You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

qsz comments on Even better cryonics – because who needs nanites anyway? - Less Wrong Discussion

49 Post author: maxikov 07 April 2015 08:10PM

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

Comments (41)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 April 2015 09:21:13AM 2 points [-]

Very neat idea, but what kind of energy demands would be required to maintain that level of pressure over the long term? I also think the structural demands of maintaining pressure would be substantial.

Comment author: passive_fist 09 April 2015 01:25:48AM 1 point [-]

Theoretically, zero. However you're right that the structural demands of maintaining pressure over long term (and, especially, maintaining cryogenic temperatures and high pressures at the same time) are high and there is a large risk of unintended pressure release.

Comment author: TrE 09 April 2015 04:50:00AM 1 point [-]

There's also leakage by diffusion of gasses, which might be non-negligible due to the high pressure gradient, although the diffusion coefficient e.g. of water through steel should be low. Not sure how that works out.