Using Fusion360 to CAD a nanobot

Following up on my previous article on Using Nanobots to create precision medicine for curing cancer. I created a CAD model using Fusion 360 to understand a few key aspects of the nanobot. One of the biggest issues and concerns I had over my last article was the process of actually making the nanobot. While many of the technologies are still theoretical, it’s still important to understand where and how we can implement these new designs as they arise. Through this CAD model, I tackled a variety of questions I had, first of, the difference when manufacturing a nanbot using Top-Down and Bottom-Up. Next, the materials I could possible use with the nanobot and how it would affect it’s overall performance, and lastly, a visual to help understand the scale of these nanbots.

Top-Down vs Bottom-Up Manufacture

Now this is a very broad idea that I broke down into a few different parts.

• The difference in the process of actually making the Nanbot
• The difference in overall efficiency and best design
• What aspects of both Top-Down and Bottom-Up are effective and what aren’t
• What aspects of both approaches work well together

Difference in Manufacture

When comparing the two approaches, I feel it’s best to weigh them against each other in a couple of factors. The factors I chose were

• Simplicity
• Effectiveness

While yes there are other factors to consider, in this theoretical workplace, I believed that these two factors are the most important and the best ones to consider.

Simplicity

Which solution was the easiest to implement? In order to understand this question it’s important to understand what exactly I did. I CADed two different nanobots. On one nanobot, I kept it small the whole time and zoomed in as far as I could to get the clearest picture when creating the CAD Model while on the other I made it big, did all the work, and then scaled it down to the right size.

Bottom-Up

Pros:

• Saved time on the scaling as I didn’t have to worry about scaling up or down
• All the math and calculations were right since aspects like the surface area stayed constant
• Allowed me to get a view of the whole thing as I was working

Cons:

• Was a pain in the a**
• When working that small, measurements and other tools are often useless
• Placing and using certain designs were difficult as it was hard to work with and attach something that small
• The actual process took a lot longer

Top-Down

Pros:

• Was a lot easier as I got to make the whole object big and could use my knowledge of CAD to actually CAD it
• Placement is probably more accurate since I could get a better visual of the whole item
• Was faster

Cons:

• Made me get frustrated since when I scaled it down, there were issues almost every time and I had to keep scaling up and down to make sure that everything was right because for some reason it just doesn’t work normally (casual rant)
• In addition, I had no idea why that was the case so extra frustration added to that

Analysis:

Both sides were better at specific tasks. When it came to getting a visual of the whole object and working with that, bottom-up came out victorious. However, when it came to proper placement and ensuring a more accurate representation of the nanobot, Bottom-Up was a lot better. So in short, both sides have their pros and cons so this aspect is a draw.

Effectiveness

The next more important factor is effectiveness or to put it simply, which one is going to work better.

Bottom-Up will be slightly more effective due to the lack of external variables. When shrinking and have other factors in play, it opens the doors to a lot of other factors that can result in some complications. However, Top-Down, done right, will bring out that same level of effectiveness while making the process x100 easier and much easier to tweak later on. One of the biggest benefits of Top-Down and why in the end it’s more effective is due to the ability to get it thoroughly checked and understand what exactly went wrong each time. When I messed up my CAD model, it was very easy to see where the mistake was, what it is, and even get some other people’s opinion on it. Therefore, this aspect is definitely in favor of the Top-Down approach.

Conclusion

Overall, the CAD model taught me a lot when it came to developing nanbots. It helped me properly understand the actual nanbot itself and the many aspects that I overlooked the first time. Points wise, Top-Down seemed to be better but in the end, it depends on the situation. Using what I know, I plan to mostly incorporate the Top-Down design; however, having a Bottom-Up approach done as well ensures the best results in the Top-Down design. When using Top-Down, I found my self referencing my Bottom-Up design since I knew that it was accurate. When prototyping, I believe a Bottom-Up Approach is better, but once everything is decided, a Top-Down approach should be the way to go.