Buckyballs are carbon microspheres, consisting of carbon atoms bound to each other in a spherical array. they were discovered quite a while ago-has anyone found a use for them?
I don’t know if fits your definition of “use”, but they were part of research to push the limits of detecting QM properties in larger objects. I’m not sure what the record is now, but it’s significantly larger.
I would figure a quantity of molecule-sized ball bearings would be the ideal lubricant.
It might, if you didn’t care that your lubricant cost* more than the value of everything else combined. And if we knew how to make a Buckyball lubricant in the first place.
*Yeah, that site looks to be pure woo. But it gave a pretty good account of the difficulty of working with C[sub]60[/sub].
Rule 34 needs refinement.
If it exists, there is porn of it and somebody is using it as a nutritional supplement.
C[sub]60[/sub] has recently become a substance of intense interest to the biohacking/nootropics community since the publication of a paper in 2012 which demonstrated that oral dietary supplementation of the molecule almost doubles the lifespans of rats. Several companies are now selling it as a dietary supplement, and business is brisk—almost all of them exist exclusively producing and selling a suspension of C[sub]60[/sub] in olive oil. There is an entire subforum of the LongeCity message board devoted entirely to the application and use of this substance.
Yeah, that’s the woo I mention in the site in post #5.
Yeah, I know. Until I clicked the link I thought you were really talking about lubricants. But don’t just dismiss it as woo out of hand. The study needs to be replicated, and on a larger scale. There were only six rats in the control group and six rats in the treatment group, so it’s not something which warrants making a big fuss about at this time. When all of the authors of the paper were asked if they were motivated to use the substance as a result of their findings, only one of them said that he was. But all six of the rats in the treatment group were still alive when the last rat in the control group had died, and all six of the treated rats exhibited empirically observable signs of decelerated aging, as evidenced by visual inspection of their eyes and the quality and texture of their fur. That’s not woo—it’s a significant finding, even if it only demonstrates that something significant occurred in those six rats.
Do you really think that, if there WAS a way to reliably double life span, it would be a “secret” that only a few oddball groups knew about?
We live in the most scientifically advanced culture ever known, and still this "we know a secret which THEY Don’t Want You To Know!! mindset is depressingly common.
My mother, knowing her cancer was terminal, talked about this or that “new study” which showed tremendous promise!. That was 1988. And she was a very bright person, and should have known how the game is played - if you get to select who you “treat”, you can get great responses.
The test is when you have to take all comers and still show positive results.
It’s fairly easy to extend the lifespans of rodents. This page lists a dozen ways of doing it and I know of one more not on that list.
But these things usually don’t do anyting for longer-lived animals, especially primates. Or they haven’t been tested on primates yet, or perhaps the tests are on-going. Primates live a lot longer than rodents, so these tests take time. So don’t get too excited about extending rodent lifespan. When they extend monkey lifespan, then they will have something.
Sure, if it only works in Wistar strain 1234WXYZ, and especially if were just an odd result of a study which wasn’t even intended to investigate the biochemical basis of longevity. The researchers were attempting to determine the toxicity of C60. We have absolutely no idea how or why this result occurred. They just got an anomalous result and published it, and it got picked up on the radar of amateur biohackers. Severe restriction of caloric intake will also vastly increase the mean lifespan of several species, and most likely would work in humans too. This was first demonstrated almost 100 years ago. Yet the average person on the street has absolutely no knowledge of this fact.
Severe calorie restriction isn’t going to catch on with humans because it’s about as fun as life-long celibacy. Some folks can pull it off, but for most indulging animal pleasures is too much fun. We’ve evolved to like eating.
That’s why biohackers are much more like to ingest something new than to simply consumer far, far less food in general.
Endohedral fullerines (buckyballs with a different atom inside them) can be bought.
Did anyone notice that the paragraph combined “demonstated” and “most likely”.
“most likely” is saying “NOT Demonstrated” and basically its quite obviously woo to say “Demonstrated”. The human has difficulty eating enough vitamins,
and the lack of vitamins in a low calorie diet can lead to degradation of various tissue, osteoporosis, senility and altziemers, and all that.
Personally, I don’t like this broadening of the term “woo” to include something where there is rational plausibility, an evidence-based approach, but just limited evidence. I don’t think that overstating or exaggerating a plausible evidence-based claim is the same as pseudoscience.
Having looked at that rat buckyball study, these guys appear to be real scientists doing valid research. It’s weak highly preliminary evidence, with a very low probability of being applicable to humans, but I wouldn’t call it woo.
Buckyballs being tested for use in cancer target drug delivery. Of hopes way we change and fight cancer in the future.
**Rice University scientists and Baylor College of Medicine pediatric specialists have discovered a new way to use Rice’s famed buckyball nanoparticles as passkeys that allow drugs to enter cancer cells. - **
No one is saying that the experiment is woo. We said that selling buckyball oil to humans as an anti-aging cure is woo in neon lights. Two entirely different things.
I think I’d still put the treatment in a slightly different category of misguided practice to homeopathy, water divining, astrology etc., but I grant that it’s a fine distinction! It would not falsify major fundamental scientific principles if by some miracle it turned out to work.
I know of one man who did - back when it was my early venturing onto the net, I was somehow subscribed to an alt newsgroup that did raw foods and I was somehow given a link to the personal website of a guy who made a huge veggie salad that when he combined it with the dressing was supposedly nutritionally complete, and he ate it for all 3 meals all 7 days … Never been able to find him online again to check out how he is doing [and I have long since stopped reading newsgroups] and I can’t remember any real details that would let me google him up again.
And I agree, I like food too much to restrict myself to nothing but a specific tiny selection [and keep in mind I do oatmeal for breakfast and a chopped salad for lunch pretty much every day, being diabetic I do have to control my diet. My evening meals and my snacks are a lot more freeform, coming off my permitted foods list. I have a lot more than just veggies on my food list!]