[hga]

It wasn't secret! See e.g. the "debate" Nobel Chemist Smalley had with Drexler in Scientific American and then I think the JACS. Smalley started out with a straw man ("fat fingers") in both, which is not a sign of honest intent.

The bottom line is "where are the grants and research centers for Drexler style nanotech"? Either he's lying about this---I'll admit most of my info about this is from him or people in his orbit---or he's mostly right.

Or let me put it this where: when you graduate, where are you going to be able to go to work on "Productive Nanosystems" in his style? Name names, this should be something you're looking for or at least aware of, or can ask about tomorrow when you go into "work".

ADDED: I know it's "ridiculously hard", for if finances hadn't gotten in the way I would have most likely eventually gotten a Ph.D. in work "not entirely disconnected from the idea of fabricating devices by placing individual atoms in locations with" atomic precision in the '90s.

[hugh3]

where are the grants and research centers for Drexler style nanotech

Same place as the grants and research centers into warp drives and unicorn husbandry?

[hga]

Ah, it would have been easier if you'd started out saying "beyond the foreseeable state of the art" or "impossible". Then we could have discussed that issue.

However your appeal to authority (that authority being yourself) does not falsify what Drexler has said about this or his evidence.

[hugh3]

And if you'd started out by saying "I think that full-on atomistic assembly nanotechnology isn't being taken sufficiently seriously by the scientific community" rather than "nanotechnology research has been suppressed for the past 25 years" then you'd have had a more sensible argument.