Rebreather World - View Single Post - Chemistry of CO2 Neutralisation - Can weight be used as an indicator of scruber life?

ChemicalDiver · 1st April 2008, 19:45

Quote: (Originally Posted by diveoceanos)

The point of this thread is ----> The chemical reaction causes a change in weight inside the scrubber. Is there any way we can use this parameter in any usefull way?

You doubt it. Fair enough!

.......
Does this make any difference to the whole issue? I don't think so.

Just to relax your concerns I am aware of how buffer solutions work and one important and necessary element for them to work is water. Therefore water is needed for the reaction inside the scrubber (#1). Any attempt to dry the sorb would definitely had awkward results! But I believe there are no kids reading this forum. I beleive that there are rebreather divers who read this! I can not understand your worries. Where are they based? How did you figured out that anyone could possibly dry out the sorb to weight it and then use it? Where did I write anything like that or where did I write anything that could possibly be perceived as such statement?

I agree with Sotos -
The concept is sound -> Go and get the data!

We can debate whether this is useful when we have the data. It is certainly interesting enough to many people here to be worth spending 2 minutes with a kitchen balance, whether useful or not - and there is no cost involved.

It could just be that the water absorbed from the lungs from one dive to the next is quite homogeneous and typically the same for each person on each "similar" dive. You can then account for this in the calculation.
Each of us could get an additional validation that everything is going as anticipated with the scrubber. I do not see how pH indicator is any different in that also does not show you inside channeling, does it? Yet people find it useful.
I very much doubt that any water is released from the scrubber to be deposited elsewhere. So it is just the more than usual exhalation water or leaks being added, which just adds a safety margin and if it is indeed a leak, probably not an unjust one.

Look forward to what you find out. As all chemists know, the science (or art) of chemistry starts with a hypothesis and is always followed by an experiment. Conclusions and possible utility are drawn after the experiment.
I think your initiative is great and look forward to results. It could turn out to be completely useless, but wouldn't it be nice if it were just a little useful?

Best,
Alex

1st April 2008, 19:45	#24 (permalink)
ChemicalDiver New Member Current Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Switzerland Posts: 28	Re: Chemistry of CO2 Neutralisation - Can weight be used as an indicator of scruber l Quote: (Originally Posted by diveoceanos) The point of this thread is ----> The chemical reaction causes a change in weight inside the scrubber. Is there any way we can use this parameter in any usefull way? You doubt it. Fair enough! ....... Does this make any difference to the whole issue? I don't think so. Just to relax your concerns I am aware of how buffer solutions work and one important and necessary element for them to work is water. Therefore water is needed for the reaction inside the scrubber (#1). Any attempt to dry the sorb would definitely had awkward results! But I believe there are no kids reading this forum. I beleive that there are rebreather divers who read this! I can not understand your worries. Where are they based? How did you figured out that anyone could possibly dry out the sorb to weight it and then use it? Where did I write anything like that or where did I write anything that could possibly be perceived as such statement? I agree with Sotos - The concept is sound -> Go and get the data! We can debate whether this is useful when we have the data. It is certainly interesting enough to many people here to be worth spending 2 minutes with a kitchen balance, whether useful or not - and there is no cost involved. It could just be that the water absorbed from the lungs from one dive to the next is quite homogeneous and typically the same for each person on each "similar" dive. You can then account for this in the calculation. Each of us could get an additional validation that everything is going as anticipated with the scrubber. I do not see how pH indicator is any different in that also does not show you inside channeling, does it? Yet people find it useful. I very much doubt that any water is released from the scrubber to be deposited elsewhere. So it is just the more than usual exhalation water or leaks being added, which just adds a safety margin and if it is indeed a leak, probably not an unjust one. Look forward to what you find out. As all chemists know, the science (or art) of chemistry starts with a hypothesis and is always followed by an experiment. Conclusions and possible utility are drawn after the experiment. I think your initiative is great and look forward to results. It could turn out to be completely useless, but wouldn't it be nice if it were just a little useful? Best, Alex Last edited by ChemicalDiver : 1st April 2008 at 19:56.
(Offline)