X-Message-Number: 2109
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 01:28:43 CDT
From: Brian Wowk <>
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Mike Darwin

        Thanks to Mike Darwin for taking the time to add thoughtful 
commentary to the Cold Room discussion.  Because Mike is busy (and Lord 
knows I'm falling behind too) I should delay this reply.  However I will 
not be able to sleep tonight unless I reply!
 
Mike Darwin:
 
>      1) Water is a real problem for underground and above ground 
> structures.
 
        Your comments are well taken.  This may have to be examined more 
closely.  Perhaps an above-ground concrete enclosure with access from 
the second-floor level is more appropriate.  This might actually be 
cheaper to build since minimal or no excavation would be required.
 
 
>     3)  Ethyl alcohol is probably not acceptable for several reasons: 
> A) It is a fire hazard which will send the fire department into orbit.  
 
        Well, ethyl chloride/bromide are *worse* fire hazards and have 
toxic combustion products to boot.  (The flash point (minimum 
temperature at which vapor pressure is high enough to ignite) for ethyl 
chloride is -50'C versus +12'C for ethanol.)  I will scan the CRC 
further when I have time, but so far all the liquids I have seen that 
freeze in the -130'C to -110'C temperature range have this problem.  The 
only exceptions are CFCs that are prohibitively expensive and 
enviromentally hostile.
 
> It will be used against you by the competition because it is
> a fire hazard.
 
        This assumes that the competition has something better, which 
they won't.
 
        I have heard amazing things said about Alcor over the years by 
the competetion, including (but not limited to) that we are Nazi's and 
that our cryoprotective perfusate is "toxic."  None of these cheap shots 
have suppressed the growth of Alcor.  I think the same will be true of 
other criticisms in the future that lack objective merit.
 
 
>  B) No, warming up even a little (more 
> than a few degrees) is NOT acceptable if you have vitrified rather 
> than frozen patients.
 
        To avoid devitrification we have to make sure we stay safely 
below TG at all times.  If the -115'C melting temp of ethanol is too 
high, we may have to choose some other (probably more flammable, and 
more expensive) liquid.
 
 
>     4)  Brian is dead wrong if he thinks that patients stored in LN2 
> will be removed to -135*C storage.
 
        Agreed.  I've taken my lumps for this, and will not suggest it 
again.
 
 
>     5)  I think others have commented on this but I wish to put my 
> two cents worth in.  Thermal stratification is nontrivial.
 
        Agreed.  In fact I acknowledged the necessity of fan air 
circulation a month ago, and have not suggested any convection-driven 
schemes since them.
 
 
>     3) Bob Ettinger is absolutely right about using thick blocks of 
> insulation.  Again, from practical experience I can tell you that 
> once you get out beyond a foot you don't seem to get much for your 
> (foam) money.  Certainly by two feet you are almost certainly wasting 
> your time.  I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so.
 
        NO way.  I have researched this problem to death.  The simple 
fact is that the insulating power of foam rises in direct proportion to 
its thickness *provided that the thickness is much smaller than the room 
size*.  If Robert Ettinger is reading this, I'm sure he will back me up, 
as will Steve Harris, or any cryogenic engineer for that matter.
 
        The tricky part is when the insulation thickness becomes 
comparable to the room size (1m foam vs 5m room size in our case).  In 
these cases there is indeed a case of diminishing returns with 
increasing foam thickness because the geometry creates a non-uniform 
thermal gradient.  However I have analyzed this issue using a studious 
and conservative methodology and still conclude you cut your heat flows 
nearly in half going from 1.5 feet to 3 feet thickness.
 
        Perhaps, Mike, your personal experience has been confined to 
applications where the space to be insulated was only a few feet wide.  
In cases like that there really would be no value in going beyond 1 foot 
insulation.  However that is not the case now being considered.
 
        Finally I would just like to point out that if 1 foot of foam 
insulation is the best we can do, we might as well go home and forget 
about ever getting out of dewars.  We would never be able to afford it.
 
 
>     4)  This point is my most important:  Any attempt to engineer 
> large scale systems to store frozen patients is PREMATURE in the 
> extreme.
 
        Even if a Cold Room does not prevent frozen (as opposed to 
vitrified) patients from cracking, there is still the cost issue.  I 
believe I am making a darn good case that patients can be stored more 
securely *and* more cheaply in a Cold Room than dewars.  This case will 
become stronger as the design becomes more detailed and more costs are 
pinned down exactly.  (I am currently collecting quotations from 
cryogenic foam suppliers).
 
 
>    5)  Peltier effect?  Gentlemen, I doubt it.
 
        So do I.  (See Thermoelectric Blues posting from last week.)
 
>     6) Brian has once or twice asserted that Queue manufactures a 
> body-sized -135*C freezer.  Not to my knowledge!
 
        This was second-hand information.  I shall in future refrain 
from making claims that I do not research myself.
 
 
>     Mechanical systems stink.  I hate them.  They are nothing but 
> trouble.  They are not as reliable as your household refrigerator.  I 
> don't known anything about the company Brian talks about except that 
> what he was told makes my skin crawl.  No known failure mode, should 
> run decades....
 
        Mike, perhaps you should change your perspective.  I have 
repeatedly stated that a mechanically refrigerated room would have a 
simple LN2 backup capability.  Instead of thinking of LN2 as backup, 
think of it as the primary cooling mode.  You run your refrigerators to 
save LN2 whenever you can.  Even if your refrigerators work only *half 
the time* (50% down time-- quite unrealistic) they will still quickly 
pay for themselves in LN2 savings.
 
        Not to malign the manufactures, they just told me the system was 
"like a household refrigerator."  The "mean-time-before-failure measured 
in decades" line was mine not theirs.  The literature I received in the 
mail today from Polycold actually gives a 50,000 hour (6 year) MTBF, 
which appears to be consistent with Greg Fahy's Queue freezer 
experience.  Finally, I'll point out that Polycold has hundreds of units 
out in the field in critical commercial applications.  They would not be 
able to keep selling these things unless they had reasonable up-time, 
and I'm sure we could verify this by talking to a few customers.
 
 
> When you put a refrigeration set up in place in the field you 
> have nothing but quality control problems every step of the way.
 
        A Polycold cryocooler ships finished and sealed.  You just plug 
it in, pipe it water for cooling and you're all set.  The cold heat 
exchange coil (if you use theirs) is at the end of an insulated, 
flexible 8' hose that you stick wherever you want. 
 
 
>     In a recent posting Brian Wowk states that there is a $7000 
> charge at Alcor for use of a cooldown dewar.  Since I do not have a 
> CRFT in front of me I am unable to cite chapter and verse, but I 
> believe that Brian is mistaking the dewar space charge for the 
> cooldown charge.  In other words, the 7K is the fraction of the 
> bigfoot dewar which the patient "buys" when s/he is placed into 
> suspension: sort of like a condominium charge.  This cost is then 
> replaced out of interest on principal over (I think) a 10 or 15 year 
> period to allow for "sinking fund" replacement of the equipment at the 
> end of its most conservatively estimated working life.
 
        This would make sense, but then why is this "Dewar Slot" charge 
listed in the Suspension Charges section separate from the Long Term 
Storage Costs which lists yet another "Dewar Amortization" charge?  
These are both big charges (the Dewar Amortization charge equals LN2 
expense) and can't both be for storage.  If they are, then they should 
at least be listed together with an explanation for the double charge.  
I look foward to clarification in the new cost estimates now being 
prepared at Alcor.
 
        In any case, my point was that it's easier to slowly cool below 
-79'C in a Cold Room than in a dewar.  I think it's still a valid point.
 
                                                --- Brian Wowk 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2109