The Krebs Cycle is the bete noir for all the hippie kids who think they're qualified to be marine biologists because they raised fish in a tropical fish tank. The Krebs Cycle is the chemical power plant in all cells and the cycle produces energy which we use for, well, life.
There is no attempt to be patronizing as there's no chance I have memorized nor am I interested in memorizing the biochemistry of the Krebs Cycle. However, we can glean the key bits from it.
ATP converts to ADP and the completion of the cycle is converting it back to ADP. ADP is Adenosine Triphosphate and ADP is Adenosine Diphosphate. The conversion from one to the other is only adding a Phosphorus molecule but the result in converting back and forth is energy either stored or released.
The byproduct from obtaining energy in this way is CO2 due to the intermediate steps within the cycle. Photosynthesis is the reverse in that and the by products are sugar and oxygen.
Now then ... there is no intent to try to impress you with my knowledge of chemistry as I was the marine biology hippie kid (i.e. freak). However, I do know the Krebs Cycle is the power storage and release mechanism for, to my knowledge, all forms of life on Earth.
When you take a breath of air, you're getting a few liters of oxygen plus the other elements in Earth's atmosphere. The oxygen goes to the blood stream where it is transported to the cells and that oxygen is input to the Krebs Cycle for the organism (i.e. us). When you breathe the oxygen, that's where it goes. When you breathe out, you're exhaling the 'waste product' from the Krebs Cycle, CO2.
So that comes up to the question. Why is the Krebs Cycle not used for powering robots when it works so splendidly throughout the biological kingdom. We hear of drone engineers studying the flight of bugs and birds so they can incorporate those models into flying robot designs but all of the advanced devices of that nature either have their own engine or they run on batteries.
This is hardly a PhD research program but we have reviewed Google search to discover if anything of this nature is being pursued ... but ... we came up dry.
So now we're mystified. Did this not even excite someone's curiosity to find out when there are such incredible problems with high-capacity, long-lasting batteries (i.e. they explode sometimes and use incredibly-poisonous materials).
Before you so much as write a whizzy multi-color meme on the matter, do your own searching of literature to discover whether anyone really has pursued a biological solution to providing energy for robots. It seems inevitable someone would try this but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it.
If you can figure out this one, you won't only get a Nobel Prize, they will build statues with your likeness. Think of the revolution yourself in robots which do not need batteries and run on the same energy sources as we (i.e. sugar and oxygen).
Note: sugar is used generically as there are many types, all comprised of varying combinations of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. Some interesting hydrocarbons have been found in extra-planetary study but there hasn't been anything, to my knowledge, regarding more complex hydrocarbons such as sugars. If you find any of that then there's a high probability there is something living on it.
It may seem wildly speculative to assume all creatures anywhere are powered by the Krebs Cycle but to the limit of our current scientific knowledge, all creatures are powered by the Krebs Cycle. This is where you get into the idea of carbon-based lifeforms such as ourselves or, alternatively, extraplanetary creatures which may run be based on silicon for similar types of elemental properties.
You would need advanced knowledge of chemistry to pursue deeply the requirements for a silicon-based lifeform versus a carbon-based lifeform ... but ... it's likely this has already been done. We confess we are not going to read it and that's left for the interested student.
(Ed: do you have students?)
Nope. 'left for the interested student' just sounds better than 'bugger off.'
Update: here's a place you may wish to start and we did read the abstract. We don't fuck around when it comes to geek stuff. We're not scientists but we will make the attempt. We're sure you will love this title:
Application of the Principles of Systems Biology and Wiener's Cybernetics for Analysis of Regulation of Energy Fluxes in Muscle Cells in Vivo" - Rita Guzun and Valdur Saks
There is no attempt to be patronizing as there's no chance I have memorized nor am I interested in memorizing the biochemistry of the Krebs Cycle. However, we can glean the key bits from it.
ATP converts to ADP and the completion of the cycle is converting it back to ADP. ADP is Adenosine Triphosphate and ADP is Adenosine Diphosphate. The conversion from one to the other is only adding a Phosphorus molecule but the result in converting back and forth is energy either stored or released.
The byproduct from obtaining energy in this way is CO2 due to the intermediate steps within the cycle. Photosynthesis is the reverse in that and the by products are sugar and oxygen.
Now then ... there is no intent to try to impress you with my knowledge of chemistry as I was the marine biology hippie kid (i.e. freak). However, I do know the Krebs Cycle is the power storage and release mechanism for, to my knowledge, all forms of life on Earth.
When you take a breath of air, you're getting a few liters of oxygen plus the other elements in Earth's atmosphere. The oxygen goes to the blood stream where it is transported to the cells and that oxygen is input to the Krebs Cycle for the organism (i.e. us). When you breathe the oxygen, that's where it goes. When you breathe out, you're exhaling the 'waste product' from the Krebs Cycle, CO2.
So that comes up to the question. Why is the Krebs Cycle not used for powering robots when it works so splendidly throughout the biological kingdom. We hear of drone engineers studying the flight of bugs and birds so they can incorporate those models into flying robot designs but all of the advanced devices of that nature either have their own engine or they run on batteries.
This is hardly a PhD research program but we have reviewed Google search to discover if anything of this nature is being pursued ... but ... we came up dry.
So now we're mystified. Did this not even excite someone's curiosity to find out when there are such incredible problems with high-capacity, long-lasting batteries (i.e. they explode sometimes and use incredibly-poisonous materials).
Before you so much as write a whizzy multi-color meme on the matter, do your own searching of literature to discover whether anyone really has pursued a biological solution to providing energy for robots. It seems inevitable someone would try this but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it.
If you can figure out this one, you won't only get a Nobel Prize, they will build statues with your likeness. Think of the revolution yourself in robots which do not need batteries and run on the same energy sources as we (i.e. sugar and oxygen).
Note: sugar is used generically as there are many types, all comprised of varying combinations of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. Some interesting hydrocarbons have been found in extra-planetary study but there hasn't been anything, to my knowledge, regarding more complex hydrocarbons such as sugars. If you find any of that then there's a high probability there is something living on it.
It may seem wildly speculative to assume all creatures anywhere are powered by the Krebs Cycle but to the limit of our current scientific knowledge, all creatures are powered by the Krebs Cycle. This is where you get into the idea of carbon-based lifeforms such as ourselves or, alternatively, extraplanetary creatures which may run be based on silicon for similar types of elemental properties.
You would need advanced knowledge of chemistry to pursue deeply the requirements for a silicon-based lifeform versus a carbon-based lifeform ... but ... it's likely this has already been done. We confess we are not going to read it and that's left for the interested student.
(Ed: do you have students?)
Nope. 'left for the interested student' just sounds better than 'bugger off.'
Update: here's a place you may wish to start and we did read the abstract. We don't fuck around when it comes to geek stuff. We're not scientists but we will make the attempt. We're sure you will love this title:
Whoa. The title is intimidating but the content goes directly to ADP and ATP processing. Sorry but we have the PDF but not a link. A Google search should quickly reveal it if you're interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment