X-Message-Number: 2013
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 13:56:57 CST
From: Brian Wowk <>
Subject: CRYONICS Room Access
What mental picture do you have of how cryonics patients and
service personnel enter a -130'C Cold Room? Perhaps a huge door on the
side of the room (with 1 meter thick foam insulation) swings open like a
bank vault, spewing ice fog everywhere, giving everyone outside the room
a chill while patients inside get a blast of warmth. Alternatively, our
cryosuited workers with patients on gurneys enter an airlock half as big
as the room itself. One inside the room, the workers will walk along
wasted space that could be used for patients were it not that workers
need a place to walk. Of course, if any workers (not even visible to
personnel outside) get into trouble they will have to frantically run
back to the airlock and fight their way through two doors on their way
out. This might even have to be done by one worker carrying the other
on his back!
What's wrong with this picture? It was the one I had for a long
time, and it was bothering me a lot. Romping around in a cryosuit inside
a sealed nitrogen-filled Cold Room is a lot like cave diving. If you
are suddenly unable to breath, there is no surface to swim to. Even
with state-of-the-art failsafe dual independent air supplies (which are
mandatory for cave diving) and a diving buddy, cave divers still die in
droves every year. In fact, in many respects cryosuit work is worse
than cave diving. Since the human urge to breathe is created by CO2
buildup, not oxygen deficiency, nitrogen asphyxiation (and associated
loss of consciousness) occurs without any warning. Finally, cave divers
don't have to worry about their cave being shut down by the government
after someone dies in it.
According to Hugh Hixon at Alcor, Keith Henson has proposed
entering a Cold Room from the *top* rather than the sides. This is an
eminently sensible idea, and it addresses a host of safety, logistics,
efficiency, and engineering concerns.
I propose building a 5m x 5m room (3m high) with a wide open
ceiling, and *no doors*. Put opposed angle iron beams (or inverted T
beams) across the top at 1 meter intervals to hold up 1 meter cubes of
Trymer foam insulation. (The walls and floor of the room are also
surrounded by 1 meter Trymer). You divide up your room into 25 cells
that are 1 meter square by 3 meters high, each of which could easily
hold two insulated patients (and plenty of ethyl chloride pouches).
Allocate four of five cells in the center to hold a 2000 liter LN2
reservoir (large hot water tank?) and you are left with 20 cells able to
hold 40 patients. Notice you do not need any walking space for men in
cryosuits!
To access a room cell you simply hoist up, and move aside, the 1
meter foam cube above it (weighing about 100 lbs). (You would probably
leave a 1 inch clearance between cubes, impairing room efficiency only
slightly. Wool or something could be packed in the gaps for added
insulation.) Patients could be raised or lowered into cells without any
need for cryosuit work. If our present system can work without men
swimming in LN2, this system can work without cryosuits.
Is there any need for cryosuits at all? Extraordinary
maintenance tasks might require cryosuit work. Cryosuits would be useful
for adjusting/fixing fans or troubleshooting resevoir problems. The
worker would be lowered in by hoist, and remain attached to the cable at
all times. Remotely monitor blood oxygen saturation with a pulse
oximeter, and at the first sign of any trouble you lift the worker out.
(By the way, Mike, do you own a pulse oximeter? Perhaps you should use
it as a safety device in your cryosuit experiments.)
Since patients will be packed so densely in this design, an
active air circulation system is almost certainly necessary. I
therefore withdraw my earlier disparagement of fans, and suggest we put
a few thousand dollars into several independent fans driven by cryogenic
rated electric motors. The extra LN2 boiloff will be worth it if we can
pack this many patients int.
Now the economics. The insulation for this room will cost
$35,000. If we allow $65,000 (a pessimistic guess) for other materials
and labor we will have a capital cost of $100,000 for a 40 patient
storage system. Amortizing at 20% (because Alcor outgrows new buildings
quickly) we will still have an annual operating cost of only $1000 per
patient. (This assumes LN2 use of 200 liters per day, 30% beyond the
theoretical 150 liters per day.) The only catch to all this is that for
the first few years we will be paying for patients not yet filling the
room.
Any thoughts out there? Should we do this? I think we should,
even if we offer it as an option with higher minimums. -130'C is
clearly the future of cryonics. Even CI is looking at it, and may
implement it in some form in their new building. If we don't commit
floor space in our anticipated new building for it, when will we ever do
it?
Alcor has a choice between taking initiative and continuing to
be at the forefront of cryonics, or arguing why nanotechnology can fix
cracking while other organizations offer crack-free storage. I do not
believe the latter is Alcor's style, at least not the Alcor I joined.
If I wanted cryonics service based on what I thought nanotechnology
could *ultimately* fix, I would have joined CI not Alcor. Now,
paradoxically, it may soon be CI who offers better storage! Let's get
with it!
--- Brian Wowk
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2013