Meg Radial Scrubber Test report

dive2dive2000 · 21st August 2006, 21:37

Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT)

Maybe its my low IQ and general idiocy, but I fail to see how out/in vs in/out makes a difference to scrubber duration. The only difference I'd expect to see would be that the out/in flow would breakthrough at a much steeper curve than in/out.

Perhaps one of our experts could explain?

Isnt that duration??? Break thru occurs, duration over

3hrs untill breakthru, duration = 3 hrs

***EBT*** · 21st August 2006, 21:42

Breakthrough to me is when the loop is no longer effectively scrubbing, so you reach a level of CO2 thats not good for the wetwear (Normally accepted at 0.5% SEV).

What Im suggesting is that I dont how IN/OUT vs OUT/IN flow changes the time until this occurs. However, I can see that OUT/IN would generate a steeper increase in CO2 at the point of failure, due to the reduced mass of remaining scrubber.

dive2dive2000 · 21st August 2006, 21:49

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

I promised myself not to get dragged into this again.....

You're 100% right!!, and you don't need a high IQ to see this

simply put: if you neglect possible temperature effects (isolation, cooling down gas on walls etc)(and only because of that, worse sorb use), there is no difference at all between in-out and out-in, between radial and axial, donut and whatever,

all that counts then is the amount of sorb you have in your system, that there is no channeling (equal use of the sorb) and that the gas goes trough the whole scrubber-bed (uniformal scrubber, not like the SK)

paul

Hi Paul,

We are saying the same thing, but differently Gas direction does not matter if sorb volume is added, or accounted for. It is not in a PRISM the duration is set on an in /out flow that is how the volume of gas and the amount of sorb fit into the equation.

If this is not what you mean please pm me with a # and I will call you would love to chat and to much info to post. AS you can read, I am not the most articulate poster

dive2dive2000 · 21st August 2006, 21:55

Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT)

Breakthrough to me is when the loop is no longer effectively scrubbing, so you reach a level of CO2 thats not good for the wetwear (Normally accepted at 0.5% SEV).

What Im suggesting is that I dont how IN/OUT vs OUT/IN flow changes the time until this occurs. However, I can see that OUT/IN would generate a steeper increase in CO2 at the point of failure, due to the reduced mass of remaining scrubber.

That is what I was trying to say 100% agreement sorry for the language barrier

***EBT*** · 21st August 2006, 22:05

Ahaaa... so its violent agreement. Excellent.

So why was everyone debating in/out/in so much? other than the condensing effects, it seems relatively immaterial to me....

RonMicjan · 22nd August 2006, 03:10

I have now collected all pertinant data and have come to this conclusion.

PRISM owners have had all sense of humor removed at time of purchase.
(dont take it personal Stephan, you dont own one

)

They have fully asimilated the kool-aid that PR has served.

They are now, heretofore, to be designated the DIR crowd of the Rebreather world. (meaning they cannot see beyond what they have been fed and its impossible to have a discussion with them)

when beliefs become religious is when its time to stop and really look around at reality.

Martin, dude, I was totally just giving you the gears about your spelling, take a pill buddy. It was you who started the whole M vs P thing, go back and read your very first post on this thread, and while you are at it, look at where the thread is posted, and the title. do I need to post a disclaimer concerning my stench of humor and smarta$$ attitude??

I have not seen any study done on in to out or out to in, so I dont know which is better. Personally i prefer to go in, then out, then repeat mulitple times.

I might think that an out to in scrubber would provide more burn time, because as the heat wave front moves to the center from the outside, the heat would be more concentrated and better insulated (by the surrounding material) and this would counteract the rate of breakthrough (from the decreasing volume of material at the center) as well as provide longer duration. You could also argue that the heat wave would build faster going in to out and that might get the reaction started sooner and hotter, then fade as it spreads to the outside. This is all conjecture and food for thought, I have no test data or proof. Every designer must decide for themselves what compromises they make and whats important to them. We must either accept or get busy and design our own.

dive2dive2000 · 22nd August 2006, 05:52

I have now collected all pertinant data and have come to this conclusion.

PRISM owners have had all sense of humor removed at time of purchase.
(dont take it personal Stephan, you dont own one

)

They have fully asimilated the kool-aid that PR has served.

They are now, heretofore, to be designated the DIR crowd of the Rebreather world. (meaning they cannot see beyond what they have been fed and its impossible to have a discussion with them)

when beliefs become religious is when its time to stop and really look around at reality.

thats funny I was thinking the same thing about Leon worshipers while reading your posts

Martin, dude, I was totally just giving you the gears about your spelling, take a pill buddy.

Sorry, I am back on my meds

It was you who started the whole M vs P thing, go back and read your very first post on this thread,

I did

:confus ed: my first post in this thread asks your opinoun and Cedrics on in/out vs out/in flows. where are you reading M vs P

Now last years thread between Stuart and I well that was a little more off topic for a while (but did finish on course)

and while you are at it, look at where the thread is posted, and the title. do I need to post a disclaimer concerning my stench of humor and smarta$$ attitude??

If the shoe fits

I have not seen any study done on in to out or out to in, so I dont know which is better. Personally i prefer to go in, then out, then repeat mulitple times.

Good one

I might think that an out to in scrubber would provide more burn time, because as the heat wave front moves to the center from the outside, the heat would be more concentrated and better insulated (by the surrounding material) and this would counteract the rate of breakthrough (from the decreasing volume of material at the center) as well as provide longer duration. You could also argue that the heat wave would build faster going in to out and that might get the reaction started sooner and hotter, then fade as it spreads to the outside. This is all conjecture and food for thought, I have no test data or proof. Every designer must decide for themselves what compromises they make and whats important to them. We must either accept or get busy and design our own.

Thanks this is all I ever asked, allthough I did draw first blood, My dad always said "dont dish it out if you can't take it back"

RonMicjan · 22nd August 2006, 06:37

Quote: (Originally Posted by DaveC)

Nice report, glad to see the MEG is making an attempt to come up to the level of the PRISM.

Any testing going to be done in cold water, 40 F or less?

Dave

Whoops, sorry martin, it was DaveC who took the first M vs P shot, you just jumped on the wagon as it went around.

Glad the meds are working for ya!

Of course testing is in cold water, where do you think we live? Tennessee?

Mike · 22nd August 2006, 08:09

Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan)

I have now collected all pertinant data and have come to this conclusion.

PRISM owners have had all sense of humor removed at time of purchase.

Nah - sense of humor removal is an optional upgrade (and the Prism divers in Aus were too cheap to pay for it at time of purchase).
We're still well capable of laughing at those clowns with big yellow tables strapped to their backs

We know which unit tastes good underwater...

Mike

RonMicjan · 22nd August 2006, 16:47

Thanks Mike, have to add that to my research.

topic A
point 5
discussion a: Aussie divers do have a sence of humor even after buying prism's.

well done M8! I was begining to wonder where the fun button was.

Man, I have got to get over the pond to visit you guys, think that will be around oztek for sure!!

21st August 2006, 21:37	#51 (permalink)
dive2dive2000 PRISM DIVER & LUVIN IT! Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 796	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT) Maybe its my low IQ and general idiocy, but I fail to see how out/in vs in/out makes a difference to scrubber duration. The only difference I'd expect to see would be that the out/in flow would breakthrough at a much steeper curve than in/out. Perhaps one of our experts could explain? Isnt that duration??? Break thru occurs, duration over 3hrs untill breakthru, duration = 3 hrs __________________ Safe Diving, Martin
(Offline)

21st August 2006, 21:42	#52 (permalink)
*EBT* Apprentice Luddite Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK, Brighton Posts: 2,111	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Breakthrough to me is when the loop is no longer effectively scrubbing, so you reach a level of CO2 thats not good for the wetwear (Normally accepted at 0.5% SEV). What Im suggesting is that I dont how IN/OUT vs OUT/IN flow changes the time until this occurs. However, I can see that OUT/IN would generate a steeper increase in CO2 at the point of failure, due to the reduced mass of remaining scrubber. __________________ Eagles May Soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines! RBW Terms of service
(Offline)

21st August 2006, 21:49	#53 (permalink)
dive2dive2000 PRISM DIVER & LUVIN IT! Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 796	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) I promised myself not to get dragged into this again..... You're 100% right!!, and you don't need a high IQ to see this simply put: if you neglect possible temperature effects (isolation, cooling down gas on walls etc)(and only because of that, worse sorb use), there is no difference at all between in-out and out-in, between radial and axial, donut and whatever, all that counts then is the amount of sorb you have in your system, that there is no channeling (equal use of the sorb) and that the gas goes trough the whole scrubber-bed (uniformal scrubber, not like the SK) paul Hi Paul, We are saying the same thing, but differently Gas direction does not matter if sorb volume is added, or accounted for. It is not in a PRISM the duration is set on an in /out flow that is how the volume of gas and the amount of sorb fit into the equation. If this is not what you mean please pm me with a # and I will call you would love to chat and to much info to post. AS you can read, I am not the most articulate poster __________________ Safe Diving, Martin
(Offline)

21st August 2006, 21:55	#54 (permalink)
dive2dive2000 PRISM DIVER & LUVIN IT! Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 796	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT) Breakthrough to me is when the loop is no longer effectively scrubbing, so you reach a level of CO2 thats not good for the wetwear (Normally accepted at 0.5% SEV). What Im suggesting is that I dont how IN/OUT vs OUT/IN flow changes the time until this occurs. However, I can see that OUT/IN would generate a steeper increase in CO2 at the point of failure, due to the reduced mass of remaining scrubber. That is what I was trying to say 100% agreement sorry for the language barrier __________________ Safe Diving, Martin
(Offline)

21st August 2006, 22:05	#55 (permalink)
*EBT* Apprentice Luddite Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK, Brighton Posts: 2,111	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Ahaaa... so its violent agreement. Excellent. So why was everyone debating in/out/in so much? other than the condensing effects, it seems relatively immaterial to me.... __________________ Eagles May Soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines! RBW Terms of service
(Offline)

22nd August 2006, 03:10	#56 (permalink)
RonMicjan Cap Ron scourge of the NW Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Classic Kiss Dolphin Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cape Disapointment, The Graveyard of the Pacific Posts: 1,120	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report I have now collected all pertinant data and have come to this conclusion. PRISM owners have had all sense of humor removed at time of purchase. (dont take it personal Stephan, you dont own one ) They have fully asimilated the kool-aid that PR has served. They are now, heretofore, to be designated the DIR crowd of the Rebreather world. (meaning they cannot see beyond what they have been fed and its impossible to have a discussion with them) when beliefs become religious is when its time to stop and really look around at reality. Martin, dude, I was totally just giving you the gears about your spelling, take a pill buddy. It was you who started the whole M vs P thing, go back and read your very first post on this thread, and while you are at it, look at where the thread is posted, and the title. do I need to post a disclaimer concerning my stench of humor and smarta$$ attitude?? I have not seen any study done on in to out or out to in, so I dont know which is better. Personally i prefer to go in, then out, then repeat mulitple times. I might think that an out to in scrubber would provide more burn time, because as the heat wave front moves to the center from the outside, the heat would be more concentrated and better insulated (by the surrounding material) and this would counteract the rate of breakthrough (from the decreasing volume of material at the center) as well as provide longer duration. You could also argue that the heat wave would build faster going in to out and that might get the reaction started sooner and hotter, then fade as it spreads to the outside. This is all conjecture and food for thought, I have no test data or proof. Every designer must decide for themselves what compromises they make and whats important to them. We must either accept or get busy and design our own. __________________ Marine rescue, towing and salvage. Interfering with natural selection since 1983. www.tmishop.com Diving bits etc. www.seatowpdx.com The Summer Job
(Offline)

22nd August 2006, 05:52	#57 (permalink)
dive2dive2000 PRISM DIVER & LUVIN IT! Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 796	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report I have now collected all pertinant data and have come to this conclusion. PRISM owners have had all sense of humor removed at time of purchase. (dont take it personal Stephan, you dont own one ) They have fully asimilated the kool-aid that PR has served. They are now, heretofore, to be designated the DIR crowd of the Rebreather world. (meaning they cannot see beyond what they have been fed and its impossible to have a discussion with them) when beliefs become religious is when its time to stop and really look around at reality. thats funny I was thinking the same thing about Leon worshipers while reading your posts Martin, dude, I was totally just giving you the gears about your spelling, take a pill buddy. Sorry, I am back on my meds It was you who started the whole M vs P thing, go back and read your very first post on this thread, I did:confus ed: my first post in this thread asks your opinoun and Cedrics on in/out vs out/in flows. where are you reading M vs P Now last years thread between Stuart and I well that was a little more off topic for a while (but did finish on course) and while you are at it, look at where the thread is posted, and the title. do I need to post a disclaimer concerning my stench of humor and smarta$$ attitude?? If the shoe fits I have not seen any study done on in to out or out to in, so I dont know which is better. Personally i prefer to go in, then out, then repeat mulitple times. Good one I might think that an out to in scrubber would provide more burn time, because as the heat wave front moves to the center from the outside, the heat would be more concentrated and better insulated (by the surrounding material) and this would counteract the rate of breakthrough (from the decreasing volume of material at the center) as well as provide longer duration. You could also argue that the heat wave would build faster going in to out and that might get the reaction started sooner and hotter, then fade as it spreads to the outside. This is all conjecture and food for thought, I have no test data or proof. Every designer must decide for themselves what compromises they make and whats important to them. We must either accept or get busy and design our own. Thanks this is all I ever asked, allthough I did draw first blood, My dad always said "dont dish it out if you can't take it back" __________________ Safe Diving, Martin
(Offline)

22nd August 2006, 06:37	#58 (permalink)
RonMicjan Cap Ron scourge of the NW Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Classic Kiss Dolphin Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cape Disapointment, The Graveyard of the Pacific Posts: 1,120	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Quote: (Originally Posted by DaveC) Nice report, glad to see the MEG is making an attempt to come up to the level of the PRISM. Any testing going to be done in cold water, 40 F or less? Dave Whoops, sorry martin, it was DaveC who took the first M vs P shot, you just jumped on the wagon as it went around. Glad the meds are working for ya! Of course testing is in cold water, where do you think we live? Tennessee? __________________ Marine rescue, towing and salvage. Interfering with natural selection since 1983. www.tmishop.com Diving bits etc. www.seatowpdx.com The Summer Job
(Offline)

22nd August 2006, 08:09	#59 (permalink)
Mike Prism 'prentice Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Evolution Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 332	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan) I have now collected all pertinant data and have come to this conclusion. PRISM owners have had all sense of humor removed at time of purchase. Nah - sense of humor removal is an optional upgrade (and the Prism divers in Aus were too cheap to pay for it at time of purchase). We're still well capable of laughing at those clowns with big yellow tables strapped to their backs We know which unit tastes good underwater... Mike __________________ Open ....... Closed Mind ........ Loop
(Offline)

22nd August 2006, 16:47	#60 (permalink)
RonMicjan Cap Ron scourge of the NW Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Classic Kiss Dolphin Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cape Disapointment, The Graveyard of the Pacific Posts: 1,120	Re: Meg Radial Scrubber Test report Thanks Mike, have to add that to my research. topic A point 5 discussion a: Aussie divers do have a sence of humor even after buying prism's. well done M8! I was begining to wonder where the fun button was. Man, I have got to get over the pond to visit you guys, think that will be around oztek for sure!! __________________ Marine rescue, towing and salvage. Interfering with natural selection since 1983. www.tmishop.com Diving bits etc. www.seatowpdx.com The Summer Job
(Offline)

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