You can not DIY a laser with that level of precision. You could easily make one that burns off small patches though. If you wanted. For some reason. That wasn't insane. I mean, you can do self surgery with a pocket knife too, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
You can not target the DNA without damaging the rest of the cell. That requires higher wavelengths then a laser produces, like Xrays or Gamma rays.
>>923477 possible skin cancer probably be the least of your worries shortly. I dunno, there is something about your post that screams 'under-researched' here - even if someone could help (?) you be traversing lands where 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' with this.
>>923477 I think there are considerations you need to take into account before you try to build it, like how will you point the laser to the specific cancer cells? are you going to test every single cell?
Your query is not a trivial one as such there is no trivial answer. Making a laser would require a clean room if you wanted to make a solid state. Otherwise you are going to be limited to a gas based laser. Your choice in gas will determine the wavelengths of emmission. And what optics are required. - Reference phd student in physics
>>923522 This really is the goal of all cancer research. To create a device to repair dna in real time. The computer technology alone for trillions of cells would be insane. Imagine the latency of reading dna of a cell, repairing it. Even if you could do each cell in a second we are talking years of time.
Optics MS here. UV is still way too low frequency. As previously mentioned, you would have to go with x-ray or gamma ray to get a small enough spot size. But since you would be targeting living cells, you have to penetrate through several layers of dead cells to get there, resulting in you burning a pin hole through several layers of dead skin to get to the first (top) layer of living cells. If you're targeting a living cell that is deeper, you would end up burning through other living layers of cells to get there.
So, you have to think about how to get the laser spot to the DNA without damaging surrounding areas. Typically you would introduce some other chemical in to the cell that would attach to the cancerous cell (or DNA ) and that would floresce when subjected to the laser wavelength in question. That way, you can use a lower power laser that would pass through the other cells, then dump it's power in to florescing the extra chemical, which would heat up the area that you want to burn.
>>923622 Now that you mention it, there's actually a way to do that to make an ultra small spot size using visible light. I remember they were trying that a few years ago to fit 100x more data on a DVD using an ir and UV laser together. Good call.
On the other hand, even if you can get a spot size small enough to burn DNA, you still have to make it through all he living layers and dead layers of skin first. And if you have a laser setup that is designed to burn, that means you will be burning millions of pin holes through living and dead cells to get to the cells you are targeting.
I have a buddy that is working on nanoparticles that attach to features inside a cell and floresce under UV light, which is a viable solution. I just don't immediately see how you could do it strictly with a burning laser setup and not by creating a secondary reaction that does the burning. You'll end up damaging more cells than you are saving.
>>923628 Okay, thank you. So the laser may work for the surface, but to go deeper we will have to use something smaller. Go to know. One can even imagine a surgery involving peeling back layers of tissue for the laser system to alter the DNA. Gruesome cure for downs.
I don't believe the computer tech for this will exist until the 2030's anyway, so I have time. Latency is a real killer here.
>>923624 >>923628 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosurgery Shit's legit. Collimating a single wavelength of light from several sources on a moving piece of skin focused on a single cell seems is a pretty tall order, but go for it, sure. Maybe you could borrow some lithography tech from intel or something. I always thought it'd be great to use intel's lithography techniques to make PRK/Lasek accurate enough that your treatment plan could be designed to spare nerves and other shit in your cornea that's currently obliterated. This would reduce the dry eye symptoms that are extremely common after the surgery.
Burning stuff on the skin hasn't ever really been a problem though I'm not sure why you'd bother with the thing you described, the point of stereotactic surgery is to be able to shoot something below the skin with radiation and have the therapeutic dose be only in the target area, so the surrounding tissue gets a lower dose of radiation so you don't die from your radiotherapy.. They got pretty Skookum lasers in any dermatology office to zap anything on the skin surface though. You just grab it in your hand and go to town.
Just one? Why not just scrape it off with a razor blade?
>skin cancer That's millions of cells. And you have to get them all (or most of them) out. Or they will metastasize. So the tactic here is to carve (burn?) them all out, plus some surrounding normal cells. Just to be sure.
>>923564 That's why biological delivery methods are probably the best, like engineered viruses that go after specific tissue and have an anti-cancer payload. Nanobots are really far off from being able to do something like this, but viruses and genetic engineering can already be used to replace DNA to an extent.
Ehh a bit of research would help before asking how 2. Most of dermatological lasers are a YAGI DPSS, they generate single burst of laser in viable spectrum light, the power of those lasers is given in "J" joules because energy is delivered in single peak. but if you want to compare them to laser Diode or Gas lasers power will be around 20 - 60 W. they not greatly focused. 0.5 square mm is the max. you cant damage DNA or single cell you simply evaporating some layer of material in this case skin cell, If you want to damage DNA you need laser with wavelength in deep Ultraviolet, much less then 300nm. Only Vapor lasers or very expensive laser diodes can produce this wavelength, but power of them is in mW but longer exposure to this wavelength without protection definitely can damage dna, but in random way. Im hear some time ago about guy who work on Magnetron Manser, he generated radio ( microwaves ) tuned to salted water resignation freq. they simply heat the salted water but not normal tissue. Idea was to find resignation freq, of cancer cells and heat them over 41 deg when rest of cells was stable st 36,6 that's will kill cancer cells by simply cooking them. Cancerous cells are different from healthy ones , they put something named immortality mode, normal cell can die and be replaced them didn't want to die, in cancerous tissue blood flow is reduced less oxygen is provided, and that speeding the processes of expanding. maybe this is a solution, if there is lack of oxygen cells will produce long long amino-acids and toxins, this one should be enough to be targeted by restoration and be the fuel for this process, only problem is if you start heating them they will most likely break and we before reach temp of killing cells, we run out of fuel.
>>923831 I thought the radio guy was using gold doped t cells. The t cells am would be engineered to bond to a cancer marker determined for that patient's particular cancer, then microwave the patient and the gold t cells will absorb much more microwave and the attached cancer cell will die. The t cell might even get to break off and find another cancer cell to attach to and kill.
This would be great for metastasized cancers or blood cancers. The worst thing is the pretty much insane cost because there's no good way to manufacture the t cells.
>>923622 You're talking about an interference wave form. Possible, but stupidly hard (how do you target just one cell that's within a living thing, and thus constantly moving?), and not useful (why kill just one cell anyway?). Definately not DIY able.
>>924521 not very. If you can hit them. How hard is it to break specific hydrogen bonds with a laser? pretty much impossible. You are saying you want to take a delicate glass sculpture the size of a room and change the shape of a few pieces of it, while it is floating on an ocean of basically identical ones, using a rifle, from the moon. Using a telescope 5 feet away from the rifle mount. Hitting it and breaking it and not the ones next to it? possible. Hitting one particular genome sequence when you can't even freaking see the genome inside the cell without biopsying the cell and putting it under a microscope? yeah... no.
>>924566 Hmm if you any way will make a reverse microscope to focus laser beam, you can target single cell. but i can imagine to target chromosome in it. The task of doing that is pointless, even if you some how fix one cell you have hundred of millions still damaged cancerous. Only way is to destroy whole cell or patch of cells evaporate them and leave healthy one to regrown. Cancerous cells has different structure and you can easily spot them under microscope. the same way as you can see different color and structure of cancerous cells in skin, they black in black spots pic related.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.