Here's some quips I have about nanotechnology in literature.
The energy required to disassemble any matter into molecules is ASTRONOMICAL. Nuclear fission obviously requires very energy dense matter... And nanomachines can't really hold more atomic energy than their mass dictates. This could be partially supported by wireless energy, just look up tesla's work.
Second, to really do anything effectual they would have to be no smaller than a blood cell, they wouldn't be able to move fast on their own considering a brisk walk for a person is like hypersonic flight on that scale. Sure enough of them could make a move efficient movement mechanism like a wheel but still, power requirements...
Oh and with every tool you add adds mass not used for something else, want color shifting? That's gonna cost you.
All in all nanomachines in any realistic setup would be very sluggish in a solid mass unless they're munching on plutonium rods constantly. Also assimilation would have to take a VERY long time, pulling apart atoms and rearranging them is simply not easy. Carbon based life is by far the most efficient and self sufficient machine in existence. Considering how much it can do given the fuel it's mind boggling. Sure a running bot can run faster, but can it be fueled by hamburgers and repair itself after being shot?
Organic life is sooooo underrated, everything is just taken for granted.
(05-11-2016, 11:22 PM)YDH Wrote: [ -> ]So what about organic nanomachines, aka microbes? If organic life is more practical, maybe the solution is biotech.
Exactly, why reinvent the wheel when you can improve on what's already there.
Still, nothing rapid like in the movies, and a body made of them couldn't just reshape itself in minutes or seconds, just too much energy required to break and reform so many molecular bonds.
(05-12-2016, 03:21 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Biotech doesn't lend itself to failsafes like techtech
No, it doesn't, the only limiters are things like life-span and infertility. (inability to reproduce during infection/while working etcetra). Alternately creating another problem organic to take care of the first problem.
Because two games adding something that is good for variety is somehow a bad thing. Who did it first doesn't actually matter. In neither case is it an original idea.
(05-12-2016, 03:21 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Biotech doesn't lend itself to failsafes like techtech
No, it doesn't, the only limiters are things like life-span and infertility. (inability to reproduce during infection/while working etcetra). Alternately creating another problem organic to take care of the first problem.
What's there to prevent the creation of a nanovirus?
(05-12-2016, 04:29 AM)Lost Rinoah Wrote: [ -> ]No, it doesn't, the only limiters are things like life-span and infertility. (inability to reproduce during infection/while working etcetra). Alternately creating another problem organic to take care of the first problem.
What's there to prevent the creation of a nanovirus?
That is creating a problem organic to take care of another problem organic
(05-12-2016, 03:58 PM)Rahizel Wrote: [ -> ]What's there to prevent the creation of a nanovirus?
That is creating a problem organic to take care of another problem organic
Also illness and disease only plague the current organic life, one could genetically modify it so much that not only can it fight off disease, disease would be made simply incompatible.
(05-12-2016, 04:01 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]That is creating a problem organic to take care of another problem organic
Also illness and disease only plague the current organic life, one could genetically modify it so much that not only can it fight off disease, disease would be made simply incompatible.
The issue with that is mutation rates and natural adaptations. Accidents happen too often. Get infected with something basic, (the common cold) and introduce the same mutation to both the common cold and whatever root cell you are using and nobody could tell you what would happen. I'd rather have sickness than more accidental super-viruses.
How many barrels should I have on my suit's coilminigun? I was thinking between five and three. Ammo isn't as much of an issue as it is for normal weapons, and neither is power.
And yes, its a coilgun minigun. Four? Tempted to do four. Though that'd give it a lower RoF...Five maybe?
(05-12-2016, 07:55 PM)kawaiiChiimera Wrote: [ -> ]How many barrels should I have on my suit's coilminigun? I was thinking between five and three. Ammo isn't as much of an issue as it is for normal weapons, and neither is power.
And yes, its a coilgun minigun. Four? Tempted to do four. Though that'd give it a lower RoF...Five maybe?
Hypervelocity weapons degrade barrels very fast, but the barrels are also extremely heavy, generates lots of heat, and each is needing its own coil, just better off firing larger rounds usually.
Maybe an open shaft carbine is better or very short barrels.
Think about what you'd actually want the weapon to do.
(05-12-2016, 03:58 PM)Rahizel Wrote: [ -> ]What's there to prevent the creation of a nanovirus?
That is creating a problem organic to take care of another problem organic
But that's how it works now. Internally, our immune systems do it: we have cells that hunt down and destroy foreign invaders, as well as cells that police our own cells and destroy them if they become a threat. Externally, it's what food chains do.
![[Image: QVzugXt.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/QVzugXt.jpg)
![[Image: 88e.jpeg]](http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/118/226/88e.jpeg)