X-Message-Number: 33039
From: "Jens Rabis" <>
References: <>
Subject: Nano-swimmers / nanomachines
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 17:57:28 +0100

Hi Cryonauten,


who can give up his memories, recycles itself with nanomachines.
This also works after(!) the thawing to mush. 
That would be then none ethically problematic cloning.

Keywords: metamorphosis
Example Photo: http://www.wellermanns.de/Gerhard/images/Bio/wandlungen1.jpg

***************

wer auf seine Erinnerungen verzichten kann, recycelt sich mit Nanomaschinen.
Das funktioniert auch nach(!) dem Auftauen zu Matsch. Das ware dann kein
ethisch problematisches Klonen.

Stichwort: Metamorphose
Beispielfoto: http://www.wellermanns.de/Gerhard/images/Bio/wandlungen1.jpg

Best greetings
Jens Rabis
Germany-Berlin



-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von:  [mailto:] Im
Auftrag von CryoNet
Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 11:00
An: 
Betreff: CryoNet #33036 - #33037

CryoNet - Sun 7 Nov 2010

    #33036: Re: Nano-swimmers [benbest]
    #33037: nanomachines [Perry E. Metzger]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33036%2D33037

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    
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:
    
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to 
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.



Message #33036
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:25:56 -0400
From: 
Subject: Re: Nano-swimmers

   Ben Best wrote:

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

Freeposity wrote:

> Why would you want to? Certainly you would want to work in  
> temperatures slightly above freezing during restoration work.

  For patients who have been straight-frozen
warming above freezing temperatures will
immediately give "mush" -- just like thawing
frozen strawberries (as so many of our ignorant
critics like to point out). You will actually
start to get "mush" well below freezing
temperatures because salt solutions turn
liquid well below freezing temperature.
Nanobots needing a liquid environment in
which to operate create the paradox that
as soon as a liquid environment becomes
present, broken tissues are subject to
hydrolysis and dissolution, if not chemical
reactions.

   For vitrified patients (or partially
cryoprotected patients) the liquid state
will begin to occur well below -100oC.
Possibly you could do repairs at those
temperatures, but any damaged tissues
will again be subject to dissolution
and drifting-away of fragments.

       -- Ben Best

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33036


Message #33037
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:57:54 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <>
Subject: nanomachines
References: <>

> From: Gerald Monroe <>
> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:54:09 -0500

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

Neither of those assertions is correct.

> We don't need untethered nanobots to bring back the cryonically
> frozen
> patients.  In fact it might not even be possible within the laws of
> physics for untethered nanobots to do the job, because the
> machinery will probably require a large amount of energy and
> coolant to remove waste heat.

Which law of physics would this be specifically? Have you done
calculations here? Can you show the calculations?

I doubt you can show such a thing, since simply by slowing down
operations you can reduce the amount of energy released per unit time
to an arbitrarily low level, and at some point, cooling will be
feasible. If it would take too much energy to do the repair in a week,
then do it in a month, or over a year, or over 100 years -- at some
point, you won't be using enough energy to make cooling
impractical. That's not to say that I think cooling actually would be
impractical even at pretty high throughput, but the assertion here was
even more bold, invoking the "laws of physics" without considering how
simple it would be to get around the proposed objection.


Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33037


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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33039