Nanotech garbage processor?

[STJensen]

NANOTECH GARBAGE PROCESSOR: A large flat plate of what appears to be
glimmering metal or diamond is located at a city's garbage disposal
center in a special highly-guarded room. Outside this special room in
a neighboring room, a garbage truck backs up and dumps its contents
onto a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt transfers the garbage to the
special room and drops it onto the large shiny plate. As soon as the
garbage hits the plate, the plate shimmers and the garbage
disappears. To the casual observer it appears to be a magic trick.
The observer can see underneath the plate and only empty space is
there, but anything dropped onto this large shiny plate disappears as
if falling through science fiction dimensional door. In another room
next to the special room are rods and vats that grow or fill up as
garbage is dumped onto the plate in the special room. The rods are of
pure solid material and a different type each. The vats of different
liquid or gaseous chemicals and a different type each.

UP CLOSE: Zooming down to the microscopic level, we see the plate is
covered with countless pairs of robotic arms. Videotaping the arms
and slowing them down to a speed that the human mind can follow, we
see the garbage falling onto the plate. The nano-arms become
activated when the garbage is almost upon them. As the gravity pulls
the garbage down to the nano-arms, the pair of arms reaches up and
strips the garbage apart atom by atom and stuffs those atoms into a
hole between the arms. The nano-arms reaching up and out to cover an
area that is above the area that equals the area their installation
covers. They don't seem to be sensing anything but simply repeating a
pattern as if expecting something to fall over their entire area and
they simply working that entire area over and over to grab at whatever
comes into contact with them. Each set of nano-arms on the plate
doing likewise and the entire plate's surface covered by these pairs
of arms.

Zooming into the hole between the nano-arms, we see another nano-arm
pulling the dislodged atom into the hole and down it. It passing the
dislodged atom to another arm and it passing it to still another until
it reaches what looks like a river of dislodged atoms all being pushed
along by a long line of nano-arms. Following this very rapid stream
of dislodged atoms, it eventually travels what seems like to the
observer like many miles.

Eventually, we see new sets of nano-arms that have the addition of
some kind of a sensor just behind their tip. These new nano-arms do
the same as the previous nano-arms except whenever the arm comes into
contact with a specific element. When that happens, the arm diverts
the dislodged atom down a different pipe. A number of such arms go
after the same element and pushing it down a network of pipes to a
main pipe for that element. For the first many arms down this new
pipe, similar arms like the new one move the dislodged atom along.
Very very rarely, one of these arms detects that a dislodged atom
isn't like the element of their stream and it ejects that atom from
the stream and another set of nano arms returns it to the main river
again. The main river of dislodged atoms forms a loop and the atoms
are moved around and around this loop until they are diverted into one
of the off-shoot pipes. There are no exceptions. Eventually, the
loop of dislodged atoms disappears.

Of the dislodged atoms that are of the same element that are traveling
down the off-shoot pipes, they eventually either get dumped into a vat
or made part of a rod ... depending if they're a solid, liquid or gas.

Once all the garbage disappears, the conveyor belt stops and a bar
sweeps over the plate. We see at the microscopic level that the arms
on the plate are not moving but there are arms on the bar and they are
moving. The bar's arms seem to be checking the plate's arms and
repairing any that were damaged. This sweeping of the bar is very
fast. With time to spare, the bar has swept the plate before the next
garbage truck can dump its load on the conveyor belt and the whole
process starts over again.

END RESULT: Garbage in, pure elements out. No landfills. Perfect
recycling.

How far are we away from this reality? What can already be done?
What is yet to be developed?

Scott Jensen

[Jim Logajan]

Post by STJensen
As the gravity pulls
the garbage down to the nano-arms, the pair of arms reaches up and
strips the garbage apart atom by atom and stuffs those atoms into a
hole between the arms.

The arms couldn't, in general, really take arbitrary garbage and strip it
apart atom-by-atom. For example, what if there is a diamond or rocks in
that garbage? The forces that bind the atoms together in the arm or its
"hand" will at times be less than the binding forces of the garbage. So the
best that could be typically done is to reduce to some molecular level - at
those points where the binding forces in the garbage are weaker than the
weakest arm/hand junctions. (Not to mention the comparable size issue when
talking about atom-level manipulation.)

You'd could use the equivalent of a nano-torch to prep the material:
perhaps use some non-contact means to accelerate some suitable molecule
with enough energy to blast apart most anything in its path.

But that isn't much different than applying a bunch of heat to dissociate
the bonds of the garbage. In either case the stuff would be generally too
hot for nanotech devices to safely handle. The torched/heated garbage would
generally recombine again into some other gunk.

Post by STJensen
How far are we away from this reality?

Even with modifications to your proposal to make it technological
plausible, pretty far.

Post by STJensen
What can already be done?

Run the garbage through a solar furnace? That would at least make it use a
"renewable" energy source. But I'm not sure how easy it would be to
segregate the stuff while it is hot and pliable.

[STJensen]

Jim,

Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? The ability build things atom by
atom. Most nanotechnologists talking building using diamond atoms.
To be able to build atom by atom, we have to have the ability to rip
atoms apart so we can reform them into new collections of atoms.

Scott

[Jim Logajan]

Post by STJensen
Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? The ability build things atom by
atom.

Molecular nanotechnology is generally about atomic-scale or better
precision, not manipulation of isolated atoms. You don't need to manipulate
individual atoms to be able to build things where all the atoms are placed
where you want them.

I was merely trying to point out that a nanotech garbage processor wouldn't
necessarily operate using the approach you describe. I can see the possible
flaws with your idea but it is always harder to propose alternatives.
That's just the nature of engineering. Also, it isn't clear that a nanotech
world would have traditional centralized garbage collection anyway.

Post by STJensen
Most nanotechnologists talking building using diamond atoms.

Just to be clear, there is no such thing as diamond atoms. I presume you
mean carbon atoms. Carbon atoms can form crystals that are called diamond.
But I think it is fair to say that takes at least 4 carbon atoms.

[STJensen]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by STJensen
Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? =A0The ability build things atom by
atom.

Molecular nanotechnology is generally about atomic-scale or better
precision, not manipulation of isolated atoms.

If you look at the designs being put out by Drexler and others, it is
very clear they are talking about manipulating individual atoms.

Post by Jim Logajan
You don't need to manipulate individual atoms to be able to build
things where all the atoms are placed where you want them.

Unless you want to move a single atom to a specific spot.

Post by Jim Logajan
I was merely trying to point out that a nanotech garbage processor
wouldn't necessarily operate using the approach you describe. I
can see the possible flaws with your idea but it is always harder
to propose alternatives. That's just the nature of engineering.

I really wish this newsgroup was alive like it was five years ago so
others would jump into this discussion with their views. *sigh* Not
that I don't appreciate your input, Jim. I do. I just wish this
newsgroup was more alive. That or there was some online forum that
has a lively nanotech community discussing things. Know of any? I've
looked and haven't found anything yet.

Post by Jim Logajan
Also, it isn't clear that a nanotech world would have traditional
centralized garbage collection anyway.

What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. The nanotech garbage
disposal system I outlined would be something people would have to be
very careful around. If someone fell onto it, they be instantly rip
apart and "recycled" as well. That's why I had the thing in a special
separate room.

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by STJensen
Most nanotechnologists talking building using diamond atoms.

Just to be clear, there is no such thing as diamond atoms. I presume
you mean carbon atoms. Carbon atoms can form crystals that are
called diamond. But I think it is fair to say that takes at least 4 carbo=

n

Post by Jim Logajan
atoms.

I'm so used to people referring to the Nano Age as the Diamond Age (in
fact, there was a sci fi novel about nanotech by that title) that I
slipped there. That and many nanotechnologists talk about diamond
nanotech devises that I became sloppy in my language. My apologies to
all. :-)

Scott Jensen

[John Devereux]

Post by STJensen

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by STJensen
Aren't you then essentially saying that what some call mature
nanotechnology isn't possible? =A0The ability build things atom by
atom.

Molecular nanotechnology is generally about atomic-scale or better
precision, not manipulation of isolated atoms.

If you look at the designs being put out by Drexler and others, it is
very clear they are talking about manipulating individual atoms.

I think that is true for diamondoid-type structures only. I.e., the
"individual atoms" are all of the same type, so that well-understood
and optimised specialised tools can be designed.

I suspect it would be counterproductive to have some kind of
"universal dissassembler" that examined each individual atom,
identified it, then used the appropriate tool to remove it
(somehow). The energy requirements would be enormous.

Of course you could use nanotechnology to enhance a more "traditional"
process. Grinding to dust, dissolving, filtering etc.

[...]

[STJensen]

Post by John Devereux
I suspect it would be counterproductive to have some kind of
"universal dissassembler" that examined each individual atom,
identified it, then used the appropriate tool to remove it
(somehow). The energy requirements would be enormous.

Or might this be the initial steps to making a universal assembler?
In a way, reversing the process others are trying to achieve and thus
achieving their goal faster this way. As any child which is easier to
do, ripping something apart or putting it together.

And I wonder if you would really need more than two approaches to
ripping apart atoms. One approach for the strongest bounded atoms
which the robotic arms are made of and another approach for all the
other atoms. And I am not talking about ripping apart atoms as in
tearing them apart into their component parts but separating atoms
from each other. Nor am I talking about everything being done by the
same robotic arms, but breaking up the process in stages and having
different robotic arms for each stage. One pair (or trio?) of robotic
arms ripping atoms from atoms. One long series of robotic arms to
move the individual atoms along to the depository. One set of robotic
arms to identify just one element type and picking it and only it out
of the stream of individual atoms streaming past it. A set of
identifying and diverting robotic arms for each element. And for
solids, one set of robotic arms assembling the atoms into rods. For
gas or liquid atoms, they could be just dumped into a vat tank.

Post by John Devereux
Of course you could use nanotechnology to enhance a more
"traditional" process. Grinding to dust, dissolving, filtering etc.

How so?

Scott Jensen

[John Devereux]

Post by STJensen

Post by John Devereux
I suspect it would be counterproductive to have some kind of
"universal dissassembler" that examined each individual atom,
identified it, then used the appropriate tool to remove it
(somehow). The energy requirements would be enormous.

Or might this be the initial steps to making a universal assembler?
In a way, reversing the process others are trying to achieve and thus
achieving their goal faster this way. As any child which is easier to
do, ripping something apart or putting it together.

I don't think that is a good analogy in this case! Well, you could
"rip it apart" by vaporizing it or something, then sorting the ions
say.

Post by STJensen
And I wonder if you would really need more than two approaches to
ripping apart atoms. One approach for the strongest bounded atoms
which the robotic arms are made of and another approach for all the
other atoms. And I am not talking about ripping apart atoms as in
tearing them apart into their component parts but separating atoms
from each other. Nor am I talking about everything being done by the
same robotic arms, but breaking up the process in stages and having
different robotic arms for each stage. One pair (or trio?) of robotic
arms ripping atoms from atoms. One long series of robotic arms to
move the individual atoms along to the depository. One set of robotic
arms to identify just one element type and picking it and only it out
of the stream of individual atoms streaming past it. A set of
identifying and diverting robotic arms for each element. And for
solids, one set of robotic arms assembling the atoms into rods. For
gas or liquid atoms, they could be just dumped into a vat tank.

Post by John Devereux
Of course you could use nanotechnology to enhance a more
"traditional" process. Grinding to dust, dissolving, filtering etc.

How so?

Well I don't know all that much about the garbage industry!

But I gather they can shred everything, then sort it using a variety
of means (mechanical, magnetic). Then pulp the paper, melt down the
metal and glass etc.

With nanotechnology you could perhaps afford to take this to an
extreme. Dissolve everything in acid, sort it with membranes with
atomically precise holes in. That somehow don't get eaten by the
acid or react with any of the material being sorted. Ahem.

Or ionize everything and run it through a mass spectrometer!
Spectacularly inefficent, but it is not obvious that your universal
disassembler is going to do any better...

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:55:58 -0600

Post by STJensen
I really wish this newsgroup was alive like it was five years ago so
others would jump into this discussion with their views. *sigh* Not
that I don't appreciate your input, Jim. I do. I just wish this
newsgroup was more alive. That or there was some online forum that
has a lively nanotech community discussing things. Know of any? I've
looked and haven't found anything yet.

Speculative nanotech discussion has indeed gone very quiet in the
last few years. I think mainly because of the dearth of visible activity ni
the field - five years or so there was much reporting of simple machines
being made at nanoscale and the like but this seems to have dried up. It is
hard to tell whether this is because nobody is working on this kind of thing
anymore or because those who are working are no longer talking about it. I
rather hope the latter, there was a few years ago a strong impression that
the state of the art was reaching a "critical mass" of technique that would
soon make useful things possible.

On the general subject of "How close are we", I wonder how close we
are now to being able to produce the "Laura S" food synthesiser in some
form - and how many readers there are here who remember it.

Post by STJensen
What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. The nanotech garbage
disposal system I outlined would be something people would have to be
very careful around. If someone fell onto it, they be instantly rip
apart and "recycled" as well. That's why I had the thing in a special
separate room.

I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic ones) can
be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium from the chlorine in
table salt). General purpose assembley is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk methods.

[STJensen]

Post by STJensen
I really wish this newsgroup was alive like it was five years ago so
others would jump into this discussion with their views. =A0*sigh* =A0N=

ot

Post by STJensen
that I don't appreciate your input, Jim. =A0I do. =A0I just wish this
newsgroup was more alive. =A0That or there was some online forum that
has a lively nanotech community discussing things. =A0Know of any? =A0I=

've

Post by STJensen
looked and haven't found anything yet.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Speculative nanotech discussion has indeed gone very quie=

t in the

last few years. I think mainly because of the dearth of visible activity =

ni

the field - five years or so there was much reporting of simple machines
being made at nanoscale and the like but this seems to have dried up. It =

is

hard to tell whether this is because nobody is working on this kind of th=

ing

anymore or because those who are working are no longer talking about it. =

I

rather hope the latter, there was a few years ago a strong impression tha=

t

the state of the art was reaching a "critical mass" of technique that wou=

ld

soon make useful things possible.

Or possibly what has occurred is the same that has repeatedly occurred
in the AI field. Promising more than can be delivered in an
acceptable-to-the-public period of time. Or a lot of excitement about
something new and then the press gets distracted by the next shiny
object and hypes it.

As for this newsgroup, speculation was frowned upon by some of the
regulars. A vote took place and the "serious" advocates pretty much
were voted in as moderators to help Jim. Discussion then simply dried
up because there wasn't anything fun to talk about. Speculation was
and is fun. Reporting the tiny advances in the field got old quick.
Now this newsgroup is mainly about posting when nanotech papers can be
submitted or when nanotech conventions are taking place. My little
thread here heralds back to the time when this newsgroup welcomed and
entertained speculation. Discussed and argued about it. Talked about
how something might be done with nanotechnology and didn't just say it
couldn't be done. Explored different avenues and approaches. I
believe now as I did then that this was and is how to pull in
"average" people and students to the newsgroup and into the field of
nanotechnology in general.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On the general subject of "How close are we", I wonder ho=

w close we

are now to being able to produce the "Laura S" food synthesiser in some
form - and how many readers there are here who remember it.

Refresh my memory. What is a "Laura S" food synthesizer?

Post by STJensen
What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. =A0The nanotech garbage
disposal system I outlined would be something people would have to be
very careful around. =A0If someone fell onto it, they be instantly rip
apart and "recycled" as well. =A0That's why I had the thing in a specia=

l

Post by STJensen
separate room.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible =

either

primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic ones) c=

an

be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium from the chlorine in
table salt).

First, you said "either" but only gave one alternative.

Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and making
stockpiles of them. For example, all salt in one vat.

General purpose assembler is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk methods.

But then you're still left with junk when it breaks down. I don't in
the slightest believe in doomsday gray goo, but, if we don't
disassemble what we build, that might become a form of gray goo.
Nanojunk.

Scott Jensen

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:43:15 -0600

Post by STJensen
Or possibly what has occurred is the same that has repeatedly occurred
in the AI field. Promising more than can be delivered in an
acceptable-to-the-public period of time.

Maybe - but not many people were promising things.

Post by STJensen
Or a lot of excitement about
something new and then the press gets distracted by the next shiny
object and hypes it.

Oh sure the press lost interest years ago - if you showed them a
fully functional nanofab today there would probably be a critical review
complaining it wasn't fast enough or it took too much power or somesuch.

Post by STJensen
As for this newsgroup, speculation was frowned upon by some of the
regulars. A vote took place and the "serious" advocates pretty much

Hmm I've been hanging round this newsgroup for quite a while now
and I don't recall it being quite like that. Certainly there was some
discouragement of the really wild speculation.

Post by STJensen
were voted in as moderators to help Jim. Discussion then simply dried
up because there wasn't anything fun to talk about. Speculation was
and is fun. Reporting the tiny advances in the field got old quick.

It also stopped happening (the reporting of tiny advances that is) -
it's been a long time since I've seen an announcement of some new device
being made at nanoscale. I recall boggling at the wheelbarrow and assorted
tiny motors, and the talk from Zyvex about a set of components. Last time I
looked over the Zyvex site I saw something that implied they were still
working away at nano scale machinery as well as their more commercial stuff
that dominates the site - I can't readily find it now though.

Post by STJensen
Now this newsgroup is mainly about posting when nanotech papers can be
submitted or when nanotech conventions are taking place. My little
thread here heralds back to the time when this newsgroup welcomed and
entertained speculation. Discussed and argued about it. Talked about
how something might be done with nanotechnology and didn't just say it
couldn't be done.

I too miss that time.

Post by STJensen
Refresh my memory. What is a "Laura S" food synthesizer?

http://laura-web.tripod.com/laura-web/id6.html

There was a lot of discussion of it in this group around the time
(2001 it seems - was it really that long ago ??!??).

Post by STJensen

Post by STJensen
What I was proposing was an intermediate stage. =A0The nanotech
garbage disposal system I outlined would be something people would
have to be very careful around. =A0If someone fell onto it, they be
instantly rip apart and "recycled" as well. =A0That's why I had the
thing in a specia=

l

Post by STJensen
separate room.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't think a general purpose disassembler is
feasible =

either

primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic ones)
c=

an

be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium from the chlorine in
table salt).

First, you said "either" but only gave one alternative.

Ah I used either in the sense of "as well" - missing comma methinks.

Post by STJensen
Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and making
stockpiles of them. For example, all salt in one vat.

Now that may well be much more feasible.

Post by STJensen

General purpose assembler is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting it
that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk methods.

But then you're still left with junk when it breaks down. I don't in
the slightest believe in doomsday gray goo, but, if we don't
disassemble what we build, that might become a form of gray goo.
Nanojunk.

Yep and that is indeed a problem, especially if it's been made to
be tough.

[STJensen]

Post by STJensen

I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either[,]
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic
ones) can be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium
from the chlorine in table salt).

[snip]

Post by STJensen
Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and
making stockpiles of them. =A0For example, all salt in one vat.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Now that may well be much more feasible.

Great. I'd appreciate yours and anyone else's thoughts on this. That
means yours, Jim! *laugh*

Such as how much easier would it be? How large could the molecules
get? This last question then affecting how wide the pipeline needs to
be.

Post by STJensen

General purpose assembler is probably easier because you can
assume the feed material to be provided in a convenient form. Getting=

it

Post by STJensen

that way may well be a problem best solved by traditional bulk method=

s.

Post by STJensen
But then you're still left with junk when it breaks down. =A0I don't in
the slightest believe in doomsday gray goo, but, if we don't
disassemble what we build, that might become a form of gray goo.
Nanojunk.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yep and that is indeed a problem, especially if it's been=

made to

be tough.

So how could a universal dissembler tackle such a problem?

Scott Jensen

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:51:51 -0600

Post by STJensen

Post by STJensen

I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either[,]
primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic
ones) can be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium
from the chlorine in table salt).

[snip]

Post by STJensen
Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and
making stockpiles of them. =A0For example, all salt in one vat.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Now that may well be much more feasible.

Great. I'd appreciate yours and anyone else's thoughts on this. That
means yours, Jim! *laugh*
Such as how much easier would it be? How large could the molecules
get? This last question then affecting how wide the pipeline needs to
be.

OK for things made up of smallish molecules it becomes very much
easier because they are not tightly held together and can be grabbed and
moved. Identification of the smallish molecules is an issue of course and
not one I feel qualified to comment on. However for things not composed of
smallish molecules such as metals, polymers and much organic matter life is
not so simple. However apart from metals there are effective bulk methods
for converting most of them into things composed of smallish molecules.

Post by STJensen

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yep and that is indeed a problem, especially if it's
been=

made to

be tough.

So how could a universal dissembler tackle such a problem?

I would tackle the problem by building a self destruct sequence
into the devices rather than expecting a universal disassembler to cope.
Failing that I'd resort to bulk destructive mechanisms such as heat and
oxygen.

[STJensen]

Post by STJensen

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot

Post by STJensen

I don't think a general purpose disassembler is feasible either[,=

]

Post by STJensen

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot

Post by STJensen

primarily because breaking of molecular bonds (particularly ionic
ones) can be very hard indeed (consider separating the sodium
from the chlorine in table salt).

[snip]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot

Post by STJensen
Second, what about then "just" separating out molecules and
making stockpiles of them. For example, all salt in one vat.

Now that may well be much more feasible.

Great. =A0I'd appreciate yours and anyone else's thoughts on this. =A0T=

hat

Post by STJensen
means yours, Jim! =A0*laugh*
Such as how much easier would it be? =A0How large could the molecules
get? =A0This last question then affecting how wide the pipeline needs t=

o

Post by STJensen
be.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 OK for things made up of smallish molecules it becomes ve=

ry much

easier because they are not tightly held together and can be grabbed and
moved. Identification of the smallish molecules is an issue of course and
not one I feel qualified to comment on. However for things not composed o=

f

smallish molecules such as metals, polymers and much organic matter life =

is

not so simple. However apart from metals there are effective bulk methods
for converting most of them into things composed of smallish molecules.

So in other words, you think the key is just grinding all garbage down
to as small as possible using conventional methods and then the trick
being to identify what's what? My question is do we currently have
technology that could grind garbage down to the molecule level or
would nanotech have to step in near the end of the grinder chain to
get it there. Then once at this level, it becomes an identification,
separation, and storage process. Does anyone know of anyone that has
or is working on molecule identification? Also, has anyone invented a
nano-scale robotic arm yet?

Scott Jensen

[James A. Donald]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:51:51 -0600, STJensen

Post by STJensen
So how could a universal dissembler tackle such a
problem?

If you have large, complicated, irregular, non repeating
structures, held together by strong bonds, for example
tar, coal, or humus - (or any nanotech manufactured
article of unknown provenance) a universal disassembler
just is not going to work.

If you have a nanotech manufactured article which you
know is 100% or near 100% made from carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, and nitrogen, then sufficiently hot steam is
going to dissolve it.

So you macroscopically sort the garbage, then chew it up
into small bits, further sort the small bits, soak each
class of bit in acid, or flame, or whatever will
dissolve most of that class of small bit. Most of the
bits gets broken down into a small number of types of
molecule. The residue gets tossed in the too hard
basket.

Tar, coal, and humus, would be soaked in hot steam and
hot carbon dioxide, to yield hydrogen and carbon
monoxide - a small number of types of molecule, all
alike, which are processed to yield desired products,
plus water and carbon dioxide.

Rock is ground into tiny bits, sufficiently fine that
each fragment is a fairly pure chemical compound, and
the bits sorted, yielding a manageably large number of
pure minerals. Each pure mineral can then be dealt
with by a disassembler/assembler appropriate for that
kind of mineral - thus a pile of ferrous silicates gets
dumped in a bath of acid, reducing compounds and
nanomachines. The nanomachines produce macroscopic lumps
of bog iron mingled with fine silica mud, and the bog
iron is macroscopically lifted from the mess using big
magnets.

It is going to resemble present day mining operations,
which often rely on microorganisms to convert minerals
into soluble forms - or indeed mining operations of
1000AD, which often relied on microorganisms to sort low
purity ores into macroscopic lumps of desirable pure
material - bog iron.

Present day mining operations crunch up rock containing
sulfides, then expose the pulverized rock to air and
oxygen so that microorganisms can convert the sulfides
into something soluble. The collection of bog iron was
the reverse of this process.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[James A. Donald]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:11:08 -0600, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot"

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
It also stopped happening (the reporting of tiny advances that is) -
it's been a long time since I've seen an announcement of some new device
being made at nanoscale.

Third generation DNA readers are nanoscale - though constructed from
biological molecules or imitations thereof, rather than being
diamondal.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[James A. Donald]

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot"

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Speculative nanotech discussion has indeed gone very
quiet in the last few years. I think mainly because of
the dearth of visible activity ni the field - five
years or so there was much reporting of simple
machines being made at nanoscale and the like but this
seems to have dried up.

A machine is being build to read DNA that takes a single
strand of DNA, strips off bases one base at a time, and
lets the bases get sucked through a measuring device one
at a time - the measuring device is a pore that only one
base at a time can pass through. As the base passes
through, it partially blocks the pore, modulating the
ion current by an amount that depends on which base it
is.

The machine is constructed from extensively modified
biological molecules, and molecules that are imitations
of or inspired by biological molecules.

The heavy reliance on biology suggests that designing
nanomachines that actually work is hard to do from first
principles.

The machine itself is a very large molecule, covalently
held together, constructed by the usual methods of
convergent synthesis, embedded in a lipid bilayer, which
is itself embedded in a much larger silicon pore in a
silicon chip, which silicon pore has the usual
dimensions of modern logic gates in modern ICs.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[g***@googlemail.com]

Hi Scott,
What you describe sounds like a universal disassembler. Whilst i'm the
first to admit that i'm not an expert such a device would take a great
deal of engineering to accomplish.

I would envison the following changes to your design:

The garbage would be dumped into a funnel with large mechanical teeth
that shredded the garbage down to 1cm^3 pieces. A second set of teeth
would then further reduce the garbage down to smaller and smaller
pieces with subsequently smaller teeth. All this can be accomplished
using current technology of course.

This resultant fine grained "mulch" would then come into contact with
the disassembler. I would envision this as not a disk but a cylinder
with the first garbage interface being a set of manipulators which
broke the garbage into individual molecules which are then passed to a
second layer via some type of transit system that is capable of moving
the bulk materials around between "patches" of specialised
disassemblers for each type of molecule. Of course some materials will
be harder to break down that others and things like stone or even
common salt would be very difficult to disassociate. The bonds in the
molecules would likely be stronger than the arms themselves.

I would expect that the atoms that COULD be disassociated and refined
to pure materials could be transported out of the disassembler and the
remaining "ash" could then be extracted and used in other applications
(construction industry as a "filler" for concrete blocks?)

As to WHEN, I would expect such a complex machine to be one of the
very last inventions of the nanotech age, and by the time we are at a
position where we COULD invent such a garbage disposal system we would
no longer need it. Garbage would be a thing of the past given most
products would be manufactured in such a way that they could be easily
recycled.

If we did want to go ahead with the plan I would estimate it would be
at least 50-75 years before we would see the technology that would
make it feasible.

Gordon

Post by STJensen
NANOTECH GARBAGE PROCESSOR: A large flat plate of what appears to be
glimmering metal or diamond is located at a city's garbage disposal
center in a special highly-guarded room. =A0Outside this special room in
a neighboring room, a garbage truck backs up and dumps its contents
onto a conveyor belt. =A0The conveyor belt transfers the garbage to the
special room and drops it onto the large shiny plate. =A0As soon as the
garbage hits the plate, the plate shimmers and the garbage
disappears. =A0To the casual observer it appears to be a magic trick.
The observer can see underneath the plate and only empty space is
there, but anything dropped onto this large shiny plate disappears as
if falling through science fiction dimensional door. =A0In another room
next to the special room are rods and vats that grow or fill up as
garbage is dumped onto the plate in the special room. =A0The rods are of
pure solid material and a different type each. =A0The vats of different
liquid or gaseous chemicals and a different type each.
UP CLOSE: Zooming down to the microscopic level, we see the plate is
covered with countless pairs of robotic arms. =A0Videotaping the arms
and slowing them down to a speed that the human mind can follow, we
see the garbage falling onto the plate. =A0The nano-arms become
activated when the garbage is almost upon them. =A0As the gravity pulls
the garbage down to the nano-arms, the pair of arms reaches up and
strips the garbage apart atom by atom and stuffs those atoms into a
hole between the arms. =A0The nano-arms reaching up and out to cover an
area that is above the area that equals the area their installation
covers. =A0They don't seem to be sensing anything but simply repeating a
pattern as if expecting something to fall over their entire area and
they simply working that entire area over and over to grab at whatever
comes into contact with them. =A0Each set of nano-arms on the plate
doing likewise and the entire plate's surface covered by these pairs
of arms.
Zooming into the hole between the nano-arms, we see another nano-arm
pulling the dislodged atom into the hole and down it. =A0It passing the
dislodged atom to another arm and it passing it to still another until
it reaches what looks like a river of dislodged atoms all being pushed
along by a long line of nano-arms. =A0Following this very rapid stream
of dislodged atoms, it eventually travels what seems like to the
observer like many miles.
Eventually, we see new sets of nano-arms that have the addition of
some kind of a sensor just behind their tip. =A0These new nano-arms do
the same as the previous nano-arms except whenever the arm comes into
contact with a specific element. =A0When that happens, the arm diverts
the dislodged atom down a different pipe. =A0A number of such arms go
after the same element and pushing it down a network of pipes to a
main pipe for that element. =A0For the first many arms down this new
pipe, similar arms like the new one move the dislodged atom along.
Very very rarely, one of these arms detects that a dislodged atom
isn't like the element of their stream and it ejects that atom from
the stream and another set of nano arms returns it to the main river
again. =A0The main river of dislodged atoms forms a loop and the atoms
are moved around and around this loop until they are diverted into one
of the off-shoot pipes. =A0There are no exceptions. =A0Eventually, the
loop of dislodged atoms disappears.
Of the dislodged atoms that are of the same element that are traveling
down the off-shoot pipes, they eventually either get dumped into a vat
or made part of a rod ... depending if they're a solid, liquid or gas.
Once all the garbage disappears, the conveyor belt stops and a bar
sweeps over the plate. =A0We see at the microscopic level that the arms
on the plate are not moving but there are arms on the bar and they are
moving. =A0The bar's arms seem to be checking the plate's arms and
repairing any that were damaged. =A0This sweeping of the bar is very
fast. =A0With time to spare, the bar has swept the plate before the next
garbage truck can dump its load on the conveyor belt and the whole
process starts over again.
END RESULT: Garbage in, pure elements out. =A0No landfills. =A0Perfect
recycling.
How far are we away from this reality? =A0What can already be done?
What is yet to be developed?
Scott Jensen

[STJensen]

Post by g***@googlemail.com
What you describe sounds like a universal disassembler.

Yup, that's exactly what it is. I didn't use that as the descriptor
as I wanted average people to get what I was talking about.

Post by g***@googlemail.com
Whilst i'm the first to admit that i'm not an expert such
a device would take a great deal of engineering to accomplish.

Agreed.

Post by g***@googlemail.com
The garbage would be dumped into a funnel with large mechanical teeth
that shredded the garbage down to 1cm^3 pieces. A second set of teeth
would then further reduce the garbage down to smaller and smaller
pieces with subsequently smaller teeth. All this can be accomplished
using current technology of course.

I just don't know if it would really matter to a universal
disassembler for the things to be prepped for it or not. If, at the
nano-scale, it would matter that much.

Post by g***@googlemail.com
This resultant fine grained "mulch" would then come into contact with
the disassembler. I would envision this as not a disk but a cylinder
with the first garbage interface being a set of manipulators which
broke the garbage into individual molecules which are then passed to a
second layer via some type of transit system that is capable of moving
the bulk materials around between "patches" of specialised
disassemblers for each type of molecule. Of course some materials will
be harder to break down that others and things like stone or even
common salt would be very difficult to disassociate. The bonds in the
molecules would likely be stronger than the arms themselves.

What about just having the universal disassembler get the stuff down
to the molecule level and separating them into different rods and vats
of them? All salt in one vat, all iron on these rods, etc. If that
was done, what do you think about the feasibility?

Post by g***@googlemail.com
As to WHEN, I would expect such a complex machine to be one of
the very last inventions of the nanotech age...

Or I think it might be one of the first. I could see waste management
companies possibly funding such research.

Post by g***@googlemail.com
...and by the time we are at a position where we COULD invent
such a garbage disposal system we would no longer need it.
Garbage would be a thing of the past given most products would
be manufactured in such a way that they could be easily recycled.

But we will still have landfills to deal with.

Post by g***@googlemail.com
If we did want to go ahead with the plan I would estimate it would be
at least 50-75 years before we would see the technology that would
make it feasible.

Thanks for the prediction and the reply!

Scott Jensen

[Tim Tyler]

Post by STJensen
How far are we away from this reality? What can already be done?
What is yet to be developed?

What we have today are recycling systems, landfills, incinerators and
sewage-processing plants - which work fairly well.

In the future, things will probably look pretty similar, but there will
be a broader range of bacteria-like processing stages - and probably more
things will be automatically picked out for direct recycling - hopefully
leading to proportionally less incineration and landfill usage.