3d print atoms

[fredreload]

As atomic biology post inspired me. I was wondering if you can 3d print atoms. Alright, I was into 3D print a body, an identical one at that in DNA and structure. Since the gene expression of the cells would not match, I thought, maybe we need to print from an atomic scale instead of a cellular scale with cells. And you got an inkjet with all the chemical elements and begin printing as the chemical bonds take place.

Alright, sorry, this is speaking from an elementary school level. You got all the elements like hydrogen and oxygen, do you 3d print them with the chemical reactions to make water? If you 3d print meat, does it spoil? Things like that.

Surely an atomic printer is going to take forever, how about an atomic copier?

How about an atomic manipulator, adding protons, neutrons, electron to an atom?

Edited January 27, 2018 by fredreload

[John Cuthber]

How long are you prepared to wait?

There are about 100000000000000000000000000000 atoms in the body. (I may have miscounted the zeroes slightly)

If you could print a billion of them a second it would take about 100000000000000000000 seconds

That's about the age of the universe (again, give or take a few zeroes)

[EdEarl]

The current style of 3D printers shape materials using enough material in a second to equal billions of cells. 3D printing things the size of a cell would need a totally new technology to work with a few atoms, for example 16 to make one guanine molecule). Even if you use proteins, fats and carbohydrates for building blocks, radically different technology is required. Moreover, there are critical unknowns that must be discovered, such as what are all the things in a cell, and what do they do?

[studiot]

A few years ago the IBM research centre reported what journalists called 'designer atoms'.

What they had managed to achieve was a potential well 'corral' for electrons by ultramicro printing techniqueson a silicon chip. I seem to remember this was using a force-ion microscope.

Sorry I can't remember a better citation

[fredreload]

38 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

How long are you prepared to wait?

There are about 100000000000000000000000000000 atoms in the body. (I may have miscounted the zeroes slightly)

If you could print a billion of them a second it would take about 100000000000000000000 seconds

That's about the age of the universe (again, give or take a few zeroes)

Ya, that is why I mentioned a copier or manipulator. By manipulating the neutrons and protons you could freely manipulate the atom to become any elements, such is a dream of man kind I suppose

17 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

The current style of 3D printers shape materials using enough material in a second to equal billions of cells. 3D printing things the size of a cell would need a totally new technology to work with a few atoms, for example 16 to make one guanine molecule). Even if you use proteins, fats and carbohydrates for building blocks, radically different technology is required. Moreover, there are critical unknowns that must be discovered, such as what are all the things in a cell, and what do they do?

You do not have to understand what is inside a cell, but to copy its atomic structure making a one to one copy of the body. Such is a technology that is to be accomplished

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

A few years ago the IBM research centre reported what journalists called 'designer atoms'.

What they had managed to achieve was a potential well 'corral' for electrons by ultramicro printing techniqueson a silicon chip. I seem to remember this was using a force-ion microscope.

Sorry I can't remember a better citation

Ya, I really don't know if they could swap in and out a neutron or proton freely. Excluding the mystery of the orbiting electrons we still need to work with the nuclear force exhibiting inside the nucleus

Edited January 27, 2018 by fredreload

[EdEarl]

2 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Ya, that is why I mentioned a copier or manipulator. By manipulating the neutrons and protons you could freely manipulate the atom to become any elements, such is a dream of man kind I suppose

Not really. Creating elements takes too much energy.

[fredreload]

4 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Not really. Creating elements takes too much energy.

You are swapping in and out neutrons and protons by dealing with the nuclear force. Right it could take a lot of energy, I am not an expert in this field, but I know nuclear energy is not something easy to deal with

P.S And that is why we need a fast and efficient process for this, in my dream I suppose

Edited January 27, 2018 by fredreload

[EdEarl]

16 minutes ago, fredreload said:

You are swapping in and out neutrons and protons by dealing with the nuclear force. Right it could take a lot of energy, I am not an expert in this field, but I know nuclear energy is not something easy to deal with

P.S And that is why we need a fast and efficient process for this, in my dream I suppose

If you are suggesting there is an alternative 3D printing method that will require less energy to make elements, I think your speculation has become sci-fi that will remain in that realm. 

[studiot]

3 hours ago, fredreload said:

Ya, I really don't know if they could swap in and out a neutron or proton freely. Excluding the mystery of the orbiting electrons we still need to work with the nuclear force exhibiting inside the nucleus

No I'm sorry I didn't make myself properly clear.

Nature confines an electron within an atom by creating the atomic proton/electron/neutron structure.

IBM created an entirely different confine using electrical forces.

[fredreload]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

No I'm sorry I didn't make myself properly clear.

Nature confines an electron within an atom by creating the atomic proton/electron/neutron structure.

IBM created an entirely different confine using electrical forces.

That idea reminds me of The Philadelphia Experiment. Although the later one is more of a hoax I think

[fredreload]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-we-add-or-remove-a-proton.221954/

This is a post from the Physics forum suggesting is possible to bombard the nucleus with energy particles to remove a proton or neutron.

[EdEarl]

48 minutes ago, fredreload said:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-we-add-or-remove-a-proton.221954/

This is a post from the Physics forum suggesting is possible to bombard the nucleus with energy particles to remove a proton or neutron.

Yes. The process of using two protons to make a nucleus of two protons is called hydrogen fusion, which releases huge amounts of energy per gram of protons used. If you do it quickly, you have detonated a thermonuclear bomb. If it can be done slowly, you have a thermonuclear power plant. Iron and elements with more protons than iron do not produce energy when a proton is added, they require you supply energy to add a proton to a nucleus. In any case, the energy involved to add or remove a proton is huge.

Edited January 28, 2018 by EdEarl

[fredreload]

40 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Yes. The process of using two protons to make a nucleus of two protons is called hydrogen fusion, which releases huge amounts of energy per gram of protons used. If you do it quickly, you have detonated a thermonuclear bomb. If it can be done slowly, you have a thermonuclear power plant. Iron and elements with more protons than iron do not produce energy when a proton is added, they require you supply energy to add a proton to a nucleus. In any case, the energy involved to add or remove a proton is huge.

If you've read the thread you'll know that photodisintegration is different from photofission. But for how much energy it takes to remove all 25 protons and neutrons from the magnesium is still in question, whether this would be a sufficient process to say, carve a human body out of carbons, is still in question.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, fredreload said:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-we-add-or-remove-a-proton.221954/

This is a post from the Physics forum suggesting is possible to bombard the nucleus with energy particles to remove a proton or neutron.

It is possible. But you need an accelerator to do it, and you do not get to pick and choose which atom is affected. 

[EdEarl]

43 minutes ago, fredreload said:

If you've read the thread you'll know that photodisintegration is different from photofission. But for how much energy it takes to remove all 25 protons and neutrons from the magnesium is still in question, whether this would be a sufficient process to say, carve a human body out of carbons, is still in question.

Gamma rays are very energetic photons. Photodisintegration does not reduce the energy budget. Making helium from protons is thermonuclear always.
  4.02820356  Mass of two deuterium atoms (2 protons + 2 neutrons)
 -4.00260200   Mass of one helium atom (2 protons + 2 neutrons)
  0.02560156  Difference because of binding energy

Combine in any manner two deuterium atoms to make one helium atom, and the binding energy is released (i.e., thermonuclear process).

There are 5.014x10^22 atoms in a gram of carbon.

Edited January 28, 2018 by EdEarl

[fredreload]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

It is possible. But you need an accelerator to do it, and you do not get to pick and choose which atom is affected. 

Now believe me, I too am mesmerized by the potential existence of an inexpensive and efficient molecular transformer. Well, the only story I have in mind is The Philadelphia Experiment where a powerful electromagnetic field generated on the battle ship causes the battleship to teleport and the crews merge with the battle ship, the person behind this is supposedly Einstein. Now this story has been told, retold, and even involved with alien conspiracy.

So, the only clue I got for an inexpensive molecular transformer might involve a computer, or a really powerful electromagnetic field. I suppose Studiot might have a better idea in the later one using an electric field created by IBM, although I've never heard of this experiment. Mostly hoax on my side

[fredreload]

On 2018/1/28 at 4:25 AM, studiot said:

No I'm sorry I didn't make myself properly clear.

Nature confines an electron within an atom by creating the atomic proton/electron/neutron structure.

IBM created an entirely different confine using electrical forces.

So do you control the protons and manually place it into the nucleus with the help of an electric field? Does it work the same for neutron with no charges?

[studiot]

55 minutes ago, fredreload said:

So do you control the protons and manually place it into the nucleus with the help of an electric field? Does it work the same for neutron with no charges?

 

No.

The electric fields act like electric fences forming a cage around the electron ( I checked and I did say electron but did not mention neutrons or protons being controlled in this way)

 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, fredreload said:

Now believe me, I too am mesmerized by the potential existence of an inexpensive and efficient molecular transformer. Well, the only story I have in mind is The Philadelphia Experiment where a powerful electromagnetic field generated on the battle ship causes the battleship to teleport and the crews merge with the battle ship, the person behind this is supposedly Einstein. Now this story has been told, retold, and even involved with alien conspiracy.

So it's based on myth...

[fredreload]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

So it's based on myth...

Na, I decided to look this up because I was interested in 3d printing a human body. Now if you take a look at this clip. Which goes over the explanation of the repulsion of protons in the nucleus as well as the strong nuclear force holding them together. A neutron of neutral charge could potentially enter the nucleus without getting repelled by the protons, while stick on to the nucleus by the strong force like playing pool. But this is speculation on my part. How do you calculate strong force? Well it would be more of a mathmatical model, at a few femto meter there might exist a force, while at a closer femto meter the force fades out. It's all in the Wikipedia.

P.S I wouldn't know how to smuggle a proton into the nucleus though

Edited January 29, 2018 by fredreload

[Silvestru]

8 hours ago, fredreload said:

Well, the only story I have in mind is The Philadelphia Experiment where a powerful electromagnetic field generated on the battle ship causes the battleship to teleport and the crews merge with the battle ship, the person behind this is supposedly Einstein. Now this story has been told, retold, and even involved with alien conspiracy.

You are aware that the Philadelphia(Project Rainbow)/Montauk experiments are hoaxes right? Low level conspiracy theories my friend.

Also don't bring Einstein into this. 

He had nothing to do with this (even in the myth he wasn't "the person behind this")

[fredreload]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

So it's based on myth...

Ya, but technically there isn't a repel force from the nucleus right? So if we shoot a neutron beam at the atoms we'd be able to see elemental changes?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, fredreload said:

Ya, but technically there isn't a repel force from the nucleus right? So if we shoot a neutron beam at the atoms we'd be able to see elemental changes?

Yes, but not at the precision being suggested here. You can shoot neutrons at a sample of an element and end up with isotopes with an extra neutron, but you have little control over which atoms are going to be changed.

[fredreload]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, but not at the precision being suggested here. You can shoot neutrons at a sample of an element and end up with isotopes with an extra neutron, but you have little control over which atoms are going to be changed.

I'd say get it to work first with the proton + neutron beam then worry about precision later lol, but thanks for the heads up

[fredreload]

And it's been done, just without precision here. I'm not sure how accurate it will get with regard to speed.