From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Mon May 31 1999 - 01:20:40 MDT
In a message dated 99-05-31 02:11:09 EDT, smassey@enteract.com (Steve Massey)
writes:
>> Is it imaginable that some form of nanorganism could be made
>> to reside in our cells, perhaps devouring a small share of the
>> ATP produced by the mitochondria, and providing in return,
>> some... some what? Intuition? spike
>Thats a tough thought though... has any work been done towards
>designs for compound eukaryote-drexler nanotech entities?
>Would it be possible to design 'stealth' nanites able to live
>inside cells and suck up ATP for power? Would cyborg-amoebae
>have any advantages over 'conventional' nanotech?
Single-celled organisms often use shells, called tests, for defense.
Presumably a new kind of test could be quite useful, as could a
microscopic can opener. Silica is great but carborundum would
be better.
A cyborg osteoblast could make your bones out of a different material
which I assume could be quite handy if you could find the right replacement
material.
A cyborg macrophage could mechanically dispose of nonreactive
substances like asbestos. Chop it up, put it in small wrapped
bundles, and put it in some secretion. This could be particularly
handy for lungs.
Cells use a lot of microscopic motors for a host of functions (moving
stuff around, going places) A motor with a greater power efficiency
would be a real help.
Of course, drextech is currently designed on the assumption it operates
in a vacuum free of ionizing radiation. I understand an aqueous
environment full of reactive substances would be pretty hostile to drextech.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:54 MST