More on CAS

More on CAS

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

September 15th, 2009, 2:21 pm #1

I've been following the Cells Alive System topic with great interest. On the one hand I don't want to get my hopes up too high, on the other hand I would like to see it investigated thoroughly.

What appears to be the case is that CAS doesn't vitrify so much as produce ice with smaller and less damaging crystals. For ice to remain vitreous (amorphous) at above -130C would be physically impossible at normal pressures. Here is a post by Dr. Brian Wowk that talks about it.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31970

For those not subscribed to cryonet, here is a link to the archives where the latest discussion on it is rather interesting.

http://www.cryonet.org/0001319.html

My thought is that 1) less damaging freezing is good, certainly better (more nano-repairable) than a straight-freeze by conventional means, and 2) combined with cryoprotectants this could be even less damaging still. Even a relatively good vitrification today has some ice crystal formation due to inadequate diffusion of cryoprotectant.

Jeff Davis has written to the company and got a reply containing some information about the use of this technique for cryopreservation. It appears promising.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31973
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 8th, 2009, 3:02 am

September 15th, 2009, 2:56 pm #2

Luke, thanks for the links and thoughts. All quite interesting, but many questions remain, of ourse.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

September 21st, 2009, 3:18 pm #3

I've been following the Cells Alive System topic with great interest. On the one hand I don't want to get my hopes up too high, on the other hand I would like to see it investigated thoroughly.

What appears to be the case is that CAS doesn't vitrify so much as produce ice with smaller and less damaging crystals. For ice to remain vitreous (amorphous) at above -130C would be physically impossible at normal pressures. Here is a post by Dr. Brian Wowk that talks about it.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31970

For those not subscribed to cryonet, here is a link to the archives where the latest discussion on it is rather interesting.

http://www.cryonet.org/0001319.html

My thought is that 1) less damaging freezing is good, certainly better (more nano-repairable) than a straight-freeze by conventional means, and 2) combined with cryoprotectants this could be even less damaging still. Even a relatively good vitrification today has some ice crystal formation due to inadequate diffusion of cryoprotectant.

Jeff Davis has written to the company and got a reply containing some information about the use of this technique for cryopreservation. It appears promising.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31973
Dr. Wowk errs in dismissing it altogether. I think Luke's post above clarifies the probable issues and potential uses of this technology quite well. It will probably not rule out vitrification, or the limited use of cryoprotectants, but may very well make it a lot easier and less toxic to get a quality preservation without ice damage.

So to all the orgs: Would it be too much to ask what your plans are to research and possibly implement this technology? Thank you in advance.

I am also going to do something unusual and thank "Phil" for promoting CAS research. I think he got a little excited for a while, but he now has a blog which tries to present it more objectively and, gratefully, without bugging us with political rhetoric in the same post or elsewhere on the front page. Perhaps he might include Luke's comments above - they seem right on to me. I will also do the unusual and state the link to Phil's blog here - he also gives links to some really funny cartoons! http://21stcenturycryonics.blogspot.com/ This will probably not become a habit, though it would be nice if the content of his forums and blogs would make me feel like doing it more often. Forum owner please let this one pass

Cheers,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

September 22nd, 2009, 10:44 am #4

The cryo-orgs should thoroughly investigate this technology, and it would be encouraging if they would pay for an outside evaluation. I don't believe the existing personnel have the knowledge and/or experience required, to produce a proper evaluation. In addition, the majority of people working in cryonics have their salaries either very generously funded by, or supplemented by, the Kent clan, and have a vested interest in continuing on the course they are on.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2005, 9:18 pm

September 22nd, 2009, 3:15 pm #5

I've been following the Cells Alive System topic with great interest. On the one hand I don't want to get my hopes up too high, on the other hand I would like to see it investigated thoroughly.

What appears to be the case is that CAS doesn't vitrify so much as produce ice with smaller and less damaging crystals. For ice to remain vitreous (amorphous) at above -130C would be physically impossible at normal pressures. Here is a post by Dr. Brian Wowk that talks about it.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31970

For those not subscribed to cryonet, here is a link to the archives where the latest discussion on it is rather interesting.

http://www.cryonet.org/0001319.html

My thought is that 1) less damaging freezing is good, certainly better (more nano-repairable) than a straight-freeze by conventional means, and 2) combined with cryoprotectants this could be even less damaging still. Even a relatively good vitrification today has some ice crystal formation due to inadequate diffusion of cryoprotectant.

Jeff Davis has written to the company and got a reply containing some information about the use of this technique for cryopreservation. It appears promising.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31973
Lots of water technology "seems" promising to lay people.
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/gallery.html
CAS is listed alphabetically. Following the link to magnetic supercooling
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html#CAS
the author points out that magnetic fields don't alter the freezing point of water. Water molecules have zero magnetic moment. I remain very skeptical of CAS. No cryonics organization should be any less skeptical.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

September 22nd, 2009, 4:35 pm #6

People keep asking me why I don't give my own opinions of the Owada system, and the answer to that is quite simple. It's out of my realm of expertise. I'm not going to make the same mistake almost everyone who has ever worked in cryonics has made, and pretend to know things I don't.

I've changed my mind about the cryo-orgs having someone investigate this device, as it's well-beyond their capabilities. I think they should just sit back and wait for outcomes from people who actually understand the technology...just like SA should have done with the battery-powered CPS device.

According to Forbes Magazine, "Forty-seven researchers are experimenting with Owada's technology to preserve human organs."http://www.forbes.com/global/2008/0602/053.html Maybe with some well-placed donations, Kent et. al. could speed up, or expand legitimate research.

Sparks is right. For the time-being, everyone should be skeptical of innovation such as Owada's, but probably not as skeptical as they should be of laymen who claim to be able to save lives performing cryopreservation procedures.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

September 22nd, 2009, 7:10 pm #7

I have lots of leads. It's a story worth checking into more deeply asap. So far, I don't see any reason to NOT continue.

quote
Whereas a microwave vibrates water molecules to generate heat, CAS uses a rotating electrical field to spin water molecules.
unquote
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

Here's a piece on spinning water droplets
http://www.physorg.com/news148560530.html

Jsparks wrote that water has no magnetic moment-- but I'm not sure about that. If that's true, is this above article on spinning levitated water droplets a phony piece too?


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2005, 9:18 pm

September 22nd, 2009, 8:36 pm #8

People keep asking me why I don't give my own opinions of the Owada system, and the answer to that is quite simple. It's out of my realm of expertise. I'm not going to make the same mistake almost everyone who has ever worked in cryonics has made, and pretend to know things I don't.

I've changed my mind about the cryo-orgs having someone investigate this device, as it's well-beyond their capabilities. I think they should just sit back and wait for outcomes from people who actually understand the technology...just like SA should have done with the battery-powered CPS device.

According to Forbes Magazine, "Forty-seven researchers are experimenting with Owada's technology to preserve human organs."http://www.forbes.com/global/2008/0602/053.html Maybe with some well-placed donations, Kent et. al. could speed up, or expand legitimate research.

Sparks is right. For the time-being, everyone should be skeptical of innovation such as Owada's, but probably not as skeptical as they should be of laymen who claim to be able to save lives performing cryopreservation procedures.
There is nearly no information readily obtainable about who these supposed 47 researchers are. This is a number supplied by Owada and does not seem to have been verified. 3 research groups are mentioned, but we don't know how many researchers that translates to. A year and a half after this article we still have not heard of any results from the researchers. I tend to think it's mostly hype and that very little research is going on. With good reason.
Quote
Like
Share


Joined: June 5th, 2009, 12:29 am

September 23rd, 2009, 2:17 am #10

There is nearly no information readily obtainable about who these supposed 47 researchers are. This is a number supplied by Owada and does not seem to have been verified. 3 research groups are mentioned, but we don't know how many researchers that translates to. A year and a half after this article we still have not heard of any results from the researchers. I tend to think it's mostly hype and that very little research is going on. With good reason.
google MRI, that's what there doing. Without the pictures. k?
Quote
Like
Share