X-Message-Number: 18562 From: "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <> Subject: Nitrogen "boiloff" vs "costs"; RE: CryoNet #18559 & #18535 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 06:39:55 -0500 > Message #18559 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:14:46 -0500 (EST) > From: Charles Platt <> > Subject: boiloff > > So, what IS the boiloff rate of CI cryostats? Apparently it is half of > what it used to be, but this of course is a PR statement that does not > provide meaningful data. > > If the boiloff rate is private information, then please let us know, so > we can eliminate the topic. If the boiloff rate is public information, > then why not say what it is, so we can make some meaningful comparisons? > > I remain mystified about the willingness of most people on Cryonet to > discuss, in effect, vaporware (pun intended), while showing little > interest in specifics. -------------------------------- > Message #18535 > From: > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:34:59 EST > Subject: nitrogen > > The new liquid nitrogen system installed at the Cryonics Institute has now > been operating long enough to confirm the specifications, and I'm glad to say > it checks out. Our nitrogen costs are now reduced by about half, and we also > save some labor. > > As previously mentioned, we installed a 3,000 gallon tank, plus vacuum > insulated lines directly to each individual cryostat..... In reference to the above messages regarding Nitrogen "boiloff" vs "costs", there is a *definite* difference between the two. I learned, more than 2 years ago while spending time trying to relocate CryoSpan with the assistance of Paul Wakfer and even more so from him since then, that the largest savings in liquid nitrogen costs in cryonics storage is to be found in purchasing it in bulk, delivered from a tanker truck rather than in portable tanks (ie LS160, LS220, etc.). Paul used CryoSpan's 2nd dewar (~1800 gal, containing only a few preserved specimens on the bottom) as the reservoir, filling the primary dewar from it as needed. Both dewars were below ground and excellently insulated to minimize boiloff. (Had CryoSpan grown as originally predicted based on CryoCare's original plans, an insulated automatic transfer system would have been built - it was already fully planned and part of the equipment purchased - with the standby dewar always used as a reservoir. CryoSpan, unfortunately, could not remain viable under the conditions present when Paul terminated his ownership. It was planned that such a bulk storage and transfer system would be instituted as part of CryoSpan's move, if a suitable location could be made; no financially feasible location was found.) Paul has told me that he tried to convince Alcor many years ago that they should replace their usage of portable LN2 tanks with a reservoir suitable for bulk delivery. Neither he nor I are aware of whether they have ever done so. CI has made an excellent move by obtaining a large reservoir. Boiloff rates of CI's cryostats are probably just as they have always been - somewhat poorer than a dewar of similar size. But with bulk LN2 delivery, the total LN2 cost for CI will have dropped dramatically. **Kitty Antonik Wakfer MoreLife for us all - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18562