The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums





article about Nanotechnology on rationalwiki
#11
(05-08-2015, 02:01 AM)chris0033547 Wrote: Autonomous microbots might be difficult to program and control but attaching an external device to the patient's body, which injects tiny flexible tendrils into the body, which can then seek out the source of an ailment and fix it or be used for diagnostics, seems to make some of these problems a little simpler. The "command & control" - problem is outsourced to an external device of arbitrary size and complexity instead of trying to "cram" all this complexity into a tiny bot.

Potentially, they could be radio controlled.

Robert Freitas has done a huge amount of work analyzing medical micromachines. He's authored two technical books on the subject, so far. You don't have to buy them in dead-tree-version, by the way, they're free on his website.
Reply
#12
(05-08-2015, 02:47 AM)JohnnyYesterday Wrote: Robert Freitas has done a huge amount of work analyzing medical micromachines. He's authored two technical books on the subject, so far. You don't have to buy them in dead-tree-version, by the way, they're free on his website.

I only got to know about his work through popular youtube videos like the following one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UVet-OCFdI

He mentions the microbivore in that video.

Interesting, I didn't know that (some of ?) his books can be downloaded for free. Thanks for the link.
"Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people." -- Edward Robert Harrison
Reply
#13
Quick note on Frietas: I don't know anyone who has ever cited him not even discussed him in the field of nano medicine. Yes he's written lengthy books but from the chapters I've read of them they are woefully poor in some areas. There's plenty of interesting and presumably accurate materials science but the level of biology is shocking. He treats biological tissues as though they were modular mechanical components that you can easily strip out and replace. I remember when we wrote the vasculoid article I looked up his chapters on it and all he had to say on the problems of biocompatibility fit into a small paragraph. He didn't even mention fibrous encapsulation which is the most basic consideration of any implant.

Unless I'm missing a huge section of his writings that specifically deal with the complications of biocompatibility I find him very hard to take seriously. Great for ideas and inspiration like Todd said previously, but I'd advice anyone trading what he says to treat his writings as little more than Da Vanchi drawings.

EDIT: for clarification, there's nothing to say that this sort of thing might not be possible at some point but Freitas and others like him focus intensly on some details (like the micro mechanics of respirocytes) whilst ignoring far more basic biological concerns. This would be fine if they heavily acknowledged the latter but from what I've seen they rarely do. Certainly not enough given how their work is often quoted. They give off a false impression that these things are imminently possible and they've worked out many of the details, in reality they have some fundamental problems to address.
OA Wish list:
  1. DNI
  2. Internal medical system
  3. A dormbot, because domestic chores suck!
Reply
#14
(05-08-2015, 04:48 AM)chris0033547 Wrote: Interesting, I didn't know that (some of ?) his books can be downloaded for free. Thanks for the link.

All of his books are free. They're not downloadable in e-book formats, though. You read them online as web pages.
Reply
#15
(05-08-2015, 05:38 AM)Rynn Wrote: Unless I'm missing a huge section of his writings that specifically deal with the complications of biocompatibility . . .

He's got a whole book just about that, Nanomedicine, Volume IIA: Biocompatibility.
Reply
#16
So, touching on several points here...

a) Drexler actually talks about the idea of a branching network of devices running through the body (probably via the existing circulatory system) and then out to external devices which could do a lot of the heavy lifting of medical treatment/repair and computation/control without being so limited by the body's issues with too much waste heat and the like. Partly by doing some amount of the work outside the body and then sending the results in via the network, partly by using the network as a foundation for active cooling by pumping fluid through it to carry away waste heat from ongoing operations. IIRC it's mentioned in passing in the notes at the back of Engines of Creation.

b) I have a couple of the Nanomedicine books in hardcopy form, purchased many years ago. They have been coming out a bit at a time and, IIRC, are intended to cover major topics and issues on a volume by volume basis - so that could have something to do with the lack of mention of bio-compatibility in other volumes.

c) Also in the Nanomedicine books, there is mention of different potential control mechanisms for free roaming nanobots. I don't remember if radio waves are mentioned, but ultrasound definitely is, as both a way of sending control signals and possibly also providing power to the robots.

d) On a somewhat different note, I was struck in the course of the discussion by something Rynn said about Drexler and others talking about nanotech or other potential future techs as though they are 'right around the corner' and what 'will happen' and having an issue with that.

Not to pull a 'back in my day' (I'll be 46 this summer - my sense is that I'm significantly older than possibly a fair number of other folks here Tongue), but...when I was growing up (and even before) there was an entire genre of books devoted to talking about what the future might bring. Most of the earlier works focused on the possibility of future spaceflight and the development and colonization of the Solar System (and eventually the stars), some talked about the potentials of artificial intelligence, some about the Singularity (this in later years), some about nanotech (around the middle period and somewhat overlapping with Singularity discussions).

Just looking at my bookshelf now, I have in the neighborhood of three dozen books of this type on various subjects. The oldest was first published in the early 1960s. I also can recall at least 2-3 that I had when I was younger, but which got misplaced in the course of various moves or other adventures. Add to this probably 2-3 decades worth of Analog magazine, each issue of which includes 1-2 science articles, also often focused on possible future science and tech.

Nearly all of these works that aren't more of a survey of the 'state of the art' (e.g., The Starflight Handbook) or of a more philosophical bent (many of the works discussing the Singularity have a good sized dash of this) speak in terms of what will be done rather than in terms of 'what might be possible in some form, at some undefined point in the future...maybe'. Even when they make it clear they are exploring lots of different possibilities, the narrative style is often/usually of the 'what we will do' variety. Despite that, and while I can't speak for everyone obviously, I always took this to be a literary device or style, designed to make the subject matter more interesting to the reader and catch their imagination rather than a serious prediction of exactly what the future would hold.

Although I haven't really been looking hard, I've noticed that these kinds of books are much less common than they used to be. Which leads me to wonder if changes in culture have led to less of an interest in this type of book possibly combined with (or arising out of) a mindset of 'the younger generation' that expects that statements about what 'will be' are to be either meant literally or they shouldn't be made?

Yes? No? Maybeso? Thoughts?

Todd
Reply
#17
I've noticed that futurology (for want of a better term) is dividing into several camps; there are people who are optimistic, or even hyperoptimistic about the outcome of certain developing technologies; Kurzweil is very optimistic about AI and uploading, for example, Aubrey Grey is optimistic about longevity, and Sonny White is optimistic about warp drive. Then there are other commentators who look at the same data and express scepticism, even cynicism, about these speculative technologies. Yet another group, including some big names like Stephen Hawking, are fearful about the consequences of advanced technology, such as human interactions with AI, or human interactions with aliens. A few, more optimistic souls are more enthusiastic about these prospects and denounce Hawking and co as scaremongers.

I think, in many ways, they are all wrong, and yet they are all partly right. Many, or most, of the speculative technologies we have discussed will come about in some way; it will take longer than some people expect, but maybe not long enough (in some cases) for social and cultural factors to keep pace with the new developments. The future won't be just one thing - it won't just be a tyranny of hi-tech oppression, or a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or a paradise of automation; but if our civilisation continues to expand and diversify, it could include all of those things, and more.
Reply
#18
Just wanted to post some links I found on the topic of molecular manufacturing yesterday:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/philip-...usses.html

These three links contain an interesting discussion on the feasibility of a nanofactory:

http://www.softmachines.org/PDFs/PhoenixMoriartyI.pdf
http://www.softmachines.org/PDFs/PhoenixMoriartyII.pdf
http://www.softmachines.org/PDFs/PhoenixMoriartyIII.pdf

The Phoenix-Moriarty-discussion above is a little bit like the discussion between Drexler and Smalley.
"Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people." -- Edward Robert Harrison
Reply
#19
(05-09-2015, 07:32 PM)stevebowers Wrote: I think, in many ways, they are all wrong, and yet they are all partly right. Many, or most, of the speculative technologies we have discussed will come about in some way; it will take longer than some people expect, but maybe not long enough (in some cases) for social and cultural factors to keep pace with the new developments.

Yeah, I mean if you told me, 7 years ago that I will be everyday commuting around Institute of Cryptoanarchy. Organisation with stated mission is to introduce disruptive technologies like 3D printing and cryptocurrency. I would laugh to you face.

And to be honest I probably would now as well if I didn't know it was true. I mean come on... Institute of Cryptoanarchy? Thats like from bad movie ripoff of Cryptonomicon.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)