From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 15:23:33 MST
Following up on John's post (which I hope he will repost to Cryonet)
> From: Azt28@aol.com
> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:41:06 EST
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #20813
> Plain false, you can't extract/destroy/neutralize 10^25 or so toxic
> anti-freeze molecules with nano-devices in the sub-micrometer range.
The task of molecular sorting is discussed extensively in Nanomedicine
Sections 3.4.2 - 3.5.9.
Just a quick glance at the paper on Respirocytes:
http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Respirocytes.html
indicates that ~10^15 respirocytes (section 4.2) are capable of storing
~10^24 molecules of O2 in 6 minutes. The primary limit being the constraint
on heat removal in a "natural" human body. This can certainly be improved
upon during cryonic reanimation where one could have the body suspended in
a circulating coolant that controls temperature and removes heat. So IMO,
Yvan's claim is unsubstantiated.
> Simple maths, not tensor calculus are against you. Freezing produces disorders at
> sub millimeter level, a nanodevice can do nothing for it. That has been well
> explained by Thomas Donaldson not so long ago. More I look at it, more
> nanotech looks as religion in tech disguise. Sorry I don't buy it.
Sigh. More claims that are unsubstantiated. See:
R. Merkle, "The molecular repair of the brain", Cryonics, 15(1&2) (Jan & Apr 1994).
http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html
and the mechanical manipulation capabilities of nanorobots:
R. Freitas, Nanomedicine [Section 9.3: Nanomanipulators], Landes Bioscience (1999).
and the recent discussion between Ray Kurzweil, Eric Drexler and myself:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=news_single.html?id%3D1587
> See above: you are in mere faith domain, not science or technology. Outside
> some gadgets I see nothing really new in the past 30 years... oh, pardon me,
> I forgot our current incapacity to go to the Moon. I see a big regression
> ,not "god-like" progress.
Thirty years ago, one could not sequence a bacterial genome (period).
Now the major genome sequencing centers can accomplish this in a couple
of days. If we really wanted to go to the moon again, I sure we could
do it within a decade, more probably within 5 years -- its a cost problem
not a technology problem.
>
> If you doubt this, just think of all the things that were "impossible" thirty
> or forty years ago that are now commonplace. The curve is only getting steeper, too!
>
> :-) blind faith.
No, the evidence seems to be there in *some* areas, such as microelectronics.
Moore's Law *does* seem to be speeding up. Go read Kurzweil's books.
> Non local force fields and discontinuous one may be the big next step in
> physics and so in instrumentation. That is the key to reanimation technology.
While you may believe that -- it involves a great deal of hand waving
and "magic" physics (for example I'd put "quantum computing" in the
realm of magic physics -- we have hints that it might be possible but
nobody has managed to translate the fantasy into a reality except on
a very very limited scale).
> I have given the example of quotien fields everywhere accelerated as a source
> of light inside the body able to destroy toxic molecules and power
> mitochondria before the general blood circulation start again.
Molecular sorting rotors are much more real than "quotien fields" (whatever they
are). They operate on physical principles essentially the same as the dozens
of types of ion pumps that we have the genetic sequences, and in a few cases
the crystal structures of (so we largely understand how they work at a physical
level).
> This is a key
> application and without the tensor background it is Harry Potter science. You
> may don't want to read the theory behind a technology, but if you want to
> understand what is going on, you must have a reference background in cryonet
> archives.
Yvan, I'd urge you to read some of the background material I've cited. Its fine
to want to contribute new ideas but it isn't very useful to 'dis ideas that
some *very* bright people have thought about for between 10 and 20 years.
Best,
Robert Bradbury
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST