Cryonics : A Reality Check

[Rick]

Study of Cryonics is not only desirable but is also possible or so the scientists are saying currently.Take a look at these site :

• Cryonics FAQs,Basics
• Huge FAQ of Cryonics

I was wondering about the possibilities of this field,branch and what is the ground reality of such Institutions such as CRYONICS.ORG? Are they for real? i mean,have they tested this technology on Humans?...

bye!

 

[phlogistician]

Study of Cryonics ... Are they for real? i mean,have they tested this technology on Humans?...

Humans? No. frogs, fish, and a dog, yes. Certain frogs and fish can survive freezing anyway, because they have glycerine(?) in their blood which prevents ice crystals from forming and causing cell damage.

NASA managed to significantly reduce the body temperature of a dog and revive it, although it was nowhere near temperatures needed for cryonics.

Basically, cryonics is a crock of shit. If you freeze the human brain, ice crystals form, which causes cell damage, and therefore brain damage, so even if they could heal what killed you after you thawed out, you'd be a moron. Some may argue only morons pay for the service of being frozen anyway so what's the difference.

 

[-iLluSiON-]

Arthur C. Clarke is a moron?

 

[Stryder]

The theory for dealing with the ice crystalisation was down to "speed", the faster something freezes the less crystalisation occurs. In regards to "Frogs" and "Fish", it's not so much chemicals that lower the crystalisation in their system but more likely to be the chemicals increase the speed at which they freeze. (Their chemistry has a "higher" freezing point in Kelvin than the makeup of our own bodies)

The more complex the molecular structure and the more numbers of elements, the more problems you are likely to run into because each of those elements is going to have a different freezing point, which is where the real damage takes place.

Perhaps there would be a way of using something similar to radiology treatment to generate a harmonic oscillation of molecules that could then be frozen in time with one another.

 

[phlogistician]

Stryder man, you embarrass yourself on this forum sometimes. Go read some stuff about cryonics, what you've posted is complete and utter arse.

Crystals forming and the damage caused is not dependant on the speed of which water freezes at all, but the actual properties of water. To prevent damage, tissue must 'vitrify', ie have some way of cooling without ice crystals being formed. Frogs can do this naturally, for humans, it means a complete blood transfusion post mortem. Unfortunately, the chemicals used have a detrimental effect on brain tissue, so vitrification still isn't much use for humans.

As for;

"The more complex the molecular structure and the more numbers of elements, the more problems you are likely to run into because each of those elements is going to have a different freezing point"

Just where did you study chemistry? When any molecule freezes, it freezes as a whole! Look at the thermodynamic triple points of hydrogen, oxygen, and then them combined as water;

Triple point of hydrogen: 13.8033K
Triple point of oxygen: 54.3584K
Triple point of water: 273.16 K

If molecules froze element by element, water would have it's triple point far, far lower!

The damage occurring during cryonics is at the cellular level, not the molecular level Stryder, get a grip!

 

[Stryder]

I admit my explaination was crap, I didn't explain about vectors or the similarities of how floating point operands work with elemental mechanics inside molecular states.

General a molecular structure does freeze at an arrived equillibrium vector of temperatures, a mean value. However this doesn't imply that it doesn't cause damage at a molecular level, since small alterations in molecular structures are what cause degredation in cellular states.

also note that general retorts that attempt to unbalance ettiquette do not necessarily cast favour on your post but actually undermine you as a individual that could instead be more willing to assist with error controls, than blurting obscenities.

 

[phlogistician]

I admit my explaination was crap, I didn't explain about vectors or the similarities of how floating point operands work with elemental mechanics inside molecular states.

Floating point operands? Stryder, that's a term from computing, not chemistry, stop trying to use irrelevant impressive words to dig yourself out of a hole.

General a molecular structure does freeze at an arrived equillibrium vector of temperatures, a mean value.

NO IT DOESN'T! Did you not understand the figures I posted about the triple points of oxygen, hydrogen and water?

However this doesn't imply that it doesn't cause damage at a molecular level, since small alterations in molecular structures are what cause degredation in cellular states.

NO IT IS NOT! Cellular damage from freezing is on the physical scale, not molecular. Cells rupture because ice takes up a larger volume than the water that made it. Cells split, they don't undergo a chmical reaction! Look at it logically, you remove energy from a system, and this somehow causes a chemical reaction? Chemical reactions usually require activation energy, but you are statinig quite the opposite? I ask again, where did you learn chemistry?

also note that general retorts that attempt to unbalance ettiquette do not necessarily cast favour on your post but actually undermine you as a individual that could instead be more willing to assist with error controls, than blurting obscenities.

If I am terse, it is with good reason, that you are talking complete rubbish and won't admit it.

 

[invert_nexus]

Speaking of freezing and speed at which something freezes. (probably not the right place for it; but, blah, I don't think it's interesting enough for a thread of it's own.) I've noticed sometimes with the ice trays in the freezer that the ice cube will have a spike sticking out the top of it. Like at the moment of freezing it was agitated somehow. I think the freezer in which this happened was extremely cold (colder than average anyway). The only thing I could think of was some type of boiling occuring at the freezing point. I don't recall if there were a lot of air bubbles trapped in the ice. This was a few freezers ago.

Seen this before? Any explanations?

 

[phlogistician]

Simple, water expands as it turns to ice, and the surface of the cube loses heat first, and forms a crust, harder at the corners. As the rest if the ice cube freezes, the volume increases, and pushes against the surfaces. All but one (the top crust) are held in place by the walls of the ice tray, so that's where the pressure must be relieved. The thinner crust gets pushed up causing the lump or spike you see.

I guess speed here is crucial, the water must spend a fair amount of time around freezing for the crust to form, but so the cube doesn't freeze over uniformly. I guess it it froze really slowly, the expantion would be uniform, if it was fast, there would be no time for the upthrust, so I guess it happens at some midpoint.

 

[Stryder]

Phlogistician,

My reason for mentioning floating point was purely because of the mathematical implications which you obviously didn't see. Chemistry still involves the use of mathematics if I'm not mistake, does it not?

In fact refering to Triple point itself is a mathematical vector through Thermal Dynamics equations which isn't necessarily constant.

You should also take into consideration that the Triple Point wasn't placed into circulation as an international scale until the 1990's for use with the caliberation of thermometers. (source: http://www.its-90.com/)

So I might not have considered this as a wide spread scale of measurement that you might have because of my backgrounding. (Which is more to do with thermocouples)

As for Cellular damage, aren't cells made from molecules?, are the not bonded molecularly? I believe they are, So doesn't that mean that it's molecular damage.

 

[Facial]

If you freeze the human brain, ice crystals form, which causes cell damage.

I think that's the main problem with cryonic preservation. But what if people could induce the formation of amorphous ice that won't harm cell membranes?

 

[Facial]

I have another question: if you put a small bit of water, say 1 cc, inside a steel container 3 inches thick, would the steel stretch when the water freezes at supercold temps?

 

[kmguru]

Zion

Until we find a chemical that binds to water and changes the freezing properties such that the molecules do not expand thereby damaging the cells, we are stuck. Another way is to replace the water with some other transport chemical that has better freezing properties (where the volume does not grow). Another way is same as first that is surround the water molecule (mixes well)with a chemical that shrinks in volume when cold. That way, the water molecules when expands may not damage the cells - but that may be risky....

 

[Rick]

Check this link out :
Amorphous Ice
So amorphous ice formation is possible,does that mean this is a possibility?...

bye!

 

[phlogistician]

Phlogistician,

My reason for mentioning floating point was purely because of the mathematical implications which you obviously didn't see.

Go on then, tell me what the relevance was! How can a COMPUTING term for handling floating point numbers be relevant to the chemistry of freezing?

Chemistry still involves the use of mathematics if I'm not mistake, does it not?

At which level? Mostly, chemistry is remembering a lot of facts, and using a data book to see if reactions are feasible. I have a copy of the Chemist's Data Book on my shelf next to my desk. Do you?

In fact refering to Triple point itself is a mathematical vector through Thermal Dynamics equations which isn't necessarily constant.

The whole point is that the Triple Point _IS_ a constant at standard pressure!

You should also take into consideration that the Triple Point wasn't placed into circulation as an international scale until the 1990's for use with the caliberation of thermometers. (source: http://www.its-90.com/)

1990! It was a term widely used in my physics and chemistry lectures in the 80's! The term dates back much further, it's just that definitions get revised periodically. There was a standard published in 1968, revised in 1990. A quick google won't dig you out of the hole you've dug yourself, and you are showing your complete lack of understanding here.

ght not have considered this as a wide spread scale of measurement that you might have because of my backgrounding.

It's not the scale used that it's important, it wouldn't matter if we measured freezing point in K, C, or F. It's the relative freezing points of oxygen, hydrogen and water that was the issue, and you comletely failed to grasp that molecules comprising of elements do NOT have freezing points which are medians of their constituents.

As for Cellular damage, aren't cells made from molecules?, are the not bonded molecularly? I believe they are, So doesn't that mean that it's molecular damage.

NO! Look, a perfect diamond would be single molecule of carbon, as each layer is bonded to the next, so when diamonds are cleaved, physical separation also means the breaking of chemical bonds, so in this ONE case physical dmage also means molecular disruption.

BUT, take graphite, carbon again, but arranged in a different way. The layers do not have chemical bonds, so a lump of graphite is not a single molecule, so when it is snapped, chemical bonds are not broken, therefore there is physical, but not molecular damage.

Cells and othr substances are held together by _intra_ molecular attraction, often hydrogen bonds in organic molecules (or Van der Waals forces). This is an attraction between ions which are bound togther in separate molecules. This is why water clumps together and has the properties it does, btw. When hydrogen bonds are broken, no molecule is broken, merely separate molecules are moved further apart.

Stryder, no offense, but I know your grasp of science is weak at best, your diagrams illustrating your idea to make water flow uphill uing a few hoses demonstrates that. So perhaps you want to check things out before you post in future? And when you are corrected, don't get on your high horse and try and defend what you've said, just accept you were wrong.

 

[Stryder]

phlogistician,

If you want to make things apparent then you don't need to go on an offense, such methods are what lower the way these forums are comprised.

Your personal opinions about how I grasp science are just that, "your own". I might not present it the same as your textbook analogy, but how many textbooks have you known of that end up having to be "revised" to deal with information that wasn't previously presented to them before.

I'll say this, I've revised your input, I accept your commentary and pointers, however you don't have to act a preverbial asse to assert your reasoning.
I state that I don't deal with cryogenic's, as I mentioned areas I have cross have been to deal with temperature controls through thermocouple inputs for the combustion of gases to be maintained at a constant temperature to lower hazardous/greenhouse emissions, if I was a Cryogenic Technician then I wouldn't be sitting at a computer typing about such things because I would be too busy doing research, I also state that I can be wrong and I do not deny that, however I also state that I don't like people trying to get a rise out of me for their own personal gratification.

I know you have a bit of a vendetta on the go and feel upset that Skinwalker didn't get moderator status, that doesn't mean however that Skinwalker doesn't help in the backgrounds.

So consider our discussion complete, Bask in the knowledge that you won a debate if you so choose but do me a favour and in the future take a different approach of conversating rather than argueing.

 

[blackholesun]

All he is asking you to do is explain yourself; something most folks in this part of the forums seem not to do a lot of. I know its called pseudoscience, but if its THAT easy to trick people into believing responses with a paragraph of unrelated technobabble then we have a right to shoot back with the facts...something I and phlogistician feel is necessary. If we seem a bit perturbed sometimes we have a good reason.

 

[Stryder]

Well I have noticed that you have attempted to change your attitude Blackholesun, and with that you've earnt my respect. I mearly ask others to do the same, I know how you guys (and girls?) get all firedup and combative, but sometimes theres little need for it, if anything it just adds to how the people you respond to interact (Being the way that winds you up in the first place)

To cover my standpoint in full so you all know where I'm coming from in the future, I do speculate a heck of a lot, I tend to use Meta physics to fill in for real physics until real physics is addressed. So my explainations are from meta physically undressing reality to how I envision it works and then attempting to apply my theorised derivative to what is the consensus in reality. If I'm wrong in an area then I ask for people to tell me where I'm wrong, but you don't need to address me with attitude otherwise you are just attempting to self perpetuate coninued rudeness which isn't necessary.

I suppose at heart you could say that I would like to see the world move towards a more technocratic and self co-operative system, where peer review doesn't appear as a harsh bitter back bite but more of shared goal intension.

But thats enough of my personal status, back to Cryogenics.

If Cryogenics was to work, it's uses currently are for placing people on hold while cures are found however there is also the use of long voyages in space, however even in that scenario there would still be need for people to be out of cryostasis to make sure that all systems were operational. (many a movie has covered this Buddy system)

Then there is potentially the rich and famous that might want to be frozen to see the future, or get dubbed as "Living for ever" (Kind of an Elvis stereotype)

But no matter how my and Phlogger fought, the fact is still the same current technology induces physical damage that biologicals can't necessary survive from. There are only a few given types of biologicals that have but to what extents the damage is still under scrutiny. (For instance worms have been brought back to, this is not due to the chemicals I think from what I heard it was down to the number of genes that exist within a worm that are redundant. Basically a worm being at the bottom of the food chain and also the top [since they tend to eat through anything thats buried etc] has the largest number of gene's in it's DNA code for that reason)

 

[kmguru]

So amorphous ice formation is possible,does that mean this is a possibility?...

That is very interesting. You can experiment with sugar solutions. If you cool the concentrated hot sugar solution slowly, it would form large sugar crystals, but if you cool rapidly, you would have small crystals...

The catch with ice could be the temperature and pressue gradient used to form the amorphous ice and if the body can survive.

Some years ago, I worked on a diamond making machine which used high pressure and temperature to form diamond from pure carbon black. The key was the temp-press cycle up and down to produce large diamond crystals.

 

[Persol]

I may be wrong here, but wouldn't even small crystals cause a problem? Wouldn't they still cause expansion?

I ask because people have tried to 'flash-freeze' mammals before, and the crystal are smaller, but still kill any hopes of resurection.