Прогресс в нано
Сейчас мы активизировали проект НаноЛаб, цель которого - ни много, ни мало, а перезапустить нанотехнологический проект. Чтобы немного прояснить для заинтересованных читателей контекст, привожу самое интересное из моей подборки материалов про прогресс в области нанотехнологий. Чуть позже, возможно, я сделаю из этого какой-то связный текст, ну а пока sapienti sat. Читайте, изучайте, смотрите картинки, задавайте вопросы.
Машина для сборки органических молекул
http://m.geektimes.ru/post/247202/
Автоматизация синтеза молекул средней сложности
Статья: Synthesis of many different types of organic small molecules using one automated process
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6227/1221
фотки, схемы и проч.: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2015/03/11/347.6227.1221.DC1/Li.SM.pdf
Микроскоп для наблюдения отдельных атомов
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-microscope-can-see-down-to-individual-atoms?utm_source=mbfb
NanoCar Race
http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/indexEnglish.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3359813/Forget-Nascar-scientists-compete-NANOCAR-race-competitors-measuring-just-nanometer.html
http://www.dailytechinfo.org/nanotech/7651-nanocar-race-gonka-v-kotoroy-primut-uchastie-avtomobili-razmerami-vsego-v-neskolko-nanometrov.html
Следует отметить, что планы по организации гонки NanoCar Race впервые были озвучены на страницах журнала ACS Nano еще в 2013 году. А организатором данного мероприятия является Центром разработки и исследований материалов и структур (Center for Materials Elaboration and Structural Studies, CEMES) французского Национального Центра научных исследований (French National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS).
2016 - Нано-автомобили готовятся выйти на гонку по "трассе" с атомарными препятствиями
Несколько групп ученых-физиков ведут интенсивную подготовку к участию в первой в истории гонке нано-автомобилей, молекул со специальной формой и строением, которые будут "мчаться" по атомарной трассе, подталкиваемые вперед силой сверхмощного сканирующего туннельного электронного микроскопа. Данная гонка будет проводиться с целью популяризации современных нанотехнологий, тем не менее, все использованные методики и приобретенный учеными опыт будут использованы позже для решения целого ряда проблем в области наноразмерного производства.
Гонка будет проводиться осенью этого года в стенах одной из лабораторий французского исследовательского центра CEMES в Тулузе, Франция. А в течение лета этого года команды ученых из Германии, Франции, Японии, Соединенных Штатов и Австрии будут изготавливать свои нано-автомобили, испытывать их на "гоночной трассе" и вносить модификации в их конструкцию по мере такой необходимости.
"Мы проводим это гонку не только ради забавы" - рассказывает Кристиан Джоаким (Christian Joachim), физик из CEMES, - "Есть целый ряд проблем в области нанотехнологий и нанпроизводства, которые мы будем решать по мере подготовки и проведения этой гонки".
Гоночная "трасса" представляет собой поверхность чипа, покрытую тонким слоем золота, которая охлаждена до температуры в 5 градусов по шкале Кельвина. Крошечные нано-автомобили, помещенные на эту трассу, будут двигаться, черпая энергию из потока электронов, поставляемого электронным микроскопом.
"Для того, чтобы реализовать все задуманное, нам потребуется воплотить в жизнь множество фантастических вещей" - рассказывает Кристиан Джоаким, - "Нам придется научиться управлению направлением потока энергии в молекуле и тем, как эта энергия используется. Используя законы химии, физики и молекулярное конструирование, мы создадим процедуру проектирования работоспособных молекулярных двигателей, которые могут быть использованы в самых различных областях науки и техники".
Группа ученых из университета Огайо, США, интенсивно работает над созданием своего гоночного нанокара под названием "Bobcat Nanowagon". "Сейчас мы имеем уже почти законченную структуру молекулы-автомобиля" - рассказывает Сав Хла (Saw Hla), профессор физики, - "Нам осталось только "отшлифовать" некоторые тонкости управления наноразмерным "транспортным средством", состоящим из приблизительно сотни атомов углерода и водорода".
Тогда как американские исследователи создают нанокар, максимально приближенный к традиционному автомобилю с четырьмя вращающимися колесами, другие команды создают нечто кардинально отличное. Нанокар немецкой команды напоминает ветряную мельницу, а японцы создают нечто наподобие колесной тележки с веслами, подобно как у лодки.
Будущая гонка нано-автомобилей не будет столь эффектна, как обычная автомобильная гонка любого вида. Время, которое уйдет на гонку, будет составлять всего несколько секунд, после чего все нанокары будут остановлены и "сфотографированы" электронным микроскопом для вычислении их текущего положения, измерения пройденного расстояния и, конечно, для определения победителя гонки.
http://www.dailytechinfo.org/nanotech/8131-nano-avtomobili-gotovyatsya-vyyti-na-gonku-po-trasse-s-atomarnymi-prepyatstviyami.html
Машины
http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/indexEnglish.php
Первая молекулярная наномашина, приводимая в действие исключительно светом
Posted: 10 Nov 2016 08:08 AM PST
http://futurevector.livejournal.com/741406.html
Первый нанокар-молекула была синтезирована несколько лет назад в лаборатории университета Райс группой, возглавляемой Джеймсом Туром (James Tour). А сейчас, при содействии ученых из Австрии им удалось заставить не только двигаться крошечную молекулярную машину, но и управлять направлением ее движения. Ключевым моментом конструкции новой молекулярной машины являются молекулярные двигатели, вращающие задние колеса. Эти двигатели, в свою очередь, являются немного модифицированным вариантом двигателя, разработанного голландским ученым Бернардом Ферингой (Bernard Feringa), который за это удостоился Нобелевской премии в области химии в этом году.
Дистанционное управление нанокаром является основным моментом, который в будущем определит возможность их практического использования. "Нам теперь не нужно тащить нанокар к источнику энергии, такому, как электронный луч" - рассказывает Джеймс Тур, - "Это во много раз расширяет функциональные возможности молекулярных машин, которые могут работать везде, куда можно направить луч света".
Вторым преимуществом использования света является возможность одновременного управления большими группами молекулярных машин. "Это в перспективе даст нам возможность использования наномашин как муравьев, которые, работая вместе, занимаются строительством и выполняют другую работу, которая не по силам одной отдельно взятой особи" - рассказывает Джеймс Тур.
Скорость движения молекулярных нанокаров зависит от длины волны освещающего их света. Ультрафиолетовый свет с длиной волны 266 нанометров позволил нанокару разогнаться в два раза быстрее нанокаров, приводимых в движение другими способами. А свет с длиной волны 355 нанометров, уже обеспечил трехкратное превосходство по скорости. Поверхность, по которой движутся нанокары, должна быть охлаждена до температуры в 161 градус Кельвина, при более низкой температуре колеса примерзают к поверхности, а при более высокой температуре нанокары начинают перемещаться самопроизвольно за счет энергии тепловых колебаний и без помощи молекулярного двигателя.
В идеальных условиях нанокар, молекула, состоящая из 112 атомов, смог разогнаться до максимальной скорости в 23 нанометра в час.
http://www.dailytechinfo.org/nanotech/8643-sozdana-pervaya-molekulyarnaya-nanomashina-privodimaya-v-deystvie-isklyuchitelno-svetom.html
Трейлер
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kplxY1xApzQ&t=1s
Придумывание и проектирование
Машинки
Разные модели
Гонка в апреле 2017
28 апреля 2017, 11:00
скорость: 5 нанометров в час
38 часов
Молекулярные машины - обзор области (2015)
Artificial Molecular Machines
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00146
126-page review of artificial molecular machines by Prof. Leigh and his colleagues
Rise of the Molecular Machines
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201503375/abstract
a less comprehensive and more succinct treatment of important aspects
FUN
‘Who should do this and why should they do it?’ Well, I pointed out a few of the economic applications, but I know that the reason that you would do it might be just for fun … … have some fun!
Richard P. Feynman (1959)
Молекулярный манипулятор
Molecular arm grabs, transports, releases molecular cargo
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=6937
a molecular machine with a ‘robotic arm’ that is able to pick up a molecular cargo, reposition it, set it down and release it at a second site approximately 2 nm (0.000002 mm) away from the starting position …
Нобелевка по химии за 2016 - молекулярные машины
В Стокгольме объявили лауреатов Нобелевской премии по химии в 2016 году. Жюри высоко оценило исследование в области молекулярных машин.
http://www.livejournal.com/media/934772.html
Молекулярный ротор-распутывальщик
Posted: 15 Nov 2016 12:33 PM PST
http://futurevector.livejournal.com/743246.html
Химики из Нидерландов под руководством нобелевского лауреата Бена Феринги разработали молекулярную машину, способную распутывать двойные спирали и перекручивать их в другом направлении. «Устройство» имитирует активность ферментов, способных распутывать ДНК при репликации, транскрипции и других процессах - хеликазы и топоизомеразы. Исследование опубликовано в журнале Nature Chemistry, кратко о нем сообщает Chemistry World. Нобелевская премия по химии 2016 года была вручена Бену Феринге, Фрейзеру Стоддарту и Жан-Пьеру Соважу «за проектирование и синтез молекулярных машин». Речь идет о сложных молекулярных комплексах, способных выполнять определенные действия (например, вращаться) под действием внешних стимулов. Среди них системы в виде сцепленных друг с другом колец (катенаны), а также колец, надетых на стержни (ротаксаны), способных перемещаться под действием света, электричества или химических воздействий.
Работы Бена Феринги связаны с синтезом молекул, способных под действием света вращать свои фрагменты друг относительно друга в строго заданном направлении. Закрепляя огромное число таких «моторов» на макроскопических частицах, химик приводил последних в движение, даже несмотря на то, что они были в тысячи раз больше моторов. Подробнее о молекулярных машинах можно прочитать в нашем материале.
Новое исследование Феринги посвящено молекулярной машине, способной изменять направление закручивания спиральных комплексов под действием света. Эти структуры напоминают собой двойную спираль молекулы ДНК и состоят из пары (или более) молекул-нитей, закрученных по спирали около одного или нескольких ионов металлов. Примером такого комплекса может послужить узел-пентаграмма, о котором мы писали ранее.
Машина была устроена и работала следующим следующим образом. «Ротор» состоял из двух «лопастей» (бициклических систем), соединенных между собой двойной связью. Под действием ультрафиолетового излучения он мог совершать почти полный оборот в определенном направлении. Вернуться в исходное состояние ему мешали боковые заместители-«стопоры». Однако под действием дополнительного нагрева молекула могла завершить оборот, заставив «стопоры» проскользнуть друг относительно друга.
К каждой «лопасти» были присоединены молекулы-«нити», обладавшие ограниченной гибкостью. В исходном состоянии обе «нити» находились рядом (лопасти были сонаправлены) и формировали с атомами меди в растворе спиральные комплексы, закрученные влево. Под действием света «ротор» совершал пол-оборота и распутывал спираль. После этого «нити» оказывались направлены в противоположные стороны.
В таком состоянии на образование спиральных комплексов требовалось две машины: по одной «нити» от каждой. В результате образовывались полимерные структуры, закрученные вправо. На следующем этапе, поглотив очередной квант света, «ротор» делал дополнительный оборот. «Нити» снова оказывались направлены в одну сторону, и формировали закрученные вправо комплексы. Под действием тепла «ротор» снова расплетал спираль и скручивал ее уже влево, возвращаясь в исходное состояние. Все эти превращения химики фиксировали с помощью методов ядерного магнитного резонанса.
По мнению Бена Феринги, молекулярная машина может стать основой для нового типа катализаторов с переключаемой активностью.
https://nplus1.ru/news/2016/11/15/feringa-motors
Ранее мы сообщали о других примерах молекулярных машин: молекулы-«насосы»,
способные переносить кольцевые структуры против градиента концентрации, молекулы-«хулахупы», способные ориентировать другие молекулы и самокопироваться и молекулы-«пропеллеры», способные крутить обруч.
Atomic data-storage device developed
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/atomic-data-storage-device-developed
The device is the largest atomic structure ever built by humans and has an impressive information density of up to 500 terabits per square inch.
Sander Otte, Delft University of Technology and colleagues developed a binary alphabet based on atomic vacancies on a copper surface coated with chlorine atoms. In the paper published in Nature Nanotechnology they demonstrate reliable write, read-out and rewrite operations in a 1-kilobyte device consisting of 8,000 chlorine vacancies (missing atoms). The research team managed to preserve a similar but smaller atomic device for more than 40 hours at 77 Kelvin. They stored information including Richard P. Feynman’s lecture ‘There’s plenty of room at the bottom’ on the device which also inspired the research.
Hopping mechanism of a Cl vacancy on chlorinated Cu(100)
Data-encoding principle
Kilobyte atomic memory
Thermal stability and vacancy-vacancy interactions
хрень
Наноскульптуры
http://www.jontyhurwitz.com/nano
Современные "нанотехнологии" и дрекслеровские
Разница - 11 порядков
23 нанометра в час
В идеальных условиях нанокар, молекула, состоящая из 112 атомов, смог разогнаться до максимальной скорости в 23 нанометра в час.
This item already shown beyond
1,6 километра в секунду
Под воздействием электростатического отталкивания кольцо ускоряется вверх, достигая скорости относительно стержня в 1,6 километра в секунду.
Dynamical simulation shows a fast-moving ring
http://e-drexler.com/p/04/04/0410stiffAnim.html
The panels above (the first is an animated GIF) show a 10 ps MM2-based molecular mechanics simulation of the rod and sliding ring (described here). The simulation starts with the ring positioned at the bottom of the rod. Electrostatic repulsion accelerates the ring upward and the rod downward, with the ring reaching a speed of 1.6 km/s relative to the rod (the speed of sound in the rod is ~16 km/s). This motion terminates in a collision of the ring with the knob at the top of the rod. Asymmetry in this collision twists the knob, setting the rod into strong transverse vibration as the ring rebounds downward at a reduced speed.
This model should be taken as merely qualitative in certain respects: The crude treatment of electrostatics makes the speed of the ring only approximate, and the MM2 model of bonding may fail to reveal structural damage that would occur during an actual collision. It should be emphasized that molecular machine systems proposed for molecular manufacturing make no use of such rings, speeds, or collisions. These extreme conditions merely illustrate how stiff structures respond to large forces and deformations, showing how greatly these structures differ from the floppy structures common in chemistry. When the shaft and ring are subject only to thermal motion, motions are small.
The five kinds of nanotechnology
Why understanding seems stuck:
(Drexler)
http://metamodern.com/2014/04/04/five-kinds-of-nanotechnology/
I count five kinds of nanotechnology, of which only three are called by that name. Of the three, one is a revolutionary prospect, one is a fantasy, and the third is mostly materials science. As for the other two kinds, one is the heart of today’s greatest technological revolution, while the other is the basis for progress toward the revolutionary prospect - but neither of these is called “nanotechnology”.
This may seem confusing, and it is. Indeed, people who think they know something about “nanotechnology” often have a lot to unlearn, and would be better off knowing basic physics and chemistry and starting from there. This situation makes it extraordinarily difficult to have a productive conversation about what really matters.
Here’s a compact summary in a nice, legible png image:
Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle or Robert Freitas Are not to Blame When Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology Work- You Got What You Paid For
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/09/eric-drexler-ralph-merkle-or-robert.html
Again there are people complaining that the vision of Eric Drexler was not realized after 25 years since he wrote Engines of Creation and other research papers on molecular nanotechnology.
However, almost no money was spent funding the research and development of molecular nanotechnology. Significant amounts of money were devoted to mostly relabeled chemistry starting in November, 2003.
Locklin (link to his site removed, since he is a flamebaiting troll) gets facts wrong and the target of his outrage is totally misdirected. The billions for NNI were hijacked for the falsely labeled nanotech starting in 2003. It is idiotic to blame Drexler, Merkle, Freitas when they did not get the money.
Locklin and people like him ignored what has been happening for eight years and allowed the funding to be hijacked for what they do not believe is nanotechnology. Now they have stain proof pants buyers remorse and are not satisfied with carbon nanotubes and the other non-molecular nanotech research. The proper response is to write to congressmen and senators to direct NNI appropriations into an actual effort to develop molecular nanotechnology. If after actually getting funding and work for 10-25 years, then there could be some comparison of progress expected versus results delivered. For now the results match the effort that has been performed. There are very little results from almost no societal effort. Your team did not do any laps in the Daytona 500 because you did not buy a car for your team or pay for an entry fee. Whining about it now, makes me ask - Where the hell have you been for the last eight years ? When you buy your SUV from Ford Motors do you send your complaints to Porsche or DeLorean about the race car you did not buy ?
This is what went down in 2003
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/11/vision-of-future-mostly-unchanged-you.html
Drexler presented his theories to Congress in 1992. He testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space during a hearing about "new technologies for a sustainable world." Subcommittee chair Al Gore declared his enthusiasm and vowed to fund exploratory research.
Under attack from all sides, Drexler was nonetheless poised for victory in Washington. After years of lobbying by the Foresight Institute, in May 2003 the House passed the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act by a lopsided vote of 405 to 19. The bill contained a provision - written by California representative Brad Sherman, a Drexler supporter who had spoken at Foresight's annual conference the previous year - calling for a study to "develop, insofar as possible, a consensus on whether molecular manufacturing is technically feasible." If the technology was deemed feasible, the study would find "the estimated time frame in which molecular manufacturing may be possible on a commercial scale; and recommendations for a research agenda necessary to achieve this result."
With this language, Congress was on the verge of making Drexler's dream a reality. But by November - five months later - the provision had vanished from the legislation.
What turned the tide on Capitol Hill? Drexler's ideas had always been outlandish and his political skills underdeveloped. That combination became an Achilles' heel as opposition emerged from two quarters. First, a group called the NanoBusiness Alliance entered the fray. Formed in October 2001, the alliance wasn't interested in anything as starry-eyed or scary as self-replicating molecular assemblers; it wanted to sell newfangled products like "nanotech" suntan lotion, ski wax, and paint. One of the founders, venture capitalist F. Mark Modzelewski, was a notorious opponent of Drexlerian notions; in a later email exchange with blogger and nanotech booster Glenn Reynolds, he likened Drexler's theories to "a wino's claims on skid row that bugs are crawling under his skin."
Meanwhile, support for Drexler's ideas softened elsewhere in Washington. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy worried that fears whipped up by the likes of Crichton and Joy would turn the public against nanotech, just as similar scares had fueled opposition to GM foods and nuclear power. As New Hampshire's John Sununu remarked on the Senate floor, "some people have expressed concern that nanotechnology will lead to a superrace of humans or a situation where nanomachines attack or even dominate human beings."
Molecular manufacturing is a "loaded term," a Senate staffer says. "It upsets a lot of people."
The sponsors of the House bill were more interested in making sure it got through the Senate than they were in preserving funding for Drexler's ideas. Thus, when House and Senate staff members met to discuss their respective bills, they scuttled the molecular manufacturing study. In the Senate version, Arizona's John McCain introduced an "amendment in the nature of a substitute" in which the provision no longer appeared.
The watered-down bill was passed by the unanimous consent of the Senate on November 18 and signed into law by Bush on December 3. During the ceremony, Richard Smalley stood at the president's side
So if Scott Locklin is disappointed that there has not been the development of molecular nanotechnology, then perhaps he should blame the NanoBusiness Alliance and Richard Smalley, because almost no effort was made to fund anything like molecular nanotechnology. Molecular nanotechnology was explicitly excluded from funding.
So if the world bought a future nanotech - it was the nanotech of stuff smaller than 100 nanometers and the money was guided to Rice University and other Universities with Chemistry and Microbiology departments that got the grants and organizations linked to the Nanobusiness Alliance.
Eric Drexler wrote the first molecular nanotechnology books and told people to fund something else. The politicians and businesses mostly did not listen or do what he told them or the projects of Ralph Merkle and Robert Freitas.
So 25 years after Eric Drexlers - Engines of Creation we do not have molecular nanotechnology. Is this surprising ? For the first 18 years almost nothing was spent to develop nanotechnology. Then when the billions of dollars government and business research start getting funded around the world, the projects picked were chemistry relabeled.
Now Locklin notices that what we have gotten is Chemistry that is labeled Nanotechnology. Right it was what was funded. We did not get molecular nanotechnology, because we did not fund it or the people advocating it. We did not get much progress toward that which we did not fund.
The progress that has been made was because of some spillover from funding something else.
It is like complaining that you spend a hundred billion dollars on chemical launch space shuttles and did not get a nuclear powered rocket. Thats right you did not pay or try to build a nuclear powered rocket do you did not end up with a nuclear powered rocket. You got a chemical launch system like the one in the plans that were green lighted for development.
I can go over all the specific projects and successes that are bringing molecular nanotechnology and atomically precise manufacturing closer to realization but it is less than one percent of the money and projects under government and business programs called Nanotechnology.
However, the main issue is that it is completely idiotic to blame Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle and Robert Freitas when we did not pay or work towards the goals and projects that they were advocating.
If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on Reddit, or StumbleUpon. Thanks
Vision of the Future Mostly Unchanged: You Get What You Pay for
November 06, 2008
cellphone, future, futurist, gadgets, nanotechnology, science, technology, world
IO9 asks can futurism escape the 1990s.
People should consider diverting $100-150 per year in science fiction movies, DVD, books, toys and games towards actual scientific attempts at life extension and molecular nanotechnology. This does not include another average of $60-100 per person on cosmetic surgery, vitamins and dietary supplements. Why settle for imagination, illusion and fake procedures and invest in attempts at real solutions ?
Note: You can also just divert some money from this or other sources depending upon your personal priorities. ie. still buy science fiction but eat out less or buy less junk food which is bad for you anyways. Go to the movies less and rent the DVD and accumulate a fund for putting towards actual research. Recognize that in most cases vitamins do nothing and put those funds towards research that has the potential to make a big difference.
SENS life extension project
Robert Freitas Diamond Mechanosynthesis research fund (real molecular manufacturing.
There is also a private attempt to accelerate a promising cancer cure.
There are other direct investments in bringing about a real version of the future. If you have a particular future that you are interested in bringing about sooner than ask about in the comments and I and my readers can help determine the current best option.
This site has already noted how hard it is to make and get wide adoption of "change your everyday life in a radical way technology".
This article will review how of the average of about $100-150 per year that people in the US spend on science fiction or via tax dollars on science research or as a proportion of corporate research that money does not translate into progress on life extension, molecular nanotechnology, advanced AI, broad access to space or other aspects of the vision of future which has endured since 1990. On the plus the internet was transformed from a niche academic tool into the global phenomenon that it is and cellphones became common and we have handheld and laptop computers that are more powerful than some of Cray supercomputers but which are either bogged down running Windows Vista or running video games.
What have we spent our money on since 1990?
Global spending on science fiction movies, dvd, games, toys, tv and books is probably over $100 billion/year. U.S. sales of supplements totaled about $9.7 billion in 2007 and are generally recognized to have zero to minimal beneficial effect and definitely do not extend life (unless you were going to die of scurvy). American spent $13.2 billion on cosmetic surgery in 2007.
The anime industry exceeds $20 billion per year in Japan alone and is probably $40 billion worldwide. A lot of anime can be classified as science fiction.
Science Fiction movie box office for the United States has ranged consistently from $700-1.2 billion each year on an inflation adjusted basis from 1995-2008. There was two outlier years on the bottom $189 million in 2002 and $542 million in 1995 and two outlier years on the top end with $1.6 and 1.7 billion.
Science Fiction share of DVD sales and rentals is probably a slightly larger percentage.
Science Fiction has been around 5-7% of US book sales. US book sales have been about $20-25 billion per year. Worldwide science fiction book sales can be 10-11% in countries like Russia.
NASA and the Department of Defence space budgets have been about $30-45 billion per year. However, they have spent almost nothing on broadening civilian access to space or lowering space launch costs or creating an infrastructure in space. It is mostly buildings and staff on the ground in the districts of powerful senators and congressmen. It is also communication and spy satellites. It was also spent launching a space shuttle that was known to be a death trap and building a space station which was known would not change the world.
Reviewing What Happened With Nanotechnology Funding
Billions each year have been spent by governments worldwide on something labelled nanotechnology. Virtually all of that was not an attempt to enable the pre-1990 vision of molecular nanotechnology.
The history of the almost funding of molecular nanotechnology was reviewed in Wired Magazine.
Drexler presented his theories to Congress in 1992. He testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space during a hearing about "new technologies for a sustainable world." Subcommittee chair Al Gore declared his enthusiasm and vowed to fund exploratory research.
Under attack from all sides, Drexler was nonetheless poised for victory in Washington. After years of lobbying by the Foresight Institute, in May 2003 the House passed the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act by a lopsided vote of 405 to 19. The bill contained a provision - written by California representative Brad Sherman, a Drexler supporter who had spoken at Foresight's annual conference the previous year - calling for a study to "develop, insofar as possible, a consensus on whether molecular manufacturing is technically feasible." If the technology was deemed feasible, the study would find "the estimated time frame in which molecular manufacturing may be possible on a commercial scale; and recommendations for a research agenda necessary to achieve this result."
With this language, Congress was on the verge of making Drexler's dream a reality. But by November - five months later - the provision had vanished from the legislation.
What turned the tide on Capitol Hill? Drexler's ideas had always been outlandish and his political skills underdeveloped. That combination became an Achilles' heel as opposition emerged from two quarters. First, a group called the NanoBusiness Alliance entered the fray. Formed in October 2001, the alliance wasn't interested in anything as starry-eyed or scary as self-replicating molecular assemblers; it wanted to sell newfangled products like "nanotech" suntan lotion, ski wax, and paint. One of the founders, venture capitalist F. Mark Modzelewski, was a notorious opponent of Drexlerian notions; in a later email exchange with blogger and nanotech booster Glenn Reynolds, he likened Drexler's theories to "a wino's claims on skid row that bugs are crawling under his skin."
Meanwhile, support for Drexler's ideas softened elsewhere in Washington. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy worried that fears whipped up by the likes of Crichton and Joy would turn the public against nanotech, just as similar scares had fueled opposition to GM foods and nuclear power. As New Hampshire's John Sununu remarked on the Senate floor, "some people have expressed concern that nanotechnology will lead to a superrace of humans or a situation where nanomachines attack or even dominate human beings."
Molecular manufacturing is a "loaded term," a Senate staffer says. "It upsets a lot of people."
The sponsors of the House bill were more interested in making sure it got through the Senate than they were in preserving funding for Drexler's ideas. Thus, when House and Senate staff members met to discuss their respective bills, they scuttled the molecular manufacturing study. In the Senate version, Arizona's John McCain introduced an "amendment in the nature of a substitute" in which the provision no longer appeared.
The watered-down bill was passed by the unanimous consent of the Senate on November 18 and signed into law by Bush on December 3. During the ceremony, Richard Smalley stood at the president's side.
Recently there has been about $30 million funded to Zyvex and its partners to develop atomically precise manufacturing and $3.2 million to verify the viability of diamondoid mechanosynthesis.
Summary
So even when governments have been saying that they have been investing in nanotechnology or space, they are not really investing to get what people really want from space or nanotechnology.
There is no need to wonder why the a real future of molecular nanotechnology and life extension has not happened when the money that individuals spend (either directly or through taxes) is spent on other things. You get better movie special effects, better video games, communication satellites and spy satellites and facilities on the ground working on government programs and the same kinds of stories of the future because that is where the money is being spent. Now is the time when we can divert some of our individual money into funding the real deal with strong possibilities of the desired results.
Металлический водород
https://geektimes.ru/post/285212/
самое мощное ракетное топливо в мире - при переходе металлического водорода в молекулярную фазу высвобождается примерно в 20 раз больше энергии, чем при сжигании килограмма смеси кислорода и водорода
Алмазные наковальни
Изображение алмазных наковален, сжимающих образец молекулярного водорода. При высоком давлении водород переходит в атомарное состояние, как показано справа. Источник: Dias & Silvera, 2017
Timeline
http://nanoshristi.yolasite.com/resources/nanotech%20journey.jpg
Какие-то наезды на Дрекслера, кто-то кого-то обидел...
Это не таймлайн старый, это прогресс давно остановился