I know what MNT is (diamondoid mechanosynthesis), and I know that dozens of labs are working on it, albeit the “Drexlerian vision” is certainly stronger at, say, Nanorex, than it is at IBM. The disparity between the US and the UK you’re pointing to is non-existent — the US has been a leader both in designing advanced nanomachines and doing the chemical simulations and CAD work necessary to lay the foundation for further progress. The Ideas Factory thing is incredibly recent and new.

There is a big difference between reports like “Design of a Primitive Nanofactory” and computer models. The difference is that without the report, you have little idea what you’re going for, and any models you build may have little or no bearing on an assembler design that is scalable to a human-scale nanofactory. Computational chemists run millions of molecular simulations per day, but do they necessarily contribute to MNT? Only if they have MNT in mind (from reading reports like Chris’). Both simulating and report-writing are important at this point, but there is so little “vision” in the field of MNT, aside from Nanosystems, that we need reports more than we need what one would call “actual” hands-on laboratory research. Today, the vision is more “actual” in terms of progress gained than the lab work.

What I meant when you say I contradict myself is that the US-nanotech crowd seems to be more concerned with thinking up really advanced uses of nanotech, while the british are doing the actual research. I know this is a bit unfair towards US researchers, but the Ideas Factory seems to be more coordinated than most MNT-research in the US.

Let’s hope we’ll see a nanofactoy by 2015, be it in the US or in the UK.

Not a Drexlerian or a Kurzweilian myself per se, but after discussions and reading the work of J. Storrs Hall, Chris Phoenix, et al, I think MNT is easier than it seems to most people, although certainly not easy, but the incentives to develop it are great, and billions are already going into nanotechnology in general, which provides the prerequisites for MNT.

Ole, you say that no one is working on MNT except for Freitas, then contradict yourself by bringing up the Idea Factory… dozens, if not hundreds of others are working on MNT as well, at corporate labs as well as in academia.

Phillip, sorry you find the timeframe inexcusable. I recommend “Design of a Primitive Nanofactory” by Chris Phoenix:

http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm

I agree with Huggan on this one, I read Kurzweil’s “Singularity is Near” and Richard Jones’ “Soft Machines” at the same time and was amazed by the distance in “optimism” on molecular manufacturing. MM (in it’s true sense) by 2015 sounds highly improbable. I also believe it to be a very positive step of The Bulletin to include emerging technologies as a factor in the Doomsday Clock (even if they envision nanoscopic artillery)

Drexlerians and Kurzweilians believe MM to be imminent but still there’s very little actual research into this (expect maybe Freitas and the US military) while the conservative British are running full speed ahead with Ideas Factory Software control of matter.

See a post on the Soft Machines blog on this, Keeping on keeping.

I hope the members and ideas of the Lifeboat Foundation can bridge this gap in understanding.