lsparrish comments on A proposal for a cryogenic grave for cryonics - Less Wrong

17 [deleted] 06 July 2010 07:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (137)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lsparrish 08 July 2010 06:57:59PM 1 point [-]

With only a few dozen patients, I don't think you will see appreciable economies of scale. The whole idea seems to me reliant on at least a few thousand patients becoming available within a short period of time (or prepaying).

Comment deleted 08 July 2010 07:26:05PM [-]
Comment author: lsparrish 10 July 2010 02:46:32PM 1 point [-]

At r=2.9 meters, the size is about in the 10,000 neuro patient range. (V~=102m^3, patients per cubic meter is about 125). You might only fill it part way though if you are aiming for maximum duration, as the less cryogen is displaced the longer the system stays cold. Even so, this could probably hold every cryonicist currently in existence.

Comment deleted 11 July 2010 01:45:50PM [-]
Comment author: lsparrish 11 July 2010 02:12:30PM 1 point [-]

Still, filling it to 50% of its volume would only bring down refill time by 50%. And you only can fill to a certain percentage with patients as they are irregularly shaped. I suppose the real question is whether cost or hands-off reliability is the biggest concern.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 July 2010 03:02:40PM -1 points [-]

e.g. 10 per grave

Not graves!