NIST Warms Up to Drexlerian Nanotechnology Monday, Apr 28 2008
nanotechnology 11:34 am

Press release from Eurekalert:
Are nanobots on their way?
US researchers have built a proto-prototype nano assembler
The first real steps towards building a microscopic device that can construct nano machines have been taken by US researchers. Writing in the peer-reviewed publication, International Journal of Nanomanufacturing from Inderscience Publishers, researchers describe an early prototype for a nanoassembler.
In his 1986 book, The Engines of Creation, K Eric Drexler set down the long-term aim of nanotechnology - to create an assembler, a microscopic device, a robot, that could construct yet smaller devices from individual atoms and molecules.
For the last two decades, those researchers who recognized the potential have taken diminutive steps towards such a nanoassembler. Those taking the top-down approach have seen the manipulative power of the atomic force microscope (AFM), a machine that can observe and handle single atoms, as one solution. Those taking the bottom-up approach are using chemistry to build molecular machinery.
However, neither the top-down nor the bottom-up approach is yet to fulfill Drexler’s prophecy of functional nanobots that can construct other machines on a scale of just a few billionths of a meter.
Jason Gorman of the Intelligent Systems Division at the US government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concedes that, “Nanoassembly is extremely challenging.” Yet the rewards could be enormous with the ultimate potential of creating a technology that can construct almost any material from atoms and molecules from super-strong but incredibly lightweight construction materials to a molecular computer or even nanobots that can make other nanobots to solve global problems, such as food, water, and energy shortages.
Gorman and his colleagues at NIST have taken a novel approach to building a nanoassembler and reveal details in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Nanomanufacturing. “Our demonstration is still a work in progress,” says Gorman, “you might describe it as a ‘proto-prototype’ for a nanoassembler.”
AFM is the most commonly employed approach for top-down nanomanipulation research, explains Gorman. However, AFM suffers from a number limitations, as the nanoparticles stick together during manipulation and cannot be lifted from the substrate. This means that nanodevices constructed using AFM may be aesthetically pleasing and provide insights into what might be achievable but it cannot build practical nano machines.
The NIST system consists of four Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) devices positioned around a centrally located port on a chip into which the starting materials can be placed Each nanomanipulator is composed of positioning mechanism with an attached nanoprobe. By simultaneously controlling the position of each of these nanoprobes, the team can use them to cooperatively assemble a complex structure on a very small scale. “If successful, this project will result in an on-chip nanomanufacturing system that would be the first of its kind,” says Gorman.
“Our micro-scale nanoassembly system is designed for real-time imaging of the nanomanipulation procedures using a scanning electron microscope,” explains Gorman, “and multiple nanoprobes can be used to grasp nanostructures in a cooperative manner to enable complex assembly operations.” Importantly, once the team has optimized their design they anticipate that nanoassembly systems could be made for around $400 per chip at present costs. This is thousands of times cheaper than macro-scale systems such as the AFM.
Gorman points out that it should be possible to have multiple nanoassemblers working simultaneously to manufacture next generation nanoelectronics. At the moment, his team is interested in developing the platform for scientists and engineers to make cutting edge discoveries in nanotechnology. “Very few effective tools exist for manipulation and assembly at the nano-scale, thereby limiting the growth of this critical field,” he says.
“The work described in the IJNM paper is somewhat preliminary and focuses on the design and characterization of the micro-scale nanomanipulator sub-components,” adds Gorman, “We are currently fabricating a somewhat revised micro-scale nanoassembly system that we believe will be capable of manipulating nanoparticles by the end of the summer,” Gorman says, “We will publishing those results once they are available.”
###
Gorman’s work appears in detail in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Nanomanufacturing - “Design of an on-chip microscale nanoassembly system”, Vol 1, Issue 6, pp 710-721
Source: Inderscience Publishers
The US is now pursuing molecular nanotechnology, but what about our friends overseas, the UK? - M

April 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
But…but…but…that’s impossible! heheheheh.
Researchers have been using MEMS in the manipulation of nano-sized objects for some time, now. The rest is just a matter of engineering.
The world has changed, boys and girls. Get yer minds wrapped around the idea. Give it about ten-twelve years before you have one in your own home. Of course, I think Kurzweil’s a little bit conservative with his prognostication(s), so what do I know.
Kurzweil says 2025 for the first general app. MNT. I think 2020 is a good target date, depending on funding, otherwise, 2025 it is.
…and don’t be real surprised if someone from China, India or even Brazil does it first.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
…and according to estimates by Nanowerk and CRN? I’m being conservative…by at least eight years.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Warren, I agree. 2020 is plausible, but it could arrive sooner. CRN’s position is 2010-2020.
But…but…but…that’s impossible! heheheheh.
That’s what they keep saying.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“The US is now pursuing molecular nanotechnology, but what about our friends overseas, the UK? ”
- as usual we’re wasting $200,000,000,000 on our health service whilst slashing the budgets of our research councils… so I’d guess we’re lagging behind you guys a bit ;- )
April 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
As always, the issue will be if this system can assemble molecular assemblies at room temperature and not require cryogenic temperature.
I look forward to reading the paper. Assuming that the chip itself sells for $400 each, and they can be ganged together and combined with a computer control/monitor system, this will still be quite an analytical instrument to sell world-wide.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The future is near, folks.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Michael, when are we going to start a letter writing campaign about this to Woolsey, Peloisi, and Honda?
That would be a fun project…
April 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I am constantly amazed at how cheap all this futuristic technology turns out to be. Needle-less vaccines capable of immunizing thousands for hundreds of times cheaper, $400 for a nanofactory. If this permeates our society I can’t wait to see what tech ed classes will be like by 2015 or 2020. Final Project: build your own nano-scale robot.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
2020? Maybe. It would be cool. I just don’t know though. It is hard to say with an unproven technology like this.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Michael, what would we tell them?
April 29th, 2008 at 12:29 am
The nearest equivalent project from the UK is the “Nanorobotics” project. I note that the NIST people have a system that they “believe will be capable of manipulating nanoparticles” - i.e. it doesn’t yet work. It’s a long way from manipulating a 100 nm nanoparticle to placing a molecule with sub-angstrom position, of course.
Roko, much as I would appreciate it if the UK research councils had more money, I don’t think an annual growth of 2.5% after inflation, which is what the current science settlement amounts to, can be described as “slashed budgets”.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
First they laugh at you.
Then they fight you
Then you were always right.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Richard: Apologies, you probably know more about RC budgets than I do. I should research my facts more carefully!
There have been some things in the news of late about RC budget cuts. For example, see
this
and this
It does strike me as silly that we spend so little on science and technology here in the UK - EPSRC (which funds what Richard does in Nanotech, what I do in maths and computer science, as well as all of physics, chemistry, materials science and engineering here in the UK) has a budget of around £700,000,000 (700 million). The UK government spends £100,000,000,000 per year on the NHS - that’s greater by more than two orders of magnitude.
Why are we spending more than 100 times more on our present than on our future? Did the UK rise to prominence in the world by pursuing these kinds of policies?
April 30th, 2008 at 4:49 am
correction: EPSRC doesn’t fund particle physics and astronomy - that gets funded by the STFC. the RCUK website quotes them as having budgets of around £500 million each.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:39 am
2020? Slow down!!!!
Even with an announcement like this, I still think that a decent molecular assembler is 100-200 years away.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:17 am
Do you “think”, or just guess?
May 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Very interesting news, Michael A. THANK YOU, as always, very much for this journalistic gem…
ADBatstone: What do you base your conservatism (I hesitate to say pessimism) on? Kurt9 is certainly correct concerning room-temp capabilities versus cryonic-region temps. But, assuming (not especially unreasonably, in my judgement, though, again, I am indeed NOT an engineer) room-temp capability(s) is either already in the offing, or fairly-soon-on can be perfected, then this is just another step—leap, if you will—toward “full blown” (”Drexlerian”, “Merklean”, “Freitasian”) nanotech. I think your “100 to 200 yrs”, AdBatstone, is off by almost exactly an order-of-magnitude!!
My own forecast intuition for the first assembler is “the usual suspects”, i.e., not before 2010, but no later than 2025, with the most likely timeframe being 2016 +/- 4 yrs. We now have a not-unrealistic shot at having assembler tech by 2012. Therefore, in the 3.5 yrs from now till then, it behooves all transhumanists and Singularitarians to get themselves up-to-speed regarding basic economic theory, jurisprudence and economic-analysis-of-law, public choice theory, HISTORY (for various reasons, including rectificatory/restitutional/redistributive justice) and the theory of social institutions and institutional **change**.
As always, I highly recommend my colleagues becoming fairly well-acquainted with the work(s) of F.A. Hayek, Lu Mises, Louis Kelso (and his proteges such as Robert Ashford, Norman Kurland, James Albus, and Rodney Shakespeare), James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Doug North, Louis de Alessi, Randy Barnett, Richard Epstein, Charlotte Twight, Pete Hendrickson, the late Don Lavoie, and many others that I shan’t name here.
In a comment on one of the other posts, a colleague mused that instead of many decades to adapt, we may only have one decade or so, perhaps even less. Precisely. Which is WHY a transhumanist “vanguard” needs to be well-read and “up” on all the intersecting/overlapping stuff that will come into play over the coming 5-15 yrs or so. If we can properly *guide* the discussion(s) of tech-change and its impact on social/institutional change, then we can minimize potentially divisive (not necessarily to say catastrophic) social memes/”movements”/”reactions” that, in the long run, will be seen as counter-productive.
Michael is right, of course: Something like an “Amish Protocol” combined with a broadly liberal (i.e., libertarian) protocol(s) should be able to see us through. But we must be prepared to counter any neo-Luddite flood of neo-con drivel that spews-forth (and you can be there’ll be at least some, perhaps quite a bit…)
Louis Kelso was the first, **50 yrs ago** in the book, *The Capitalist Manifesto*, to consider the socio/techno/economic consequence(s) of thorough-going cybernation—the total cybernation of instrumental activity(s). AND he proposed certain institutional changes to capitalism-as-we’ve-known-it. And I still think that something along broadly Kelsonian/Hayekian lines is the proper approach to the transition to what has been call “superabundance” or “post-scarcity abundance” (See Norman Kurland’s work, btw, for an important distinction between two (more-or-less entirely different) meanings of the term “post-scarcity”. And see also philosopher Bernard Suits ruminations on a eutopia in which all instrumental activity(s) is optional in terms of human labor (i.e., has itself [any given instrumental activity] been either obviated or automated by technology): **The Grasshopper**
Ciao…