7 ms·
Flash freezing (using liquid nitrogen to freeze something really quickly) is used successfully for smaller objects, such as frozen berries and frozen vegetables
by the_pwner224 7y ago
Flash freezing (using liquid nitrogen to freeze something really quickly) is used successfully for smaller objects, such as frozen berries and frozen vegetables that you can buy at the grocery store. The Wikipedia page on flash freezing links to this [0] site with some more discussion. The Wiki page also says that flash freezing still can take a few hours, so there are still ice crystals created, but a lot less/smaller than if you just put it in the freezer.
Overall it seems it's just a matter of waiting for technology to advance to the point where we can very move a 150 pound 2-meter-tall 1-foot-deep object from 98 degrees to 30 degrees, and at that point the science fiction will become reality.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120111233417/http://www.biotech.ufl.edu/EM/data/freeze.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120111233417/http://www.biotec...
- simcop2387 7y agoThe size matters significantly for this. Much larger and it becomes difficult to remove the heat throughout fast enough to do a flash freeze.
- bduerst 7y agoThis is correct. Flash freezing an entire human body consistently would be incredibly difficult.
- ChrisRR 7y agoEven speaking as a brit, your mixture of metric and imperial and metric fascinates me. I personally would've written 150lb, 6'6 tall, 1ft deep, 37 to 0 degrees
- OJFord 7y ago150lb? That always strikes me as distinctly American, as opposed to 10st 10lb.
- saalweachter 7y agoI'm so glad America got away before y'all went stone-crazy. Redefining the hundredweight, seriously?
- OJFord 7y agoHey, for a '1,000 pennyer' I'll advocate for your pound-as-largest-unit madness.
- saalweachter 7y agoYou had options! The London stone for wool was 12.5 lbs, which would give you the same 8 stone to the hundredweight without redefining a hundredweight as 112 lbs. Or if you wanted to go the other way -- there were plenty of other definitions of the stone in use at the time, after all -- you could have gone with 16 pounds, to maintain parity with the dram and the ounce. Y'all still likely would have screwed up the hundredweight, as 128lb, but you might have at least fixed things by making the ton 16 hundredweight/2048 lb, which would at least have been some lovely binary fractions. But 14 pounds? That's just madness.
- ChrisRR 7y agoOops yes, I would actually have said 10 stone 10. I just copied the comment text because I was focusing on the 2 meters
- Zenbit_UX 7y agoTell tale sign of a Canadian.