>>16655715

>just plug it into the wall
>does not elaborate
>leaves

We are not at end user thinking with this yet. To sum this up: We currentely consider a factory module providing power to the nanos by wireless energy transfer of some sorts (with the nanos receiving energy by some tiny antenna of sorts). This further implies that our nanos will not have any "onboard electronics" because why should they if we got the factory module to provide instructions. The factory module further likely has the ability to create more nanos from harvested material. If we go one step ahead and give the factory module blueprints to create more factory modules using the nanos .... jup, now we are talking ... :)

>now how the fuck does it work?

Uhm, kinda like a potato battery. The mitochondrion (or whatevs synthbio equivalent) metabolizes some fuel source to create a charge gradient across its membrane surface. The rest is two tiny wires each on one side of the membrane surface to tap into the gradient. Very roughly speaking ofc.

>great, now how do you make things that aren't periodic or don't have any order whatsoever?

Imagine like this (and yeah, sure not how it could really work but see it as a graphene example): tiny seeder / catalyst on the "back" of the nano grows a nanocarbon fiber which breaks off at a certain specified length and gets used by more mechanical manipulation by the nanos to build more nanos. And yes I am aware that there are huge gaps in what I propose but this might be just be a funny idea to explore for actual synthbio that transcends the limitations imposed by classical biology based on proteins, fatty membranes, etc.

>Intel's in dire fucking straits because they invested in self assembly and it didn't fucking work.

Just looked it up. Polymerization basically. Sure defect-prone. Synthbio again, could help. Catalytic synth proteins. Faciliate correct polymerization, perhaps a second to break up faultily aligned polymer connections. Hypothetically ofc.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

What does /sci/ think of nanomachines?