lightingnerd

joined 1 year ago
[–] lightingnerd 2 points 1 year ago

"Ba da-da da-da da, it's the mothalurkin' S-P E-Z! Snoo-snoo, motha fucka" to "I'll see myself out" in 3-2-1...

[–] lightingnerd 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To be fair, it sounds like poetry that an AI model would spit out after being trained on text scraped from the internet...

[–] lightingnerd 1 points 1 year ago

I went and skimmed through that whole series, and then I found another video where he discusses the problems of going spore to grain, and even assuming I did get some viable mycelium on these plates, I'm thinking it's going to be nearly impossible to select them properly. I suppose I could just rinse and repeat into new plates, but then I won't know if it's a viable diploid/dikaryon or not.

Yet, the video I initially watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYK0hLeanVc demonstrated just grabbing some spores with a sterile blade and wiping that across agar. So maybe it is a reasonable method? One thing's for sure, there's a lot of colonies along the inoculation line, and it's already probably too late to start isolating like you would with the method demonstrated by Fresh From the Farm.

[–] lightingnerd 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oh, that's a great idea! I'm clearly new to mycology, so I'm just kind-of experimenting--but you're right, we're talking billions of spores, and only two need to meet in order to form a strain. Hmm...

[–] lightingnerd 5 points 1 year ago

Yep, and the best way to make sure these places keep going is to contribute!

Also, if you can, consider donating to instance/server hosts and developers.

[–] lightingnerd 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I used the tip of a specialized tooth-brush, and I dipped it into water and then swiped-up spores from the sample. I wouldn't recommend it though, because it turns out the brush fibers are too stiff and caught on the agar, pulling the plate around. It's probably better just to stick to swabs and use the same method.

Side thought: a lot of people recommend the z-shape swabbing, but it seems kind-of counterproductive if you're trying to select for the apparent speed and strength of mycelium growth.

[–] lightingnerd 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not to mention the periodic spore clouds, haha! It would be really cool if it were possible though!

I wonder if it would be possible to get some radiotrophic fungi to absorb IR and UV, so they could functionally act as a thermal barrier, cooling during the summer and heating during the winter...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

[–] lightingnerd 1 points 1 year ago

Well, for a redneck FFU I would probably just be shooting from the hip--because I'd be building the fan from scratch--meaning it would be easier to build then measure the airflow rate of the custom fan, and then modify the design of the fan or modify the filter size until I get something good.

As far as resources, this seems to be on-point if you want to just buy the parts outright in a less redneck manner: https://learn.freshcap.com/growing/keeping-it-clean-how-to-design-and-build-a-laminar-flow-hood/

[–] lightingnerd 1 points 1 year ago

Haha, I'm an engineering student, so I understand the jargon struggle, haha! Well, cheers and mush luck on your adventures!

[–] lightingnerd 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nice! Yeah, I mostly want it for convenience of working with agar--but the need just isn't there yet. I'm considering a redneck version using one of the 4" thick MERV 12 filters, which are rated to filter 0.3um particles, just not 99.99% of them. I know for a fact it would be much better than my SAB in terms of contamination risk, and I'm considering building my own wooden impeller fan, so if I can scrap an old high RPM motor--I may be able to finagle a basic FFU together for under $50.

[–] lightingnerd 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

True, it's always good to verify with academic articles. I'd never trust ChatGPT without also verifying with sources--if for no other reason than its training dataset was cutoff in 2021. It's generally good to seek out research that is less than 3-5 years old when possible, due to how quickly the scientific landscape changes. According to this particular article from 2019, ChatGPT's response was pretty accurate.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejlt.201900101

view more: ‹ prev next ›