X-Message-Number: 33256
From: "Jens Rabis" <>
References: <>
Subject: AW: CryoNet #33255
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:50:11 +0100

Hi cryonauts, hi Mike 

I suggest to stop any investment in a) resuscitation technologies, b) life
extension technologies. But invest to freezing technologies. Because:
 1. a) comes later automatically
 2. b) is not our (Cryonics Institute) job
 3. c) Only a few hundred years, we are rich (because of the time factor -
the exponential growth of wealth). We do not have enough money to  "dance to
several weddings!" Or?


ich schlage vor, jede Investitionen in a) Reanimationstechnologien, b)
Lebensverlangerungstechnologien zu stoppen. Dafur aber in
Einfriertechnologien zu investieren. Weil:
1. a) kommt spater automatisch
2. b) ist nicht unser (Kryonikinstitute) Job
3. c)  Erst in ein paar hundert Jahren sind wir reich (wegen des Zeitfaktors
- exponentieller Wachstum des Reichtums). Wir konnen uns es jetzt(!) nicht
leisten " auf mehreren Hochzeiten zu tanzen! " Oder?

Best greetings
Jens Rabis
" The time is with us, we can ... more! Life is for my ... curiosity :-) "

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von:  [mailto:] Im
Auftrag von CryoNet
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2011 11:00
Betreff: CryoNet #33255

Message #33255
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:49:14 EST
Subject: Automated Data Collection

In a message dated 1/19/2011 2:00:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

Mike Darwin writes:
> MD: I'll leave this question to Brian,  because he can discourse at 
> length on the magic that is differential  scanning calorimetery (DSC). 
> DSC can detect  the minutest of  phase changes in a sample,
> and if your numbers all sum out   right, then you can be pretty sure
> "what's what" after cooling to any  given  temperature. I was still at 
> 21CM when Brian began this  work, and it was horrible  - the kind of 
> thing that would drive  me barking mad. Basically you crimp a tiny  
> volume of solution  'just so' into sealed metal pans, and put them in 
> the device  and  cool them. Of course, the catch is, that you must do 
> this thousands  and  thousands of times to build a picture of how 
> different  solutions behave under  different regimens of cooling and  
> re-warming. It is boring, repetitive  and truly
> dull   work.>>

These days, this is what one builds small robots to do.  (That is what has
made much of recent science possible. No one could handle  the precision and
boredom associated with many modern data  collection tasks -- automation is
why they are possible at all.  Luckily, technology to do things like that
has gotten dirt cheap in the  last decade or so.)


I'm  often surprised by what is automated and what is not.  

I love to visit factories of all kinds everywhere I go (hospitals  too), and
I see that my interest must be shared by others, because there are  now
these (to me at least) absolutely captivating TV programmes like "How It's
Made." In Chen Chang, I saw all kinds of factories, and I observed a lot of
automation, but only where cleanliness, rapidity and high precision were
required. Where people can do, they are still used. By contrast, in Germany,
the UK and the US, even very basic tasks that are not very sophisticated are
automated. The difference is the cost of labor (and the regulatory burden). 
As  it turns out, it costs a tremendous amount of money to automate any kind
of  precision, multi-step process. 
A machine to manufacture needles may cost upwards of a million dollars.  Of
course, that's a bargain compared to paying the people required  (in a
developed country) to do the job. Aside from the high direct  costs, people
are a pain the arse. And even then, costs are as low as  they are because a
lot of manufacturing automation will not be a 'one-off' -  other people need
needle making machines, too. 
Preparing the sample for analysis in the DSC requires (at least) these
1) Someone has to mix up the various solutions that are to be evaluated.  
These solutions will 'one-offs' that are made up just for the purpose of
evaluation. It's not like you are taking samples from various batches of
medicine, soda, beer, etc., that being produced en masse for commerce.
2) The DSC 'pans' are very small, indeed tiny little metal containers -
smaller than most hearing aid batteries. They must be filled with care and
precision: no air bubbles can be present, and care must be taken to avoid
contamination of the sample with water from the atmosphere in the case of
hygroscopic CPAs (i.e., most of them).
3) The pan must be very artfully closed and crimped, and only then is it
place in the DSC. 
The whole thing is a nightmare of careful and precise labor. And of course,
you can't mix up 1 mL  of your putative CPA mixtures, because you  can't
measure that precisely or repeatedly. [Actually, you can, but
microchesmistry has its own headaches and is only economical if the reagents
cost a fiortune.]
Could a machine do all this? Absolutely! Just be prepared to shell out
$1-2 million and to spend a couple of years ironing out the bugs. AND you
will have a lot of overhead in the form of skilled people to maintain the
machine.  Turn out, wasting a brilliant mind like Brian Wowk's on such
dreary business  is cost effective. Also, there are technicians who can be
trained to do this  work.
The brutal fact is that this civilization does not much value intellects
such as Brian's. Nor do they value any intellect that does not provide a
return on investment within ~5 years, on average.
As someone who has had direct experience trying to automate some
comparatively simple things, such as cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (which  is
very simple to automated compared to some of the unbelievably complex and
exactly manufacturing processes I've seen automated), it can be surprisingly
difficult, even if you have you have experts, and enormous computing power
at  your disposal. CPB is arguably no more complex than flying and landing a
jetliner - and that process has been fully automated for at least  a decade.
Yes, you still need a pilot, and you would still need a  perfusionist in
automated CPB, but such automation provides enormous added  safety (used
wisely) and it also may allow for the use of knowledgeable, but  less
skilled personnel, in emergent situations - such as in-field CPB for
refractory cardiac arrest. [You can have knowledge without reflexes!] 
However, such automation is challenging, and even if achieved, there has to
be a market for it. Due mostly to regulatory constraints, that market is not
there for automated CPB. That means you have no economies of scale and that
further drives up the price and drives down the reliability of any system
you do develop. Wide use = robustness and reliability. As to automating CPA
evaluation, well, that is so far from a priority for this civilization it is
impossible to put into words.  At least not words I can post here ;-0.
Mike Darwin

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


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33255

End of CryoNet Digest

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33256