X-Message-Number: 30933 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: Cooling with electrical energy? Resources and death cert... Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:29:18 +0100 Freezing technology Liquid nitrogen is a waste product in the preparation of liquid oxygen. A dewar filled with it needs topping up once a fortnight or thereabouts, and failure is gradual. A mechanical or electrical (peltier) freezer can go wrong at any time, and natural energy systems require maintenance. In theory a solar array feeding a peltier cooler is a possible solution, but it is very expensive and failure would be sudden. The output from any solar array is zero at night time. The output from a 2kW peak array isn't zero when it is cloudy, but can be as little as only 400 watts. Therefore the array would have to be substantially oversized to allow for this. The peltier freezer would have to be insulated so as to remain below the desired temperature during the night. Electric batteries are not an overnight solution, as they need replacing every so often and they and their charger and inverter would present yet another opportunity for failure. In fact, if it is possible to get liquid nitrogen temperatures by the peltier effect, then the peltier freezer would best be filled with that liquid. Which is more or less where we started. Compare how much money needs investing so that the income pays for the liquid nitrogen top up and dewar maintenance, to the amount of money all the solar and peltier equipment would cost, plus however much needs investing to pay for maintenance charges. Lawyers and death certificates Because cryopreserving a person relies on future technology to reanimate him, he cannot be reanimated at present. Lawyers would be successful in arguing that as someone frozen alive cannot be reanimated right now, he is dead, and therefore freezing him is murder. They would then order him to be melted and cut into pieces to determine what killed him. Attempts were made in an American court of law to argue this out, but the lawyers realised that they would still get their fees is they said "no" and this would be much safer. If they had said "yes" there would have been more to be earned from appeals, but the plaintiff would run out of money before the authorities, and fees could be left unpaid. Use of resources The comment about use of resources is not a fair comparison. The choice isn't between someone cryopreserved and a live person, but between someone buried or cremated and a cryopreserved person. Clearly the cryopreserved person uses more. However he has paid for them in the cryopreservation fee. Irrationally, naysayers are quite happy for him to spend similar value in, for example, a holiday whilst alive, but seek to deny the choice to spend it on cryopreservation. Indeed there are those who see dying people as a resource to be harvested -- organs that would still work if transplanted to another body are a valuable commodity. Therefore in denying the health economy this resource, the cryopreserved person is "consuming" this resource also. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and more Content-Type: text/html; [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30933