Nanoscale Machines: Building the Future with Molecules - with Neil Champness

Professor of Chemical Nanoscience Neil Champness explores the future of nanoscale machines. Can we build a machine simply from molecules at the nanoscale?
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The idea of building machines that are only nanometres in size is a dream that has formed the basis of Hollywood movies. How realistic is such a goal and how would we go about tackling the challenges that lie in wait? How do we begin to build a machine simply from molecules? Join Neil Champness to explore the future of nanoscale machines.
Neil Champness is Professor of Chemical Nanoscience & Head of Inorganic and Materials Chemistry at the University of Nottingham. He and his research group are interested in chemical nanoscience and all aspects of molecular organisation. His research is highly cited, being one of the top 100 most cited chemists 2000-2010 and last year, this was recognised by being named a Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researcher.
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter

[@greypoet2]

I am not a scientist but am very curious. I found this lecture fascinating in that it did not derail into the "fantastic" but stayed within the bounds of reality. Thank you Professor Champness.

[@GCKteamKrispy]

This channel is a treasure, thank you for making these lectures FREE

[@ChangingMyAlgorithm]

as a chemist i thought that was a truly engaging talk :)

[@hexagon9895]

Peoples negative comments in here, are disrespectful to the professor, if you don't like something clear off and bore some other people, or do one yourself and show us your genius!

[@anteconfig5391]

This has to be my third time watching this. I really love this subject.

[@metanumia]

I *love* *it* when I see children in attendance at science lectures, *they* are our *future* and a strong education in science and art is essential to our survival as a species!.Well done, +The Royal Institution and thanks for advancing science globally through your continuing commitment to outstanding, free, educational content that's accessible to everyone! :D

[@limouzine1529]

Well, great to see children attending instead of playing computer games but very discouraging to see science graduates who have no chance to get employment in their fields of studies after finnishing university.

[@locouk]

Very interesting talk, thanks RI.

[@joetaylor486]

What an outstanding and illuminating lecture. Thank you all.

[@super8mmo]

+Joe Taylor You're a traitor.

[@djdedan]

To sum it up: Nanomachines, son!

[@stoatystoat174]

Move speed to 1.25 in the settings

[@frantisekpitak]

thanks ... much better .

[@matakaw4287]

Gracias.

[@KaranChecker]

Even a 2, it's a waste of time.

[@ivorrosenberg4076]

The quotations from H G Wells and Robert Kennedy are truly grand. The lecture was pretty much beyond the ability of my 83 year old head to comprehend but as a SF buff since childhood it was exciting to watch.I recall that way back circa 1960 my late wife was doing secretarial work for a professor researching into the possibility of Molecular engineering,. actually building smaller and smaller machines that could physically handle and create molecular structures. This was long before much was know of Nano science I believe he was receiving government grants for his research. He was working from a very large old house on Barnet Lane in Hertfordshire. Just a bit Dr Frankensteininian Sometimes I feel that we have opened Pandora's box too early in our species mental development and are poised on the brink of self destructions. Perhaps some folk have always thought thus. .

[@MKTElM]

Its incredible that an 83 yr old can feel the frisson of witnessing the very spearhead of nanotech . One of my friends said he wished he was born today to witness the excitement of the emerging technologies ; IA and Robotics . And to see Quantum Theory stood on its end by some young Einstein !

[@cynthiaayers7696]

Well you must be 85 by now? Hope you still with us. I was born 1957 4 days after Sputnik circle the Earth. Mostly what he was talkin about, was the proverbial cure all pill.

[@BariumCobaltNitrog3n]

On clean rooms: "In a room this size, okay? They filter the air multiple times every minute." That depends on the rating of the room, it could be anywhere from 5 times an hour or ten times a minute. In that room, the air is moving across the room at 90 feet per minute. There is less than one particle in 0.1 cubic centimeter of air.

[@sbalogh53]

49:02 ... the third image is truly amazing.

[@ZeedijkMike]

Facinating development in nanotechnology.

[@danievdw]

Very interesting lecture, thank you

[@CreativeContention]

Truly fascinating.

[@jeffwells1255]

Fantastic lecture!

[@RFC-3514]

17:52 - The *difference engine* was not (and was never meant to be) a computer. It was a calculator running a fixed sequence of operations. The *_analytical engine_* (which was never actually built) was Babbage's attempt to design a computer (i.e., a multi-function, programmable machine).

[@prefeitobear9209]

I saw his life vividly as he talked. Probably he was bullied daily at school, had zero real friends and everybody felt sorry for him. Then he went to college and became a doctor in Chemistry and started given lectures to all the new bullies of the new era, since he was too socially awkward to have a career in the industry. And since they needed to pass his class, all of them started to pretend to care about him...To the point where all obeyed his note to show up to his talk dressed like they are in Titanic waiting to dance waltz. And they did. Great talk nonetheless, and I did find it intriguing. Thank you, professor Champness.

[@ricardocesardasilvagomes9549]

...palestra incrível!!!!

[@bencastillo5337]

"Having a little bit of fun with the banana aren't we?"

[@ritichatterjee8010]

Professor Neil, I am impressed, how simply you have presented a complex subject, a few areas that challenge me is what takes then to pick the right molecule from the right location and transfer it to the right location,

[@stephenconnolly3018]

Very interesting

[@markmarkson3061]

The human ability to dream and imagine that which could be, would be, will be has driven us across a flat ocean onto a globe. It has forced us into the air, through the territory of the birds, straight to our Moon. We study the universe from beyond Sol System. There is nothing we can not achieve as long as we retain our imagination. DNA? We are getting there. Nano machines? The possibility exists. Very informative lecture, enjoyed it thoroughly. Thanks for the upload.

[@rodschmidt8952]

I heard about carbon nanotubes thirty years ago. I heard about atomic force microscopes being used to push individual atoms around, something like thirty years ago.

[@stevescott200]

Excellent lecture

[@brianvandenberg4467]

47:00 good job

[@ericcadwell5193]

To see the world in a grain of sand.

[@NikolaosSkordilis]

21:17 "But we're not down to the nanoscale" (regarding the 14 nm minimum feature sizes of modern CPUs, which actually is a bit bigger, about 20 - 25 nm, since 14 nm, 10 nm etc are marketing terms). Earlier on the lecturer clearly defined anything smaller than 100 nm as "nanoscale". And now he says that 14 nm (or ~20 nm) is not nanoscale. I fully understand that a CPU is not a nanomachine (which might have been his real point), but I don't understand this contradiction about the minimum feature size.

[@RFC-3514]

He called the difference engine (a fixed-function mechanical calculator) "the first computer", so I'd take anything he says with a very much not-nanoscale grain of sodium chloride...

[@hazonku]

This just made me super frustrated with how often I get into fights with my 3D printer. LOL

[@08wolfeyes]

Where he talks about ice floating on water and how important it is that we have that because if not then we have a globlal warming issue. The thing is, ice takes up the same amount of space, has the same volume as it does when it's in liquid form, i.e water and so that isn't the problem, that's not what causes sea levels to rise. What causes sea levels to rise in the ice on land that melts and then runs into the sea, that's where water levels rise.

[@RWBHere]

Ice floats because it has a larger volume than liquid water of the same mass. Basic Physics. If ice were denser, and sank, the oceans would gradually freeze up from the seabed, killing all higher organisms, and eventually turning the Earth into an ice planet. The ice would continue to reflect sunlight, thus keeping the Earth in deep freeze. Life as we know it would not be able to exist.

[@tommygunhunter]

@@RWBHere A Giant Snowball! Good answer mate 🙋

[@PartVIII]

Very enjoyable lecture. Fuck the haters.

[@Fredjoe5]

Very disappointed Dr. Drexler wasn't mentioned in here.

[@jeshpost5216]

I'm not a chemist, but I'm a student and contrary to the other comments made I enjoyed every bit of this lecture.

[@ezmerellazella9039]

definitely Move speed to 1.25 in the settings

[@brianvandenberg4467]

38:50 obtained permission from the journal of Nature

[@erikals]

Congratulations to ---- Jean- Pierre Sauvage ---- Sir James Fraser Stoddart ---- Bernard L. Feringa :)

[@justsaying605]

Desperately trying to finish watching. Unfortunately, I too have to moving on into the future and this guy is holding me back. Ta-ta you old geezer.

[@tomcarroll2622]

Thanks - very interesting talk...

[@tiny_toilet]

"Nanoscale Machines: Building the Future with Molecule" Thanks for spending a full 5 minutes out of the hour discussing 2 nano-machines.

[@brianvandenberg4467]

40:00 Self assembly Nano 2003

[@exterrum]

This guy somehow reminds me of Q from the Bond's franchise.

[@jamesallen4050]

The chap on the left at 9:32 has already assumed a pose from H. G. Wells' illustration. EDIT: And the young lady at 17:22 has a scary face hidden in her torso. 2nd EDIT: That banana thing really went nowhere. I made it to the end! My conclusion: 1) Most of the comments are correctly critiquing the volume of fluff. 2) Nanoscale machines will most likely play a 'large' role in our future.

[@Mammutinc]

Right ... Right

[@brianvandenberg4467]

13:30 #CNT

[@xL1GHTBR1NG3Rx]

What's with the not very well hidden cam in the flower or whatever tf that is?

[@billy-joes6851]

It's a poppy

[@RWBHere]

Look up 'Remembrance Day', for a full explanation about the meaning of the 11th November poppy. It's very important for many people throughout Europe and in Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and India.

[@DaniyalKhan-my9yk]

wow

[@brianvandenberg4467]

33:10 Who said “Hell of a way to boil water” #Fukushima Wonder if we will make another Sun

[@emmanuelsoto6615]

So good news. Nanobot suppository for annual cancer, that produces gold from a distinctive combo with the schema involved. Plausible with the science we are harnessing.

[@kellyjackson7889]

nice belt

[@ericpham7871]

Science the underlaying operation of DNA to universal consciousness therefore we can use wave to actually weaving and embroidery all thing form weather to mechanical action using waves of gravity or thermo

[@stilwaters1922]

Reproduction reinforcements onset. Alchemical hurdles met, begin launching sequences.

[@ChandramouliBalasubramanianOT]

this one is good, but more talk talk talk (in chemistry obviously it is either a beaker or test tube), when compared to more practicals shown by a physics prof @ Harvard LEWIS

[@eXtremeDR]

There is something I don't understand. Nature is already great at nano-scale technology and if all this happened by chance then why don't we lean back and watch it evolving further?

[@sylvianewell9112]

fhf gqzwy ab rfe t m. 😂- be. ot. Zvl

[@BeepingSheep]

It took nature roughly a billion years to get around to making a cell work, and humans are about to do it in a total timeframe of a few hundred years. Idk about you, but I'm not holding my breath for nature on this one

[@VvDOPAMEANvV]

Jesus you can skip minutes ahead, over and over, and you won't miss anything. There is perhaps 9 minutes of lecture here.

[@RobertMertensPhD]

I thought it was more like 50,000 proteins, not 50. Obviously, we (organic creatures) self-assemble, but making chemicals that self-assemble the way RNA-copying molecules do... we don't have anything like what nature already has. If we don't figure that part out, we won't be able to build anything that's not organic. Which may or may not be a big deal. But being able to self-assemble with copper, iron, silicon, other elements, and so on.... the way the molecules that manipulate RNA do it could be a big hint to that other path. Understanding the mechanism is the biggest key, here. I don't think we know that, yet. Or maybe someone does, and that paper just hasn't risen to proper recognition. It all seems pretty mechanical to me. It should be a simple thing to figure out, but we haven't.

[@brianvandenberg4467]

8:40 nano

[@amorfati9861]

He made a fundamental error at around 37 min ; Prof said there's 20 different protéine in the humain body, the correct proposition is 20 different amino acid in humain body .

[@brianvandenberg4467]

20:53 Nano chips #MicroFluidics #HumanTransceiver @Outcomes_Matter

[@brianvandenberg4467]

11:20 DNA is

[@bailahie4235]

Very good public speaker, very pleasant voice, well structured and engaging lecture. The funny drawing in the beginning from the hand of Wells, and his remarks about it, priceless! "I hope that the audience here will not be like this..." :-)

[@osiriuz9775]

18:40 that turned out to be true! welcome to internet and cloud services

[@taschke1221]

nothing is unimaginable if you submit to the proper perspective.

[@megaravalkyrie6880]

On a friday evening 2019 im doing research for a novel at 1am. (Okay yeah its saturday morning fuck dont nit pick)

[@narrator69]

He kind of fudges the numbers on the number of humans our DNA can produce, it takes chains of base pairs to cause the features that make us distinct and there is quite a lot in our DNA that is junk strings of pairs, it also must be said that if any number of active base pairs are altered the result is not necessarily going to produce a viable chromosome. I was unable to find the talk but another molecular biologist did a much more balanced and accurate calculation of the number of possible humans. I may be remembering wrong but I believe it was in around ~25 billion or may have been trillion, A greatly reduced number from the one shown for effect in this video. perhaps a more interesting way to look at it is how much phosphorus, one of the rarest elements our body requires, is available to make humans with and how many that can make.

[@joetaylor486]

+super8mmo. You don't know me and such baseless statements do nothing to enrich the KZbin community. Kindly desist.

[@Calluth]

The blond lady in the first row looks 24/7 surprised :'D

[@sbalogh53]

+Calluth The long haired girl on the right looks 24/7 bored. :)

[@svartfrasr9755]

I don't recall the details, but I heard one of the ideas behind how Earth's atmosphere developed from being all molten and whatnot was that over a very long period of time, single cell life forms generated the O2 and other gasses that eventually made the atmosphere what it is. Why not replicate and improve the process with nano-machines for settling other planets?

[@AnonEyeMouse]

The Earth, after the seas of larval cooled and we had oceans n land, had a Carbon Dioxide Atmosphere and yes, once bacteria started absorbing the carbon and throwing out oxygen it completely changed our atmosphere. The idea of terraforming does what you say, but it takes a long time. You also need to factor in the size of the planet and the thickness of the atmosphere. Mars has a very thin atmosphere and is smaller than Earth. We may not be able to have open sky colonies there because we would need to have an atmosphere of similar air density and Mars is too small to hold it EVEN if we could generate one where one does not exist right now. We would need an earth sized body, like Venus, to craft a breathable open atmosphere. Of course, Venus is insanely hot with a super dense atmosphere. We might be able to drain that atmosphere of the worst materials... making Venus potentially Earth like, possibly for the second time in its existence, but it would be a hell of a task for a world uncomfortably close to the sun for our species.

[@mohitoness]

+Svart fra Sør why? because all that hypothesis doesn't mean we actually understand what's going on, much less able to replicate it... what makes the public so enamoured with science as to think we can actually replicate what we can understand? Everything we learn about life totally baffles us, the brain of an earthworm, a single bacterial cell, the electrodynamics of molecular motors, and the emergent properties of biological networks.. all of these things continually baffle us, and we cannot replicate them to any degree of elegance, accuracy, efficiency and sustainability. Nature is the superior scientists, the superior farmer (produces no waste), the superior artist... let's burst our human bubble and learn to work within our limits. this is coming from a scientist

[@douvientlevent6617]

A nightmare now for humanity . 2021.

[@daxxonjabiru428]

Is he one of them Doctor Who guys?

[@cynthiaayers7696]

He said Lost in Space was in the fifties? Don't think so better try late 60s early 70s.

[@bingeltube]

Speaker is missing the topic, too trivial!

[@sephikong7880]

Nanomachines son, they harden in response to physical trauma

[@juanmigueloctaviano6736]

The speaker is bore-some.

[@klausgartenstiel4586]

and infinity in an hour.

[@Nodws]

wow tough crowd

[@RFC-3514]

On the contrary, they displayed incredible bravery in the face of overwhelming boredom and appalling oratory skills.

[@brianvandenberg4467]

23:30 Gutenberg Bible? Big data on a grain of sand

[@dafyddiago]

Thankfully global warming seems to be decreasing.... or in other words, the cycle of world temperature is a natural cycle.

[@SonofDavid]

Man you were covering your trail. Devil is a swine no?

[@Tangobaldy]

1 hour of guff! A quick search on internet or a 5 min read of a book would suffice. This mans catchprase....now

[@brunon.8962]

+Tangobaldy Just enjoy time itself.

[@TakeOneVideo100]

Tangobaldy was ćuI

[@VerisimilitudeDude]

Tangobaldy Squeeze your kids and then squeeze your pimples. Then just relax

[@DocHuard]

So go look up something else and don't watch. Oh, and next time you start to comment, remember... First thought wrong.

[@gothic6662]

well unfortunately you are human and humans don't inject data directly into brain, we require time, preparation, good surroundings, context framework, and humor (many different neurotransmitters and chemicals) to better remember and understand data for it to become information... at least long term... that is if you don't already know most of this stuff and it becomes boring to you, but then again why watch beginner lectures in first place?

[@firerock6026]

Welcome to 2021 covid clot shot era with this nano in first real life mass experiment He’ll is hot and forever for those involved in this

[@psycronizer]

good god I feel sorry for his kid...that guy was a dork....

[@JJs_playground]

This could have been a more interesting subject, but the way it was structured made my mind wander and lose interest in the talk. Also get rid of the first part about H.G. Wells.

[@limouzine1529]

Neil: This is interesting but you present too much irrelevant information in an attempt to sound entertaining. Out of 58 minutes of lecture only 5-6 minutes are relevant to the topic

[@SonofDavid]

ESPN 98.7

[@danielhopkins296]

The speaker is dressed sloppily as Wells depicted.

[@CatBornAgain]

NIKOLA TESLA....duh

[@complex4938]

2 minutes in and I'm done. tata

[@LunElendil]

SO MUCH CRINGE (but very interesting)

[@tensevo]

Had to remove my like since went off topic into politics - good talk generally though.

[@vincebellisano1347]

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[@wifighostcruiser9665]

Lost in Space in the 50s? I don't think so, try the 60s. As long as you're asking all those questions I've got one for you. What about the interest that your evoking for me on a nanoscale level? Will it cause me to keep watching this after a couple minutes? Answer, no.

[@whirledpeas3477]

For a decent looking guy he sure dresses funny

[@TheSqoou]

I want to enjoy this talk, but the presenter has an annoying chip on his shoulder.

[@sbalogh53]

+The Sqoou Really? What chip was that? I could not see any. Was it microscopic?

[@TheSqoou]

+Dexxter I would have called those chips "bugs". The chip I was referring to is the metaphorical kind. Ironically, after doing some digging, I've discovered I've been using the "chip on shoulder" statement incorrectly. The presenter is still difficult to watch, for whatever reason. I made it through the entirety, gritting my teeth. He's better during the second half imho. The information speaks for itself. It's going to be an interesting future.

[@Phoebus82]

I dont find this issue boring but happens this guy meanders or divagate a lot while talking. So the subject to talk about is lost

[@malizaar4114]

Great subject, boring narrator . I'm sorry man but I tried to watch it but ththe dude kept losing me..

[@scottcarlon6318]

Hope narration is not his day job.

[@kundavanriel6142]

You people all tell the same story

[@brunon.8962]

Ido Bachelet is a liar.

[@rickbacklane2982]

I´m distracted by the beautiful blonde in the front row

[@rickbacklane2982]

+Rick Backlane Wow, she flashes such a sweet smile now and then. I just can´t concentrate on the lecture

[@rickbacklane2982]

+Rick Backlane She´s getting bored, keeps touching her face

[@rickbacklane2982]

+Rick Backlane Lecture´s ended and she´s clapping with relief. So stylish and gorgeous, nothing like a geeky science-type. Best lecture I´ve ever watched at RI - because of her!

[@hightwelve9991]

That brunet too