[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] CO2 Scrubbers
I dunno, International Harvester spent loads of money in the 70's developing
Tom-Swift-tidal-current-driven-turbine-dynamos. - Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan J. Rice <dan.j.rice@sherwin.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] CO2 Scrubbers
>
>
> And just put in some of those bioluminescent bacteria in the same tank.
They
> could eat the waste products from the algae and supply some portion of the
light
> needed to keep the algae going!
>
> But as for eating - I don't know. I've heard corn does a pretty good job
of
> putting off O2. maybe a sub with a lower 40, make your own ethanol to
boot and
> eat corn on the cob, save the cobs for the head, (couldn't have an
outhouse on a
> sub.) Why a fellow could just about stay submerged for at least one
growing
> season! Has John Deere ever ventured into the sub sector? All you
investors
> out there get ready for this one. John Deere - an emergent technologies
stock!
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> TeslaTony@aol.com on 08/08/2000 06:09:13 PM
>
> Please respond to personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> cc: (bcc: Dan J. Rice/EST/Sherwin-Williams)
>
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] CO2 Scrubbers
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/7/00 8:58:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> stephenwhite20@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > I am not saying your idea will not work, I am just
> > saying that using algae would be more of a pain than
> > it is worth in a PSUB...but when you create the "swamp
> > breather" and make millions, you can laugh all the way
> > to the bank.
> >
> Yeah, I do have to agree that it is going to be tricky to get working, but
> the advantages that a "swamp breather" (hey, I like that name....) would
have
> over a regular pressurized tank/sofnolime scrubber would be big, take for
> instance:
>
> 1. If there is a fire, the algae and nutrients would probably put the fire
> out instead of turning into a multi-thousand degree torch as happens with
> pressurized tanks of O2.
> 2. It's a lot cheaper than a standard system, since the systems materials
> would cost around $50-$100 and last quite a while, the nutrients for the
> algae would be fairly cheap and the algae itself costs little to nothing
if
> you grow it yourself with the biggest cost being storage and nutrients.
> 3. You won't need pressure regulators, microcomputer control systems or
any
> other expensive hardware that could kill you by failing.
> 4. If all else fails, eat it.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>