X-Message-Number: 17759 From: Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 04:20:41 EDT Subject: Size Matters William Gale: You identified the other significant visual difference between the species of lichen that I found and used and the photograph of the lichen specimen on the web site. There is not the obvious hollowed out area/structure on the species I used, otherwise it appears to be a pretty good match--and certainly the best match of any of the photos I could find there, by far. Yes, you are about right on your estimation of the thickness of the stalk. Actually the tallest of the stalks do extend to almost a centimeter, whereby the thickness of those stalks may be on the order of one and one-half millimeters. You say: "I believe the maximum thickness of a whole plant or animal frozen to LN2 temperature would be an interesting number to watch for progress." I agree completely. My guess is that the *mass* of the specimen will be key to reanimation in the type of experiments that I am currently doing; and is probably more important than the complexity of the specimens' neural system/"brain" in the case of animals (e.g., insects & small aquatic creatures, etc.) William, you are likely versed on all the following, but for neophytes to cryonics and/or "bio-cryogenics," )as is a more appropriate "word" in this case,) I will elaborate: *Thawing dynamics* appears to be the major issue here, where rates change exponentially with the size of the specimen due to inherent and significant differences in surface to volume ratios. Increases in surface area are mathematically squared where increases in volume are cubed. Both cooling and warming rates of a body/mass are a direct function of this ratio. "System heat dissipation" is an entire sub-branch of science and technology (very much so including microtech and nanotech.) Of course, thawing dynamics are related (to dissipation) but are actually an entirely different concern, and schemes for manipulation are distinct. Unfortunately, the best I can tell, we are on our own here. Right now thawing dynamics are probably not very relevant to anything other than the final stage of cryogenic organ preservation (and later on, perhaps cryonics). "Uneven or delayed thawing" from the periphery to the innermost parts of a specimen is the case but does not adequately define the concern. It is the *slow thawing* (of any vital section of the specimen) that is killer. Slow thawing means deleterious ice formation/growth as the inner sections rewarm (more slowly). It is more a gradient temperature change over time rather than the more instant change for outerlying cells/tissues. This problem is obviously exacerbated as the mass of the specimen increases; and even if the specimen is small enough to nearly completely vitrify on "freezing" (again due to the favorable surface to volume ratio of a smaller specimen), heat always exits faster when dunked in LN2 than it reenters after being removed from LN2. Of course, removing it and immediately redunking in a stream of warm water, rather than room temperature air, would almost certainly help so long as you did not drown the subject (which is a very real concern even for insects). Hot water would be even better, but we do not want to cook the subjects! I look forward later on to attempting to encourage marginal specimen-types to reanimate where they otherwise would not by attempting to unify, but more importantly, quicken, interior rewarming (e.g., instant pressure release, microwave and ultrasound techniques, etc.). You write: "Does anyone have references to the freezing of whole insects or vinegar eels?" I do not but would like to have them. I know that nematodes have been successfully reanimated from LN2 (see last issue of "The Immortalist.") They are about the size of mosquito larvae. By the way, mosquito larvae are top on my hit list. Count on a report from me next mosquito season (tadpoles would be well advised to make themselves scarce the following year.) Now it's time to see if I can figure out how to download and listen to the interview of Robert and James by Dr. J. D.C. Johnson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17759