Nanotube Reinforcement of Skeleton?
sanman
I remember reading a science fiction story once called "The Last
Legionary" which was about a future soldier whose skeleton had been
replaced by bones made of an indestructible alloy.
But meanwhile back in the real world, here's a story about how bone
cells have a greater affinity for bonding to nanotubes than to
titanium:
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=107
Would it be conceivable to imagine one day of human skeletons
reinforced by nanotubes?
Might result in a superior athlete or soldier, or even a better
racehorse.
If nanotubes can be impregnated into conventional resins to reinforce
them, then could they be impregnated into bones, retaining the same
porous structure with greater strength?
Calum Dickinson
On 11 Apr 2004, sanman wrote:
> Would it be conceivable to imagine one day of human skeletons
> reinforced by nanotubes?
>
> Might result in a superior athlete or soldier, or even a better
> racehorse.
>
> If nanotubes can be impregnated into conventional resins to reinforce
> them, then could they be impregnated into bones, retaining the same
> porous structure with greater strength?
>
The soldier, athlete or racehorse would not be much better as you have
done nothing to their muscles or their ability to not experience pain.
Soldiers who drink milk don't necessary make better soldiers.
But on the other hand, reinforcing bones would have a medical advantage
for the elderly or people who break bones that need an implant and could
then replace the titanium rod.
Calum Dickinson
****************************
Calum Dickinson BSc Hons
Electron Microscopy Department
School of Chemistry
University of St Andrews
Bootstrap Bill
"Calum Dickinson" <cd...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c5euo...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2004, sanman wrote:
> > Would it be conceivable to imagine one day of human skeletons
> > reinforced by nanotubes?
> >
> > Might result in a superior athlete or soldier, or even a better
> > racehorse.
> >
> > If nanotubes can be impregnated into conventional resins to reinforce
> > them, then could they be impregnated into bones, retaining the same
> > porous structure with greater strength?
> >
> The soldier, athlete or racehorse would not be much better as you have
> done nothing to their muscles or their ability to not experience pain.
>
> Soldiers who drink milk don't necessary make better soldiers.
>
> But on the other hand, reinforcing bones would have a medical advantage
> for the elderly or people who break bones that need an implant and could
> then replace the titanium rod.
What would be the limits of a nano enhanced person? Could we see ordinary
people with superhuman strenghth? Lift 10 tons and leap 10 story buildings?
Malcolm McMahon
On 13 Apr 2004 16:20:12 GMT, "Bootstrap Bill" <wrco...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>What would be the limits of a nano enhanced person? Could we see ordinary
>people with superhuman strenghth? Lift 10 tons and leap 10 story buildings?
Biological materials are pretty impressive and it's going to be quite a
challenge to even equal their performance, let alone improve on it.
That said, I quite like the idea of reinforcing vital bones, such as the
skull and spine. Our priorities don't exactly equal those of nature in
terms of personal survival. Not sure that nanotubes are the best deal,
though, you might want something more rigid (diamond plates?).
Strength is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. Evolution
balances the strengths of muscles, sinews and bones so that you have to
improve just about everything to see an overall improvement.
But nobody is ever going to be able to pick up railway locomotives and
toss them arround. Even if you were strong enough you'd just sink into
the ground. Superman requires some kind of built-in reactionless drive.
Gordon D. Pusch
Malcolm McMahon <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> writes:
> On 13 Apr 2004 16:20:12 GMT, "Bootstrap Bill" <wrco...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What would be the limits of a nano enhanced person? Could we see ordinary
>> people with superhuman strenghth? Lift 10 tons and leap 10 story buildings?
>
> Biological materials are pretty impressive and it's going to be quite a
> challenge to even equal their performance, let alone improve on it.
>
> That said, I quite like the idea of reinforcing vital bones, such as the
> skull and spine. Our priorities don't exactly equal those of nature in
> terms of personal survival. Not sure that nanotubes are the best deal,
> though, you might want something more rigid (diamond plates?).
Indeed, nanotubes are "strong" only under _tension_. Under compression,
nanotubes buckle like wet spaghetti...
> Strength is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. Evolution
> balances the strengths of muscles, sinews and bones so that you have to
> improve just about everything to see an overall improvement.
David Weber has suggested just how _much_ "internal redesign" such a
"bio-enhanced human" might require in a number of his novels --- most
notably _Mutineer's Moon_, _The Armageddon Inheritance_, _Heirs to Empire_,
and _Path of the Fury_. While I don't normally recommend science-fiction
novels as "references" for technical topics, I feel that in this
_particular_ case, Weber has done a reasonably good job of suggesting
just how _much_ work would have to be done --- and how hard it will be
to re-learn how to use one's "enhanced" body afterwords...
> But nobody is ever going to be able to pick up railway locomotives and
> toss them arround. Even if you were strong enough you'd just sink into
> the ground. Superman requires some kind of built-in reactionless drive.
Indeed! (Note that forms of "anti-gravity levitation" or "telekinesis"
have also been postulated --- but further discussion of this would most
definitely _not_ be on-topic for sci.nanotech !!! ;-I)
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'