Can I build a LASER to destroy one skin cell?
How about just the DNA in a cell?
>>923474
>tfw can't tell if shitposting or not
>>923476
It's important.
Thinking about skin cancer.
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?
>>923474
Busted DNA is the reason you get cancer m8.
>>923506
>like how will you point the laser to the specific cancer cells?
Hmm, I like this challenge. I bet you could use soundwaves. However, a handheld device like a tricorder would be decades away I'm sure, IF it is even possible.
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
>>923555
>soundwaves
OK IT'S A JOKE EVERYBODY GO HOME
>>923561
That wasn't me, the op.
>>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.
>>923564
google CRISPR
>>923570
This is a way of separation of cancer cells from blood. Not a method of direct detection.
>>923565
I knew about the viruses but I didn't think we were close to this level of alteration. Still this is the equivalent of the vacuum tube analog level of what I'm thinking.
>>923474
to destroy dna, the wavelength needs to be smaller than the dna... visible light isnt small enough.
>>923590
Then what wavelength do you suggest?
UV? Are we Royal Rife microscope now?
>>923592
Why would you want to destroy DNA?
>>923602
Because the first step of a machine that could mess with human dna in real time would be to cure down syndrome. Easiest to do. All you have to do is destroy a chromosome.
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.
>>923613
What about using two lasers that don't destroy anything until they touch?
Like some sort of combination effect.
>>923622
>>923624
I know I'm dumbing it down, but I know the frequency can be changed using two intercepting lasers. You can actually even cancel them out if you wanted.
>>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.
What about extreme ultraviolet?
![Gammaknife[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/f127Uqx.jpg "Gammaknife[1].jpg")
>>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.
>>923474
Look man, I don't know what that cell did to you, but resorting to James Bond style villainy won't accomplish anything. Just give it a few days/weeks and it'll die.
>>923477
Have you considered going to a doctor?
>>923575
/sci/ here.
True, but it does show there is a possibility a method can be developed for a handheld device.
But, somehow I highly doubt you or the OP could even conceive of something like that since you are both mouth breathers.
Remember, Legos are not really DIY, kid.
>>923474
>one skin cell
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.
>>923658
>Just give it a few days/weeks and it'll die.
Do you expect me to wait that long?
>>923654
Look up MR-HIFU of hou are interested in more of this stuff.
I agree that this approach makes more sense for deeper tissue, not the skin
>>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.
>>923750
Nuke the planet from orbit, it's the only way to be sure
>>923816
Better to use a virus to leave the infrastructure mostly intact and non radioactive.
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.
>>923927
I just wanted ideas.
This is obviously a billion dollar project.
Being able to manipulate dna on a cellular level in real time. The cell thing is just amateur time to play around.
![FH46AHH[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/8Epx6LV.gif "FH46AHH[1].gif")
>>923719
>, kid
>>923951
>This is obviously a billion dollar project.
I wonder how the titans of industry got anything done in the old days before we had 4chan. It's so much easier now
Wouldn't it be impossible to target a specific cell ?
I mean the building a laser part is ok but I dont see how a normal person can tell a cancerous cell apart from a normal cell.
>>924439
Well that's why he's asking 4chan, to gather ideas to solve this problem.
>>923951
Manipulate dna in real time? wtf... I don't even...
Do you even know what DNA is?
>>924494
How hard is it to break hydrogen bonds with a uv laser or gamma ray?
>>923474
There's no point on doing that.
Cells with DNA damage wont replicate anymore. It'd be the same as just scratching off that cell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_cycle_checkpoint
>>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.
>>923558
You could use an existing laser diode and just build the focusing/targeting apparatus, but for this application that would also be non-trivial.
>>924544
Depends, if you are trying to cure downs them elimination of a chromosome wouldn't destroy the cell.
>>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.
oh cool a thread where op knows fuckall and nothing will happen, how unexpected of diy
or a shit troll
>>923562
Computer analysis?
Pathologist. Computer algorithms for cancer cell identification is shit.
>>924544
But that cycle fails when you have a cancerous cell.
>>923606
What?
No.
Are you retarded?
You need to kill every extra chromosome in every cell. The best time to do this is conception. And aborting would be cheaper and easier.
And not to mention that aiming at one cell's DNA in a living thing is very close to impossible.
Get this /popsci/ bullshit out of your head and go do some actual research.
