Neurological EMP Devices
Kurt Feltenberger
(14 Apr 2018 03:46 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Neurological EMP Devices
Rupert Boleyn
(14 Apr 2018 03:57 UTC)
|
Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rob O'Connor
(17 Apr 2018 10:25 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Kelly St. Clair
(18 Apr 2018 00:40 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Graham Donald
(18 Apr 2018 07:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Neurological EMP Devices
Bruce Johnson
(18 Apr 2018 18:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Neurological EMP Devices
Rob O'Connor
(19 Apr 2018 07:55 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Neurological EMP Devices
Rupert Boleyn
(19 Apr 2018 10:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Neurological EMP Devices
Phil Pugliese
(19 Apr 2018 21:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(20 Apr 2018 01:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Jeffrey Schwartz
(20 Apr 2018 17:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rob O'Connor
(21 Apr 2018 08:23 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Tim
(21 Apr 2018 09:31 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(23 Apr 2018 01:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
shadow97218@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2018 19:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Phil Pugliese
(23 Apr 2018 20:34 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Neurological EMP Devices
Bruce Johnson
(24 Apr 2018 16:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Neurological EMP Devices
Phil Pugliese
(24 Apr 2018 18:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rob O'Connor
(25 Apr 2018 02:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(25 Apr 2018 23:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Phil Pugliese
(26 Apr 2018 00:20 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rupert Boleyn
(26 Apr 2018 00:24 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(26 Apr 2018 22:08 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Graham Donald
(26 Apr 2018 01:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(26 Apr 2018 22:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rob O'Connor
(27 Apr 2018 07:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(28 Apr 2018 00:09 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Robert O'Connor
(29 Apr 2018 05:06 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rupert Boleyn
(29 Apr 2018 19:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rob O'Connor
(30 Apr 2018 08:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(30 Apr 2018 18:36 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Robert O'Connor
(02 May 2018 08:33 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(03 May 2018 00:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Rupert Boleyn
(03 May 2018 02:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Richard Aiken
(04 May 2018 01:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices Rob O'Connor (05 May 2018 02:27 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Kenneth Barns
(05 May 2018 03:39 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Neurological EMP Devices
Kenneth Barns
(23 Apr 2018 23:56 UTC)
|
Richard Aiken wrote: >> OK, so now you have lots of robots on the outside of the victim. > Not necessarily. A water cannon delivers a high-pressure spray, > usually against (at least in the real world) lightly-clad civilians in > a shirtsleeve environment. A lot of that water is going to end up in > faces, which means eyes, ears, mouth, etc. If skin or mucous membranes haven't been breached, they are still outside as far as internal organs and systems are concerned. > Will the speed vary in different tissues? > So . . . a few seconds to make their way through the sinus passages > and into the brain stem? The speed range previously posted was for cells moving under their own power through water. Body tissues will be different to water in all sorts of ways: lipid content, charge, dissolved ions and non-ionic solutes, etc. which will influence how fast our hypothetical robots can move. Overall, the fastest way to move through an animal is to hitch a ride in the circulation. >> What proportion are destroyed before they reach the target? > I'd say not very many, assuming an appropriate outer coating. The tiers of defense that constitute innate and adaptive immunity are very effective at recognising and dispatching intruders. As an example, you cannot get a secondary bacterial pneumonia unless the flu virus has wiped out at least 70% of of alveolar macrophages. The bacteria need to breach the layers of pre-formed antibodies, lytic substances, white cells, etc. in the upper airways to get to the alveoli. Remember that the incubation phase of a disease is the period in which a pathogenic agent attains parity with the defense - the agent increases in number while facing attrition by the defense, and vice versa. So onset time will be fastest if host immunity can't affect the intruder at all, and progressively slower or ineffective with increased net clearance. As previously noted, the lower bound is 10-15 seconds, equivalent to an intravenous injection. >> How many get lost (navigation errors)? > I have no clue. :) You need to have some value or range of values to come up with a non-SWAG estimate. Onset time will be a function of how quickly the robots can get to their targets, how many are needed to generate an effect and how quickly the effect can be generated. The dose required will be a function of the required onset time, and how much wastage there will be (immune attrition, navigational and power failures, false positives in target identification, etc.) > Could we add something to turn the mucus - perhaps even the skin - of > people dosed with the compound a vibrant orange (or some other strange > color)? If the dye is brought along by the nanobots, that increases the payload and overall dose required. If the dye must be made on-site, then that further increases the onset time until a detectable colour change. There may be knock-on effects from local scavenging of the raw materials to make the dye. How the dye is dispersed matters to onset time. Diffusion is the ultimate limit to rate, which is a function of solubility in the skin. Pigments that are invisible to human vision, but can be seen by sensitive (nanograms per mL concentration) infrared or ultraviolet fluorescence detectors might make more sense for a given dystopic enforcement apparatus. Rob O'Connor