I'm excited about this technology, being able to print individual atoms will be a major turning point. Just imagine being able to assemble anything right down to the atom, it blows my mind.
+ArcadeGames The way he presented this topic to the audience is pretty confusing. Especially, for people who are not from this research field. The technique is used to excite special molecules which then induce a polymerisation process. So we are talking here about an effective resolution of around 50 nm, which is still a little bit away from an atomic scale (ca. 0,1 nm). So, the reaction mechanism of this technology will never allow a one-by-one atom fabrication. It is also not able to fabricate liver, skin or other organs. It´s "just" able to produce a appropriate scaffold for the cells. No more, no less. Whereby "appopriate" is a challenging topic for itself. The following procedure, which leads to an tissue, has nothing more to do with this technology. So yes, it is a very promising tool, but more like a welding machine, which contributes to a much more complicated construction.
Try checking out the father of nano technology, DR. Eric Drexler. He actually has laid out the plans for how to develop atomically precise manufacturing devices. And it more than what this video gets into. You will love it.
I thought it was a very thought provoking and educational talk. My hat is off to him for doing such a good job with the language, I do not think I would have the nerve to do such a difficult subject not in my own language. For that matter, I could not do it in my own language.
Wow, this is just amazing. My gf just said that FemtoLasik technology is also used to destroy tissue underneath the retina without cutting the flap. Cool stuff, thanks for sharing!
much better accuracy, and he was saying they would be able to "print" inside your body without cutting you open, and new microchips with new nano tech ...graphene/nanotubes, mean faster processing, and so on and so on...curiosity my friends
I feel like he was downplaying the technology the entire time. It is amazing! We have not yet realized what this technology can do for us. "There is plenty of room at the bottom!"
I'm not trying to downplay current 3d printers, but owning a Flash Forge, MakerBot and a Rostock, 3d printing is overhyped and lacks so much. In essence, most all commercially available 3d printers are overpriced hot glue extruders. CNC Milling systems have existed for almost 40 years, using the same "gCode" bin/ascii instructions. 3D printers take allot of screwing with,and the technology is quite disappointing when you consider the much more sound and far superior technology of using a 3d printer with a high speed cutter (AKA, CNC Mill) to create a 2 part injection mold that allows for a far superior/accurate/incredibly quick and so much better end product. I use my 3d printers to create molds, and have modified one of my printers/projects to mill out molds. 3d printers have great novelty, but if you want to produce a durable product with extremely high precision and strength, injection molding is far far far superior.
i note 2 year old post and i take your point. however 3d printing as a concept is the hype or over hype the lame 3d printer designs are separate from the concept. for example a DRO cheap china made one costs the same as your novelty printer approx $1000 thats just purchasing electronic measuring device to control your novelty machine. this dro has +- 5 microns perhaps +- 1 micron for short scales limiting total volume of 3d space. think about 25 or 30 years time where desktop 3d printers cost $1000 including dro at these scales. then will you be exited ? besides your example of injection molding is mass production of identical components this method directly opposes 3d printing where each part can be incrementally modified. try doing that to an injection moulding machine. last point. today i wached a 3d metal printer. print . then transfered to mill for your nice surface finish.... milll then load milled part into injection moulding high volume system. so yeah wait anothe 2 years = overhype ect...
11 лет назад
He did some things while giving the talk that probably angered a some people, namely saying the equivalent of "No, you're wrong, that isn't 3D printing". His stance made him look like he thought he was smarter than everyone else, the sort of superior stance. He could've been lynched by an angry mob. Had he thrown in a couple of jokes, eased the tension, and then backing up his claims, he would've had a better image. I say this because I've been in a similar situation and it didn't end very well.
No wrong. Nano printer also called a replicated/molecular assembler, or what ever you want to call it. When it comes to objects that are built today like buildings and inorganic material this is 3d stuff. So what a molecular assembler should be called is a 4d printer. My reason is that a 4d object has geometry on the out side and inside of a object like a cube in a cube that is connected together. That is what life forms are made of. Not random atoms put together in the same object.
also, I was reading Eric Drexler, the father of nano technology, and he usually uses the term APM, atomically precise manufacturing. Just like you were saying pretty much. A device which not only assembles things at the molecular scale, but also reconfigures molecules to create various types of molecules. Of course, the funny thing is, the devices Drexler describes do assemble things one layer at a time, at superfast times. But the initial device this video describes is something completely different. But it is interesting none the less.
Tim King - Yes, todays "two photon lithography (TPL)" nanoscale 3D printing must not be confused with "atomically precise manufacturing" (APM) ! TPL is far from having control over every single chemical bond like e.g. the today (2017) already existing atomically precise structural DNA nanotechnology. ... more ... TLP is top down and not atomically precise. TPL isn't even on the direct path to advanced high throughput HT-APM (that is improved versions of TLP won't ever synthesize strained gemstone parts with atomic precision and resolution). TLP may though play an important role in aiding in the development towards HT-APM. Meeting in the middle with the bottom up atomically precise structures. About the "one layer at a time" approach for future advanced nanofactories as outlined in the "productive nanosystems" video: (NOT talking about the TLP here !!): The main reason for this far term design goal is that scaling side-length of robotic systems down a million-fold scales natural operation frequency up by the same factor. Directly coupled to natural operation frequency is productivity (that is mass throughput). Filling the whole production volume with productive machinery (that is the old naive and now obsolete molecular assembler nanobot concept) would lead to almost a million-fold increase in throughput. Which is obviously waay too much since physics prevents one to provide macroscopic input and output of resources and wastes in a matching speed. Remember: Macroscopic IO has a million-fold lower natural operation frequency and throughput. When one matches the internal productivity to the IO capabilities that physics actually allow then one can put all the machinery into a (from human perspective) thin layer. Integrated system design allows for specialized sub-units making only a single type of part. This increases efficiency (much above unspecialized general purpose compact molecular assemblers). Beside that the flat design allows to do input and output of all the resources more efficiently (less path less surface less friction). Regarding the necessity of scaffolds for creating products with overhangs: The convergent assembly hierarchy can potentially be continued up to the size of the whole macroscopic product solving this issue if present. Instead of "one layer at a time" it' becomes more of a "one convergent assembly stage at a time" (at every stage) principle.
Interesting but i dont see how its different then any other 3d printer else than its much mucc smaller...? Can someone explain, cause as far as i could tell from the video, it was just layer by layer...thanks.
If you could print DNA then it would be possible (in the future) to 'print' out new species. I don't actually know this for sure so if I'm wrong then thats ok but it's just a idea I had while I was watching it.
+Kewl Kidz We are already able to produce DNA with any sequence you want. This is everday life in the labs, for instance, in order to produce specific primers for the PCR. And still we are far away from creating complete new life forms. The molecular mechanisms are still too complicated for us. But good try ^^
It doesn't matter that he's not used to public speaking. The tech he's talking about is incredibly intriguing and it's the first time I hear about something like that.