Scrubber Mod Question

mempilot · 21st June 2007, 21:21

Has anyone used a longer spring to reduce the amout of material in the scrubber? I have the full scrubber fitted in a movie meg cannister.

I thought about buying a mini-meg scrubber and using a taller spacer also. I'm looking to reduce the amount of material to the same that a mini-meg half scrubber holds (2.5 lbs??) for weekend recreational dives.

Skipbreather · 21st June 2007, 21:47

My gut reaction would be that your thought re using a MiniMeg scrubber in a full sized can is functionally pretty sound. All it would take is a simple spacer under your full sized scrubber’s bottom spacer. I’ve built a similar adapter that allows the scrubber I built for my MicroMeg to fit into the full sized can, doing essentially the same thing. The $$$ for the new Mini scrubber would be the biggest expense; would take a lot of dives to make it pay via ‘sorb saved. A possible functional equivalent might be to measure the height of the ‘sorb pack in a MiniMeg scrubber and fabricate a simple spacer that fits between the top scrim plate (it is removable) and the top of the full sized scrubber. Note- I’d suggest not shortening the pack any shorter than the Mini dimension- you might be in for a rude surprise.

Ken

mempilot · 21st June 2007, 22:30

Quote: (Originally Posted by Skipbreather)

A possible functional equivalent might be to measure the height of the ‘sorb pack in a MiniMeg scrubber and fabricate a simple spacer that fits between the top scrim plate (it is removable) and the top of the full sized scrubber. Note- I’d suggest not shortening the pack any shorter than the Mini dimension- you might be in for a rude surprise.

Ken

If I understand you on this, it would create the void of sorb at the top of the scrubber via moving the screen down vs the bottom by lengthening the spring up? Any thoughts on drawbacks either way?

I believe you are right about using the mini meg scrubber in the movie can. The cost (I'm not sure what ISC charges for the scrubber) might outweigh the savings.

Skipbreather · 21st June 2007, 23:42

Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot)

If I understand you on this, it would create the void of sorb at the top of the scrubber via moving the screen down vs the bottom by lengthening the spring up?

Correct. Extra space above stack vs extra space below- so long as there is no leakage, I see no functional difference.

21st June 2007, 21:21	#1 (permalink)
mempilot Eric Stadtmueller Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 1,445	Scrubber Mod Question Has anyone used a longer spring to reduce the amout of material in the scrubber? I have the full scrubber fitted in a movie meg cannister. I thought about buying a mini-meg scrubber and using a taller spacer also. I'm looking to reduce the amount of material to the same that a mini-meg half scrubber holds (2.5 lbs??) for weekend recreational dives. __________________ Eric Stadtmueller, otherwise known as, MEM "Da Pilot"
(Offline)

21st June 2007, 21:47	#2 (permalink)
Skipbreather Reads the fine print Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet MK 15.X Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA Posts: 555	Re: Scrubber Mod Question My gut reaction would be that your thought re using a MiniMeg scrubber in a full sized can is functionally pretty sound. All it would take is a simple spacer under your full sized scrubber’s bottom spacer. I’ve built a similar adapter that allows the scrubber I built for my MicroMeg to fit into the full sized can, doing essentially the same thing. The $$$ for the new Mini scrubber would be the biggest expense; would take a lot of dives to make it pay via ‘sorb saved. A possible functional equivalent might be to measure the height of the ‘sorb pack in a MiniMeg scrubber and fabricate a simple spacer that fits between the top scrim plate (it is removable) and the top of the full sized scrubber. Note- I’d suggest not shortening the pack any shorter than the Mini dimension- you might be in for a rude surprise. Ken __________________ "Entropy RULES! Enjoy the interim."
(Offline)

21st June 2007, 22:30	#3 (permalink)
mempilot Eric Stadtmueller Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 1,445	Re: Scrubber Mod Question Quote: (Originally Posted by Skipbreather) A possible functional equivalent might be to measure the height of the ‘sorb pack in a MiniMeg scrubber and fabricate a simple spacer that fits between the top scrim plate (it is removable) and the top of the full sized scrubber. Note- I’d suggest not shortening the pack any shorter than the Mini dimension- you might be in for a rude surprise. Ken If I understand you on this, it would create the void of sorb at the top of the scrubber via moving the screen down vs the bottom by lengthening the spring up? Any thoughts on drawbacks either way? I believe you are right about using the mini meg scrubber in the movie can. The cost (I'm not sure what ISC charges for the scrubber) might outweigh the savings. __________________ Eric Stadtmueller, otherwise known as, MEM "Da Pilot"
(Offline)

21st June 2007, 23:42	#4 (permalink)
Skipbreather Reads the fine print Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet MK 15.X Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA Posts: 555	Re: Scrubber Mod Question Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot) If I understand you on this, it would create the void of sorb at the top of the scrubber via moving the screen down vs the bottom by lengthening the spring up? Correct. Extra space above stack vs extra space below- so long as there is no leakage, I see no functional difference. __________________ "Entropy RULES! Enjoy the interim."
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode