Light-driven ‘molecular brakes’ provide stopping power for nanomachines Monday, May 26 2008
nanotechnology 6:37 pm
From PhysOrg:
Researchers in Taiwan report development of a new type of “molecular brake” that could provide on-demand stopping power for futuristic nanomachines. The brake, thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair, is powered by light and is the first capable of working at room temperature, the researchers say. Their study is scheduled for the June 5 issue of ACS’ Organic Letters.
In the new study, Jye-Shane Yang and colleagues point out that the ability to control specific motions of small molecules or larger molecular structures is essential for the development of nanomachines. Some of these machines may find use in delivering drugs or performing surgery deep inside the human body.
Although scientists have already built molecular motors, wheels, and gears for powering nanomachines, the development of a practical braking system remains a challenge, the researchers say.
Yang’s group assembled a prototype molecular brake that resembles a tiny four-bladed wheel and contains light-sensitive molecules. The paddle-like structure spins freely when a nanomachine is in motion.
In laboratory studies, the scientists showed that exposing the structure to light changes its shape so that “blades” stop spinning, putting on the brakes. The braking power can be turned off by altering the wavelength of light exposure, they add.
Source: American Chemical Society
Since late last year, and especially earlier this year, it’s become typical to cast certain present-day advances in nanotechnology as building blocks for the development of advanced molecular machines for nanofabrication.
More scientists are starting to warm up to the possibility of molecular manufacturing. Does that mean that MM is imminently inevitable, like individuals such as Ray Kurzweil and organizations such as the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology seem to be arguing? Actually, no. There could be unforeseen barriers that push it back decades. I think that a lot of the analysis of Kurzweil/CRN is based on the idea that at some point in the near future, the powers that be will “realize” the power of MM and invest billions of dollars in it. If studies in the millions of dollars range fail to provide serious results, then the “domino effect” of successful studies and designs will not get going, and MM will not materialize.
However, if the domino effect does get going (assign whatever probability to it that you like), then we could have an almost entirely automated economy when it concludes. MM, if it’s feasible at all, would trigger an Industrial Revolution more extreme than all past industrial progress combined, shoved into the space of less than a decade. It would give us construction materials 100 times stronger, motors and generators over a million times smaller and 10 times more efficient. Any “in between” isn’t really feasible — either we gain the ability to construct human-sized products atom by atom using molecular machinery, or we don’t. If we don’t, then we might use some sort of micromachine-based “fab lab” for decentralized, customized fabrication two decades from now, which would provide superior products to today’s, but nothing like the “magical” improvement gains offered by molecular manufacturing. If we do, then the entire economic, social and political landscape could be disrupted like porcelain figurines in a paint mixer.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
The “either or” thing is a false dichotomy. In tech and science we have progress by either spending millions on expensive experiments and getting good results or waiting until the expensive experiments become really cheap. If MM is feasible (which we don’t know either way yet) it’s a matter of time until somebody does it, doing research gets cheaper every day: today with a couple of million we can do things that the best labs couldn’t in a few decades ago. Also even if MM isn’t actively pursued, the byproducts of other research in nanotech can be applied to MM by fringe researchers, all that is needed is a web millionaire with money to spare, even I’ll spend money in MM in a decade or so (when hopefully I’ll have money to spend ;).
May 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
At the risk of repetition:
The question of the century is: “who’s we?”
You use “we” a lot in this piece, as if there’s a significant united “we” that’s altogether in this technical development process. I don’t get that impression. Just because any number of “they”’s will “get” technologies doesn’t mean “we” will.
Regardless of how much Michael has gotten earfuls about this, I still think this issue of inequality and access deserves more noise made on it’s behalf.
Wouldn’t you say the blithe, careless use of “we” in regards to technology development is somewhat unwarranted?
May 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
In the last paragraph, “we” means civilization as a whole. If a new manufacturing technology based on MM is created, it will very likely be sold on the open market, and available to anyone who has the funds to purchase it, like computers today.
Sure, not everyone is rich enough to adopt new technologies immediately, but as the cost comes down, access widens.
There will always be some inequality as long as some people are more economically productive than others. All we can do is minimize it.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:59 am
What does “10 times more efficient” mean? For example, a car has about 15% efficiency, and most generators and such should easily have more than 10% efficiency..
May 27th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
This innovation, and NIST’s Jason Gorman’s nanoassembly breakthrough, as profiled on April 28th here (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?paged=9) would seem to show that progress, if not spectacular (yet), then surely significant, is now beginning to be made (as a precursor) toward MNT. But we should not forget that even meso-sized intelligent robotics will have profound techo-socio-economic implications:
From Jim “Cyber” Lewis’ superb site, “Robotopia”:
When will Robotopia be operational?
Robotopia will be operational:
1. When individual robots are intelligent enough to do assigned jobs and mutually communicate needs and performance data without human assistance, and
2. When robots operating in concert can replicate either themselves or design, make and program all the other needed types of robots directly from raw materials without human assistance, and
3. When robots can have access to endless supplies of electrical energy by controlling at least one major energy source, such as coal or oil and a few power generation plants, and
4. When robots can evaluate production facilities, assess and project product demands, then control, adjust and/or build those facilities themselves in advance of need and without human assistance.
See http://www.cyberlewis.com/graphic/posthuman/topia/Robotopia.htm
The above-enumerated criteria will come to fruition with Hawkins’ *Numenta* app(s), as well as Ben’s (Goertzel’s) *Novemente*, etc., etc., etc. There already is, and will acceleratingly be all the more so over the 5-15 yrs, pressure (which is to say economic-competitive pressure—regardless of [i.e.,transcending] socio-legal institutional parameters—though we should strive to *optimize* these parameters, as Hayek has taught us both is in-principle possible, and yet inherently difficult to “get right” and potentially frought with unintended consequences…) to either cybernate (i.e., automate) or **obviate** BOTH frontline “worker” labor *as well as* executive (i.e., more-or-less, entrepreneurial)/managerial “labor” as well (See Marshall Brain’s take on this in his splendid novelette, *Manna* http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm), we may see wholesale unemployment (at least in the short-to-medium-run), and with it economic/monetary disruption which makes the Great Depression look like a cake-walk. But we may be able to act NOW to cushion this (i.e., in terms of prudent/pragmatic monetary/financial institution reforms… which is why, as a good hybrid Kelsonian-Hayekian (with a dash of Keynes, no less, thrown in), I’ve been referencing and encouraging investigation of the works of Kelso, Norman Kurland, Robert Ashford, and James Albus (with which, allow me to point-out, btw, some of our most vivid and intellectually-engaged young economists, such as Bryan Caplan and Arnold Kling, as well as our own Mr. Polymath himself, Robin Hanson (and another polymath, too, for that matter: JoSH) are NOT at all whatsoever familiar!!!—and with all due respect, this is scandalous!! Kelso’s ideas may be flawed [I’m certainly open to persuasion there!!], but we need vigorous examination of his ideas and proposals to ascertain this one way or the other—and thus–n.b.–also **learn** [by contrast-critique] what monetary/financial/economic institutional change(s)—if indeed any—need to be made to MINIMIZE the “disruption [comparable to] porcelain figurines in a paint mixer” (very well said, btw, Michael!!).
**Nanotech** as envisioned by Drexler, Merkle, Freitas, and JoSH (among others) will add yet another, subtler dimension… At the risk of oversimplification: Nanotech is robotech on subtle, sublime (and very, very tiny) steroids. And with all due respect to Richard Jones, and yet again conceding that I’m no practicing physical chemist or chemical (or mechanical) engineer, “full-blown” nanotech would seem, as best I have been able to research and surmise, in-principle possible. Indeed, as the theories of, in particular, physicist Saul-Paul Sirag suggest, even subtler technology(s), based on the systematic engineering of (hyper)spacetime itself, may in principle be possible. Indeed, while Sirag’s work is based on some of the same generic mathematics as String/Brane Theory (ley algebra among others), it wouldn’t seem to be quite as open to the kind of criticism(s) of String/Brane Theory as recently put forth by, e.g., Lee Smolin and Peter Woit. Indeed, it would seem to be more potentially integratable with (or at least cross-fertilizable with) precisely Smolin’s stuff, as well as James Gardner’s work.
We live in VERY interesting times: AI/robotics, ultra-microtech, nascent nanotech, and the glimmerings, a bit further out than the former (just beyond the horizon), of hyperspatial engineering. So let’s keep our feet on the ground, but our brains fully-engaged, as we strive to navigate these techno-economic-evolutionary rapids, surging synergetically, hyper-exponentially acceleratingly, toward the Singularity, toward a (SECULAR) Eschaton—and beyond…
And THANK YOU, dear colleague and host, Michael, for YOUR contributions, for this splendid blog itself, and for allowing this nifty-50 Singularitarian to contribute his musings, or as George Carlin would say, brain droppings…