Nanoware, do you want more of it in SR4? Options

[Kagetenshi]

I voted yes, but I'd like to qualify that.

I'd like to see more nanoware, possibly even up to half again as much as we have now. No more. mmu1 and Arethusa pretty much summed up my objections to making it at all central.

~J

[lacemaker]

I don't think consumer level nanotechnology necessarily implies a mature nanotechnology of the type people are (justly) opposed to. Nanotech is very much a continuum rather than a dichotomy, and any discussion has to start by making a distinction between "nanotech" which is really just nano-scale materials engineering (ie any and all existing real world nanotech) and the engines of creation stuff.

Even assuming we're taking nanotech as being equivalent to nano-bots, there's no reason at all why nanobots couldn't be consumer ready for certain, limited tasks but unrealiable at, or incapable of the kind of game changers that worry people. Even if I'm wrong as to that, it's a perfect opportunity for game designer fiat - nanotech can work in your cyberware but doesn't permit go anywhere invisible sensors because that's not how it works. Precise realism isn't a key objective in SR technology, but invoking a cool futuristic vibe is - nanotech does that today (hell, it's the "japanese megacorps" of the new millennium) so put it in there, just nerf it at some well sub-diamond age level.

[Rev]

Eh, I read a paper by a physicist once on nanotech. He did some thermodynamic calculations demonstrating that making a table with universal assembler nano-robots took as much energy as making an aircraft carrier or something the normal way. Has to do with the ridiculously low entropy of an item manufactured that way vs a normal item, basically every molecule is in a specified position and that takes lots of energy.

There are solid theroretical reasons to think that nanotech utopia is physically impossible. That if you had nanorobots making a material equivalent to wood they would not be able to do it with much less energy than or much faster than a tree (eg not the many orders of magnitude that nanotech fantasies require). Same goes for making computers, or the nanorobots themselves.

[Edward]

I am curious what the low entropy would do to the materials strength and resilience.

Even expensive and sow to produce if the strength to weight ration is good enough there will be a market.

Edward

[mfb]

that's only true if you're trying to produce one piece of wood at a time, Rev. the speed factor comes into play when you've got gigantic tanks full of raw components, which can then be quickly nanoassembled into finished products. yes, it takes the same amount of time overall, but you've got much finer control over what happens during that time period, as well as when the period starts, pauses, and ends.

[The Other DSE]

Actually, even if you had all of those vats going at once, can you really see a megacorp waiting to for a year to create a whole batch of tables? Additionally, I think the important part is the energy investment. That energy costs, so if you can build it using normal means, then you would.

As I once heard about Star Trek: If they had the technology to replicate entire starships, they wouldn't need starships.

Edward: Nano-created wood would have the exact same strength as wood. That's the point, you're replicating the actual material. The benefit of nano-materials is that you could use nano to create materials in quantities/shapes that you normally couldn't, as well as materials that just don't exist.

Examples: Perfect, low entropy, construction spars (think uber-girders)
Diamond windows
Superconductors
Dikoting (or otherwise laminating) without blast furnaces
Finally (and maybe most importantly) plastics *without fossil fuels*


I suspect that you'd see different approaches to different things. Sometimes you'd just produce job lots of the materials, and then refine/adapt the materials you'd need (don't produce a table, but produce sheets of wood to make the table). Other times you would actually see a part being entirely nano-constructed.

Hey Raygun (and you other gun lovers) how's a low entropy metallurgically perfect barrel sound for your firearm?

[Kagetenshi]

Nano-created wood might have the strength of wood, but it would have the strength of optimal wood. Most materials have flaws that don't need to be present if you're constructing at such a low level.

~J

[Edward]

Nano wood is just stilly, nano build machine parts is what I was thinking of, bearings without the tiniest bump or crack is just the beginning. How would the strength compare for a 1’ steal rod compare if built using nano mashienes or if build using the best method available today.

Edward

[mfb]

DSE, my point was that the corps wouldn't need to wait a year to make a table. all they'd have to do would be pull out enough proto-wood goop from their stores to create a table, assemble over the course of a few days, and plop it in the store. yes, they'd have to spend a year before that creating the proto-goop, but that's there's no reason not to have eleventy hojillion tons of proto-wood goop lying around all the time, since that same goop can probably also be assembled into materials (hamburgers, dirt, vat-grown muscles...)

[Edward]

For a moment mentally compare the cost of making wood using nano mashies to the cost of chopping down trees in amazonia and running them threw a lumber mill, recall also that those trees are growing out of control and nobody is particularly worried about them disappearing.

Edward

[Rev]

[The Other DSE]

Actually my point was that it would take a while *still* even from the point of time that you pull out your "proto-wood". Unless the stuff was specifically designed to be wood or something, it would still take quite a while, especially compared to the time it would take to make something the "normal" way. And if it was specifically designed to be wood, then you couldn't differentiate it into some other material.

That's what we're trying to say: This idea of "nano-goop" that becomes what ever you want in a reasonable period of time is totally and completely ludicrous with respect to the level of tech that Shadowrun is at.

And Edward: I agree with you. Low entropy materials would be the major dividend of nano. The wood was just part of the earlier discussion.

Like I said, imagine a perfect gun barrel. I'm still curious if Raygun (or you Arethusa) thinks that would be incredibly useful or just overkill.

On a side note, I'm still kind of suspicious of any true nano-machines having any kind of programmability on the fly. Micro-machines I can buy (and let's just ignore that pun there, I mean robots that are micrometers in measure) but anything in the nano range would probably have to be purpose built and it wouldn't be able to change tasks.

[Ellery]

Trees already nanoassemble wood, given some solid and gaseous starting materials and energy in the form of visible photons.

[mfb]

what ellery said. why should nanoassembly be any more expensive, energy-wise, than growing a tree? the only difference would be that you can start and stop the nanoassembly process at pretty much any point you wish to, which means you've got finer control over your supply.

DSE, wood and food aren't exactly mars and venus. what you'd actually have, instead of one big tank of nanogoop, is lots of smaller tanks of nanogoop which are combined in whatever proportion and configuration you desire. most of the goop that goes into wood can also go into delicious corn, and some of it can be used to make juicy sausage. or pizza. possibly hu-man ice creams as well. damn, i'm hungry.

[Cray74]

[Ellery]

Why use generic goop when you can reprogram trees to be responsive to chemical signaling (and even transport and take up DNA if you'd like)?

[Rev]

[blakkie]

The energy vs. speed tradeoff assumes not changing the proccess from more linear to more parallel. Like the assembly line did in the early 20th century.

As well trees expend resources in other areas that are not nessarily needed if you can better control the environment. For example bark, and seeds could be taken right out. Likewise you could configure the system so that it wouldn't have to expend the energy to fight the pull of gravity on water. There are efficencies to be gained by shedding stuff that fills the requirements that trees have for growing.

In many ways the line between nanotech and genetic engineering is blurry.

[Geko]

I voted no.

Instead of more Nanotech/Nanoware, I would simply like to see it used to push the boundaries of Biotech and Cyberware. In other words, nothing wrong with introducing the technology, I just don't think it needs to be its own category of enhancement.

That kind of integration would go hand-in-hand with streamlining things, I'd think.