CryoNet #33045 - #33050

CryoNet - Wed 10 Nov 2010

    #33045: Re: CryoNet #33043 - #33044 [Gerald Monroe]
    #33046: Re: CryoNet #33043 - #33044 [Gerald Monroe]
    #33047: Bad ways to make repair easier [Perry E. Metzger]
    #33048: Nanotechnological repair references [Brian Wowk]
    #33049: Test email only [Chris Manning]
    #33050: Subject lines [hrhirsch]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33045%2D33050

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33045
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 04:27:33 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33043 - #33044

--00163631036182c56b04949c31cc

Perry : I will concede that you are probably correct.

As for calculations : all my paragraphs of text are mainly on the fact that
1.  If you need a few atoms per bit stored or processed, you aren't going to
be able to do the calculations with robots that only mass a few hundred
daltons.  This is a fundamental assumption being that while you can probably
use a single atom as a transistor, you need several other atoms to create
the right conditions and to act as a support structure.  That limits the
density of molecular circuitry.  It would be difficult to even control such
robots if they were inside a frozen brain that you don't want to make any
inadvertent changes to.  (so you can't use intense beams of RF energy for
communications and intense magnetic fields as an induction power source.
 Even subtle changes in the molecular structure of the patient will destroy
information.  Just waiting too long lets radiation and brownian motion
destroy information : another reason not to wait a century. )

How can the robots even get into a cell without tearing a hole?  You want
your control computer to know where every single atom was originally in
order to extract the maximum information possible.  That means that each
robot somehow has to communicate the molecular mapping of each piece it
removes to gain access to something, through a solid mass of frozen tissue.
 Oh and the robot cannot have very much memory aboard for the reason above.
 And it's operating under temperatures that nearly all elements form solid
crystals at.

And don't mention the energy problems.  Everything the robot does has to
create high entropy products somehow...since you can't use intense magnetic
fields or RF energy the robot has to store it's energy supply chemically.
 Again, while swimming through LN2 in a patient that is a solid rock.

These problems are so ridiculous that I have to wonder if even perfect
technology could actually make this happen in our universe...hence my 'laws
of physics' comment.  I do concede said comment was ill-advised : you could
probably do it this way if you had lots of patience.

--00163631036182c56b04949c31cc

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33045

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33046
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 04:30:40 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33043 - #33044

--001636283588a951e704949c3c29

quick correction : I meant kilo-daltons.

--001636283588a951e704949c3c29

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33046

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33047
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:52:01 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Subject: Bad ways to make repair easier
References: <[email protected]>

> From: [email protected]
> 
> Message #33036 From: [email protected]
> 
> >  For patients who have been straight-frozen
> > warming above freezing temperatures will
> > immediately give "mush"...
> 
> In theory, freezing-drying could eliminate the
> liquid state, with it's attendant technical
> repair challenges.

In theory, high temperature incineration could eliminate the liquid
state, with its attendant technical repair challenges. It is not,
however, a means of eliminating repair challenges that one would
prefer.


Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		[email protected]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33047

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33048
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:15:04 -0800
Subject: Nanotechnological repair references
From: Brian Wowk <[email protected]>

    To further illuminate recent CryoNet discussions about
nanotechnological repair of cryopatients, let me point on that in the
Scientific Basis section of the Alcor's online Library

http://www.alcor.org/Library/index.html#scientific

there are a variety of articles about this subject, beginning with

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MNTscenario.html

which contains a bibliography at the end listing many articles about
repair strategies for cryonics patients.

     The heat dissipation constraints in particular were worked out by
Eric Drexler in a technical monograph that I saw in draft form about
25 years ago, although I'm not sure where or whether it was finally
published.  My recollection is that heat dissipation considerations
limited the speed of comprehensive molecular repair of a brain to
several months.  Not coincidentally, this is the same order of
magnitude as the time animals require to grow tissue masses of
comparable size.

     This 1985 talk by Drexler

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/moleculartechnologycellrepairmachines.html

in the excerpt below explicitly mentions that heat dissipation was
quantitatively analyzed.  Perhaps others can provide a technical
reference.

---Brian

>>>>>>>>>
Let's return now to the more technical aspects of really thorough
tissue repair. In the paper I've been working on, I go into a lot of
detail regarding a more-or-less worst-case example of total-body cell
repair. The assumption is that you have to rework all the molecular
structures in every cell bit-by-bit, and that you aim to do this with
systems that are entirely inside the cells. (I also discuss how to
relax this second constraint.)

In a cubic micron, you can construct the equivalent of a mainframe
computer with a gigabyte of memory (I already mentioned that this is
about as much information as the cell uses to construct itself in the
first place). It turns out that you have enough computational cycles
within the volume, time, and heat-dissipation constraints to identify
all the macromolecules of the cell (even if they're moderately
damaged), by using certain algorithms that can already be specified in
fairly great detail. Since you can identify all the molecules, you can
map the cell structures: the patterns that you recognize are
type-tagged by the molecules they contain (i.e. if it contains
tubulin, it's a microtubule). Since this tells us the type of
structure, it makes it easier to know how to probe and further
characterize the structure.

You can get the machines into cells: white blood cells demonstrate
that systems of molecular machinery can move through tissues. Viruses
demonstrate that systems of molecular machinery can move through cell
membranes to enter cells. The mobility of organelles inside cells
demonstrates that systems of molecular machinery can move around
inside the cell. The fact that cell biologists can stick needles into
cells and do surgery on chromosomes and sometimes have the cells
survive shows that things can enter cells and do even very crude
manipulations without doing permanent damage in many cases. So you can
get repair machines to the site of the damage.

You can identify, take apart, and put back together molecular
structures. Identification is demonstrated by molecular structures
that can identify each other, as antibodies recognize proteins and so
forth. For the "take apart" function, we have the direct analogy of
digestive enzymes. As for assembling molecular structures -- well,
these things were made by molecular machines in the first place, so
again we have a direct analogy. So, again, and again, and again, you
can go to a biological analogy and say, "We already know a process
like this." If the overall process is orchestrated into a computer
(which you can design to some degree of detail using direct
calculations and scaling relationships) then it seems you have
everything necessary to repair cells. I have, of course, only sketched
the case here, but even these facts are enough to make the idea
plausible.

Eric Drexler, Lake Tahoe, 1985

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33048

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33049
From: "Chris Manning" <[email protected]>
Subject: Test email only
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:03:16 +1100

 Test email only.

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33049

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33050
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:16:10 -0500
From: hrhirsch <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject lines

Subject lines of the form Re message 314159 are not informative. The 
reader cannot remember what message 314159 about and won't bother to 
read your posting to find out.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33050

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************