X-Message-Number: 21014
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:50:18 EST
Subject: Re: CryoNet #20988 - #20998

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: Jeffrey Soreff <>
Subject: sorting rotor mechanisms
> The binding of the first ligand _strains_ the protein, changing the
> geometry of the other binding sites, which changes the affinity for
> the other ligands.  Not only is it not sci-fi, but your own red
> blood cells' binding isotherm for oxygen depends on this effect.
>               Best wishes,
>               -Jeff

Eh? a nano follower converted to the soft, sticky world? :-)
Happy to see that. Unfortunately, what I have seen in nanotech about stiff 
(or assumed to be) diamond seems to point to another way to think in this 
group. Anyway, good point Jeffrey.

From: Henri Kluytmans <>
Subject: Invalid arguments against MNT, on and on...

>>> A rod in the center of the binding site will protrude when it's 
>>>part of the rim is located inside the reservoir and will 
>>> mechanically press the molecule out off the binding site. 
>>> (Of course this operation requires some energy.)
>Yvan Bozzonetti replied :
>>This is mere sci-fi. 

See the answer above to have a realist view. You have to work with soft 
proteins, not diamond rods.

>And two objects made of diamond, with their surfaces terminated
>with hydrogen atoms, will not stick together.

... And you want to pump oxygen under high pressure with a carbon structure 
coated by hydrogen? That in a device with no room to dump excitation energy? 
How many microseconds before an explosion?

>At atomic scales not everything is sticky.

... Noble gas are not, beyond that everything or so, is. Don't forget the van 
der Waals force.

>However MNT is totally new concept for building objects with 
>some inherent characteristics (atomic building blocks, 
>self-replication ) that will make it revolutionize 
>our world completely.
>>Clearly, we have not the same idea of reality :-)
>Maybe you don't see clearly yet.  :)
>I suggest you take a better look at the MNT concept, and 
>also at the scientific arguments for it (i.e. Nanosystems).
OK, I'll buy new glasses,  now a test to see if you see NMT clearly:

The other day, I have seen some salads at the local supermaket they was 
priced at $ 1.5, too much costly for me :-( I am poor but with some frozen 
asset - what would you expect in cryonics?). So I mused:  Assume the bulk 
price is $.5, with one plant every 3 months in a glasshouse in one square 
foot... Counting lower price in summer... If I sold some asset for $ 50 000 
and with a similar loan... Well, I could pay for one acre under glass... I 
could recover my investment in four/ five years. When the business is running 
after two years, I could sell it and make a fair profit. That is my way to 
make a self reproducing nano system, at least the one found in letuce leafs.

Now you say you have a good view of MNT, whatever it is, OK: If I put on the 
table $100,000, can you give me a planning starting from this and ending with 
some working MNT? I don't ask to make the whole R&D on that budget, you can 
break the project into a number of sub-elements. The first must not cost more 
than $ 100,000 and beyond making a first step, it must generate as much as 
than asked for by the second step, and so on. To be sure, the money return 
must be secure, if it has a probability success of 90% and there are 10 
steps, the global success probability is under 10%, that is assured failure. 
Well, $100,000 is a lot of money, you would get it by the channel of a 
complex secure scheme, so you can't simply take it and run. You have to use 
it the intended way.

Let me see your proposal, I'll chose after between MNT assemblers and 
If you can't produce a convincing scheme, I'll conclude that your nano ideas 
are bad sci-fi and you have no idea how to make them real.

Yvan Bozzonetti.


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21014