40 replies to this topic

[DeadMeat]

Well, $10k, if we could get about $7 from each of 1500 cryonicists, we could buy one. We'd still need to pay for shipping etc too, but an average of $7/cryonicist gets us the freezer.

 

I think testing on mice would be rather premature(also evil). They are not even at organ level. CAS freezing at cryopreservation temperatures seems to be halfway between cells and tissues at best. Maybe if they ever manage to optimise it and reversibly freeze donated/printed human organs. And even then it would need to show perfect preservation and reheating. Also you would need a CAS freezer specifically made or adapted for cryogenically freezing organs(I assume with some advanced inbuild heating system etc.), if they ever get that far. Not something made to keep sushi slightly fresher.

 

I mean there is quite a big difference between necessarily a hoax and something usable right now(This very minute! Runnn to your store, grab the neighbors cat...).

[treonsverdery]

thinking about electromagnetic fields that modify the motion of atoms a few things are published at wikipedia Diamagnetism https://www.google.c...pedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism which functions on water molecules as well as anew laser technique different from laser atom cooling, which is motioning things at air or water with rotating torus shaped light beams. http://www.newyorker...sh-tractor-beam

I think either of these could be used to gradualize water motions thus are an approach to cooling water with electromagnetic fields

Edited by treonsverdery, 21 May 2015 - 07:25 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Guys I tried to replicate the super fast water freezing videos with my freezer several times, and I failed. Now I am getting skeptical about the replication of the water supercooling with a home freezer. Either I am an absolute water supercooling misfit, or this cant be replicated with a home freezer. Has anyone succeeded in replicating the one second water freeze? Learn me how to.

Edited by seivtcho, 01 December 2015 - 08:39 AM.

[Antonio2014]

New metaanalysis published:

 

Effects of Magnetic Fields on Freezing: Application to Biological Products

 

Abstract

 

Magnetic freezing is nowadays established as a commercial reality mainly oriented towards the food market. According to advertisements, magnetic freezing is able to generate tiny ice crystals throughout the frozen product, prevent cell destruction, and preserve the quality of fresh food intact after thawing. If all these advantages were true, magnetic freezing would represent a significant advance in freezing technology, not only for food preservation, but also for cryopreservation of biological specimens such as cells, tissues, and organs. Magnetic fields (MFs) are supposed to act directly on water by orientating, vibrating, and/or spinning molecules to prevent them from clustering and, thus, to promote supercooling. However, many doubts exist about the real effects of MFs on freezing and the science behind the potential mechanisms involved. To provide a basis for extending the understanding of magnetic freezing, this paper presents a critical review of the materials published in the literature up to now, including both patents and experimental results. After examining the information available, it was not possible to discern whether MFs have an appreciable effect on supercooling, freezing kinetics, ice crystals, quality, and/or viability of the frozen products. Experiments described in the literature frequently fail to identify and/or control all the factors that can play a role in magnetic freezing. Moreover, many of the comparisons between magnetic and conventional freezing are not correctly designed to draw valid conclusions, and wide ranges of MF intensities and frequencies are unexplored. Therefore, more rigorous experimentation and further evidence are needed to confirm or reject the efficacy of MFs in improving the quality of frozen products.

 

http://onlinelibrary...4337.12202/full

Edited by Antonio2014, 30 April 2016 - 10:57 AM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

" ... it was not possible to discern whether MFs have an appreciable effect on supercooling, freezing kinetics, ice crystals, quality, and/or viability of the frozen products. ... Therefore, more rigorous experimentation and further evidence are needed to confirm or reject the efficacy of MFs in improving the quality of frozen products."

 

In brief, they say, that at now (April - May 2016), the question remains open.

[YOLF]

Well, perhaps we're missing something... and I don't have the vocabulary in "wave resonances" to properly describe this, so bear with me... But everything absorbs some amount of RF/MF when it's applied and may modify the wave, so the characteristics of the wave would change . It could be that they are delivering a wave with some specific assumptions of how it will be affected by elements that are common in foods and potentially humans.

 

Now as to the size of the largest fruit they've tested, a mango was it? So if the human to be preserved was "standing" up straight and the MF was applied along the front and back as cryoprotectant was being circulated, then we've got a great technology.

 

So the question remains, can we use this thing to preserve humans? How exactly does it effect ice? Is 23andme using it to store our DNA samples? Why is cryonics so underfunded that we aren't trying to figure this out? Why aren't animal tests being done? Why is the progress so torturously slow? 

[Simi]

Stumbled onto this thread.. from the vastiness of the web.

 

The basis for CAS is mechanically strengthening cellular walls through vibration (..and not simply cell walls, but molecular and atomic bonds).  I believe in this case it's a matter of switching the field on and off exceedingly rapidly (..though it could be more sophisticated by switching polarity rapidly - but unlikely given it's use).

 

The CAS system probably isn't anywhere strong enough (with generating vibration) to survive through to the glass transition region (for water within the cell's of an adult human) - where liquid becomes solid. It's only at the glass range (and lower in temperature) where biological activity is slowed so much that time effects are extremely low.  (..and biological activity is said to cease at absolute 0.)

 

Instead the CAS system is reaping the benefits of supercooling liquids and tissue - which can be undone with physical jarring (starting nucleation) as seen in the water bottle video.

 

In fact, my guess is that the oscillating magnetic field generated by CAS is relatively small/weak, and they rely on another physical process to avoid nucleation: very high speed freezing. Basically a combination of effects to get a pretty good result.  If you look in their literature, it's by no means perfect - there is cell damage, it's just no where near the kind of damage a blast freezer alone generates, or worse - a slow temperature drop from a traditional freezer.

 

Another method to increase cell wall strength is pressure (..but I kind of think that would be a bad idea - particularly in the context of uniformity in such a complex structure as a human). It also happens to be counterproductive to freezing (where lower pressure nearing 0 helps things freeze at a much higher temperature).  

 

 

-BTW, I think this is an eminently plausible means of getting to the glass transition range for all tissues and liquids.  The "scale" however would have to be something quite different than a CAS freezer, and might resemble something more similar to an MRI machine (..and probably a lot stronger field still - with perhaps a range of field variation to encompass the different structures within the human body).

 

Basically get "buzzed" and then flash frozen to the point where you are totally solid.. like maybe nitrogen in a liquid state. (-320F to -346F.) 

 

 

Edited by Simi, 04 January 2017 - 08:40 AM.

[YOLF]

I think it was either Greg Fahy or Brian Wowk who made them, but there are molecules that will theoretically stop ice crystal formation at temps like that. I don't remember their names though. Perhaps their would be synergy?

 

Really wish I knew the physics here.

[Simi]

The big problems with cryprotectants are:

 

1. Will get they get everywhere the need to be? - which in a system that isn't really designed for that specific task is unlikely (..think bone marrow in particular)

 

2. Will they destroy vital areas doing so at the concentration required to do its job?

 

With #1 you can "sort" of get around this by taking multiple tissue samples before turning the tissue to glass, and like the CAS system: you don't need perfect results, just enough so that tissue can be regenerated upon revival.  Still, to the best of my knowledge: no one in the cryopreservation industry does this - at least not with specimens that aren't also bathed in cryoprotectants (again, likely negating the value of the specimen for regeneration).  Still, improvements in cyroprotectants might well be achievable for this purpose, or again - it might not be necessary with a modestly improved version of something like CAS.

 

#2 however remains a real problem, and specifically damaging brain tissue with those connections that make us unique (..which is not necessarily memory, but is likely a physical construct - that unique base synaptic network that is you that developed when you were in the womb). 

 

Of course with the cryprotectant and the brain - both are problems. Nature generally uses pure glucose (though often with another grouping of compounds), but for the most part (beyond very simple life forms) - nature doesn't confront a situation that has freezing to that physical point of a glass structure for the entire organism. (..supercooling and even physical freezing aren't the same.)

Edited by Simi, 06 January 2017 - 04:38 AM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Tardigrades can be placed directly in liquid nitrogen without any cryoprotection, and they revive after thawing. So nature should support it.

[Simi]

Which is the very simple life form I alluded to.  (..but getting equal results from simple to complex is well, complex or is very likely to be complex.)

 

 

 

-I should also point out that their biggest advantage (ironically) is probably their small size - smaller usually equals stronger in the context of our discussion.

Edited by Simi, 07 January 2017 - 12:23 AM.