What happed to the molecular assembler sorta like Star Trek replicator?

In My Humble Opinion
1

There was a video on YouTube talking about advance printer more advance than 3D printer called molecular assembler or some thing. The machine needs a supply of moleculars and the tiny nano arms can move the moleculars around and build stuff.

I’m trying to find the video on YouTube but cannot fined it? It is called molecular assembler or some thing. It is way more advance than a 3D printer and have very tiny nano arms that move moleculars around and build stuff.

The only problem is it needs a supply of moleculars unlike the Star Trek replicator that can turn energy into matter.

But there was some videos showing these molecular assembler and now I hear nothing of this as if they ran out of money to build and test this thing.

2

If you are talking about “replicated” food, it’s called molecular gastronomy. However, the machine(s) in that case are anything from regular chem lab apparatus to programmable robots that can handle multistep procedures (emulsify this in that, evaporate a bit of the other, mix it with some of that, turn it into little spheres, etc.) but, yes, that needs a supply of raw materials; nothing is turning energy into matter.

3

1.) I can’t help you with the video in question.
2.) Molecules. Molecules.
3.) Molecular assemblers/cornucopia devices are a common device in science fiction, but a very, very, very, very long way from something that can be built.

4

Is it this pretty old video?

5

If it’s that video, the narration makes it clear that the video is speculating on what may be possible in the future. “Future advances in molecular nanotechnology will enable desktop appliances to manufacture products far better than today’s best.” Certainly nothing like that is possible now or any time soon.

6

I’m not sure where we are today with Nanotechnology. What we can do and what can’t they do today.

But you probably need advance robotics and advance nanotechnology of what is shown in that video.

7

That video (the part I watched) mentioned something about how fast things move on the molecular level, but actually things are built very, very slowly. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution it still takes nature months to “print” a carrot, for example. I expect that any molecular assemblers of macroscopic objects in the future would make the glacial pace of modern bulk-matter 3D printers seem lightning fast.

8

Nanotechnology as imagined in science fiction? We are essentially nowhere and can do basically nothing.

9

Here’s another video of various techniques by SciShow. Of course it mentions at the end how long there is to go.

10

Yeah, whenever anyone talks about nanofabrication of large structures like buildings or bridges, I always picture a growing tree. Maybe someday we will be able to grow bridges like trees… but would we want to? The contexts where it’s worth waiting that long have to be rare.

11

Probably the main one would be if such assembly turned out to be WAY cheaper – like 60% or more cheaper – than building it any other way. In which case I can imagine a state or local government saying, “Sorry, the budget isn’t there to do it the quick way.”

12

Well, we do this already. It is rare, and slow, but it happens.

13

I heard about an honoree at the American Association of Crystal Growth meeting who was asked, after a multidecade career in the deposition of thin films, if he had “grown” a centimeter, yet. He thought about it briefly and then said “no”.

14

Yeah, if your replicator is placing molecules individually with tiny arms, it’s going to take a lifetime to construct anything big enough to pick up and hold.

15

It will take as long has mother nature takes as your body at cellular level moves and copies proteins and amino acids and builds proteins…

To growth a baby or tree or plant it would take that long as mother nature takes that long to work at molecular level.

16

I’m not sure that’s a completely valid assumption. A lot of stuff in nature is self-assembling because the molecules are specialised to work in that way.
Assuming we could make tiny assemblers that are as effective as biological cellular machinery, sure, we might be able to approach the speed at which nature assembles stuff, assuming we also wanted stuff assembled in the same way and from the same stuff nature does it.

Otherwise I don’t think it could be reliably assumed it would be that fast. Assembling some arbitrary thing, possibly including assembly of novel molecules as building blocks, may not be as quick.

17

That’s why I hate Hollywood films some days.

You take a perfectly good franchise, like Bond, somewhat rooted in the real world (cough ignore Moonraker cough) and in the latest film you introduce a self-replicating bot virus weapon that can spread like wildfire and do instantaneous DNA anaylsis/matching with what must be a micro-encapsulated world DNA database and that runs on power from the aether apparently. Or micro nuclear generators. And has the computing power of a supercomputer. Anyway, that nanoweapon would be considered science fiction in the universe of Star Trek, but the movie gives the impression it is current cutting-edge tech.

At least Iron Man’s suit isn’t pretending that it is twenty minutes into the future.

18

But, again, the rate that nature assembles stuff is very slow. For instance, microtubules in a cell are assembled at a rate of 0.2 to 0.4 microns per second. That means around 14 hours for 1 cm of growth.

19

Sure, and cells are mostly water, so the growth of biological stuff is magnified by processes analogous to the inflation of balloons.

A lot of the stuff we’d want to build is significantly more dense - semiconductor electronics, rigid structures, strong tools, etc - and would take longer even if the machine was capable of matching biology in the placement of molecules.

20

Well the only way you could get around it is if you had a million pin heads moving or attacking stuff.