Slashdot Mirror
Sandia Labs Venture Into Nanotechnology
Saige writes "Sandia National Laboratories and other US Dept. of Energy labs are taking up research into nanotechnology. They've issued a press release which mentions this and gives a simple overview of what nanotech is and may become. There are also a number of interesting links at the bottom to news releases about things such as self-assembled nanospheres, quantum transistors, and protonic computer memory. "
or more accurately, Adam Warren dealt with it in his version of the Dirty Pair. I'm forgetting the exact name of the book, but in it Kei and Yuri ("Dirty Pair!" "Lovely Angels!" "Don't deny their exciting nihilistic aspect, dude. Dirty Pair!") go up against someone who's chock full of repair nanites to the point of shrugging off a broken neck. No problem, they just beat him so much the heat of the nanites do more damage than they can repair.
Instead, think about using nanotech to drop the cost of making existing fuels, and providing low-cost, high-strength space probes and manned vehicles.
Think solar-powered seawater cracking plants that deliver LOX and LH (two perfectly good fuels with an energetic combustion and a harmless exhaust: water. . .), and include a sufficiently powerful mass-driver or laser-launch facility to loft large quantities of fuels into orbit.
Maybe even Von Neumann devices to mine the asteroids and send back both raw materials AND finished products . . .
Any activist who feels threatened by Sandia has severe delusions of grandeur. Sandia's primary mission is thermonuclear weapons, not crowd control.
I think he sounds pretentious. "Designer materials"? Who does he think he is, Timmy Milfinger? A buzzword is a buzzword, whether you use one that already exists or one that you make up yourself.
Yeah, "nanotech" is struggling with a bogosity factor, piled onto it by clumsy journalists and clueless geekboys who've learned everything they know about nanotech from Star Trek. What would make "designer materials" immune to that? Nothing.
the possibilities for abuse are endless
At present, with comparably primitive equipment, the abuses are endless. Even if we were to do away with the weak societal construct that makes morally reprochable monitoring popular, what happens when we up the ante of power and control to that offered by nanotech devices?
As is, only a small fragment of the population would invade someones privacy, through a balance of risk/gain. Today's devices are easily caught, so in most cases the risk outweighs the benefit. But tomorrow's nano-devices don't have the same risk. They're virtually undetectable. Even if the practice were punishable by death, many prople would still illegally/immorally monitor others because the risk/gain ratio approaches zero.
'Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutly.'
.sig: Now legally binding!
A lot of people are weighing in here with variations on "Sure nanotech sounds great, but it won't really give us immortality or most of the other things Drexler says it will." I would say that anyone who takes this position doesn't really understand the implications of this kind of technology...
First off, the only other micro-and-smaller-scale technology we know of is micro-chips. Historically this technology has not only proven its ability to exceed initial expectations, but has also had innumerable side effects on other technologies. As a result of cheaper and faster computers and other chip based electronics, we are expanding our knowledge of other disciplines at a faster clip. Nanotech almost certainly holds the same promise for cross-tech synergy.
Secondly, everyone who I have ever spoken to on this subject that had the appropriate expertise tended to be more optimistic in private than they were in writing (if that is possible). When pressed for a timeframe for a true Universal Assembler the usual reply is "No less than 2060, probably by 2040, won't be surprised if by 2020."
Now there have been plenty of technologies that didn't work out anywhere near as well as originally predicted (for example I am still waiting for the Rocket Pack and the Moon Vacation I was promised in 1970 would be mine by 2000). But those technologies have tended to be large and high in energy costs. Not so for Nanotech. Plus it has the advantage of each advance making the next level of advancement easier to achieve! Also like chip techonology if you think about it...
My take? Expect it sooner rather than later. And expect the bad things to happen as well. As opposed to the Scoffers among us, the Doomsayers actually have a point. But there is no stopping it. The next half century is going to be one hell of a ride!
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
No it's not. You can't go around banning things that havn't been invented yet. Thats like patenting things that havn't been invented yet.
It's just plain dumb to try and ban things before they are invented.
...it seems there are 4 main opinion groups - "Yeeha! Where can I buy this?", "Cool, if it were possible, which it ain't", "(yawn) Been there, done that - see URL", and as always the "petrified Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans" contingent...
There's (at least) one more group you neglected to mention: The "(insert name of new technology here) will lead inevitably to (select one or more) global tyranny/evil insidious new weapons/unbearable breaches of privacy/environmental catastophe/the end of the world as we know it" faction. These may include a plea to stop this madness while there's still time, or a fatalistic acceptance that it's impossible to stop progress so we're all doomed.
Not to say that these opinions are wrong (or right) - just that they're usually found after any new technology items on Slashdot.
It says a lot about how immature the world at large is when we actually need to update the list of nasty things we're not allowed to do to each other as technology advances. It's depressing in a way that this list is even a deterrent yet it is, we've got international treaties saying we're not allowed to poison each other with biological or chemical agents and so on. A sane civilization would be offended that anybody would think that they required some big list of things not to do.
I don't like the idea of a standard organization reviewing research though, the only way it could be capable of reviewing is if they are the experts in the field already. In that case things will get partisan and impede the technology. Better to at least put the technology in a fast advancement track at first and make sure it has enough momentum to keep going. Individual research areas may need controls, i.e. military applications, but that goes for any technology.
I usually think of it as a euphamism for obiliterating any "threat" to democracy that Congress can agree is a threat. The ruling class is whoever can bribe all the relevant politicians, same as in almost any country.
Nanoweapons may first be deployed against progressive activists... This populace also provides ready-made excuses for the right-wing media to spin...
That would be a waste of technology. The police do a perfectly fine job with tear gas and riot gear. Are we a bit paranoid, perhaps? The most likely test targets are "terrorists". For those outside... uh... Earth, those are any people who believe in promoting change through liberal use of high explosives, assasinations, and holding/killing hostages.
As to the media, left wing media is almost as prolific as right wing media. Unfortunately, the most prominent examples of NATIONAL left wing media are tabloids. They are err... not too plausible for many people. On the whole, the media reflects the public. In a very liberal city, the media lynches conservative individuals the same way the media in a conservative city lynches liberals. (The net has the best balance of conservative vs. liberal I have seen thus far.) I imagine that the exception would be that everything in the US is right-wing to a socialist, because of the rather capitalistic society. Along those lines, I've hardly met any actual Socialists in the US. (I am not counting the pseudo-socialists who like the idea because they could then slack off and do nothing while still getting paid.) ((I am making an assumption based on the presence of "marx" in your handle.))
There ought to be a ban on any sort of use of nanotechnology of any kind in or on a non-consenting human. Anything less is wide open to abuse by disrespectful governments, of which there are plenty.
Anyone who is going to do the things you are suggesting would ignore the ban anyway. A ban would be nice, but it is not going to factor into the scenario you are illustrating. People inclined to abuse power will do it whether you tell them it is wrong or not.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
Any activist who feels threatened by Sandia has severe delusions of grandeur.
Hell, any activist who feels threatened by Sandia is welcome to come down to the Kirtland Air Force Base gates and tell them so. I've been working at Sandia the past couple summers, and there's been at least one underwhelming protest by people with more good intentions than good sense.
I remember in particular one sign to the effect of "do you feel good about your job?" I was tempted to stop, tell the person yes, and ask him what in his life has been as worthwhile as the GPS satellites and nuclear test ban monitoring satellites that my department was involved in.
But, hey, don't rule out crowd control entirely. Wasn't it Sandia or Los Alamos behind those "goop guns" that would spray sticky foam over a target and nonharmfully stop him in his tracks?
Design a combat strategy game ala Warcraft/Starcraft where you control an army of lemming-like nanites who have to make more of themselves in order to beat the nasty little virii. Unfortunately, the virii don't care if they kill the host for raw materials, and you "theoretically" do care.
It might even raise interest in medicine amongst a younger generation of... well... us. The question is, what will the little buggers say when you click on them 20-30 times, and how will we make this violent enough to be fun instead of educational?
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
This sounds very Rube-Goldberg-ian - how would they prevent somebody from bypassing this device?
I'm studying for a metallurgy and materials engineering degree now, and I'm seeing even more possibilities and opportunities and possibilities than I did way back when.
I've also seen a number of "but itcould be used as a weapon" type posts here; so what? Throughout human history, every technology has been used as a weapon. In The Axemaker's Gift, James Burke (Connections) and Robert Ornstein argue that every invention since the stone knife has had the potential of being used to make people's lives better or worse; nontech is no different and, given the materialistic culture that surrounds Sandia (i.e. the U.S.), chances are pretty good that pumping out weapons will be a low priority compared to things that can make them some quick cash. Never underestimate the power of human greed...
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
have you ever seen a macro device that even comes close to doing this? ever see a robot that could build a copy of itself from basic parts?
There is no reason why this couldn't be built, assuming that the robot was designed in a more modular fashion. It just really doesn't serve that much of a purpose.
The big difference between nanomachines and macro machines is the components they're made out of. Machines today use all sorts of different parts, from chips to wires to metal plates. Nanomachines will, in some ways, be the equivalent of legos when compared. Because the atoms these machines are designed to manipulate are also the basic components of the machines themselves.
If we found a way to engineer all of today's machinery out of a set of "building blocks", it would be easy to imagine machines that can be programmed to put them together into any formation. A gear block here, a chip block here, a motor block here - but that would add a lot of time, engineering, and material overhead that isn't really considered necessary.
ever see a robot that could do anything really useful and complicated without constant supervision?
Last I was aware, there were come plants using robots that had a minimal number of people working during the day, and NONE at night. Working unsupervised.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I remember seeing something about nano tech on Disc or TLC a while back. The showed how they can line up atoms and stuff, really interesting. The even showed a working model of some gears turning where each cog on the gears were made up of a bunch of atoms of whatever stuff. Really cool.
Still, the possibilities for nano are great indeed. Immensely strong materials that are incredibly lightweight; molecular-level perfect reconstruction of physical injuries; individually repairing aged cells so that they are young again, allowing effective immortality; exponential improvements in computer technology; and just about anything else you can think of.
Of course this is all tempered by the fact that nano will also be used for harm, and evil, just as any other technology has; and the potential for tragedy is also great. Some mad scientist could invent a self-replicating, airborne nanobot that will spread over the entire planet and kill every living cell it finds. I certainly hope that this doesn't happen, but it is a possibility.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
That article didn't really go into depth about nanotechnology, this web site http://www.zyvex.com/nano/ has links to pretty much anything you'd want to know about it. :)
The press release is just Sandia's way of trying to pre-position themselves for a share of the research funding that Clinton has proposed.
(Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. They do have a base of knowledge and experience to build on, and they do need to make the effort to get a chunk of the funding. But the press release really isn't really saying anything other than "Yeah, we want a piece of that!")
Here's the new Labs ...
Same as the old Labs
Sitting in the Silicon Sun
And secretly making a gun
The question one needs to be asking is: How much Black Budget is being spent on nanotech? And how will the public budget be subsidizing the Black Budget for basic research?
I'm basing this on memories of my uncle, who worked at Sandia, and the real truth to where our research bucks go. He did solar cells, but most of the budget for that was for Black Budget satellite systems, which had a need to be more covert.
Will in Seattle
It's good that people are setting goals for this technology on things like surgery that can benifit humankind.
But realisticly, we'll see many mundane applications of molecular construction before we see great ones.
We'll buy diamond-coated, stickless, scratchless fry pans before we buy diamond optical processors.
about people when they talk about Nano is the misperception about how fast Nano will revolutionize things. This is apparent in Drexler's (IMHO optimistic) work as well as the more popular Nano accounts of a Nano-driven future such as Stephenson's _Diamond Age_.
Just because we have the ability to build things at the atomic scale (which may/may not be plausible) doesn't mean that we get nifty things like immortality (There's a quote [which I can't attribute, unfortunately] in Ian McDonald's _Terminal Cafe_ that goes something like: "The first thing that nanotechnology gives you is immortality" and a response: "No, the first thing that nanotechnology gives you is reincarnation.") and cures for various cancers. Folks, we just don't understand enough about the human body to make this possible.
I think that this is money well spent, and that Nano will give us all sorts of great things... eventually. But not within 30 years, as Drexler keeps saying. It's NOT going to be instantaneous revolution with equalization of global resources and other Wonderful Things(tm), as many people think. In fact, the societies which develop Nano first could basically hold the rest of the world hostage, as in Haldeman's _Forever Peace_. Scary thing, that thought!
Think long term benefits (and problems), instead. One of the areas that I think will be most fascinating will be in material science. But biology is much more complex at this level, and we just don't know enough to monkey around with Nano right away. Probably wont for some time AFTER we get Nano.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
One of the professors at my College's Applied Science dept (the closest thing we have to engineering here) knows About Sandia's stuff. As previous posters have mentioned, they've been into nano tech and MEMS for quite some time now. He gave a special lecture about some of their research.
:) ) is really cool regardless. I guess that if I wasn't into neuroscience/comp. sci, my next field of choice might have been this.
It's quite interesting - they have a MEMS system whereby a user must enter a code to unlock the nuclear warhead for use - this code turns a series of microscopic gears/levers that raises a tiny mirror to certain angles. If the code sequence is entered correctly, the mirror is raised to the proper angle that allows a laser beam to reflect off the mirror and hit a sensor that unlocks the weapon. If the code is hit incorrectly at an sequence, the mirror is not at the proper position and the weapon is locked permanently - the only way it can be unlocked is to dismantle the weapon - a process which utilizes very specific and complex tools that only certain people/agencies have access to. I believe that this system has already been employed on US nuclear weapons - thus a foreign government/terrorist force cannot "hack" a nuke and use it.
Another thing is that many researchers in the field are a bit way of the term "nanotechnology" as it is linked with what many consider "pie-in-the-sky" wishful/unrealistic expectations - kind of like AI researchers being shy of calling their research AI due to the sometimes negative connotations with that field from the early 80's (the so-called "AI Winter") when many realized that the unrealistic hubris from earlier times regarding AI was not going to be realized anytime soon and funding was slashed dramatically.
Oh well...this kind of stuff (like that ATP-based propeller powered by Brownian motion -
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
I can see a quick-and-dirty use for nano that is inherently biological: microsurgery. Laser surgery is nifty now, but a team of nanobot surgeons with lasers would be nifty *1000. The simplest possible application: send those little buggers in there to fry unwanted fat cells. Sure, it's crass and materialistic, but it will generate revenue for this research.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
- nanotechnology: Either the ability to work with a material at an extremly small level or a self replicating machine.
- hacker: Either a war3z d00d or script kiddie or a person capable of coming up with an elegant solution involving technology.
- government, law, tax, etc.: Either a function of the United States that only applies to the United States, despite the fact that my log indicates that the U.S. is a minority in Slashdot or a vague concept that may or may not apply to any country.
A note on the last item. I've looked at the logs for the three major references to my site. Two of them are Slashdot and one is Toywar. The majority of hits on all three are occurring from-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
No Zen is good zen
nanotechnology occurs, by definition, at a very small level - so small, in fact that many of the engineering problems of the macroscopic world - thermal dynamics, friction, and internal stresses, to mention a few - disappear. In the world of atoms, every thing is perfectly round (or at least perfectly "whatevershaped"), and the process of adhesion (sticking together) or lubrication (not sticking together) is a function not of shape, but of electromagnetic and chemical properties. We first began to learn this with the development of the microchip - Silicon, a pretty worthless element in the "big" world has properties in the microscopic realm that make it more valuable than gold (or, if you prefer, more valuable than oil). Silicon, not a conductor in it's own right, can be made progressively more conductive (or more resistive) by adding specific impurities (like Boron or Galium, respectively). This isn't worth diddly in the "big" world, but beneath an electron microscope, it allows us to do things that angels barely dared to dream of :) In the same way, we are finding that certain properties that atoms and molecules have opened up engineering possibilties that were only theoretical in the past. Frictionless machines. robots that have a programmed response to a particular chemical. self-replication (robots can't build themselves, but molecules can - often with interesting results) :) End of speech.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
Well, if nanotech devices were used to violate privacy, it would at least be easier to get people to oppose it. If you can walk up to a layman and say "There is a small machine inside your body that is broadcasting your location, emotional state, and libido to your local police" then that layman will probably be pretty upset.
Trying to get non-nerds to get worked up over, say, Echelon, is very difficult because what it going on is so complicated.
That, and people hate the idea of having little things implanted into them.
-sig-
Nanotech will be a useful tool, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. All those materials have to break chemical bonds somewhere, and the nanobots need ENERGY. They need energy to move, energy to replicate, energy to break carbon bonds (VERY expensive), energy to form bonds.
Will they be useful? Sure. But they'll need lots of energy, and a lot fo the potential applications that I see mentioned here on /. are forgetting that one of the basic principles of thermodynamics is you can't win. None of these nanobot articles discuss this, unless Sandia labs is using some uberscret alien propoulsion technology as a energy source, they'll have the same problems.
Viruses spread fast because they are simple, they aren't even technically "alive", per se. That's why they spread so fast - very little mass to adjust, and they can use cell machinery to replicate themselves - because they are so simple - quickly.
Just like your cell phone gets low on batteries, so will these nanobots. Look at some numbers! Even solar power is drastically too inefficient.
There's our source of control over the nanotech armies - power. Wireless xmission of power decreases with the square of the distance - another fundamental law.
Kudos..
..don't panic
While Sandia Labs has produced some excellent R&D in the civilian sector, they are first and foremost a weapons laboratory. Nanotechnology is no different from any sufficiently powerful tech, that is, with power comes a price. Quantum physics gave us computers, among other things, but also enabled global thermonuclear war. Biotech has a similar benefit/hazard relationship. Imagine nanomachines that could selectively ablate neurons in certain brain areas, or micronized hunter/killer machines that directly attack pulmonary nerves. Again, with power comes a responsibility to safely implement it, something that SNL is notorious for overlooking. I have it on good word that SNL is working on something "diabolical"... though I know not what it is. Perhaps this is it.
Pretty cool. Just like finding bucky tubes in chimney soot.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
Sandia already has used ion-implantation techniques to create lightweight aluminum composites that are as strong and durable as the best steel available.
Translation: Super materials for next generation war machines.
Nanostructured semiconductor materials created at Sandia may enable highly efficient, low power lasers for high-speed optical communications.
Translation: High efficiency lasers to use for blinding / burning / igniting troops and vehicles on battlefields.
Biosensors that use molecular bundles similar to those found in living cells are being created that could warn people when traces of a chemical or biological warfare agent are detected. .
Translation: Mite-sized robots that detect humans coming near, and releasing nerve-toxins to disable or kill. Friendly troops are protected by an IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) pheromone.
Just a friendly reminder that any advance can be used for good or bad - and that advertised purposes do not necessarily mean the only motivation for researching them. (No offense to the Sandia Lab folks - I'm sure your intentions are pure).
Although nano technology has the promise of being able to build copies of itself like bacteria and indeed infect people with bacteria like infections, it is in fact a machine and not life and therefore its use in warefare is entirely lawful.
A new international conference needs to be held in order to add these agents to the list of banned weapons of war.
Otherwise we may indeed see contries developing the "grey plague."
Additionally it seems that our technology always seems to get out from under our control through the law of unintended consequences.
We need to have an international safety board to review all research in the area of nano technology and to slow down the release of wild strains of nanobots into the environment. Some will still get out, but at a slower, more manageable rate than otherwise.
-- Never make a general statement.
Ray Kurzweil writes an article about nanotech and downloading the human brain....
Sandia Labs gets into the nanotech business at about the same time....
Aha! The Gray aliens have taken over Ray's brain in order to use him to smooth the way for the (alien derived!) nanotech brain-control devices produced at Sandia Labs (a well known front for the Grays amongst Those-In-The-Know). I can just hear 'em warming up the anal probes now, those sneaky bastards..... ;)
-- WhiskeyJack, wondering where his tinfoil hat is when he needs it....
Nanoweapons may first be deployed against progressive activists, since they currently represent the biggest threat to the ruling class and they congregate readily. This populace also provides ready-made excuses for the right-wing media to spin ("a particularly virulent pneumonia", "must have been their lifestyle choices", etc.) Watch out for those water cannons, and remember where you heard it first!
Further advances in storage capacity and reproductive accuracy will enable nanite hit squads, with the ability to target a specific person and affect their life processes in degrees ranging from annoying to torturous to fatal, while remaining mostly quiescent and undetectable in other human carriers.
There ought to be a ban on any sort of use of nanotechnology of any kind in or on a non-consenting human. Anything less is wide open to abuse by disrespectful governments, of which there are plenty.
-jhp
("locusts with heads of men"? Hmm...)
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Let's try resolving our *current* issues before bigger problems come along (or smaller ones...).
I would think if anything this will give rise to more space missions as more strong, light weight materials become available. I know that for your latest, coolest ground based telescope toys weight is a serious issue. And probably for the space bound ones as well. If they can make extremely light, strong material and safe yet highly combustable fuel, I think space travel is not too far away. You could go live on beneath the frozen surface of Jupiter's moon Europa in a nice safe human habitat. But seriously, they could start designing almost anything they wanted. Invisible aluminum - anyone?