X-Message-Number: 13318 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:44:51 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: To Steve Jackson > My copy of Drexler is out on loan so I can't quote . . . but yes, it must > be assumed that the nanodevices are very powerful by modern standards, as > well as very tiny. I think your assumption is not correct, Steve. I have received private email from Ralph Merkle (who apparently prefers not to get entangled in the discussions here) emphasizing the applicability of encryption algorithms, while acknowledging the limited onboard power of nanomachines. On page 371 of Drexler's Nanosystems, I find him estimating that one nanocomputer could run at 1 GHz, executing RISC instructions at 1,000 MIPS. Earlier in the chapter, Drexler suggests using just four registers; it's not clear to me how many bits would constitute an instruction, but I get the impression this is not a 32-bit or even 16-bit device, and I don't know how much memory it could have. I believe however that this would not be sufficient computing power to perform the really complex 3-D pattern recognition and reassembly of fragments on a cellular level, such as we have seen in electron micrographs of tissue subjected to typical cryonics procedures using 1980s protocol. None of these statements should be construed to imply that "it's all hopeless and we should give up." (I mention this because apparently this is the only interpretation that Robert Ettinger is capable of ascribing to anyone who emphasizes practical problems.) Obviously if I had given up on cryonics, I wouldn't still be active in the field. On the contrary, I believe a more realistic assessment of problems, and the need for better cryopreservation techniques, should encourage us to take a more active role instead of kicking back with a complacent mindset. Complacency is the enemy of any small, radical movement. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13318