I was just going to say how real can you get with a machine that was not
even built yet.  No I modelled it after an article I read in Discovery
Magazine.  Thanks for th input though.

Charles Krause wrote:
> 
> Ok - as to the picture - I like it :) You've done a very plausible
> bloodsteam, I can easily pick out all the various cell types, and they're
> what I think they'd probably look like if I was a micron in height and still
> managed somehow to see in the same light range :>
> 
> Your little nano-bot is cute, but not terribly realistic. This might not
> matter one whit, and if it doesn't bother you, ignore it :) It doesn't take
> away from an otherwise very accurate picture.
> 
> To get a feel for what nano-machines 'look' like, I'd suggest you poke
> around on the web, especially the 'Foresight Institute'. Then, if you want
> to model theoretical designs of actual nano-machines, you'd best get used to
> a different type of primitive - blobs :) When your machines are small enough
> that a ring of 12 carbon form a bearing, then you can see the atomic 'lumps'
> in the structure.
> 
> Ok - lecture over :)
> 
> A very well done picture over all - the rest is just nit-picking - and only
> nit-picking if you're going for realism - if you can claim realism with
> machines that havn't been built yet - and not everyone goes for realism in
> ray-tracing either.

Post a reply to this message