Talk:Clanking replicator

Credibility of design
Hmmm.


 * In 1998, Chris Phoenix proposed an ingenious design for a macroscale replicator on the sci.nanotech newsgroup. The replicator would operate in a pool of ultraviolet-cured liquid plastic, selectively solidifying it to form solid parts. Computation could be done by fluidic logic. Power for the process could be supplied by a pressurized source of the liquid.

There are a heck of a lot of cranks on Usenet proposing everything from better mousetraps to perpetual motion machines. If the only source for this design is a Usenet posting, and there's no other peer review or some credibility given by Mr Phoenix's credentials, I doubt it's of sufficient credibility to warrant a mention on our page. If no additional information is forthcoming, I'll remove it. --Robert Merkel

I'm the person who added that paragraph.

Chris Phoenix is a co-moderator of the sci.nanotech newsgroup. He has been a regular attendee of Foresight Institute conferences and gatherings for many years. He has studied nanotechnology with Eric Drexler, when Drexler gave a course on the subject at Stanford University. He is by no means a crank.

On the other hand, the proposal is not thoroughly researched or peer-reviewed like Robert Freitas's work in 1981, or Freitas's subsequent work on nanomedical devices. The 1981 work was done for NASA, and is written up at http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASMIndex.html. I should have probably referenced the Freitas work instead, but I am not as familiar with it as I should be, and I've always had some admiration for the ingenuity of Chris's idea.

WillWare


 * Thanks for the clarification. Some of this should be thrown into the main page somewhere to give the claim some more credibility. --Robert Merkel

Feasibility
I would argue that it's impossible to build a practically useful one right now. Self-repair, for instance, would require AI capabilities considerably beyond our present systems. --Robert Merkel
 * Not really. Human intelligence is not a requisite for self-replication/repair. Depends on the nature of the machine of course, but there are a number of AI technologies that could be useful. One is briefly discussed here: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_Human_Instinctive_Artificial_Intelligence". The computational means for an AI to function that could be reproduced by the operated machine would be more of a problem though. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's arguable I suppose, but still, "impossible" is a very bold claim for something that's entirely within the known laws of physics, and for which there are known designs and theories. I wouldn't have any problem with "practically impossible with current technology" or something a bit less bold. I don't know that AI repair would be necessary for something that can reproduce itself. If one unit failed, it wouldn't take fancy AI for others to simply notice that fact and rebuild another in its place from scratch. --LDC


 * Lee, "practically impossible with current technology" was exactly what I meant. --Robert Merkel

It hasn't actually been tried yet, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's beyond our current technology; the NASA study linked to presents the case that a replicating system could already be built using 1980s-level technology. All it would take is throwing enough money at it. Therefore I think that "practically impossible with current technology" is incorrect, "practically impossible with current economics" is a better way of describing the situation IMO. Self-repair is specifically dealt with in one of the study's appendices, and can be handled much as LDC describes by testing and replacing defective components at whatever level of abstraction is most efficient (http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASM5H.html#5h3). --BD

constructing a clanking replicator is not considered to be of major economic interest at this time. Currently removed because no reference in article. I see some references here though. I'll check those and see. Kim Bruning 17:53, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved comment to talk page
The following paragraph looks like discussion, so I moved it here, interesting though its point may be. --24.82.160.30 01:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If multiple machines working together as a self-replicating community constitute self replication, then surely all we need to do is fully automate every manufacturing process required to make the components for the machines. Therfore I believe the fastest route to self replication would be for people to concentrate on automating existing manufacturing processes, thus eliminating the human aspect completely. - Joe Bourne

Grey goo
What is the relation between this article and Grey goo? Why does neither of them mention the other, and in fact, should they be merged? Shreevatsa (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Clanking replicator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112200308/http://staff.bath.ac.uk:80/ensab/replicator/ to http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge suggested
The article Self-replicating machine includes a note dated March 2015 proposing that this article (Clanking replicator) be merged with that one.

Seems like a good idea to me; they cover the same material. I propose we go forward with the merge. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clanking replicator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060307220916/http://www.lucifer.com/~sean/N-FX/macro.html to http://www.lucifer.com/~sean/N-FX/macro.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)