Introduction

In Nanotech vs. Nanotech (Part 1), I suggested that Feynman/Drexler (FD) nanotechnology be renamed to mechutechnology, and that the name nanotechnology be considered to refer solely to nanoscale (NS) nanotechnology – i.e., to not include FD nanotechnology. My intention in making this suggestion was to remove the confusion that has arisen between FD and NS nanotechnologies – which by virtue of their different natures, promises, perils and levels of realization should be considered to be entirely separate technologies.

Clearly such a name change would impose a penalty on advocates of FD nanotechnology – they would lose some of the “brand name” recognition that they worked so hard and so long to gain. However, I believe that this penalty is more than compensated for by the increased differentiation between the two technologies, and thus the greater understanding of and respect for the promises and perils of FD nanotechnology.

This article is aimed at advocates of FD nanotech – in particular towards The Foresight Institute and The Institute for Molecular Manufacturing (IMM). For this audience, I provide slightly longer arguments and slightly more technical discussion than was appropriate for Part 1, which was directed at a general audience. (However, I assume that readers of this article have already read Part 1.)

Essentialness of Mechanical Assembly

In Part 1, I made the assumption that mechanical assembly is essential to FD nanotech. By mechanical assembly, I mean that the constituent parts (atoms, molecules, or component mechules) are grabbed in some way (by an assembler, mill, or other mechuchine), moved together (while still being held), and then joined together.

While I do not believe that I have seen Drexler’s books make an explicit point of the essentialness of mechanical assembly to FD nanotech, that essentialness seems implicit in the description of mills and assemblers as well as the more fundamental processes, such as mechanochemistry (which I now suggest be shortened to mechemistry.)

Note that I am not stating that the mechanical assembly of FD nanotech is restricted to the level of individual atoms. Nor am I stating that other processes (e.g., chemical synthesis or self-assembly) cannot be used. I am only stating that, at some point, mechanical assembly must be used in order to produce the final, atomically precise structure.

Mechular Terminology

With the fundamental characterization of FD nanotech as being concerned with the mechanical assembly of atomically precise structures, using the word mechule (mech-yule) to describe such structures becomes very natural. Not only does the term suggest both mechanism and atomic precision (through analogy with molecule), it also resonates nicely with mechemistry – the predominant fundamental assembly process of FD nanotech. Moreover, neither mechule, nor its vowel-ended root mechu (mech-you) have any previous meaning attached to them – and thus the chance of confusion with other terms is greatly reduced.

Additional terms can be derived easily from the mechu root:

Note that an advantage of the mechu root is that it does not suggest any length scale. Thus we avoid oxymoronic constructions such as “micron sized nanobots,” and can speak without embarrassment of single mechule 100 km high and 300 km long (i.e., Josh Hall’s space tower).

Problems with Current FD Terminology

In Part 1, I criticized the current terms of FD nanotech as being long, broad and/or inaccurate. There, I gave only a brief criticism of the use of molecular; here I provide a longer criticism and cover additional terms.

Length: Several FD nanotech terms are too long to use regularly. The tendency to use nanotechnology in preference to molecular nanotechnology or molecular manufacturing is particularly prevalent in Foresight Update, but can also be seen in articles for broader audiences. For example, Ralph Merkle’s January 2001 IEEE Spectrum opinion piece uses the term nanotechnology in preference to the phrase molecular manufacturing by a ratio of 16 to 3. And even the carefully written Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology uses the more general nanotechnology in the place of molecular nanotechnology about half the time.

Breadth: Several FD nanotech terms etymologically imply technology outside of FD nanotech. Nano indicates a length scale which is shared by a broad range of technologies, while eutactic (well-ordered) suggests a physical state which is shared by crystals and other orderly, self-assembled structures. Molecule also fails to draw an etymological boundary around FD nanotech. (For example, molecular electronics is clearly nanotech, yet may be accomplished to a significant degree without the mechanical assembly that characterizes FD nanotech.) And pairing molecule with manufacturing does not help significantly, since the resulting phrase is probably better suited to describe chemistry than FD nanotech!

Inaccuracy: The use of the qualifier molecular is inaccurate, since FD nanotech is primarily concerned with structures that cannot be well characterized as molecules. For example, a diamondoid gear is neither a molecule nor a crystal. Machine phase matter comes close to expressing the non-molecular state of fundamental FD nanotech components, but even this term (as defined by Drexler) is not well suited to static FD nanotech structures.

Note that all terms criticized here can be replaced with the mechu stemmed terms described in the previous section, which suffer from none of these problems of length, breadth or inaccuracy.

Considerations for Foresight and IMM

As FD nanotech comes closer to realization, it become increasingly important that its promises and perils become clear to the general public. Today, that clarity of understanding is being severely hampered by the confusion between FD and NS nanotechnologies. Rational consideration of FD nanotech by the general public will not be achieved until this confusion is removed.

Thus, FD nanotech needs a simple definition and a simple name that clearly separates it from NS nanotech. Mechu based terminology satisfies these requirements. Description: Nanotechnology is the technology of creating and using nanoscale structures. Mechutechnology is the technology of creating and using mechules, which are mechanically assembled, atomically precise structures. Promise: Nanotech will allow more powerful methods for detecting and treating cancers. But mechutech will permit the creation of medical mechubots with the ability to eliminate cancerous cells, rapidly cleanse the blood system, and rebuild damaged and destroyed tissue. Peril: Nanotech will introduce nanoscale particles into the environment – which may damage the natural functioning of biological systems. But mechutech may allow the creation of replicating mechubots able to eat the entire biosphere.

In summary: It is Foresight’s goal to help prepare society for anticipated advanced technologies. Providing a clear message that can be easily communicated to the general public is a necessary step in achieving that goal. Molecular nanotechnology is confusing the public – thus Foresight should change terminology – to mechutechnology.