X-Message-Number: 33034
References: <>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luke Parrish <>
Subject: Nanocryotech

Ben Best wrote:
>    Neither a desktop nanofactory  nor glucose
> oxidation can adequately explain how
> untethered nanobots could  operate at
> cryogenic temperatures.

Given that the biggest successes in atomic precision
mechanosynthesis seem to involve cryogenic temperatures
(Wikipedia - Mechanosynthesis: http://bit.ly/bxM3ff),
my guess is that cryogenic conditions are actually
helpful where atomic-precision factory-style nanotech
is concerned.

My thought is that this sort of nanotech would not be
untethered or free-swimming. Life is adapted to warm,
wet, uncontrolled conditions, so it wouldn't be the
best model here. In fact, if existing accomplishments
are our model, it may require a flat surface and/or a
hard vacuum to work from.

So one of the more plausible scenarios in my opinion
is that the tissue will first be sliced into a set of
very thin, flat-surfaced wafers prior to the
nanorepair surgery. The surfaces would be coated with
the necessary nanoscale equipment, including a power
grid and probes capable of reaching into cells and
performing complex repairs.

The surfaces would then be prepared for re-adhesion 
at the necessary points. Fine structures like
dendrites and capillaries would need to be aligned
in a manner that permits them to be reconnected
precisely, to avoid any damage upon thawing.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33034