I can see a better way of doing it. Why didn't you do it like this: ...?

1. Great! I would love to discuss it with you. I tried to find the best possible design, but of course there are lots of ways of putting atoms together, and most likely better ways exist. I have not yet run out of ideas and I'm still trying other variations, including one with eight arms instead of four, so let's talk.

You only use carbon atoms. Couldn't you use other types of atoms, such as Silicon, which also have similar properties?

1. Maybe, but possibly not if you want to get the material with the highest strength-to-weight ratio. However, if you are looking for other properties (such as low conductivity, you may wish to try other element combinations, such as boron nitride nanotubes. Or if you are looking for something incombustible, try sapphire (aluminum oxide).

You should use diamond instead of nanotubes, as it is much stronger.

1. Of course it is. But it is also much heavier, and I was aiming for a high strength-to-weight ratio, not just a high strength. (see also DiamondCAD, a program for filling volumes with diamond.)

You really should be using my favorite 3D molecular modeling tool, which is <enter name here>.

1. I have tried a few tools, haven’t quite found one I really like yet, so please tell me a good one. And feel free to reproduce this using your favorite tool.

In the super-nanojack, many of the arms on individual nanojacks are not connecting to anything. This adds mass without adding strength. Can't you get rid of these wasted atoms somehow?

1. Yes, you can. Some of the nanojacks have one free arm and some have two. You can use nanojacks with only three and only two arms like this:

1. For example, compare the sphere with and without unnecessary arms:

1. In fact, the mass estimates assume that these two and three arm nanojacks are used wherever possible.