• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

China builds first nanobot?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 16 April 2005 - 06:14 PM


http://roboticnation...nano-robot.html

Researchers at the Shenyang Automation Research Institute under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, operate via a special microscope and computer screen the nano robot's hand, which is multi-million times smaller than a pinhead. The artificial hand can move atoms like people play chess or write on a tiny area that is as small as one-twentieth of the cross-section of a hair.

Experts say that the nano-bot's precision tops the world, and has provided a foundation for future robots that could enter the human body to manipulate cells.


If this nanobot truly is as impressive as the researchers claim it is, then this might be quite a breakthrough.

I hope there's gonna be a follow up for this one.

#2 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 16 April 2005 - 07:36 PM

WoW cool!. I hope we hear more about this too!

I thought nanobots are supposed to be 20-30 years out in the future ? hmmm

Maybe with this alleged * breakthrough * it will bring the vision closer?

#3 Jay the Avenger

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 16 April 2005 - 07:56 PM

IMO, nanobots are much closer to reality than 20 years into the future. And certainly much closer than 30.

Kurzweil predicted a crude and primitive demonstrative nanobot in 2010 in Age of the Spiritual Machines.

With advances like these, you'd think that estimate is in fact quite conservative.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 antilithium

  • Guest
  • 77 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 16 April 2005 - 08:27 PM

I have to say that I'm somewhat skeptical about this info. All it says, is that Chinese researchers have developed an "Nano hand which moves atoms." that's it. Plus, the source, is an chinese international radio broadcast site and not a legitimate science publisher. Do you have any other info about this?

If it is true than it's TEH AWESOME.

#5 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 16 April 2005 - 09:26 PM

Source of energy?


Forgive me for asking this question, it might be common stock knowledge among some people here; but I am an ignoramus in matters of nanotechnology. It says in the report above in the OP:

The artificial hand can move atoms like people play chess or write on a tiny area that is as small as one-twentieth of the cross-section of a hair.

My question is how do experts of nanotechnology feed energy for nanobots to operate.

Also, in order to move atoms about from their original natural positions don't we need tremendous amount of energy?

Wouldn't artifically moving atoms about trigger some kind of nuclear conflagration, like setting off a nuclear bomb scale of an explosion?

Susma

#6 justinb

  • Guest
  • 726 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 16 April 2005 - 10:27 PM

If this is true..... then HOLY SHIT........ [lol] [lol] [lol] [lol] [lol] [lol]

#7 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 April 2005 - 10:34 PM

Indeed, Justin. I'm rather skeptical...

Susma, you move trillions of atoms during the course of a day, all over the place... why would it require tremendous amounts of energy just to move one at a time?

It wouldn't release a conflagration. For something like that to happen, you'd have to have a lot of radioactive atoms, compressed together with probably more pressure then this machine can muster.

Dunno what the energy source would be, though.

#8 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 16 April 2005 - 11:25 PM

Natural vs artificial.


Susma, you move trillions of atoms during the course of a day, all over the place... why would it require tremendous amounts of energy just to move one at a time? -- Armrha

Of course, naturally, like as when we eat and digest and eliminate. But try to move food down someone's digestive tract artificially, like force-feed people the way vendors of chickens in market force-feed their livestock to make them weigh heavier.

Wouldn't artifically moving atoms about trigger some kind of nuclear conflagration, like setting off a nuclear bomb scale of an explosion? -- Susma


I need more information from the technically savvy guys here.

Susma

#9 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 17 April 2005 - 12:41 AM

Scanning probe microscopes have been moving individual atoms for almost 20 years now. Anyone can call the tip of a scanning probe microscope a "nanobot". After two decades of playing with these things, someone should be able to put a scanning probe microscope tip on a microscale device. This is Nanobusiness-Alliance-style "nanotechnology", not anything revolutionary. Yet.

---BrianW

#10 Jay the Avenger

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 17 April 2005 - 12:51 PM

Anyone can call the tip of a scanning probe microscope a "nanobot".


Yeah, but that person would be talking nonsense.

...not anything revolutionary.


That's because it's an enabling technology, not a final product.

Developments such as these add very valueable tools to the molecular toolbox.

#11 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 17 April 2005 - 05:52 PM

susma,

Nuclear energy is stored in the 'nucleus' of the atom and is released when an atom is 'split'. Simply moving around an atom requires and releases more conventional chemical energies which are much less.

There is nothing to worry about with this type of technology and the release of huge amounts of energy. There's plenty of other things to worry about though.

#12 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 17 April 2005 - 07:07 PM

[:o] uh oh, if indeed the commies have developed the first nanobot, it's time for the US to play catch up, first on the agenda is the firing of smalley [lol] and then hiring drexler to head the nanotech initiative, with a black budget progress should be optimal. [wis]

susma,
kevin is right there are other things to worry about that are much much much more significant, we need a firm resolve and swift response to the first rogue nation to develop nanotech weaponry.

#13 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 18 April 2005 - 04:10 AM

Jay the Avenger wrote:

Yeah, but that person would be talking nonsense.

Okay, so tell me how this alleged "nanobot" is different from a scanning probe microscope? None of its advertised capabilities differ from what SPMs have been doing for many years.

There have been at least half a dozen "first nanobots" announced in the past five years. So which one was really the first one? None of them. They are all rather minor developments called "nanobot" for sex appeal, just as most everything else called "nanotechnology" these days. It's pathetic. Welcome to the dumming down of nanotechnology.

If I sound upset, it's at the injustice of developments getting attention based on marketing rather than underlying technology. God, but media are stupid.

---BrianW

#14 emerson

  • Guest
  • 332 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lansing, MI, USA

Posted 18 April 2005 - 04:42 AM

If I sound upset, it's at the injustice of developments getting attention based on marketing rather than underlying technology.  God, but media are stupid.

---BrianW


I'm half asleep, but man, I had to comment on that one. I've changed majors far too many times, and in each one I've noticed one central fact. No matter what the matter under question is, if it involves science, the reporters are going to mangle it beyond recognition. I've often wondered if when hiring, writers and reporters with a scientific background and solid methodology in fact checking are actively screened against.

I too get a bit emotional about the issue. The public in general have their opinion strongly shaped by how the media presents an issue to them, and in turn they influence policy making which can either help or inhibit research. It really annoys me to think of public opinion being shifted in directions it otherwise would not, simply because it's reasoning based on flawed data.

#15 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 18 April 2005 - 05:07 AM

Sounds like scientists need to get some public relations savvy..

#16 justinb

  • Guest
  • 726 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 18 April 2005 - 12:05 PM

Sounds like scientists need to get some public relations savvy..


Yes, that has almost always been one of their weakest points.

#17 Jay the Avenger

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 18 April 2005 - 04:16 PM

Jay the Avenger wrote:
Okay, so tell me how this alleged "nanobot" is different from a scanning probe microscope?  None of its advertised capabilities differ from what SPMs have been doing for many years.


This does not imply that it does not have other features that are truly new.


There have been at least half a dozen "first nanobots" announced in the past five years.  So which one was really the first one?  None of them.  They are all rather minor developments called "nanobot" for sex appeal, just as most everything else called "nanotechnology" these days.  It's pathetic.  Welcome to the dumming down of nanotechnology.


I keep myself posted about global developments every day. I have never seen anything described as a nano-operated robot.

If I sound upset, it's at the injustice of developments getting attention based on marketing rather than underlying technology.  God, but media are stupid.
---BrianW


Why do that to yourself? Let's just take it for what it is: another step in the right direction.

#18 th3hegem0n

  • Guest
  • 379 posts
  • 4

Posted 18 April 2005 - 04:44 PM

If this is true..... then HOLY SHIT........  [lol]  [lol]  [lol]  [lol]  [lol]  [lol]     


Wow you are awfully happy about the end of the world.

Giving nanotechnology to humans, more specifically the damn chinese government, is absolutely suicidal.

I'll accept an apology for being short-sighted if you go donate some money to SIAI [tung]

#19 Jay the Avenger

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 18 April 2005 - 07:03 PM

True, man.

Somebody donate a shitload to SIAI. They deserve it.

#20 tarm

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:59 AM

It is a SPM based/related technology.
http://www.most.gov....50418_20763.htm
The 6th story on the page.

#21 justinb

  • Guest
  • 726 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 19 April 2005 - 04:32 AM

Giving nanotechnology to the damn chinese government, is absolutely suicidal.


That is how it should be read. ;)

#22 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 19 April 2005 - 10:28 AM

My sentiments exactly, Rogue nations posessing this technology is insane, and they need to be dealt with swiftly and brutally.

Say goodby to altruism for now, say hello to machiavellianism [:o] "if it be of choice; it is better to be feared than loved"

#23 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 April 2005 - 02:47 PM

Wow you are awfully happy about the end of the world.
Giving nanotechnology to humans, more specifically the damn chinese government, is absolutely suicidal.
I'll accept an apology for being short-sighted if you go donate some money to SIAI


Sigh. There's always people who want to hold back innovation...

I don't see who is 'giving' the technology in your second sentence, but if China discovered it, don't they deserve it as much as anyone? Why is specifically the 'damn chinese government' the evil empire now?

Good for China. The faster we get working nanotechnology, the better the defense will be when a nanotech problem comes up, and the better we all will be for the sheer amazing potential of nanotech.

I'm with James Halperin on this one: Develop 100% effective lie detector, and use that to license MNT. With the amount nanotechnology can help the world, it would make no sense to illegalize it. It's like illegalizing cloning or stem cell research. And all illegalizing it will do will mean that when the people who circumvent the international authority and develop assembling-dissasemblers to unleash on the world, barely anybody will know what to do about it. What would you rather have, thousands of the smartest nanotech experts working concurrently on ways to combat an encroaching nanotech plague, or a smoky room filled with a singular group of military experts on nanotechnology?

What is your definition of rogue nation? Any nation that isn't America or allied with America?

#24 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 19 April 2005 - 04:09 PM

armrha, rogue nation, as in governed by fucking nutjobs. North korea is a great example. I could care less if a particular nation is allied with the US, it just happens that most of the nations not allied with us have, shall we say, less than altruistic motives, especially the religious ones.

We can thank bill clinton for giving china nuclear capabilities, before he was in office they were 25 years behind us, now they are caught up [ang] Do you actually think this is good for the US?

#25 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 April 2005 - 05:08 PM

armrha, rogue nation, as in governed by fucking nutjobs.  North korea is a great example. I could care less if a particular nation is allied with the US, it just happens that most of the nations not allied with us have, shall we say, less than altruistic motives, especially the religious ones.

We can thank bill clinton for giving china nuclear capabilities, before he was in office they were 25 years behind us, now they are caught up [ang] Do you actually think this is good for the US?


Competition is a good thing. If the US fails to secure my basic liberties from China, I'll move somewhere that can. If China can provide a better or as good standard of living for me by that time, then that's where I'd go. But the sooner anyone develops molecular nanotech, the better off I feel we are.

#26

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 19 April 2005 - 09:50 PM

China is a communist country, but that doesn't make it's leaders 'fucking nutjobs', and in time I think China will be forced to reform. I take the same position as armrha, why (and how) should we strip the right of China to innovate? East Asia may become the center of scientific and technological advancement in this coming century, why stifle that progress? China isn't openly hostile toward the US. Progress made in that country is progress made for humanity, it contributes to our collective understanding.

#27 justinb

  • Guest
  • 726 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 19 April 2005 - 10:37 PM

The reason why I am worried about China having Nanotech is simply this: if they have it and we don't..... then they could cause serious harm to the U.S. and any other nation for that matter. Hopefully this will spur the U.S and Europe into making nanotechnology a priority. I am not being reactionistic, I believe that if a country that has killed their own childern, just because of a peaceful protest, has technology that we or our allies do not posess... then what is to keep them from forcing their way-of-life on us by using nanotechnology to force us to do certain things that they want?

#28 emerson

  • Guest
  • 332 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lansing, MI, USA

Posted 19 April 2005 - 10:56 PM

Competition is a good thing.


Agreed. Without competition there's a tendency toward stagnation, or at least progress slowed to the point of near redundancy. There's a lot of issues the US seems to not want to face, and I'm glad there's countries out there more willing to do so, and hopefully push others into doing so as well. More the better if I can manage to sneak under the radar and partake of the benefits myself, whether by importing from the US, China, Japan or wherever.

#29 justinb

  • Guest
  • 726 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 20 April 2005 - 12:43 AM

Agreed. Without competition there's a tendency toward stagnation, or at least progress slowed to the point of near redundancy. There's a lot of issues the US seems to not want to face, and I'm glad there's countries out there more willing to do so, and hopefully push others into doing so as well. More the better if I can manage to sneak under the radar and partake of the benefits myself, whether by importing from the US, China, Japan or wherever.


I completely agree, I just don't want any right-wing (or left-wing) nuts getting their hands on nanotechnology while other parties are absent.

#30 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 20 April 2005 - 12:49 AM

Cut off their energy supply.


I wouldn't worry much about red nanos.

Just cut off their energy sources, the enemies of the US that is, then their nanos won't pose any threats to anyone.

That's why I like to read about how energy is being fed to nanites and how these nanites are going to process energy in order to move atoms around.

You need electricity to move atoms from water into respective molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. Plants need sunlight to do their photosynthesis.

Nanites certainly need energy to do with atoms what atoms are not yet conversant with, as in natural phenomena of chemical reactions of synthesis and decomposition whereby chemical compounds are produced or broken up.

Susma




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users