MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY

ABSTRACT
Molecular nanotechnology is the name given to a specific sort of manufacturing
technology. It is also called with the names like “Nano Technology”, “Molecular
manufacturing”. Nanotechnology refers broadly to using materials and structures with
nanoscale dimensions, usually ranging from 1 to 100 nanometers (nm)

As its name implies, molecular nanotechnology will be achieved when we are

able to build things from the atom up, and we will be able to rearrange matter with atomic
precision. This technology does not yet exist; but once it does, we should have a thorough
and inexpensive system for controlling the structure of matter.

The central thesis of nanotechnology is that almost any chemically stable

structure that is not specifically disallowed by the laws of physics can in fact be built. The
possibility of building things atom by atom was first introduced by Richard Feynman in
1959 when he said: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against
the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom."

The advantages of nanotechnology:

1. Build products with almost every atom in the right place.

2. Do so inexpensively.

3. Make most arrangements of atoms consistent with physical law

4. Make most products lighter, stronger, smarter, cheaper, cleaner and more precise.

This paper deals with the application of molecular nanotechnology in areas of science
and engineering like manufacturing science and engineering, biotechnology, medical
research and applications, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, computer science and
electronics industry, environmental science etc.

BY

SREE LEKHA RAMINEEDI(RAGHU EC)

Svits(jkc) (03981A0352)

HARI PRIYA.D (RAGHU EC)

(03981A0318)

E-mail: sree_lekha_r@yahoo.co.in
1
Basic Principles of Nanotechnology:
The fundamental shape of a molecular manufacturing technology is described as
follows:

“Self replicating assemblers, operating under computer control, let us

inexpensively build more assemblers. The assemblers can be reprogrammed to build
other products. The assemblers use programmable positional control to position
molecular tools and molecular components, permitting the inexpensive fabrication of
most structures consistent with physical law. Diamonded materials in particular become
inexpensive and common place, and their remarkable properties usher in what has been
called the Diamond Age.”

Position control devices:

One of the basic principles of nanotechnology is positional control. At the
macroscopic scale, the idea that we can hold parts in our hands and assemble them by
properly positioning them with respect to each other goes back to prehistory: we
celebrate ourselves as the tool using species. Two types of position control devices are
explained in the following paragraphs. One is molecular scale robotic arm proposed by
Eric Drexler, and the other is Stewart Platform.
Molecular Scale Robotic Arm:
If we are to position molecular parts we must develop the molecular equivalent of
"arms" and "hands." We'll need to learn what it means to "pick up" such parts and "snap
them together." We'll have to understand the precise chemical reactions that such a device
would use. One of the first questions we'll need to answer is: what does a molecular-scale
positional device look like? The illustrations (from Nanosystems, the best technical
introduction to nanotechnology) show a design for a molecular-scale robotic arm
proposed by Eric Drexler, a pioneering researcher in the field as shown in Fig-1. Only
100 nanometers high and 30 nanometers in diameter, this rather squat design has a few
million atoms and roughly a hundred moving parts. It uses no lubricants, for at this scale
a lubricant molecule is more like a piece of grit. Instead, the bearings are "run dry"
(following a suggestion by Feynman) as described below.

2
 Fig-1(a)

Fig-1(b): Cross section of a stiff manipulator arm showing

its range of motion (schematic).

Fig-2(a)

Fig-2(b)

Running bearings dry should work both because the diamond surface is very
slippery (the coefficient of friction for diamond is 0.05) and because we can make the
surface very smooth -- so smooth that there wouldn't even be molecular-sized asperities

3
or imperfections that might catch or grind against each other. Computer models support
our intuition: analysis of the bearings shown here in fig-2(a) and fig-2(b) using
computational chemistry programs shows they should rotate easily.

Stewart platform:
While Drexler's proposal for a small robotic arm is easy to understand and should
be adequate to the task, more recent work has focused on the Stewart platform shown in
fig-3. This positional device has the great advantage that it is stiffer than a robotic arm of
similar size. Conceptually, the Stewart platform is based on the observation that a
polyhedron, all of whose faces are triangular, will be rigid. If some of the edges of the
polyhedron can be adjusted in length, then the position of one face can be moved with
respect to the position of another face. If we want a full six degrees of freedom (X, Y, Z,
roll, pitch and yaw) then we must be able to independently adjust the lengths of six
different edges of the polyhedron. If we further want one triangular face of the
polyhedron to remain of fixed size and hold a "tool," and a second face of the polyhedron
to act as the "base" whose size and position is fixed, then we find that the simplest
polyhedron that will suit our purpose is the octahedron.

In the Stewart platform, one triangular face of the octahedron is designated the
"platform," while the opposing triangular face is designated the "base." The six edges that
connect the base to the platform can then be adjusted in length to control the position of
the platform with respect to the base. Mechanically, this adjustment is often done using
six hydraulic pistons. The advantage of the Stewart platform can now be seen: because
the six adjustable-length edges are either in pure compression or pure tension and are
never subjected to any bending force, this positional device is stiffer than a long robotic
arm which can bend and flex. The Stewart platform is also conceptually simpler than a
robotic arm, having fewer different types of parts; for this reason, we can reasonably
expect that making one will be simpler than making a robotic arm.

4
 Fig-3: Stewart Platform

Self replicating Assemblers:

Positional control combined with appropriate molecular tools should let us build a
truly staggering range of molecular structures -- but a few molecular devices built at great
expense would hardly seem to qualify as a revolution in manufacturing.

If we could make a general purpose programmable manufacturing device which

was able to make copies of itself , then the manufacturing costs for both the devices and
anything they made could be kept quite low -- likely no more than the costs for growing
potatoes. Drexler called such devices "assemblers."

The first serious analysis of

self replicating systems was by von Neumann in the
1940's. He carried out a detailed analysis of one such
system in a theoretical cellular automata model shown in
figure. In von Neumann's cellular automata model he
used a universal computer for control and a "universal constructor" to build more
automata. The "universal constructor" was a robotic arm that, under computer control,
could move in two dimensions and alter the state of the cell at the tip of its arm. By
sweeping systematically back and forth, the arm could "build" any structure that the
computer instructed it to. In his three-dimensional "kinematic" model, von Neumann
retained the idea of a positional device (now able to position in three dimensions rather
than two) and a computer to control it.

The architecture for Drexler's assembler which is shown in

figure is a specialization of the more general architecture
5
proposed by von Neumann. As before, there is a computer and constructor, but now the
computer has shrunk to a "molecular computer" while the constructor combines two
features: a robotic positional device (such as the robotic arm discussed earlier) and a well
defined set of chemical operations that take place at the tip of the positional device
(such as the hydrogen abstraction reaction and the other reactions involved in the
synthesis of diamond).

The complexity of a self replicating system need not be excessive. In this context
the complexity is just the size, in bytes, of a "recipe" that fully describes how to make the
system. The complexity of an assembler needn't be beyond the complexity that can be
dealt with by today's engineering capabilities. As shown in the following table, there are
several self replicating systems whose complexity is well within current capabilities.
Drexler estimated the complexity of his original proposal for an assembler at about
10,000,000 bytes. Further work should reduce this.

Complexity of self replicating systems (bytes)

Von Neumann's universal constructor about 60,000
Internet worm 60,000
Mycoplasma genitalia 145,018
E. Coli 1,000,000
Drexler's assembler 12,000,000
Human 800,000,000
NASA Lunar Manufacturing Facility over 10,000,000,000

Developments in the field of Nanotechnology:

Electronics:
Nanotube Heterojunctions
Mechanical Systems:
Nanotube Bearing and Spring
Materials:
Organic/Inorganic Hybrid Polymer/Clay Nanocomposites
Low-Temperature Plasma Functionalization of Carbon Nanotubes
Nanoparticulate Electrodes Enable Improve Rechargeable Li-ion Batteries

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Nanotube Bearing and Spring
Multiwall nanotubes can perform as nanoscale linear bearings and nanosprings.

6
Through controlled and reversible telescopic extension, multiwall nanotubes have been
shown to perform as extremely low-friction nanoscale linear bearings and constant-force
nanosprings. Measurements of individual custom-engineered

nanotubes — performed with a high-resolution transmission electron microscope — have

explicitly demonstrated the anticipated van der Waals energy-based retraction force.
These measurements have also placed quantitative limits on the static and dynamic
nanotube/nanotube interwall friction forces, and have shown that the nanotubes behave as
constant-force springs that do not follow Hooke’s law.
On the atomic scale, no wear and fatigue were observed after noting repeated
extension and retraction of telescoping nanotube segments. This indicates that the new
multiwall nanotubes may constitute wear-free surfaces.
(This research was performed at Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Berkeley,
CA.)

Nanoparticulate Electrodes Enable Improved Rechargeable Li-ion

Batteries:
7
The unique structural features of nanostructured powders lead to enhanced diffusion of
Li-ions, thereby delivering high power density, along with a long cycle life and high
charge/discharge rate capability. The surface and internal structures of nanomaterials are
often very different from that of conventional coarse particles. This has several
ramifications, including the fact that the primary particle or grain sizes are at least an
order of magnitude smaller than those used in conventional electrode materials. This
implies that a battery can be fully charged or discharged at a much faster rate, without
compromising the capacity. Nanoparticles of certain compositions and structures can
potentially increase the energy density of Li-ion batteries; this is because of the additional
sites available on the surface of the nanoparticles in addition to the intercalating sites —
only the latter being available in micron-sized particles. Also, the volume distortion
associated with intercalation is relatively small in nanomaterials. As a result, the
reversible intercalation reaction can occur several times without any “damage” to the
electrode material. This results in a long cycle life; i.e. the initial capacity can be
maintained for a large number of cycles. Another unique feature of nanoparticles is the
ability to use alternative intercalating ions — such as magnesium — instead of lithium.
The advantage is that magnesium is significantly less expensive than lithium, and the
resultant rechargeable device has the capability of delivering still higher power densities,
along with good energy densities.
A nanostructured and layered lithium manganese oxide-based material, LiMnO2
has the potential to surpass the energy density achieved in spinel LiMn2O4 as well as in
LiCoO2, which is the standard cathode material. On the anode side, is a developed
nanostructure called lithium titanate (Li4Ti5O12).The ultrafine material displays near-
theoretical capacity at moderate charge rates (1 hour charge), and >90% capacity at
exceptionally high charge rates (20-minute charge). Other cathode compositions, based
on phosphates, are also in advanced stages of development. In summary, nanomaterials
present unprecedented opportunities for achieving the performance goals of several
applications at competitive cost.

8
Nanotechnology Pitfalls:
Not surprisingly, the potential benefits have dominated scientific and mass media
coverage of nanotechnology. But any technology can be a double-edged sword.
Environmental and safety concerns about nanotechnology have been recently explored.
We are already witnessing some precursors of nanotechnology-associated pollution: toxic
gallium arsenide used in microchips enters landfills in increasing quantities as millions of
computers and cellular phones are disposed of every year. Potentially harmful effects of
nanotechnology might arise as a result of the nature of nanomaterials themselves, the
characteristics of the products made from them, or the aspects of the manufacturing
process involved. The large surface area, crystalline structure, and reactivity of some
nanoparticles, for instance, may facilitate transport of toxic materials in the environment,
or the size and chemical composition of nanostructures may lead to biological harm
because of the way they interact with cellular materials. For example, if nanostructures
can self-assemble in the laboratory, can they replicate in the environment? If so, what will
be the fate of those nanostructures and their environmental and health impacts?
Because nanotechnology is unlikely to be the first entirely benign technology
advance, there is an urgent need to evaluate the effectiveness of current water and air
treatment techniques for the removal and control of potential nanoscale pollution.

9
Conclusion:
The long term goal of molecular manufacturing is to build exactly what we want
at low cost. Many if not most of the things that we'll want to build are complex, and seem
difficult if not impossible to synthesize with currently available methods. Adding
programmed positional control to the existing methods used in synthesis should let us
make a truly broad range of macroscopic molecular structures.
The manufacture of molecular machines using positional assembly requires two
things: positional devices to do the assembly, and parts to assemble. To add this kind of
positional control, however, requires that we design and build what amount to very small
robotic manipulators. If we are to make anything of any significant size with this
approach, we'll need mole quantities of these manipulators. Fortunately, any truly general
purpose manufacturing device should be able to manufacture another general purpose
manufacturing device, which lets us build large numbers of such devices at low cost. This
general approach, used by trees for a very long time, should let us develop a low cost
general purpose molecular manufacturing technology.
Development in nanotechnology is expected to continue at an accelerating pace,
given that funding for these types of research is increasingly available. While estimates
range from 15 to 50 years, there is no question that nanotechnology will arrive in the not-
too-distant future.

References:
1) www.zyvex.com
2) www.foresight.com
3) www.spectrum.ieee.org

10