[Mongoose]

I have to say that the talk about using RF induction of metallic nanoparticles for cancer treatment being so much hot air is incredibly amusing to me, seeing as how I spent the whole summer doing research in a lab where such work was being conducted. (My own project has potential applications in greatly increasing the data density of magnetic storage medium, if the logistical hurdles can be overcome.  Nanoparticles really are amazing things.)  For those unfamiliar with the idea, the process involves subjecting iron nanoparticles to a radiofrequency alternating current in an RF induction device; the changing magnetic field generates eddy currents in the nanoparticles, which then heat up due to electrical resistance.  In the crudest sense, one could inject these nanoparticles en masse directly into cancerous cells and subject the patient to RF induction.  At around 43C or so, the cells start to sustain damage, and if you're able to achieve 50C, you can attain hyperthermia of the cells, resulting in cell death.  I know of one case where researchers were able to successfully kill off a tumor in a rat via this method.  Obviously, that wouldn't be the desired procedure for clinical trials. One eventual possibility is to coat the nanoparticles with some sort of polymer specifically tagged to cancer  cells; the nanoparticles could then be delivered intravenously and would automatically collect in tumors.  Even without killing off the cells, such a procedure would be invaluable for allowing detection of very small numbers of cancer cells via MRI.  Like I said, it's some fascinating stuff.

As for the experiment in question, I have to admit that I don't see any physical way that it could produce the results that were claimed, unless there's some mechanism going on with the dissociated sodium and chlorine ions that I don't completely understand.  And even if it did work, there's the question of whether or not one could really achieve net energy.  In any case, it's something to keep an eye on, just to see if anything comes up.

[karajorma]

Yeah, it's not the theory that's bull. It's the claim that it's completely new and that he's close to curing cancer with it. Now if I've gotten confused and it was someone else claiming that and his sole claim was that he's made a better rf transmitter which will be useful in this technique then fair enough, he's done something significant. But if he's saying that he's come up with a complete cancer cure then it's bull****.

The real problem (as I'm sure you're aware) is getting other kinds of cancer to take in the nanoparticles at a faster rate than ordinary cells will. If you can't do that then you can't really do that much with the procedure no matter how fancy you make the rf transmitter. When you turned the machine on you'd simple cook the patient from the inside.

If he's saying that he has a full cancer cure just cause he's made the transmitter then he's working the wrong end of the problem as far as I can tell. The issue is not making the rf transmitter, we already have those, the issue is making the cancer specific polymer you mention. Isn't that what the lab you worked at was spending their time on?


As for the flame, sodium is definitely involved somewhere. That's not the pale blue flame I'd expect from H₂ + O₂. I suppose it could just be from sodium in the water getting excited though.

[Nuke]

you could just as easily be splitting the sodium from the chlorine and getting a sodium-water reaction.

[Mika]

You must be joking. Have you any idea how many things have first appeared in scientific journals that were worth a fortune?

Unfortunately I'm not. What things were there that were really worth a fortune? I haven't met many rich researchers, but I have met some rich engineers and what makes the difference is the policy of publishing information. Unfortunately I think I have myself published an article that in the hindsight would have been better to remain secret. Stupid public funding and their requirements. But trust me, there are lots of industrial and commericial products whose design choices would have made some excellent articles but they will never be published.

I don't understand your claim about publishing something first and then writing a patent (****load of work should I say), I see this contradictory because usually the publication will prevent the patent claim since what you would be claiming is already common knowledge, even though it has been published by you! Besides why talking to the press before the publication is printed would be wrong? Because of peer-reviewing? Yeah right, my opinion greatly changed when I held my first seminaire where there were several distinguished professors listening. Not a single question was asked after the seminaire! Why? Nobody had an idea of what the hell I was talking about, and it was definetely something what every physician should have been able to understand! Only at the highest levels of the publications you might expect decent peer-reviewing.

Regarding newer inventions, what was the thing which was called the greatest invention of 20th century by some? A transistor maybe? Surprisingly, the thing was indeed patented and not published. Also I suspect this invention had a great influence on the development of the quantum mechanics.

Another important thing which was not published is RADAR. I wonder why that did not happen? Also, I'm pretty sure that the published information of the radar technology is probably 20 years behind the actual knowledge level of today. Burt Rutan's work is also a good example. And I sincerely hope no-one here believes NASA or ESA doesn't have any secrets regarding the satellites or spacecrafts! And talk about the aviation technology in the 1960s, I believe USAF and NASA still have some unpublished information regarding those test flights and aircraft designs!

Did you also believe that myth about the bumblebee being aerodynamically impossible?

Why would I believe that? I believe I might have seen some of them flying around and I tend to trust my eyes. The bicycle stuff is actually real. If memory serves, the shape of the bicycle hull has lacked public scientific explanation, especially the shape of the frontal fork. It was delivered a couple of years ago. Makes you wonder how they managed to manufacture bicycles before that, right?

[Mika]

Mongoose, what is considered as an average radius of a nanoparticle? Is it roughly hundreds of nanometers or smaller? Those things have some interesting properties, I recall sitting through a lecture about the nanoparticles in the exhaust fumes of cars. If I could only remember what was being said about them... if it's only halfway related to my daily job and especially when that part is only briefly mentioned chances are that my memory overdrive switch is activated and the brain will be transparent to that information.

Do you have information about silver nanoparticles and their reactions in human body? If this is a sensitive subject no need to answer. I recall reading that silver is quite effective bacterial killer and was wondering why is it so?

[karajorma]

You must be joking. Have you any idea how many things have first appeared in scientific journals that were worth a fortune?

Unfortunately I'm not. What things were there that were really worth a fortune?

Liquid crystals, the first work on semi-conductors, just about everything on superconductors.....[Drones on for 5 hours].

I don't understand your claim about publishing something first and then writing a patent (****load of work should I say), I see this contradictory because usually the publication will prevent the patent claim since what you would be claiming is already common knowledge, even though it has been published by you!

The US grants patents based on who invented something. A scientific paper is very good proof you invented something.

Another important thing which was not published is RADAR. I wonder why that did not happen?

You seriously can't realise why in the middle of a war the British scientists who invented the first radar system wouldn't publish a paper on the subject?

But you've missed the point. They didn't do lab demonstrations of the technology for the news either.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the published information of the radar technology is probably 20 years behind the actual knowledge level of today. Burt Rutan's work is also a good example. And I sincerely hope no-one here believes NASA or ESA doesn't have any secrets regarding the satellites or spacecrafts! And talk about the aviation technology in the 1960s, I believe USAF and NASA still have some unpublished information regarding those test flights and aircraft designs!

Yet more missing of the point. Let me spin it around on you. Which great inventions were announced on a TV news segment instead of first appearing first in a scientific paper or patent?

[Mongoose]

Isn't that what the lab you worked at was spending their time on?

Actually, kara, I was working in a physics lab, so the people working on these particular applications were more concerned with things like changing particle size distributions, tweaking the actual synthesis of the particles, and studying their magnetic properties.  I don't think we're yet at the level of being able to effectively damage/kill cells consistently in a biological setting, much less work on targeted delivery.  One of the other undergrads in my lab was working with cancer cell cultures, studying their response to application/heating of the particles, and I know she got very mixed results and wasn't reading a whole lot of heating.  Effectively controlling and exploiting the magnetic properties of the particles is a huge obstacle in and of itself.

Mika, I don't know that there's necessarily a hard-and-fast definition of what exactly constitutes a nanoparticle.  According to the Wiki article, one of its dimensions has to be under 100 nanometers, but I'm not sure how universal that criterion is.  I know that one of the other undergrads was producing iron nanoparticles in the 5-25 nm diameter range.  My own project involved working with particles composed of iron and platinum, and just about every sample I made came out in the 5-6 nm range.  These weren't for biological applications; I was attempting to achieve a phase change in the particles via RF induction heating for the potential application of increased data storage density.  And no, sorry, I really don't know anything about silver particles myself.

[karajorma]

Actually, kara, I was working in a physics lab, so the people working on these particular applications were more concerned with things like changing particle size distributions, tweaking the actual synthesis of the particles, and studying their magnetic properties.  I don't think we're yet at the level of being able to effectively damage/kill cells consistently in a biological setting, much less work on targeted delivery.  One of the other undergrads in my lab was working with cancer cell cultures, studying their response to application/heating of the particles, and I know she got very mixed results and wasn't reading a whole lot of heating.  Effectively controlling and exploiting the magnetic properties of the particles is a huge obstacle in and of itself.

Ah, fair enough. I think you see my point about the rf source being the smallest part of the problem though.

[Mongoose]

Indeed.  It's fairly easy to heat the particles in a test tube, even if you're not reaching the most ideal temperature.  It's another matter entirely to get them where they need to go and successfully heat them there.

[Dark_4ce]

I actually see that as an evil superweapon the main nazi scientist bad guy would use in Batman or Superman...

"Undz you vill pay ze sum of 1 million dollas, or I vill burn ze vörld's oceans! Ze vörld will be engulfed in klensing foijah for ze new reich! JA!"

[karajorma]

Indeed.  It's fairly easy to heat the particles in a test tube, even if you're not reaching the most ideal temperature.  It's another matter entirely to get them where they need to go and successfully heat them there.

Yeah. I spent 4 years working in a lab on glycolipids and one of the possible applications we were looking at was as a drug delivery agent. Which is why I was so certain that getting anything selectively into cancer cells is not an easy task.

[Wanderer]

Well... in general normal human cells arent that active. So anything that tags onto the ongoing cell replication methods will be concentrated to cancer cells. Or that is at least more or less how various platinum adducts work in cancer treatment

[karajorma]

Yes but there is quite a large difference between getting chemicals into cells and getting nanoparticles in. Chemicals can simply be dissolved in blood and carried into cells. Nanoparticles are huge in comparison and will need some manner of getting through the cell wall.

The problem with traditional anti cancer drugs is that once in the blood they attack everything. It's just that they attack cancer cells more. The advantage of the sort of polymer based treatment for the nanoparticles that Mongoose describes (or drugs for that matter) is that if you can find the right polymer you can get the tumour cells (and only/mainly the tumour cells) to open up and take the drug or nanoparticle into the cell.

That way very little of the drug hits the rest of the body.

[Mika]

Liquid crystals, the first work on semi-conductors, just about everything on superconductors.....[Drones on for 5 hours].

Huh? Liquid crystals? I thought that the practical stuff of them was patented. There is not much value in publishing information about the inner workings of the semi-conductors if it doesn't tell how to make them. And superconductors, I still haven't seen them in a everyday use, but I'm quite certain that if someone finds out a material that achieves superconductivity in the room temperature he will not publish it. You can be pretty sure that if a company that is investing in superconductors sends some articles for peer-reviewing, the resulting publication is either vague or doesn't address the important stuff at all. This actually validates my point about anything of practical value will never get published but patented. And even the patenting has recently became a joke.

And that whether you can patent something depends greatly of the place you are living in, in Scandinavia you cannot patent anything you have already published. It is the work of the patent clerk to find out if the thing is new or not.

You seriously can't realise why in the middle of a war the British scientists who invented the first radar system wouldn't publish a paper on the subject?

It is a validation of my point. Nothing important gets published. The example of radar can be extended to the situations of every day life. If you are working in a company the last thing you want to tell anyone is your trade secret because your living will depend on it.

Which great inventions were announced in TV? Satellites? Space rockets? Chinese missile that shoots down satellites?

This discussion getting close to one of my old favorites, is science free from outside influence? I say it has never been free and it will never be free but for some reason that I cannot understand it says it is.

Mika

[karajorma]

Which great inventions were announced in TV? Satellites? Space rockets? Chinese missile that shoots down satellites?

Something non-military.

Because the unifying theme in all the examples you've provided is military security. Remember that if you don't patent something or publish it in a paper there is bugger all to stop someone copying your work. Hell, in every country other than the US they might even get away with patenting it themselves.