Quote: (Originally Posted by
schford)
It was explained to me - that if the CO2 rate was lowered than the other scrubbers would do proportionally better too. So again the cartridge would be last? Is this wrong (I understand the basic theory behind it all but dont profess to be an epxert or have played with test equipment)?
<snip>
Now I just need to find out how my Meg Radial scrubber does :-) as the WOB is excellent!
Stuart
I will email Kevin and see if he is interested at doing a back to back comparison. It would mean we could each claim figures that have been independently verified.
We have a radial Meg scrubber here, so can include that.
On the scrubber point, it is not a proportional breakthrough. That is, if you exceed the CO2/min figure, you get breakthrough, and it is completely independent of the scrubber duration. That is what almost certainly gave the figure here.
Martin Parker made comments about getting a similar figure to me at DEMA last year, for the Inspo cartridge with EAC adapter. That has a similar side entry for the gas as the Optima, and we found in our own designs that if the flow is not even then you get this very early breakthrough. The EACs are more susceptible to this design fault because once in a channel, the flow has now way of evening itself out. When people see this but have not understood the cause, they tend to arrive at off the mark conclusions as to the EAC's potential. It is essential the flow cones do actually achieve even flow with EACs, otherwise though they work for 3 hours or so at 1.35l/min CO2 they can break down very early, temporarily, at 1.6l/min. Just shaking the unit or stopping the gas flow for a few minutes restores it. The only conclusion is one needs to measure scrubber endurance with a range of flows, as it is in NORSOK U-101 rather than in EN14143, to get a true comparison. I will include that in my suggestion to Kevin, as we do NORSOK tests anyway and getting more reference points would be useful to us.
Alex