Quote: (Originally Posted by
bendomatic)
given that there is no description of how the data was measured on the poster with the data presented then that data is meaningless and just manufacturer hype.
rachel
This is not true. If it is CE data then the test conditions are laid out very clearly in EN14143:2003.
It is good that CCR Ltd have published this data.
There are some anomalies though, which are worthy of discussion. The Optima result is a particularly interesting one. The Optima is designed for 1.35l/min of CO2 for 3 hours. If RMV is maintained at an unrealistic level, it will break through MUCH earlier. The CE level of 1.6l/min of CO2 is unrealistic, and it causes off effects here.
Every scrubber has a maximum amount of CO2 it can absorb and a maximum amount per unit time. This means that where the gas flow is not even, as in the Optima, one part of the EAC can break down due to exceeding its CO2 per unit time figure. That is what probably causes the result CCR publish here. If they switch off the breathing machine for 5 minutes and restart, the scrubber probably comes alive again.
On the points people make about WOB and hydrostatic pressure, these two are quite separate. The WOB tests at 0 and 90 degrees optimise the loop pressure, so any hydrostatic issues should be cancelled out where the CL centroid is higher than the Suprasternal notch simply by adding gas to the loop, but are not cancelled out if the CLs centroid is under the Suprasternal notch. The lung centroid is a much better reference point and much more accurate anatomically.
Alex