with other things you said were coming soon?
If someone tells you some amazing too-good-to-be-true thing you owe it to us to be more skeptical.
If this guy really had some secret unpublished research with all the secrets why not sell it? It makes no sense. I view this like Trump’s “secret” plan to defeat ISIS. I will believe it when I see it and not before.
One other note. You write “What’s funny here is they think they invented this stuff.” If the research that has the idea is unpublished then they DID invent it. AGAIN perhaps but they had to start from scratch, so do not reduce the work of they did in that way. It is really not fair.
Well put!
Every now and then Bob writes a column that makes me roll me my eyes. This is one of them.
…’The Engineer’… secret unpublished research by a dead Russian scientist… Please! It sounds like bad science fiction – and that’s because it is bad science fiction.
If the paragraph by ‘The Engineer’ is supposed to be a sample of his brilliance, I’m not impressed. It reads like a deliberate attempt to baffle non-scientists. It’s almost like something you’d find on a UFO abductions website written in luminous green. All it’s missing is the 20 exclamation marks.
Um… Bob… I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but your friend is either a fraud or self-deluded. I’ve come across plenty of people like him over the years.
And as for Bob pretentiously writing this column (after 5 years of thinking about it) so that researchers will ‘see the big picture’, I can’t quite see any serious serious researcher finding anything in this column to be a revelation.
Well he’s my friend of many years and his accomplishments are real. His day job is doing real things like designing the communication infrastructure for entire countries, but his hobby for 20 years was helping Arthur C. Clarke debunk fringe science. They looked at hundreds of projects and found only THREE of value. Wouldn’t that make him a cynic, like you?
Not sure mentioning Arthur C. Clarke helps, when it comes to a readership of real engineers.
Good point. The printed solar panel company I wrote about years ago was Solarmer and they are still in business doing exactly the same thing — driving up the efficiency and down the cost of printed solar cells. The problem for Solarmer (which is based in LA but backed by Taiwanese money, by the way) is that both silicon and amorphous-on-glass solar cells have also been dropping in price, if not rising in efficiency. So success comes down to dollars-per-watt and if Solarmer can’t be significantly cheaper they shouldn’t enter the market. Still, they are trying. AND SO DO I. Is it my fault that China has flooded the USA with cheap solar panels? From what you’ve written here you must think I am the guy who made that happen or that I’m a fool for not anticipating it. That puts me in the company of many, many fools.
Bob, you should do an article here where you review *all* of your past Real Soon Now technology articles and give updates on what’s happened to all of them. The only other time I remember you doing something like that, besides the comment above, was for the foil hard drives tech. And I think it was in a comment on another article (like your comment above) rather than a top-level post. You could throw in updates on things that you’re personally involved in, too, like your electric airplane and your kids’ minecraft server project.
Funny, @Michael A, how, as yet another sheeple brainwashed by the corrupt/lying mainstream media, you go right to Trump for your example of a “bogus” plan. Would that be anything like Bernie’s “secret” plan to fund free college tuition for every youth in America? Hillary’s “secret” plan to recover our moribund economy? Or do you simply parrot slogans you hear from the media elite 1% as yet another American who can’t think for himself?
With that kind of wording, it makes me want to know: What does The Engineer think of David Wilcock and Corey Goode?
IMarv
I would like to make very simplistic self-organizing robots, drop them on the moon and/or Mars, and have them use the raw materials available there to construct simplistic structures and later, more complex robots.
You mean what God did on Earth.
““It can be done,” claimed the Engineer back in 2011. “If you understand the self-organizing principle. We can make these materials quickly and cheaply. the basic building block is carbon and that can be taken directly from the air, possibly saving us from global warning.””
.
Nanotechnology is almost here to save the day. Or eat us (nano gobblers), take your pick as Ben Bova, Sean Williams, and John Varley ??? have written stories on these.
only self-organizing principle I’m aware of is crystallization.
or perhaps politics. give all the little nanothingies dinky little bumper stickers, and watch them
collect in amorphous groups to be usedfight like two wolverines tied at the tail and thrown over a clothesline.:s/global warning/global warming/
Michael Crichton warned us of the dangers of nanotech in NEXT.
And also in Prey
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6DVVWzymbE8&feature=share
Leo Laporte 91 – Liquipel iPhone Test The best part is the accompanying warning telling the user not to drop it in water! While the phone initially worked upon removing it from water, the long term results were not good – check out 1:13:45 of the clip for the results. Leo says, “Will it turn on? I killed it. Its not turning on. Our review is in on Liquipel: you can do it, just don’t get your phone wet afterwards” https://www.waterproofiphone.info/liquipel-does-not-waterproof-your-iphone/
Jerry Pournelle’s columns frequently referenced stuff that would happen RSN (Real Soon Now). Much of that never happened.
That’s why sometimes waiting five years to write makes sense.
Guess you never heard of streptozosin; I think it’s been and gone as past centurys’ tech.
There’s basic physics and biochemistry here. Yeah, you can do crystals but you need high concentrations at least locally to be able to have it happen.
Geez, I guess I should comment on this since I worked on development of technically, a nanorobot. It worked, but the patent was lost to another company that didn’t have venture capital braun and not enough brains to be able to get it to market. You take a matagen (complementary nucleic acid that binds to a gene to act like masking tape…”masking tape gene expression”–>matagen), plug it onto something to target where you want it to go. There’s the same fundamentals of getting enough of it to the right spot to be able to work. And, the economics of building enough to be able to do all of that ….is tricky.
Let’s figure out how to turn them off before we figure out how to turn them on? kthxbai
There is a book where nanotech gets loose, but has a built-in pressure switch that kills the tech above a certain altitude, and survivors are huddled on Colorado mountain peaks and the Leadville neighborhood.
_Plague Year_ by Jeff Carlson:
https://www.amazon.com/Plague-Year-trilogy-Book-ebook/dp/B00AHJTUBE/
The optimal nanotechnology processing solution is NanoSpire Cavitation Technology – precise, clean, thorough, consistent, high yield, scaleable, repeatable, non-invasive, at <$0.06/gal. nanospireinc.com
Should “non-invasive” bother me as much as it does?
Bob, the Tucker ’48 was actually nicknamed the “Torpedo,” not “Tornado.”
Is this like what the Disney Big Hero 6 movie was based on?
What this engineer friend didn’t tell Bob was that the deceased Russian scientist actually got the plans from Tesla’s long lost technical papers on nano technology.
“That would take a thousand tons of carbon nanotubes — a billion times more nanotubes than the entire world production to date.”
So total production to date is just one gram?
Baby steps 🙂
You cannot use acoustic waves to organise atoms because the wavelengths are too large. Sound waves of 20 KHz have wavelengths around ~mm, nothing nanometer sized would even notice them; a sound wave with a wavelength around 1 nm would have a frequency around 10**11 Hz, I don’t think air can vibrate that fast. EM waves could be used, but they would be X-Rays which tend to have destructive effects on nanoscopic objects because of the energy they deposit when they are absorbed. This would also not be good for any nanoscopic “machine” being assembled.
Crystals grow because to do so lowers their energy below that of the co-existing liquid phase, so it is not “self” organization so much as “freezing” because their thermal energy is moved into their surroundings by a cooling device. You could call it static self-organization. Biological self-organization requires energy dissipation, e.g., by proteins as they assemble other molecules (DNA replication). This is “active” self-organization. It produces soft objects because the driving force is thermal motion of atoms and molecules. To make hard objects like bone and shells you need minerals intermixed with the “soft” matter. But these are not perfect crystals, and have defects, so their strength and other properties are far below that of “defect free” materials like graphene.
So, while biological self-organization works for soft materials at the nanoscale it won’t make 400 km long defect-free carbon nanotubes or perfect crystals.
This you? https://www.memphys.sdu.dk/people/personal_pages/julians/#
Yes
I’m thinking of the ‘polymerase’ (sp?) process that is used
to create faithful copies of a tiny sample of DNA to get enough
DNA to perform more testing.
Wouldn’t this be an example of a self organizing process, similar to growing
crystals from a seed?
Yes, DNA replication by polymerases is self-organization, but it differs from crystal growth. It consumes energy (in the form of ATP molecules), and it makes mistakes, which are corrected by other enzymes. Crystal growth releases energy instead of consuming it, which is why I don’t think it is self-organisation, it is organisation imposed by the surrounding cooler environment. I would say that a living organism is self-organised because it manipulates its environment into keeping itself going and making copies of itself, crystals only respond to the change in temperature of their environment but don’t “organise” themselves.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/583591444/mineservertm-a-99-home-minecraft-server/comments
You have ignored the Kickstarter backers you made 30,000.00 off of…. please finish this project or prepare yourself for a class action from your backers. I am tired of asking, begging and hoping.
I had a UTI for over a week and could not kick it with my
ordinary cranberry-pill regime.
Apart from thermodynamics, I also consider the quantum mechanic interpretation flawed: The wave function is generally not considered a real phenomenon, i.e. something that you can use to make something happen; in Schrödinger’s own words (some 50 years ago): This take is not academic mainstream. IMHO, the Engineer seems due several Nobel prices, when his ideas – however vague – turn out right..
Services use the identical elements plus three more to assist
account for his or hher distinctive nature.
I enjoy, cause I found just what I used to be taking a look for.
You have ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day.
Bye