Unrevolutionary Scuba Mask

Feb 12, 2014 8:22 AM

thephysicist

Views

323399

Likes

10301

Dislikes

155

Wow Such Technology

I saw a popular and highly upvoted gallery on imgur, and it bothered me.

It was about this: http://www.yankodesign.com/2014/01/03/scuba-breath/

Dubbed as a "great" advancement in technology, it claims, like the imgur gallery did, to allow humans to breathe underwater without an air tank.

People lie on the internet all the time, but the only thing that really bothers me is popular pseudoscience. This is pseudoscience.

As a physicist and certified diver who enjoys talking about science to the masses, I thought I would take some time to debunk this using concepts everybody can understand.

This is the ocean. The ocean has oxygen. I accessed the World Ocean Atlas's dissolved oxygen data to find out how much. About 0.21 mol O₂/m³. This is the oxygen we need to filter out.

This is a human*. (* actually, this is an Olympian. They are basically super humans.) Humans need air. Every time an adult one takes a breath, it breathes approximately 500 mL of air.

However, we don't have air. All we brought was this. Somebody thought that was a good idea. All of our air needs to come from this. Now, the deeper we go underwater, the higher the pressure is, and the more air we need to breathe in the same volume. Let's assume we're diving 10 meters (~32.8 feet) underwater. And no deeper, because things are only going to get worse from here.

This is the backup equipment you should bring if you want to try this device.

After doing some physics stuff, I found that for EVERY breath you take 10 meters underwater at 25 °C, we would need to filter the oxygen from 190.3 Liters of water (50.3 US Gallons) at 100% efficiency to take a breath. Now, one should note that you need significantly less oxygen than this per breath, but you still need to intake 500 mL of gas to avoid gasping for air.

A quick calculation determines that at slow, controlled breathing rates (12 breaths per minute), the device would need to filter 38 liters of water per second (10 US gallons per second) to meet our required air supply.

I hope you can appreciate just how much (and how fast) water (and everything swimming in it) would have to flow through your face for EVERY breath you take to be able to use this device when it operates at 100% efficiency.

Now, I would be a bad scientist if I didn't try as hard as I damned could to make this thing reasonable. So, I introduce the rebreather.

Rebreathers are devices that abuse the fact that one only uses a fraction of the oxygen breathed in per breath. Instead of exhaling your breath into the water, rebreathers absorb the exhaled carbon dioxide and store the remaining oxygen in a tank to be reused.

While rebreathers can significantly reduce the amount of oxygen our device would need to take in, after more math, I still found the rate at which the device would need to filter water to be wholly unrealistic.

This is not a thing, and will not be a thing. Perhaps even MORE damning to the concept than the reasons I have mentioned is the medical toxicity issues associated with breathing pure oxygen (these issues get exacerbated under water pressure!) However, I focused this exposé on the physical reasons this device is gloriously inconvenient. I encourage readers interested in the medical aspect to look up a study on breathing 100% oxygen.

I hope, if anything, you learned something. Don't take my word for it, learn the physics!

I created an account just to point out how ridiculous this is, and I will now always downvote pseudoscience.

If people enjoy it, I might debunk some other crap I see.

Misc. FAQ - wordy : https://ghostbin.com/paste/8y8t7

I don't own any cats or see any ass, so here's a picture of my lab. The thing in the top right is a muon (of cosmic ray origin) detector.

The big thing is called the El-Vacatron. It's named after a local Mexican restaurant. It makes radiation.

Sitting on the El Vacatron to the left is a hot air rework station. (For reworking solder joints or shrinking heat shrink) Somebody was using it and was lazy, so they set it on the El Vacatron. It wasn't me. OK, it was me.

Don't worry, that's a duck taped lead block in the bottom right over the hinge. It's safe.

I knew this was unrealistic, I just couldn't figure out the science. Thanks, debunker guy! (ps please do more stuff kthx)

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I've been waiting for someone to explain how this was bullshit, because it was WAY beyond me but seemed to good to be true. Thanks, OP. +1

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As a scientific diver this thing was killing me (HELLO oxtox seizures!). Thank you for proving how crazy it is.

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

I always upvote the Bullshit Police.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Also team rocket did it first!

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

12 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Sio how is a fish or shark able to do this in the ocean mister/miss?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I thought the same thing when I first saw it. Thanks for doing some of the math.

12 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

It took me about 4 sec to realize that the amount of water it would need to move would be astronomical. Thus making it unrealistic.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But... but... I wanted to swim like the Jedi in Episode 1...

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Then a pair of very small tanks of pressurized air will do the job just fine. It won't last long, though.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Like Bond had

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But can he see why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch?

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Thienthe.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

but....Gillyweed...

12 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

Don't worry, Gillyweed is still scientifically sound. This was a Gillyweed imposter

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I kind of love you right now. *slow grin*

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

*Looks at e-Trade account* Where the hell were you a week ago?

12 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

Fellow SCUBA diver says Thank You.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Why hello there fellow scientist. I'm glad you have the energy to debunk these things. Swim against the stream little salmon!

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

FYI the Olympian is Dario Colognia a Swiss cross-country skier. He won Skiathlon (30 km) at the Olympic Games of Sochi in 2014.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

http://imgur.com/O1sCuWo +1 for busting the myth.

12 years ago | Likes 447 Dislikes 9

OP probably hates Mythbusters too since they're more of a source of entertainment than actual science.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

blowing stuff up is science!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Haha, I agree! I've heard a lot of scientists get uppity about it though because they sacrifice tedious repetition for entertainment.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I supposed light sabers aren't real either? Dammit!

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

If anybody is interested in the medical aspect of this, I'll attempt to explain. Breathing doesn't function solely for bringing oxygen 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

to make sure I dont have it wrong, but dont high CO2 levels correspond to an acidosic state? Hyper ventilation leads to resp alkalosis?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

to your cells, though that's a big part of it. It also helps to balance your blood pH. Oxygen levels, along with CO2 levels, help to keep2/?

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

delicate balance, with your blood needing to be between 7.35 and 7.45 pH. Now, our bodies have adapted to having a certain amount of Oxygen4

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

your blood from becoming too acidic. So yeah, breathing in pure oxygen would fuck us up pretty bad. Hope this helped, for whoever reads this

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Read from bottom to top after the first comment. Probably should have thought this through more.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

in every breath, since air is always mixed with other elements. If we tried to take in pure oxygen, our blood pH would decrease greatly. 5/?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

your blood from becoming too acidic (in the presence of too much oxygen) or too basic (in the presence of too much CO2). It's a very 3/?

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

they give you a paper bag. You're taking in too much oxygen while getting rid of your CO2. The paper bag helps to trap the CO2, and keep 7/?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Becoming very acidic. This would destroy cell tissue, and cause brain damage very quickly. That's why when you hyperventilate 6/?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Thanks for the informative post, but never say never. It may not be possible today, but could be in the future.

12 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Feb 13, 2014 4:16 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Because modern technology inhibits it. If someone designs a battery and motor that is small enough and powerful enough to filter water (1/2)

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Quick enough and then something that converts it into breathable oxygen, then it can happen. Technology needs to advance in order to happen.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

No, nothing this small. Didn't you follow the math? Filtering 38 liters of water per second simply isn't practical.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

So Star wars won't come true? *cries* *remembers Jar Jar Binks* *smiles*

12 years ago | Likes 54 Dislikes 3

*remembers James Bond* *gets a little misty-eyed again*

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Good. because he's an annoying asshole.

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

sadly yes, but sci-fi can become reality if you don't give up and keep pushing to make the impossible possible. go to school kids.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I once told a guy Jar Jar Binks was my favourite character (with a serious face but I was joking) and the look on his face was priceless

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Like, you could see ALL affection drain from his expression and he would have almost definitely walked out had I not said, "jk"

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nabu may have conditions which allow greater O2 density in its water. It may also be possible that the jedi are using tech that breaks H2O

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I actually assumed they were using air compressed to a degree we cannot achieve yet.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This. Exactly this.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Naboo*

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Thank you for educating people! I was sad when people actually believed this. But your scientific explanation makes it hilarious.

12 years ago | Likes 59 Dislikes 1

What's really sad is people will buy this instead of taking the time to go pick some gillyweed.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Ha! I *TRUMP* your factual scientific explanation! I want this device and saw it on a movie, so it's REAL! Nyah-nyah-nyah!

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Funny thing, when Thunderball came out, the military asked how long the device worked. Answer: "As long as you hold your breath."

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nyah!

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

and this is how most discussions go on the internet.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I feel like you're too smart for imgur...and me.

12 years ago | Likes 260 Dislikes 17

I feel like I was struggling to breathe throughout this post

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Nice

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

People who are smart bring a lot to Imgur. Trust me on this.

12 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 3

Your rep and brain intimidate me. I'll sit over here quietly with my double digit IQ.

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

I trust. I've seen a lot of your comments & upvote them often. When I saw this post I actually thought "here's another like chemistrydoc."

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Mar 14, 2014 7:10 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

They are the worst kind aren't they

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As another scientist, we must be careful to declare something "impossible", especially using current technology and capability to do so.

12 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

You cant get around how much water needs to be filtered. Unless this device can magically make oxygen.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

No, but theoretically you might can accommodate it someday in some way.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But you would still have to flow that much water. And its a pretty substantial amount

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Again, yes it's a challenge. It's a lot of water. But we cannot know what future scientific advancement will bring, or what it won't.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

The amount of water needed is a constant. You CANNOT get around it.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I agree. This is what I was hoping someone would say. It may not be feasible with our current tech, but that's what advances are for.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

True, but there's a loooong way to go from concept art to engineering.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No question. I'm just saying we can scarcely say it's "impossible". That's an absolute, and one we humans frequently end up being wrong on.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's what's so awesome about science!

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I just checked this at at work. I'll answer some common questions/concerns when I get home. I'm using duck as a generic trademark.

12 years ago | Likes 795 Dislikes 4

I know this isn't how it was described to work, but how much water would it need to pump if you could just strip the oxygen rt off the H2O?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thank you for this! Yanko is full of interesting ideas but I'm so tired of people sending me their links that think they are real products.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Quick question is there any way that this could be used as a secondary device as in it refills a tank or is spliced to give a portion of O2?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You should tell everyone what saturation diving is. Those are super humans

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This might have been asked but, How do fish gills work, and why can't we make artificial ones?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

what about splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen? would that work?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My idea was to have a big tank that separated the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water, and have the oxygen go to a tank for breathing.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I just want to say thank you. This thing didn't jive with me in the first place and I normally find Imgur frontpage stuff to be...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...irritating and circlejerky but you rectified the first of those problems and handily avoided the second. Great job!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I also work in a project measuring cosmic ray muons :)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I rarely downvote, but when I do it's because someone didn't show their work. Link to/post the math and - turns to + OP

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where can I subscribe to your channel?

12 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

I'd like to be able to do this on imgur.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Feb 12, 2014 11:28 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

see: rebreather.

12 years ago | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

You're like a superhero.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What if we modified our blood cells to transport and store more oxygen, thereby reducing our overall need for oxygen. Is there a threshold?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

At which the technology would work?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can we just make like ten babies together?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm curious if you could link something to me about oxygen toxicity. I work in cancer and hyperbaric 100% oxygen chambers are used.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How come you are so sure that this will NEVER (you words) be a thing?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

As a fellow physicist thank you for defending science

12 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 0

Have you heard about liquid breathing? It sounds very futuristic. Is it plausible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing#Diving

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But, there may be other ways the design could work in the far future. It's pre-emptive to say it can't work at all, ever. (2)

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Could this not be used as a tool to prolong the time under the surface (not support it), or is it completely bullshit?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Say this would would only be used for like a looking at coral reef type situation so only like 1-2m deep. How big, how much power and ...

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

... how much water would need to be filtered to make it viable. Ignore human carrying capacity, I just want to know how crazy it would be.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

+1 for doubles and 5 stage bottles in the 5th picture, and for not being a total stroke. Also for physics!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Muons are not cosmic rays. What you have there is scintolating material that can be used to detect muons which are particles.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Muons strictly speaking arent cosmic either. The lifetime of a muon is about 2.2e-7 seconds so at c they travel about 66 meters before decay

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I believe he was speaking in layman's terms.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think the main issue is that "concept" means it's a design, and not that any research has been done as to whether it's possible. (1)

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Hey, I know you're flooded right now but thanks so much for this. Even though it completely crushes a short story idea I've been brewing :)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can you make me a tachyon?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Thanks Dr. Physicist. One more question: how much ocean water does a large animal with gills (say a mans-zed shark) have to filter per min?

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

The problem lies in our metabolic rate, sea faring creatures use less energy per lb of body mass

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Good question. This breather thing is bogus, but I can't give up on the idea of humans eventually breathing underwater indefinitely.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You say it's impossible, but dreaming has been the creation of invention since the beginning.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Legit question, what about possiblities with nanotech, do you still think it's impossible to create such device ?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Or modifying our blood cells to hold and transport more oxygen, thereby reducing the need for oxygen?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nanotech is just a word for small things. The volume of water needed to pass through this device would be the same.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I know but combining with bio-engineering dont you think we cant get some nanosystem, works on similar way with fish, other sea creatures ?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No. We'd have to change our metabolism to require the same amount of oxygen as fish, which is a whole other problem.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

+1 for science.

12 years ago | Likes 706 Dislikes 11

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Oct 21, 2024 11:45 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

I would definitely participate

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

science bitch

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Incorrect!!! just yeah science

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As an engineer and not doctor, are we sure we need to inhale 500mL of gas if it's 100% oxygen? Our atmosphere is only 25% Oxygen per breath

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

I think what he meant was our lungs need to breathe in 500 mL of air in order to avoid that suffocation feeling.

12 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

No we don't need 500mL for adequate oxygen...but we need 500mL of ventilation to remove the carbon dioxide!

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Touche!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As a biologist (and a whole bunch of other credentials): YES! ~500mL is very standard for avg human beings. (superhumans above excluded).

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

The use of "it will never be a thing" bothered me. It's never gonna exist, just like man will never fly or set foot on the moon, right?

12 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

It is possible to fly to the moon, it's just extremely hard. This breaks the laws of physics.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

It doesn't break the laws of physics. It's not feasible with our current technology, but it doesn't mean it's impossible forever.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is different. This device filtering 38 liters of water per second isn't a matter of efficiency. There are physical boundaries.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

The same was once said about gravity. I'm not saying that I have a better idea or anything, I'm just saying positive thinking gets us places

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

No. The same thing was never said about gravity. This is a simple matter of X number of molecules passing through a finite amount of space.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

But what if it wasn't about filtering the oxygen from the water, but splitting water into Oxygen and Helium ? Then there would be plenty 1/3

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/3 of both oxygen, and "filler gas" to compensate for the Oxygen poisoning. The only requirement was enough power to split it fast enough

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3/3 and somehow ensure the correct mixture of the gasses. In theory :) But never say never.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You mean oxygen and hydrogen, correct? It would take an infeasible amount of electricity and potentially turn you into a living bomb.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

sorry, ofcoures Hydrogen. And i know it would be impractical in any way. But if energy wasn't an obstacle :) then in theory:)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can use electrolysis to crack apart H2O molecules though, you do not need to rely on the dissolved O2.

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

Yea chemistry! Take that physicist!

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I love it when people think of a slight objection in ten seconds and continue working on the assumption that no one else thought of it.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

This actually does work. The other issues with Oxygen toxicity, CO2 scrubbing, and gas volumes are a bigger challenge.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You will still need to supplement the O2 generated with an inert gas (nitrogen/helium) to provide the gas at the correct partial pressure.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That has enormous energy requirements.

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

I'm sure at some point we'll invent an ultra-battery or something.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Unless the battery approaches the energy density of a nuclear reactor, nope. Conventional submarines don't even produce enough electricity.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

A 9-volt battery can produce enough current to split water into hydrogen/oxygen. All US nuclear submarines use electrolysis to generate O2.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not the current, it's the voltage. The electrolysis of water into oxygen/hydrogen takes ~1.5V. However, it also takes TONS of energy.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

A 9-volt battery also only has enough energy to give you a second or two's worth of O2 at best.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

All US submarines are also nuclear and produce tons of power. Conventional diesel subs can't split enough water to support the crew's needs.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If you want sources, lookup "treadwell oxygen generator".

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

THE PHYSICIST. We could use more people like you around here! That was a good read, man. +1

12 years ago | Likes 2089 Dislikes 13

As someone who earned 16k+ imgur rep before switching to Reddit, the smart people are there, not here. Top comment always debunks the junk.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Fuck yea! I was the thousandth upvote. Self high five.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Wow, really was your first anything on imgur. I was going to upvote everything you got, but I guess I already did. I'll hit you up later.

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

But... but... I WANTED IT TO BE REAL

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I swear I'm not majoring in physics and mathematics just to debunk pseudoscience. I promise!

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Actually, I'm minoring in secondary education, so I can teach the kiddies to question everything, so THEY can debunk stuff...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except accepting this blindly is just as bad because he didn't provide any sources or maths to back himself up. His numbers are way off.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Except, neither did you. Am I supposed to just trust you now? At least he wrote something compelling. I have nothing to base your reply on.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nyphur is merely pointing out healthy skepticism is worthwhile. Is he really required to provide proof for healthy skepticism?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I get your point, but the very nature of his post was "don't believe everything you read." Almost "don't trust him, trust me."

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I agree his last sentence does suggest that. Fair enough.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A counterpart to chemistryodoc.

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

physicsdoc

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

GordonFreeman

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

i'm glad that somebody debunked this thing - i had a feeling that something was fishy. pun intended.

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

NOTE: I didn't mean "we need more people to prove others wrong", I'd like to clarify what I meant was educational AS WELL AS interesting OC.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We should have a Science-Off. Users should post one science article on President'sDay & most points wins. Reply to sign up or suggest posts?

12 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

I specialize in brains and development

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I specialize in ultrafast optics. +1 for lasers!

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There you go, I'd read about that!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He's wrong in his math (I can explain, yes) but it still would be a lot of water to filter, definitely not 38 L/second... more like 7.7L/sec

12 years ago | Likes 61 Dislikes 4

which would mean that, e.g. a back-worn piece with similar technological concept would be viable to certain depts?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Feb 14, 2014 2:49 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Also - you'd need to mix it obvs... So you'd need a tank of nitrogen anyway. (2/2)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Humans breathe 7-8L of air per minute. 20% is oxygen. So that's 1.6L of oxygen per minute? Water is 1/3 oxygen? What am I misunderstanding?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

lol... a lot. In short, on a molecular level, yes, 1/3 of the atoms are O, but that's not what humans breathe. We breathe O2.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And you'd need a tank of nitrogen on your back too... But why can't the oxygen be filtered? The figures seem wrong. Plz explain. :)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1 Oxygen that is bound to two hydrogens (H2O) is not available to breathe. My figures are based on the bioavailability of O2 in ocean water

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2 which is much less than your simplified 1/3. Also, even your train of thought "water is 1/3 oxygen" is wrong, the atomic mass of O is

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3 much greater than H (O is 16, H is 1). There are more things at play here than a simple H2O equation. How old are you, son?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thanks mum... I'm 40 and shoot me for not knowing the atomic mass of Oxygen :p

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm definitely intrigued. This would make for a great debate and I'd like to witness!

12 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 1

7/? to utilize O2 in each breath is anywhere from 17-24%, so we really only need about 1.5 – 3 L of water to keep us kicking…

12 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

5/? then (0.2/22.4)*0.5 = .0044 moles of O2 per breath of air. Still with me? Good. Back to the water: At 0.0004mol O2/L of water

12 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 4

3/? similar to air so this concept may work for surface swimming… it has to do with gas exchange). Just for fun I’ll use the 0.0004mol/L.

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

4/? The mole fraction of O2 in air @ STP is about 0.2 mole and 1 mole air = 22.4 liters and a single breath by his calculation is 0.5 liters

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

2/? Conc. of O2 in ocean water is closer to 0.4mol/M3, or 0.0004mol/L at a dive-able depth (although at the surface the conc. of O2 is very

12 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

6/? we would need to “breathe” 11 L of water to recover .0044 moles of O2, which isn’t even necessary because our pulmonary efficiency

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

1/? First I gotta say, we all read the part of the original post that said this is an art concept… right? Anyway… science:

12 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 2

THIS GUY! I know people come here to unwind but I feel as if we don't have enough content from you either!

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

8/? Like I said, still a lot, but def not 190L. Now, this is clearly an oversimplification because pure O2 is toxic to humans anyway

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

9/9 and our atmosphere is primarily nitrogen. Aaaaand, I'm never going to get the time back I wasted on this shit... FML

12 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 5

1/? So design this thing in such a way that it retains all the air exhaled, replacing carbondioxide with extracted oxygen. And assume 50%...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/3 oxygen extraction efficiency. It would need a volume of .5L + scrubbing system and pump. And would only have to pump 50 L/min.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3/3 Then this thing might actually be possible to construct. Not considering power req. and thrust generated by displaced water.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why are you bastards downvoting me!?! *Angrily shakes fist toward the heavens* I just want to watch the world learn *breaks down in tears*

12 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 2

I feel you bro

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0