Re: nanotech-related investments

Peter C. McCluskey (
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:37:47 -0800 (Eugene Leitl) writes:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
>> Space-filling isn't very usefull in the early stages of the pathway I'm
>> describing. The main goal is to produce hinges from proteins attached at
>We're discussing bootstrapping routes to machine-phase, right? If yes,
>then it is difficult to see how such relatively flabby systems can be of
>any assistance.

If it were easy to see, I'd expect lots of people to be working on it.
We're discussing building atomically precise objects with several degrees
of freedom for controlling their motion, with successive generations
of designs being easier to use and/or able to build a wider range of
objects. I presume this would eventually be used to bootstrap a diamondoid
assembler at some point, but I haven't tried to analyze that step yet.

>The only other possibility for this I can see is crude scaffolding. What
>is it really meant for? Can you describe the outline of your pathway?

Bruce and Markus have written down some more detailed, but still quite
incomplete, expanations of their ideas. I'll encourage them to put those
on (nothing worth looking at there yet).

>> a few points to the adjacent protein or held in the right place by dna
>> attached to both proteins, and build "arms" with several degrees of
>> freedom out of this. Attaching small pieces of dna to proteins is a bit
>These arms will be _very_ flabby.

Obviously stiffer arms would be nicer. My impression is that they will
be good enough to push proteins into postions that will enable covalent
bonds to form that would otherwise be rare. Do you have any hard data on
how the flabbiness will affect this, or are you just giving a gut reaction?

>But what is all this meant for?

Building things by putting protein, dna, and eventually other
things where we want them.

Peter McCluskey  |  | Has anyone used           | to comment on your web pages?