backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by jlips6.. on Mar 18 at 11:31 AM


This virtual simulation shows arrays of multiple nanobrains lined up in columns. Each ring is one nanobrain. A single duroquinone molecule can be spotted at the center of the ring, with 16 other duroquinone molecules encircling it.  (Source: Internation Center For Young Scientists, Tsukuba, Japan)
Genius new nanoresearch seeks to one day take over the world of research with a control method for nanorobots, multi-instruction CPUs

It seems like every week scientists invent new nanomachinesNanomachines, tiny machines built on the atomic scale, help to cure disease through such functions as cancer detection, cancer destruction, and providing a biological power backup to batteries in pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). 

While dozens of useful nanodevices have been developed, one of the biggest challenges remains that various nanodevices cannot be controlled in mass and control of individual devices remains a rigorous process.  Current control of nanodevices is obviously not applicable to in-vivo (in the living human body), scenarios -- nanodevices remain unable to activate on their own, and thus are essentially useless without a means of remote control.

Researchers with the International Center for Young Scientists in Tsukuba, Japan have taken the first step towards overcoming this obstacle.  They have invented what has been dubbed a "nano-brain".  The research is presented in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The tiny chemical brain is only 2 nm across.  It is composed of 17 molecules of duroquinone, a cyclic (ring) molecule with 4 methyl groups and two keto-groups attached.    Sixteen of the molecules are attached by hydrogen bonds to a single central molecule.  By changing the orientation of the methyl groups attached, through electron scanning tunneling microscopy or other means, researchers are able to remotely control the central molecule, which switches the states of the surrounding 16 molecules.  Each of the attached molecules has four different settings, so a total of 416 combinations are possible, leading to about four billion unique possible outcomes.

The design of the structure, according to the team, was inspired by human glial cells used for communication inside the brain.  Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay, who helped lead the study, explains what a breakthrough the device is.  He states, "If [in the future] you want to remotely operate on a tumor you might want to send some molecular machines there.  But you cannot just put them into the blood and [expect them] to go to the right place.  That kind of device simply did not exist; this is the first time we have created a nano-brain."

The researchers envision the nanobrain controlling swarms of useful nanorobots to kill viruses and cancer cells.  As a proof of concept, researchers attached 8 different nanodevices developed by outside research to the outer molecules.  One of the device was "the world's smallest elevator", a 2.5 nm platform that can be raised and lowered on command.  When a single instruction was applied to the central molecule using the scanning electron microscope, all eight devices responded.  Dr. Bandyopadhyay states, "We have clear cut evidence that we can control those machines."

The one-to-many control structure of the molecular brain could also lead to computing breakthroughs.  A computer utilizing such a device in its CPU could simultaneously process 16 different operations.  Most current CPU architectures can only process one instruction at a time, albeit millions or billions of times per second.   The researchers are also exploring this possibility and say they have developed machines capable of 256 or even 1024 simultaneous operations.

The main impediment to developing such nano-powered supercomputers is the equipment needed to activate the molecules.  Professor Andrew Adamatzky of the University of the West England (UWE) explains, "As with other implementations of unconventional computers the application is very limited, because they operate [it] using scanning tunnel microscopy.  [But] I am sure with time such molecular CPUs can be integrated in molecular robots, so they will simply interact with other molecular parts autonomously."

While you might not see the chemical nano-brain in the next round of Intel processors, it remains a promising breakthrough in nanotechnology, that hopefully brings us one step closer to curing disease through microscopic helpers.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In theory...
By AToZKillin on 3/14/2008 5:11:19 PM , Rating: 1
In theory, couldn't these things be used as "smart" chemical weapons? Extra-smart smart bombs that could decimate entire continents, if developed as such?

Nice. WMDs ftw.




RE: In theory...
By i4mt3hwin on 3/14/2008 6:33:17 PM , Rating: 5
In theory scientists could create a 90ft tall robot Barbie Doll and decimate entire countries. Just because something can be designed as a weapon, doesn't mean we shouldn't produce it.


RE: In theory...
By 3kliksphilip on 3/14/2008 6:58:01 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. I think the Barbie Doll's a great idea.


RE: In theory...
By FaceMaster on 3/14/2008 7:06:20 PM , Rating: 1
I think your MUM'S a good idea.


RE: In theory...
By AToZKillin on 3/14/2008 8:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
We could just make a giant Hillary doll, and turn her snook into a vaccuum cleaner. Interns beware.


RE: In theory...
By AToZKillin on 3/14/2008 7:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously I was joking. Why would I publicly be pro-chemical weapons? Man...some people take this stuff too seriously....


RE: In theory...
By SlyNine on 3/15/2008 11:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think when you consider the fact that we can already decimate the entire world with in hours, The joke just doesn't make much sense.


RE: In theory...
By jlips6 on 3/16/2008 1:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
I know it shouldn't, but this just PISSES ME OFF!!!! please, PLEASE! don't use the word decimate unless you actually mean that whatever is being decimated is having one tenth of it destroyed. Decimated is not the same as obliterated, or annihilated.


RE: In theory...
By Smoza on 3/16/2008 7:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
decimate
- 1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.


RE: In theory...
By theapparition on 3/17/2008 8:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
PLEASE! don't use the word decimate unless you actually mean that whatever is being decimated is having one tenth of it destroyed.

No, that would be 90% destroyed, leaving only 10% (or .1).

But seriously, we all know what the word means in context, and the OP's intent and useage was correct.


RE: In theory...
By callmeroy on 3/17/2008 3:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually if you want to get all technical over the word's definition even the definition posted earlier is not totally accurate, that is the modern definition.

While I'm sure SOMEONE out there will pinpoint the culture and the time period, decimate came about in "ancient" times as they would say and I want to say either the Greeks or Romans put the practice of decimation into effect. True decimation meant every 10th man was killed. So for simple explanation picture 100 guys randomly lined up in a row - under the penalty of decimation 10 of those guys would be dead.

This is even mentioned in the bible. But that's where the word really came from then it just grew from there and now is common that folks refer to "decimation" as just "totally destroying" something.


RE: In theory...
By jlips6 on 3/18/2008 11:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
Er... yeah... I knew all that. Sure did.


RE: In theory...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/17/2008 8:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously, with a name like "A to Z Killin'", you clearly wouldn't advocate killin. I bet your mum is proud of your login name.


"nano brain" ??? hmmm
By winterspan on 3/15/2008 3:37:53 AM , Rating: 4
I usually give any research the benefit of the doubt, and maybe I'm an idiot for commenting without researching this more, but how did they get from manipulating a molecule sized one-to-many "state switcher" all the way to a "nano brain"??? Granted, I'm sure this is not an insignificant happening in the world of nanotech research, but isn't calling this a "nano brain" an incredible stretch ????




RE: "nano brain" ??? hmmm
By krwhite on 3/15/2008 11:04:52 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. It doesn't exactly scream "self-aware" to me. Also, I wonder if this thing can even exist in 3D space? That middle molecule seems to just be floating around in there.


RE: "nano brain" ??? hmmm
By SlyNine on 3/15/2008 11:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the out side transfers information chemically to the inside. Of course I didn't think quatum computers where any where close to reality, and yet supposedly their is one in use in Canada.


RE: "nano brain" ??? hmmm
By jlips6 on 3/16/2008 1:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
there are 3 kinds of molecular bonding. covalent, ionic, and hydrogen bonds. while covalent and ionic bonds are extremely strong, hydrogen bonds are very weak, and take place when parts of molecules have faint charges and attract to each other. In these scientific diagrams, (like most,) hydrogen bonds are not shown. They are probably what contains the center of the molecule.


RE: "nano brain" ??? hmmm
By TheSpaniard on 3/16/2008 1:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sixteen of the molecules are attached by hydrogen bonds to a single central molecule


they are what holds the molecules together, (obviously covalent bonding for the individual molecule)


RE: "nano brain" ??? hmmm
By jlips6 on 3/16/2008 2:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
thank you. :)


RE: "nano brain" ??? hmmm
By